The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination complaint Petitioner filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a software engineer with almost 30 years of experience in the industry. From 2001 until August of 2006, Petitioner was employed by ITT Industries (ITT). Petitioner's employment with ITT came to an end when he was involuntarily terminated. Following his termination, Petitioner filed an employment discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that ITT had discriminated against him because he suffered from Tourette's syndrome (which caused him to have vocal tics and to stutter). Petitioner did not take any action to pursue these allegations of employment discrimination beyond filing this complaint against ITT with the EEOC. Petitioner has been unable to obtain a "permanent job" as a software engineer since his termination by ITT. Respondent is a defense contractor that "make[s] [military] simulation and training equipment." In early 2008, Respondent was looking to fill a temporary software engineer position. Edge Dynamics was one of the outside employment agencies that Respondent used to assist it in the hiring process. On January 9, 2008, Edge Dynamics provided Petitioner's resume to Edward Kaprocki, a senior principal software engineer with Respondent. Mr. Kaprocki was responsible for interviewing applicants for the position and making hiring/rejection recommendations. After reviewing Petitioner's resume, Mr. Kaprocki "thought [it] looked interesting enough where it would worth talking to [Petitioner]," and he so advised Sandra Asavedo, his "point of contact" at Edge Dynamics. Ms. Asavedo made the necessary arrangements to set up a face-to-face interview between Mr. Kaprocki and Petitioner. The interview took place in Mr. Kaprocki's office on January 14, 2008. It lasted about 45 minutes to an hour. Petitioner seemed to Mr. Kaprocki to be "a little bit nervous," but Petitioner did not do or say anything to cause Mr. Kaprocki to believe that Petitioner suffered from any disability. During the course of the interview, Petitioner showed Mr. Kaprocki his personal website, which contained information about and pictures of "some of the projects that [Petitioner] had worked on." Based on the interview, Mr. Kaprocki determined that Petitioner did not have the skill-set that was needed for the position Respondent was seeking to fill. Immediately following the interview, Mr. Kaprocki went to his supervisor, Steve Preston, whose office was "right down the hall," and recommended that Petitioner not be hired to fill the position. Mr. Kaprocki then telephoned Ms. Asavedo to let her know that Petitioner was not going to be hired so that she could inform Petitioner. Mr. Kaprocki's decision to recommend against hiring Petitioner had nothing to do with Petitioner's suffering from Tourette's syndrome or his having filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. Indeed, at the time he made his decision, Mr. Kaprocki did not even know that Petitioner had Tourette's syndrome or had filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. Mr. Kaprocki first learned of these matters only after Petitioner had filed his Complaint in the instant case. After being told that he would not be hired for the position, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Kaprocki several times, pleading with Mr. Kaprocki to "reconsider hiring him." Mr. Kaprocki told Petitioner "that the decision had been made" and would not be reconsidered. Mr. Kaprocki felt that Petitioner, by making these telephone calls, was "badgering and harassing him." To satisfy his own personal curiosity (and for no other reason), Mr. Kaprocki looked online to find out more about the person who was subjecting him to this "badgering and harass[ment]."2 Mr. Kaprocki did not discover, as a result of his online search, that Petitioner had Tourette's syndrome or that Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. His search, however, did reveal certain comments Petitioner had made in an online forum that Mr. Kaprocki considered to be "extremely unprofessional." After reading these comments, Mr. Kaprocki was even more confident than he had been before he began his search that he had made the right decision in not recommending Petitioner for employment. Petitioner was never offered a position with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of any unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
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 the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is guilty of unlawful employment practices as alleged in the Petition for Relief. AUTHORITY Chapters 120 and 760, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, D. Paul Sondel, was born August 13, 1928, and was, at the time of final hearing, 65 years of age. On April 11, 1993, Petitioner saw a newspaper advertisement for the position of Analyst I with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (FBOBE). On April 12, 1993, Petitioner went to the office of the employment agency which the FBOBE was using to locate and screen applicants. Petitioner was told that he would not be allowed to apply or take the pre- employment test for the position because he had a graduate degree and only persons who have a Bachelor's degree but no graduate degree(s) were allowed to apply. On June 1, 1993, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, in which he alleged that the FBOBE requirement that no one would be considered for the position of Analyst I who had a