The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race, subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment, or retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 4(1)(a)(1).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 16. Petitioner is an African-American female and filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Respondent engaged in race, color, and gender discrimination; retaliation; and the creation of a hostile work environment. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 16. Respondent operates a car dealership and is in the business of selling and servicing new and used automobiles and trucks in several states, including Florida. Respondent was not Petitioner's employer. Petitioner was a temporary worker during the relevant period, and her employment contract was with an employment agency. No written employment contract existed between the parties to this proceeding. The employment agency paid Petitioner, and Respondent paid the employment agency. The employment agency assigned Petitioner to Respondent from January 13 through January 23, 2004. Other than Petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony, there is no written or other evidence that Respondent intended Petitioner’s temporary assignment either to become a permanent position or to last for six weeks. The fact-finder finds the testimony of Petitioner to be less than credible and persuasive. From January 13 until January 21, 2004, Petitioner worked at Respondent's Tampa office at Lexus of Tampa Bay located on North Dale Mabry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent transferred Petitioner to its office at Lexus of Clearwater, Florida, on January 21, 2004, and terminated the assignment from the employment agency on January 23, 2004. The termination of assignment occurred in Pinellas County, rather than Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioner began her assignment at Lexus of Tampa Bay on January 13, 2004, as a receptionist. Respondent paired Petitioner with Ms. Mary Ann Browne, a full-time receptionist and Caucasian female. Respondent charged Ms. Browne with training Petitioner in the responsibilities of a receptionist. Petitioner alleges that Ms. Browne engaged in unprofessional conduct during the 10 days she trained Petitioner. The unprofessional conduct, according to Petitioner's testimony included "racial undertones." For example, Ms. Browne asked Petitioner why, "Black people are all family, cousins, sisters, brothers." Petitioner responded, "Don't ask me. I wouldn't be that black." Ms. Browne allegedly stated aloud that two female employees who hugged in greeting each other were lesbians. Ms. Browne allegedly called another African-American employee a "pimp" and referred to an Hispanic employee as a "macdaddy." The fact-finder does not know the meaning of the term "macdaddy," or even how to spell the term, and the record does not provide an adequate definition or spelling. Ms. Browne allegedly referred to homosexual customers as "flamers." Finally, Ms. Browne allegedly engaged in threatening physical behavior by tossing items at Petitioner across the reception desk. No one but Petitioner heard the alleged racial and sexist comments by Ms. Browne or witnessed the physically aggressive behavior. The preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing of discrimination or retaliation. Nor does the preponderance of evidence show that Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment. Finally, a preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice. The evidence of Ms. Browne's conduct consists of Petitioner's testimony and a diary that Petitioner created contemporaneously with the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. No other employees at Lexus of Tampa Bay witnessed the events evidenced in Petitioner's testimony and diary. Ms. Browne left her employment with Respondent in the fall of 2004 and did not testify. Ms. Toni Davis, now Ms. Toni Scotland, was a receptionist during part of the relevant time but was not present during the entire time because she was being promoted to a position in accounting. Ms. Scotland did not recall any improper behavior by Ms. Browne in 2004. The Investigative Report based its recommendation of a finding of cause on statements attributed in the Report to then Ms. Davis and the documentation of the disciplinary action taken by Respondent against Ms. Browne. However, Ms. Scotland testified that she did not recall being contacted by an investigator for the Board and denied making any statements to the investigator. The investigation took approximately 3.5 years to complete because the investigator is the only investigator for the Board and because the investigator suffered a heart attack during the investigation. At the hearing, the testimony of the investigator concerning statements he attributed to Ms. Scotland, also Ms. Davis, was vague and sparse and is less than credible and persuasive. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent is responsible for the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. Petitioner complained to her employment agency about the conduct of Ms. Browne. The employment agency notified Respondent, and Ms. Helene Ott, the supervisor at the time, interviewed both Petitioner and Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004. The only complaint made by Petitioner to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, was that Ms. Browne went to the break room to bring back a drink in separate disposable drink cups for Ms. Browne and Petitioner. Upon returning with the drinks, Ms. Browne told Petitioner that Ms. Browne had spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner did not tell Ms. Ott that Petitioner witnessed Ms. Browne spit in the cup. Petitioner's version of events changed at the hearing. Petitioner testified that she saw Ms. Browne spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner testified that Ms. Browne offered to refill the cup Petitioner already had on the receptionist desk, grabbed the cup, stood, drew up a large volume of spit from deep in Ms. Browne's throat, and let the long volume of liquid drop into Petitioner's cup in full view of Petitioner. Petitioner further testified in tears that she stated repeatedly to Ms. Browne, "Give me back my cup!" The foregoing testimony of Petitioner is less than credible and persuasive. The fact-finder is not persuaded that any reasonable person would have wanted Ms. Browne to return the cup. The cup was a disposable cup from the vending area which was of no value to Petitioner. Petitioner did not relate this version of the events to Ms. Ott when Ms. Ott investigated Petitioner's complaints on January 19, 2004. The version of events that Petitioner related to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, is consistent with the contemporaneous account by Mr. Browne. When Ms. Ott interviewed Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004, Ms. Browne admitted that she told Petitioner she had spit in Petitioner's cup when Ms. Browne returned from the vending area to the reception desk with Petitioner's drink. Ms. Browne also admitted to engaging in offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent created or fostered a work environment that was hostile toward Petitioner. On January 19, 2004, Ms. Ott issued a written counseling/final warning to Ms. Browne for her use of “offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct.” The disciplinary action advised Ms. Browne that any further misconduct would result in the termination of her employment. On January 20, 2004, Ms. Ott interviewed Petitioner again concerning additional complaints from the employment agency. Petitioner told Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne used vulgar and unprofessional language, but Petitioner did not state to Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne made racial or sexist comments. On January 21, 2004, Ms. Ott needed to fill another temporary vacancy at Lexus of Clearwater. Ms. Ott asked Petitioner to go to Clearwater, and Petitioner went to the Clearwater office voluntarily. Respondent ended the employment agency assignment on January 23, 2004. Ms. Ott described Petitioner’s performance as “very good." On January 23, 2004, Ms. Ott offered to write a letter of reference for Petitioner. Ms. Ott told Petitioner that Ms. Ott would consider Petitioner for a position at Lexus of Tampa Bay or Lexus of Clearwater if the need arose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order issued in this proceeding should find that Respondent is not guilty of the allegations made by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 7th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie P. Stokes 4714 Pleasant Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Gail P. Williams Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Andrew Froman, Esquire Alva L. Cross, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether the Petitioner timely filed her Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("Commission").