The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the denial of an application for employment constitutes unlawful discrimination against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer for the purposes of this proceeding. Respondent's principal place of business is 1800 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida, 33406. Respondent employs approximately 167 employees. A substantial number of Respondent's employees are certified nursing assistants ("CNA"). Petitioner was denied employment as a CNA by Respondent on July 18, 1991. Petitioner was not denied employment due to his disability of alcohol addiction. Petitioner received an average rating on 11 of 12 interview categories. Petitioner received a below average rating on his personality evaluation. He displayed loud and inappropriate behavior during the interview. He gave his "business card" to two female employees and asked them to call him. A background investigation indicated that Petitioner had been arrested for driving while intoxicated and had a bad credit history. Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner in denying Petitioner's application for employment. Respondent did not act with any bias or animus against Petitioner. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application for employment was based upon Petitioner's failure to satisfy Respondent of Petitioner's competence to satisfy his job requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued denying Petitioner's claim of unlawful discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1021 Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Accepted in finding 1. 2. Accepted in finding 2. 3. Accepted in finding 10 4. Rejected as conclusion of law. 5. Accepted in finding 4. 6. Accepted in finding 5. 7. Accepted in finding 7. 8. Accepted in finding 9. 9.-10. Accepted in finding 10. 11. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 12. Accepted in finding 11 13. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas L. Phipps, Esquire McKeown, Gamot & Phipps, P.A. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1603 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Richard Denton 729 N. Ridge Road, Apt. 6 Lantana, Florida 33461
The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether Brother J. Inc., d/b/a A.J.’s Sports (Respondent) violated Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed such a violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency vested with general regulatory authority over the alcoholic beverage industry within the state, including the administration of the laws and rules relating to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Respondent is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of Petitioner, having been issued license number 47-02607, Series 4-COP by Petitioner. That license allows Respondent to make sales for consumption on premises of liquor, wine, and beer at his establishment located in Tallahassee, Florida. Events at issue in this proceeding revolve around a fraternity/sorority party held at Respondent’s establishment on the evening of March 30/April 1, 2005. Members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity and the Delta Nu Zeta sorority decided that they would host a “construction” theme party. To facilitate the party, the social chairman of Phi Kappa Psi contacted Respondent to make arrangements. Respondent’s establishment has several large areas on its ground floor and a single, 1,800 square foot room on the second floor. Respondent agreed to reserve its upstairs room for the Phi Kappa Psi/Delta Nu Zeta party, to waive its cover charge for party patrons, and to make “dollar wells, dollar beers” (i.e. discounted prices on certain alcoholic beverages) available to party participants for a fee of $300.00. On the night in question, most of the participants met at the Phi Kappa Psi house before going out for the evening. They gathered around 10:00 p.m. and socialized. Some people were getting their “construction” costumes together; others were “pre- partying” –-drinking before going out to minimize the size of the bar bill when they go out later. The majority of the people at the frat house at that time were drinking. At some point around 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., the party moved from the Phi Kappa Psi house to Respondent’s establishment, with party members leaving in groups of three or four to drive from the fraternity house to Respondent’s establishment. It was estimated that 15 or so sorority members and 15 to 30 fraternity brothers attended the party, and that somewhere between a third and a-half of those people were not of legal drinking age. When they arrived at Respondent’s establishment, the sorority and fraternity party makers used a side entrance set up for them by Respondent for use in getting to the party. A doorman was posted at the side entrance that checked the age of each of the patrons. He would place a “Tybex®” wristband on those persons who were over the age of 21 and would mark the hand of those under 21 with an indelible marker. Once inside, party members would go upstairs, where there was a bar with a bartender, a disk jockey, and a dance floor. The party continued on until around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of April 1, 2005, at which time the bar closed and the patrons left. During the course of the evening, 244 alcoholic beverages were served at the upstairs bar at Respondent’s facility. No evidence was presented that established with any degree of accuracy how many fraternity and sorority members actually were at the party and how many were of legal drinking age. The evidence of party attendance provided at hearing varied widely and was in each instance an estimate or a guess. Numerous persons who were not members of Phi Kappa Psi or Delta Nu Zeta were in attendance. There is no accurate estimate of how many legal drinkers were at the party or how many drinks each legal patron may have