higher level degree than the minimum required Bachelor's degree, served the "intended purpose" of eliminating older applicants, especially those over Petitioner further alleged that the existence and implementation of such FBOBE policy was in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Respondent hired two persons to fill the April 1993 advertised position of Analyst I. One of the persons hired was 24 and the other was 23 years of age. The FBOBE is an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Florida and charged by the court with the responsibility of evaluating the character, fitness and competence of each applicant for admission to the Florida Bar. Petitioner has established that he is a person in a protected group; that adverse employment action was taken against him; that the persons hired for the position in question were outside the protected group; and that, but for his graduate degree, he was qualified for the position in question. The FBOBE has a current staff of 29 full time employees. As of March 30, 1994, of those employees, three were 40 years or older at the time of employment. Nine of these employees are currently 40 or older. The employment application used by the FBOBE does not request any information regarding an applicant's age. The FBOBE have hired individuals in the past who were 40 years of age or older. The FBOBE uses the American Employment Agency, Inc. to advertise vacancies and to conduct preliminary screening. Kathryn E. Ressel has been employed by the Respondent for over 22 years and is currently the Deputy Executive Director of the FBOBE. Ms. Ressel is responsible for the instructions given to the employment agency concerning the qualifications for the position of Analyst I. Ms. Ressel testified that the reason for the FBOBE policy of excluding applicants with post graduate college or university degrees is not intended to restrict employment opportunities to younger persons and is not related to the age of any applicant. Ms. Ressel's testimony is that past experience in hiring persons with graduate degrees has indicated that such persons tend to stay in the Analyst positions for short periods of time and leave when an employment opportunity presents itself in the field for which the person is educated. Ms. Ressel testified that the Analyst I position is an entry level position and that the Analyst receives extensive on-the-job training to enable the newly hired employee to perform assigned duties and meet job related responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, according to Ms. Ressel, when Analyst I's leave the employment of the FBOBE after a short time on the job, the Respondent is unable to recoup the time, energy and expense involved in training such individuals. Ms. Ressel's testimony articulates a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis for the employment practice at issue. Ms. Ressel's testimony indicates that the employment policy at issue is age neutral in that it is applied to all individuals who apply for the position of Analyst I, regardless of age. Ms. Ressel's testimony in this regard is unrefuted. Official notice is taken that a given individual is generally older at the time such person receives a graduate degree than when the same individual receives a Bachelor's degree. It does not follow, however, and Petitioner has failed to prove (statistically or otherwise), that in any specific job applicant pool available to the Respondent to fill Analyst I positions, potential applicants with graduate degrees are older than potential applicants who possess only Bachelor's degrees. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (statistical or otherwise) that the employment policy at issue has a disparate impact on persons 40 years of age or older. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the FBOBE as the basis for rejecting Petitioner's application is in fact a pretext and/or that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed in this case be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent Al Packer Ford, Inc. terminated the employment of Petitioner Woodrow Samuel on the basis of race, which is an unlawful employment practice pursuant to Section 23.167 (1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was discharged from his employment on August 8, 1978 and believes that his discharge was because he is black. Petitioner was hired on April 4, 1978 by the Service Manager for Respondent corporation who had been his supervisor at Dominion Chevrolet in Richmond, Virginia. Petitioner was employed as a quick service mechanic and worked for approximately three (3) monthe. During that time Petitioner's Production was low and at least on two (2) occasions made serious errors in servicing customers automobiles. Once he failed to put in oil, and once he failed to replace brake slices. He received a warning from his employer but was not discharged. Thereafter he was transferred to the Okeechobee Road Used Car Lot as a Lot Man. There he had the opportunity to make more money under a pay plan which did not depend on mechanical work by the job. After two (2) weeks he was transferred to the Respondent's main used car lot on Military Trail under the supervision of George Mills, and his salary was increased by forty (40) dollars per week. Prior to Petitioner's discharge Petitioner's immediate supervisor, George Mills, was on vacation. During this period Petitioner took a used Cadillac for his personal use from the lot in West Palm Beach and drove it to Miami for the weekend. Petitioner