The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.10 et. seq., Florida Statutes, as set forth in Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) on October 29, 2001, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner presented no evidence in support of his allegation that Respondent discriminated against him.
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 the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Seipp, Jr., Esquire Bonnie S. Crouch, Esquire Seipp, Flick and Kissane, P.A. 2450 Sun Trust International Center 1 Southeast 3rd Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Brian D. Albert, Esquire 2450 Northeast Miami Gardens Drive Miami, Florida 33180 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent discriminated unlawfully against the Petitioner by discharging him because of a handicap contrary to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the nature and extent of financial loss suffered by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Shannon M. Spence, was employed from March 1993 until May 1, 1993 by the Respondent. The Respondent is an employer as defined by Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, who earned on average $125/week, was employed by the Respondent as a bouncer and "bar backer", a person who assisted the bartender. On or about April 29, 1993, the Petitioner suffered an on the job injury which was duly reported to the employer and for which the Petitioner was treated at a local hospital pursuant to arrangements made by the employer. The Petitioner's injury was determined to be a right inguinal hernia, and the Petitioner was cautioned against lifting more than 25 pounds and standing for long periods of time. The Petitioner reported for work the following day, and communicated to his supervisor his inability to lift and to stand for long periods of time. His supervisor, Jess Wall or J.W., placed the Petitioner on security detail for the parking lot and entrance. There were additional light duties available for security personnel within the employer's business in which the employee could have been placed. The Petitioner's employment was terminated later that evening. The testimony is conflicting regarding whether the Petitioner was discharged because he was dating another employee, or because he was injured, or quit in sympathy with Jess Wall, who was also terminated on that evening. The most credible evidence is that the Petitioner was discharged because of his injury, but was told it was because he was dating another employee. The prohibition against dating was a new rule, it was applied against the Petitioner without any prior warning, the female employee was not discharged, and the Petitioner was the only person discharged for this activity although there were others who dated employees. The alternative theory that Petitioner quit in sympathy with the head bouncer, Mr. Wall, is specifically rejected for lack of credibility of the various witnesses. The Petitioner subsequently settled his workman's compensation claim arising from this injury with the Respondent for $15,000. No details were received regarding the allocation of moneys for medical and wages. The Petitioner is entitled to back wages from his discharge until the hearing on April 27, 1995, less any mitigation, including any portion of the settlement of his workman's compensation claim attributable to lost wages, occurring after surgical repair of the hernia when the Petitioner was reemployed. The Petitioner is entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission find that the Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against by the Respondent, and that the Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner his lost wages from May 1, 1993 until April 27, 1995 less any amounts the Petitioner earned during this period and any amounts included in the workman's compensation settlement specifically provided for wages; that the Commission retain jurisdiction for the award of damages and attorney's fees and costs; and the Commission remand the matter for a determination of the attorney's fees and costs and to permit the Respondent to present any evidence in mitigation of its damages. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 20th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of their findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 1 and 2. Paragraph 3-5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 3-5. Paragraph 6-8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 6-9. Paragraph 9 Subsumed in 3 and 11. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraph 4 Rejected because the date was April 29, 1993. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 4,5. Paragraph 6,7 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 8,9 Subsumed in Paragraphs 10,11. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Tarquin, Esquire Michael B. Staley, Esquire P.O. Box 906190 Ocala, FL 34478 John Daley, Esquire 201 E. Pine Street 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue Did Respondent engage in unlawful employment practices against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.10(1) and (7), Florida Statutes, in effect at the time of the alleged acts, contrary to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act)?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner as an "aggrieved person" filed a complaint with FCHR. § 760.02(10), Fla. Stat. (2005). Given the posture of this case, Respondent is an "employer" employing 15 or more employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks within the period contemplated by Petitioner's complaint. It is so inferred. § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. (2005) Petitioner's race as he describes it, and it is found, is Black. In October 2003 Petitioner began employment with Respondent in its Bureau of Laboratory Services, Jacksonville, Florida, as a Medical Laboratory Scientist III (Scientist III). His status was as a probationary employee. He remained in that status throughout his employment with Respondent. Before beginning employment with Respondent, Petitioner had earned a bachelor of science in microbiology in 1982 from the University of Alabama. In 1989 he earned a master's of science in microbiology from that same institution. In 1996 he was awarded a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Alabama. Upon achieving his master's degree, Petitioner served as a research assistant for the University of Alabama at Birmingham from September 1, 1989 through December 31, 1992. Part of that employment overlapped his employment as a graduate researcher from September 1, 1992 through May 29, 1996, at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. There was overlapping service at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa in the period of September 2, 1992 through April 29, 1996, when Petitioner