Findings Of Fact On January 2, 1992, Petitioner commenced an action in federal district court pursuant to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Action ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. The summons and complaint were not served upon Respondent until May, 1992. By statute, the filing of said federal action stayed the matter pending before the Florida Commission on Human Relations. 29 U.S.C. Section 633(a). Petitioner could have but did not bring an age discrimination claim under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, in his federal court case. On February 23, 1993, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered an order granting summary judgment for Respondent, Grumman Aerospace Corporation against Petitioner George E. Stolworthy. The district court held that "there is simply no evidence that Plaintiff's termination was motivated by a discriminatory intent on the part of the Defendant. Petitioner appealed the decision of the District Court to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. On or about February 14, 1994, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's order of summary judgment. Mr. Stolworthy's claim of age discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations arises out of the same common nucleus of operative facts as his age discrimination claim in federal court. Both cases allege age discrimination in the termination of Petitioner's employment. All of the issues in this case were decided in favor of Respondent by the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, on February 23, 1993. The district court held that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner. The district court's decision was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal on February 14, 1994. That decision effectively resolves this matter either through the doctrine of res Judicata or collateral estoppel. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed and jurisdiction relinquished to the commission for entry of the appropriate final order. Finally, Petitioner was aware that he commenced an action against the Respondent herein in federal district court alleging violations of the ADEA and involving the same set of operative facts before the administrative hearing was held in February 13, 1992. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's counsel was unaware that Petitioner had commenced the aforementioned lawsuit. Additionally, neither Petitioner nor his counsel advised the Florida Commission on Human Relations or the Hearing Officer of the initiation of the federal lawsuit. Rather, Petitioner, through his counsel, continued to file documents with the Division in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioner pursued the instant action for an improper purpose knowing full well that the agency's jurisdiction should have been suspended, and could only have intended to improperly harass Respondent; to improperly utilize the Divisions hearing process for either discovery for the federal case or a trial run for the federal case; to improperly cause needless increase in the cost of the litigation to Respondent; and to improperly waste this agency's time. Respondent incurred attorney's fees and costs and expenses in the amount of $13,506.39 dollars. Moreover, after review of the transcript and evidence in this case it is clear that this action had no basis in fact or law and was therefore frivolous in nature. Therefore Respondent is entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $13,506.39.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner, an African-American male, was employed by Respondent as a truck driver. In or around 1997, Respondent hired Petitioner as a forklift operator, a position he voluntarily abandoned (after roughly one year) to pursue other opportunities. Some six years later, in 2004, Petitioner returned to Respondent's employ as a truck driver. This second stint of employment continued until June of 2011, at which time Petitioner resigned his position——again, voluntarily——in order to "cash out" his 401K account. Tellingly, in his resignation letter, Petitioner thanked Respondent "for the opportunities [it] had provided [him] during the years," and noted that he "really enjoyed working for Mullins Lumber." Several months later, Respondent approached Petitioner about returning to his former truck-driver position. Petitioner agreed and resumed his employment with Respondent in August of 2011. For all that appears, Petitioner discharged his obligations suitably until the afternoon of August 14, 2012. On that occasion, Petitioner used a forklift to load materials onto his tractor trailer, a task he had performed numerous times. After the loading process was complete, Petitioner drove the forklift around the back of his truck and in the direction of the forklift shed. At one point along the way, it was necessary for Petitioner to make a blind turn around a truck belonging to a colleague, Wes Walker. Needless to say, such a maneuver presents a substantial danger to any person who might be nearby; for that reason, Respondent's forklift operator workbook, whose terms Petitioner was obliged to follow,2/ provides that drivers must: Slow down at cross isles [sic], exits, and blind corners; sound horn at once upon approaching any of these situations. (Emphasis in original).3/ Of the mistaken assumption that no other workers were in the immediate area because of inclement weather (a light rain was falling), Petitioner neither sounded the forklift's horn nor slowed to an appropriate speed as he negotiated the blind corner.4/ As a consequence, Petitioner accidentally collided with Respondent's vice president, Scott Mullins, who was conversing with Mr. Walker at the rear of the truck.5/ The evidence is undisputed that Scott Mullins suffered a broken tibia and fibula, injuries that required surgery and months of physical therapy to correct. Within hours of the accident, one of Respondent's owners and officers, Clarke Mullins, suggested to Petitioner (who was noticeably distraught) that he take the rest of the week off and return to work the following Monday. Petitioner agreed and departed the worksite shortly thereafter. Over the next several days, Clarke Mullins conducted a brief, yet adequate, investigation of the events of August 14, 2012. The investigation included an interview of Mr. Walker, an African-American, who confirmed that Petitioner's operation of the forklift was lacking. Upon the completion of his investigation, Clarke Mullins concluded that the accident of August 14 warranted the termination of Petitioner's employment.6/ Petitioner was thereafter replaced by an African-American driver some three years and seven months his junior.7/ During the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner offered no direct evidence in support of his claim of age discrimination. Although the age disparity between Petitioner and his replacement is sufficient to raise an initial inference of impropriety, Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent's proffered reason for the firing——the accident——is a mere pretext for age discrimination. On the contrary, the undersigned credits Clarke Mullins' testimony that the accident was the sole basis for Petitioner's termination.8/ The charge of race discrimination fares no better. Petitioner's conclusory assertions notwithstanding, the record is devoid of any evidence, direct or otherwise, suggesting that Petitioner's termination was motivated by racial considerations. Quite the opposite, in fact: Petitioner was replaced by a member of his own race; and, as noted above, the undersigned credited Clarke Mullins' testimony that Petitioner was fired for the accident alone.