The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Age Discrimination Petitioner, Ila Sharpe, was employed by FCHR from June 28, 2002, until February 6, 2006. Regina Owens is the housing investigations manager for FCHR. In approximately May 2004, Ms. Owens hired Petitioner into the housing unit upon the suggestion of the deputy director, Nina Singleton. Ms. Owens placed Petitioner in a vacant Senior Clerk position under her supervision in the housing unit. At the time, Ms. Owens became Petitioner’s supervisor, Ms. Owens was 51 years old. Petitioner was approximately 50 years old at that time. After Petitioner was in the Senior Clerk position for six or seven months, Ms. Owens promoted Petitioner to the position of Investigation Specialist I. Ms. Owens waived the requirements of a college degree and investigative writing experience for this new position, because Petitioner already worked for FCHR and had expressed an interest in moving up. The Investigator Specialist I position is a Selected Exempt Service position which included investigating cases, as well as “intake” duties. Ms. Owens explained to Petitioner that she would be doing investigations after about four months on the job. Petitioner was promoted to this position in January 2005. Ms. Owens sent Petitioner to Washington D.C. for training on three occasions in 2005: February, June, and December. Each training session lasted about a week and was conducted by the National Fair Housing Training Academy. After attending the February week-long training session, Petitioner continued to perform solely “intake” duties. Following the February training, Ms. Owens asked Petitioner if she was ready to take on an investigative caseload. Petitioner indicated that she was not ready to do so at that time. After Petitioner attended the June 2005, training session, Ms. Owens again spoke to Petitioner and determined that Petitioner was still not ready to take on investigative duties, although she had been in the position more than four months. In September 2005, Ms. Owens had e-mail communications with Petitioner, which gave her cause for concern that Petitioner might not know the answers to matters on which she had received training. In particular, Ms. Owens was concerned that Petitioner’s e-mail responses to her indicated that Petitioner was confused as to whom an investigator should be dealing with in a particular situation. Petitioner attended the third week-long training session in December 2005. After a discussion with Petitioner, Ms. Owens was still concerned about Petitioner’s reluctance to take on investigative duties despite her training and length of time on the job. Petitioner had been in the investigator specialist position for nearly a year but never investigated a case. In late December 2005, Ms. Owens developed a test for employees of the housing unit. The purpose of the test was to test employees’ working knowledge of the HUD manual and research skills in using the manual, specifically regarding the intake process. The “Housing Unit Intake Test” was based on the HUD manual, which is the book that all investigators have and use. The test was similar to the test the investigators had to take in Washington during training. The test developed by Ms. Owens is now given to all new investigators during their training. On January 5, 2006, Petitioner was first given the test using a “closed book” administration. The test pertained to the HUD manual materials, and Petitioner was given an hour to complete the closed book test. The purpose of the closed book administration was to assess the employee’s working knowledge of the subject matter. Petitioner scored ten correct answers out of 34 test questions. On January 6, 2006, Ms. Owens again gave Petitioner the same test questions. However, this second administration of the test was “open book” with two hours allowed to take the test. The open book administration was designed to assess the employee’s ability to do research, find the answers in the HUD manual, and to answer the questions correctly. Petitioner scored 11 correct answers out of 34 test questions. Also on January 6, 2006, Ms. Owens administered the same test to investigation specialist Julina Dolce. Ms. Dolce’s score on the closed book test is unclear from the record. However, on the open book test, Ms. Dolce received a score of 27 correct answers out of 34 test questions. After taking the test, Petitioner spoke to Ms. Dolce about what was on the test. However, there is no evidence in the record that Ms. Owens was aware that Ms. Dolce had a “heads up” on the test content prior to taking the test. The test was also given to Marshetta Smith on January 6, 2006. At the time she took the test, Ms. Smith was a senior clerk who did not do much intake work, and was approximately 30 years old at the time. While not an investigator, Ms. Smith was given the test to assess her working knowledge and research skills for potential upward mobility. Ms. Smith had 11 correct answers out of 34 test questions. Ms. Smith has since been terminated from employment with Respondent. About two weeks after administering the first test, Ms. Owens administered a different test, the “55+ exam”, which pertained to housing regulations for older persons. Petitioner scored 14 correct answers out of 20 test questions on the closed book administration and 16 correct answers out of 20 test questions on the open book administration of the test. Based upon her reluctance to take on an investigative caseload and upon her poor performance on the intake test, it was determined that Petitioner would be demoted to a senior clerk position. A meeting was held on January 26, 2006, with Ms. Owens, Petitioner, and the human resources manager, informing Petitioner of the intended demotion to be effective February 10, 2006. On January 30, 2006, Petitioner submitted her letter of resignation to Ms. Owens effective February 6, 2006. Her resignation was accepted, effective the close of business February 6, 2006. Consequently, the demotion did not take place as Petitioner resigned from employment with Respondent prior to the effective date of the intended demotion. After Petitioner’s resignation, Respondent moved Ms. Dolce into Petitioner’s position of investigation specialist. At that time, Ms. Dolce was 31 years old. While making a vague assertion that Ms. Owens made innuendos regarding younger people “some time ago”, Petitioner acknowledged that Ms. Owens never said anything derogatory to Petitioner about her age. Sherry Taylor began working at FCHR in 1999 as a senior clerk. She moved into an investigator position in April 2000. When Ms. Owens came into the housing unit in 2004, Ms. Taylor was an investigator II. Ms. Taylor was demoted in the fall of 2006 to an investigator I because the quality of her work “went downhill." At the time of her demotion, Ms. Taylor was 30 years old. There is no competent evidence that FCHR used age as a criterion in its decision to demote Petitioner. Timeliness Petitioner sent a document entitled “Technical Assistance Questionnaire for Employment Complaints” to the EEO Office, which alleged that she had been discriminated against by FCHR on the basis of her age. The fax cover sheet shows a date of January 19, 2007, but no “received” stamp appears on the document. The document included a request from Petitioner that the “complaint” not be forwarded to FCHR for investigation. Despite this request, the EEO office forwarded the completed questionnaire to FCHR on January 31, 2007. This date is confirmed by the date stamp indicating receipt, as well as the fax transmittal notation at the top of each page. However, the investigation was conducted by the EEO Office. The Determination: No Cause dated July 30, 2007, issued by FCHR to Petitioner states in part that “the timeliness and all jurisdictional requirements have been met.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 11th day of June, 2008.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner was timely under Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes, and (2) whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 when it terminated Petitioner's employment as a retail sales associate in May 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is an African American female. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding (i.e., January through May 1998), Petitioner was 49 years old. Respondent is a retail department store chain with stores located throughout Florida, including a store in Oviedo, Florida. Respondent is an employer subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner's Employment With Respondent On or about January 30, 1998, Petitioner was hired by Respondent to work as a retail sales associate in Respondent's Oviedo store. She was originally assigned to work in the women's clothing department. Petitioner was interviewed and hired by Heidi Jensen, a white female. Ms. Jensen was the assistant sales manager responsible for the women's clothing department, and was Petitioner's direct supervisor throughout the course of Petitioner's employment. Petitioner was hired as a part-time employee at a rate of $9.00 per hour. As a part-time employee, she worked approximately 20 hours per week. Petitioner's schedule was flexible; she worked eight hours on some days and four hours or less on others. She was typically scheduled on the closing shift (i.e., nights), rather than the opening shift. On February 7, 1998, Petitioner signed a certification indicating that she had read and agreed to abide by Respondent's work rules and policies. Those rules include the following directive, hereafter referred to as "Work Rule 10": Associates must exhibit positive behavior toward their job, Management, supervisors, and co-associates in all of their actions and speech. Customers must always be treated courteously. Anything to the contrary will not be tolerated. On February 8, 1998, Petitioner attended a general orientation at which the work rules and policies were discussed. That orientation was also attended by other recently-hired employees, including non-African American employees. Petitioner received additional training from Respondent throughout her employment, including customer service and sales training and direction for handling merchandise returns. That training was also provided to other employees, including non- African American employees. Petitioner never received formal training on how to "open" the store. However, as noted above, Petitioner typically worked during the closing shift rather than the opening shift. Slightly more than a month into her employment, Petitioner's co-workers began complaining about her unprofessional behavior. The complaints alleged that Petitioner yelled at co-workers; that she initiated arguments with co- workers in front of customers regarding who should get credit for the customer's purchases; that she referred to the customers in the woman's department (which caters to larger women) as "fat pigs"; that she stole customers from her co-workers; that she referred to some of her co-workers as "vultures" and others as "bitches" or "wolves," often in front of or within "earshot" of customers; and that she generally upset or harassed co-workers through her attitude and derogatory comments. The complaints came from eight different co-workers, at least one of whom was an African American female. The complaints were made in writing by the co-workers, typically through signed, hand-written statements given to Ms. Jensen or the store manager. Petitioner denied making any of the statements or engaging in any of the conduct alleged in the complaints. In response to the complaints, she took the position that she was being "singled out" by her co-workers because her aggressive tactics made her a more successful salesperson than most of her co-workers. Despite Petitioner's denials, Ms. Jensen determined that disciplinary action was appropriate based upon her investigation of the complaints. Ms. Jensen gave Petitioner a verbal warning "concerning using a positive attitude towards merchandise and customers" on March 7, 1998, and she gave Petitioner a formal written warning for her lack of positive attitude towards customers and co-workers on March 19, 1998. Both warnings cited Work Rule 10 as having been violated. Despite the warnings, Petitioner's conduct continued to generate complaints from her co-workers. She received another verbal warning from Ms. Jensen on April 17, 1998, and she received a formal written warning from the store manager on April 22, 1998. Again, the warnings cited Work Rule 10 as having been violated. Petitioner continued to deny any wrongdoing. She again claimed that she was being "targeted" by her co-workers because of their "jealousy and envy" over her success as a salesperson. The April 22, 1998, written warning stated that "[i]f there is one more report of negativity or verbal abuse of customers or associates, [Petitioner] will be terminated." It also enumerated Respondent's "expectations" with respect to Petitioner's conduct, including a requirement that Petitioner "never confront an associate in front of a customer" (emphasis in original). At some point after the April 22, 1998, written warning, Petitioner was transferred from the women's department to the casual department to give her a "clean slate" with her co-workers. Despite the transfer, Petitioner's co-workers continued to complain about her behavior. The complaints were of the same nature as the complaints discussed above, e.g., stealing sales from other co-workers and initiating confrontations with co-workers over customers in the customer's presence. On May 22, 1998, Petitioner and a co-worker, Brenda Ross, "had words" over a customer. When confronted about the incident by Ms. Jensen, Petitioner "was loud and aggressive" towards her. As a result of this incident and the prior warnings, Ms. Jensen recommended that Petitioner's employment be terminated. The store manager accepted Ms. Jensen's recommendation, and, Petitioner was terminated on May 22, 1998. Thus, the term of Petitioner's employment with Respondent was less than four months. After she was fired, Petitioner returned to her work station to retrieve her belongings. While doing so, she confronted Ms. Ross and called her a "lying bitch" (according to Petitioner's own testimony at the hearing) or something similarly derogatory.1 There are no videotapes of the incidents described above. None of the co-workers who reported the incidents testified at the hearing. Nevertheless, the co-worker's contemporaneous hand-written reports of the incidents which were received into evidence (Respondent's Exhibits 21-30) are found to be credible based upon their general consistency and the corroborating testimony of Ms. Jensen at the hearing. By contrast, Petitioner's testimony regarding the incidents was not credible. There is no credible evidence to support Petitioner's allegations that she was denied the opportunity to file complaints against her co-workers. Nor is there any credible evidence that Petitioner did file complaints (alleging discrimination or anything else) which were ignored by Respondent's management. By all accounts, Petitioner was a good salesperson; her sales per hour were high and, on several occasions, they were the highest in the department where she was working. Ms. Jensen complemented Petitioner on at least one occasion for her high level of sales. Petitioner was also punctual and had a good attendance record. She was on track to receive a pay increase at her next review. However, as a result of the unprofessional behavior detailed above, she was fired prior that review. Petitioner is currently unemployed. She has not held a job since she was fired by Respondent in May 1998. However, she has only applied for four or five other jobs since that time. Petitioner's Discrimination Claim Petitioner first contacted the Commission regarding her allegation that Respondent discriminated against her on or about June 29, 1998. On that date, she filled out the Commission's "intake questionnaire." On the questionnaire, she indicated that she had sought assistance from attorney Anthony Gonzales, Jr. (Attorney Gonzales) regarding the alleged discrimination by Respondent. Petitioner also listed Attorney Gonzales as her representative on the "intake inquiry form and complaint log" completed on or about July 10, 1998. Petitioner consulted with Attorney Gonzales in April 1998, prior to her termination. Although Petitioner claimed at the hearing that Attorney Gonzales did not agree to represent her beyond the initial consultation, Petitioner provided the Commission a copy of Attorney Gonzales' business card and a copy of the check by which Petitioner paid Attorney Gonzales' consultation fee with the Commission's intake documents. Based upon those documents, the Commission apparently (and reasonably) assumed that Attorney Gonzales was Petitioner's attorney because it subsequently directed various letters to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Jr., Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address. Petitioner filed her formal charge of discrimination on November 9, 1998. The charge did not reference Attorney Gonzales. Nevertheless, on December 7, 1998, the Commission sent a letter to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Jr., Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address confirming receipt of the charge of discrimination. The record does not include any correspondence from Attorney Gonzales to the Commission in response to the December 7, 1998, confirmation letter. However, Attorney Gonzales continued to receive correspondence from the Commission regarding Petitioner's charge of discrimination after that date. On February 2, 1999, the Commission sent a letter to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address indicating that Petitioner's charge of discrimination had been pending for over 180 days and identifying the options available