The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by terminating her employment in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act.
Findings Of Fact Lombardi started her employment as a judicial assistant with Dade County in 1971. Judge Mattie Belle Davis was the first judge who hired Petitioner. Judicial Assistants serve at the pleasure of the appointing Judge.1 Judge Bruce Levy hired Lombardi as his judicial assistant after Judge Davis retired. In December 2004, Judge Levy lost his re-election bid and Petitioner no longer had a full-time position as a judicial assistant with a judge. Lombardi started working in the temporary pool of judicial assistants. The position allowed Petitioner to retain her benefits while seeking a permanent judicial assistant position. While serving in the pool, Petitioner worked for Judge Leon Firtel from February 14, 2005, through February 28, 2006, before he let her go. Petitioner then worked for Judge Rosa Rodriguez from April 1, 2006, through May 23, 2007, until she let her go. Petitioner last worked for Dade County when she served as retired Judge Roger Silver's ("Silver") judicial assistant from September 1, 2007, until January 7, 2008. Lombardi was terminated in Silver's chambers with a bailiff and Ms. Suarez from Human Resources present. Silver informed the Petitioner her services were no longer needed and he was letting her go. Petitioner questioned why she was being terminated; however, Silver did not provide an explanation. Silver terminated Petitioner because he was not happy with her work performance. Silver testified that Petitioner had the following problems regarding her work: taking lunch breaks beyond the one hour he had discussed with her; numerous complaints from attorneys; selling Avon at the work place; not answering the phones and allowing calls to go to voicemail; and repeatedly setting unnecessary hearings on the docket. Prior to terminating Lombardi, Silver inquired with Human Resources about a replacement and was informed that he could not be assured that he would be able to get a temporary assistant to replace Lombardi due to the unavailability of funding. He still choose to terminate Petitioner because, "[he] felt having no one was better than what [he] had under the circumstances." Petitioner was not able to go back in the "temporary pool" of judicial assistants as she had in the past after Silver terminated her. In 2008, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit had a hiring freeze whereby the temporary pool was no longer funded. Human Resources eventually sent Elizabeth Gonzalez, whose date of birth is May 26, 1965, to Silver as a temporary judicial assistant. Silver had never met Gonzalez prior to her coming to work for him. There was no discussion of age when Silver requested a judicial assistant or when Gonzalez was assigned to him. Gonzalez served as Silver's temporary judicial assistant for a number of weeks and, when personnel advised him he could hire someone, including Gonzalez, Silver hired Gonzalez on or about March 10, 2008, because he was pleased with her work. Gonzalez worked with him until his retirement in December 2008. At the time when Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner was unaware of the exact age of her replacement. Petitioner's date of birth is May 18, 1948.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 30th day of November, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner on the basis of age or in retaliation.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1994 (amended March 10, 1994), Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination, based on age and retaliation, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That charge listed the most recent discrimination as October 18, 1993 and alleged that Petitioner had been rejected for a post in Panama City; that Respondent, through a Ms. Retherford, had denied Petitioner access to other applicants' records for ten days; and that Ms. Retherford, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Ciccarelli of Respondent's District 2, had made sure everyone in their District knew Petitioner's name and to avoid hiring him. To further specify his charges, Petitioner attached a December 16, 1993 memorandum from Ms. Radigan to Mr. Clary. (See below, Finding of Fact No. 56). The Charge of Discrimination then concluded, "the specific job for which I applied was set in Marianna and closed on 18 October; though I had been referred to that job by Karen Dalton, an HRS specialist at HRS headquarters, I never had a chance at that job." (P-2) By a "Determination: No Cause", dated March 20, 1995, the Commission advised Petitioner that he could file a Petition for Relief within thirty-five days, pursuant to Section 760.11 F.S. On April 22, 1995, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.. That timely Petition for Relief alleged both age and retaliation discrimination by Respondent's failure to hire Petitioner for a number of posts, none of which the Petition specifically named by position number or date. The retaliation allegation was based on Petitioner's "causing trouble," not due to his filing any prior formal complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations or upon his participation in these types of litigation on behalf of anyone else. Although the subject matter jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings is bounded by the Charge of Discrimination, the Petition for Relief, and Chapter 760 F.S., the parties were permitted to present some historical information. Even so, the parties' presentation of evidence did not always clearly correlate Respondent's dated employment advertisements for named, numbered, or described positions to specific applications of Petitioner and/or specific interviews or hirings of other persons. Respondent agency demonstrated that as of October 13, 1993, it was employing at least one employee older than Petitioner, at least one in her sixties, others in their fifties, and hundreds who were over 39 years old. However, none of this information is particularly helpful in resolving the issues in this case. While Respondent's figures may speak to longevity of employees or duration of their employment with Respondent, they are silent as to each employee's age as of the date Respondent first hired each one. (R-9) Petitioner is a white male who at all times material was 63-65 years of age. Petitioner repeatedly applied for job vacancies advertised by Respondent agency and was not hired for any of them. Every position for which Petitioner applied required, at a minimum, that applicants have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus three years' professional experience in one or more of the following employments: abuse registry; developmental services; law enforcement investigations; licensed health care; children, youth, and family services; child support enforcement; economic services; aging and adult services; licensed child day care; mental health; or elementary or secondary education. Specific types of bachelor's degrees or any master's degree could substitute for one of the three years' required experience in the named programs. Specific types of master's degrees could substitute for two years of the three years' required experience in the named programs. However, no matter how many or what type of college degrees an applicant had earned, Respondent still required applicants to have at least one year of specialized experience. (P-1, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-7). In fact, Petitioner met the foregoing requirements at all times material. "In the late summer of 1992," Petitioner first responded to one of Respondent's advertisements for a Protective Investigator position in Panama City. (P-1, P-14) He was turned down without an interview for that position by a letter dated September 22, 1992. (P-1). Feeling that he was qualified for the foregoing position and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to interview, Petitioner made an appointment with Ms. Charlie Retherford, who had advertised the position. The contents of Ms. Retherford's explanation about ten days later is not of record, but Petitioner remained dissatisfied. Petitioner next made a request pursuant to Chapter 119 F.S., The Public Records Act, to view the records of other applicants. Petitioner felt he was "hassled" over this request, but admitted that Respondent provided the records within two weeks. Petitioner did not elaborate upon why he felt "hassled," only stating that he felt two weeks was an "unreasonable delay." Petitioner analyzed the records and formed the opinion that "there was good reason to believe" Respondent did not interview him because he was over 60 years old. Petitioner testified that those applicants selected by Respondent for interviews averaged 29 years old, but Petitioner did not offer in evidence the records he had reviewed so as to substantiate his assertion. In correspondence and interviews which occurred after September 22, 1992, Petitioner revealed his age to various employees of Respondent. (See Findings of Fact 14, above, and 24, 41, and 45 below). However, an applicant's age or birth date is not required on Respondent's standard employment application form, and on Petitioner's September 5, 1992 application received by Respondent September 9, 1992 (P-14), Petitioner had left blank the "optional" line for date of birth. Therefore, it was not established that the Respondent knew, or even how the Respondent could have known, Petitioner's age prior to its September 22, 1992 failure to hire him. Despite Petitioner's testimony as to the average age of interviewees, the mean age of all the applicants up to September 22, 1992 was not established, so it is not clear whether any twenty-nine year olds or persons younger than Petitioner also were not interviewed as well as Petitioner, who was not interviewed and who was in his sixties. Additionally, no nexus between any other applicant's qualifying credentials and Petitioner's qualifying credentials was put forth. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if those applicants who were interviewed prior to September 22, 1992 were more or less qualified than Petitioner, or if there was any pattern of Respondent refusing to interview applicants of any age. By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator with its Aging and Adult Services Unit in Chattahoochee. (P-4). By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-5) By a January 22, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-6) By a January 27, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Services Abuse Registry Counselor after he was interviewed. (P-3, P-7) (See Findings of Fact 24 and 41, below. By a February 25, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Research Assistant Position No. 05396 at Florida State Hospital. (P-8) Petitioner did not offer in evidence any of his applications corresponding to the Respondent's refusals to hire him between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993. 1/ For the period of September 22, 1992 through February 25, 1993, Petitioner's only evidence of age or retaliation discrimination was his subjective personal conviction that age was a factor in Respondent's refusal to hire him and the Radigan memorandum issued ten months later and discussed in Findings of Fact 56-65, below. Affording Petitioner all reasonable inferences, the undersigned infers that due to Petitioner's post- September 22, 1992 interview with Ms. Retherford, Respondent's District 2 hiring personnel could have been aware of Petitioner's age from late September 1992 onward. However, there was no evidence presented by which it can be affirmatively determined that between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993 that Respondent knew the age of all other applicants before deciding which ones to interview or that there was a pattern of only interviewing persons under a certain age. 2/ Further, in an August 12, 1993 letter, Petitioner stated to the Secretary of Respondent agency that he had, in fact, been interviewed by Respondent in January 1993. (P-3) (See below, Finding of Fact 41.) It also must be inferred from that information that Respondent did not systematically exclude Petitioner from the interview process on the basis of age or retaliation at least through January 1993. Petitioner's last application before October 14, 1993 which was admitted in evidence is dated April 8, 1993. It was stamped "received" by Respondent on April 9, 1993. It also does not give his age or date of birth. It specifies that Petitioner was applying for a Protective Investigator position closing April 12, 1993. (P-15). In April 1993, Brenda Ciccarelli, an official in Respondent's District 2, requested Karen Dalton, a recruitment coordinator in Respondent's Personal Services Section, to review Petitioner's employment application to determine if he met the minimum requirements for employment in the advertised position. Ms. Dalton's testimony is not altogether clear as to which application or applications she reviewed in April 1993, but from the evidence as a whole, it is inferred that she reviewed Petitioner's September 5, 1992 (P-14) and/or his April 8, 1993 (P-15) applications or applications by Petitioner which were substantially similar. Ms. Dalton analyzed Petitioner's application(s) and determined that Petitioner did not meet Respondent's minimum requirements. She satisfied herself that she had made a correct analysis by conferring with Mr. Joe Williams of the Department of Management Services. By a May 7, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-9) Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from May 24, 1993 to June 7, 1993. (R-1) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from June 21, 1993 to July 26, 1993. (R-2) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Jack Connelly, then 45 years old, for Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County. (R-3) Respondent introduced a tabulation of the ages of the applicants for Position No. 48210 which was completed as of the effective date the position was filled. It included columns listing birth dates of applicants, if known; a column indicating applicants' handicaps, if any; a column indicating whether an applicant was eligible; and a column indicating which applicants were interviewed. (R-3) Mr. Connelly, the successful applicant, was interviewed, as were eleven other applicants. Ten applicants, among them Petitioner, were not interviewed. (R-3) The applicants who were interviewed were respectively forty-five, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty- four, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one years of age. The ages of those not interviewed were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two. (R-3) There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the applicants interviewed or those of Jack Connelly, who was hired, were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. There is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. 