had a position as a teaching assistant. Between September 5, 1996 and February 25, 2000, Petitioner worked as a research fellow for the National Institute of Health at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, where, as he indicated in an employment application, "Petitioner was responsible for developing new recombinant Interferon Gamma ligands and receptors for the treatment of viral disease and cancer (accomplished). Responsible for supervision [sic] (two) graduate students in molecular techniques." Following the work with the National Institute of Health, Petitioner took a position with ELISA Technologies, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, as a laboratory director for the period March 1, 2000 through February 5, 2003, in which his application for a job position indicated that Petitioner was: "Responsible for directing laboratory testing of customer samples and supervising a five-member staff. Responsible for developing, performing, and directing new test development for the CDC and WHO (accomplished). All other research and development projects (accomplished)." Petitioner next worked at Jacksonville University in Jacksonville, Florida, as a adjunct assistant professor from what is perceived the date of January 6, 2003 through his employment with Respondent in its Bureau of Laboratory Services. While serving as an adjunct assistant professor Petitioner in his job application recounts that he was: "Responsible for teaching nursing and biology majors microbiology courses. Responsible for teaching general-clinical laboratory techniques." In his role as Scientist III with Respondent, Petitioner was expected to meet the following expectations: Will learn DNA fingerprinting methods for salmonella and tuberculosis as well as 16S sequencing. Will learn techniques sufficiently to act as a back-up as needed. Timeframe: November - January Will oversee development of universal procedural manual for all testing in molecular section. Will produce master copy by end of February. Timeframe: November - February Will oversee the development and documentation of quality control, quality assurance and proficiency testing procedures in the molecular section. Will incorporate all into a single document by the end of March. Timeframe: November - March Will eventually be responsible for the ordering of all equipment and reagents for the molecular section. Duties to include monthly reconciliation reports. Timeframe: November - April Will represent the molecular section in the development of BOLIMS. Will become familiar with reporting and date management of all reports generated in the molecular section. Timeframe: November - Ongoing Will act as back-up for BT testing. Will learn all procedures once security clearance has been granted. Timeframe: January - Ongoing Will assist in implementation of VNTR-MIRU and PCR testing for malaria. Timeframe: January - Ongoing The months reflected in this statement of expectations began in November 2003 and extended into 2004. In his role as a Scientist III Petitioner had no supervisory duties. He was given projects to do. He was provided an appraisal task form in relation to his responsibilities. Petitioner also worked on a QA/QC manual (quality assurance and quality control). Initially Petitioner was supervised by Dennis Nolan. Mr. Nolan left his employment with Respondent to take another position. Dr. Dean Willis, who has a doctorate in public health, became Petitioner's supervisor with Mr. Nolan's departure. The interaction between Petitioner and other members of the laboratory at Jacksonville is reflected in the Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 4, 5, 6, 11, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 45. This series of e-mails are an indication of Petitioner's participation in the organization and inclusion in the efforts of that organization in carrying forward its duties. Petitioner during his employment in the Scientist III position worked on a malaria project. In addition he worked on a whooping cough test. Earlier in his employment Petitioner underwent a performance appraisal or review of his work. In February 2004 when Mr. Nolan resigned from the laboratory in Jacksonville, his position as BA II, an SES- classified position in the personnel system in Florida government, came open. In that month Respondent advertised to fill the position. In that solicitation Petitioner was the only applicant to replace Mr. Nolan. As a consequence the position was re- advertised. The initial advertisement for BA II position closed on February 16, 2004. The second advertisement for that position closed on March 15, 2004. The information concerning the position was the same in both instances. Dr. Willis as the responsible person at the Jacksonville laboratory, decided to re-advertise the position to try and attract additional applicants. The position was re-advertised and more candidates expressed an interest by applying for the position. Petitioner was among the applicants applying during the re- advertisement. Unlike the circumstance in the first advertisement, on this occasion there was the expectation that someone would be hired for the BA II position. Ultimately Dr. Ming S. Chan, Chief of Laboratory Services, also referred to as a Bureau Chief for Respondent at its Jacksonville office, condoned the re- advertisement. Dr. Chan holds a Ph.D. in chemistry. Among the candidates for the BA II position, four had their applications considered and were interviewed for the position. Petitioner was among the candidates whose applications were reviewed and who underwent an interview. The applications were considered and interviews conducted by Dr. Willis and by Susanne Crowe, another BA II at the Jacksonville laboratory. She holds a master's in health and an undergraduate degree in biology. Ms. Crowe was chosen to interview candidates for the available BA II position as a person who was in a similar position within the organization. The result of the process for ranking the candidates whose applications were considered and who underwent an interview for the job placement was that Dr. David Stuart Beall, a non- Hispanic white male, was selected to fill the BA II position as the top ranked candidate, with Petitioner placing second among the four finalist. The other two persons interviewed for the BA II were interviewed by phone. It is not perceived that any advantage was created for those persons interviewed by phone compared to the live interviews afforded Petitioner and Dr. Beall, given the ranking of the candidates. When Dr. Beall applied for the BA II position he was working for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and was housed in the offices of the Bureau of Laboratory Services in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Beall decided to apply for the BA II position without prompting from anyone employed by Respondent. He was