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of August, 2014.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was discriminated against by Respondent, K.D.P., Inc. d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, on the basis of handicap, constituting an unlawful employment practice. Whether Petitioner has established a basis for, or entitlement to, an award of damages if, in fact, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: K. D. P., Inc., operated a restaurant known as Western Sizzlin Steak House in Bradenton, Florida, which business was established prior to the alleged incident of July 1990. This business has continued in operation to the current time under the same management and with many of the same employees, although the restaurant has subsequently become known as Cattle Company Cafe. The Respondent, K. D. P., Inc., d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, now known as Cattle Company Cafe (KDP), owned by Jack Parrish, has been managed by Kevin Wreford for approximately twelve years. Parrish relies on Wreford for the day-to-day operation of the business, hiring and firing decisions, and supervisory responsibility. The Petitioner was employed from December 1989 through February 1990 by Upjohn Health Care on a part-time basis as a respite worker. While she was physically able to do that job, Petitioner chose to leave that employment as it had little work available for her with that agency and Petitioner wished to work at a location closer to her home. Petitioner applied for employment with KDP by way of written application on August 2, 1990. Petitioner's employment application did not indicate any physical handicap, disability or limitation. Wreford interviewed Petitioner for the position of part-time cashier in early 1991. During the interview, Wreford discussed with the Petitioner the duties of the position for which she had applied. Those duties included taking payment from customers at the cashier's stand, overseeing the salad and sundae bar, checking the women's restroom, cleaning glass in the area of cashier's stand and watching for walkouts (walkouts being customers who walk out without paying for their meals). Petitioner advised Wreford that she was capable of performing these duties but was concerned about her lack of experience in working with cash and making change. Wreford hired Petitioner as a temporary, part-time cashier, and Petitioner began work in that capacity for Respondent on February 3, 1991. Petitioner continued in the employment of the Respondent in the capacity of part-time cashier through July 17, 1991. At the time Petitioner was hired by Respondent on February 3, 1991 there was a large wooden bar stool located behind the counter where the cashier took payments for meals. All cashiers working for the Respondent, including Petitioner, were allowed to sit on this stool at times when they were not waiting on customers (cashiers were required to stand while waiting on customers) or performing other assigned duties as set out in Finding of Fact 6. Sometime around July 1, 1991, Wreford discussed with the cashiers, including Petitioner, his concerns about the cashiers not performing their other assigned duties when they were not waiting on customers. Performing other assigned duties required the cashiers to be away from the cashier's area. At this time, Petitioner made Wreford aware of her knee problem and advised him that she may have difficulty standing for long periods of time. There had been no mention of this problem previously nor had Petitioner experienced any problem with her knee previously. Likewise, Petitioner did not experience any problems with her knee in carrying out her assigned duties during the next two weeks. In fact, both Wreford and Parrish were pleased with Petitioner's performance during this period. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish's wife who had become involved in the management of the restaurant advised Parrish that the stool needed to be removed from the cashier area because: (a) the stool was showing its wear and tear and was aesthetically unpleasing; (b) the stool was taking up too much room resulting in the cashiers not being able to perform their duties properly, particularly looking for walkouts and; (c) to prevent a certain cashier (not Petitioner) from abusing the privilege of the stool by sitting on the stool for extended periods of time and not performing her other assigned duties. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish removed the stool from the caahier's area and placed it in his office where it remains today because the stool has a sentimental value in that Parrish used the stool in his first restaurant. On or about July 13, 1991, when Petitioner arrived for work and noticed the stool had been removed she met with Parrish and Wreford and advised them that she could not work without the stool because of her knee. Parrish and Wreford offered to accommodate her problem by allowing Petitioner to sit at a table adjacent to the cashier area when she was not waiting on customers or performing her other assigned duties. Petitioner advised Parrish and Wreford that she could not work under those conditions but that she would stay on until a replacement was found. Parrish and Wreford accepted Petitioner's resignation but encouraged Petitioner to continue her employment until she could determine if the accommodation would be satisfactory. Petitioner continued to work for Respondent until July 17, 1991, and was able to function without any problems with her knee under the accommodations provided by Respondent. However, after Petitioner resigned she never asked to be reinstated even though she was able to function under the accommodations provided by Respondent. Although Petitioner alleged that she had a physical disability/handicap because of problems she had related to an alleged right knee replacement done some years earlier, there was no medical evidence or other documentation establishing any physical handicap or restrictions/limitations in her ability to work. There were other cashiers employed by Respondent who had conditions similar to Petitioner's conditions who were able to function with the same accommodation offered Petitioner. One of those was the person hired by Respondent to take Petitioner's position. Petitioner collected unemployment compensation after leaving Respondent's employment, as well as other forms of assistance, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Additionally, after leaving Respondent's employment Petitioner developed "female problems" and is not seeking employment even though she attended computer school. There was no evidence as to the amount of damages suffered by Petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of a handicap by Respondent or that any unlawful employment practice occurred. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons for the action taken by Respondent in removing the stool and providing other accommodations for the cashiers, including Petitioner. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the Respondent's articulated reasons for its action were pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was not discharged due to her handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and that the Petition For Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3903 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 13 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 32 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Norma J. Nolan, Pro Se 1109 Harvard Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34207 Donna L. Derfoot, Esquire Post Office Box 3979 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasse, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact No findings are made in this case. Petitioner did not appear and did not submit evidence to support findings of fact.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from January, 1986, until March 7, 1988. Petitioner worked as a tailor and performed alterations at Respondent's store located in Altamonte Springs. In the latter half of 1987, Mr. Pease became the manager of the Altamonte Springs store and thus became Petitioner's supervisor. As had the prior manager, Mr. Pease and Petitioner worked out a schedule that did not require Petitioner to work in violation of his religious principles. However, relations between Petitioner and Mr. Pease were not good. Shortly after becoming manager, for independent business reasons, Mr. Pease decided to reduce the amount of fitting done in the store. The effect of this decision was to reduce the amount of work available for Petitioner. At about this time, Petitioner suffered an accident unrelated to employment. The accident resulted in an extended absence from work. Petitioner received his physician's approval to return to work on February 16, 1988, but failed to do so. Without prior notice, Petitioner showed up at the store on March 7, 1988, and informed Mr. Pease that Petitioner was ready to return to work. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the work schedule had already been arranged for the week. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the only days he could work were Saturday, March 12, and Sunday, March 13. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that he could not work Sundays due to his religious beliefs. Mr. Pease reiterated that no other time was available that week. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that Petitioner understood that he was being fired. Mr. Pease told him that he was not being fired; rather, he was quitting if he left Respondent's employment. Two days later, Petitioner filed for unemployment compensation benefits. He never reported to work with Respondent again. Consistent with his Petition for Relief, Petitioner offered no evidence of discrimination due to national origin. Nothing in the record suggests the existence of any such discrimination. Petitioner has also failed to prove the existence of any religious discrimination. There is no evidence that Mr. Pease refused to try to accommodate Petitioner's religious beliefs with respect to work schedules after the weekend of March 12-13. The only evidence is that when Petitioner suddenly reported to work, the only days immediately available were the weekend days. The record does not even disclose whether Mr. Pease linked the two days, so as to prevent Petitioner from working the Saturday without working the Sunday. There is nothing in the record suggesting that Mr. Pease told Petitioner that if he failed to work the coming Sunday, he would lose his job. In sum, Petitioner has left it entirely to conjecture whether Mr. Pease would have failed to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Pease was never presented with that opportunity. In addition, Petitioner has produced no evidence that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. There is no evidence of the number of employees working for Respondent at the relevant time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be dismissed. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5689 Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Adopted in substance. 4-5. (first sentence) Adopted. 5. (second sentence) Rejected as irrelevant. 6-10. Adopted. s 11. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Weceslao Lugo Palermo 7505 Armstrong Road Lockhart, FL 32810 Richard D. Pease 590 West Highway 436 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Chipola is a college located in Marianna, Florida, and offers two-year and four-year degrees. In August 2005, Ms. Tucker contacted personnel at Chipola inquiring about a faculty position. She sent an e-mail to Karan Davis (Ms. Davis), Chipola’s associate vice president of Human Resources and included a brief résumé. No positions were available at that time. On or about May 18, 2006, Ms. Tucker submitted an application for employment at Chipola as an adjunct instructor. An adjunct instructor position is a temporary position on an as- needed basis to instruct a specific course. Health benefits are not provided for adjunct instructors. The employment application which Ms. Tucker submitted requested that applicants complete a section on educational employment and a section on non-educational employment. In each section, the application provided space for the listing of three present or former employers. The application stated, “If you wish to further describe your work experience, please attach a resume to this application.” Ms. Tucker did not attach a résumé to the application. In the section for educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment as a substitute teacher for two school districts and one private school. In the section for non- educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment in 2006 at Florida State University, employment from 1979 to 1988 with the United States Postal Service, and a position as a legal secretary from 1975 to 1977. The application asked, “Have you ever been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position?” to which Ms. Tucker replied, “No.” The application contains an applicant certification, which states: I am aware that any