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Commission is the state agency charged with investigating and acting upon complaints filed under Florida's Civil Rights Act, Sections 760.01-760.11, Florida Statutes (2006).1 § 760.06, Fla. Stat. On August 14, 2006, the Commission issued a Right to Sue notice, in which it informed Ms. Williams, among other things, that the FCHR hereby issues this Right to Sue. Since it has been more than 180 days since your complaint was filed, and since no determination was made within 180 days, you are entitled to pursue the case as if the FCHR issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause. . . . (Citation omitted). You may pursue this case in the Division of Administrative Hearings by filing a Petition for Relief with the FCHR within 35 days from the date of this Right to Sue letter, or you may file a lawsuit in a circuit court of the State of Florida anytime within one year from the date of this Right to Sue letter, provided such time period is not more than four years from the date the alleged violation occurred. Pursuant to the terms of this notice, Ms. Williams was required to file her Petition for Relief with the FCHR no later than 35 days from the date of the August 14, 2006, notice, that is, no later than September 18, 2006. Ms. Williams completed and signed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice on September 14, 2006. A receipt from the USPS establishes that, on September 17, 2006, the USPS accepted a letter from Ms. Williams addressed to the Commission; that the letter was sent via express mail; that neither next-day nor second-day delivery was selected; that a third option for delivery, "Add Del Day," was selected. The scheduled date of delivery stated on the receipt was September 20, 2006. Ms. Williams's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice was received by the Commission on September 19, 2006. The USPS tracking website shows that the letter assigned number EQ 628681913 US was delivered on September 19, 2006.
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 from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed by Teesha Williams. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 21st day of November, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner timely filed a complaint of discrimination in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2010).
Findings Of Fact At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the facts numbered 1-4, as follows: Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent on March 13, 2009. Petitioner's deadline for filing his complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) was March 14, 2010. Petitioner emailed a Technical Assistance Questionnaire to the FCHR on February 18, 2010. Petitioner signed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination and dated it March 24, 2010. In addition to the stipulated facts, the undersigned noted that the Complaint is stamped received by the FCHR at 10:48 a.m. on March 25, 2010.
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 claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lacey Hofmeyer, Esquire Danielle Garno, Esquire Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 James Jean-Francois, Esquire Law Offices of James Jean-Francois, PA 6100 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 211 Hollywood, Florida 33024
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment action as alleged by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male. He identifies himself variously as a "Caribbean black," "Jamaican," and "Rastafarian." Respondent conducts its business at Port Everglades, a major Florida seaport (Port Everglades or the Port). Respondent's business is to service passenger and commercial shipping by transporting and loading cargo in and about Port Everglades. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the applicable statutory provisions. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from August 13, 2002, until October 29, 2003, when he was terminated. At all relevant times, Lizabeth Divers (Divers) has been Respondent's Director of Human Resources. In that capacity she was responsible for Respondent's personnel matters as well as its compliance with the FCRA. Her job includes, at all relevant times, hiring and firing; employee discipline; implementing company polices; and receiving and investigating complaints lodged verbally or in writing by employees about any matters affecting their employment.1 At all times material to this case, Petitioner was aware of his right to lodge complaints verbally or in writing with Divers with respect to any matter affecting his employment, including any alleged unlawful employment practice. At no time prior to his termination did Petitioner do so. The record contains no persuasive evidence concerning the composition of Respondent's workforce by race, national origin, religion, or any other classification relevant to Petitioner's claim against Respondent under the FCRA. As previously noted, Petitioner was employed by Respondent from August 13, 2002, until October 29, 2003, when his employment was terminated by Divers for violating a company policy prohibiting possession of firearms or other weapons on Port property (the weapons policy). All of Respondent's employees, including Petitioner at all times material to this case, gain access to Port Everglades only by passing a security checkpoint. A security guard thereupon confirms that the individual has current port identification and parking decal. Once cleared to enter the Port, Respondent's employees have access to the entire Port, and are generally not under direct supervision as they perform their jobs. Respondent's weapons policy is grounded in reasons that were obvious to any employee, and which had to have been obvious to Petitioner. The need for such a policy is self-evident. There is no evidence that any other person employed by Respondent has ever violated the weapons policy. At relevant times Petitioner was licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon. State licensure does not constitute authorization for Petitioner to ignore Respondent's weapons policy. Petitioner had no job-related reason to carry a gun. Petitioner's job was to drive a truck known to seaport workers as a "mule." Mules are used to transport cargo from one location to another. Petitioner's basic job duty was to drive box loads of material from one location to another at Port Everglades. Petitioner was qualified to do his job and performed his duties adequately with no prior disciplinary record. Divers was unaware of Petitioner's alleged violation of the weapons policy until the start of the business day on Monday, October 29, 2003. At that time, it was brought to her attention that one or more of Petitioner's co-workers had confronted him over the weekend regarding a bulge at his waist, and that Petitioner had confirmed that the bulge was a gun. Divers felt this alleged violation of the weapons policy was a serious accusation which, if true, would warrant immediate termination. She also felt that it posed a potentially life-threatening situation. Divers determined that Petitioner was scheduled to work that day. Divers immediately left her office and proceeded to the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BCSO) Port Everglades precinct to advise of the potential security threat. Divers sought BCSO's assistance in addressing this unprecedented and potentially dangerous situation. BCSO immediately provided assistance in the form of three armed deputies. Each officer drove his police vehicle to intercept Petitioner on Port grounds. The officers interviewed Petitioner in the presence of Divers. Petitioner freely admitted that he regularly concealed his gun in his vehicle. Petitioner had access to his vehicle throughout his shift. The officers verified Petitioner's concealed weapons permit. Divers informed Petitioner and the officers that she was terminating Petitioner's employment. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner protested this action or complained that it was motivated by race, national origin, or religion. Instead, the evidence established that Divers made a decision she was authorized to make, i.e., to terminate Petitioner for his admitted violation of the weapons policy. The officers disassembled Petitioner's gun, placed it in the trunk of Petitioner's vehicle, and escorted Petitioner off the Port property. There is no evidence regarding who, if anyone, was hired to replace Petitioner following his termination. Petitioner has failed to show that any other similarly situated employee who violated the weapons policy was treated differently from Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and denying all relief requested therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 1st day of November, 2005.