not given any special training to allow him to gain the BA II position nor allowed any other form of preference that could be considered discriminatory when compared to the opportunities made available to Petitioner. The office that Dr. Beall was placed in before he became an employee with Respondent in the BA II position, was based upon space available and not in furtherance of a preference that aided Dr. Beall in gaining the BA II position. By comparison to Petitioner in the application process, the details within the Petitioner's application, which have already been described as to education and work history, the following information was provided by Dr. Beall in his application for the BA II position. He graduated from the University of Florida in 1986 with a bachelor of science in microbiology and cell science. He received a masters in microbiology and cell science from that institution in 1992. He earned a Ph.D. in microbiology and cell science in 1995 from the University of Florida. Dr. Beall served as a graduate assistant at the University of Florida from June 1, 1989, through August 1, 1995. During that time, as he indicated in his application he: Executed several lab projects including the study of ethanol fermentation by recombinant Escherichia coli expressing Zymomonas mobilis pdc and adhb genes for the conversion of xylose and other biomass carbohydrates to fuel ethanol. Also isolated and genetically engineered several novel strengths of Erwinia for the production of fuel ethanol from waste plant biomass. From November 1, 1996, through March 31, 1999, Dr. Beall worked as a post-doctorial research associate with the CDC. During that time as the application described he: Designed and executed experiments that resulted in the identification of several differentially expressed gene products that are associated with the induction of latency in Mycobacterium . Incorporated design improvements to the shift-down model for MTB growth. Part of this with TB lead to the issuance of a U.S. for an assay to detect antigens associated with latent tuberculosis infections. Attempted to identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis virulence factors using RNA subtractive hybridization. Trained new laboratory technicians how to work safely inside a BSL-3 containment facility. From April 5, 1999, through April 30, 2000, Dr. Beall worked as a guest researcher for the CDC, during which time he as the application described: Helped organize and contributed work to several lab projects including the development of novel assays for bacterial meningitis detection in clinical samples using TaqMan and Light Cycler technologies and the sequencing of the variable loop regions of the porA gene from several hundred clinical isolates of Neisseria meningitidis. From August 4, 2000, until March 12, 2004, Dr. Beall acted as a visiting professor of biology at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida, during which time as his application relates: My duties involve instruction of approximately three to four hundred students in lecture and laboratory sections per semester along with organizing and coordinating the presentation of each courseA, A's materials and tests. Additionally, I provide recommendations for students entering professional programs and mentor students for their senior presentations. Beyond my teaching responsibilities I help administer and the development of the Masters degree program as well as participate search committees to fill vacancies. This past summer semester I developed and instructed the Pathogenic Bacteriology course. The applications for the BA II position executed by Petitioner and Dr. Beall had a section which called upon the applicants to set forth in their own words the knowledge/skills/abilities that they believed they would bring to the position. In that context Petitioner said about himself: Knowledge and skills needed to isolation [sic] and identification [sic] (biochemical and Molecular procedures) pathogenic and medically important bacteria and some viruses. Knowledge and skills needed to identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (biochemical and Molecular procedures). Experience in supervising testing staff and directing basic and applied research projects. Working and written knowledge of CLIA, CAP, GMP, and ISO 2000 requirements for QA/QC. Ability to generate, analyze, present and publish (independently and collaboratively) data in referred scientific Journals. Ability to implement, direct, and complete simple and complex projects. In contrast, Dr. Beall related his knowledge/skills/ abilities as being: My formal training has afforded me a wide range of technical skills. My graduate school projects focused on the genetic engineering and development of novel, environmental benign methods of producing fuel ethanol from waste plant material. These studies relied heavily on knowledge of molecular biology, bacterial genetics, and cellular physiology. My postdoctoral training as an ASM/NCID fellow at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta provided me invaluable experience in fields of Public Health and bacterial pathogenesis. This work involved the development of model growth systems and nucleic acid based assays for detecting pathogenic bacteria such as N. meningitides, H. influenzae, and M. tuberculosis. There I adapted traditional assays for use with the latest generation PCR machines TaqmanA, A and Light CyclerA, A. I have also trained and supervised numerous laboratory personnel in the techniques of molecular biology and advanced laboratory safety practices. I managed and supervised the projects of a variety of associates including visiting researchers, lab technicians, and student interns. The occupation profile related to the BA II position, for which the candidates contended, indicated in the way of Examples of Work: Plans laboratory services according to statewide program needs. Consults with county health officers and staff regarding laboratory procedures and program planning related to laboratory testing. Coordinates state and federal laboratory services in outbreaks or situations when testing by specialized laboratory units is required. Consult to physicians and private hospital laboratories. Plans and participates in special research projects. Performs comparative evaluation of new and existing laboratory procedures. Prepares reports and provides information to the director, assistant director and program office. Further, the occupation profile set out examples of job characteristics when it stated: Provide Consultation and Providing consultation and expert Advice to Others advice to management or other groups on technical, systems- related, or process related topics. Communicating With Providing information to Other Workers fellow workers, and subordinates. This information can be exchanged face-to-face, in writing, or via