to Petitioner. The letter was accompanied by an "election of rights" form which was to be completed and returned to the Commission. Attorney Gonzales apparently forwarded the form to Petitioner because Petitioner completed and signed the form and returned it to the Commission on June 17, 1999. This strongly suggests that there was an attorney-client relationship between Attorney Gonzales and Petitioner at the time. Indeed, if there was no attorney-client relationship, either Petitioner or Attorney Gonzales would have informed the Commission in connection with the return of the form that Attorney Gonzales was not representing here. However, neither did. The record does not include any additional communications between the Commission and Petitioner and/or Attorney Gonzales between June 1999 and August 2001. Notably absent from the record is any notice to the Commission that Attorney Gonzales was no longer representing Petitioner. On August 31, 2001, the Executive Director of the Commission issued a "no cause" determination on Petitioner's charge of discrimination. On that same date, the Clerk of the Commission sent notice of the determination to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Jr., Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address. The notice stated that "[c]omplainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE" (emphasis supplied and capitalization in original), and further stated that the claim "will be dismissed" if not filed within that time. Attorney Gonzales contacted Petitioner by telephone after he received the notice of determination. The record does not reflect the date of that contact. However, Petitioner testified at the hearing that Attorney Gonzales informed her during the telephone call that the deadline for requesting a hearing had not yet expired. Accordingly, the contact must have occurred prior to October 5, 2001, which is 35 days after August 31, 2001. Despite the notice from Attorney Gonzales, Petitioner did not immediately file a Petition or contact the Commission. She did not contact the Commission until October 16, 2001. On that date, she spoke with Commission employee Gerardo Rivera and advised Mr. Rivera that Attorney Gonzales was not representing her. Mr. Rivera indicated that the Commission would send an "amended" notice directly to her. An "amended" determination of no cause was issued by the Executive Director of the Commission on October 26, 2001. On that same date, an "amended" notice of determination was mailed to Petitioner. Included with the "amended" notice was a blank petition for relief form. Petitioner completed the form and mailed it to the Commission. The Petition was received by the Commission on November 28, 2001,2 which is 33 days after the date of the "amended" determination, but 89 days after the date of the original August 31, 2001 determination. Mr. Rivera's affidavit (Exhibit P1) characterized the mailing of the original determination to Attorney Gonzales as "our [the Commission's] error" and a "mistake." The preponderance of the evidence does not support that characterization. Specifically, the record reflects that it was Petitioner who gave the Commission the impression that Attorney Gonzales was representing her, and neither Petitioner nor Attorney Gonzales did anything to advise the Commission otherwise during the two and one-half years that the Commission investigated Petitioner's charge of discrimination and sent letters to Attorney Gonzales on Petitioner's behalf. Indeed, Petitioner testified at the hearing that the October 16, 2001, conversation with Mr. Rivera was the first (and only) time that she informed the Commission that Attorney Gonzales was not representing her.
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. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 31st day of December, 2002.
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
The Issue Whether Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is guilty of unlawful employment practices as alleged in the Petition for Relief. AUTHORITY Chapters 120 and 760, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, D. Paul Sondel, was born August 13, 1928, and was, at the time of final hearing, 65 years of age. On April 11, 1993, Petitioner saw a newspaper advertisement for the position of Analyst I with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (FBOBE). On April 12, 1993, Petitioner went to the office of the employment agency which the FBOBE was using to locate and screen applicants. Petitioner was told that he would not be allowed to apply or take the pre- employment test for the position because he had a graduate degree and only persons who have a Bachelor's degree but no graduate degree(s) were allowed to apply. On June 1, 1993, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, in which he alleged that the FBOBE requirement that no one would be considered for the position of Analyst I who had a higher level degree than the minimum required Bachelor's degree, served the "intended purpose" of eliminating older applicants, especially those over Petitioner further alleged that the existence and implementation of such FBOBE policy was in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Respondent hired two persons to fill the April 1993 advertised position of Analyst I. One of the persons hired was 24 and the other was 23 years of age. The FBOBE is an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Florida and charged by the court with the responsibility of evaluating the character, fitness and competence of each applicant for admission to the Florida Bar. Petitioner has established that he is a person in a protected group; that adverse employment action was taken against him; that the persons hired for the position in question were outside the protected group; and that, but for his graduate degree, he was qualified for the position in question. The FBOBE has a current staff of 29 full time employees. As of March 30, 1994, of those employees, three were 40 years or older at the time of employment. Nine of these employees are currently 40 or older. The employment application used by the FBOBE does not request any information regarding an applicant's age. The FBOBE have hired individuals in the past who were 40 years of age or older. The FBOBE uses the American Employment Agency, Inc. to advertise vacancies and to conduct preliminary screening. Kathryn E. Ressel has been employed by the Respondent for over 22 years and is currently the Deputy Executive Director of the FBOBE. Ms. Ressel is responsible for the instructions given to the employment agency concerning the qualifications for the position of Analyst I. Ms. Ressel testified that the reason for the FBOBE policy of excluding applicants with post graduate college or university degrees is not intended to restrict employment opportunities to younger persons and is not related to the age of any applicant. Ms. Ressel's testimony is that past experience in hiring persons with graduate degrees has indicated that such persons tend to stay in the Analyst positions for short periods of time and leave when an employment opportunity presents itself in the field for which the person is educated. Ms. Ressel testified that the Analyst I position is an entry level position and that the Analyst receives extensive on-the-job training to enable the newly hired employee to perform assigned duties and meet job related responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, according to Ms. Ressel, when Analyst I's leave the employment of the FBOBE after a short time on the job, the Respondent is unable to recoup the time, energy and expense involved in training such individuals. Ms. Ressel's testimony articulates a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis for the employment practice at issue. Ms. Ressel's testimony indicates that the employment policy at issue is age neutral in that it is applied to all individuals who apply for the position of Analyst I, regardless of age. Ms. Ressel's testimony in this regard is unrefuted. Official notice is taken that a given individual is generally older at the time such person receives a graduate degree than when the same individual receives a Bachelor's degree. It does not follow, however, and Petitioner has failed to prove (statistically or otherwise), that in any specific job applicant pool available to the Respondent to fill Analyst I positions, potential applicants with graduate degrees are older than potential applicants who possess only Bachelor's degrees. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (statistical or otherwise) that the employment policy at issue has a disparate impact on persons 40 years of age or older. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the FBOBE as the basis for rejecting Petitioner's application is in fact a pretext and/or that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed in this case be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1994.
