The Issue Whether Respondent County is guilty of an unlawful employment practice pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is female, and within a class protected by Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent County is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner claimed that Respondent treated her disparately from male employees on the basis of her gender in the areas of pay during her probationary period, reprimands and discipline, provision of equipment, poor performance evaluations, and training. Petitioner's initial relationship with Respondent was as an independent contractor at Respondent's Sanitary Landfill under a written contract entered into on September 15, 1989. In this capacity, she acted as a "spotter." As an independent contractor, she received $250 per month and salvage rights to whatever material customers brought to the Respondent's Sanitary Landfill. Effective August 14, 1990, the State Division of Personnel and Retirement required Respondent to put all contractual people on the County payroll. Thereafter, Petitioner was paid $350 per month and continued to have salvage rights only at the sufferance of the Respondent. After that date, Petitioner earned retirement and social security benefits. Withholding of federal taxes and deduction of social security benefits were also provided.(P-12). The value of the salvage rights were never calculated by anyone. While she was employed as a "spotter," Petitioner was the only female "spotter." Petitioner was on probation as an employee from August to December 1990. Petitioner was paid $1.442 per hour from August 12, 1990 through October 1990, and $1.63 per hour from October 1990 through December 3, 1990. At that time, her rate of pay was raised to $3.85 per hour. The record contains no evidence of what was paid to any male employee similarly situated during this period. Without proof that similarly situated male spotters were consistently paid better, there is no proof of gender discrimination in pay during Petitioner's probationary period.3 Mark Hawes, a male, was hired as a spotter on June 1, 1993. He was paid $4.35 per hour while on probation. Willie George, also male, was hired as a spotter on October 1, 1993, and was paid $4.4805 per hour while on probation. There is no evidence of how much Petitioner was being paid during this period, so there is no means of assessing disparate treatment in pay, if any, during this period.4 During the period that Petitioner was employed as a "spotter," there was no statute or rule requiring that "spotters" receive formalized training or be certified in any field. During Petitioner's employment, no spotter were provided more than a printed Job Description and on-the-job oral instructions. They were expected to use courtesy and common sense in dealing with the public. Two employees (gender unspecified) who were not spotters were sent to train at a state "school" to become Certified Landfill Operators. A State Rule was enacted after Petitioner was terminated which required that all spotters must have eight hours of specialized training. Thereafter, the Respondent provided such training to spotters. At all times material to any Personnel Citations, Petitioner was a union member, and all benefits of her union's collective bargaining agreement with the Respondent accrued to her. No performance evaluations were submitted in evidence. With the exception of the events related within the following findings of fact, no witness found any fault with Petitioner in the performance of her job description as a "spotter" at Respondent's landfill. (P-1) Wayne Hardee, Director of the Landfill, issued a Personnel Citation against Petitioner early in her employment on the basis of lack of personal hygiene. The citation was later removed from Petitioner's personnel file as an act of good will. On or about January 16, 1994, Petitioner admitted to an immediate supervisor that her carelessness with a hand-held CB radio had resulted in loss of the radio. She offered to pay for the radio. Mr. Hardee did not require her to pay for the radio, but issued a written Personnel Citation to her on January 20, 1994 for her carelessness. This Personnel Citation simultaneously cited Petitioner because Mr. Hardee had received complaints that Petitioner was overly concerned about other spotters doing their jobs. In this Personnel Citation, Mr. Hardee warned Petitioner to do her job without complaining about other employees. Petitioner admitted that she signed this citation and that she did not grieve it through her union. The radio was later recovered, but the citation remained in Petitioner's personnel file. (P-2) On Saturday, July 9, 1994, Petitioner called her union's senior shop steward, Jessie Ellzey, to the landfill to complain about items left at her spotter station. Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner was accusing another employee of putting the items in the wrong place. Petitioner also told Mr. Ellzey that another employee had threatened her. After investigation and interviews the following week, Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Hardee determined that the items had been brought by a landfill customer to the landfill between shift changes. Mr. Hardee's and Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner had unfairly complained about another spotter, Willie George, not doing his job. At least three days and two meetings were involved in this investigation and counseling procedure. Mr. Hardee issued a written Personnel Citation against Petitioner for complaining about a co-employee. (P-3) Petitioner also was suspended without pay for one day and warned that if the problem was not corrected, further disciplinary action would be taken against her. Petitioner did not grieve this citation through her union. Based on all of Mr. Ellzey's credible testimony, due to reputation testimony about Mr. Ellzey's standard operating procedure, and because Petitioner was actually suspended for one day without pay, I reject as not credible Petitioner's testimony that she never knew of this citation in time to grieve it. On August 13, 1994, Ann Harrell, a landfill customer, filed a written complaint of rudeness against Petitioner. (P-9) A written complaint of rudeness by Petitioner was also filed by another customer, Mr. Richburg, at about the same time. Mr. Hardee considered courtesy to customers to be an unstated policy of County government and further perceived rudeness to customers to be an on-going problem in Petitioner's relationship with the public. Due to the foregoing written complaints and many similar oral complaints he had received, Mr. Hardee assigned Petitioner two days' suspension without pay by a written Personnel Citation issued August 15, 