telephone/electronic transfer. Documenting/Recording Entering, transcribing, recording, Information storing, or maintaining information in either written form or by electronic/magnetic recording. Getting Information Needed Observing, receiving, and otherwise To Do The Job obtaining information from all relevant sources. Developing and Encouraging and building mutual Building Teams trust, respect, and cooperation among team members. Analyzing Data Identifying underlying principles, or Information reasons, or facts by breaking down information or data into separate parts. Updating and Using Keeping up-to-date and knowing Job-Relevant Knowledge one's own jobs' and related jobs' and related jobs' functions. Communicating With Persons Communicating with persons outside Outside Organization the organization, representing the organization to customers, the public, government, and other external sources. This information can be exchanged face-to-face, in writing, or via telephone/electronic transfer. Establishing and Developing constructive and Maintaining Relationships cooperative working relationships with others. Developing Objectives Establishing long range objectives and Strategies and specifying the strategies and actions to achieve these objectives. Within BA II position examples of knowledge, skills, and abilities were to the following effect: Coordination Adjusting actions in relation to others' actions Reading Comprehension Understanding written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents Critical Thinking Using logic and analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches Speaking Talking to others to effectively convey information Judgment and Decision Weighing the relative costs and Making benefits of a potential action Time Management Managing one's own time and the time of others Implementation Planning Developing approaches for implementing an idea Management of Personnel Motivating, developing, and directing Resources people as they work, identifying the best people for the job Identification of Identifying the things that must be Key Causes changed to achieve a goal Visioning Developing an image of how a system Should work under ideal conditions Administration Knowledge of principles and processes and Management involved in business and organizational planning, coordination, and execution. This may include strategic planning, resource allocation, manpower modeling, leadership techniques, and production methods. English Language Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar Mathematics Knowledge of numbers, their operations, and interrelations including one or more of the following: arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, statistics, and their applications Chemistry Knowledge of the composition, structure, and properties of sub- stances and of the chemical processes and transformations that they undergo. This includes uses of chemicals and their inter- actions, danger signs, production techniques, and disposal methods Economics and Accounting Knowledge of economic and accounting principles and practices, the financial markets, banking, and the analysis and reporting of financial data Law, Government Knowledge of laws, legal codes, court and Jurisprudence procedures, precedents, government regulations, executive orders, agency rules, and the democratic political process The job description for BA II stated that the employee "must be licensed or eligible for a clinical/public health laboratory license at the supervisor level." Petitioner held a clinical laboratory technician's license issued by the State of Florida, Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance. He did not, and neither did Dr. Beall, hold a license as a clinical/public health laboratory licensee at the supervisory level. Both Petitioner and Dr. Beall met the education requirements for BA II that called upon the candidate to have a masters or equivalent work experience. Both candidates had Ph.D.s. The candidates for the BA II position were scored in relation to their applications through a matrix. Within the matrix was the consideration of education, experience, to include years of experience, supervisory experience, and management experience. There was a potential score for veterans' preference. Neither candidate, Petitioner nor Dr. Beall was entitled to veterans' points. There was a score for licensure in a supervisors or directors capacity, as to eligibility as well as licensure. There was a score for writing ability and a score for public health lab experience. The matrix scores for Dr. Beall and Petitioner respectively are found within Respondent's Exhibits numbered 5 and 6 admitted as evidence. In the last analysis, Dr. Beall received a 68 on his application. Petitioner received a 61. The differences in the scores pertain to a two point difference for ability to communicate in writing, in which Dr. Beall received a score of 8 out of 10 and Petitioner received a score of 6 out of 10 possible points. Dr. Beall received 10 points maximum for having worked at least three years in a public health lab, where as Petitioner did not receive points in that category. Apparently the basis for assigning the points for public health lab experience was in relation to Dr. Beall's experience with the CDC referred to in his application. Petitioner scored 15 points for work experience and Dr. Beall received 10 points. Petitioner and Dr. Beall were interviewed by Dr. Willis and Ms. Crowe, with each interviewer assigning scores for the interview to the respective candidates. Dr. Willis assigned Dr. Beall a score of 73.5 and Petitioner a score of 65 for the interview. Ms. Crowe assigned Dr. Beall a score of 72 and Petitioner a score of 64 for the interview. The scores in relation to the interviews were averaged. That average was added to the score received for the application review, the result being that Dr. Beall received an overall score of 138.25 and Petitioner a score of 125.50 when finally concluded. In fact, the chart reflecting these scores and averages is such that the actual score for Dr. Beall by that process could have been somewhat higher than is reflected in the chart. The chart is Respondent's Exhibit numbered 7 admitted as evidence. Ms. Crowe in her testimony established that Petitioner was disorganized during his interview session to obtain the BA II job. The ranking of the candidates for the BA II position was first assigned on April 13, 2004. Petitioner was not satisfied with the outcome in which he was not offered the job. He refers to an April 14, 2004 discussion pertaining to the interview score he received aside from the assignment of points during the application evaluation. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 14 admitted as evidence is constituted of an e-mail sent from Petitioner to Dr. Willis, the subject being the April 14, 2004 discussion of the interview score. It also refers to a meeting on the morning May 4, 2004, between Petitioner and Dr. Willis on the decision that had been reached to hire Dr. Beall. The emphasis in this communication related to Petitioner's background and his complaints about the score received in the interview. At the end of this communication Petitioner described how he stood on professional principle and was seeking reciprocation of those principles in what he refers to as "this grievance process and in the future." In the e-mail to Dr. Willis Petitioner referred to, "elimination of a candidate based on race is especially frightening when the minority candidate is more qualified than the individual offered the position." The e-mail was sent from Petitioner to Dr. Willis on May 18, 2004, as amended on that same date by a separate E-mail. On May 24, 2004, Dr. Willis acknowledged receipt of the E-mail. The effect of Petitioner's complaints about the scoring directed to Dr. Willis led to further review by Dr. Willis. The outcome was that 5 points Dr. Beall received for management experience in relation to his application were deducted, while 15 points were added for eligibility for licensure as a director. This adjustment is reflected in the scoring matrix previously described. Petitioner was not assigned any points for management experience and received the same 15 points for eligibility to be licensed as laboratory director that were assigned to Dr. Beall in his application. This outcome is also reflected in the scoring matrix previously described. The decision to hire Dr. Beall for the BA II position was not based upon race or a decision contrary to Petitioner's race. Sometime in the latter part of May 2004, Dr. Beall assumed the BA II position and became Petitioner's supervisor by virtue of being hired in the position. At about the same time Petitioner made an internal complaint, a complaint within the Respondent Agency claiming discrimination on the basis of race, pertaining to the manner in which Dr. Beall was selected for the BA II position to the exclusion of Petitioner. The internal complaint which Petitioner filed was with Respondent's EEOC Office. Petitioner was not satisfied with the internal process for resolving his complaint of discrimination through the Respondent and decided to file a complaint with FCHR, which forms the basis for the present case. After Dr. Beall became Petitioner's supervisor he reviewed Petitioner's work. He observed that Petitioner was aloof, difficult, recalcitrant, obstructive, and had a questionable demeanor. He found Petitioner's work to be unorganized. He met several times with Petitioner to address the question of organization. Responses required from Petitioner to Dr. Beall were not prompt or clear when made. There was a problem about failure to contact Dr. Beall as supervisor when Petitioner decided to take leave. Petitioner claimed to have been at work when he was not at work, as Dr. Beall perceived the situation. Dr. Willis, who supervised Dr. Beall at that time, was aware of Dr. Beall's concerns about Petitioner's performance, in particular, his lack of cooperation and the inability to find Petitioner at the office, in that Petitioner would leave the premises without advising Dr. Beall. By comparison, during the time that Dr. Willis supervised Petitioner there was a situation concerning a county health department and tests for rabies. Petitioner became involved and gave a response to the inquiry by the county health agency that Dr. Willis considered to be inaccurate or misleading. This lead to a situation in which the person within the Bureau of Laboratory Services who properly should have responded to the county agency inquiry, being addressed by Petitioner in a manner that Dr. Willis found troubling, as to Petitioner's ability to work with other persons within Respondent agency. Eventually Dr. Beall recommended that Petitioner be dismissed from his position before completing his probationary period. The reason for this recommendation related to Petitioner's demeanor, to include his willingness to cooperate while undergoing the review of his work. There were issues with reports rendered by Petitioner, considered to be lacking in professionalism, problems with attendance and leave and a lack of progress in the list of expectations that have been referred to earlier. Dr. Willis concurred with the recommendation that Petitioner be dismissed. Linda Boutwell, who was personnel officer within the Bureau of Laboratory Services in Jacksonville, was also consulted concerning the dismissal. Concerning the disposition of Petitioner's employment, Caroll David Fulgher was consulted as an employee of Respondent's Office of Human Resources in Tallahassee. It was explained to Mr. Fulgher that Petitioner tended to ignore his supervisor Dr. Beall and to do what Petitioner preferred, contrary to the wishes of his supervisor. It was explained to Mr. Fulgher that the quality of Petitioner's work was not satisfactory and that difficulties were experienced in relation to Petitioner's attendance and leave. Following discussion with Mr. Fulgher, it was suggested that the matter be considered by the Bureau Chief, Dr. Chan. Mr. Fulgher prepared a letter dismissing Petitioner from his employment. This letter was dated October 13, 2004. It was signed by Dr. Chan indicating his agreement with the choice to dismiss Petitioner. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 10 is a copy of that letter. It was presented to Petitioner, thus terminating his employment with Respondent. The supervision of Petitioner, to include supervision by Dr. Beall, evidenced no discriminatory intent based upon race, nor was the choice to dismiss Petitioner one motivated by any desire to retaliate against Petitioner for his complaint concerning the decision to hire Dr. Beall in preference to Petitioner for the BA II position.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's claims of discrimination and retaliation based upon race. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 10, 1989, Petitioner, Mark Cleveland, a male, applied through Job Service of Florida, for employment as a telemarketer with Respondent, Sears Roebuck and Company at the Sears store located in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner had several years of sales experience with at least six months of experience in telemarketing. He also had a good speaking voice as evidenced by the fact that he is currently employed as a disc jockey at a local radio station. Clearly, Respondent was qualified for the telemarketing position. The telemarketer position would enable Petitioner to earn approximately $85.00 a week or $365.50 a month. The telemarketing section at the Pensacola Sears store consisted of virtually all women with perhaps three or four rare male telemarketers. Petitioner had two separate interviews with two different Sears employees responsible for filling the telemarketing positions. During the Petitioner's interviews with the two Sears employees, Petitioner was repeatedly questioned on whether he could work with all women or mostly all women and be supervised by women. Petitioner assured his interviewers that he could since he grew up with six sisters and in general liked working with women. Petitioner left the interview with the information that he would be hired after another supervisor reviewed the applications and that he would be called once the supervisor's review was complete. After several days, Petitioner, being excited about what he thought was going to be his new job, called one of the two women who interviewed him. He was informed that the telemarketing positions had been filled. Later that same day Petitioner discovered that the positions had, in fact, not been filled and that he had been told an untruth. The telemarketing positions were eventually filled by women. Petitioner remained out of work for approximately four months before he was hired as a telemarketer by the Pensacola News Journal. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on August 27, 1991, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent did not respond to the Notice. On October 10, 1991, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 11:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent's address and acknowledgment of this litigation was confirmed when Respondent filed its answer to the Petition for Relief with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Even though Respondent received adequate notice of the hearing in this matter, the Respondent did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Petitioner was present at the hearing. The Respondent did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that it would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Respondent to appear, the hearing was commenced. As a consequence of Respondent's failure to appear, no evidence rebutting Petitioner's facts were introduced into evidence at the hearing and specifically no evidence of a nondiscriminatory purpose was introduced at the hearing. 1/ Petitioner has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on his sex, given the fact that Sears tried to mislead him into believing the telemarketing positions had been filled when they had not, the positions were all eventually filled by women and Sears' clear concern over Petitioner's ability to work with women. Such facts lead to the reasonable inference that Sears was engaging in an unlawful employment practice based on Respondent being a male, a protected class, in order to preserve a female work force in telemarketing. Such discrimination based on sex is prohibited under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and Petitioner is entitled to relief from that discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Petitioner was the subject of an illegal employment practice and awarding Petitioner $1,462.00 in backpay plus reasonable costs of $100.95 and an attorney's fee of $2,550.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of April, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner Employee.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 17, 2006, Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination (formerly known as a "Charge of Discrimination") on the basis of disability/handicap and national origin with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. On June 15, 2007, the Commission entered a Determination: No Cause. On or about July 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission. On or about July 5, 2007, this case was referred by the Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On July 18, 2007, a telephonic conference was held to schedule a final disputed-fact hearing date. The hearing date agreed upon was October 1, 2007, and a Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued on July 18, 2007. Neither party complied with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. At the time noticed for October 1, 2007, Respondent appeared for hearing. In the Joint Response to Initial Order, filed July 16, 2007, and in a subsequent Motion filed September 26, 2007, Respondent referred to itself as "Wal-Mart Stores, East L.P. (incorrectly referred-to in the caption as Wal-Mart Stores)," but made no motion to correct the style of this cause. Respondent acknowledged in its pleadings, and its counsel acknowledged orally at hearing, that it was the appropriate Respondent in this cause, regardless of the case's style. After waiting 30 minutes, Petitioner still had not appeared for hearing. The undersigned made diligent inquiry to ensure that Respondent had done nothing to discourage Petitioner from appearing, and closed the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Complaint of Discrimination and a Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___ ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Harrison, Esquire Lindsay A. Connor, Esquire Ford & Harrison 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Catrina Soriano 1826 Nekoma Court Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether the Petitioner demonstrated that she was terminated from employment by Respondent as the result of an unlawful employment practice based on her race, or as retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a provider of health-care services that receives funding from the West Volusia Hospital Authority (WVHA). Respondent operates health clinics in Pierson, DeLand, and Deltona, Florida. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Certified Medical Assistant on September 25, 2009. After a period of time in Respondent’s Pierson office, Petitioner was transferred to Respondent’s DeLand office. Petitioner’s duties included those as a referral clerk. In that capacity, Petitioner arranged, scheduled, and coordinated referrals from Respondent’s medical providers to outside physicians and laboratories. Petitioner also performed blood-draws, Pap smears, and related services. Petitioner was frequently behind in her referrals. Petitioner sought assistance with her referrals. Taken in the light most favorable to Petitioner, an employee of Respondent with some apparent supervisory authority denied her requests, and advised other employees that they were not to assist Petitioner in catching up. In October 2010, Petitioner was assigned to Respondent’s newly created Emergency Room Diversion (ERD) program. That assignment caused a change in Petitioner’s shift from the 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift, to the 12:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. shift. She was returned to her normal day shift in mid-November. The disruption in her standard shift caused Petitioner to fall further behind in her referrals. To minimize the problem, nurses began to make referrals for their