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.
Findings Of Fact Frank Bowder began his employment with Exports, Inc., under the tutelage of Kenneth L. Kellar, President and sole stockholder of Exports, Inc., at the office in Washington state approximately 20 years ago. He became very knowledgeable about the company's business, and approximately 15 years ago he was sent by Kellar to operate the company's Florida office. He was given the title of general manager of the Florida office and remained an excellent employee until his recent death. Kellar considered Frank Bowder to be an excellent manager of the product of Exports, Inc., but recognized that Frank Bowder had a large turnover of employees. His wife Mae Bowder was also an employee of Exports, Inc., and was considered by Kellar to be "the best cleaning woman there is." She was in charge of cleaning and maintenance duties at the Florida office. At some point Mae Bowder began representing to people that she was the office manager of the Florida office. That information was brought to Kellar's's attention on several occasions, and he corrected that information by explaining that she was simply in charge of maintenance. At some point Mae Bowder's son, Wayne Evans, became employed by the Bowders in the Florida office and was given the title of warehouse manager. Within the last several years, Frank Bowder allowed his wife to "become" the office manager. When Kellar found out, he fired her because he believed that she was "not office material." Approximately a year later Kellar found out that Mae Bowder was once again the office manager. He spoke to Frank about it, and Frank explained, essentially, that Mae was giving him so many problems at home about it that he had to hire her back. Kellar fired her once again. Sometime thereafter, Kellar found out that Frank was ill. He came to the Florida office and discovered Mae Bowder once again employed as "office manager." He again discussed the matter with Frank and determined the extent of Frank's illness, which was terminal. He told Frank that Frank was too ill to be running the office full time and told Frank that he should only come to the office a few hours a day. Frank responded that he did not know what to do about his wife. Kellar then went to Mae Bowder and discussed with her the fact that he only wanted Frank to be at the office a few hours a day and that it was too difficult for Frank to continue working full time. He also told Mae Bowder that she should be staying home and taking care of Frank because Frank was so sick. Mae Bowder specifically asked Kellar if he were firing her, and Kellar responded "no" but that she should be staying home to take care of her husband. Mae Bowder "got in a huff," threatened two of the female office personnel, and left. Kellar did not see her again until the final hearing in this cause. Kellar began investigating the operations of the Florida office at that point and began discussing with the other employees there how the office had been managed. He discovered problems. He was told that the Bowders gave highly preferential treatment to Wayne Evans in comparison to the other employees. He discovered that Mrs. Bowder did not like to hire black employees, and the black employees who were hired were not given keys to the office. There was a stated policy by Mrs. Bowder to not hire people with children. Specifically, one black employee did not tell Mrs. Bowder that she had a child when she was hired. When she later became pregnant, Mrs. Bowder was furious. The employee was given one month for unpaid maternity leave and when she called at the end of that month, Mrs. Bowder told her she had been laid off. When she called two months later, the time by which her baby who was sick could be left with someone else, Mrs. Bowder returned her call a week later telling her she could come back to work because another black employee had left. Lastly, the other employees reported that Mrs. Bowder would yell and curse at them, threaten to hit them with an upraised hand, and even pushed and shoved an employee on one occasion because that employee had made a mistake in her work. The employees had previously not made these complaints because they could have only complained to the general manager who was the husband of the person about whom they would be complaining. Kellar brought an employee from the Washington office down to the Florida office to assist Frank Bowder and continued to pay Frank Bower his salary until he died. No evidence was offered that Kellar would not have continued to pay Mae Bowder her salary if she had reduced her hours in order to take care of Frank rather than walking out when Kellar tried to discuss the matter with her. No one else was present when Kellar and Mae Bowder had their discussion at the time when Mae Bowder resigned. Later that day, according to her son, Kellar made a comment that the Bowders had been the last of the married couples working for the company. Such a statement, if it were made, is susceptible of many interpretations, including sadness for the end of an era. Kellar did not fire Mae Bowder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Exports, Inc., not guilty of committing an unlawful employment practice and dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 26th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. McGlynn, Esquire 4633 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Kenneth L. Kellar President/Owner Exports, Inc. Post Office Box 449 Blaine, WA 98230 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent, the University of Florida, discriminated against Petitioner, Tracey Krefting, previously known as Tracey Hardin, on the basis of a handicap as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Tracey Krefting, formerly known as Tracey Hardin, is a handicapped individual. She suffers from seizure disorder. Ms. Krefting graduated from the University of Florida in May of 1990. She received a bachelor of science degree with a major in advertising. Ms. Krefting had experience as an advertising sales representative prior to her employment by the Respondent. The Respondent, the University of Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "University"), is a State university located in Gainesville, Florida. Within the College of Journalism and Communications of the University is a radio station, WRUF. WRUF was an auxiliary operation of the University responsible for raising revenue to fund all of its expenses, including the salaries for its sales representatives. No state funding was received directly or indirectly from the University by WRUF. Ms. Krefting's Employment by the University. Ms. Krefting was employed by the University at WRUF on July 28, 1992. Ms. Krefting was employed as "OPS", other personnel services. Ms. Krefting was employed to act as one of six or seven sales representatives of WRUF. As of January 29, 1993, Robert Clark was the General Manager of WRUF. Mr. Clark was Ms. Krefting's supervisor from January 29, 1993 until her termination from employment. Sales Representative Qualifications. The essential function of sales representatives