1994. The citation also warned Petitioner she would be terminated if there were another complaint about her. Petitioner refused to sign this citation. (P-4) On August 25, 1994, Petitioner grieved the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation through her union. (P-5) A hearing was held in response to Petitioner's grievance. All concerned agree that Mr. Ellzey, the union representative advocating Petitioner's position, and not a representative of management, kept Petitioner from testifying. Chester Humphries testified on Petitioner's behalf at the grievance hearing that he had been unable to hear what Mr. Richburg said but could hear what Petitioner said to Mr. Richburg. From this, Mr. Hardee inferred that Petitioner had raised her voice to Mr. Richburg. Mr. Hardee assessed Petitioner's character witnesses in Petitioner's favor but noted that they knew nothing about the specific incident between Petitioner and Mr. Richburg. Ultimately, Mr. Hardee relied on Mr. Richburg's testimony concerning the incident. (P-6) Mr. Hardee denied Petitioner's grievance and disciplined Petitioner in accord with the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation. Upon advice of her union steward, Petitioner did not appeal the grievance hearing result. It was further agreed that if Petitioner's behavior resulted in no more complaints against her for 30 working days, the August 15, 1994, citation would be removed from her personnel file. Petitioner met this requirement, and the citation was removed from her personnel file. (P-6; P-7). Petitioner's December 13, 1994, charge of discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations listed August 11, 1994, as the last date of alleged discrimination. No witness at formal hearing herein, including Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Humphries, both of whom also had been present at the grievance hearing, confirmed Petitioner's perception that her gender had affected the result of her grievance hearing. Another female employee (not a landfill spotter) currently works in Respondent's administrative offices. That female employee also has had employment disputes with Mr. Hardee which she attributes to his gender bias, but the type of dispute was not clearly specified on this record. Therefore, no similarity to Petitioner's situation can be discerned and no pattern of gender bias was proven on that basis. This female employee is still employed by Respondent. A different female employee (also not a spotter) employed by Respondent's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was terminated by Mr. Bill Beddow, EMS Director, for failing to timely report (or complain about) her immediate supervisor for "doing something [Mr. Beddow] thought he shouldn't be doing with drugs." The male supervisor resigned for "personal reasons." The female employee was rehired by Mr. Beddow after intercession by her union. This means another female not similarly situated to Petitioner was terminated for not complaining about a male employee's job performance and was then hired back, whereas Petitioner was progressively disciplined with reprimands and suspensions for repetitive unsubstantiated complaints about male employees' job performances. Petitioner seeks to have the conclusion drawn that female employees were disciplined both for reporting and for not reporting male employees' misbehavior. However, the two isolated situations are so dissimilar as to develop no pattern recognizable at law. I accept as credible and unrefuted Petitioner's testimony that all of the complaints she initiated about other employees were oral. However, Petitioner's testimony that she did not complain about other employees' performance of, or failure to perform, their jobs and her assertion that her complaints were only motivated by the requirements of her Job Description to "inspect loads" and "report all problems" was not corroborated by any other witness. Petitioner's testimony that her concerns were directed not at individual employees but at addressing hazardous wastes also was not corroborated by any other witness.5 Petitioner's middle level supervisor acknowledged that Petitioner told him that other employees had improperly handled hazardous materials as well as non-hazardous materials but that he did not cite anyone as a result of Petitioner's complaints about hazardous wastes because it was impossible to prove who was responsible. He counseled all subordinates about each incident whenever he considered counseling appropriate. Otherwise, all witnesses with reason to know the situation generally acknowledged that Petitioner's oral complaints were recurring almost daily and were directed to other employees' job performances rather than hazardous materials. It is the repetitive and personal nature of Petitioner's complaints rather than their being oral that management found offensive. The evidence also generally shows that all employees orally complained about each other and that Petitioner's two immediate supervisors, Felippe McCelroy and Robert Murray, orally reprimanded everybody who complained or who was complained about as they each saw fit within their supervisory discretion on individual occasions. No gender pattern is to be discerned from the foregoing. Only on those occasions that either an oral or written complaint reached Mr. Hardee was anyone written up and/or disciplined. Petitioner complained about not being assigned or provided with one of Respondent employer's trucks when other male employees were provided trucks. With the exception of the following findings related to the Respondent's trucks, there is no relevant evidence in this record concerning employees' use of trucks. All employees were cautioned against carelessness. Tommy Dean, a male employee, dented one of Respondent's trucks. He was not disciplined for careless driving. There is no evidence the dent was caused by Mr. Dean's careless driving. In February 1995, Charles Kennedy, a male spotter, filed a written complaint or incident report. Therein, he claimed that Petitioner had attempted to prohibit his bulldozing landfill material out of the way because Petitioner was trying to remove salvageable items. He further alleged that Petitioner had thrown a jar of grease at him. Petitioner was requested to file a written account of the incident. In her written account, she basically admitted the incident but not any intent to hit Mr. Kennedy with the grease jar. Mr. Kennedy was not disciplined for filing the written complaint/report. Petitioner was not disciplined for the actions complained about by Mr. Kennedy. Instead, as of February 3, 1995, landfill spotters were prohibited from salvaging at the landfill. (P-13) Petitioner desires that the conclusion be drawn that male spotters who