The Issue Whether this case is properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 2, 2004, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) forwarded a packet of papers, as more fully described below, to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division). At the request of the parties, a disputed- fact hearing was scheduled for June 30, 2004 through July 1, 2004. The Charge of Discrimination in this cause bears a signature date of April 23, 2002. It states that the most recent alleged discrimination occurred in December 2001, and alleges race, color, and religious discrimination and retaliation. The copy of the Charge sent to the Division in the Commission's referral packet bears a Commission date-stamp of December 2, 2002. However, Respondent has provided a copy of the Charge, showing that it was first filed with the Commission on November 19, 2002, and the parties are in agreement that November 19, 2002, was the date of actual filing of the Charge with the Commission. The Charge filed with the Commission was accompanied by a cover letter dated November 14, 2002, and a "confidential" affidavit also dated November 14, 2002. On December 6, 2002, Respondent received the Commission's Notice of Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. Thereafter, Respondent submitted its position statement with attachments to the Commission. The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions but were unable to come to terms.1/ On November 20, 2003, the law office representing Petitioner notified the Commission that settlement was not possible and that Petitioner's attorney wanted to be advised of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case number assigned to the same allegations of discrimination by the EEOC, pursuant to the Commission's work-sharing agreement with that Federal agency. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner's attorney's law office again wrote to the Commission requesting the EEOC case number and stating, "[W]e may take our client's issues up in the judicial arena."2/ Petitioner filed with the Commission on February 10, 2004, an Election of Rights signed by her attorney on February 9, 2004, on which the following option had been checked: More than 180 days have elapsed since I filed my charge of discrimination. I wish to withdraw my charge and file a Petition for Relief to proceed with an administrative hearing as provided for under Florida Statutes Section 760.11(4)(b) and (8). On February 16, 2004, the Commission sent a letter to Petitioner's attorney confirming its receipt of the Election of Rights on February 10, 2004, and reciting the foregoing reason stated therein. The Commission attached to its letter a blank petition for relief with instructions that the petition should be completed and returned to the Commission within 20 days. Twenty days from the Commission's February 16, 2004, letter would have been March 8, 2004. By a letter dated March 16, 2004, Petitioner's attorney wrote the Commission advising that for purposes of the EEOC claim, "March 23, 2002," should be used as the last date of discrimination. March 23, 2002, is a date four months after the date alleged in the Charge of Discrimination which had been filed with the Commission. (See Finding of Fact No. 3.) Apparently, the Commission filed the EEOC complaint with that federal agency on March 18, 2004. By a March 18, 2004, form letter, the Commission advised Petitioner, via her attorney, that the EEOC claim had been filed and given a number. The Commission's form advises that Petitioner need do nothing with the EEOC until the Commission has made its final findings in the case before the Commission. The March 18, 2004, EEOC complaint is virtually identical in all respects to the Charge filed by Petitioner with the Commission on November 19, 2002, except for the date of alleged discrimination. (See Finding of Fact No. 9.) On March 29, 2004, Petitioner's attorney signed a second Election of Rights, checking the same reasons as were given in the February 10, 2004, Election of Rights. (See Finding of Fact No. 7.) The second Election of Rights was filed with the Commission on March 31, 2004. On April 1, 2004, the Commission sent a second letter to Petitioner via her attorney, confirming receipt of Petitioner's second Election of Rights dated March 29, 2004, and stating that it had been filed on March 30,[sic] 2004. This Commission letter again reiterated the option requested by the Petitioner. (See Finding of Fact Nos. 7 and 13.) The April 1, 2004, letter from the Commission attached a second blank petition for relief for Petitioner to complete, and further advised: The initial letter dated February 16, 2004 included the Petition for Relief to be filed with the Commission within 20 days of the dated letter. We have not received the Petition for Relief to date; therefore I am enclosing another Petition for Relief to be completed. Forward the original Petition for Relief to the Division of Administrative Hearings and mail a copy to the Division. The Election of Rights Form will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for case assignment as requested. On April 1, 2004, the Commission filled out a Transmittal of Petition form, which it forwarded to the Division, attaching only the Commission's April 1, 2004, letter to Petitioner's attorney, a copy of the original Charge of Discrimination incorrectly date-stamped as filed with the Commission on December 2, 2003 (see Finding of Fact No. 3), and a copy of Petitioner's Election of Rights, dated March 29, 2004, which had been signed by her attorney. (See Finding of Fact No. 13.) Petitioner admits that at no time within 20 days of either the Commission's February 16, 2004, letter or the Commission's April 1, 2004 letter, did Petitioner file a Petition for Relief either with the Commission or the Division. Not until after Respondent had moved to dismiss before the Division on June 15, 2004, did Petitioner file a Petition for Relief. On June 24, 2004, that Petition for Relief was filed with the Division, without prior leave of an Administrative Law Judge of the Division. The Petition was not on a Commission form. As of June 25, 2004, the date of oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and Response thereto, the free-form Petition for Relief had only been filed with the Division and had never been filed with the Commission. On the basis of the record before the Division, it appears that Petitioner has never filed with the Commission a Petition for Relief, also known as a request for administrative hearing. It is undisputed that no Petition for Relief or request for administrative hearing was filed by Petitioner with the Commission within 215 days of filing the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission, which would have been 180 days plus 35 days; nor within 35 days of February 16, 2004, the date of the Commission's first letter advising Petitioner to timely file a Petition for Relief with the Commission; or within 35 days of April 1, 2004, the date of the Commission's second letter advising Petitioner to timely file a Petition for Relief with the Commission.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss this case, which exists only by the Charge of Discrimination, and a late-filed petition before the Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether respondent discharged petitioner on account of his national origin? Whether respondent refused to rehire petitioner on account of his national origin and/or because he filed a complaint alleging discrimination?