3/ Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from May 17, 1993 to May 31, 1993. (R-4) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308 Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-6) By a July 20, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-10) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Edward Bonner, then fifty- three years old, for Position 50968. He was one of the applicants interviewed. (R-6) Respondent presented another columnar tabulation completed as of the effective date Mr. Bonner was hired. It showed that the interviewed applicants were ages fifty-three, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, twenty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty-six, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one, respectively. The uninterviewed applicants were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-seven, and thirty-two respectively. (R-6) Again, there is no discernable pattern of excluding anyone by age. 4/ There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the interviewees or of Edward Bonner were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. On August 12, 1993, Petitioner wrote the agency Secretary, Mr. H. James Towey, complaining that he had been discriminated against because of his age, which he then gave as This letter listed the dates of discrimination as 9/22/92, 11/24/92, 11/24/92 again, 1/22/93, 1/27/93, 2/25/93, 5/7/93/ and 7/20/93. Therein, Petitioner admitted that Respondent had interviewed him approximately January 1993 for a System Abuse Registry Counselor position and that the interview had gone very well from his point of view. (P-3) Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308 (anticipated vacancy) Position No. 04385 in Panama City from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-7) Effective September 3, 1993, Respondent hired Johnnie A. Knop (female), DOB unlisted, for Position No. 04385. Respondent's tabulation completed on the effective date of hiring Ms. Knop showed that not counting Ms. Knop, whose age does not appear, the interviewees were thirty-eight, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-three, fifty-eight, forty-four, forty-one, forty- four, and thirty-one years of age, respectively. The non-interviewees were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two years of age. (R-8) Once more, there is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether or not Respondent hired someone older or younger than the Petitioner. 5/ There is nothing in the record to show that Johnnie Knop's qualifications were lower than Petitioner's. In September, 1993, Ms. Dalton had a conversation with Petitioner which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Based upon the contents of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, it is found that this conversation occurred on September 13, 1993 in response to letters of complaint written by Petitioner on May 20 and August 12, 1993. The Petitioner's May 20 letter is not in evidence, but it is inferred that the August 12 letter referenced in P-13 was Petitioner's complaint to Secretary Towey (P-3) concerning age discrimination and discussed above in Finding of Fact 41. During their conversation, Ms. Dalton discovered that some of Petitioner's remote job experiences were useful for certifying him qualified. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Dalton worked through a list of Respondent's job openings, and Ms. Dalton sent one of Petitioner's applications on to Cheryl Nielsen who was hiring for a position in Marianna. At formal hearing, Ms. Dalton explained credibly that she had not originally categorized Petitioner as meeting the professional experience requirement in the "elementary or secondary education" category because she misunderstood his prior application(s) which she had reviewed. Where the September 5, 1992 application had related Petitioner as employed as "a teacher at Dozier School for Boys (Washington County Program at Dozier)" and the April 8, 1993 application listed him as " a teacher at Dozier School for Boys" for eleven months in 1990-1991, Ms. Dalton previously had understood that his employment merely constituted "shopwork, independent living", which is literally part of what Petitioner had written. Ms. Dalton previously had not equated that phraseology with professional teaching experience in an elementary or secondary school. Ms. Dalton also credibly explained that she had the erroneous perception of Petitioner's past experience listed as "supervisor, driver education" at Parks Job Corps Center as being solely employment in a private driver's education school. Petitioner had written "vocational training center," to describe the Center's function. Less understandable but unrefuted was Ms. Dalton's testimony that she had not equated Petitioner's teacher status for eight years in the Oakland County, California Public Schools as "teaching" because of the way Petitioner's application(s) had presented that prior employment which had occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. Despite both applications clearly stating this was public school teaching, Ms. Dalton had once again erroneously assumed that Petitioner had worked in a driver education school, when he had, in fact, been teaching a regularly scheduled minor course curriculum of driver's education in the standard curriculum of a public high school. Apparently, she had given less emphasis to this and had become confused by the explanatory material that Petitioner had added to explain the other things he had done besides teaching. She also gave less emphasis to other employments involving several years even if they included the word "teacher" because they were remote in time. (P-14 and P-15; compare P-16). After their clarifying interview, Ms. Dalton considered Petitioner qualified for the position(s) applied for, even though his qualifications previously had not been apparent to her from his written application(s). Convinced that Petitioner's application style did not present him to best advantage, Ms. Dalton advised Petitioner how to re-do his application to emphasize the factors significant to Respondent and maximize his employment opportunities with Respondent. On the basis of their conversation alone, Ms. Dalton sent a September 15, 1993 letter to Petitioner, and copied Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Ciccarelli, both employed in Respondent's District 2, to the effect that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for the Protective Investigator classification. (P-13) Petitioner revised his application to detail that some of his school activities which were remote in time actually involved teaching. He submitted the rewritten application to Ms. Dalton approximately October 14, 1993. (P-16). After the revision, Ms. Dalton credited Petitioner with three years and nine months of "teaching in an elementary or secondary school" based only on his teaching during the 1960's. She also forwarded the revised application to Marianna and Ms. Nielsen. A review of the Petitioner's only three applications in evidence (September 5, 1992 at P-14; April 8, 1993 at P-15; and October 14, 1993 at P-16) reveals that Petitioner's original application style is so detailed and thorough that some portions September 1992 and April 1993 applications are less than clear as to what entity employed him and what his title was. For instance, he frequently used job titles that were more administrative, like "program manager", than educational, like "teacher". While a thorough reading of either of the applications in Petitioner's original style would probably reveal that he had, indeed, been employed in public school teaching positions approximately 30 years before, Petitioner's original applications require much more concentrated reading than does his revision in order to sort through the material matters and exclude extraneous and cumulative material that had no significance to Respondent's application process. The unrevised applications are not clear that he actually "taught" for a total of three years and nine months in public elementary or secondary schools as understood by Respondent's assessment system. According to Cheryl Nielsen, the position in Marianna for which Petitioner was certified eligible by Ms. Dalton and which closed October 18, 1993 was a temporary position. It existed solely because the individual holding the permanent position had been on workers' compensation leave. When it became apparent to Ms. Nielsen that the injured job holder would not be returning permanently, she decided not to continue the hiring process for the temporary position. Instead, she decided to advertise and fill the position in Marianna as a permanent position once the appropriate waiting period ran out. This was a reasonable decision because it would require six weeks' training before any hiree would be useful and because by going directly to the hiring of permanent personnel, Ms. Nielsen could avoid having to repeat the training process with a different person in a short period of time. No one was interviewed or hired for the temporary position for which Petitioner applied. There is no evidence in this record to tell the undersigned if Petitioner applied for Miss Nielsen's permanent position. Indeed, there is no evidence that Petitioner applied for any positions with Respondent after October 14, 1993. On November 26, 1993, Petitioner wrote Mr. Clary, Respondent agency's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "Re:" line of this letter states that the letter refers to "'contracts' which cost HRS a fortune but serve no legitimate purpose." A fair reading of Petitioner's letter is that he was complaining concerning a letter from Dr. James Henson of Tallahassee Community College (TCC) which constituted a reply to Petitioner's inquiry concerning a TCC job vacancy announcement. Neither Petitioner's letter to Dr. Henson nor Dr. Henson's reply letter to Petitioner are in evidence to further explain what was actually going on. In his November 26, 1993 letter to Respondent's Deputy Secretary Clary, Petitioner characterized Dr. Henson's letter to him as "condescending" and "elitist" and stated Petitioner's opinion that Respondent should not have contracted with TCC to recruit field instructors because it was a waste of money. Petitioner's letter is entirely coherent, but its tone is agitated and vituperative. It attacks the agency's expenditure of funds to Dr. Henson and TCC and their qualifications. It does not mention Petitioner's age or job applications to Respondent in any way. (P-12) Apparently as a result of yet another of Petitioner's letters dated November 19, 1993, which November 19, 1993 letter is not in evidence, Ms. Radigan, Respondent's Assistant Secretary for Children and Family Services, wrote the following December 16, 1993 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Clary, copying Secretary Towey and the Assistant to the President of TCC. I wanted to give you some feed back on this issue. Mr. Sondel has written many such letters across the last six to eight years. He is very well known by the recruitment and personnel professionals in the Tallahassee area, in both the private and public sectors. Bob Roberts discussed this issue with Mr. Marshall Miller, special assistant to Dr. Henson at Tallahassee Community College (TCC). Mr. Miller suggested that DHRS [Respondent agency] should make no response to or take any action pertinent to the letter. Dr. Henson would prefer that he or his attorney make any response as he sees proper. The field instructor position in question is one of twenty new contracted professionals being recruited state wide that will be located in each district to provide clinical expertise, technical assistance, job coaching and staff training for a four unit staff in the Children and Family Services Program. Due to the nature of the job tasks that will be assigned to the new contracted professionals, the Districts expect that they will have relevant professional training and work experience in public child welfare systems. Please let me know if you have any questions, or wish to have additional information. Emphasis and bracketted explanatory material supplied. (P-11)57. The language emphasized above was not emphasized in Ms. Radigan's original memorandum, but has been characterized in Petitioner's testimony as "the smoking gun" upon which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Ms. Radigan, via "retaliatory slander", had prevented Respondent agency from hiring Petitioner throughout 1992- 1993. He attributed her remarks to be the result of his letters to the Respondent complaining of age discrimination. Petitioner testified credibly and without refutation that he had never applied for employment with Respondent before the summer of 1992 and that he was first denied employment by Respondent on September 22, 1992. This is accepted. At the time of Ms. Radigan's memorandum, Petitioner had filed no formal charges of discrimination against Respondent. Therefore, it is impossible for any retaliation by Respondent between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993, if it existed, to have been based upon formal charges by Petitioner. Petitioner's subjective reading of the Radigan memorandum to the effect that it presents him as a "kook who should not be taken seriously" is one possible interpretation, but otherwise, Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. The Radigan memorandum is dated well after Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. That alone is not conclusive to show that its contents did not affect Respondent's hiring process between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993 because it could relate back to Respondent's prior retaliatory non- hiring practices. However, a clear reading of the memorandum itself does not permit such an interpretation. First, the memorandum refers to a letter by Petitioner dated approximately a month after the Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. Although Petitioner claimed that the Radigan memorandum refers to Petitioner's complaints of age discrimination, that was not proven. Since the Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter, which the Radigan memorandum addressed, is not in evidence, it is impossible to determine precisely which of Petitioner's complaints Ms. Radigan's memorandum addressed, but even if Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter had complained of age discrimination, that complaint was made after Petitioner had ceased to apply with Respondent. Therefore, retaliation at that point could not relate backwards to hiring practices already concluded. The letters of Petitioner over six to eight years to which the body of the memorandum refers apparently include his letters to private sector entities as well as government agencies other than Respondent agency. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner had only been applying to Respondent for two, not six or more, years (see Finding of Fact 58, above) does not establish any intentional misstatement of fact by Ms. Radigan. If these letters and Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter to Respondent all contained complaints of age discrimination, then it was appropriate for Ms. Radigan to report that fact, but there simply is insufficient evidence in this record to determine if that is what happened here. Ms. Radigan's memorandum says nothing to the effect that Respondent should not hire Petitioner, that TCC should not hire him for itself, or that TCC should not recruit him for a position with Respondent. Nothing in the memorandum permits the inference that Ms. Radigan did anything except investigate the situation existing between Petitioner and TCC and report back to her superior all available information, including gossip about Petitioner from both the public and private sectors. Gossip is always reprehensible, but people talking about unspecified letters Petitioner wrote without more does not constitute retaliatory discrimination or age discrimination. Whether the situation between Petitioner and TCC had to do with TCC's failure to recruit Petitioner or with Petitioner's complaint about the cost of Respondent's contract with TCC to do its recruiting is unclear in this record. (P-12) (See Finding of Fact 55 above). If anything, the latter is more likely since in his Charge of Discrimination (P-2), even Petitioner described the Radigan memorandum as addressing "a matter only tangentially related to my employment possibilities." Therefore, no retaliation discrimination for raising the issue of age discrimination has been clearly proven.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 1995.