omissions, falsifications, misstatement or misrepresentations may disqualify me for employment consideration, and if I am hired, may be grounds for termination at a later date. Ms. Tucker signed the applicant’s certification. Wendy Pippen (Ms. Pippen) is employed by Chipola as the human resources coordinator. She is responsible for coordination of the daily activities and tasks in the Human Resources Department, including review of employment applications and résumés. She did not receive a résumé from Ms. Tucker at any point during the hiring process. Ms. Tucker was interviewed for the position as adjunct instructor. During a conversation with Ms. Pippen following Ms. Tucker’s interview, Ms. Tucker mentioned that she had worked at the University of South Florida. Ms. Pippen did not recall seeing the University of South Florida listed as an employer on Ms. Tucker’s application. She checked Ms. Tucker’s application and confirmed that the University of South Florida was not listed on the application. Ms. Pippen immediately advised her supervisor, Ms. Davis, of the omission. Ms. Tucker told Ms. Pippen that she had omitted her employment with the University of South Florida because an employment agency had advised her to do so due to the potential for a negative reference. Ms. Tucker vehemently testified at the final hearing that the reason she did not list employment with the University of South Florida was that she was terminated for medical reasons, and it was “no one’s business.” However, she also testified that the University of South Florida gave “bad references.” She had told others that she was concerned that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference. It was her opinion that the University of South Florida was not ethical in giving references on former employees. Having judged the demeanor of the witnesses, Ms. Pippen’s testimony is credited that Ms. Tucker told her the reason that she did not put the University of South Florida on her application was that she felt the University of South Florida would not give her a good reference. Upon being informed by Ms. Pippen that Ms. Tucker had worked at the University of South Florida, Ms. Davis contacted the University of South Florida to check Ms. Tucker’s past employment. Ms. Davis was advised that Ms. Tucker had been employed by the University of South Florida and that she had been terminated for medical reasons. Ms. Davis did not inquire why Ms. Tucker was terminated. That information was volunteered by personnel at the University of South Florida. Ms. Davis did not ask for an explanation of the medical reasons, and no explanation was volunteered. Ms. Davis did not inquire whether Ms. Tucker had a disability, and no one from the University of South Florida told Ms. Davis that Ms. Tucker had a disability. The decision was made not to hire Ms. Tucker as an adjunct instructor because she had failed to include the University of South Florida on her application and had stated in her application that she had not been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position. Ms. Davis perceived that the omission of the University of South Florida from the application and the failure to indicate that she had been discharged from previous employment amounted to falsification of the application, which was a reason for disqualification from employment as clearly stated in the application form. Ms. Tucker contends that Ms. Davis was aware that she had been employed by the University of South Florida because she had included the employment on the résumé that she sent to Ms. Davis in 2005. Ms. Davis did not recall seeing the résumé and given that there was a lapse of seven months from the time that Ms. Tucker sent her résumé in 2005 until she submitted an application in May 2006 without a résumé, it is reasonable that Ms. Davis would not recall seeing the résumé or was not aware that Ms. Tucker had listed the University of South Florida on a résumé. After Ms. Tucker was advised that she would not be hired as an adjunct instructor, she wrote Dr. Spires at Chipola, stating that she had not put the University of South Florida on her employment application because she had been advised by an employment agency to omit the University of South Florida because it had a long history of illegal employment practices. Ms. Tucker does not contend that she has a particular disability which served as the basis for Chipola’s failing to hire her, and she did not inform staff at Chipola that she has a disability or identify any medical condition she has. Her claim is that she was not hired because of a history of medical problems. The evidence overwhelmingly established that Ms. Tucker was not hired because she had made misrepresentations on her application and not because of any history of medical problems. It is clear that Ms. Tucker did not include the University of South Florida on her application and did not inform Chipola that she had been discharged because she was afraid that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entering finding that Chipola College did not discriminate against Ms. Tucker and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race, his alleged disability, and in alleged retaliation for his attempt to file a workers' compensation claim in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner also has been diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive disorder and major depression. On March 21, 1997, Petitioner began his employment with Florida Department of Corrections as a substance abuse counselor at Lancaster Correctional Institution. Petitioner's employment status was in career service, probationary status for six months from the date of his employment. A probationary status employee can be terminated without cause. Petitioner's employment as a counselor required him to be present at the institution a reasonable amount of time in order to perform his counseling duties. From March 21, 1997 through September 2, 1997, Petitioner failed to report for work 39 full workdays out of a possible 115 workdays. In addition, Petitioner had five other workdays that he only worked part of the day, with a total of 16 hours of leave used over those days. Sixteen hours is the equivalent of two full workdays missed by Respondent. As a result, Petitioner was absent from work approximately 35 percent of the time. Thirty-five percent absence rate was excessive based on Petitioner's job duties. Most of the leave was without pay because Petitioner had not accumulated enough sick or annual leave to cover his absences. The leave was taken for various reasons, but a large part of the leave was taken when Petitioner was hospitalized due to his mental condition. Petitioner's doctor released him from his hospitalization on August 8, 1997; however, Petitioner did not return to work until August 20, 1997. The last pay period ran from Friday, August 22, 1997 to Thursday, September 4, 1997. Petitioner only worked 20 hours out of 40 the first week and two hours out of 40 the second week. Around September 1, 1997, Petitioner went to the personnel office to inquire about filing a workers' compensation claim based on his disability. The staff person he spoke to did not know the procedure for filing a workers' compensation claim. She told Petitioner she would find out the procedure and asked him to return the next day. Other than Petitioner's speculation about the events following his initial inquiry about filing a workers' compensation claim, other material evidence regarding the events following his initial inquiry and Respondent's response thereto was submitted into evidence. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions of a factual or legal nature regarding Petitioner's workers' compensation claim and his termination. Petitioner was terminated on September 2, 1997, the day following his initial inquiry about workers' compensation. Petitioner received his letter of termination on September 2, 1997. Petitioner was a probationary status employee when he was terminated. Eventually, Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim. The claim was denied by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. In 1997, L.D. "Pete" Turner was the warden at Lancaster Correctional Institution. As warden, Mr. Turner supervised Petitioner. Mr. Turner made the decision to terminate Petitioner due to his excessive absences. Mr. Turner did not terminate Petitioner based on Petitioner's race, his alleged disability, or because of Petitioner's attempt to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner was needed at work and he was not there a sufficient amount of time to fulfill his job duties. In fact, there was no competent evidence that there was any connection between Petitioner's termination and/or his race, disability, or desire to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner alleged that two employees at the institution were excessively absent but were not terminated. The employees were Doris Jones and Victoria Englehart. Both individuals were career service employees with permanent status. They were not probationary status employees. Doris Jones is an African-American female. Victoria Englehart is a white female. No other evidence was produced at the hearing regarding these two employees, their attendance records, job duties or anything else of a comparative nature. Clearly, the evidence is insufficient to make any comparison between these two employees and Petitioner's employment and termination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Ware Post Office Box 2155 Trenton, Florida 32693 William J. Thurber, IV, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Arthrex is a company that designs and manufactures orthopedic surgical tools, implants and devices for surgeons, medical facilities, and hospitals. Arthrex is regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and maintains certification through the International Organization for Standardization ("ISO"). Arthrex is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a Hispanic female, whose primary language is Spanish. Beginning in June 2001, Petitioner worked in the cleaning and packaging area of Arthrex's production facility. "Cleaning" in this context should not be confused with janitorial services. Petitioner's job was more technical and exacting and involved the maintenance of a sterile, disinfected work area and equipment in the manufacture of items that, in some cases, are surgically implanted in the human body. She worked in the company of 10 to 12 co-workers within a relatively confined space. Arthrex obtains staffing for its cleaning and packaging area through an independent contractor, Randstad, a large employment services company. On June 13, 2003, Petitioner accompanied a friend to the local Randstad office to assist the friend in applying for a job with Arthrex in the cleaning and packaging area. Petitioner became angry with the Randstad representative who performed the screening and testing of Petitioner's friend. Petitioner believed that the Randstad employee decided at the outset not to hire her friend, and so tested the friend on difficult subjects having nothing to do with the Arthrex cleaning and packaging job, such as her ability to use a computer and her ability to "write, read and talk perfect English." Petitioner stated that other applicants were not subjected to the same scrutiny as was her friend and that both she and her friend felt humiliated by the "rude" Randstad employee. Immediately after the job interview, the Randstad representative phoned Margarita Alvarez, the human relations manager for Arthrex, and told Ms. Alvarez that Petitioner had "made a scene" at the Randstad office. Ms. Alvarez asked the Randstad representative to put her complaint in writing, and she would then address the matter with Petitioner. Shortly after the phone call, Ms. Alvarez was conducting an employee relations meeting in her office when Petitioner walked into her office. Petitioner began complaining loudly about the "ridiculous" hiring process employed by Arthrex, waving her hands and stamping her foot in anger. Ms. Alvarez told Petitioner that she would discuss the matter after her meeting was over. Petitioner walked out of Ms. Alvarez's office saying, "Thank you for nothing." Petitioner then proceeded to stamp her way down to her workplace, continuing to display her anger and disrupt the work of the other employees in her area by complaining loudly about Arthrex's hiring practices. Ms. Alvarez testified that Petitioner's behavior violated Arthrex's written policies regarding hostile, disruptive behavior in the workplace. Ms. Alvarez prepared a written warning called "performance correction notice" dated June 17, 2003. The notice described the disruptive behavior Petitioner engaged in on June 13, 2003, and stated that Petitioner was expected to maintain a "friendly work environment" and to express her disagreements with company policy "respectfully[,] . . . in private with [her] immediate supervisor or with Human Resources." The notice further warned Petitioner that any further "unprofessional conduct" (antagonism, disruptive behavior or hostility) could subject Petitioner to a "final warning." On the afternoon of June 18, 2003, Petitioner met with Ms. Alvarez and Lea Custodio, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, who had taken the day off on June 13, 2003. Ms. Alvarez presented Petitioner with the performance correction notice. She explained that while she understood Petitioner's frustration, she could not allow such displays of temper in the workplace. Ms. Alvarez testified that she believed Petitioner understood the situation, and she encouraged Petitioner to write down her thoughts, comments, or corrections before signing the notice. Ms. Alvarez told Petitioner that she could write her response in Spanish, if that would allow her better to express herself. Ms. Alvarez is fluent in Spanish. On June 19, 2003, Petitioner submitted a handwritten note to