Findings Of Fact Born in Uvalde, Texas, petitioner Nicasio Guadalupe Ramos, 42 years old at the time of the hearing, is an American citizen of Hispanic or Mexican race, ancestry, heritage and national origin, who, since 1971, has lived in Defuniak Springs, county seat of Walton County, Florida. Walton County's written personnel policies refer to a "PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT" and to a "personnel department . . . under the direction . . . of the personnel director," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, but other County employees or county commissioners themselves effectively decide before the Commission officially hires and fires. Responsibility is diffuse. E.g., T.284, 309. Hard Worker Mr. Ramos started work at the Walton County landfill on February 2, 1988, at $3.35 an hour. At first he spent most of his time picking up stray paper, opening the gate for garbage trucks, and "tripping" trailers to unload the garbage. Like other landfill employees, Mr. Ramos worked more or less steadily while the landfill supervisor, Clinton Earl "Frog" Ward was at the landfill. After three or four months, Mr. Ward, Clarence Johnson and John "Big John" Curry began teaching petitioner to use heavy equipment including the excavator or "pan," the "chipper" and the "dozer" ("how to work the blade, how to spread the dirt.") T.237. According to a co-worker, Mr. Ramos performed "different jobs like all the rest of us." T.31. When the sign maker quit, Mr. Ramos was assigned that job. If "somebody was missing on the dump truck or the garbage boxes," (T.240) he filled in there. He never turned down requests to work as a night guard, requests that sometimes came only near the end of a full day's work. He once operated the excavator every day for two successive work weeks. On September 16, 1988, he was promoted to "Landfill Equipment Operator." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. He became a "permanent" instead of a "temporary" employee, and his wages increased to $5.15. T.240. A cost of living increase in the fall of 1988 raised his wages to $5.35 an hour. T.258. Unfriendly Overseer With one exception, Mr. Ramos got along well with his fellow workers, none of whom was Hispanic. "Nick was one of the boys." T.44. The exception was James Ellis, the assistant landfill supervisor who had moved to Walton County from Lake Placid, Florida. Mr. Ellis once expressed the opinion that "the only thing [Mexicans are] good for is to knock their heads [off]." T.255, 280. He referred to Mr. Ramos as a "gook," a "dago" (T.85) and "that Mexican." T.96. A "long time before" (T.42) it happened, Billy Franklin Reynolds heard Mr. Ellis "say that he was going to get rid of Nick Ramos as soon as he got in a position to do that." T.42. Another co-worker, Harold Ross Daughtery, heard Mr. Ellis say that "whenever he got to be in charge . . . the first one he would fire would be Mr. Ramos." T.44. Harold Eugene Floyd heard Mr. Ellis say "if he ever got to be boss, he would run [Mr. Ramos] off." T.68, 74. Mr. Curry, who heard Mr. Ellis make such remarks (T.77-8) four or five times (T.82), "didn't figure he was joking." T.83. Unlike Mr. Curry (or Mr. Floyd who was uncertain), Messrs. Reynolds and Daughtery testified that they did not take seriously Mr. Ellis' threat to get Mr. Ramos fired. But, in this regard, events proved Mr. Ellis' sincerity. 1/ Mr. Ellis' used racial or ethnic epithets repeatedly to refer to petitioner. Perhaps that is what led Mr. Ramos to ask him one day why he did not like him. When, in the course of the same conversation, Mr. Ramos asked Mr. Ellis whether he had "ever met any Mexicans that [he] like[d]," (T.256) Mr. Ellis answered abusively, in the negative. If Mr. Ward left Mr. Ellis in charge of the landfill, many of the men loafed inside a shed while Mr. Ramos continued working, doing "the dirty stuff" (T.256) that Mr. Ellis assigned him. On such occasions, Mr. Ramos was often "the only one picking up papers or being in the pit, pulling tires out" (T.255) of garbage. T.86. At hearing, nobody except Mr. Ellis had anything unfavorable to say about Mr. Ramos' job performance. In fact, Mr. Ramos did a good job despite the unfair treatment he received at Mr. Ellis' hands. Petitioner was never disciplined, counseled or warned about his work performance even by Mr. Ellis. T. 251. Highly reliable, he "worked in the tire pit" (T.252) the day after the doctor drained his knee. On another occasion, to avoid infection, he wanted to follow his doctor's advice to take "a couple of days" (T.252) off after he had some "lumps" surgically excised. But, even though he arranged to swap shifts with Dewey Collinsworth, Mr. Ellis refused to allow the exchange, and Mr. Ramos reported for work. Reduction In Force In the summer of 1989, the Walton County Commission decided to reduce expenses by discharging County employees. T.11. It fell to Charles R. "Ronnie" Hudson who, as Walton County's public works director for the last three and a half years, reports directly to the Walton County Commission, and is responsible for (among other things) the County's landfill, to lay off landfill workers. Mr. Hudson asked Mr. Ward, the landfill supervisor, to list four employees he could do without (T.151) and to "make an evaluation on the men . . . [explaining] that there was going to probably be a layoff." T.91. The "next day probably," (T.216) Mr. Ward gave Mr. Hudson a written list and evaluation, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, and "told him [he] could get by with three men laid off, but . . . couldn't get by with any more than that." T.220. They talked about the three men Mr. Ward had selected. When Mr. Ward handed Mr. Hudson the list and evaluation, he understood Mr. Hudson to agree that "there needed to be three men laid off" (T.220) instead of four. On one page and a fraction of another (T.153) from a legal pad, Mr. Ward had written: Clarence Hobbs Harold Daughtry Earl Robinson NO COMPLAINT Earl Griggs ON THESE MEN John Mann KEEP THESE MEN Dewey Collinsworth Nick Ramos E.B. Phillips Billy Reynolds Clarence Hobbs truck driver Harold Daughtry operator Earl Robinson operator Earl Griggs clerk and signs maker Dewey Collinsworth clerk and sign maker John Mann operator Nick Ramos operator John Curry truck driver or Lee S. Campbell I need to keep 8 of these men until something changes need men [fo]r now Johnny Peters E.B. Phillips night guards Billy Reynolds I need to keep these men for now if I use another man to replace one of the Night Guards it will short me to[o] bad. We can let 3 men go but any more than that will short me to[o] much when something change[s] I can get by with less men Harold Floyd - operator Not dependable calls in sick a lot and has been siding around on roads and don't give notice until the day he is going to be off and won't do any thing unless we tell him to do something and don't look after the equipment at all John Curry - operator a good worker but keeps confusion between the other men and that causes lot of trouble he has already got one complaint form turned in on him Lawton Mathews - garbage truck he is a good worker and reports to work but he is old enough to retire he is failing fast he works with Clarence Hobbs on Garbage truck Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. On what may have been the other part of the second or evaluation sheet of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, see Appendix A, 2/ Mr. Ward wrote: Lee S. Campbell Garbage truck he has been parked at his house on truck when he was on job it takes him to[o] long to go from box to the other and don't see after his truck to[o] good but he shows up to work good Johnny Peters - Night Guard he has had one complaint form turned in on him becuase there was about 48 or 50 gallons of Fuel went missing out of the DU cat ? on the night he was there Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. Whatever Respondent's Exhibit No. 2's origin, Mr. Ward did not give it to Mr. Hudson. Mr. Ward did not and would not have recommended Mr. Ramos' layoff, even if convinced that four men had to be laid off. If Mr. Hudson had asked him to suggest a fourth candidate for a layoff, Mr. Ward would have suggested John Scott Mann, (T.214) or so he testified at hearing. 