The Issue In two separate Petitions For Relief From An Unlawful Employment Practice, Petitioner, George F. Carter, alleges that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age and as retaliation for his previous filing of a complaint alleging age discrimination by DER. Petitioner alleges that as a result of the discrimination and retaliation, Petitioner was not chosen for various positions for which he applied and was given performance evaluations lower than he deserved. DER's position is that there are legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons for the actions Petitioner complains of, and that these reasons are not pretextual.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the stipulations of the parties, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on stipulations Petitioner, George R. Carter, is an-employee of DER in the Northeast District Office in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner became an employee of DER after its creation in 1975. He was first employed as a Field Inspector (Position No. 0532). He was previously employed by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and by the Department of Agriculture. On January 3, 1977, Petitioner took a voluntary demotion (deleting lead worker status) to transfer from the Gainesville office to the Jacksonville Office (Position No. 0097). On June 15, 1977, Petitioner was promoted to an Environmental Specialist I position (0097) when his Pollution Control Specialist position was deleted. On May 16, 1980, Petitioner was promoted to an Environmental Specialist II position (No. 0532). At that time Petitioner was given a 10% salary increase. On March 1, 1982, Environmental Specialist II positions were reclassified by the Legislature as Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner was placed into the new class and given a salary increase. On October 21, 1982, Petitioner received a written reprimand for taking unauthorized leave. On July 1, 1985, Petitioner was voluntarily assigned to another ESI position (00597) in Jacksonville. On February 20, 1986, Petitioner was voluntarily reassigned to another ESI position (00524) in Jacksonville. The rest of the findings Petitioner was born February 1, 1915. On January 11, 1980, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida. Commission on Human Relations in which he asserted that DER had discriminated against him because of his age. On August 2, 1982, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in which he asserted that DER had discriminated against him because of his complaint of January 11, 1980. On October 19, 1976, Petitioner received a written reprimand for: (1) falsification of timekeeping records, (2) unauthorized use of a state vehicle, and (3) unauthorized leave. Petitioner was suspended without pay April 27 through April 29, 1983, for insubordination. The suspension was upheld by order of the Career Service Commission dated January 7, 1986. Petitioner has appealed the suspension to the Duval County Court. Petitioner's principal claim of age discrimination concerns his non-selection for an Environmental Specialist II position (No. 00354) in Tallahassee in 1978. Petitioner filed a grievance with DER alleging age discrimination. DER investigated the grievance and then dismissed it as unwarranted. The State Personnel Director adopted the DER recommendations and conclusions. Petitioner appealed the State Personnel Director's decision to the Career Service Commission, which assigned the case Docket No. 79-58. By order dated September 21, 1979, the Career Service Commission sustained the decision of the State Personnel Director that Petitioner's complaint of age discrimination was without foundation. In addition to that specific complaint, Petitioner broadly contends that he has been discriminated against because of his age by DER's failure to hire him for a large number of other positions for which he applied, which positions are listed on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33A. The only basis for this aspect of Petitioner's charge of discrimination is that a younger person was chosen to fill each position. In 1979 Petitioner filed a grievance with DER alleging age discrimination regarding the positions listed in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33A. DER investigated the charges. The investigation included an examination of interview summaries from twenty-three of the positions for which Petitioner applied. DER concluded that there was no evidence of age discrimination in the selection process. During the course of the investigation Petitioner admitted that age was never mentioned when he was interviewed for the positions. Most of the positions for which Petitioner applied were high level positions which would have involved several steps of promotion for Petitioner. It is unusual for a person in DER to be so quickly promoted without working his way through the ranks. It is a legitimate consideration when hiring a person to look at his pattern of application for positions. If a person applied for a broad range of positions without an apparent sincere interest, that would weigh negatively against the indiscriminate applicant. The positions for which Petitioner applied were in widely varied fields, e.g., hazardous waste, solid waste, dredge and fill, potable water, groundwater, coastal zone management, limnology, noise control, domestic and industrial wastewater, water analysis, water resources restoration, grant coordination, enforcement, and quality assurance. DER could have legitimately concluded that Petitioner was indiscriminately applying for positions and weighed this against Petitioner when making its selection decisions. Petitioner claims to have a Ph.D. degree in Biology from Pacific Southern University in Seattle, granted in 1976 while Petitioner was employed by DER in Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's applications formerly listed a Ph.D. and Petitioner attached a copy of his supposed degree. Petitioner's current resume does not include a copy of his degree and notes that PSU is unaccredited. Searches by DER in 1977 and 1978 were unable to confirm the existence of PSU. The address listed on Petitioner's transcript was at the time of the search occupied by Marcia's Steno and Message Center. According to Petitioner, after discovering that PSU was unaccredited, Petitioner changed his resume to reflect that fact. Falsification or misrepresentation of credentials on an employment application can properly be a negative consideration when making a personnel decision. DER could have appropriately used this information in deciding to not promote Petitioner. An employee's history of adherence to established policies and procedures is a valid consideration when making personnel decisions. DER could reasonably have considered Petitioner's disciplinary history when making personnel decisions concerning Petitioner. Petitioner's disciplinary history would be particularly relevant to the supervisory positions he sought. Since 1980 the Petitioner has received the following performance evaluation ratings: September 1, 1980 to August 31, 1981: 6.86 September 1, 1981 to August 31, 1982: 5.6 August 31, 1982 to July 14, 1983: 4.14 July 14, 1983 to September 1, 1983: 4.93 September 1, 1983 to August 31, 1984: 5.1 September 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985: 6.0 Petitioner was rated by the same supervisor, Jeremy Tyler, from 1980 through 1985. Mr. Tyler explained that Petitioner's initial evaluation was fairly high because he had not known Petitioner for a long time and had not had a good opportunity to appraise his work. Mr. Tyler explained that he lowered Petitioner's ratings in subsequent evaluations so that they accurately reflected Petitioner's performance in relation to his co-workers. This method of rating Petitioner was in accord with a memorandum from the Secretary of DER in 1981 requiring that performance evaluations be fair and accurate, and that outstanding evaluations be given only in instances of truly outstanding work. Petitioner has been a good employee and has done acceptable work, but he has not been an outstanding employee. Petitioner's performance evaluations accurately reflect his performance. All of Petitioner's evaluations fall into the satisfactory or above satisfactory categories, (or, for the 1985 evaluation, the "achieves performance standards" category) except for the special evaluation of 4.14 which was triggered by the incident of insubordination which led to Petitioner's suspension. DER's Internal Management Policies and Procedures Manual explains that "Achieves Performance Standards" means "fully satisfactory performance or 'a job well done.'" The policy manual recognizes that the majority of the workforce should receive this rating. Some employees in similar positions did less work than Petitioner or performed their work in a less timely manner than Petitioner, but had performance ratings higher than Petitioner. This was because Petitioner's supervisor attempted to evaluate his employees relative to each other based on their total performance, not on just one facet of their performance. While some employees performed fewer inspections than Petitioner, their inspections were more complex and demanded more time. While some employees were habitually late with their inspection reports, the high quality of their reports compensated for their untimeliness and the reports were never so late as to prejudice DER. With each employee's performance taken as a whole, Petitioner's performance evaluations were fair and accurate. Petitioner is openly disdainful of authority. He frequently questions the decisions and policy choices of his supervisor and even of the Secretary of DER. In the incident that led to Petitioner's suspension for insubordination, Petitioner admitted that he wrote a letter (stating that DER would not allow development on a piece of property) in order to help a private individual escape a contract which Petitioner determined was fraudulent. Such a letter was not authorized by Petitioner's superiors, but Petitioner wrote it because he felt that it was the proper thing to do. Petitioner will frequently independently evaluate a situation and do what he believes is right, regardless of whether such action is authorized or in accordance with agency policy. Additionally, Petitioner claims, with sincerity. that he is an expert in a multitude of fields, although his claims of expertise have not been borne out by his performance or the observations of his superiors. Petitioner's broad claims of expertise reduce his credibility when he is being considered for positions, even when Petitioner actually may be competent in the subject matter of the position under consideration. Further, Petitioner is overly considerate of the needs and desires of the public, bending and breaking the rules as he feels is appropriate in order to aid members of the public seeking permits from DER. Petitioner does not apologize for his unauthorized and improper actions (such as doing construction drawings for applicants or requesting information by telephone instead of in Writing as required by DER rules); rather, Petitioner takes pride in helping citizens avoid the bureaucratic "red tape." DER has not discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age, nor has DER retaliated against Petitioner because of his having filed a discrimination charge against DER. DER has had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for denying promotions to Petitioner, and those reasons have not been pretextual. Petitioner's performance evaluation ratings have been fair and do not reflect discrimination or retaliation against Petitioner in any way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing both of the Petitions For Relief filed by George F. Carter. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of May, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. 4 MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. George F. Carter Post Office Box 17949 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ms. Betsy Howard, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the post-hearing submissions of the parties. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Suggested Stipulations For Settlement does not contain any proposed findings of fact. Accordingly, no specific rulings on proposed findings of fact are addressed to that document. Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Summary Of Appellant's Presentation contains a mixture of Petitioner's factual contentions, legal contentions, conclusions, and arguments, all of which are substantially intertwined. A large number of Petitioner's comments in the subject document are irrelevant to the issues to be decided in these consolidated cases. Similarly, much of what is included in Petitioner's post- hearing summary consists of subordinate details and unwarranted conclusions. Addressing first the top half of the first page of the summary, the factual contentions in the first three numbered paragraphs are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as in large part not supported by competent substantial evidence. The unnumbered paragraph addressing low morale is rejected for several reasons, including being irrelevant to the issues in this case and not supported by competent substantial evidence. With regard to the contentions at the bottom half of page one and at the top of page two to the effect that Petitioner is an "outstanding employee," the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner is on the whole a good employee or a satisfactory employee, but not an outstanding employee. While Petitioner certainly has some outstanding qualities, he has also displayed characteristics which detract from his job performance. Some of these characteristics are summarized in DER Exhibit No. 11. Other characteristics which contraindicate classification of Petitioner as an outstanding employee are reflected in the incidents described in the findings of fact which led to disciplinary action against Petitioner. With regard to the contentions on page two of Petitioner's summary to the effect that his evaluation was unjust, the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. Paragraph number one is rejected because it is in part inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Further it fails to take into account the quality of work, which is a major factor in evaluations. Paragraphs number two, three, four and five are rejected because they are for the most part irrelevant. They contain inferences not warranted by the evidence and are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The unnumbered paragraph at the bottom of page two is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings, as not supported by competent substantial evidence, and as constituting inferences not supported by the evidence. With regard to the contentions on pages three and four of Petitioner's summary on the subject of the alleged pattern of harassment, discrimination, reprimand, and reprisal, the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. Paragraph number one is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number two is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number three is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number four is accepted in part and rejected in part. The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs number five and six are rejected as irrelevant, as not supported by competent substantial evidence, and as inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph number seven is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. The top two unnumbered paragraphs on page four are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph number six at the top of page four is accepted. With regard to the contentions on page four of Petitioner's summary under the caption "REPRISALS," the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. The first unnumbered paragraph under the subject caption is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number one is rejected as subordinate and as irrelevant in light of other more persuasive evidence as to why Petitioner was not promoted or given higher evaluations. Paragraph number two is rejected because it consists of conclusions not warranted by the evidence, is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and is for the most part irrelevant to the issues in this case. With regard to the contentions on page four and five of Petitioner's summary under the caption "DISCRIMINATION," the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. The first unnumbered paragraph under the subject caption is rejected because the first sentence is irrelevant standing alone and the second sentence is not supported by competent substantial evidence and incorporates inferences not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph number one is accepted in part and rejected in part. The substance of the first two sentences is accepted. The last three sentences are rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraphs number two, three, and four are rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraph number five is rejected because it includes conclusions not warranted by the evidence and is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number six is rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. The paragraphs on pages five and six under the caption "PROTEST AND SUGGESTION ON HANDLING OF GRIEVANCES" do not constitute proposed findings of fact. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings Paragraphs 1 through 11 of Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected because it is a discussion of the issues rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. Paragraph 18 is for the most part rejected as redundant or as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. The substance of paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected because it is a discussion of the issues rather than a proposed finding of fact. The substance of paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 is accepted with the exception of certain gratuitous editorial comments.