complained in writing about other employees were not disciplined for complaining but that Petitioner, a female, was disciplined for making oral complaints. However, it appears Respondent addressed Mr. Kennedy's written complaint in much the same way as it had addressed Petitioner's oral complaint against Willie George, by giving each participant in the dispute a chance to state his or her position, before management decided who should be disciplined. The difference was that Mr. Kennedy was not a chronic complainer and management's investigation revealed some fault on both sides, so a neutral solution was found rather than discipline being imposed. There is no evidence beyond Petitioner's assertion that she was ever asked to do more work or heavier work than male spotters. From this point on, the dates that events occurred or their chronology is not entirely clear from the record. However, approximately April 14, 1995, there was an occasion when Petitioner was asked to move metal pieces in a wheelbarrow-sized pile over a three-hour period. The largest piece weighed 21 pounds. The next day, Petitioner reported a workers' compensation back injury or aggravation. She was then off work until approximately May 11, 1995, when she returned to "light duty." She worked for awhile for only four hours per day. Respondent hired someone to help her. It is disputed whether Petitioner was reinjured or whether Mr. Hardee just sent her home. However, on or about July 8, 1995, Mr. Hardee discussed the situation with "the workers' compensation people," and it was agreed there was not enough light duty work for Petitioner. Three months later, Petitioner returned to full duty. Because a spotter had been hired to do her work, Petitioner was assigned to a variety of jobs. She worked at the dog pound, the recycling building, and even washed Mr. Hardee's truck.6 One day, Petitioner's immediate supervisor ordered her to cut out the top of a metal drum. At formal hearing, Petitioner asserted that this was heavier work than she should have been required to do on light duty, but there is no evidence the supervisor's order was motivated by gender bias. There also is no evidence a full-time male spotter was never required to do similarly heavy work. Petitioner advised her supervisor that she had hurt her arms and elbows and she went home on sick leave. Petitioner had complained over the term of her employment about not being provided one of Respondent's trucks so that she could conveniently get from her sector of the landfill to a restroom. After her workers' compensation injury, Respondent arranged for male employees to drive Petitioner to the restroom. Eventually, Respondent provided Petitioner with a portable toilet in her work sector. Mr. Hardee maintained that no spotter had ever been assigned a truck but that all spotters, including Petitioner, had access to one. There is evidence to show that male employees drove the trucks and Petitioner did not, but insufficient evidence to show this was an active management decision or that Mr. Hardee acquiesced in male employees preempting trucks as a result of any gender bias. On or about November 13, 1995, Petitioner informed Mr. Hardee that she was permanently physically disabled and would have to be on light duty indefinitely. After consultation with his "workers' compensation people," Mr. Hardee terminated Petitioner as of that date. 7 At formal hearing, Petitioner admitted Respondent was still paying her workers' compensation benefits and that her workers' compensation claim has not been settled.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding no discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On November 9, 1972, the State of Florida, acting through Petitioner, certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Certificate number 6350 was duly issued to Respondent by Petitioner. On September 10, 1984, the following occurred in Delray Beach, Florida: At approximately 12:30 a.m., Respondent was found asleep in his automobile by two Delray Beach police officers, Sergeant Stephen Barborini and Detective Thomas Tustin. Respondent was alone in the automobile. Respondent's automobile was parked in a public parking lot in the 1100 block of North Federal Highway in Delray Beach with its engine running and its headlights on. Respondent was awakened by the police officers and questioned while in the parked automobile after the engine had been turned off by Officer Barborini. Respondent was very intoxicated. Upon being questioned, Respondent produced a police badge case, without a police badge, and identified himself as a Metro-Dade Police Officer. The Delray Beach police officers advised Respondent that he was in no condition to drive and offered to either give him a ride home or to arrange other transportation for him. Respondent then got out of the car. As a result of his intoxication, Respondent was unable to maintain his balance, his eyes were bloodshot, and his speech was slurred. At times Respondent was incoherent. Respondent began to behave in an erratic manner. He shouted and yelled obscenities at the officers, he cried, and he pleaded on his knees for the officers to leave him alone. Respondent became angry with Detective Tustin while Detective Tustin was trying to calm him down. Respondent placed his hands on the person of Detective Tustin and pushed him back a couple of steps. Respondent was arrested by Officer Barborini for disorderly intoxication and taken into custody. Upon arrival at the police station, Respondent again began to shout obscenities and pushed another officer, Officer Giovani. Respondent met with the officers about two months later and apologized for his actions. Officer Barborini asked the State Attorney's Office not to prosecute because Respondent was a police officer and because Officer Barborini had been told that Respondent was seeking help for his drinking problem. The State Attorney's Office granted Officer Barborini's request. Respondent was not charged with battery because Officer Barborini and Detective Tustin thought Respondent was too intoxicated to intentionally batter Detective Tustin. On August 28, 1985, Respondent was found guilty by the Dade County Court of the charge of battery on the person of Jose Lleo. The battery occurred on February 22, 1985, while Respondent was on duty. Although Respondent was not intoxicated at the time, he had consumed alcohol before reporting to work. Following his conviction, the Court withheld adjudication of guilt and also withheld sentence. On April 3, 1986, the following occurred in Deerfield Beach, Florida: At approximately 3:35 a.m., Respondent was found asleep in his automobile by Officer John Szpindor and Officer Dale Davis of the Deerfield Beach Police Department. Respondent