3/ Later on, when Mr. Ramos asked, Mr. Ward told him not to worry about being laid off. Having "heard there was a layoff coming" (T.244), Mr. Ramos also spoke to Walton County Commissioner Wilson Holley, and asked him if there were vacancies on the road crew he supervises. Commissioner Holley, who had known Mr. Ramos for several years and had employed him on a road crew for about a week once, when over 16 inches of rain fell and "they needed some help," (T.242), told petitioner "that he had been checking up on [him], that [he] was doing good out there and not to worry about it." T.244. Meanwhile, without discussing the matter with Mr. Ward, Mr. Ellis also prepared and furnished Mr. Hudson a list of names and evaluations. Three of the evaluations had a familiar ring but the fourth was all Mr. Ellis' work: Harold Floyd: Not dependable. Days out of work, and when he is out, he does so without notice. In my opinion when he is at work, he don't give 100%. His work ability if fair. John Curry: He keeps confusion among the men and also between the foreman and the asst. foreman. He has also been written up once concerning the matter. His work ability is good. Nick Ramos: Was hired on as a laborer, then transferred to chipping machine, then to sign machine. He's been on the sign machine four weeks now, and he's not catching on to it very fast. I have tried him on the equipment, and he didn't catch on to it either. His work ability is fair. Lawton Mathews: He is eligible for retirement. He has talked about retiring. His work ability is fair. We may talk to him about cutting back and he may go ahead and retire. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Mr. Hudson recommended that the Walton County Commission let all four men go. Mr. Ramos did not stop to pay for his coffee on his way out of the restaurant to see Ronnie Bell the morning the news broke. Like other men who were fired, Mr. Ramos first learned about the decision when he read about it in the newspaper on July 12, 1991. Not Rehired Mr. Bell, Walton County's administrative supervisor, had nothing to do with the decision to discharge Mr. Ramos, and told him as much. Mr. Ramos then left Mr. Bell's office in the courthouse annex for the landfill where Mr. Ward assured him he had not recommended his layoff. When he tried to talk to Mr. Ellis about it, "he walked off and he mumbled something." T.247. Mr. Ramos and the three other landfill employees laid off at the same time received official notification in letters dated July 13, 1989, that their employment would end on July 31, 1989. Mr. Mathews decided to retire. The letter to Mr. Ramos stated: Please be advised that if any openings become available in the future for which you are qualified, you will be one of the first considered to fill that opening. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Mr. Ramos again sought out Commissioner Holley to ask for work, and also approached Commissioner W. F. "Rabbit" Miles, asking him if work was available. Some weeks after the layoff, Commissioner Holley telephoned with news of an opening for a night guard at the landfill. The next day, petitioner spoke first to Mr. Bell then to Mr. Hudson, to whom Mr. Bell referred him, about the position. Mr. Hudson said he knew nothing about an opening, but suggested Mr. Ramos check back. Mr. Ramos returned that afternoon, the next morning and every morning thereafter "for about a week." T.161, 247. Each time Mr. Hudson professed ignorance of the job vacancy, until the last time, when he told Mr. Ramos that "they had done hired Harold." T.249. Not only was Mr. Hudson in fact aware of the opening, he was actively recruiting to fill it. He offered the job to John Curry (T.184), who turned it down because he had found other, better-paying work. "Why don't you call Nick?" Mr. Curry asked Mr. Hudson at the time. "I wouldn't hire him back," was Mr. Hudson's answer. T.87. Harold Floyd got the job. T.163. Complaint Filed Mr. Ramos retained a lawyer who wrote the Walton County Commission on August 4, 1989, requesting petitioner's reinstatement, or in the alternative, a grievance hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. (The request was never honored, although a like request by a non-Hispanic employee was.) Harold Burkett began work as a night guard on September 13, 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. On November 8, 1989, Mr. Ramos filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The number of "personnel at the landfill now [not counting prisoners assigned to work there after County employees were laid off (T.270)] is roughly fifty per cent of what it was at the time of Nick and them's layoff." T.175 But Walton County has "replaced, . . . transferred . . . [and] hired," id., employees at the landfill since then, rehiring Harold Floyd temporarily and adding Harold Burkett, Danny Burgess, Timmy Ray Jones and Russell Floyd, all "white Americans" given jobs for which petitioner is qualified, or would have been (T.257) but for his wrongful termination. Messrs. Burgess, Jones and Russell Floyd began work after County officials learned that Mr. Ramos had complained to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Asked why petitioner was not offered the job given to Mr. Burgess, who was hired as an equipment operator, Mr. Hudson testified that there was no reason "that I know of, you know, other than - - well, no one ever said anything about Nick, you know, being interested . . . ." T.172. In fact, Mr. Hudson was well aware that petitioner wanted a job with Walton County government, as were Mr. Ellis, who succeeded Mr. Ward as landfill supervisor, Mr. Bell and more than one county commissioner. Asked why petitioner was not offered the job Mr. Russell Floyd was given, Mr. Hudson said he knew of no reason. T.173. Commissioner Miles told Mr. Ramos 4/ that Commissioner Sam Pridgen "wouldn't hire [him] back . . . since [he] had filed a complaint against the County." T.284-5. Commissioner Holley testified, "Nick has a record of suing people that he's worked for and that weighs heavy on people's mind, I would imagine." T.310. (No Walton County Commissioner ever said anything to petitioner about his race. T.285.) Lost Wages County employees got a four percent raise on October 1, 1989, another four percent raise on October 1, 1990, and a three percent raise on October 1, 1991. The County made unspecified contributions to the Florida Retirement System at all pertinent times. For single employees, the County paid monthly insurance premiums of $120.10 in 1989, $123.66 in 1990 and $132.12 ($126.62 + $5.50) in 1991. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. Assuming no promotions and only cost of living raises, if petitioner had continued working for the County in the same position through the date of the final hearing, he would have received pay and insurance benefits totalling $33,015.60. Instead, after Mr. Ramos lost his job, he mowed grass, cut trees down, painted houses, washed cars and did other odd jobs to make what money he could. T.251, 282. He earned about $2,000 from such jobs in the last five months of 1989. His 1990 income was more than $2,800 but less than $2,900; and his 1991 income was "three thousand." T.282. He has been unable to find regular employment, but has "never been on food stamps or any kind of assistance." T.251. Before the final hearing began, one of petitioner's two attorneys, Mary Koch Polson, had reasonably expended 14.95 hours, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16, pursuing this claim, and costs aggregating $234.49 had reasonably been incurred. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 17. Ms. Polson bills her time at $125 an hour, and the reasonableness of this rate was not called into question. (Mr. Ramos paid his first attorney $1500, but the reasonableness of this fee was not stipulated and has not been established by evidence.) Aside from the first attorney's fees, prehearing costs and fees aggregate $1868.75.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR enter a final order (a) directing respondent to rehire petitioner as soon as an opening arises that he is qualified to fill that pays at least $5.95 an hour plus benefits; (b) awarding back wages (net of offsets) in the amount of twenty-five thousand, two hundred fifteen dollars and fifty- nine cents ($25,215.59) plus interest; (c) awarding costs and fees in the amount of eighteen hundred sixty-eight dollars and seventy-five cents ($18,868.75); and (d) awarding such additional amounts as are necessary to compensate him for lost wages including interest until he returns to work with the County or spurns a suitable offer, plus attorney's fees and costs reasonably incurred since the final hearing began. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1992.