Findings Of Fact Martin Marietta Corporation is a multi-state, multi- national defense contractor. Respondent functions as one of its primary divisions/operations in Orlando, Florida. The Petitioner, Frank Maggio was born on April 3, 1914. Petitioner was employed by Respondent on June 16, 1981 in the position of Quality Control Fabrication Inspector A (Fate A Inspector) at Respondent's Orlando facility. Respondent's primary role within the overall corporate operation is the production of highly sophisticated, high-tech missile systems. The development and production of these weapons is maintained under tight security due to the involvement of the national defense effort. Because of Respondent's participation in military and defense programs, the manufacturing process is constantly reviewed and critically inspected by governmental agencies. The Respondent utilizes "state-of-the-art" machines and equipment on its advanced, technical and highly complex defense projects. Petitioner's responsibilities as a Fab A Inspector included checking the first piece of hardware off of the machines, qualifying the tape that runs the machine with his stamp and checking the dimensions of the first layout. This procedure is referred to as a set-up and, once "bought off" "accepted) by the "A" inspector, it establishes the critical reference point or benchmark for the sophisticated, state-of- the-art-manufacturing processes of the Respondent. Respondent's operations involve the manufacture or production of weaponry or weapons systems that require tolerances The Petitioner was given a warning that another similar incident might result in further disciplinary action, up to and including discharge and specifications which are not found or even known in consumer oriented production plants. Certain pieces of equipment used will drill and measure within one one-thousandth of an inch (1/1,000"). The integrity of the highly integrated and closely coordinated production procedures depends upon the correct initial setting, which "commits" the production process. If the initial setting is off or in error, nonconforming parts or items will be manufactured. If the nonconforming parts cannot be reworked or brought into tolerances, they are regarded as scrap and represent a loss to the company. The Petitioner functioned as the only Fab A Inspector on the second shift with very little, if any, supervision. "B" and "C" Inspectors were present, but not performing in a capacity that could provide a backup for Petitioner. In February, 1983, Petitioner functioned under the direct supervision of Charles Holley, Chief Quality Inspector. Although both men worked on the second shift, Petitioner performed as a Fab A inspector and was responsible for making the initial, critical decisions on "set-up" tapes for the second shift production operations. On April 5, 1983, while on his second shift assignment, Petitioner "bought off" on a first piece inspection in order to qualify a newly released tape. On April 7, 1983, the first shift rejected a piece on that particular tape because the dimensions were out of tolerance. Subsequently, after a second inspection of the piece by the senior tool inspector, it was determined that the part was non-conforming and out of tolerance. This error lead to the production of approximately 180 pieces of "scrap" and a loss of about $100,000. As a result of this incident, Mr. Holley, Petitioner's superior, completed a Significant Incident Report (S.I.R.) dated April 18, 1983, which was placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Pursuant to routine procedure, Petitioner was counseled about the S.I.R. and given an opportunity to respond. The Petitioner was given a warning that another similar incident might result in furhter disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. Following the April, 1983 incident, Mr. Holley felt that Petitioner's work performance began to decline. Mr. Holley was dissatisfied because Petitioner often used scales for measurements at times when Mr. Holley believed that calipers should have been used. In addition, Petitioner used his lunch break to take naps, and several times he was late returning to work. Sometime in late September or early October, the Petitioner approved a piece of hardware similar to that involved in the April, 1983 incident and it too was rejected for being out of tolerance. Following this incident, Mr. Holley once again went to the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department (S.I.R.) attempting to have another S.I.R. placed in Petitioner's file. However, the management in P.I.R. did not allow the report to be placed in Petitioner's file. Subsequently, Petitioner was not reprimanded or otherwise disciplined and no official record was kept of this incident. During February, 1984, a "set-up" error by Petitioner on a secret laser tracking missile project know as "Hell-Fire" caused unusable parts to be manufactured and a financial loss to Respondent. Prior to submitting an S.I.R., Mr. Holley met with management in the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department to discuss the Petitioner's situation. It was at this time that Mr. Thomas Mallis, supervisor of employee relations, seized upon the idea of Petitioner's upcoming 70th birthday on April 3, 1984 as a way in which to be rid of Petitioner. Mr. Mallis reasoned that rather than attempting to terminate Petitioner for cause, Petitioner's 70th birthday would provide a point where Petitioner could be "gracefully retired" under Martin Marietta Corporation's corporate retirement policy. Martin Marietta Corporation has a nationwide corporate retirement which requires retirement at age 70. Generally, the company does not enforce this requirement at facilities which are located in states where such a policy violates age discrimination laws. Likewise, Respondent does not generally enforce the corporate wide retirement policy at its Orlando facility because it is subject to Florida state law concerning age discrimination. As of April 4, 1984, Respondent employed approximately 11,000 employees. Approximately 5,017 of those employees were 40 years of age and a small number were over 70. Although the company's age 70 retirement policy is not generally enforced at Respondent's Orlando facility, the retirement plans provided by the company and the benefits package negotiated by the union with the company for retirement pay focus on age 70 as the point at which retirement benefits mature or "top out." After age 70, no further benefits accrue under the retirement plan. Thus, as a matter of established practice and/or expectation on the part of the employees, virtually all workers have retired or plan to retire on or before their 70th birthday. Therefore, Mr. Mallis believed that having respondent "retire" at age 70 would be an easy non-confrontational way to terminate Petitioner's employment. As a member of the United Aerospace Workers local bargaining unit, Petitioner would have had the right to object and file a grievance concerning any proposed termination for cause by Respondent. By "retiring" Petitioner under the corporate policy, Mr. Mallis believed that a "bitter challenge" under the union's often cumbersome grievance/arbitration procedures could be short-circuited. Under the Respondent's progressive discipline system, generally employees are given 3 to 5 S.I.R.'s or written warnings before any stronger action is taken. At the time of his involuntary retirement by Respondent on April 4, 1984, the Petitioner was not vested under the company's retirement program and was not entitled to any benefits thereunder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes and awarding the Petitioner attorney's fees. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be reinstated to his former position. The Respondent may seek to institute proceedings within 30 days from the date of the final order to terminate Petitioner for cause based on his work performance up to April 4, 1984. If the respondent is barred from attempting to terminate Petitioner for cause based on those past incidents for whatever reason, if Respondent chooses not to institute termination proceedings, or if the Respondent successfully defends any termination proceedings, then the Petitioner shall be entitled to back pay for the statutory maximum of two years. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire 57 West Pine Street, Suite 202 Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. Matters not contained therein are rejected as misleading. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Matters not contained therein are rejected as misleading. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5, and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7,/ Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14, 16, and 17. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and/or subordinate. In particular, the finding that the "Petitioner under normal circumstances, should have been discharged for his pattern of poor performance and the associated financial impact upon the company" is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as argumentative and/or subordinate. ================================================================ =
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Miami-Dade County (County), discriminated on the basis of age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), when it did not hire Petitioner, Omar Garcia, Jr.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 54-year-old male who submitted over 300 job applications to the County from May 2018 to August 2019. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It has approximately 25,000 full time employees and 3,000 part time employees. The County is an "employer" as defined by section 760.02(7). Between January 2018 and the date of the hearing, the County received over 820,000 applications for employment vacancies. Less than one percent of these applications resulted in an applicant being hired by the County. In other words, over 99 percent of the applications submitted to the County were rejected. Although Petitioner's resume and employment applications were not entered in evidence, Petitioner testified he holds a business administration degree from California State Polytechnic University Pomona. He also had 27 years of experience as a federal law enforcement officer, including with the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Petitioner resigned from DHS in lieu of termination after he was arrested on a domestic violence charge. That charge was eventually nolle prossed. He did not reveal to the County that he had resigned in lieu of termination from the DHS position, or that he had been arrested or charged with domestic violence. Again, because the applications were not in evidence it is unclear if Petitioner was required to disclose this information. Prior to resigning from DHS, Petitioner began applying for positions with the County in May 2018. Petitioner was not discerning in selecting the positions for which he applied. He submitted applications for a wide assortment of occupations including administrative, clerical, financial, law enforcement, and human resource positions. The specific positions included, but were not limited to, the following: Account Clerk, Administrative Secretary, Airport Operations Specialist, Aviation Property Manager, Bus Stock Clerk, Contracts Officer, Corrections Officer, Finance Collection Specialist, Fleet Management Specialist, Library Assistant, Fire Investigator, Paralegal, Real Estate Advisor, Risk Management Representative, Tax Records Specialist, Storekeeper, Victim Specialist, and Water and Sewer Compliance Specialist. Submitting an application is the initial step in the County's hiring process. Once the application is received, it is screened by a computer software system to determine whether the applicant meets the minimum eligibility requirements of the position. The County's Human Resources department forwards those applications deemed "eligible" to the County department hiring for the position. The hiring department then reviews the applications sent by Human Resources to determine if the applicant is "Qualified." To be "Qualified," an applicant must meet the minimum eligibility requirements, and then specific qualifying criteria imposed by the hiring department. For example, for a secretarial position the County may receive 500 eligible applications for one position, but cannot interview all 500 applicants. To whittle down the applicants, the hiring department may have additional requirements such as a certain number of years of secretarial experience, or experience in specific professional areas. The hiring department interviews those applicants with the best qualifications and/or most relevant experience. The unrebutted evidence established that an interview is required prior to selection for a position. Failure to attend an interview would ruin the applicant's chances to be hired. Out of the approximately 300 applications Petitioner submitted for various positions, he met the minimum eligibility requirements for 96.3 Out of the 96 applications forwarded by Human Resources, Petitioner was deemed by the hiring departments to be "Qualified" for 60 positions, and deemed "Not Qualified" for 36 positions. Of the 60 for which he was deemed "Qualified," he was offered interviews for two positions in law enforcement. Of the two interviews he was offered, he only attended one.4 There was no evidence that anyone in the County's hiring process knew Petitioner's age. The County established that it does not ask for applicants to reveal their age on the County job application, nor is the age or date of birth transmitted to the hiring department. There was also no evidence of the ages of the selected applicants who filled the specific positions for which Petitioner applied.5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Omar Garcia's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 7th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Marlon D. Moffett, Esquire Miami-Dade County 27th Floor, Suite 2810 111 Northwest 1st Street Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Omar Garcia 4670 Salamander Street Saint Cloud, Florida 34772 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 8, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has a corporate policy that prohibits its employees from