had. The Underage Drinkers Shane Donnor was observed drinking at the frat house that night. He did not, however, appear to be intoxicated when he left the frat house. He had a wristband indicating that he was over 21, which allowed him to drink at Respondent’s establishment, even though he was not of legal age. It is unknown how he obtained his wristband. Donnor was observed to have a glass in his hand while at Respondent’s establishment, but no one could confirm that he was drinking alcohol. While at Respondent’s establishment, various witnesses described him as appearing under the effects of alcohol and thought he appeared quite intoxicated. By 2:30 a.m. on April 1, Donnor had a blood alcohol level of 0.27. This corresponds to at least 10 drinks and probably more. It is an extremely high level of intoxication, which could result in a coma or even alcohol toxicity in some persons. He was quite drunk and had been so for some time. Stephanie Reed was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment, as was her boyfriend and all the others in her party. She had one or two drinks, but she didn’t buy them herself. One of the fraternity brothers purchased her drinks for her. Reed testified at one point that she did not receive a wristband when she entered the establishment (signifying legal drinking age); later, she testified that she did due to the intervention of some unknown man who told the doorman to give her a bracelet. Reed’s testimony on this point is inconsistent and cannot be credited. Christopher Lowe was carded as he entered Respondent’s establishment. He received marks on the back of his hand indicating that he was underage. Although he was marked as being underage, Lowe was able to purchase two drinks from the bartender. He ordered the drinks; did nothing to conceal the underage marks on his hand; was served; and left money on the bar. Tania Vasquez was carded upon entering Respondent’s establishment and was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks while at the party, but was given an alcoholic beverage by a friend that she consumed while on the premises. Elizabeth McKean, and everyone who entered with her, were carded when they arrived at the party. McKean was marked as being underage. She did not buy any drinks for herself, but was given a shot of tequila by someone else. She drank the shot quickly to avoid detection by Respondent’s staff. David Moser had a roommate who manufactured fake i.d. cards. When he entered Respondent’s establishment, he was carded and presented a false drivers license that made it appear that he was over the age of 21. He was marked as though he was over the legal drinking age and was able to buy and consume drinks at the bar, which he did. Lee Habern had several sips of a friend’s drink that was “snuck” to him. Prevention Of Underage Drinking It is well recognized that underage persons will seek to obtain alcoholic beverages at bars. This action by underage youths results in a “cat and mouse” game whereby the bar will change its tactics in trying to prevent underage drinking and the underage drinkers will change their methods of trying to obtain drinks. Respondent tries to combat underage drinking by creating a culture of compliance. This starts with the initial hiring of employees by Respondent. Respondent’s policy is that no underage drinking will be tolerated. This policy is stated in the Employee’s Handbook. Every employee is given a copy of the handbook upon becoming employed and is required to sign an acknowledgement that he or she received it. The policy is reiterated in informal training at every staff meeting. Every new employee at Respondent’s establishment is required to go through formal training with regard to liquor laws, the effect of alcohol on the human body, dealing with customers who have had too much to drink, and related topics. These courses are known as “PAR”, “TIPS”, and “Safe Staff” and are offered by the Florida Restaurant Association and Anheiser-Busch. Respondent has also offered training provided by agents of Petitioner. These formal training programs are offered continuously to employees, and at least one of the programs is offered three times each year. The initial formal training is accomplished within 30 days of the employee being hired. Records are maintained by Respondent as to who receives what training, and when it is provided. Respondent has a policy that everyone who is served alcohol is to have his or her age checked. When the bar is not busy, this is accomplished by having the waitress check the patron’s I.D. When the bar is busier, a doorman is posted at the entrance to check the patron’s I.D. If the patron is over age 21, he or she is given a wristband; if under age 21, an indelible mark is placed on the back of the hand. Since Respondent has experienced persons copying their “over 21” designation, it is changed on a nightly basis. Fake identification cards, if detected, are confiscated. On busier nights, Respondent might confiscate 20 to 30 of such fake identifications. On the night in question, the doorman confiscated five altered cards. Respondent also has a floor manager on duty at all times that the bar is open. The floor manager will circulate throughout the establishment to make sure that all of the policies and procedures, including the prevention of underage drinking, are being carried out. On the night in question, the floor manager, Bo Crusoe, is documented to have worked and in the nominal course of events would have checked the upstairs area of the premises several times. On busy nights, Respondent will hire one or more off- duty City of Tallahassee police officers to serve as security at the bar. The officers work in their police uniforms. These officers serve first and foremost as high visibility deterrents to unlawful activity. Their mere presence serves to minimize underage drinking. Respondent regularly has off-duty law enforcement on the premises. Respondent also has a security consultant, Officer John Beemon, who