had not been authorized by Mills or by anyone else to use the Cadillac, according to the testimony of Mills which is more credible then the testimony of Petitioner. Mills learned of the use of the car by Petitioner after his return from vacation and after it had been scheduled for repairs. Mills stated that Petitioner had been warned not to use vehicles for his private use and, when he learned of the use of the Cadillac, terminated his employment and told him why. Petitioner appealed to his original employer, George Hollifield, who then was the supervisor of Petitioner's direct supervisor, for reemployment but was refused. Use of vehicles from the used car lot by employees of Respondent is allowed as a general company policy only upon specific authorization. A witness, another black man, had seen Petitioner use vehicles on occasion from the lot but did not know whether the use was authorized. About 10 percent of the employees of Respondent are Hispanic or Black, and the stated policy of the business is to employ competent people to make money for the corporation, and race is not a factor or consideration. Petitioner Samuel and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the complaint and petition he dismissed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin G. Callas, Esquire 125 Worth Avenue, Suite 308 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Norman A. Jackson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100, Montgomery Building 2652 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas E. Kingcade, Esquire Post Office Box 2755 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Mr. Al Packer Al Packer Ford, Inc. 1530 North Military Trail West Palm Beach, Florida 33403
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, St. Andrews Bay, is a licensed nursing home that provides in-patient care to its residents. Its facility is located in Panama City, Florida. In order to provide its service, Respondent employs a variety of racially diverse personnel, consisting of both permanent and contract employees. Towards that end, Respondent maintains a variety of employment discipline and transfer policies that are contained in the Employee Handbook for St. Andrews Bay. The April 2011 Employee Handbook, which was in effect in August 2011, set forth the policy regarding transfers, as follows, in relevant part: Employees who wish to be considered for a transfer or promotion to a vacant position may apply if the employee is of "Good Standing." In addition to being in "Good Standing," the employee must possess the following: The minimum qualifications for the position: Received no progressive disciplinary action within the past six months (emphasis added). * * * The Employees Handbook, also, provided for progressive discipline. Such discipline included, in ascending order, coaching, first/second written warnings, suspensions, and Performance Improvement Plans. Petitioner is a black male. As such, Petitioner is a protected person under chapter 760, Florida Statutes. In January 2006, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Dietary Aide. As an employee, Petitioner received a copy of, or had access to, Respondent's discipline and transfer policies. At some point, tardiness for work became a problem for Petitioner. Indeed, his supervisor considered him a competent employee with some tardiness issues and, on April 6, 2011, disciplined Petitioner with a "coaching" for being two hours late for work without notifying anyone that he would be late. Although the dates are unclear, the evidence showed that Mr. Munn, who is a white male, worked as a laborer for ManPower. Through a contract between ManPower and St. Andrews Bay, Mr. Munn was performing painting, maintenance, and any other work the Maintenance Director assigned, for approximately four to five weeks, beginning sometime in July 2011. Around August 3, 2011, a sign-up sheet was posted at St. Andrews Bay for the position of Maintenance Assistant. The sign-up sheet was posted to notify any current employees of the job opening and allow them to apply for the position by signing the posted sheet. Within less than six months of Petitioner being disciplined, Petitioner, along with two other current employees, indicated their interest in the Maintenance Assistant position by signing the sign-up sheet. The other two employees who expressed interest in the maintenance position did not testify at hearing and no findings are made regarding their qualifications or, more importantly, Respondent's knowledge regarding their qualifications. Per Respondent's policy, Petitioner did not have to complete an application for the maintenance position since he had two applications, one dated January 4, 2006, and one dated October 24, 2007, on file with the Respondent. Neither of these applications reflected that Petitioner had prior maintenance experience. One application reflects that Petitioner owned a restaurant known as "Daddy's Place." One application reflects that Petitioner was the cook at Daddy's Place. However, neither ownership nor cooking experience indicates maintenance experience and there was no evidence that Respondent knew that Petitioner worked other than as a cook in his restaurant or had any other maintenance experience from such ownership. Moreover, under Respondent's transfer policy, Petitioner was not qualified to sign up for the maintenance position since he had received disciplinary action within six months of this transfer opportunity. On the other hand, the evidence showed that Mr. Munn