was alone in the automobile. Respondent's automobile was parked on the grassy shoulder of the road in the 2700 block of Southwest 10th Street with its engine running and its headlights on. The officers were able to awaken Respondent after several minutes of shaking him and talking to him. Respondent, upon being awakened, was belligerent and uncooperative. He used profanity towards the officers, calling them names and telling the officers they had no right to bother him. Respondent got out of the automobile after being instructed to do so. Respondent was very intoxicated. As a result of his intoxication, Respondent was groggy and unable to maintain his balance. His eyes were bloodshot and his speech was slurred. Respondent's pants were wet in the crotch area. The officers identified Respondent by examining a wallet, with Respondent's permission, which was lying on the seat of the car. The wallet contained an empty badge case. From examining the wallet, the officers obtained sufficient information to enable the dispatcher to contact Shirley Daniels, who was married to Respondent at that time. Mrs. Daniels was asked to come to the scene. While waiting for Mrs. Daniels to arrive on the scene, Respondent became more belligerent. His shouting grew louder and more confrontational. Despite the officers' attempts to calm him down, Respondent took off his jacket, threw it on the ground, and assumed a defensive stance as if he wanted to fight the officers. The shouting disturbed the residents of a nearby residential area. Respondent confronted Officer Davis, who had Respondent's wallet, told Officer Davis that he had no business with the wallet, and he struck Officer Davis in the chest and chin areas. The blow to the chin was a glancing blow as opposed to being a hard blow. Officer Davis was not injured. Officer Davis and Officer Szpindor immediately thereafter physically overpowered Respondent, placed him under arrest for disorderly intoxication and battery, and took him into custody. When Shirley Daniels arrived on the scene, she told the officers that she would be unable to manage Respondent at home in his intoxicated condition. Respondent was then taken to jail by the officers. There was no evidence as to the disposition of the charges of disorderly intoxication and battery. Respondent is an alcoholic and was an alcoholic at the times of the incidents described above. Prior to those incidents, Respondent had sought treatment and thought that he had successfully completed the program. Between the incident in Delray Beach and the incident in Deerfield Beach, Respondent attended Alcoholics Anonymous. Respondent continued to drink, to the extent that he suffered blackouts, because he did not immerse himself in the Alcoholics Anonymous program. During the periods Respondent maintained control of his drinking, he exhibited the qualities required of a enforcement officer. Whenever the alcoholism gained control, as was the case in the 1984 incident in Delray Beach and the 1986 incident in Deerfield Beach, Respondent lost control of himself and of his actions. As of the date of the final hearing, Respondent had abstained from alcohol for two and one-half years. For the past two and one-half years Respondent has been seriously, and successfully, involved in Alcoholics Anonymous. Respondent is a recovering alcoholic who has good moral character as long as he has control of his alcoholism. Respondent currently operates his own business as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent failed to maintained good moral character, which places Respondent's certification on a probationary status for a period of two years and which contains as a condition of probation that Respondent abstain from the use of alcohol. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0714 The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-3. Addressed in paragraph 2(a). Addressed in paragraph 2(c). Addressed in paragraph 2(d). Addressed in paragraph 2(e). Addressed in paragraph 2(g). Addressed in paragraph 2(h). 9-10. Addressed in paragraph 2(i). Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 12. 13-14. Addressed in paragraph 6(a). 15-16. Addressed in paragraph 6(b). Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Addressed in paragraph 6(c). Addressed in paragraph 6(e). 20-22. Addressed in paragraph 6(f). Addressed in paragraph 6(g). Addressed in paragraph 6(h). The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-5. Addressed in paragraphs 2(a), (b), and (c). Addressed in paragraphs 2(f) and (g). Addressed in paragraphs 2(h) and (i). Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. Addressed in paragraph 4. 10-12. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. 13. Addressed in paragraph 3. 14-16. Addressed in paragraph 6(a). Addressed in paragraph 6(b). Addressed in paragraph 6(e). Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. Addressed in paragraphs 6(g) and (h). 21-24. Rejected as being recitation of testimony and as being subordinate to the findings reached. 25. Addressed in paragraph 5. 26-27. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the result reached and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 9 and 10. 28-31. Rejected as beings recitation of testimony as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 7, 9, and 10. 32-36. Rejected as being recitation of testimony as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10. 37-38. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 40-41. Rejected as being recitation of testimony , as being unnecessary to the result reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraphs 8, 9, and 10. 42-45. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the results reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 8. 46-49. Rejected as being recitation of testimony, as being unnecessary to the results reached, and, in part, as being subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 8. 50. Addressed in paragraphs 1 and paragraph 11. 51-54. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached Addressed in paragraph 7. Addressed in paragraph 5. Rejected as being irrelevant. The purported statement of Mr. Kastrenatis is rejected as being hearsay. Addressed in paragraph 9. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James C. Casey, Esquire 10680 N.W. 25th Street Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33172 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Honda of Bay County/Volkswagen of Panama City (Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11, Florida Statutes,1 by discriminating against Maurice Hargrove (Petitioner) because of his disability and race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Maurice Hargrove, is an individual of African-American descent, who resides in Chipley, Florida. Respondent, Honda of Bay County and Volkswagen of Panama City are automobile dealerships located in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner alleges that he was not hired by Respondent because of his race and because of a disability. Petitioner’s alleged disability relates to his wearing a supportive brace on one of his legs at the time he applied for the job position with Respondent. Petitioner first made contact with Respondent’s business after seeing a “now hiring” sign in front of Respondent’s facility in Panama City. According to Petitioner, after seeing the sign, he walked into the building and filled out a job application. Petitioner could not recall when this occurred, but he believed it was sometime prior to Hurricane Michael, which struck the Panama City area in October 2018. Exact time frames and sequence of events as to what happened after Petitioner initially filled out the application are less than clear because Petitioner repeatedly changed his testimony during the final hearing. Nevertheless, the findings set forth below, derived from the combined testimonies of Petitioner and Respondent’s manager, Mr. Boatwright, detail the pertinent facts. Petitioner initially inquired about a job as a service technician working on vehicles at the dealership. When Petitioner met with Respondent’s manager, however, Mr. Boatwright told Petitioner that he did not need a service technician at the time. Further, Petitioner had no prior experience working on vehicles. Mr. Boatwright further informed Petitioner that, although he did not need a service technician, he needed a shuttle driver for the dealership. According to Petitioner, because of his conversation with Mr. Boatwright, he marked through “service tech” on the job application and wrote in “driver.” Mr. Boatwright’s testimony, and sometimes Petitioner’s testimony, was that when Mr. Boatwright first met Petitioner, Mr. Boatwright noticed a brace on Petitioner’s leg and asked Petitioner what was the situation with the brace. Petitioner told Mr. Boatwright that he had injured his leg in a workplace fall for which he received workers’ compensation, but that he was no longer on workers’ compensation. 2 Mr. Boatwright asked Petitioner to obtain a note from a doctor clearing Petitioner to work, to which Petitioner agreed. At some point, Petitioner returned to Respondent’s dealership with a doctor’s note clearing him to work with no restrictions. Mr. Boatwright interviewed Petitioner for the driver position and said he would contact 2 Petitioner’s statements regarding his leg brace were inconsistent. Petitioner testified that he wears a brace on one of his legs for support after surgery for a broken leg. Petitioner also testified that he broke his leg “just walking one day in the neighborhood, and I turned, and it just gave out on me.” According to Mr. Boatwright, Petitioner told him when he was applying for the job that Petitioner had fallen off a ladder when working as a painter and received workers’ compensation for a leg injury. Petitioner did not take issue with this version of the events during his questioning of Mr. Boatwright. Petitioner further testified that he did not remember the year he broke his leg, when he had surgery on his leg, or when his doctor advised him to wear the brace. Regardless of the origin of the leg condition, Petitioner testified that the leg did not restrict him in any way. Petitioner about the job later. Both Petitioner and Mr. Boatwright believed that the interview went well. After interviewing ten candidates for the driver position, Mr. Boatwright believed that, based upon Petitioner’s maturity level as compared to other applicants, Petitioner was the best candidate. After Petitioner was interviewed, Mr. Boatwright’s bosses decided not to fill the driver position, but, instead, decided to have the driving duties shared amongst existing employees. At the final hearing, Mr. Boatwright recalled communicating this to Petitioner, but that if he did not, he offered his apologies. Petitioner first testified that Mr. Boatwright contacted him and told him that he would not be hired, describing a conversation with Mr. Boatwright in which Petitioner expressed his sadness with Mr. Boatwright about not getting the job. Later in the hearing, Petitioner said he did not ever hear back from Mr. Boatwright, and that it was Respondent’s attorney who advised him that Respondent had decided not to fill the driver position. Regardless of when and how Petitioner was informed that the job position was not being filled, Respondent chose not to fill the shuttle driver position. As of the date of the final hearing, well over a year after Petitioner applied for the job, Respondent had still not filled the driver position, opting instead to share driving duties amongst the existing employees. Petitioner presented no evidence that his race played any part in the decision not to hire him. His sole offering on this point was the fact of his race. Petitioner’s disability discrimination claim was based on the facts that Mr. Boatwright noticed the brace on his leg and asked him to get a doctor’s note clearing him to work. Although Petitioner testified late in the hearing that Mr. Boatwright said something to him about not feeling like he would be able to do the job, Petitioner’s statement was made after several accounts of conversations with Mr. Boatwright in which Petitioner never made this allegation. When asked about this new allegation on cross-examination, Petitioner could provide no details, quickly trailed off topic, and asked “Say what?” There was no allegation in his Charge of Discrimination or his Petition for Relief with the Division of Administrative Hearings that alleges that Mr. Boatwright suggested that Petitioner could not do the driver job. Considering these factors, as well as the inconsistency with Petitioner’s prior recollection that his interview with Mr. Boatwright went well, it is found that Petitioner’s late-asserted allegation that Mr. Boatwright said something to him about feeling that Petitioner could not do the job is untimely and is otherwise not credited. Further, Petitioner testified that his leg did not restrict him in any way, and failed to present evidence that he had a medical condition that substantially impaired any life activity.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S James H. Peterson, III 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 17th day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Maurice Hargrove 1672 Sunny Hills Boulevard Chipley, Florida 32428 Russell F. Van Sickle, Esquire Beggs & Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32591 (eServed) Tammy Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Was Petitioner denied a promotion on account of her gender?