is a Tallahassee Police officer. He evaluates the need for additional security and communicates those needs to the owners. When he becomes aware of a new wrinkle in underage persons obtaining alcohol, he works with Respondent to prevent the practice. He assists the doormen in identifying fraudulent I.D.s. Respondent has always implemented whatever recommendations Beemon makes to them. Generally, the security measures used by Respondent have proven effective. From time to time, Petitioner will try a “sting operation” at Respondent’s establishment by sending a minor into Respondent’s bar to see if they are able to purchase alcohol. On every such “sting operation” Petitioner’s decoy was identified and stopped at the front door and was not allowed to purchase alcoholic beverages. Carrie Bruce is Petitioner’s special agent for the Tallahassee area. She is familiar with most Tallahassee alcoholic establishments and her testimony establishes that Respondent’s establishment is not considered a “problem bar” by Petitioner and is considered to be better than other area bars in preventing underage drinking. To the best of the owner’s knowledge and Beemon’s knowledge, no one has ever knowingly served a drink to a minor at Respondent’s establishment. Further, Respondent has never previously been charged with serving alcohol to minors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is
Findings Of Fact Jacqueline A. Irby was employed as an Allstate Insurance Agent from April 25, 1983 until her dismissal July 17, 1987. Respondent has a company policy prohibiting employees from bringing firearms into company offices or carrying them while on company business. Violation of this policy can result in termination. (Exhibit 6). Petitioner was aware of this policy when employed in 1983 (Exhibit 1). She was unsure the policy applied to her office which she rented in the building not otherwise used by Respondent. On April 14, 1987, Petitioner wrote a memo to her supervising sales manager, Randy Rouse, stating that she had witnessed Judith Gill walk into her office with a handgun and point it directly at Petitioner's client. Both Gill and Petitioner were Allstate Agents sharing office spaces if not actually partners. During the subsequent investigation of this incident, Petitioner acknowledged to Rouse that she kept a .357 Magnum in her office for her protection when she worked late at night. Both Gill and Petitioner were fired by Respondent as Allstate Agents on or about July 17, 1987. Petitioner presented Exhibits 2 through 5 representing disciplinary action taken by Respondent against male Allstate Agents. Although the maximum penalty authorized by Respondent's Policy Statements Manual (Exhibit 6) for their offenses was dismissal, each of these Agents received a lesser punishment. None of the offenses noted in Exhibits 2 through 5 involved a firearm violation. No evidence was presented regarding the Agent hired to replace Petitioner, if any, or the sex of such replacement.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination states a cognizable claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended in Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed his original Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on March 6, 2000. He filed his amended charge on March 31, 2000, after talking to FCHR's staff on the telephone. Petitioner alleges that he experienced harassment and retaliation in the workplace because he "supported a co-worker Gary Farrell in reporting to the company about harassment he was receiving from Union Business Manager, Joe Nobles and past Job Steward, Richard Mason for quitting Local Union 1055." Petitioner's charge also alleges the following: Joe Nobles and Richard Mason retaliated against me by influencing most of the union members in the department to ostracize us by not talking to us or cooperating with us. Some co-workers have come to me and said they were told not to associate or cooperate with me, because I supported co-worker Gary Farrell in reporting harassment to Corporate Office. Petitioner's complaint did not allege discrimination or retaliation based on his race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, handicap and/or marital status. Petitioner was given an opportunity to amend his complaint before the FCHR and failed to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 31st day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralph A. Peterson, Esquire Beggs & Lane, LLP Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.A. 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should Petitioner impose on Respondent's teaching certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is authorized to teach English, the mentally handicapped, and psychology in Florida pursuant to Florida Educator's Certificate No. 435635. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2008. Respondent was an outstanding teacher for the Manatee County School District (the District) for approximately 21 years. The District employed Respondent as a language arts teacher at Manatee High School (Manatee) in 2000. On November 4, 2000, Respondent drove a white Dodge van approximately 30 miles an hour on the wrong side of U.S. Highway 41 (Highway 41) toward a deputy sheriff who was directing traffic during an annual festival. The deputy was off duty, but was in uniform and wore an orange vest. Highway 41 contains six lanes where the deputy was directing traffic. Three northbound and three southbound lanes are divided by a landscaped median with a turning ramp. Oncoming vehicles pulled off the road to avoid the van. The left front tire of the van was flat. The deputy attempted to stop Respondent by waiving his arms, jumping up and down, and yelling and screaming for Respondent to stop. Respondent drove past the deputy, and the deputy pushed off the front window of the vehicle. The deputy's vehicle was approximately 15 feet away with blue lights and strobe lights already operating. The deputy drove