applied for the position of floor tech at St. Andrews Bay in December of 2010, but was not hired for that position. Unlike Petitioner, and in addition to Mr. Munn's current maintenance work experience at Respondent's facility, Mr. Munn's application reflected some experience in maintenance, albeit not extensive experience. However, like Petitioner, Mr. Munn's application for employment was already on file. Therefore, it was not necessary for Mr. Munn to fill out a second employment application for the position of Maintenance Assistant. Petitioner's policy regarding on-file applications is reasonable and was applied to both black and white applicants in this case. There was no competent evidence that demonstrated this policy was a pretext for discrimination. Petitioner was not interviewed for the position. However, the evidence did not show that anyone was formally interviewed for the maintenance position. On these facts, lack of formal interviews does not demonstrate discrimination by Respondent against Petitioner since Respondent was already familiar with the two applicants at issue in this case. On August 8, 2011, Wesley Munn was selected for the Maintenance Assistant position by the maintenance supervisor, Mr. Emmanuel. Although somewhat unclear, the evidence demonstrated that Mr. Munn's selection was approved by the then Administrator of St. Andrews Bay, Tunecia Sheffield, who is black. Neither of these two individuals testified at hearing. However, the evidence at the hearing did not demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner when it hired Mr. Munn for the maintenance position. Conversely, the evidence at hearing demonstrated that Mr. Munn's hiring had a reasonable basis since Mr. Munn had some maintenance experience and was already performing the duties for which he was hired. There was no competent evidence that demonstrated Respondent's reasons for hiring Mr. Munn to be a pretext for discrimination. Therefore, given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
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 the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 31st day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Tiffany A. Minton, Esquire Preferred Care, Inc. 5500 West Plano Parkway Plano, Texas 75093 Jimmy L. McClain 1527 Grace Avenue, Apartment C Panama City, Florida 32405 Lacey Corona, Esquire Broad and Cassel Suite 205A 200 Grand Boulevard Destin, Florida 32550 Maureen McCarthy Daughton, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 mdaughton@broadandcassel.com Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 violet.crawford@fchr.myflorida.com Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for consideration in this hearing are whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in employment because of his national origin, and whether Respondent unlawfully retaliated against Petitioner by discharging him from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, CCCS, was a nonprofit charitable corporation engaged in providing personal financial and credit counseling in Tampa, affiliated with the United Way. It is an employer within the meaning of the Human Rights Act of 1977 and Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. CCCS has adopted, and had in effect at all times pertinent herein, a written policy of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. This policy is outlined in a personnel policy manual prepared by CCCS which is provided to all employees and which was provided to Petitioner. In August, 1991, CCCS management decided to hire an individual to fill the vacant accounts manager position. Initial screening of applicants was conducted by Gloria Jackson who interviewed several candidates, including Petitioner, and recommended three of these to the President, Diane Trithart. Petitioner, Emmanuel Ebeh, was one of the three recommended and was the successful candidate selected by Ms. Trithart. At the time, Petitioner, who is black and a native of Nigeria, was residing, with his family, at Metropolitan Ministries because he was unable to provide housing and sustenance for his family without employment. He had no experience in either personal financial management or employee supervision. Up until that time, he had worked as a cook, a kitchen helper, a mail room clerk, and a pipe-fitter's helper. However, even with his lack of supervisory experience and an absence of supervisory training, Ms. Trithart felt he should be afforded this opportunity. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Ms. Jackson. She assisted Petitioner and his family in their move into government assisted housing, even to the extent of having her husband rent a truck to help move Petitioner's personal belongings and the furniture donated by Metropolitan Ministries to their new home. Once installed in the job, Petitioner was provided with a six weeks training program, including a syllabus, to assist him in making the transition into his new position. Nonetheless, it appears that during his training period, Petitioner had difficulties accomplishing his job tasks. Within six weeks, Ms. Jackson met with him to discuss errors made in client deposit entries and at that time, provided him with written procedures to follow. She gave him a two week warning confirmed in a written memorandum dated September 17, 1991, the date of the counseling. On September 26, 1991, Ms. Jackson followed up the two week warning period with another memorandum which noted the continuation of existing problems in Petitioner's department