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed by the Department since 1991. Petitioner is a Field Biologist, Grade Level I. Among other things, she monitors surface water quality by collecting water in various environments and analyzing it in a laboratory. Early in 1994, there was a reorganization of her section and she began to work in the laboratory under the supervision of Jerry Owen. In the middle of 1994, Jim Wright became the supervisor of the laboratory section and, thus, Petitioner's supervisor. Subsequent to Mr. Wright becoming her supervisor, she experienced problems with regard to work assignments. Petitioner had been trained to operate the section's motorboats in 1991, and had operated them in the past. In January 1995, there were questions about Petitioner operating the boats. Subsequently, Environmental Specialist III Lee Banks told her she could no longer operate the boats. Under the supervision of Mr. Wright, Petitioner was assigned many secretarial duties. She was criticized for her lack of skill in filing. Mr. Wright suggested that she get some advice on how to properly file. She was instructed to learn to type and criticized when she failed to learn that skill. She was told that she couldn't travel to meetings and seminars until she completed a typing tutorial. During this period at least two informal documents were circulated in the section which were derogatory toward women. They could be considered offensive to someone with tender feelings, but they contained no vulgarity and were not outrageous. The origin of the documents was not demonstrated. Mr. Wright sometimes belittled the employees who were under his and he or others in the section sometimes told jokes, including "dumb blonde" jokes. On October 15, 1996, Petitioner learned that a co- worker, Pat O'Conner, a Field Biologist, Grade Level I, had his position upgraded to Field Biologist, Grade Level II. Pat O'Conner is a male and had less seniority in the Department than Petitioner. The position upgrade was not advertised and was not open to competition. Petitioner complained about this and was told to "sit tight" until an ongoing investigation of Mr. Wright was completed. Mr. Wright was removed from his position in March 1997. Petitioner prepared a complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Opportunity Commission, which was signed on September 20, 1997, and filed sometime shortly afterward. Petitioner's complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations was filed on November 14, 1997.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and because of the reasons set forth in paragraphs 21 and 28, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which dismisses Petitioner's claim of discrimination based upon gender. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 16th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Coleman, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Amy B. Kalmbacher 600 Domenico Circle, A-10 St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Marshall G. Wiseheart, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6515 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 the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of handicap or disability, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact North Florida Sales Company (North Florida), the Respondent in this case, is a beer and ale wholesaler that does business in Florida and employs over 15 people. Window Mitchell, Petitioner in this case, began working at North Florida as a custodian in the maintenance department on June 22, 2009. His normal schedule at North Florida was Monday through Friday. Near the time he was hired, Petitioner received a copy of Respondent's "Employee Information Handbook." The handbook advised Petitioner of North Florida's "open door" policy that permitted employees to take any complaints or problems directly to the Human Resources Manager, the General Manager, or the President. It further advised employees that it was North Florida policy to treat all employees equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, disability, or national origin. It stated that any violation of North Florida's equal opportunity policies must be reported immediately to the Human Resources Manager or General Manager without delay. The employee handbook also advised Petitioner of North Florida's policies on attendance. It required employees to give advance notice of any absence or lateness, and noted that employees who fail to maintain an acceptable attendance record would be subject to disciplinary action. On September 10, 2009, Petitioner received an Employee Warning Report noting that Petitioner had missed six days of work during his 90-day probationary period. The report stated that this amount of absenteeism was considered excessive and that immediate improvement was expected. It was signed by Petitioner and Petitioner's supervisor. On November 10, 2009, Petitioner received another Employee Warning Report. It stated that Petitioner's attendance continued to be a problem and that it was creating a burden on the maintenance department. It stated that further incidents of absenteeism, or arriving late or leaving early, would result in termination. It was signed by Petitioner, Petitioner's supervisor, and Margaret Lombardi, Human Resources Manager. There is no evidence that Petitioner ever received any further "Employee Warning Reports." On June 3, 2010, Petitioner received an Employee Performance Review. In his review, Petitioner was given a rating of "3" out of "10" on "dependability." The comment under that heading indicated that Petitioner was "out from work too many days." Petitioner received two other "3"s on his evaluation and received no evaluation above a "5" in any area. In the final section, entitled "Objectives for the Next Review Period," the first of two objectives listed was "keep all curbs in warehouse painted." The second was, "try to be at work all of the time." On July 17, 2010, Petitioner was returning from a barbecue with four friends. He testified that he had not been drinking. The car he was driving ran into a pole head-on. Petitioner's knee and leg hurt and became badly swollen. He had "little chunks of meat" missing from his left elbow and forearm. He was seen by an emergency doctor at Baptist Medical Center about 9:45 p.m., released, and given discharge instructions. On July 19 or 20, 2010, Ms. Lombardi received a paper entitled Adult Discharge Instructions on a Baptist Health form dated July 17, 2010. It indicated that Petitioner had been in the vehicle collision and had been treated for abrasions and a contusion on his right knee. In the instructions, Petitioner