engaging in acts of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The policy provides, in part, as follows: Discrimination Resort Travel & XChange prohibits discrimination against its employees, applicants for employment, and customers on the basis of a person’s gender, ethnicity, race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, military service or veteran status or any other classification protected by applicable law. Specifically with regard to its employees and job applicants, Resort Travel & XChange does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of the foregoing characteristics with respect to the terms and conditions of employment. Retaliation Resort Travel & XChange does not tolerate any form of retaliation taken against an employee who, in good faith, makes a complaint of discrimination or harassment under this policy, opposes such discrimination or harassment, or participates in an investigation of alleged discrimination or harassment. Anyone who engages in such retaliatory behavior will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner was hired by Respondent in March 2014 to work as an “Instructional Design & Delivery Trainer.” The written position description includes the following summary statement: [An] Instructional Design & Delivery Trainer plays an important role in making their companies more competitive by developing the skills of the workforce. They help to accelerate organizational change by developing the skills a company requires if it plans to enter new markets or needs to transform its business performance. Companies with a reputation for developing people also find it easier to recruit and retain high-caliber employees. Among the key competencies are the ability to design and deliver training, manage the learning function, measure and evaluate the results of training, and manage organizational knowledge. According to Pamela Price, Petitioner’s immediate supervisor during his term of employment with Respondent, Petitioner’s “responsibilities would have been to create, design, develop step-by-step institutional training manuals and modules, and perform classroom training of that content to new hires, as well as continuing education courses, [and] [t]o perform analytical assessments of training class participants to see at what level they were learning.” The cornerstone of Petitioner’s gender discrimination claim is his allegation that Ms. Price, on multiple occasions, made statements to Petitioner about a female worker from one of her previous jobs that performed better than Petitioner when assigned similar tasks. Petitioner offered no evidence, other than cryptic self-serving statements and conclusory allegations, which supports his allegation that Ms. Price treated him differently because of his gender. On or about September 19, 2014, Petitioner received from Ms. Price his initial six-month performance evaluation. Respondent’s employee performance evaluation rating scale ranges from “marginal” to “outstanding.” On the initial review, Petitioner received an overall rating of “marginal.” There is no evidence of record that Petitioner suffered a decrease in pay, benefits, or the loss of job-related opportunities as a consequence of having received the marginal performance rating. On or about September 22, 2014, Petitioner sent to Laura Lampkin, Respondent’s director of human resources, his response to the performance evaluation prepared by Ms. Price. In his response, Petitioner states, with respect to Ms. Price, the following: The continued push towards unrealistic deadlines and the refusal to listen or effectively address the needs and concerns expressed creates an unnecessary feeling of duress. Duress is not the inability to handle a fast paced or chaotic environment, as those are environments I thrive within. Duress, as it pertains to this example, is in the feeling to produce regardless of tangible concerns. It is, by nature, the creation of a hostile work environment which should not exist within a professional workplace. Because Petitioner expressed concern about Ms. Price’s behavior creating a “hostile work environment,” Ms. Lampkin, within a day or so of receiving Petitioner’s response, initiated an investigation to determine whether Ms. Price was in violation of Respondent’s anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation policy. At no time prior to receiving his performance evaluation did Petitioner complain about Ms. Price creating a work environment charged with discriminatory animus. Pursuant to Ms. Lampkin’s investigation, Petitioner, in support of his allegation of the existence of a hostile work environment, informed Ms. Lampkin on September 30, 2014, of the following with respect to Ms. Price: There are a good number of situations which lend themselves to an environment that promotes an air of uncertainty, insecurity – as well as the feeling of being bullied. There is [sic] also interactions and conversations, for example when Pam refers to her co-workers or friends at United Healthcare and how they would be able to perform a function that I push back against or when she fails to consider my professional assessments for training and development, which create concerns of inequality or discriminatory undertones. I have often felt, since July, that there is a determination to replace me with a personal contact from United Healthcare – as it has been referenced repeatedly about this ‘trainer’ and what she is ‘capable of.’ To the degree, where at times, I’m given the impression that I should be as capable as this mysterious person. Perhaps, in Pam’s mind I am too young to be an experienced training professional or maybe she would prefer her previous, female, co-worker. Petitioner failed to offer any evidence, credible or otherwise, that in any way supports his allegation that Ms. Price harbored gender-based discriminatory animus towards Petitioner. At the final hearing, Petitioner cross-examined Ms. Price about myriad subjects, none of which involved issues related to gender bias. Furthermore, in his direct testimony, Petitioner stated, in conclusory terms, that Ms. Price “was discriminatory on the basis of gender because she constantly made references to me about how her other trainer at her other job could do it so much easier and I was making things more complicated than they should be.” Petitioner obviously took offense to Ms. Price’s statements, but contrary to Petitioner’s allegations, these alleged statements attributed to Ms. Price do not demonstrate discriminatory animus, but instead indicate a desire by Ms. Price for Petitioner to improve his level of performance. Petitioner alleges that on October 3, 2014, Ms. Lampkin advised him that she had informed Ms. Price of Petitioner’s claim of discrimination. According to Petitioner, Ms. Price, after learning of Petitioner’s claim, retaliated against him as follows: On October 3, 2014, after I was informed by Laura Lampkin that she had spoken to Pam Price about my claims of discrimination, I received a schedule from Pam Price which included radical changes to my standard operating schedule. I was hired as a salaried employee with a 9am-5:30 p.m. schedule with flexibility in my time and freedom to take breaks and lunch as chosen. In the schedule I received from Pam Price, I was now put into an “agents” schedule, each week working a different shift (morning, afternoon and evening) along with scheduled lunch and break times. In addition, they also moved my office onto the call center floor and set me up in a cubicle with the call center agents. When I complained that the schedule change and relocation of my office to the call center floor was a retaliatory action, the schedule was immediately retracted and I was told to revert back to my standard schedule. However, they kept me on the call center floor which was an uncomfortable position and a distraction to the other agents. I also noticed that the contact I had with other employees both in the Asheville and Orlando office changed during that time. I was no longer treated as a member of management, but now I was being treated as if I was a call center agent. When I expressed this concern to another member of our management team . . . , I was informed that there was an unwritten memo going around the Asheville and Orlando office[s] that I was to be treated as if I was an agent. According to Ms. Price, during Petitioner’s first few months of employment with Respondent, his primary responsibility was “learning” about the company. Petitioner was expected to learn about company “[p]rograms, corporate compliance, policies and procedures, introduction to his teammates, understanding their positions and their roles . . . reading materials [and] having conversations.” Ms. Price, in Petitioner’s performance evaluation, was particularly disapproving of Petitioner as it relates to him failing to take advantage of a critical learning opportunity from a member of Respondent’s staff who was sent to Petitioner’s work-site to conduct a five-week training session. According to Ms. Price, Petitioner spent as little as one to two hours a day attending the training sessions when, in her opinion, more of his time should have been allocated to attending the sessions, especially since he was new to the company. In his September 19 and 22, 2014, responses to his performance evaluation, Petitioner complained that he had “not been afforded reasonable time to learn the processes and workflows contained within the products offered,” and that in order “[t]o be a subject matter expert, which is at the core of my position, I must have the complete and full immersion into the workflows and processes that make up the related products to be able to effectively and authoritatively create training documentation and train[ing] processes.” Respondent granted Petitioner’s request for “complete and full immersion.” On October 3, 2014, Respondent implemented Petitioner’s request for complete and full immersion, which resulted, among other things, in Petitioner being assigned work hours consistent with those assigned to agents in the Orlando call center. Literally within minutes2/ of being fully and completely immersed into Respondent’s workflows and processes, Petitioner, at 2:47 p.m. on October 3, 2014, was already complaining about the immersion program, as reflected in the following e-mail exchanges between Petitioner and Laura Lampkin. Petitioner to Laura Lampkin – October 3, 2014, 2:47 p.m. Laura: While I appreciate the attention to detail given to this project for immersion into the RTX Workflow and while I have explicitly stated ‘agent like immersion’ into those workflows, this is a bit above and beyond that expectation. “In order for you to get the full spectrum of calls and types of calls, I have rotated your schedule from the AM shift, Mid-Shift and Late-shift throughout the two month period of time. In addition to your shift start/stop times, you have regularly scheduled breaks and lunch, based on the particular shift you will work for that week. As an example, for the AM shift, first break is generally at 10:00 am, lunch at 12 noon and then second break at 2:00 and so on for each of the shifts. You will have Monday’s off work on the weeks that you are scheduled to work Saturdays to assist with floor coverage due to the upcoming maintenance fee season. I appreciate your assistance with floor coverage during this busy season.” [from Pamela Price to Petitioner]. There is no reasonable, acceptable, logic to Pam’s statement. The type of calls able to be handled by an RTX Exchange Agent do[es] not change throughout the course of a day or shift. There are only so many call types available and those happen, randomly, with every inbound call – regardless of time of day. Pam did mention scheduling me into the workflows, however, that was not the interpretation I expected. I would like to get this project underway without unnecessary complications. I find the radical change to my schedule a retaliatory maneuver. As the Instructional Design and Delivery Manager, my need to be exposed to the call queue and to gain the practical knowledge to speak to the agent experience does not require the coverage of three shifts, nor does it require a deviation from my normal schedule to accommodate an eight hour workday. Even though I will be using this opportunity as a ‘live learning environment,’ and will hold myself to the highest standards in customer care, while being mindful of queue wait times – I again find it a bit overboard to dictate call per hour and follow up to the level of actual agent performance. I am not transitioning into an agent position, I am simply utilizing the live call queue as the only available method for active learning and methodology. Could you kindly level set the Pam? At this time and until the current investigation is complete, I feel it may behoove all parties involved to have monitored contact. Thank you much. Laura Lampkin to Petitioner – October 3, 2014, 3:28 p.m. Jason, There actually is a logic to your schedule arrangement, and there is a difference in callers in the AM versus the PM. The AM callers do not contain as many sales opportunities, those are more likely to be basic reservations calls. Call volume is higher in the evening, and opportunities for sales are higher in the evening. The logic behind your rotating schedule arrangement is to give you the fullest exposure possible. Given the criticality of immersion in becoming a Subject Matter Expert, the goal is [to] provide you with the best possible opportunities for exposure. This will help in role playing scenarios and variation, which you expressed were much more difficult to train on without full immersion. If the new schedule is a point of contention, we can rework it. I do want you to understand that there was a great deal of thought put into your immersion plan, all centered around what is most beneficial to you and what bests [sic] affords you the chance to become a Subject Matter Expert. With regards to your statement ‘I am not transitioning into an agent position, I am simply utilizing the live call queue as the only available method for active learning and methodology[,] this is technically correct. However, again in the name of immersion and the need to become a Subject Matter Expert, we are arranging temporarily for your work tasks, work environment and product exposure to basically mimic that of an agent for your benefit. Additionally, specific to your statement ‘I again find it a bit overboard to dictate call per hour and follow up to the level of actual agent performance[,]’ I should clarify that aligning your performance standards with that of an agent is not a main focus. Of course we want you to handle calls properly – and I have no doubt you will – but I do not anticipate any detailed comparison to agents in terms of how the calls are handled. I do believe there will be periodic confirmation of phone time, again not in comparison to agents, but to ensure that the exposure and immersion are occurring. If there are confirmations of phone time, those may be used to determine whether we have fully satisfied our goal of immersion, in terms of exposing you to the phone roles and giving you the needed active time on the phones. I feel I must stress that this immersion plan is driven significantly by your continued emphasis on its importance. I wholeheartedly agree that significant exposure (as you’ve indicated, 4-6 months dedicated time, minimum) to the product and the role is necessary to create training programs and train effectively on most possible scenarios. Because we have yet to arrange dedicated time to immersion for you, and because you’ve indicated it’s critical, we are doing it now. Once the immersion plan is completed, my understanding is that you will be a Subject Matter Expert and capable of training as one. Keeping in mind that maximum exposure has been the goal for your immersion plan and your schedule, I welcome your suggested schedule changes. Thanks. Petitioner to Laura Lampkin – October 3, 2014, 5:07 p.m. Laura: I do appreciate the thoughtfulness put into the plan that I’ve requested. I must say, that