and which extended the warning period to October 4, 1991. Mr. Ebeh continued to experience job difficulties. At first, one of his employees, Ms. Warhul, tried to cover for him, but was unable to continue to do both her own job and his. As a result, she contacted Ms. Jackson and described the situation as she saw it. Ms. Jackson then tried to discuss the matter with Mr. Ebeh. However, whenever she did, he would insist on speaking with Ms. Trithart about the issues, claiming he felt it necessary to resist Ms. Jackson's directions. Ms. Trithart promptly and explicitly explained to Mr. Ebeh that his unjustified resistance of Ms. Jackson's direction constituted insubordination and would not be tolerated. Nonetheless, he continued to resist any guidance from Ms. Jackson, whether in the form of direction or constructive correction, becoming defensive and contending that his intentions were good and he was being misunderstood. He claims that Ms. Jackson was always on his back. Petitioner's performance problems were not isolated however, nor were they restricted to incidents with Ms. Warhul. He frequently had problems with misplaced files, posting entries to wrong accounts and other errors of a similar nature which were observed by other CCCS employees. On one occasions, Ms. Jackson asked Petitioner to prepare a letter to creditors who had worked with CCCS in the past but who were not currently participating in their program. She specifically requested that Petitioner let her review a draft of the letter before it was dispatched. Notwithstanding that direction, Petitioner prepared a letter, dated March 4, 1992, which contained a number of grammatical errors and misstatements of procedure and policy, and dispatched it to approximately 2,500 creditors without allowing Ms. Jackson or anyone else in authority to review or approve it. He thereafter left a note on the desk of Mary Jennus, CCCS' education coordinator, advising her that Ms. Jackson and Ms. Trithart wanted her to make changes in the letter and enclosures. This was not so. On March 19, 1992, Ms. Trithart called a meeting with Petitioner, Ms. Jackson and Ms. Jennus to discuss this letter, and at which she orally reprimanded Petitioner both for sending it out without authority and for the inappropriate use of her name in giving false instructions to Ms. Jennus. This meeting was subsequently memorialized by memorandum. Though management contended Petitioner's letter adversely impacted on the agency's image, he asserts it had good results in that some income was realized. On March 30, 1992, Ms. Jackson prepared a written evaluation covering Petitioner's performance for the prior six months. This report indicated Petitioner had continuing problems in the performance of his duties and in his supervision skills. It also called for a further review in 90 days to assess his progress in meeting the requirements of his job. Petitioner refused to sign this evaluation and requested a meeting with Ms. Trithart. Though a note by Ms. Jackson on the evaluation indicates she would arrange that meeting, it cannot be determined if, in fact, such a meeting took place. However, on April 13, 1992, Petitioner prepared a memorandum to operations personnel in which he alludes to "miserable and harsh treatment from management and especially our boss." He also noted the possibility his employees might not be satisfied with his treatment of them and solicited their comments and complaints to him or to the assistant director. This memo discomfited at least one of his employees, Ms. Warhul, who took exception to it in writing. Ms. Mosley also disagreed with his conclusions regarding a harsh working environment and thought it inappropriate for him to send out such a memo without consulting the other employees in the department. He was the department head, however, and his memo, though it might be considered ill advised and somewhat inflammatory, was from him to the people in his department. He did not claim his conclusions were theirs nor did his comments accuse them of misconduct. A meeting of all operations personnel was called by Ms. Trithart for April 13, 1992, the date of that memo. All employees were given the opportunity to express their concerns and it became apparent that not all operations personnel agreed with Petitioner in his characterization of their work environment. The memorandum of that meeting indicates his subordinates see Petitioner as an individual who broods over situations and lets things build up to a point where he writes a memo rather than discussing the problem. An example of this is Petitioner's note on a memo dated April 13, 1992 encouraging all employees to take their lunch break and reminding them that only time before and after normal duty hours may be considered for compensatory time off. Petitioner describes this memo as "inconsiderate treatment" and concludes it was directed at him because he was not taking lunch breaks because he "was sad and depressed because of how [he] was constantly humiliated." After the meeting on April 13, 1992, Ms. Trithart again reviewed Petitioner's file and determined that in light of his most recent infractions, including the unauthorized creditors letter and the false instructions to Ms. Jennus, and his continuing performance mistakes, it would be best to terminate his employment. Her rationale was that he could not be an effective supervisor if he felt, as he clearly did, that he did not have the support of either his employees or his supervisors, and this was compounded by his insubordination which, she believed, undermined the morale in his department and Ms. Jackson's authority as his supervisor. He was, therefore, discharged on April 13, 1992. None of the employees who testified indicated, nor was there any other independent evidence to establish, that Petitioner had been treated any differently while employed by CCCS than any other employee. By the same token, save the personal impressions testified to by Petitioner, there was no indication that either race or national origin played any part in the decision to terminate his employment and it is found they did not. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment with CCCS was based on his failure to meet required standards in the performance of his duties and nothing more. The same is true regarding his claim that his discharge was in retaliation to his complaint in his April 13, 1992 memo regarding what he perceived as the harsh working environment both he and his subordinates had to endure. In that regard, it is found that the memo in question is, in itself, insubordination and evidence of the improper work climate created by the Petitioner rather than his employers. Had he truly felt the treatment given him was harsh, miserable and unfair, the grievance procedures outlined in the personnel manual he had been given would have provided an appropriate avenue for adjustment as opposed to the inflammatory and insubordinate action he took. Petitioner claims his supervisors did not uniformly apply company standards. He asserts he has been treated differently from white employees who were treated with kindness and politeness and when found to have committed errors in their performance, were given time to improve. For example, he cites the case of a Ms. Sweeny who refused to sign an acknowledgment of error and who was merely demoted instead of discharged. In his case, he notes, he met with hostility. He claims no concern was given to the legal issues involved in his situation and he was discharged right away. This is, however, not the case. The evidence is quite clear that Petitioner was counselled on several occasions and evaluated formally during his period of employment with no discipline taken against him. Only when he published the insubordinate memo of April 13, 1993 was action taken. On the basis of that memo and the record of his substandard prior performance, Ms. Trithart decided to discharge him. Petitioner also claims that Ms. Warhul and others who testified against him were engaged in a conspiracy to hide the unhealthy atmosphere which existed. He asserts he was told by Ms. Warhul she would not support him when he wrote his memo because she was afraid of losing her job. It is his contention that she and he were previously close. In actuality, though she was under his supervision, she gave him much of the training he received. He believes that she and many other employees do not like Ms. Jackson but are afraid to say so. Petitioner offered no independent proof of this contention, however, and it is found to be unsupported. Petitioner also takes exception to the claim by CCCS's management that his English was hard to understand. He claims that during the entire 8 months he worked there, his English was never criticized until such time as the decision was made to discharge him. At that time, he contends, he was told that he did not project the proper image the company desired. Mr. Ebeh also notes that he was constantly confronted with a situation where his immediate supervisor would approve something he did and then deny it. Ms. Jackson would approve in advance something his department proposed and then, when it was not well received, deny approving it. Petitioner claims that because of the actions of CCCS's management, he has undergone great stress. When he applied for the position with the firm he and his family were homeless and he admits he was helped considerably by the job and the company personnel. However, he claims he did not get all the help for free and asserts he has paid back for what he received during those first few weeks. He also claims that he has been maligned by company personnel who reported to his job service counsellor that he was soliciting money from coworkers and that he had a bad body odor. These comments humiliated him and he notes that they did not come about until after he complained to Ms. Trithart. Petitioner has no job now and no income and claims to be suffering from health problems. As of April, 1993, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services physician noted that he is suffering from raised cholesterol which interferes with his employment "for the present." His total monthly income for himself, his wife and his four sons is $600.00, out of which he must pay approximately $300.00 in rent and $113.00 for utilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Emmanuel Ebeh's Petition for Relief from the alleged unlawful employment practices of discrimination based on race or national origin, and of retaliation filed against the Respondent CCCS. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 25th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Emmanuel B. Ebeh 4002 East Pocahontas, #110 Tampa, Florida 33610 James R. Freeman, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4149