was told to take medications as instructed, follow up with the doctor in two days, and return to the emergency room for worsening symptoms. A box was checked indicating "no work for 2 days." Ms. Lombardi interpreted the note as excusing Petitioner from work on Sunday and Monday, and therefore expected Petitioner to return to work on Tuesday, July 20, 2010. When Petitioner did not return to work on Tuesday, Ms. Lombardi called him. Petitioner said he did not realize that the doctor's note had excused him for only two days. Ms. Lombardi told Petitioner that it did, and she told him he needed to come to work that day. Petitioner complained that his arm and leg were still hurting. Petitioner said he would return to work that afternoon, but did not. Petitioner did not come to work on Wednesday, July 21, 2010. Petitioner left a message for Ms. Lombardi and she called him about 10 a.m. Petitioner told Ms. Lombardi that he had gone to the doctor the day before and had another note excusing him from work. Ms. Lombardi asked Petitioner why he had not called her or the supervisor to let them know. Petitioner stated that he had called the supervisor, but had been unable to reach him and had been asked to call back. Petitioner said he did not call back because he did not get out of the doctor's office until after 5:00 pm. Ms. Lombardi directed him to have the note sent to her by facsimile transmission (fax). Ms. Lombardi received a form faxed from Baptist Health entitled "Discharge Instruction" about 4:38 p.m. that day, as indicated in her note prepared for Petitioner's file. It had a subtitle of "Work Release Form." The form stated that Petitioner had been seen again on July 21, 2010, and that he could return to work on July 25, 2010. The form had date and time blocks indicating "July 21, 2010" and "4:31 p.m." Ms. Lombardi testified that the form from Baptist Health indicated that Petitioner had been seen by a doctor that same day and that "I received it shortly after-–there was a discharge time on it." On the following day, July 22, 2010, Ms. Lombardi again called Petitioner. When asked about an excuse from the doctor whom Petitioner had seen on July 20, 2010, Petitioner replied, "Oh, that was a different doctor." Petitioner said that the excuse from the visit on July 21, 2010, was from the same doctor he saw on July 17, 2010. Ms. Lombardi's file note stated that this was "the second time that Mitchell has incurred absences with inconsistency in the facts surrounding that absence." Petitioner gave evasive and inconsistent testimony at hearing about whether there was ever a third doctor's excuse, in addition to the excuses of July 17, 2010 and July 21, 2010. Any of Petitioner's testimony suggesting that there was third excuse was not credible. There were only two doctor's excuses. On July 22, 2010, Ms. Lombardi filled out a "Status/Payroll Change Report" that discharged Petitioner from employment at North Florida. In the "Reason" portion of the form, Ms. Lombardi wrote, "Excessive absenteeism and multiple incidences of inconsistent facts surrounding his absences." Petitioner was immediately notified by telephone that his employment had been terminated. In that conversation, Petitioner asked Ms. Lombardi why he was being discharged. Ms. Lombardi told Petitioner that the basis for his discharge was his poor attendance. Petitioner was recovering from the injuries he received in the accident for about a week-and-a-half. After that he was fully recovered. Petitioner's substantial interests are affected by Respondent's decision to discharge him. It has been difficult to find work in the depressed economy and Petitioner has financial responsibilities. Petitioner has three children. Petitioner was employed by Wage Solutions, working the warehouse at Liberty Furniture, unloading furniture and bringing it to the showroom from March 2011 to August 2011. Petitioner lost that job because that business closed. At the time of hearing Petitioner was not employed. Petitioner went to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. He did not complain to them that he had been discriminated against on the basis of a handicap or disability. He just wanted an investigation into his discharge because he believed he had been terminated unfairly. He testified: Doing – I guess, telling my side of the story to file whatever they wanted me to file. I didn't even know it was doing – about the disability or not. I didn't know they signed me up under that. The only thing I thought, they were going to investigate to see why I got terminated. * * * And from there, I guess that – that's it. I knew I had to come to court from there, so I was just really based on that. I knew I had to show up to court for – I wasn't looking for all of this to come down to this. The only thing – I just wanted to know why I got fired, because I – about my attendance or being absent, but I had excuses for them. On October 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief against Respondent claiming an unlawful employment practice, alleging that he was wrongfully fired because of a mishap, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings the same day.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 4th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner when it fired her in March 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Hampton Court is assisted living facility in Haines City, Florida. Its residents include elderly Medicaid recipients. Kenneth Wilder is the executive director of Hampton Court. Mr. Wilder is a white male. Mr. Wilder has approximately nine years of experience administering assisted living facilities, and at the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, he had been the executive director of Hampton Court for approximately a year and a half. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor was Dorothy Pelemon. Ms. Pelemon, like Petitioner, is an African-American female. Petitioner was hired by Hampton Court as a Resident Care Aide in early February 2004. Her primary job duties in that position were providing direct care to Hampton Court residents. Petitioner’s salary was $7.50 per hour, and she typically worked 40 hours per week. Several weeks after she was hired, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Resident Care Manager. In that position, Petitioner still provided direct care to Hampton Court residents, but she also had some supervisory duties. Petitioner only held the Resident Care Manager position for two or three weeks. On March 10, 2004, she was demoted back to the position of Resident Care Aide for improperly transcribing medications on patient charts and for improperly assisting a patient with his medications. On Saturday, March 20, 2004, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with another employee, Ivette Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez is a Puerto-Rican female. She was re- hired as a Resident Care Aide at Hampton Court in early March 2004, after having been fired approximately six months earlier for excessive tardiness and absenteeism. The altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez was the culmination of a series of disputes that the two had on March 20, 2004. According to Petitioner, the disputes started when Ms. Rodriguez got agitated with her when she took responsibility for the upstairs residents, who had fewer medications, and left Ms. Rodriguez with the downstairs residents, who had more medications. According to Petitioner, Ms. Rodriguez also got agitated with her later in the day for not taking a phone message. Petitioner also testified that she was agitated with Ms. Rodriguez for taking breaks and receiving numerous phone calls while “on the clock.” According to Petitioner, the altercation that led to her firing started when she observed Ms. Rodriguez writing in the “manager’s log” at the nursing station. Petitioner told Ms. Rodriguez that she was not allowed to write in the log and Ms. Rodriguez got upset. Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez exchanged words, and at one point during the altercation, Petitioner told Ms. Rodriguez that “you don’t know who you’re dealing with,” or words to that effect, and she expressly threatened to send Ms. Rodriguez to the hospital. Petitioner did not follow through on the threat, and there was no physical contact between her and Ms. Rodriguez at any point during the altercation. The altercation was entirely verbal and never went beyond Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez yelling at each other. The altercation was witnessed by other employees and by Hampton Court residents, and according to the “write-ups” given to Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez, the altercation “created a hostile living environment for [the residents].” Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez were separated for the remainder of the day, and there were no further incidents between the two. Neither Mr. Wilder, nor Ms. Pelemon was at the facility at the time of the altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez. Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon conducted an investigation into the altercation the following week. Based upon the investigation, they preliminarily decided that both Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez should be fired and “write-ups” were prepared to effectuate that discipline. The “write-up” for Petitioner contains the following account of the altercation: On March 20, 2004, [Petitioner] was involved in an altercation with co-worker Ivette Rodriguez. The altercation resulted when [Petitioner] took control of the upstairs med cart instead of the one she was supposed to take control of. [Petitioner] refused to cooperate and escalated the level of aggression in the fight making threats such as, “I’ll send to you Heart of Florida Hospital!” . . . . The “write-up” for Ms. Rodriguez contains the following account of the altercation: On March 20, 2004, [Ms. Rodriguez] was involved in an altercation with co-worker [Petitioner]. The shouting and fighting took place in public areas and was witnessed by co-workers and residents. [Ms. Rodriguez] also had her brother-in-law come to the community to get involved by confronting [Petitioner]. . . . . The source of the accounts of the altercation in the “write-ups” is not entirely clear and, as a result, the findings made above regarding the altercation are based on Petitioner’s testimony at the hearing rather than the accounts in the “write- ups”. (It is noted, however, that the “write-up” given to Petitioner and her testimony at the hearing both make reference to her express threat of physical violence towards Ms. Rodriguez.) Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon met with Ms. Rodriguez on March 24, 2004, to discuss the altercation. Ms. Rodriguez was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and to explain her actions. In doing so, Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged that her actions were wrong, she expressed remorse for her role in the altercation, and she promised that it would not happen again. Based upon the remorse expressed by Ms. Rodriguez, Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon agreed that Ms. Rodriguez should be suspended for one week rather than be fired. The “write-up” prepared in advance of the meeting was edited to change Ms. Rodriguez’s discipline from termination to “1 week suspension from 3/24/04 to 3/30/04.” Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon met with Petitioner the following day, March 25, 2004, to discuss the altercation. Like Ms. Rodriguez, Petitioner was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and to explain her actions, but unlike Ms. Rodriguez, Petitioner expressed no remorse for her actions and, according to Mr. Wilder, she was loud and acted aggressively during the meeting. Petitioner and Ms. Pelemon testified that Petitioner did not act aggressively during the meeting but, consistent with Mr. Wilder’s testimony, they acknowledged that Petitioner did speak in a loud voice at the meeting and that she never expressed any remorse for her involvement in the altercation with Ms. Rodriguez. Based upon the lack of remorse expressed by Petitioner regarding her role in the altercation, Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon agreed that the preliminary recommendation of termination should stand for Petitioner, and her employment with Hampton Court was terminated on March 25, 2004. Ms. Pelemon testified that she fully supported the decision to fire Petitioner for her role in the altercation with Ms. Rodriguez and, consistent with Mr. Wilder’s testimony, Ms. Pelemon testified that race played no part in Petitioner’s termination. Ms. Pelemon also testified that she fully supported the decision to suspend Ms. Rodriguez rather than fire her based upon the remorse that she expressed for her role in the altercation. Petitioner started working for Wal-Mart in May 2004, and she is still working there. She is paid $15.10 per hour and she typically works 36 hours per week. Ms. Rodriguez was fired by Hampton Court in August 2004 for poor work performance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s discrimination claim against Hampton Court. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth Wilder Heart of Florida Care Inc., d/b/a Hampton Court of Haines City 301 South 10th Street Haines City, Florida 33844 Laurie Ann Johnson 623 Avenue O, Northeast Winter Haven, Florida 33881