Ms. Alvarez. Written in Spanish, the note expressed Petitioner's belief that the Randstad representative discriminated against her friend by imposing unreasonable requirements for the cleaning position in question. Petitioner was not disciplined in any way for either the form or content of this note, which was incorporated with the performance correction notice as part of Petitioner's employment file. Petitioner testified that she could not recall having been disciplined for the June 13, 2003, incident. She denied causing a disturbance at the Randstad facility or at her own workplace. She admitted writing the note and submitting it on June 19, 2003, but testified that Ms. Alvarez asked her to document the incident because of other complaints she had received about the Randstad representative. Petitioner's testimony is inconsistent with the documentary evidence, including the self-justifying language of her own handwritten note. Ms. Custodio's testimony corroborated that of Ms. Alvarez's concerning the disciplinary meeting held on June 18, 2003, at which Petitioner was given the performance correction notice and counseled by Ms. Alvarez as to the company's expectations regarding her behavior. Petitioner's testimony as to the June 13, 2003, incident and its aftermath is not credible. On or about August 10, 2003, a personal conflict arose between Petitioner and a co-worker, Pierre Escanio. Petitioner loudly questioned the quality of Mr. Escanio's work. In the cleaning and packaging area, the workers' products were commingled into single lots and sent to Arthrex's quality control division for review. Petitioner claimed to be concerned that Mr. Escanio's poor work would cause quality control to return the entire lot, meaning that everyone would have to redo their work. Ms. Custodio, the supervisor, attempted to calm the situation by telling Petitioner that she would talk to Mr. Escanio about his work. Ms. Custodio did so despite the fact that she had trained Mr. Escanio and knew him to be a competent employee. Ms. Custodio next told Petitioner that she would separate Petitioner's work from that of Mr. Escanio, marking the items so they would know whose work had been rejected by quality control. Despite Ms. Custodio's effort, Petitioner continued to complain. Ms. Custodio finally told Petitioner to stop making these complaints in front of the other dozen or so people in the work area. Ms. Custodio believed that Petitioner was questioning her authority in front of the other employees. She went to Ms. Alvarez to discuss the situation and obtain the assistance of the Human Resources Department in addressing the problem of Petitioner's insubordination. Ms. Custodio told Ms. Alvarez that she could no longer handle the situation with Petitioner. In keeping with the policies of Arthrex's Human Resources Department, Ms. Alvarez investigated the matter, conducting interviews with employees who witnessed Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Alvarez testified that her investigation led her to conclude that "there was a serious problem in the department." After a final consultation with Arthrex's general counsel, Ms. Alvarez recommended that Petitioner's employment be terminated for insubordination. Ms. Custodio agreed with the recommendation. By letter dated August 12, 2003, and signed by Ms. Alvarez, Arthrex terminated Petitioner's employment. The letter stated the following express reasons for Petitioner's termination: Previous written warning referring to disruptive behavior of 6/17/2003. Numerous reports of negative comments about the company and management in front of other employees. Antagonistic behavior with supervisor and coworkers. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that her language or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. Petitioner's chief claim is that she was terminated for refusing to obey instructions from her supervisors, including Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez, to cease speaking Spanish in the workplace. Both Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez credibly denied giving any such instructions to any Arthrex employee. Arthrex does have a "Language Policy" that requires employees to be proficient in English to ensure that FDA regulations and ISO certification standards are met, because the company "has determined that the English language is the most common and effective means of communications" in the United States. The policy requires employees to communicate business-related information in English, but states that it "is not intended to prevent or discourage any employee from speaking their native language at Arthrex for certain business related matters, on their own time or with regard to non-business matters." The evidence established that all but one or two people in Petitioner's work area were native Spanish speakers and that they were allowed freely to communicate in Spanish in their day-to-day work activities. Employees were encouraged to communicate with their supervisors in their native language, if doing so improved the quality of the information conveyed. Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez each testified that they knew of no Arthrex employee who had ever been disciplined for speaking a language other than English in the workplace. At the hearing, Petitioner repeatedly made reference to the efforts of one lower-level supervisor, Renee Vanderberg, to force the employees in Petitioner's section to refrain from speaking Spanish and confine their work conversations to English. However, the evidence established that once the Human Resources Department learned of Ms. Vanderberg's actions, she was admonished to cease directing the employees to speak English. When Ms. Vanderberg continued to press the issue, Arthrex terminated her employment. The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the reasons for Petitioner's termination were limited to those set forth in the termination letter of August 12, 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Arthrex Manufacturing did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 27, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who at all times material to this case was employed with Respondent as a production worker. Respondent, Hamilton Products, Inc., manufactures various animal related products such as horse tack and pet collars and is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Allegations of Race Discrimination Petitioner's Employment Complaint of Discrimination alleged discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation and reads in pertinent part: I believe that I have been discriminated against based on race, Black, which has resulted in discipline, unfair terms and conditions, and denial of promotion. Since 2003, I have noticed disparate treatment between White and Black employees. One example of this is that Black employees are rarely if ever promoted to management positions. Another example of this is that a Black coworker