The Issue Did Respondent discriminate against Petitioner because of his handicap and in retaliation for filing an earlier discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, as alleged in Petitioner's Petition For Relief, in violation of Sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes, known as the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: Petitioner checked the boxes for both Handicap and Retaliation in the section titled "Cause of Discrimination Based On" of the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on May 14, 1994. In the section titled "Date Most Recent or Continuing Discrimination Took Place" of the Charge of Discrimination Petitioner indicated December 22, 1992. In the section titled "The Particulars Are" of the Charge of Discrimination Petitioner indicated: PERSONAL HARM: On a continuing basis I have not been referred for work by my union, with the last occurrence on December 22, 1992. RESPONDENT'S REASON FOR ADVERSE ACTION: Mr. Mike Brewer, Union Business Agent, said that I was not wanted in the department in which I had previously worked. DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT: I believe I have been discriminated against because of retaliation for filing (FCHR No. 90-8052) for the following reasons: The last time I contacted Mr. Brewer he hung up on me. continuing Mr. Brewer has referred other union members for work on a basis. A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE was issued by the Commission on March 11, 1996. In Section 3 of the Petition For Relief filed with the Commission on April 15, 1996, Petitioner alleges that Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1993, as Amended, as follows: Conspiring with company to isolate the HANDICAPPED Petitioner in a classification essentially made obsolete with an ex post facto "Crafts Maintenance Contract" subsequent to the July 26, 1990 signing of the A.D.A. (singling him out for "layoff") F.S. 760.10(4b). Filing a grievance to deter the Petitioner from filing any HANDICAP Discrimination complaints, and refusing to process it. Referring others for employment on a continuing basis, (F.S. 760.104(b). Refusing representation. (Foreman/union steward?) At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner Dennis M. Presson was a member of the bargaining unit of the Craft Maintenance Council, Carpenters Local Union No. 1820. Respondent Craft Maintenance Council, Carpenters Local Union No. 1820 Statutes. Commission and the courts. as a Property Craftworker Assistant, and assigned Petitioner to the Furnishings 10. During August, 1990, the work in Furnishings declined and, in lieu of craftworker assistants, including Petitioner, were temporarily assigned on through the first week of October 1990. October 11, 1990, was laid off due to lack of work in Furnishings. Petitioner 12. On November 2, 1990, the remaining six property craftworker assistants higher in seniority than Petitioner. transferred back to Furnishings so that he could be laid off is without merit. department until their function could no longer be justified in lieu of laying The lay-offs on October 11 and November 2, 1990, were caused by lack get back at Petitioner because of his handicap or in retaliation for filing an On October 11, 1990, when Petitioner was laid off, Disney offered as custodians. Although other property craftworker assistants accepted work as On October 12, 1990, Michael Brewer, Shop Steward filed an Employee of seniority - another worker with lower seniority had been retained. Respondent settled with Disney for $2,500 rather than proceed to final and Petitioner received payment. grievance or delayed or refused to process the grievance so as to deter During the grievance process Disney again offered Petitioner a job as From the time Petitioner was laid off on October 11, 1990, until December, 1992, Respondent referred Petitioner to six or seven jobs. These jobs covered every field where the work required unskilled or slightly skilled employees. Petitioner declined each and every offer, stating that he was an artist and wanted a job as an artist. Prior to Petitioner filing this complaint with the Commission, Respondent's last contact with Petitioner was around December 1992, when Petitioner informed Respondent that he had a job as an artist with Dollywood in Tennessee and was moving. On August 27, 1992, Petitioner filed a charge against Respondent with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that Respondent "has restrained or coerced and is restraining and coercing Dennis M. Presson, a crafts worker assistant, in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by refusing to advise him of the status of his grievance on his layoff, for arbitrary, invidious and discriminatory reasons and therefore has breached its of fair representation". The National Labor Relations Board dismissed the charge for lack of merit. Respondent has referred Petitioner to jobs where Petitioner's skill matched the classification (unskilled or slightly skilled) of the job being offered. There was no evidence that Respondent had refused or failed to refer Petitioner to jobs that matched his skill because of Petitioner's handicap or in retaliation for filing an earlier discrimination complaint against Disney with the Commission. Petitioner presented no evidence of any job that matched his skill that was available through Respondent which Respondent failed or refused to refer Petitioner for any reason. Based on Petitioner's allegation, Respondent's last refusal to refer Petitioner to an available job occurred in December 1992. There was no evidence that Respondent: (a) conspired with Disney to isolate Petitioner in a classification made obsolete with an ex post facto "Crafts Maintenance Contract" subsequent to the July 26, 1990, signing of the A.D.A. (Americans with Disabilities Act); (b) conspired with Disney to single Petitioner our for lay off; or (c) refuse to represent Petitioner while a member of the union. Petitioner has neither been employed nor has he attempted to obtain any gainful employment since he was laid off by Disney on October 11, 1990. During this period Petitioner has worked on this case and looked after his mother. Petitioner survives on food stamps and other governmental subsidies.