for WRUF was to sell radio time for advertising. This function was an essential function because the revenue necessary to operate WRUF was generated in this manner. Sales representatives were responsible for servicing existing clients and for finding new clients. An essential requirement of the sales representatives of WRUF, including Ms. Krefting, was the ability to travel to the businesses and offices of WRUF's advertising clients and prospective clients. Sales representatives were generally required to spend 80 percent of their working hours out of the office servicing clients and seeking new clients. Continuous contact and an ongoing relationship with clients was required. Contacts with clients were expected to be face to face and not just over the telephone. In addition to being required to make regular contacts with clients, sales representatives were also required to make themselves available to visit their clients with little notice. Obtaining new clients usually required more than one contact with a prospective client by a sales representative. The sales representative was required to sell himself or herself and the station and must gain the trust of the prospective client. Sales representatives were also responsible for performing public service work. This work entailed the providing of public service announcements. The public service work performed by sales representatives did not directly generate revenue for WRUF. Neither the application for employment completed by Ms. Krefting when she was initially employed at WRUF nor the University's OPS personnel requisition form authorizing her employment included any of the necessary skills or qualifications for the sales representative position she was hired to fill. Ms. Krefting was aware at the time she was hired, however, that she would be required to travel to her clients locations and to the locations of prospective clients. There are other means of transportation available which would have allowed Ms. Krefting to reach clients and prospective clients: vehicle driven by a hired driver, public transportation, taxi, and walking. The evidence failed to prove, however, that there were any reasonable means of transportation available to Ms. Krefting other than driving herself which would have allowed her to meet the requirements of a sales representative for WRUF. Ms. Krefting's Handicap. On April 18, 1993, Ms. Krefting fell while rollerskating. Ms. Krefting hit her head on the ground when she fell. On April 19, 1993, Ms. Krefting was admitted to the emergency room of the North Florida Regional Medical Center. The evidence failed to prove that the injury she suffered on April 18, 1993, caused Ms. Krefting to suffer any seizure. On May 6, 1993, Ms. Krefting suffered a seizure while leaving her home to go to work. Ms. Krefting was ultimately diagnosed as having "seizure disorder." At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Krefting suffered from a "handicap." Ms. Krefting's Inability to Drive. On or about May 18, 1993, Ms. Krefting provided a letter from George Feussner, M.D., dated May 18, 1993, to Mr. Clark. In the letter Dr. Feussner indicated that Ms. Krefting was able to return to work but that she could "not operate a motor vehicle " Although Dr. Feussner did not indicate how low Ms. Krefting would be unable to drive, Ms. Krefting informed Mr. Clark that Dr. Feussner had informed her that she would not be able to drive until she was seizure free for one year from the date of her last epileptic seizure, May 6, 1993. As a result of the restriction on Ms. Krefting's ability to drive and based upon Florida law, Rules 15A-5.003 and 15A-5.004, Florida Administrative Code, Ms. Krefting was unable to drive herself to see existing or prospective clients until at least May 6, 1994. Ms. Krefting discussed with Mr. Clark the possibility of hiring a "tenant" of hers to drive her around. Ms. Krefting did not identify the "tenant." Nor did Ms. Krefting inform Mr. Clark that she had completed making arrangements with anyone to drive her. Mr. Clark did not preclude Ms. Krefting from making arrangements to have someone provide transportation for her. Mr. Clark did tell Ms. Krefting that it would have to be determined what implications, if any, a driver would have on WRUF's workers compensation coverage. The resolution of this issue was to be delayed, however, until Ms. Krefting made concrete arrangements for a driver and discussed those arrangements with Mr. Clark. Ms. Krefting failed to finalize any arrangement for a driver. Had Ms. Krefting provided her own driver, at her own expense, Ms. Krefting may have been able to meet the requirement of her position that she be able to provide her own transportation. Ms. Krefting, however, did not take the necessary steps to hire a driver prior to her termination from employment. Ms. Krefting talked to her tenant, Kenneth Vest, about acting as her driver. Mr. Vest worked in the same building that Ms. Krefting did. Mr. Vest worked Sunday through Wednesday from 3:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. He was, therefore, generally available for part, but not all, of Ms. Krefting's working hours. Mr. Vest was generally willing to drive Ms. Krefting, if he were compensated. Ms. Krefting did not discuss with Mr. Vest the exact hours that he would be expected to drive her or her schedule. Nor did Ms. Krefting discuss compensation with Mr. Vest. Ms. Krefting failed to prove that Mr. Vest or any other individual was available at any time relevant to this proceeding, or at the final hearing, to provide transportation for her in a manner that would fulfill her responsibilities as a sales representative. Because of the restriction on Ms. Krefting's ability to drive and her failure to make alternative arrangements to have someone like Mr. Vest drive her, Ms. Krefting failed to prove that she met all the qualifications of her position with WRUF. Ms. Krefting did not meet all the qualifications of her position. But for her handicap, however, Ms. Krefting would have met all of the qualifications of a sales representative. The University's Decision to Terminate Ms. Krefting's Employment. On or about May 24, 1993, Mr. Clark informed Ms. Krefting that WRUF could not continue to employ her because of her inability to drive. Ms. Krefting suggested alternative means of meeting her responsibilities with Mr. Clark when she was informed that WRUF would not be able to continue her employment. Mr. Clark considered the suggestions, but did not accept any of them. On June 16, 1993 Mr. Clark agreed to extend Ms. Krefting's termination date to accommodate her efforts to find another postition within the University. Ms. Krefting was ultimately terminated from employment in early July of 1993. Ms. Krefting was terminated because she was prohibited from driving her vehicle and there was no other reasonable means of meeting her responsibilities to service clients and prospective clients. The University's Inability to Accommodate Ms. Krefting's Inability to Drive. During 1993, the financial condition of WRUF was precarious. WRUF was operating at a loss. Three employees