of mine, Deloise, would often harass me and when I complained to my supervisor Mrs. Robinson, she took the matter to Mrs. Lake. Mrs. Lake merely asked the woman to not do that again. This harassment continued and I repeatedly complained about it so that finally, I was moved to a different location. A similarly situated White female, Elaine, experienced similar treatment from Deloise but when she complained Deloise was stopped from repeating the behavior almost immediately. I was very upset about this obvious disparity that I contacted Mrs. Benfel and explained to her what was transpiring. She asked me to gather together my complaints and those of others which I did and submitted it to her in a letter. Almost immediately after I began to receive retaliation for my complaint. I was disciplined, verbally harassed and moved away from the other employees. Martha Robinson is a supervisor employed by Respondent for over 16 years. She was Petitioner's direct supervisor for some of the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. Ms. Robinson is a white female. A coworker, Delores,1/ who sat near Petitioner would tap her foot on a wooden box while working. Petitioner found this annoying and complained to Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson asked Delores to stop tapping her foot and had fleece put on the box. However, Delores continued to tap her foot. After three or four employees complained about Delores' foot tapping, Ms. Robinson took the box away from Delores and put it in Ms. Lake's office. Karen Benfield is the office manager for Respondent, where she has been employed for 19 years. Petitioner went to Ms. Benfield's office to complain about working conditions. Ms. Benfield described the complaints made by Petitioner as vague and broad-based, consisting of general assertions that employees were unhappy at work. Petitioner's complaints to Ms. Benfield did not include any allegation of racial discrimination about her or anyone else. Ms. Benfield asked Petitioner for specifics, to put her complaints on paper and she would make sure management saw it. She did not ask Petitioner to solicit comments from other employees and told Petitioner she could only speak for herself. Petitioner collected written complaints from her co- workers and delivered them to Ms. Benfield. Petitioner received a Warning Notice dated October 26, 2004, for disruptive influence on the workforce. It read as follows: The purpose of this warning is to make sure that you understand the structure of Hamilton Products and the parameters of acceptable behavior at work. Lately, you have brought a number of suggestions and grievances to the management of Hamilton Products on behalf of yourself and others. There is no single employee representative to management at Hamilton Products. You do not and may not speak on behalf of other employees. Every employee at Hamilton Products, including yourself, enjoys the right to share ideas, suggestions or grievances with management. Such communication is encouraged as long as it is made properly. There is a clear chain of command at Hamilton Products, and you must follow that chain of command when communicating with management. You must speak to your immediate supervisor or place a suggestion in the box provided for suggestions at the north end of the nylon department. It is not acceptable to go around the chain of command to a higher supervisor, as this disrupts the operations of Hamilton Products. In the future, you must follow the chain of command or use the suggestion box, and speak only for yourself. Failure to follow the procedure outlined herein will result in further disciplinary actions up to and including discharge. After the hurricanes of 2004, Petitioner's entire department was reprimanded by the plant manager for missing work. This was upsetting to Petitioner because Ms. Robinson had told these employees not to call in. She felt that Ms. Robinson should not have let him "talk trash" to the employees. There is no evidence that Petitioner or anyone else was singled out in any way by the plant manager regarding this incident. Petitioner believes that white employees were given opportunities for promotion and resulting raises. However, no employees on the production floor were promoted during the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. There is no competent evidence in the record to support Petitioner's claim that white employees received promotions and black employees did not. At some point, Petitioner was moved when the production department was reorganized. Petitioner was placed in the center of the plant, facing the rest of her department. She had no one on either side of her which resulted in her not being able to talk to coworkers while working.
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 Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, 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 9th day of February, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Melvin Blum ("Mr. Blum"), was employed by the Respondent National Enquirer, Inc. ("National Enquirer"), 2/ from 1962 until his voluntary resignation in June 1980. The National Enquirer publishes a weekly tabloid newspaper in Palm Beach County, Florida. Since joining the National Enquirer, Iain Calder ("Mr. Calder") has held various positions as an employee and officer of the publication and its affiliated companies. Mr. Calder first joined the Enquirer in 1964 as London Bureau Chief. In 1967, he came to the United States as articles editor, a position he held until the early 1970's. In due course, he was promoted to senior articles editor, executive editor, editorial director, and then editor in 1975. In 1976, Mr. Calder became President of the National Enquirer. After the death of the owner, Mr. Pope, in 1988, Mr. Calder became Chairman of the company in order to sell the publication. After new owners acquired the publication, Mr. Calder became editor-in-chief of the publication and executive vice- president of the parent company. In December 1995, Mr. Calder stepped down as editor-in-chief and president and assumed the position of editor emeritus. Mr. Calder has known Mr. Blum for close to 30 years. Mr. Calder was familiar with Mr. Blum's work. When Mr. Calder was editorial director and then editor, Mr. Blum indirectly reported to him through his department head. Additionally, Mr. Calder would occasionally sit in as managing editor to learn the business of layouts. During those occasions, he would directly supervise Mr. Blum. While not close friends, Mr. Calder and Mr. Blum occasionally socialized outside of work. In Mr. Calder's view, while Mr. Blum was talented in using photographs, he had problems with headlines and with writing. Malcolm Hayes ("Mr. Hayes") first joined the National Enquirer in 1973. On his first stint at the publication, he held the positions of deskman, assistant editor, associate editor, and then managing editor. Mr. Hayes left the National Enquirer in 1986. Upon