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that the Petition for Relief filed by Dennis M. Presson against Craft Maintenance Council, Carpenters Local Union No. 1820 be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of November, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 2816 4th Street Orlando, Florida 32820 Thomas Egan, P.A. 56 East Pine Street
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 Petitioner's termination from employment by Respondent on June 15, 2005, was discriminatory in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2005), due to Petitioner's race (African American).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a Black female, was employed by Respondent from November 23, 1998, until her termination on June 14, 2005. Petitioner had performed her duties as a housekeeper adequately during her employment period and had no major disciplinary reports in her record. Her annual reviews indicate she was a fair employee. She had a history of tardiness, but seemed to be getting better in her last years of employment. Petitioner had received a verbal warning notice on March 8, 2005, relating to an altercation with another employee, Katrina Stevens. It appears Petitioner did not instigate the confrontation nor did she actively participate in the argument between Stevens and another employee. She simply happened to be standing nearby when it occurred. A verbal warning notice is preliminary to a reprimand. The other employee, Martine Lane, received a reprimand for the incident. On June 8, 2005, Petitioner received another verbal warning notice, this time for instigating negative remarks toward her supervisor. The gravamen of her complaint about the supervisor was that a certain co-worker had been named Employee of the Month instead of Petitioner. Petitioner became more defiant towards her supervisors and management toward the end of her employment. She would not help out other employees when asked, preferring to tend to her own work area, even when her work was completed. She also made derogatory comments to the co-worker who had won Employee of the Month. When Petitioner's behavior did not change, a decision was made to terminate her employment. It was a difficult decision because good housekeepers were hard to find and Petitioner's work product had always been acceptable. Petitioner had always been well-liked and respected by fellow employees. Both co-workers and management had encouraged Petitioner to apply for supervisory positions when they opened. Her supervisors indicated that, with some training, she could handle a supervisory position. The decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made by the Executive Housekeeper, Steve Jensen. He relied upon input from other management. On June 18, 2005, Petitioner was stopped from clocking in when she came to work. She was told to report to Jensen's office, which she did. At that time Jensen asked her whether she was still happy with her job, then told her she was being terminated. The reasons given were that she was not supportive, not a team player, and had become more belligerent to management. No mention of race was made as a basis for her termination and none seems to have existed. Petitioner was advised she would be entitled to vacation pay, but it was later discovered she had already used up her available vacation time. Respondent subsequently called Petitioner to offer her a different job, but Petitioner had no interest in returning to work for the company. Respondent has anti-discrimination policies in place, is an equal opportunity employer, and employs minorities in supervisory positions. Interestingly, however, there were no other Black housekeepers employed while Petitioner was working. When a supervisory position opened, Respondent would attempt to fill the position from within its existing employee pool. Two such positions opened when Petitioner was employed. Seven then-current employees applied for those positions, including Petitioner. Of the seven, four had prior supervisory experience; Petitioner did not. Two of the applicants had been with the company longer than Petitioner. Five of the seven applicants had computer knowledge and skills; Petitioner did not. Petitioner is the only candidate who admitted a fear of heights, a minor consideration for the position. Petitioner is the only candidate who stated she could not work on weekends. Petitioner was clearly not the best applicant for the job based on comparison to other candidates. Petitioner did not provide any evidence that her race was a basis for her termination from employment. None of her witnesses provided credible statements concerning discrimination. In fact, her witnesses by and large did not see any discrimination by management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Hawkins 1556 University Lane, Number 407 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Theodore L. Shinkle, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 1800 West Hibiscus Boulevard, Suite 138 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