had been terminated and a department had been eliminated. Another vacant position had not been filled. WRUF was forced to borrow funds from the University and a foundation account in order to continue operating. At all times relevant to this proceeding, WRUF was unable to create a newly funded position or to allow a sales representative to fail to generate reasonably expected revenues. Ms. Krefting suggested several possible alternatives to accommodate her inability to meet her requirement that she be able to drive. The suggestions were discussed with, and considered by, Mr. Clark. One suggestion Ms. Krefting made to Mr. Clark was to create a new position. The position would entail performing all of the public service work of the sales representatives. Mr. Clark rejected this proposal because it entailed the creation of a new position. The creation of a new position was not a reasonable accommodation. The creation of a new position, especially one that did not generate revenue, would have created a financial hardship on WRUF. The evidence also failed to prove that the public service work could be performed without the need for travel. A second suggestion Ms. Krefting made to Mr. Clark was to restructure her position so that she would be responsible for the preparing of proposals, filing, handling incoming sales calls and telemarketing. In effect, this suggestion also entailed the creation of a new position. This suggestion was rejected by Mr. Clark. Ms. Krefting's second suggestion was not a reasonable accommodation. It would have created an undue financial hardship on WRUF because there was not sufficient work to justify such a position. A third suggestion made by Ms. Krefting to Mr. Clark was that she be teamed with another sales representative who would do all the driving. Mr. Clark rejected this suggestion. Ms. Krefting's third suggestion was not a reasonable accommodation. Teaming two sales representatives would have reduced the effectiveness of two sales representatives who would be available to visit different clients and prospective clients at the same time if they were not teamed. This would have created an undue financial hardship on WRUF. A fourth suggestion made by Ms. Krefting to Mr. Clark was that she use public transportation and taxis. Mr. Clark rejected this suggestion. Although it is questionably whether Ms. Krefting's fourth suggestion constitutes an accommodation, to the extent that it does, it was not a reasonable accommodation. Public transportation does not provide the flexibility required of sales representatives because of the inadequacy of routes and schedules of available transportation. A fifth suggestion made by Ms. Krefting to Mr. Clark was that she provide her own driver. It is questionable whether the use of a driver, as suggested by Ms. Krefting, constitutes an accommodation. To the extent that Ms. Krefting was suggesting that WRUF provide her a driver, her suggestion was not a reasonable accommodation. If WRUF had been required to provide the driver, it would have caused an undue hardship on WRUF. Finally, Ms. Krefting suggested that a student intern from the University's College of Journalism be assigned to work with her and that the intern provide the driving required by her position. Mr. Clark rejected this suggestion. Ms. Krefting had discussed the idea of using an intern with Dr. Joseph Pisani, the Chair of the Advertising Department of the College of Journalism. Although Dr. Pisani was not opposed to the use of an intern-if the intern was properly used-he was opposed to the use of an intern primarily or exclusively as a driver. The suggestion that interns be used was not a reasonable accommodation. Student interns usually are only available to work as an intern for a maximum of 12 hours a week. Additionally, the 12 hours a week that an intern would be available depends upon their class schedule. Therefore, student interns would not be available for a sufficient period of time for Ms. Krefting to fulfill the responsibilities of her position. Although it is not impossible to find a student that would be willing to act as an intern full-time, the evidence failed to prove that it was likely that a student could be found that would be willing to take no classes for up a year or that it would be financially feasible for a student to do so. Mr. Clark did not actually attempt to implement any of Ms. Krefting's proposals. Mr. Clark also did not "consult with any experts" about the proposed accommodations. Mr. Clark's failure to attempt to implement any of the proposals or to consult with experts was not, however, necessary. The issue confronting Mr. Clark was not one involving a decision which required special knowledge or understanding of Ms. Krefting's handicap, or the needs of persons who suffer from seizure disorder. The only issue confronting Mr. Clark was how to accommodate the inability of a sales representative to transport herself to meet the needs of clients and prospective clients. Mr. Clark had all the necessary information to decide how to deal with this issue: Ms. Krefting, regardless of her condition or needs, was prohibited from driving an automobile for at least a year. Mr. Clark was fully aware of the impact of this restriction on WRUF and the resulting inability of a sales representative to carry out their responsibilities. The suggested accommodations made by Ms. Krefting also required no special knowledge or understanding. The suggestions only required an understanding of the needs of WRUF and what was expected of sales representatives. Ms. Krefting's Loss of Income. Subsequent to her termination by WRUF Ms. Krefting remained unemployed until February of 1994. After her termination by WRUF Ms. Krefting received unemployment benefits of approximately $3,500.00 Ms. Krefting earned $800.00 for part-time employment in March of 1994. Ms. Krefting was unable to work from April of 1994 until June of 1994. Ms. Krefting is currently employed. Ms. Krefting's Complaint. Ms. Krefting filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on or about August 18, 1993 alleging that the University had discriminated against her on the basis of her handicap. On or about January 21, 1994, the Commission entered a Notice of Determination: No Cause, finding no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. On or about February 17, 1994, Ms. Krefting filed a Petition for Relief contesting the Commission's determination. The Petition was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Conclusion. The evidence in this case failed to prove that the University terminated Ms. Krefting's employment because of her disability. Ms. Krefting was terminated by the University because she could not meet all of the requirements of her position. The evidence failed to prove that the University could reasonably accommodate Ms. Krefting's inability to drive without undue hardship to WRUF's activities. Ms. Krefting failed to prove that the University discriminated against her on the basis of her handicap.
The Issue Whether Respondent employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner based upon mental disability.