from my exposure, I find the majority of inbound calls to contain a sales opportunity and while sales is an important part of our member services and revenue generation, it is not the core of the educational process or training programs expected curriculum. It is certainly necessary to have agent exposure to speak to the experiences and topics that new hires will encounter in production. More so, it is a necessity to explain the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of processes and/or procedures that are expected of an agent. I feel very comfortable in what I have expressed to both Pam and yourself as the requirements for effectively and efficiently learning and understanding the RTX Workflow to a level which is agreeable with the creation of curriculum and the training of such curriculum. The activity of taking live calls, which unfortunately was not available sooner, without interruption, is a requirement. Subject matter expertise is built upon that foundation and will continue to fluctuate until a time comes when the systems and processes used do not change on a consistent basis. As for being held to the same standards as the agent’s in production, I can only speak to what was written and manner in which it was relayed. I stand behind my statements that effective training is necessary before the ability to create, direct or lead a training class or materials. I also stand behind my statements that the schedule change is radical, causes personal conflicts and is not a necessary requirement to achieve the level of immersion and learning that has been requested. For the sake of curiosity, was there a logic to creating a structured ‘agent’ schedule which includes my start, break, lunch and end times? As a salaried employee, I was already under my own direction, likely going to extend my hours and/or utilize unscheduled Saturday’s to afford additional learning time – as I found necessary – due to the estimated time frame I had given to both Pam and yourself by request. This package is wrapped very nicely as a thoughtful contribution to my success, but as a training professional who has interacted with the agent’s and call queue – albeit limited, and with the direct knowledge of what has been lacking in my ability to be fully developed as an employee of RTX, the delivered structure places a burden on my personal needs – which are based around my expected schedule. In addition, a rotation does not deliver nor guarantee delivery of experiences that can’t be extracted from a call within my standard scheduled hours. It would be a great assistance, if we could kindly not alter my schedule and allow me the opportunity I have needed within the confines of what has been established as my schedule expectations for the last six months. Should I find that a knowledge gap exists, I will actively adjust to correct and close such gap. Ms. Price testified as to the accuracy of the matters discussed by Ms. Lampkin in her e-mail reply to Petitioner. Additionally, the undisputed evidence is that Petitioner unilaterally withdrew from the immersion program after having been a part of the same for only two weeks. The evidence is also undisputed that Respondent did not change Petitioner’s pay, benefits, or job-related opportunities as a consequence of Petitioner entering and subsequently leaving the full immersion program. The e-mail exchange between Petitioner and Ms. Lampkin show a number of things, none of which support Petitioner’s claim of retaliation. As an initial matter, Ms. Lampkin’s e-mail to Petitioner, and the related testimony from Ms. Price, clearly establishes that Respondent knows its business operations better than Petitioner. Next, Ms. Lampkin’s e-mail to Petitioner, and the related testimony from Ms. Price, establishes that Petitioner’s immersion into Respondent’s operations was a temporary assignment scheduled to last about two months and that the planned immersion was in furtherance of Respondent’s legitimate business interests of having Petitioner to perform his job at a competence level higher than “marginal.” Furthermore, Petitioner’s correspondence of September 19, 2014, wherein he specifically requests “complete and full immersion,” when compared to his correspondence of October 3, 2014, wherein he retreats to a preferred experience of ‘agent like immersion,’ shows that Petitioner was simply trying to the game the system in an attempt to avoid “plac[ing] a burden on [his] personal needs” as repeatedly referenced in his correspondence of October 3, 2014. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Respondent’s decision to fully immerse him, on a temporary basis, in its call center operations was done for reasons other than those related to improving Petitioner’s job performance, and concomitantly Respondent’s business operations. In other words, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent’s decision to fully immerse him in its call center operations was done in retaliation for his having alleged that Ms. Price discriminated against him on the basis of his gender. In the Employment Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges, in part, the following: I suffer from three chronic disabilities as explained to my employer when requesting reasonable accommodation to work from home, when not tasked with a training class, the call center floor and office space triggers disability-related episodes and limits my ability to concentrate and effectively focus. Respondent continues to make the process of providing me reasonable accommodations difficult and shows no desire to work with me, or my physician’s requirements, to allow me to quickly return to work and perform my job functions. The fact that Petitioner suffers from recognized disabilities is not in dispute. On or about October 30, 2014, Petitioner informed Ms. Lampkin during a telephone conference that he believed that he had one or more physical impairments that might warrant an accommodation. Specifically, Petitioner reported that the workplace lighting was bothersome and that he would work better with incandescent or natural lighting. Ms. Lampkin asked Petitioner to provide additional information about his lighting concerns so that Respondent could determine whether workplace modifications were necessary. Petitioner also informed Ms. Lampkin that he was not sure whether his lighting concerns were temporary or would be on-going. On November 3, 2014, Petitioner e-mailed Ms. Lampkin stating, in part, the following: I am unable to go into the call center and back office areas as it directly impacts my sense of well-being and heightens my medical concerns. Therefore I am unable to report to the office to conduct my required function of creating training curriculums and educational products. My physicians are preparing documentation for you as requested. Due to the nature of my core job functions, I am requesting that work from home be authorized as a reasonable accommodation. As of November 3, 2014, the only specific medical concern mentioned by Petitioner was his sensitivity to lighting. On or about November 11, 2014, Petitioner gave Ms. Lampkin a letter from his physician. The physician’s letter states, in part, that Petitioner should be allowed “to work from home when [he] is not tasked with conducting training classes” because Petitioner “will be better able to perform the essential functions of his position by working from home.” The letter goes on to state that “the work environment triggers severe panic attacks” and that Petitioner “has become increasingly sensitive to and made ill by various fragrances and fluorescent lighting, all of which would be eliminated by working from home.” The physician also notes that “[f]urther support of this request is the fact that [Petitioner’s] primary job functions can effectively be performed remotely, with the need for being present in the office relegated to those times when he must attend meetings for which teleconference is not available or to perform the training that he conducts.” The physician's letter did not indicate that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of his job without a reasonable accommodation. Rather the letter stated that Petitioner would be “better able to perform the essential function of this position by working from home.” Based on the rather cryptic information contained in the physician's letter, Respondent was unable to grant Petitioner's request for a reasonable accommodation. In response to the physician’s letter, Respondent, on November 13, 2014, informed Petitioner that “[a]dditional information is necessary in order to make a determination regarding [the] request for reasonable accommodation.” The additional information requested from Petitioner’s physician is as follows: What are the environmental factors which trigger the panic attacks? When is the condition(s) expected to resolve and a return to work to occur? What about the conditions(s) prevents performing daily work tasks in the workplace, but permits conduction of classroom training in the workplace? Are there other alternatives which can be offered, outside of working from home, which allow the essential job functions to be performed? If so, what are those alternatives? The previous letter states that the primary job functions can be performed from home. What are those primary job functions which were referenced in that statement? The previous letter reference enclosures, but none were provided with the letter. Please provide any relevant enclosures for review. Each question asked by Respondent was reasonably tailored so as elicit responses that would better enable Respondent to analyze Petitioner’s request for accommodation and to explore the availability of other possible accommodations. On November 19, 2014, Petitioner wrote a lengthy message to Ms. Lampkin contesting Respondent's need for the additional information. In response to this missive, Ms. Lampkin, on November 20, 2014, informed Petitioner that his “request for accommodation has been conditionally denied pending the receipt of the required information.” On November 21, 2014, Petitioner sent another missive to Ms. Lampkin and argued therein that Respondent's request for additional information was overbroad and that in his opinion he had provided sufficient information so as to allow Respondent to grant his request for accommodation. In response to the concerns expressed by Petitioner, Ms. Lampkin provided a detailed explanation to Petitioner of why additional information was needed to evaluate his request for accommodation and encouraged Petitioner to provide the information “as expeditiously as possible so that we can move forward with granting you an accommodation.” His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, Petitioner had not, as of November 21, 2014, provided Respondent with sufficient information to allow Respondent to determine what reasonable accommodations were necessary and available in order to address Petitioner’s mental and physical impairments. On November 24, 2014, Petitioner supplied Respondent with what is described as “supplemental documentation” from his physician. This documentation was not, however, information entirely responsive to the six points of inquiry mentioned in Respondent’s November 13, 2014, correspondence to Petitioner. Based on the supplemental information, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would modify the workplace to accommodate Petitioner’s sensitivity to light and scents. Petitioner was directed to report to work on December 1, 2014. Petitioner did not return to work on December 1, 2014, as instructed. Petitioner e-mailed Respondent on December 3, 2014, to state that he had not received the e-mail instructing him to return to work on December 1, 2014. He also indicated that he did not believe that all of his workplace concerns had been addressed. Ms. Lampkin responded on December 5, 2014, indicating that Respondent had addressed all known workplace issues and also informed Petitioner that additional information would be considered, if supplied. Specifically, Ms. Lampkin stated to Petitioner: I, too, am willing to continue to engage in this interactive process with you. The next steps in the process, should your position remain that your condition(s) warrant further accommodation including working from home, involve your supplying me with specific responses to the informational requests I have previously made. The informational requests that I made were not entirely answered by the response I received from you dated 11/21/14. I am happy to re-send you the form so that you can provide the remaining information. Please advise. On December 9, 2014, Ms. Lampkin provided Petitioner with another copy of the form setting forth the information requested on November 13, 2014. In her correspondence of December 9, 2014, Ms. Lampkin explained that “[t]he information contained in the form that you returned to me was insufficient to enable RTX to approve your request to telecommute indefinitely or to allow RTX to evaluate what reasonable accommodations other than what RTX has already offered may be available.” On December 11, 2014, Ms. Lampkin again requested that Petitioner provide her information responsive to those items enumerated in her correspondence of November 13, 2014. On December 15, 2014, Petitioner advised Ms. Lampkin that he was expecting to receive from his physician information responsive to her requests and that he would forward the same to her as soon as possible. On or about December 18, 2014, Petitioner sent Respondent a second letter from his physician. In the letter, Petitioner’s physician stated definitively that “I do not find any other accommodations available other than for the patient to be afforded the ability to work remotely when not tasked with conducting training classes which require physical presence.” Based on that statement by Petitioner's physician, Respondent agreed to grant Petitioner a reasonable accommodation and to permit him to work from home when not tasked with conducting classroom training. Petitioner was advised that January 2, 2015, would be his official return-to-work date. Respondent acted reasonably, and communicated with Petitioner appropriately, when seeking information related to Petitioner’s desire to work from home. The evidence does not support Petitioner’s contention that Respondent unreasonably delayed granting Petitioner’s request to work from home. On or about January 5, 2015, Petitioner, via videoconference, met with Ms. Price to discuss the new hire training class that Petitioner was to conduct on January 12, 2015. The following day, on January 6, 2015, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Ms. Price and Ms. Lampkin and complained therein of not having enough time to prepare for the January 12, 2015, new hire training session. Petitioner, nevertheless, assured Respondent that “it will get done” and any questions that he could not answer during the training session “will go to the parking lot while [he] obtains an answer for the students.” On Monday, January 12, 2015, the day of the new hire training session, Petitioner, at 9:52 a.m., sent the following e-mail message to Ms. Price and Ms. Lampkin: I have spent 10.5 hours within the ER on Sandlake Road and awake for over 22 hours, so I will not be in today to begin your impromptu FAC training class. I will either be in tomorrow or we can consider this my constructive discharge/resignation and I will simply limit my interaction with RTX through the ongoing investigations. The choice is yours, of course, but kindly let me know so I can plan my Tuesday accordingly. I need to rest, now. Thank you. At 6:28 p.m., on January 12, 2015, Ms. Lampkin, in response to Petitioner’s e-mail, informed Petitioner of the following: Your absence today is unexcused. You are being given the opportunity to convert today’s absence to an excused absence by presenting a doctor’s note. If today’s absence remains an unexcused absence, you are subject to discipline. We are expecting you to be present to teach the class tomorrow, and to be ready to teach at 8:00 a.m. You were to have printed the materials earlier, and we expect that you will be ready to teach at 8:00 a.m. Petitioner did not report to work on January 13, 2015, to conduct the training session. Instead, Petitioner, at 9:41 a.m. on January 13, 2015, informed Ms. Lampkin that “the curt and underhanded behavior of RTX increases my anxieties . . . [and] it has been determined by myself and my health care providers that it is to my benefit to continue with a constructive resignation.” Respondent deemed Petitioner as having voluntarily resigned his employment with the company.