his vehicle after Respondent with the siren on. Respondent stopped the van approximately 1.4 miles from the location where she drove past the deputy. Respondent pulled into a parking lot of a chain restaurant. The deputy arrested Respondent for aggravated assault on a police officer and fleeing to elude a police officer. Respondent subsequently pled guilty to both charges. The court withheld adjudication and sentenced Respondent to six months of community control, 25 hours of community service, imposed fines and costs, and placed Respondent on probation for one year. Respondent satisfactorily completed her sentence, paid her fines, and completed her probation. On November 10, 2000, Respondent was under the influence of alcohol at Manatee as students were arriving for school. Administrators at Manatee gave Respondent a Breathalyzer test. The test disclosed a positive reading of .23. The legal limit is .07. The District suspended Respondent without pay on November 10, 2000. Respondent resigned from her teaching position with the District on November 16, 2000. The acts committed by Respondent on November 4 and 10, 2000, constitute neither gross immorality nor moral turpitude within the meaning of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). The acts were not base, depraved, dishonest, or unprincipled. They were related to alcohol addiction and a long-term illness of Respondent's mother. Respondent did not violate Section 1012.795(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent was not convicted of a criminal charge. The court withheld adjudication. Petitioner acknowledges in its PRO that Petitioner could find no authority to support a conclusion that the withholding of adjudication is a conviction for the purpose of this alleged violation. Respondent did not violate Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2003). The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the acts committed by Respondent seriously reduced her effectiveness as a teacher. The traffic incident occurred away from school. The second incident occurred before school began and did not harm students or their parents. Respondent was an outstanding teacher prior to her resignation. She resigned her position before her condition had any effect in the classroom. Respondent violated Section 1012.795(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2003), by committing acts prohibited by Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession. Respondent violated Section 1012.795(2), Florida Statutes (2003), by pleading guilty to the criminal charges against her. Three aggravating factors support a significant penalty against Respondent's teaching certificate. First, the offenses on November 4 and 10, 2000, were severe within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007(3)(a). (References to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code on February 27, 1994.) Second, both offenses created a danger to the public within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007(3)(b). Third, the offense on November 10, 2000, was a repetition of an alcohol- related problem. The District had previously transferred Respondent from another school to Manatee in an effort to help Respondent with problems associated with alcohol addiction. Numerous mitigating factors listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-11.007(3) justify a penalty less severe than the three-year revocation and probation that Petitioner proposes. The last offense occurred more than three years ago. Respondent practiced as an educator for over 21 years before the last incident, made significant contributions to students and the educational system in which she worked, and has no other disciplinary history. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-11.007(3)(d)-(f). Respondent caused no actual damage to any person or property. A penalty in this case has little, if any, deterrent effect and will have a significant adverse impact on Respondent's livelihood. Respondent voluntarily resigned her position and successfully rehabilitated herself from alcohol addiction. Respondent candidly admitted actual knowledge of her offenses and their severity. Respondent pled guilty to the charges against her and voluntarily resigned her teaching position. No pecuniary gain inured to Respondent, and Respondent did not harm any student or child. Respondent is rehabilitated from her previous alcohol addiction. Fla. Admin. Code R. 6B-11.007(3)(g)-(k), (m), and (q)-(s). The evidence does not support a period of probation. Respondent's alcohol addiction was related to external circumstances involving Respondent's mother who was ill and in need of constant attention in 2000. Those external circumstances no longer exist. Respondent is rehabilitated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2003); guilty of violating Subsections 1012.795(1)(i) and (2), Florida Statutes; suspending Respondent's teaching certificate for one year beginning on November 10, 2000; and thereafter activating the certificate forthwith. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Nina Ashenafi, Esquire FEA/United 118 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire Post Office Box 131 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-0131 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street 1244 Turlington Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Program Specialist Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race, subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment, or retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 4(1)(a)(1).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 16. Petitioner is an African-American female and filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Respondent engaged in race, color, and gender discrimination; retaliation; and the creation of a hostile work environment. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 16. Respondent operates a car dealership and is in the business of selling and servicing new and used automobiles and trucks in several states, including Florida. Respondent was not Petitioner's employer. Petitioner was a temporary worker during the relevant period, and her employment contract was with an employment agency. No written employment contract existed between the parties to this proceeding. The employment agency paid Petitioner, and Respondent paid the employment agency. The employment agency assigned Petitioner to Respondent from January 13 through January 23, 2004. Other than Petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony, there is no written or other evidence that Respondent intended Petitioner’s temporary assignment either to become a permanent position or to last for six weeks. The fact-finder finds the testimony of Petitioner to be less than credible and persuasive. From January 13 until January 21, 2004, Petitioner worked at Respondent's Tampa office at Lexus of Tampa Bay located on North Dale Mabry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent transferred Petitioner to its office at Lexus of Clearwater, Florida, on January 21, 2004, and terminated the assignment from the employment agency on January 23, 2004. The termination of assignment occurred in Pinellas County, rather than Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioner began her assignment at Lexus of Tampa Bay on January 13, 2004, as a receptionist. Respondent paired Petitioner with Ms. Mary Ann Browne, a full-time receptionist and Caucasian female. Respondent charged Ms. Browne with training Petitioner in the responsibilities of a receptionist. Petitioner alleges that Ms. Browne engaged in unprofessional conduct during the 10 days she trained Petitioner. The unprofessional conduct, according to Petitioner's testimony included "racial undertones." For example, Ms. Browne asked Petitioner why, "Black people are all family, cousins, sisters, brothers." Petitioner responded, "Don't ask me. I wouldn't be that black." Ms. Browne allegedly stated aloud that two female employees who hugged in greeting each other were lesbians. Ms. Browne allegedly called another African-American employee a "pimp" and referred to an Hispanic employee as a "macdaddy." The fact-finder does not know the meaning of the term "macdaddy," or even how to spell the term, and the record does not provide an adequate definition or spelling. Ms. Browne allegedly referred to homosexual customers as "flamers." Finally, Ms. Browne allegedly engaged in threatening physical behavior by tossing items at Petitioner across the reception desk. No one but Petitioner heard the alleged racial and sexist comments by Ms. Browne or witnessed the physically aggressive behavior. The preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing of discrimination or retaliation. Nor does the preponderance of evidence show that Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment. Finally, a preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice. The evidence of Ms. Browne's conduct consists of Petitioner's testimony and a diary that Petitioner created contemporaneously with the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. No other employees at Lexus of Tampa Bay witnessed the events evidenced in Petitioner's testimony and diary. Ms. Browne left her employment with Respondent in the fall of 2004 and did not testify. Ms. Toni Davis, now Ms. Toni Scotland, was a receptionist during part of the relevant time but was not present during the entire time because she was being promoted to a position in accounting. Ms. Scotland did not recall any improper behavior by Ms. Browne in 2004. The Investigative Report based its recommendation of a finding of cause on statements attributed in the Report to then Ms. Davis and the documentation of the disciplinary action taken by Respondent against Ms. Browne. However, Ms. Scotland testified that she did not recall being contacted by an investigator for the Board and denied making any statements to the investigator. The investigation took approximately 3.5 years to complete because the investigator is the only investigator for the Board and because the investigator suffered a heart attack during the investigation. At the hearing, the testimony of the investigator concerning statements he attributed to Ms. Scotland, also Ms. Davis, was vague and sparse and is less than credible and persuasive. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent is responsible for the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. Petitioner complained to her employment agency about the conduct of Ms. Browne. The employment agency notified Respondent, and Ms. Helene Ott, the supervisor at the time, interviewed both Petitioner and Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004. The only complaint made by Petitioner to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, was that Ms. Browne went to the break room to bring back a drink in separate disposable drink cups for Ms. Browne and Petitioner. Upon returning with the drinks, Ms. Browne told Petitioner that Ms. Browne had spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner did not tell Ms. Ott that Petitioner witnessed Ms. Browne spit in the cup. Petitioner's version of events changed at the hearing. Petitioner testified that she saw Ms. Browne spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner testified that Ms. Browne offered to refill the cup Petitioner already had on the receptionist desk, grabbed the cup, stood, drew up a large volume of spit from deep in Ms. Browne's throat, and let the long volume of liquid drop into Petitioner's cup in full view of Petitioner. Petitioner further testified in tears that she stated repeatedly to Ms. Browne, "Give me back my cup!" The foregoing testimony of Petitioner is less than credible and persuasive. The fact-finder is not persuaded that any reasonable person would have wanted Ms. Browne to return the cup. The cup was a disposable cup from the vending area which was of