Findings Of Fact The final disputed-fact hearing began on time. Petitioner was present, as was the attorney for Respondent. Petitioner appeared pro se and responded clearly and affirmatively to the undersigned's questions, stating that she knew that she could be represented by an attorney but for reasons of her own she chose to represent herself. After explaining the duty to go forward, the burden of proof, and the order of proof, the undersigned inquired of both parties whether any further explanation was necessary; whether they had any questions; and whether the undersigned could do anything to make the process easier on either of them. At that point, Petitioner gestured to a piece of paper and requested to meet with Respondent's counsel for purposes of negotiating a settlement. A brief recess was granted for that purpose, and the undersigned left the hearing room. Upon returning to the hearing room, the undersigned inquired whether a settlement had been reached and was informed that one had not been reached. Petitioner then announced that, "Since they won't settle, I have no more to say." The undersigned inquired at length to be certain Petitioner understood that: she could call witnesses; she could testify on her own behalf; and she could present documents, either through her own testimony or that of others. Petitioner stated that she understood but did not want to call witnesses or testify. She gestured at what appeared to be her proposed settlement document, but which could have been something else, stating that she only had a document. The undersigned explained that very few documents could be called "self-authenticating" and gave a brief explanation of what type of testimony is necessary to lay a predicate to put any document into evidence. Petitioner said she did not wish to testify. She did not offer her piece of paper. The undersigned explained that if Petitioner did not testify and did not offer her single document, she could not prevail, and that based upon the allegation in her Petition that she has a "mental disability/handicap," the undersigned needed to be assured that Petitioner understood that unless she testified to something, called witnesses to testify, or offered some exhibits, the undersigned would have no choice but to enter a recommended order of dismissal. Petitioner assured the undersigned that she understood and refused to proceed.
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 Complaint of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2008, 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 1st day of August, 2008. 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 Michele B. Brown, pro se 2634 North Point Circle, Apt. B Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda S. Bennett, Esquire Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett Foster & Gwartney, P.A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Haverty's is a corporation that employs many more than 15 employees in many stores. Haverty's sells furniture. The store in which the allegations of this complaint arose is located at 1175 Eglin Parkway in Shalimar, Florida. Unless noted elsewhere, when Haverty's is mentioned, the reference is to the Shalimar store. Ms. Jester is a woman who resides in Niceville, Florida. She obtained a job at Haverty's and began working there as a sales associate on June 16, 2003. She was hired by Gary Hodge, who was the store manager. She was a sales associate during the entire time that she was employed by Haverty's. A sales associate works on a straight commission and the commission is not paid until the furniture is delivered. A sales associate, after the first three months on the job, is required to sell at least $40,000 in product each month. There are generally ten to fifteen sales associates on the floor at any given time. The environment is highly competitive. There is a computer numbering system in place, called the "up" system, which is used to determine who may approach a customer who walks into the store. If a sales associate initially helps a customer and later the customer is helped by another sales associate, the commission, if a sale is made, is split between the two. During Ms. Jester's time as a sales associate she grossed about $26,000 per year. Ms. Jester noticed shortly after she began her employment that there existed at Haverty's a clique of salespersons, including Michael Herring, Charles McEwen, Buzz Howard, and "Travis." Also in this clique was a woman named "Melanie" and another named "Trudy." This loosely affiliated group was sometimes referred to by Ms. Jester and others, as the "Good Old Boys Club," even though women were members of the group. Members of "Good Old Boys Club" would say unpleasant things to her, would make comments about her, and would sometimes make her feel uncomfortable. Sometimes sexual comments were made about her, and sometimes sexual comments were made about other female employees. On occasion, however, Ms. Jester made sexual comments. The "Good Old Boys Club" falsely accused her of stealing sales on occasion. Sometimes persons in the alleged "Good Old Boys Club" would get her so upset that she would have to leave the floor. Her absence resulted in them making more sales, and thus, more money. If a product is sold at a discount, or if a particular item is given to a person without charge to enhance a sale of other items, the official listed price must be overridden in the store computer by using an override code. A sales associate is not usually provided with the code and if, on a particular occasion, a sales associate is given the override code, it is subsequently changed by management. On one or more occasions Charles McEwen did overrides on his own, and at least twice he entered codes for Ms. Jester. Buzz Howard used an override code once. Managers at the store made exceptions to the override policy. Lee Keiran, who was a sales associate, was also a "keyholder," and he had at all times, the authority to make overrides. However, the manager, Mr. Hodge or Michael Herring, when he was promoted to floor manager, would generally enter override codes. Obtaining someone to enter an override often added additional time to completing a sale, and personally having an override code gave the holder a slight advantage over a sales associate who did not have one. Ms. Jester was never provided with her own override code. She believed, incorrectly, that this was because of her gender. Sales meetings were held at Haverty's every Saturday morning at 8:30 a. m. All sales associates were required to attend. At these meetings the manager reiterated rules and informed employees about new rules. New merchandise would be discussed and products being specially advertised would be discussed. During the time of Ms. Jester's employment, the meetings would usually be conducted by Mr. Hodge, the store manager. On one occasion, in or near the month of January 2005, Mr. Herring conducted the sales meeting. There were twelve or thirteen sales associates at this meeting. Mr. Herring, after addressing other subjects, discussed the rules concerning checking out fabrics. He reiterated the rule that sales persons must "check out" fabric samples prior to allowing customers to depart the store with them. "Checking out" fabric requires a credit card slip signed by the customer. Thereafter, Mr. Herring grasped some fabric and raised it over his head and said to Ms. Jester, "Alma, come get your fabrics." Ms. Jester rose from her chair and walked in front of everyone and took the fabric from his hand. As she walked away he said, "Unacceptable." This was at the conclusion of the meeting. Ms. Jester found this to be humiliating. Ms. Jester placed the fabrics on her desk and went straight to Mr. Hodge to complain. She and Mr. Hodge had a conversation. He inquired as to what she wanted him to do about it. She said she wanted Mr. Herring to apologize and he said, "I'll have him talk to you." Ms. Jester informed Mr. Hodge that she was sick and was going home. Mr. Herring never apologized to her. During the time Ms. Jester worked at Haverty's no men were singled out and criticized at sales meetings. During the aforesaid time, some of the men have allowed customers to take fabrics out of the store without being "checked out" and no evidence was adduced that they were rebuked either privately or publicly. Charles McEwen