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 finding that Respondent, Resort Travel and Xchange, did not commit unlawful employment practices as alleged by Petitioner, Jason L. Van Horne, and denying Petitioner's Employment Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 18th day of March, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, is a female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bateman was 41 or 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman is an attorney. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was a member of The Florida Bar during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Ms. Bateman's Employment by the Department. In October of 1990, the Department employed Ms. Bateman as an attorney in the Department's Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Bateman was required to be a member of The Florida Bar. Ms. Bateman's position with the Department was classified as a "Select Exempt Service" position. Pursuant to Chapter 22SE-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and Part V, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, persons employed in select exempt service positions may be terminated from employment without cause. Ms. Bateman's immediate supervisor was Chriss Walker. Mr. Walker is a Senior Attorney with the Department and, at the time Ms. Bateman was hired, also served as the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. As of December 4, 1991, the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement, and Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor was Anne F. Donovan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William H. Bentley was an Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department with supervisory authority over the Department's Assistant Secretary's, including Mr. Walker and Ms. Donovan. "Productivity Enhancement" at the Department. During 1991, the Department was required to evaluate all employment positions at the Department and to reduce those positions in an effort to improve the productivity of the Department. Generally, all positions at the Department and the work performed by the persons filling those positions were considered and decisions were made as to which positions could be eliminated. The Department referred to the elimination of positions as "red-lining". The Department also made efforts to insure that any person affected by the elimination of their position would be placed in another position. Ms. Bateman's attorney position with Child Support Enforcement was identified for elimination. Another attorney position in Child Support Enforcement and Mr. Walker's Senior Attorney position were not identified for elimination. The decision to eliminate one of the attorney positions was based upon conclusion that the administrative duties of the two attorney positions could be handled by a paralegal position and the legal duties could then be handled by one attorney. Efforts to assist Ms. Bateman to find another position were not successful. Ultimately, the Department decided to find a position in which to continue to employ Ms. Bateman rather than to terminate her position and release her. The Department reclassified another vacant position so that Ms. Bateman could continue to be employed as an attorney for Child Support Enforcement. Mr. Walker was directed to create an attorney position for Ms. Bateman by the Assistant Secretary for Human Services. This decision was made during the early Fall of 1991. The Department's decision to continue to employ Ms. Bateman was based in part on the Department's concern about terminating an employee of the Department. The evidence failed to prove that the Department acted unreasonably with regard to the red-lining of Ms. Bateman's position. Ms. Bateman's Performance. During the year after Ms. Bateman began her employment with the Department, Mr. Walker, Ms. Bateman's supervisor, began to develop concerns about the adequacy of her work product. Ms. Bateman also began to evidence behavior which was not acceptable for an attorney of the Department. As a result of Ms. Bateman's odd behavior, Mr. Walker became concerned about Ms. Bateman's mental well-being. Mr. Walker memorialized his concerns about Ms. Bateman in a memorandum to Mr. Bentley dated December 2, 1991. The memorandum was revised December 19, 1991 to eliminate references to a counselor that Ms. Bateman had informed Mr. Walker she was seeing. Ms. Bateman's work deteriorated to an extent which necessitated other employees carrying out some of her duties. Among the difficulties experienced with Ms. Bateman which formed a reasonable basis for terminating her employment were the following: Ms. Bateman had difficulty communicating with other employees and her supervisor. As an attorney, Ms. Bateman was required to communicate orally and in writing. She was unable to do so in an adequate manner. Ms. Bateman failed to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness and, therefore, her supervisors were unable to rely upon her judgment as an attorney of the Department. Ms. Bateman's appearance was unacceptable for an employee of the Department who was required to meet and communicate with the public. Ms. Bateman's hair was unkempt and dirty, her clothes were often soiled and wrinkled, she failed to brush her teeth and she appeared not to be bathing based upon her appearance and her strong body odor. Although required to do so by Department policy, Ms. Bateman refused to give her supervisor a permanent home address or phone number. On one occasion Ms. Bateman was found asleep in the offices of the Department at night and on one occasion she was found asleep during working hours. Based upon the inadequacy of Ms. Bateman's performance, the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment. Mr. Walker's Evaluation of Ms. Bateman. On December 18, 1991, Mr. Walker presented Ms. Bateman with a Professional Employee Performance Appraisal form he had completed on her performance. The Appraisal was reviewed by Ms. Bateman and signed by her on December 18, 1991. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance a rating of "effective" on the Appraisal. Of the factors evaluated on the Appraisal, Mr. Walker judged Ms. Bateman's performance as "excellent" on one factor, "effective" on eleven factors and "needs improvement" on nine factors. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance an "effective" rating despite his conclusion that her work product was not acceptable and despite his concerns about her inappropriate behavior. He did so because he had recently been directed to create a position to keep Ms. Bateman as an employee of the Department and in an effort to avoid litigation over Ms. Bateman's termination. Mr. Walker did not believe that his supervisors wanted to avoid any difficulties concerning Ms. Bateman employment. Mr. Walker failed to follow Department procedure in presenting the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman. The Appraisal was required to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor, Ms. Donovan, before it was given to Ms. Bateman. Mr. Walker, contrary to Department policy, presented the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman before Ms. Donovan had seen and approved it. Ms. Donovan was aware of the problems with Ms. Bateman's performance and would not have approved an "effective" rating. Upon receiving the Appraisal, Ms. Donovan discussed the Appraisal with Mr. Walker and rejected it, as it was her right to do. Ms. Donovan, consistent with Department policy, specified that Ms. Bateman would be evaluated again in sixty days. The Department's Request that Ms. Bateman Undergo a Psychological Evaluation. Although the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment by the end of 1991 and in early 1992, the Department decided to attempt to discover the cause of Ms. Bateman's decline in performance and the onset of her odd behavior rather than terminate her employment. The Department made this decision in an effort to determine what assistance Ms. Bateman might need. Ultimately, the Department was attempting to determine what work, if any, Ms. Bateman was capable of performing. The Department's decision was based upon a number of incidents involving Ms. Bateman. Those incidents are included in Mr. Walker's Chronology of December 2, 1991 and his Revised Chronology of December 19, 1991 and are hereby incorporated herein. Although not all the incidents described in the chronologies were proved during the final hearing to have occurred, the Department's consideration of the incidents reported by Mr. Walker was reasonable. Due to the Department's concerns about Ms. Bateman, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman voluntarily participate in the Department's employee assistance program. Ms. Bateman refused. In order to determine what could be done to help Ms. Bateman, and to determine what duties and responsibilities she was capable of performing, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological, or other, evaluation. Ms. Bateman refused. After discussing the matter with Ms. Bateman and legal counsel she had retained, the Department notified Ms. Bateman that her continued employment was conditioned upon her undergoing a psychological evaluation or some other evaluation which would allow the Department to determine what work she was capable of performing. In a letter of February 12, 1992, Ms. Bateman, through her representative, was informed of the following: As you also know, we are attempting to help Andrea address a problem which we believe exists and has been well documented over the past 16 months. In return, we need Andrea's help and cooperation. If Andrea chooses to agree to our request that she undergo a psychiatric evaluation and authorize the release to us of the psychiatrist's prognosis, diagnosis and recommendation for treatment, we will be glad to schedule an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, and will pay for such an evaluation. We will use the evaluation to determine an appropriate course of action. Ms. Bateman's Termination from Employment. Ms. Bateman continued to refuse to undergo any evaluation or to suggest any alternative course of action. Consequently, based upon Ms. Bateman's inadequate and unacceptable work performance, the Department terminated Ms. Bateman's employment with the Department on or about February 13, 1992. Ms. Bateman's termination from employment was effective February 28, 1992. Ms. Bateman was terminated from employment due to the fact that she was not adequately performing her job and she refused to cooperate with the Department to find out what could be done to help her become an effective employee. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext. Ms. Bateman's Charge of Discrimination. On or about September 15, 1992, Ms. Bateman filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Bateman alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and a perceived handicap. On February 10, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Bateman filed a Request for Redetermination on March 4, 1992. On April 12, 1993, the Commission issued a "Redetermination: No Cause" affirming its decision. On May 12, 1993, Ms. Bateman filed a Petition for Relief seeking a formal administrative hearing. In the petition Ms. Bateman alleged that the Department had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, a perceived handicap and, for the first time, age. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Bateman. Alleged Sex Discrimination. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any action of the Department was based upon Ms. Bateman's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not terminated because of her sex and the Department's efforts to determine the cause of Ms. Bateman's problems was not based upon her sex. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any Department policy or standard had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a male attorney. Ms. Bateman's grooming habits were discussed with her. Some of those discussions concerned the wearing of panty hose and her makeup. It must be inferred that such discussions were not carried on with male employees. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Ms. Bateman's termination was based upon these matters. Although grooming played a part in the decision to terminate Ms. Bateman's employment, it was grooming related to basic cleanliness and neat appearance required of all employees and not just female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female. Alleged Age Discrimination. At the time that Ms. Bateman was hired she was 41 years of age, and at the time she was terminated she was 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that age played any part in her treatment by the Department. This finding is supported, in part, by the fact that the difference between Ms. Bateman's age when she was hired and when she was terminated was only one year. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a younger person. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment were aware of her age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her age. Alleged Perceived Handicap. The Department did believe that Ms. Bateman was suffering from some mental problem. This belief was based upon Ms. Bateman's odd behavior and a concern that Ms. Bateman was "homeless". It was for this reason that the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological evaluation. Ms. Bateman failed to prove, however, that the Department treated her differently from the manner other employees of the Department were treated under similar circumstances. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department's request that she undergo a psychological or other evaluation to determine how to assist her to meet the requirements of her employment was made for a discriminatory reason. Under the circumstances, the Department's request of Ms. Bateman was reasonable. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that she was terminated from employment because of any perceived handicap. The evidence proved that she was in fact terminated from employment due to her inability to satisfactorily carry out her job responsibilities. Ms. Bateman also failed to allege or prove that she has a handicap based upon her mental condition. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of a handicap or a perceived handicap.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act or acts of age discrimination against Petitioner by not selecting him for promotion to sergeant with the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Steven L. Boles, was employed at the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office in April 2001 as a deputy sheriff. Petitioner's date of birth is June 15, 1958, making him approximately 47-48 years old at all times related to the promotion issues, which are the subject of this proceeding. Petitioner completed 34 college classes while a deputy sheriff and attained a Bachelor's Degree from Troy State University. He was continuing his education towards a Master's Degree during the promotion period at issue. Petitioner had over 20 years' experience in the United States Air Force, during which his duties included managing a 24-person flight, supervising, planning, administering, and executed law enforcement and security training for a 270-person unit. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement recognized Petitioner's qualifications as being equivalent to those required by the State of Florida for certified law enforcement officers. During Petitioner's time as a deputy sheriff, he worked one position besides his road patrol duties. In 2003, he transferred to a property detective position where he served for almost a year. When he did not receive training that he deemed necessary to better perform his job, he transferred back to his road patrol position. Petitioner was certified as an all-terrain vehicle ("ATV") instructor in April 2006. Petitioner did not serve in a supervisory capacity while employed by Respondent. Under Sheriff Wendell Hall's administration, the promotional process for sergeant and lieutenant was established in General Order D-017. Applicants were ranked on an eligibility list based upon their scoring for specific criteria: advanced training courses, formal education, seniority, supervisory experience, written examinations, and an oral review board. Sheriff Hall promoted from the top of the list in order of ranking. The Fraternal Order of Police ("FOP") is the bargaining agent for deputy sheriffs. During collective bargaining negotiations in 2005, the FOP asked Sheriff Hall to change the promotional process to provide greater flexibility in promotions. The FOP believes that the top-ranked applicant is not necessarily the best candidate for an available position. The sheriff and the FOP executed a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") in 2005 to implement changes in the promotional process that would afford more flexibility. Pursuant to Article 9 of the CBA, the parties agreed that General Order D-017 would be utilized in promotions. To effect the changes requested by the FOP, General Order D-017 was revised in December 2005. The new policy continued to provide that applicants would be ranked based upon scoring for specific criteria, but added field training officer experience ("FTO") as a new category to be scored. Additionally, the policy provided that the division captains and department major would review the promotion roster and provide a written recommendation to the sheriff for promotion of candidates. The sheriff would be provided with the top five names for one vacancy and one additional name for each additional vacancy. The new policy for promotion was provided to the FOP for review prior to its enactment. Pursuant to the CBA, the FOP could request impact bargaining within ten days of receipt of the policy. Because the FOP did not object to the policy, it became effective on December 26, 2005. The revised policy, General Order D-017, was provided to all members of Respondent, including Petitioner. Petitioner was aware that the process had been changed to permit the division captains and the department major to make written recommendations for promotion. Petitioner received a memorandum from Sheriff Hall on February 17, 2006, informing him of his eligibility to sit for the written promotion examination on March 22, 2006. Petitioner learned in that memorandum that credit for training courses and formal education would not be given for anything that had not occurred and was not present in the training office on or before March 10, 2006. When vacancies for sergeant and lieutenant became available in 2006, the promotional process followed the revised policy. Points were allocated to the applicants under the revised criteria, and the top 20 candidates were ranked. Major Steve Collier and Captains Jack Onkka and Jim Spencer met on May 26, 2006, pursuant to the newly-adopted policy, to review the applicants and make promotion recommendations to the sheriff. Because there were six vacancies for sergeant, the top 10 names on the roster were reviewed. Petitioner was ranked number five on the roster. Major Collier and Captains Onkka and Spencer concluded that the primary consideration for the recommendations for sergeant and lieutenant would be the motivation and initiative displayed by the applicants while employed at the Sheriff's Office. Believing that these qualities demonstrate the foundation of leadership, Collier, Onkka, and Spencer discussed each of the applicants to determine who best exemplified these characteristics. Collier, Onkka, and Spencer recommended six applicants who were ranked in the top 10 of the promotional roster: George Hawkins, Joseph Dunne, William Dunsford, Wayne Enterkin, Jerry Salter, and Todd Reaves. Prior to the review by Collier, Onkka, and Spencer, three of these deputies were ranked higher in the roster than Petitioner and three of them were ranked lower. The reviewers selected these six deputies for promotion to sergeant because each had undertaken an assignment outside his normal duties or otherwise had distinguished himself in a manner that set him apart from the other candidates. George Hawkins, ranked number one on the roster, was recommended as a result of his field officer training experience. Further, he performed as an acting supervisor when the shift sergeant was absent, which the reviewers deemed significant. Field officer training was particularly valued by the reviewers because it required the deputy to serve as a front line supervisor for trainees as well as an instructor and mentor. Joseph Dunne also had performed field officer training and consistently volunteered for special operations projects that were after hours. William Dunsford, although not a FTO, was a member of the hostage negotiation team and, pursuant to this assignment, was on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Similar to Dunne, Dunsford volunteered for special operations after hours. He particularly impressed Major Collier with noteworthy arrests and for his high level of professionalism and motivation. Wayne Enterkin was recommended as a result of his field officer training experience and his initiation of the drug court officers program, which involved juvenile offenders. He particularly distinguished himself in the drug court program. Jerry Salter was recommended as a result of field officer training experience and his assignment to the special weapons and tactics ("SWAT") team. As in the case of hostage negotiators, SWAT team members must undergo additional tactical training and are on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They must also maintain a high level of physical fitness to participate in this unit. Todd Reaves was recommended because of his field officer training experience and his participation on the hostage negotiation team. Reeves also made noteworthy arrests in the northern part of the county, which was not a particularly busy area. Reeves had also received a lifesaver award for his extraordinary actions in providing care to a canine officer who was shot by a suspect. Petitioner was not recommended because the reviewers were not aware of any activities and assignments that set him apart from the other candidates. They were unaware of the fact that Petitioner had become certified as an ATV instructor, since that occurred on April 21, 2006, after the March 10, 2006, information deadline. The reviewing panel would not have given as much credit for Petitioner being an ATV instructor, even if his certification had occurred before March 10, 2006, since this activity did not require as much of a time commitment as a field training officer, hostage negotiation team member, or SWAT team member. The panel also passed over William Bass (ranked number two on the roster) and Christian Turcic (ranked number seven). Deputy Bass was deemed not particularly motivated and refused a transfer to a busier district when it was offered. Deputy Turcic was passed so he could complete his new assignment as a trainer of a new dog. Once he completed his assignment, he received a promotion to sergeant in September 2006. The age of the candidates for promotion was not a topic discussed by the reviewing panel. Sheriff Hall promoted Deputies Dunne, Dunsford, Enterkin, Hawkins, Reeves, and Salter in June 2006. He based his decision to promote these deputies upon the recommendations of his staff without regard to their age. When Petitioner became aware of the identities of the promoted deputies, he tendered a brief letter of resignation, dated June 15, 2006, in which he stated that his total loss of faith in the administration caused the need for him to leave immediately. Petitioner followed the brief letter with an email to Sheriff Hall on June 16, 2006, in which he elaborated on his qualifications and justifications of why he should have received a promotion to sergeant. Petitioner informed Sheriff Hall that he believed a "good-ol-boy system" was in place in the Santa Rosa County Sheriff's Office. In his letter and email resigning from Respondent, Petitioner made no mention of his age as a factor in his failure to be promoted to sergeant. Petitioner never inquired as to why he was not promoted. He met with Sheriff Hall, who informed him that he could be considered for promotion at a later date and encouraged him to contact Major Collier. Petitioner never spoke with Major Collier regarding his failure to be promoted to sergeant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 5th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven L. Boles 262 County Road 617 Hanceville, Alabama 35077 Robert W. Evans, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied training, subjected to unequal terms of employment and denied promotion to three jobs including the position of Lead Custodian with the Respondent in the Physical Plant Department in 1993, on the basis of his gender (male) and race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the 1992 Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a custodian in the Physical Plant Department since July 1989 and during the relevant period of time including 1993 and 1994. Petitioner is a male African-American, and a member of a protected class. Petitioner applied for a promotion to three different positions at the college between August 26, 1993 and December 6, 1993. In late August, 1993, Petitioner applied for the part-time position of House Manager at the college theatre. Petitioner was not selected because his present work schedule would overlap the position at the theatre and his prior work experience was not relevant to the position. In addition, another candidate possessed better interpersonal and communication skills, and his education and work experience was more relevant to the position than the Petitioner's. In early October, 1993, Petitioner applied for the position of HVACR (heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration) apprentice. The position is a learning position which requires working with a lead mechanic. Part of the job requirement for the apprentice position was the ability to attend trade school in HVACR. During the employment interview Petitioner expressed reservations about attending the HVACR training because he was presently enrolled in night classes at Rollins College. In addition to Petitioner, two white males and a Hispanic male applied for the position. A Hispanic male was selected for the position who had better qualifications. Thereafter, the racial make-up of the HVACR Department consisted of two whites, one black and one Hispanic male. On October 14, 1993, three vacancies for the newly created position of Lead Custodian in the Physical Plant Department was advertised by Respondent. Petitioner was one of nine applicants for the position. The nine individuals who applied for the position of Lead Custodian consisted of four African-American males, three African-American females and two Caucasian females. Following the review of each persons application and file and a personal interview, two African-American males and one African-American female were selected for the positions. Petitioner was not recommended for one of the vacancies. The selection process was based on relevant work experience and work history, and was not based on improper or discriminatory race or gender considerations. Petitioner was not denied training based on his race or gender. Petitioner applied for and attended six seminars covering a variety of subjects over the last several years. Respondent's stated reasons for its promotion and training decisions were not proven to be pretextual.
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in substance: paragraphs: none Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Ann Banks, Esquire BAKER & HOSTETLER P. O. Box 112 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Ulysses B. Williams 1020 Polk Avenue Orlando, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on November 17, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Marchinko, was employed by the Witteman Company, Inc., from 1966 until April 2003. The Witteman Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Inc.") was a division of the Dover Corporation. While employed by Inc., Petitioner held the position of traffic manager. The most recent description of the duties of the position of traffic manager reads as follows: Responsible for, but not limited to, traffic managerial duties, coordinate and arrange for all product shipments, required documentation, customer interaction, and providing back-up support as required to others within the Company. Work with minimum supervision, produce quality, complete and accurate work and be an active and positive participant on teams and committees to which assigned. In February 2003, Cryogenic Industries made an asset purchase of Inc. and established Witteman, LLC (hereinafter LLC). LLC engineers and sells carbon dioxide, recovery, and production equipment to soft drink and brewing companies. Whereas Inc. had a maximum of 110 employees, LLC was established with only 17 employees, as many departments such as purchasing, traffic, and accounting were eliminated or "farmed out." At the time of the asset purchase, all employees of Inc. were terminated due to the sale of the assets of Inc. Petitioner was terminated from employment with Inc. effective April 8, 2003. She signed a Severance Agreement and Waiver and Release of Claims, releasing Inc. from all claims, including any related to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. The position of traffic manager has not and does not exist at LLC. Petitioner was not hired by LLC. Petitioner has never been employed by LLC and, therefore, was not terminated by LLC. A few employees of Inc. were hired by LLC. Petitioner was not one of them. Cara Brammer is one of the employees of Inc. who was hired by LLC. Her position is Comptroller. Petitioner contends that regardless of Ms. Brammer's title, Ms. Brammer performs the same functions that Petitioner used to perform for Inc. Petitioner believes that Ms. Brammer was hired by LLC because she is younger than Petitioner. At the time Ms. Brammer was hired by LLC, she was approximately 39 years old and Petitioner was 55 years old. Ms. Brammer's duties as Comptroller include accounts payable, cost accounting, and general ledger work. According to Ms. Brammer, the traffic manager duties previously performed by Petitioner were separated between two of LLC's sister companies in California, which handle all of the major equipment, including manufacturing and shipping for LLC. William Geiger is General Manager of LLC. According to Mr. Geiger, the manufacturing of the product was shifted to two divisions located in California. The primary shipping of the company's product was also shifted to California. This is consistent with Ms. Brammer's testimony. According to Ms. Brammer, a small portion of the shipping duties that had initially been sent to California are now handled by LLC. She estimates that she spends only four to five hours a week on these traffic duties, that Mr. Geiger handles some of these duties, and that "quite a bit" of these traffic duties have been farmed out to a company called Freight Forwarder. LLC employs people in their thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties. There is no competent evidence that LLC used age as a criterion in its determination of who would and who would not be hired for the newly formed company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2005.