Findings Of Fact On October 18, 1971, the Respondent through ordinance Number 201 (Respondent's Exhibit 1) established a civil service system. The ordinance in pertinent part provided that the civil service board shall "adopt, enact and amend a code of rules and regulations for each department covering, among other things, duties, hours of work, discipline and control, rules and regulations for appointment, employment, suspension and discharge of employees based on merit, efficiency, character and industry." Evidence reveals that the Civil Service Board took no action to "adopt, enact or amend a code" pursuant to Section 5 of ordinance Number 201 and, until the unilateral acts here complained of, Respondent had little in the way of written rules and regulations. However, within the Police Department there were "general rules of conduct" which had been promulgated by the Police Chief. (See G C Exhibit 8). Thereafter, the City Attorney drafted an ordinance amending ordinance Number 201 (see Respondent's Exhibit 8). Police Department representatives attended a meeting with the Mayor on June 15, 1975, for the purpose of discussing the proposed amendment to ordinance Number 201. After the meeting, George Slinkman, then President of the FOP, learned of its purpose and was given a rough draft of the proposed amendment. He was informed that the departmental representative had voiced objections to the Mayor concerning the amendment and on July 31, 1975, the proposed amendment came before the City Council at a workshop meeting. Present at that meeting was the President of the FOP who informed the council that the FOP was in favor of implementation of the original ordinance Number 201 rather than the proposed amendment to which the FOP objected. President Slinkman indicated that if the Respondent was proceeding with the new amendment as proposed, the FOP would like to provide some input into the proposal. No further action on the proposed amendment was taken by the City Council at that meeting nor did it appear on subsequent council agendas. On December 15, 1975, PERC certified the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative of Lauderhill Police Department Employees in the following unit. INCLUDED: Police Detectives, Officers and Sergeants. EXCLUDED: Police Lieutenants, Captains and the Chief. (See G.C. Ex. 7). Approximately two weeks later, the City Service Rules and Regulations, first part, through implementing resolution Number 511 (G.C. Ex.2) was presented to the City Council by the Mayor as an implementation of Civil Service Ordinance Number 201. The rules contained therein governed personnel recruitment and examinations for positions within the City. The Mayor informed the Council that there had been no employee input on such rules. While members of the Council received their copies approximately five days prior to the December 30th Council meeting, they were informed at the meeting that copies had not otherwise been distributed. City resolution no. 511 was passed by the City Council at the December 30, 1975, meeting and became effective immediately. Apart from the fact that witnesses George Slinkman, the former President of the FOP and President Elect Ralph Dean testified that Respondent failed to request input from the FOP on the rules as adopted, they also testified that no agent of the Fraternal Order of Police was made aware of the existence of the newly passed resolution until several days thereafter. (TR.401-402, 420-422). On or about April 22, 1976, Richard Witt, FOP State President, wrote to Mayor Cipolloni advising that he had been asked to represent the Charging Party in collective bargaining negotiations with the Respondent. Witt requested a meeting with the Mayor for the purpose of discussing negotiations. In response, the Mayor suggested the parties meet during the morning of April 28, in the Mayor's office. On Tuesday night, April 27, the Mayor introduced the City Service Rules and Regulations, second part, along with implementing resolution Number 571 to the City Council. This document contained numerous proposed changes in terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees including changes in appointments, lay-offs re-employment, evaluations, physical and mental exams, weight regulations, hours of work, vacations, holidays, sick leave, suspensions, demotions and grievance procedures. The Council was informed that employees had not provided input on the rules although the Mayor expressed his understanding gained from a recently attended labor relations seminar that Respondent needed a base for forthcoming negotiations with the Charging Party. When it was learned that the Civil Service Board had not been consulted with regard to the document, the resolution was tabled and Civil Service Board members were invited to be present the following evening when it would be brought up again, Richard Witt, the Mayor, and Police Chief Ramsdell met as scheduled on the morning of April 28, 1976. Witt requested that prior to collective bargaining the City furnish him with budget documents and other materials pertaining to police officers' health program, welfare and other employment working conditions. The Mayor responded, according to Witt, that it would take some time for him to assemble such but that the information would be forthcoming. That night, the City Council passed resolution no. 571, which adopted the City Service Rules and 7Regulations, save the sick leave policies which became effective January 1, 1977. (See G.C. Ex. 6). Ralph Dean, the President of the Charging Party testified that Respondent was not requesting input from the FOP on the rules and regulations, second part, nor had FOP representatives been furnished copies of the documents prior to their adoption. Additionally, he testified that the Charging Party was not notified of the pending adoption of the document and did not obtain a copy of such until after passage on April 28, 1976. Corroborative testimony on this point was given by Councilwoman Hatcher and employees Dean and Slinkman. The parties' first negotiation session was held on May 22, 1976 and at that time the Charging Party advised the Mayor and the City Attorney that in their opinion, some of their proposals were in violation of existing City ordinances, including the rules and regulations first and second parts. Two days thereafter, on May 24, 1976, the Charging Party filed with the Commission the instant unfair labor practice charges. The parties were again scheduled to meet on May 28, 1976. Upon receipt of the unfair labor charges, the City Council met with the Mayor in "executive session" and it was then decided that Respondent would "suspend bargaining" until the charges were disposed of. The Mayor arrived at the May 28th session and informed the Charging Party that Respondent would not return to the bargaining table until the pending charges had been resolved. A second charge was filed against the Respondent alleging essentially that the Respondent's suspension of bargaining constitutes a refusal to bargain in good faith within the meaning of Section 447.501(a)(c) of the Act. The evidence also reveals that on approximately March 30, 1976, the Respondent adopted a pay plan for its police department employees who are in the bargaining unit in which the Charging Party was certified to represent. The pay plan, as adopted, represented a reduction in the existing pay plan. In adopting this plan, Frank C. Brown Associates, a management consulting firm, was commissioned to conduct a study to devise a pay plan for all city employees. The evidence reveals that the wage and job classification plan prepared by Frank C. Brown and Associates was not compiled based on any joint efforts by the Charging Party who had been certified to exclusively represent the police unit employees. Specifically, Ralph Dean objected to the new pay plan and in fact, Mayor Cipolloni testified that he gave no direction to Frank C. Brown and Associates to seek any input from the Charging Party and/or its agents. Based on the Charging Party's objections to the pay plan as submitted by Frank C. Brown on February 9, 1976, one pay grade was added to each of the ranks. The plan was submitted to the City Council on March 30, 1976 and was made effective immediately for all employees. Representatives of the Charging Party were present at this meeting and objected to the implementation thereof to no avail. Thereafter, and during the second negotiation session on May 28, 1976, the Respondent suspended negotiations with the Charging Party based on the fact that the Charging Party had filed unfair labor practice charges with the Commission.