came to work late on more than one occasion. On one occasion when he reported late, an odor of alcohol could be detected on his person. However, he was not under the influence of alcohol. He was never reprimanded for being late or smelling of alcohol. On Sundays sales associates were required to come to work at 11:30, one-half-hour before opening, to clean, and straighten up the store. Employees would enter the building on Sundays through a side door, which was propped open by a rock. On one occasion Ms. Jester reported to the building five minutes late. The rock had been removed and the door was closed. She beat on the door and eventually someone opened it. Ms. Jester believed that she was locked out purposefully, but the evidence indicates only that someone moved the rock, causing the door to close, which resulted in her inability to enter the building immediately upon arrival. Male sales associates "Trent" and Bob Humphries were often late. Male sales associate "Travis" often left early. None of these men were disciplined for tardiness or for departing early. Ms. Jester complained to Mr. Hodge about male sales associate Michael Herring. She informed him that Michael was a male chauvinist pig. Mr. Hodge agreed and suggested that she get over it. Once Buzz Howard called her a stupid liar on the sales floor in front of three people. Ms. Jester was upset about this. She complained to Mr. Hodge. He suggested to her that Mr. Howard's intent was to get her off the sales floor so she couldn't compete with the other sales associates. He said she should, "Cowboy up." In April 2005, a woman named Ashley Bloomfield walked into the store. Ms. Jester spent an hour and a half showing her bedroom suites. Ms. Bloomfield eventually indicated that she was going to cogitate about the purchase, and departed the store. Before she left Ms. Jester gave her a business card so that she could ask for her when she returned. Customers often spend a lot of time looking at furniture, depart, and subsequently return. These customers are called, "be-backs." Sometimes "be-backs" return, and sometimes they don't. A few days after her visit, Ms. Bloomfield called for Ms. Jester on the telephone. She spoke to sales associate Bob Humphries who told her that Ms. Jester was not present. On Wednesday, April 20, 2005, Ms. Bloomfield returned to Haverty's and was assisted by Buzz Howard. Mr. Howard told her that he would ring up the sale but would credit the sale to Ms. Jester. The transaction was completed, but Ms. Jester was not given any credit for the sale. On a Thursday subsequent to Ms. Bloomfield's visit Ms. Jester entered the side door of the store and observed Buzz Howard at the office with Ms. Bloomfield. The office is the place where customers arrange payment for purchases. Mr. Howard informed Ms. Jester that when Ms. Bloomfield walked in the door she asked for Mr. Humphries, that he, Mr. Howard helped her, and that he, and Mr. Humphries, were going to split the commission. Pursuant to policy, Ms. Jester should have gotten half of the commission and a three-way split is not, she believes, possible. Ms. Jester complained to Mr. Hodge about this. Mr. Hodge explained that Ms. Bloomfield had called when she was absent and Mr. Humphries had spoken with her on the telephone. Mr. Hodge said the commission would be subject to a three-way split. The next day Ms. Bloomfield called Ms. Jester to inquire why Mr. Humphries' name was on the sales slip and not hers. When she learned that Ms. Jester was not going to get credit for the sale, she asked Ms. Jester what to do. Ultimately, Ms. Jester told her she should call "management" in Pensacola and gave her the number for "management." Specifically, she referred her to Hunter Wrisley or Zack Mattson. Ms. Bloomfield did call "management" and spoke to Zack Mattson who in turn called Ms. Jester. Mr. Mattson told Ms. Jester, "Don't do anything about this. I will get back to you." Although Ms. Bloomfield testified that Mr. Mattson intimated that Ms. Jester would get all of the commission if she was working solely with Ms. Bloomfield, this did not occur. When Ms. Bloomfield learned that Ms. Jester did not get all of the commission, she announced that she would return to the store, return the merchandise previously purchased, and then would re-purchase it from Ms. Jester. Ms. Jester called Mr. Mattson and left a message on his voicemail informing him of Ms. Bloomfield's plan of action. He did not respond to her immediately. Ms. Bloomfield returned to the store and the office manager, "Michelle," with the assistance of Ms. Jester, deleted the previous sale, and thereafter modified the transaction to reflect Ms. Jester as the seller. Mr. Mattson determined that this event ran afoul of his instruction to, "Don't do anything about this. I will get back to you." Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hodge called Ms. Jester to his office. Mr. Mattson was on the speaker phone. Mr. Mattson announced that she had deliberately disobeyed a direct order. After Mr. Mattson terminated his participation in the conversation, Ms. Jester told Mr. Hodge that she was too upset to continue working that day and that she must go home. Thereafter, she departed the premises. The next day Mr. Hodge directed that Ms. Jester report to his office and she did as requested. Mr. Hodge, in the presence of Lee Keiran, required her to sign a disciplinary form which recited that she had been insubordinate and had discussed commissions with a customer, an activity which is against Haverty's policy. The form further informed that she was suspended with no pay for three days. She signed the form and went home. When Ms. Jester returned to work she asked Mr. Hodge if she could have leave so that she could go on vacation. He denied her request. She submitted a letter of resignation to Mr. Hodge on May 20, 2005. The letter stated that she had put up with being mistreated by the "Good Old Boys Club" for the last time. However, this is not found to be a constructive termination. She gave two weeks notice but Haverty's discharged her on May 22, 2005, in accordance with their policy on notice of termination. Ms. Jester also sent a letter of resignation to a Mr. Smith of Haverty's corporate office in Atlanta. The corporate office did not respond. Haverty's employee Charles McEwen once told a customer named Schneider to ask for Ms. Whalls when she returned on a Wednesday after a Tuesday visit because he would not be working on the proposed return date. He asked Ms. Whalls for her business card to give to Ms. Schneider so that she would be sure and remember to ask for Ms. Whalls. There was some minimal discussion of commission splits at this time. However, this discussion did not result in any further involvement by the customer in the commission structure. Although evidence was adduced indicating that some of the sales associates engaged in underhanded methods designed to deprive their fellow workers of commissions, and that some had their own override codes, and others had tardiness excused, there was no evidence that any other sales associate at Haverty's involved a customer in a dispute over commissions. Although during the time of Ms. Jester's employment no one other than Ms. Jester was rebuked in front of the sales associates, being rebuked is not the type of employment practice that can be an adverse employment action. The facts in this case demonstrate that being a sales associate at Haverty's is extremely competitive. Because of the highly competitive, straight commission sales environment, employees engaged in activities designed to subvert the efforts of their fellow employees to earn commissions. Sales associates often made crude and inappropriate remarks that were upsetting to those who were the targets, in an effort to reduce competition. Ms. Jester's supervisors tolerated this behavior. Undoubtedly, a tough environment existed at Haverty's, but this should not be confused with discrimination. The sometimes unfortunate and mean employment practices permitted at Haverty's were not grounded in gender discrimination or some other prohibited basis. There is no evidence in the record that any employee of Haverty's received favorable treatment, or unfavorable treatment, because of their gender. After Ms. Jester's employment at Haverty's came to an end, she made an unsuccessful attempt to go into business for herself. For about eight months subsequent to her departure from Haverty's she was absolutely unemployed. She received unemployment compensation in the amount of $257.00 per week for four months after her departure from Haverty's. Then she went to work for the Shoe Salon for $9.50 per-hour for three weeks. Ms. Jester did not indicate how many hours per-week she worked at the Shoe Salon. Thereafter she found employment with Massey Wholesale about three months before the hearing, and at the time of the hearing she was still employed there. Her wages at Massey Wholesale compare closely to what she was receiving when working for Haverty's. Massey Wholesale will soon pay for her health insurance. She paid $387.00 per month for health insurance pursuant to COBRA for a period of three months subsequent to leaving Haverty's then secured a policy for which she pays a premium of $250.00 per month.