doctors when they had the time. On November 19, 2010, Petitioner called Juanita McNeil, an elected commissioner of the WVHA, to discuss what Petitioner perceived to be sub-standard patient care that, in some cases, related to referrals that were not being timely completed, and for which Petitioner was receiving no assistance. Petitioner asked Ms. McNeil to keep their conversation confidential because she feared that she would be terminated for going outside of the chain of command. Later in the day on November 19, 2010, Petitioner was presented with a separation notice by which she was terminated from employment. The separation notice listed four reasons for her termination. The reasons were “employee not doing job in a timely manner, being rude with patients, being rude with other employees, [and] insubordination (calling the WVHA) instead of talking with appropriate supervisors.” During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that “100% of the reason that I was fired is because of me calling the WVHA.” Upon follow up inquiry, Petitioner reiterated that she was terminated for insubordination in bypassing her supervisors to contact a WVHA commissioner, and that reason formed the basis for her complaint that she had been the subject of discrimination or retaliation. Petitioner knew of no other employee that ever communicated directly with a WVHA commissioner, or that ever escaped disciplinary sanctions for having done so. Thus, there was no comparator upon which to measure whether Petitioner was treated differently under like circumstances as a result of her race. Petitioner’s admission of the basis for her termination is dispositive of this case. Being terminated for insubordination, in the absence of evidence that persons outside of her protected class were treated differently, is not related to Petitioner’s race. Petitioner’s admission demonstrates that her claim is not founded on an unlawful employment practice based on her race, or retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice. Based on Petitioner’s admission, the undersigned concluded that there was no legal basis upon which relief could be ordered under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Thus, the final hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 10th day of October, 2012.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Stephanie Walker, timely filed a Petition for Relief regarding her charge of discrimination against the Respondent, Bennett Auto Supply, Inc.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Stephanie Walker, applied for and received employment with the Respondent, Bennett Auto Supply, Inc. The Petitioner's initial employment with the company ended on March 8, 2001, as she resigned her job on or about February 26, 2001. Thereafter, the Petitioner returned to employment with the Respondent. Again, the Petitioner resigned her job and left employment on April 27, 2002. The exact reasons the Petitioner began employment, left employment, returned to employment, and again left employment with the Respondent are immaterial to the findings dispositive of this case. Suffice it to say the Petitioner ultimately filed a claim of discrimination with the FCHR against the Respondent. The Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination naming the Respondent was dated March 21, 2003, and noted April 27, 2002, as the date the most recent discrimination had taken place. Based upon its investigation of the allegations, the FCHR issued a Determination: No Cause on September 23, 2003. The Determination: No Cause provided, in pertinent part, ". . . it is my determination that there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred." The Notice of Determination: No Cause, provided: Complainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE. A Petition for Relief form is enclosed with Complainant's notice. It may be beneficial for Complainant to seek legal counsel prior to filing the petition. If the Complainant fails to request an administrative hearing with [sic] 35 days of the date of this notice, the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992). The Petition for Relief was filed approximately 159 days after the FCHR issued its determination in this case.
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 the Petitioner's Petition for Relief as it was not timely filed and is, therefore, barred as a matter of law. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Aplachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Giardino, Esquire Davis & Giardino, P.A. 201 Arkona Court West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Stephanie Walker 1808 Northwest 52nd Avenue Lauderhill, Florida 33313
Findings Of Fact Gerald A. Tobey holds a clinical laboratory technologist license in the specialities of microbiology, chemistry, and hematology. He has been so certified since 1976. In 1985, Tobey allowed his license to become delinquent, but it was reinstated at his request. In July, 1987, Tobey requested certification to add the specialty of immunohematology to his license. The application he filed asked in Question 9 if he had ever been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude. Tobey left the question blank. HRS wrote to him requesting an answer. Tobey responded by letter dated September 23, 1987, indicating that the answer was "No." In fact, Tobey pleaded guilty and was adjudicated guilty on February 4, 1985, of the offense of causing a minor to participate in harmful or obscene motion picture exhibitions, shows or presentations, a felony. In exchange for the guilty plea, one count of sexual battery on a minor, his daughter, was nolle prossed. The crime is undeniably a crime involving moral turpitude. Tobey was sentenced to 36 months in a facility operated by the Department of Corrections.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order revoking the clinical laboratory technologist license of Gerald A. Tobey. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Royston, Esquire HRS District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Gerald A. Tobey 364 Blue Parrot Lady Lake, Florida 32659 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in this case was issued on January 12, 2011, setting the hearing for March 30 and 31, 2011, in Tavares, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011. Also on January 12, 2011, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On March 23, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings stating that she would be unable to attend the hearing on March 30, 2011, for unexplained medical reasons. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. On March 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a second letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings that declined to request a continuance of the hearing and proposed that the hearing proceed based on hearsay documents that Petitioner had previously filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. At 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:15 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered his appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. As noted above, Respondent had received no notice that Petitioner did not intend to appear at the hearing or that continuance was under consideration. Respondent's counsel had flown to Florida from Tennessee to appear at the hearing. One of Respondent's witnesses was a former employee whom Respondent had flown to Florida from Wisconsin at Respondent's expense. Respondent vigorously opposed any continuance of the scheduled proceeding. The undersigned declined on the record to continue the hearing. The hearing was then adjourned.