Conclusions The essence of the collective bargaining relationship between public employers and its employees in the State of Florida is outlined in Chapter 447.309(1), Florida Statutes (1975). The dictates there mandates a bilateral decision making process which becomes effective after an employee organization has been certified by the Commission. At that juncture, the public employer is no longer free to make unilateral determinations with respect to items which are considered "wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment". See for example District School Board of Hillsborough County and Hillsborough C.T.A., PERC order no. 76U-1181 (October 4, 1976). The Charging Party and/or its agents objected to the City Service Rules and Regulations first and second parts each time they were brought up before the Council. Respondent at no time requested any input from the Charging Party's agents respecting its position in fulfilling its obligation to represent the unit employees it was certified to represent. The Respondent's affirmative defense that the Charging Party's members were advised and participated in the enactment of the City Service Rules and Regulations and the pay scale as it relates to unit employees was considered. However, when an examination of the positive duty placed on the Respondent as it relates to its duty to bargain with the certified representative, such a position fails to withstand scrutiny and amounts to conduct representing an abrogation of its duty to meet with and confer with the designated certified representative. Absent an impasse, necessity or an express or implied waiver (all of which are absent here), the employer was expressly obligated to refrain from taking the unilateral action which it took on December 30, 1975, on March 30, 1976 and on May 28, 1976. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any evidence which would permit the employer to unilaterally act as stated above, the conclusion is inescapable that the Respondent consciously abrogated its duty as set forth in Chapter 447.309(1), F.S., and engaged in conduct violative of the Act.
Recommendation Having found that the Respondent has violated the Act as stated above, I shall therefore recommend that it be ordered to post at its facilities, in conspicuous places, on forms to be provided by the Commission, a notice substantially providing: that it will bargain collectively, upon request, with the Charging Party as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees as stated above; that it will not make unilateral changes in wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of said employees and that it will not suspend bargaining or fail to meet and bargain collectively with the exclusive bargaining representative unless directed to do so by the Commission. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of September, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Weinsoff, Esquire Suite 804, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Bruce A. Leinback, Staff Attorney for William E. Powers, Jr., General Counsel 2003 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony J. Titone, Esquire 6299 West Sunrise Boulevard Suite 205 Sunrise, Florida 33313
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent terminated the Petitioner from his employment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a black male who was employed by the Respondent, City Gas Company of Florida, from June, 1966 until October 31, 1988. At all times material to this case, the Respondent had an after hours policy which prohibited its employees from working for other gas companies, contractors, self employment, or any gas related field without prior permission from the Respondent's executive office. Failure to abide by that policy would subject an employee to immediate termination. The Respondent's policy for services performed while on duty required the employee to work only on behalf of the company. Monies for services rendered by Respondent's employees while on company time were to be remitted to the Respondent's office with the appropriate paperwork within a timely manner. Normal business practice would be for a repairman to remit monies and paperwork either the afternoon of the job or the next business day if a same day return to the office would be impractical. In April, 1988, the Petitioner was given a work assignment at the home of a customer named Mrs. Rhodes. Petitioner was to turn on Mrs. Rhodes' furnace. After inspecting the unit, Petitioner advised Mrs. Rhodes that the furnace should be cleaned. Subsequently, she authorized that work and the Petitioner dismantled and cleaned the furnace while on company time. Upon completing the task, Petitioner asked for and received from Mrs. Rhodes two checks: one payable to Respondent to cover the turn on and deposit; one made payable to Petitioner personally for the cleaning of the unit. The Petitioner cashed the second check, in the amount of $25.00, and remitted the other check to the company. Sometime later, the Respondent received a complaint from Mrs. Rhodes concerning the furnace. Mr. Hixon, vice president and general manager for the company, confronted the Petitioner regarding the matter. During that conference Mr. Hixon asked Petitioner for an explanation regarding the second check which Mrs. Rhodes had reportedly paid to him. Petitioner did not admit that he had performed additional work on company time (beyond the routine turn on). Also, Petitioner did not admit that he had received monies payable to himself, and that he had cashed that second check. Bill Joynt is a white male employed by Respondent. In September, 1988, Mr. Joynt was assigned to make a service call for a customer named Mr. Cox. After installing a valve on Mr. Cox's furnace, Mr. Joynt received $80.00 cash from the customer. Later Mr. Cox contacted the Respondent to complain that the furnace was still not operating correctly. Mr. Cox advised the company that he had paid $80.00 for the repair but that he was unsatisfied with the work. Mr. Hixon contacted Mr. Joynt and confronted him as to why the $80.00 had not been remitted to the company. Mr. Joynt immediately acknowledged that he had forgotten to turn in the payment. Subsequently, Mr. Joynt turned in the $80.00 to the company. Because he readily admitted his error, the Respondent suspended Mr. Joynt for three days without pay and allowed him to return to work. Because he did not admit his error (in fact, Petitioner continued to deny it until the day of the hearing in this cause), the Respondent terminated Petitioner from his employment. Petitioner's lack of forthrightness, not his race, was his own undoing. The vacancy created by Petitioner's termination was filled under the terms of the Company's bargaining agreement with the union. A white male was entitled to and did fill the vacant position. Since leaving Respondent's employment, Petitioner has become employed by the Brevard County School Board but earns less than his prior employment afforded him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-5856 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None timely submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to the remainder of the paragraph, it is accepted that Petitioner knew all on duty work was to be done for the company; off duty work was performed by employees, including this Petitioner, with Respondent's approval and assistance. Paragraphs 3 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "repeated" paragraph 7 is accepted. With the clarification that Mr. Joynt agreed to turn the money in when he was confronted (perhaps found out), paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first sentence of paragraph 12 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The company loaned Petitioner tools and sold him appliances to install during his off duty time. His failure to the company resulted from his on duty activities in his own cause and his failure to readily admit his error when confronted. Paragraphs 13 through 16 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan K. Erlenbach 503 South Palm Avenue Titusville, Florida 32796 C. Graham Carothers Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Margaret Jones, 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