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition of Alma W. Jester. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 17th day of July, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. Douglas Hall, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 John W. Wesley, Esquire Wesley, McGrail and Wesley 88 Northeast Eglin Parkway Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging in the following activities: (a) Discharging the Petitioner from her position of employment with Respondent because of Petitioner's race and (b) after discharging the Petitioner, continuing to seek applications for the position previously held by the Petitioner from similarly qualified or less qualified applicants. Subsequent to the filing of her petition for relief, the Petitioner filed a motion for default pursuant to Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer to the petition as required by the cited rule. By order dated September 21, 1987, the Respondent was given until October 5, 1987, within which to show cause as to why the relief requested in the motion for default should not be granted. The Respondent failed to respond to the order of September 21, 1987, and on October 7, 1987, an order was issued which included the following language: That pursuant to Rule 22T-9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is hereby deemed to have admitted all material facts alleged in the petition. That at the final hearing in this case the material facts alleged in the petition will be taken as established without further proof, but both parties will be afforded an opportunity at the final hearing to offer evidence regarding any additional relevant facts. On the day scheduled for the hearing, the Petitioner and her attorney appeared at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing, but there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Approximately 45 minutes after the scheduled commencement time, the Hearing Officer called the Respondent's offices in Jacksonville and was advised by an employee of Respondent that the Respondent did not intend to have anyone attend the hearing. Shortly thereafter the hearing was convened and the Hearing Officer received evidence offered by the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Petitioner, the Petitioner requested, and was granted, 15 days within which to file a proposed recommended order. Thereupon the record of the hearing was closed without any appearance having been made on behalf of the Respondent. On November 16, 1987, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all findings proposed by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order. Following the hearing, the Respondent was advised by letter of its right to file a proposed recommended order, but as of the date of this recommended order the Respondent has not filed any post-hearing document with the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1985, the Petitioner was referred by Job Finders of Florida, a private job placement service, to apply for a position with the Respondent, Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. The job the Petitioner applied for was Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner met all of the qualifications for the job of Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner was interviewed by Mr. Jim Hart, the manager of the Ocala office of the Respondent. After interviewing the Petitioner, Mr. Hart decided, on the basis of her experience and references, that the Petitioner was the best qualified of several applicants. In this regard, it is noted that the Petitioner's prior employment had required the performance of duties substantially similar to those of the Secretary/Dispatcher position with Respondent. Thereafter, in the afternoon or evening of October 11, 1985, Mr. Hart telephoned the Petitioner, offered her the job, and advised her that she was to report to work on October 14, 1985. On October 14, 1985, the Petitioner reported to work at the Ocala office of the Respondent and immediately began performing the duties of Secretary/Dispatcher. During the work day on October 14, 1985, the Petitioner received a telephone call from Mrs. Lou Mohrman, the managing director of the Respondent. Mrs. Lou Mohrman welcomed the Petitioner to her position of employment and stated that she was pleased with the Petitioner's placement with the company. On October 15, 1985, Mr. L. D. Mohrman, president of Respondent, accompanied by Mrs. Lou Mohrman, managing director, visited the Ocala offices of the Respondent. After engaging in a boisterous conversation with Mr. Hart and visually ascertaining the Petitioner's race, Mrs. Mohrman summarily dismissed Petitioner without articulating a legitimate business reason for the termination. Within the next few days the Respondent listed the Secretary/Dispatcher position as vacant and continued to seek to fill the position with individuals with qualifications similar to or less than the qualifications of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a black female. She is a person within the meaning of Sections 760.02(5) and 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The dismissal of the Petitioner from her position of employment with the Respondent was motivated by the president and the managing director ascertaining the Petitioner's race. The dismissal of the Petitioner was motivated solely by her race. The Petitioner's starting salary at the Respondent company was $4.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week. After her termination, the Petitioner sought employment elsewhere and obtained another job in January of 1986, where she worked until November of 1986. In November of 1986 the Petitioner voluntarily left her job in order to finish school. When she began work in January of 1986 the Petitioner was making $3.80 per hour. When she quit in November of 1986 she was making $4.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice; Prohibiting the Respondent from terminating any employee on the basis of the employee's race; Requiring the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the Petitioner under the terms and conditions of employment to which she would be presently entitled if she had been continuously employed, including any raises to which she would have been entitled on the basis of longevity. Requiring the Respondent to pay back pay to the Petitioner from the date of termination until November of 1986 in an amount equal to the total amount the Petitioner would have earned as a Secretary/Dispatcher during that period, less any amounts actually earned during that period; and Requiring the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner her reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3048 The following are my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8: Accepted Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Not included in findings of fact because they are subordinate procedural details. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Covered in prior findings. Paragraph 16: Accepted Paragraph 17: Covered in prior findings. Findings proposed by Respondent: (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esq. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 312 W. First Street Suite 605 Sanford, Florida 32771 Mr. L. D. Mohrman, President Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. 3000 West 45th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