his return in 1989, he served in the position of assistant managing editor and then assumed his current position of managing editor upon the death of the prior managing editor, Nat Chrzan. Mr. Hayes first met Mr. Blum when he joined the National Enquirer in 1973. They worked together for seven years. While working together, Mr. Hayes had an opportunity to observe Mr. Blum's work. It was Mr. Hayes' general impression that while Mr. Blum was efficient, thorough, and had good layout skills, he had problems with words and headlines. Mr. Blum has had a hearing impairment since he was 17 years old. During the 18 years Mr. Blum worked at the National Enquirer, he wore a hearing aid. Both Mr. Calder and Mr. Hayes knew Mr. Blum wore a hearing aid while he worked at the National Enquirer. Neither Mr. Calder nor Mr. Hayes felt it was an impediment to his work. It was never considered a negative factor. Mr. Calder believed he communicated well with Mr. Blum while he worked at the publication. Mr. Calder did not view it as limiting Mr. Blum's ability to perform his job in any way. In July of 1990, Mr. Blum wrote to Mr. Calder inquiring about the possibility of returning to work at the National Enquirer. Mr. Calder wrote a cordial letter in reply indicating that there were no openings for the position of a deskman. Additional letters were exchanged between Mr. Blum and Mr. Calder. In a February 1, 1991, letter, Mr. Calder wrote to Mr. Blum informing him there were still no available positions on the "desk." He further indicated that should a position become available, it would be the decision of the Managing Editor whether to rehire him. While Mr. Calder had the authority to hire and always retained veto power, it was his philosophy and policy not to mandate that his department heads hire a particular individual. Upon the resignation of a key member of Mr. Hayes' staff, Mr. Hayes attempted to fill a position on the "desk" with an individual who had in addition to "desk" experience, desktop publishing skills and management potential. The paper was moving into computers and was looking for someone with those skills. Additionally, Mr. Hayes' deputy at the time indicated that he did not want to serve in that role and fill-in for Mr. Hayes in his absence. As the term is used at the National Enquirer, a deskman is an individual who is a layout editor and writes headlines, writes captions, edits copy, and basically puts the pages together. Two members of Mr. Hayes' staff recommended William Condie ("Mr. Condie") for the position. Both individuals had worked with Mr. Condie when they were employed by the New York Post. Mr. Condie was at the Post at the time he was recruited. The National Enquirer had previously been very successful in recruiting newspaper people from the New York Post. Mr. Condie met both the experience requirements and the skill requirements that the National Enquirer was seeking. Mr. Condie had been involved in "desk work" for thirty years. He had served in various "desk" capacities at the London Daily Express, New York Daily News, and New York Post. Mr. Condie had a lot of experience in laying out pages. He was also a very good headline writer with good word skills. In addition to his extensive desk experience, Condie had worked with computers both at the New York Daily News and the New York Post. He also had a personal computer at home and was somewhat of a computer buff. Mr. Condie's background also reflected management experience. Prior to coming to the National Enquirer, Mr. Condie held the position of Night Managing Editor at the New York Post; the Post was considered one of the premier tabloids in the country. Mr. Condie was responsible for supervising all aspects of production of the newspaper after the first edition. He had performed in other management positions as well. Mr. Calder had known Mr. Condie for more than 30 years. Mr. Calder had an opportunity to work with Mr. Condie when Mr. Condie had previously worked at the National Enquirer. At one point in time early in their careers, Mr. Calder had reported to Mr. Condie. Based on his experience and skills, Mr. Condie was invited to the National Enquirer for a try-out in May 1991. At the end of the trial period, Mr. Condie was offered a position. The decision to hire Mr. Condie was made on or before June 5, 1991. Mr. Hayes made the decision to hire Mr. Condie which was approved by Mr. Calder. Mr. Condie began his full-time employment at the National Enquirer on July 8, 1991. The National Enquirer hired Mr. Condie on the basis of his qualifications. Since Mr. Condie was hired, no other positions on the "desk" became available at the National Enquirer. Neither Mr. Hayes nor Mr. Calder viewed the hiring process as a competition between Mr. Condie and Mr. Blum. Had Mr. Condie never been a candidate, Mr. Blum would not have been selected for the position. Mr. Blum lacked the qualifications that the National Enquirer was looking for in a candidate. Both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Calder were familiar with Mr. Blum's abilities and limitations. Mr. Hayes had worked with Mr. Blum for seven years. During that time, Mr. Hayes had an opportunity to observe Mr. Blum's professional work. While he felt Blum was efficient and thorough and had good layout skills, he felt Mr. Blum had problems with words and headlines. The nature of the publication had also changed since Mr. Blum had worked at the National Enquirer. Mr. Blum also did not have the management experience that Mr. Hayes was looking for in a candidate. During his entire time at the National Enquirer, Mr. Blum was never in a management position. Since leaving the National Enquirer, Mr. Blum's only managerial experience was at Senior Power, a free newspaper he started with another individual. While Mr. Blum was responsible for all business decisions, editorial decisions, and finances at Senior Power, it was a naive business concept and a financial failure. Given their personal experience with Mr. Blum, both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Calder felt that his personality was not conducive to supervising people. Additionally, Mr. Blum had no desktop computer experience at a major tabloid. Given their familiarity with Mr. Blum's experience and skills, neither Mr. Hayes nor Mr. Calder considered Mr. Blum a viable candidate for the position for which Mr. Condie was hired. Mr. Blum has no written evidence that the National Enquirer discriminated against him on the basis of his hearing. Mr. Blum knows of no statements made by Mr. Hayes, Mr. Calder, or anyone else evidencing discrimination against him on the basis of his hearing. In fact, Mr. Blum believes he was not rehired because of a grudge. Mr. Blum's hearing impairment played no role in the National Enquirer's decision not to rehire him. Mr. Blum filed his Charge of Discrimination on March 26, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petition For Relief and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1996.