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 the Petition for Relief in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2011, 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 4th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Leebron Grand Court Tavares 111 Westwood Place, Suite 200 Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Ann L. Brunette Post Office Box 304 Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed with the Respondent from August 3, 1985 until May 10, 1986, as a waitress in the dining room of the Kings Inn Restaurant in Pensacola, Florida. In March, 1987, the Petitioner became pregnant. She then informed her employer, Mr. Judge of her pregnancy. He told her initially that she could work as long as the doctor allowed her to. Shortly thereafter, he told her that she could not work after five months of pregnancy. On another occasion, his assistant manager, Mr. Dungan, told her that she could not work after she "started showing." Once the Respondent, Mr. Judge, learned of the Petitioner's pregnancy, he began a regime of harassing treatment. For instance, Mr. Judge made her do the "side work," filling up all the salt and pepper shakers and sugar bowls for all of the waitresses and waitress stations. It had always been uniform policy that each waitress had the responsibility to do her own side work for her own station and tables. Mr. Judge also began yelling and cursing at her in front of her workers and customers, causing her great humiliation and embarrassment. He criticized her publicly about her posture and the way she serviced customers, although she had always had an excellent record as a competent waitress and had no complaints from customers or former employers, before announcing that she was pregnant. Mr. Judge also began a practice of constantly questioning other employees about the Petitioner's job performance, although he apparently learned of no substandard performance in both her duties and her attitude toward her customers. He also took her to task about her "charge tips" being less than other employees, apparently the measure he used to determine if a waitress was serving her customers appropriately and adequately. This situation, however, was caused by his discriminatory conduct toward her in giving her fewer tables to serve and thus, reducing her tip income. Mr. Judge additionally assigned her to clean up a portion of the kitchen area, particularly the "bread shelves" when normal policy had been for kitchen personnel to perform all kitchen clean-up duties, with any clean up of the bread shelf area being rotated amongst the dining room personnel. The Petitioner, however, was singled out for this duty exclusively after it became known that she was pregnant. The Petitioner was also required to stay late and perform certain closing duties at the end of business late at night, much more often than other waitresses. In addition to performing restaurant closing duties, she was frequently required to wait on cocktail tables as late as 2:00 in the morning on many of the "late duty" occasions, even though she was hired as, and until she became pregnant worked exclusively as, food waitress. Petitioner's testimony and Petitioner's exhibit 2, in evidence, establishes that, although Petitioner was only scheduled to stay late three times in March, three times in April and once in May that, in fact, she worked late, that is, after all other employees or waitresses had been released for the evening seven out of nine days that she worked in March; nine out of twelve days she worked in April; and six out of the seven days she worked in May. Indeed, on May 10, 1986, the last day she worked for the Respondent, Mr. Judge required her to stay late and to "bus" all the tables, that is clean all the tables, in the dining room, allowing the waitress who was scheduled to stay late that night to leave early. The Petitioner became quite upset at this turn of events and resigned her position, due to the repeated pattern of harassment as described herein. Although Mr. Judge initially told the Petitioner that she could work as long as the doctor allowed her to during her pregnancy, in fact, on April 11, 1986, Mr. Judge hired the Petitioner's replacement. He hired Pamela Modes and had the Petitioner train her in her waitress duties. He stated to Ms. Modes privately when hiring her "that he needed a food waitress" because "he's got a girl that's pregnant." Additionally, he told the Petitioner that he objected to her working because of her pregnancy and claimed his insurance would not allow him to employ her after she was five months pregnant. These statements, coupled with the statement by his assistant manager, Mr. Dungan, to the effect that she would not be employed there "once she started showing" reveal an intent by the employer to terminate the employee, the Petitioner, because of her pregnancy. Instead of terminating her outright, the Respondent chose to put sufficient pressure on the Petitioner through extra, unscheduled work duties and the other above-mentioned forms of harassment, so as to coerce her into leaving the Respondent's employ. The Petitioner thus made a prima facia showing that she was forced to terminate employment due to her sex and her pregnancy, and no countervailing evidence was adduced by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida Human Relations Commission finding that an unlawful employment practice has occurred through the Respondent's discrimination against the Petitioner because of her sex (pregnancy) and that she be accorded all relief allowed under the above- cited section, including backpay and related benefits in accordance with the requirements of Section 760.10(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 21st of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra A. Larson, Pro Se 9742 Aileron Avenue, Apt. 606 Pensacola, Florida 32506 Dracut Corporation d/b/a Kings Inn Restaurant Lawrence F. Judge, Jr. Owner/General Manager 1309 Maldonado Pensacola Beach, Florida 32561-2323 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