no value to Petitioner. Petitioner did not relate this version of the events to Ms. Ott when Ms. Ott investigated Petitioner's complaints on January 19, 2004. The version of events that Petitioner related to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, is consistent with the contemporaneous account by Mr. Browne. When Ms. Ott interviewed Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004, Ms. Browne admitted that she told Petitioner she had spit in Petitioner's cup when Ms. Browne returned from the vending area to the reception desk with Petitioner's drink. Ms. Browne also admitted to engaging in offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent created or fostered a work environment that was hostile toward Petitioner. On January 19, 2004, Ms. Ott issued a written counseling/final warning to Ms. Browne for her use of “offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct.” The disciplinary action advised Ms. Browne that any further misconduct would result in the termination of her employment. On January 20, 2004, Ms. Ott interviewed Petitioner again concerning additional complaints from the employment agency. Petitioner told Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne used vulgar and unprofessional language, but Petitioner did not state to Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne made racial or sexist comments. On January 21, 2004, Ms. Ott needed to fill another temporary vacancy at Lexus of Clearwater. Ms. Ott asked Petitioner to go to Clearwater, and Petitioner went to the Clearwater office voluntarily. Respondent ended the employment agency assignment on January 23, 2004. Ms. Ott described Petitioner’s performance as “very good." On January 23, 2004, Ms. Ott offered to write a letter of reference for Petitioner. Ms. Ott told Petitioner that Ms. Ott would consider Petitioner for a position at Lexus of Tampa Bay or Lexus of Clearwater if the need arose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order issued in this proceeding should find that Respondent is not guilty of the allegations made by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie P. Stokes 4714 Pleasant Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Gail P. Williams Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Andrew Froman, Esquire Alva L. Cross, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age as stated in the Petition for Relief, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Respondent, Phantom Fireworks, is a retailer and wholesaler of consumer fireworks and employs more than 15 persons. Petitioner, Joseph A. Zemba, Jr., was hired as an assistant manager at the Cocoa, Florida, location on March 21, 2007. At the time he was hired, he was 57 years old and the oldest of four applicants for the position. On or about August 16, 2007, Petitioner was discharged from his employment with Phantom Fireworks by the Cocoa, Florida, manager, Joseph Mele. Mr. Mele advised Petitioner that he was discharged for violating company policy regarding the unauthorized use of alcohol on company property or while on the job. Petitioner testified that he believes the discharge for alcohol abuse was a "cover up" for the real reason that he was discharged. Petitioner "believed" that he was discharged because of his age. Petitioner presented no direct or circumstantial evidence that his discharge was based on age. He did not deny his use of alcohol while on company premises and on company time. On July 1, 2007, after receiving customer complaints regarding the smell of alcohol on Petitioner's person, Mr. Mele counseled him about the smell of alcohol on his person and raised the issue of the impropriety of drinking alcohol during work hours. Prior to the customers approaching Mr. Mele, two employees told him, independently and at different times, that they observed the odor of alcohol on Petitioner's person. Petitioner acknowledged having used alcohol during working hours and indicated it would not happen again. On August 2, 2007, Mr. Mele again received complaints of Petitioner having the odor of alcohol on his breath. Based on these complaints, Mr. Mele verbally counseled Petitioner a second time regarding the use of alcohol while on company premises and during company time. Petitioner again acknowledged he was drinking and stated that he "had a beer for lunch" and that it would not happen again. Mr. Mele again verbally counseled Petitioner on August 6, 2007. On August 3, 2007, Kathy Daley, a co-worker whose testimony confirmed the incident, told Mr. Mele that when she and Petitioner worked together on that day, Petitioner left the showroom to do some banking, a task that usually takes ten or 15 minutes. Petitioner, however, was gone for over one hour before he returned. When he returned, Kat Daley smelled a strong odor of alcohol on Petitioner's breath. She reported this after Petitioner had left for the day. Petitioner was next scheduled to work on August 6, 2007, at which time Mr. Mele counseled him for a third time regarding complaints of the smell of alcohol on his person. When questioned about his whereabouts, Petitioner told Mr. Mele that he could not remember where he went. Mr. Mele contacted his regional manager, Ira Schwartz, on August 7, 2007, to discuss the alcohol issue regarding Petitioner. Ira Schwartz advised Mr. Mele to contact Amy Witzeman, director of Human Resources for Phantom Fireworks. After considering the facts and consulting with the director of Operations and General Counsel, a decision was made to terminate Petitioner based on his abuse of alcohol. Petitioner was terminated from the company, effective August 16, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, Phantom Fireworks, did not discriminate against Petitioner, Joseph A. Zemba, Jr., and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 25th day of November, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony Donofrio, Esquire B.J. Alan Company 555 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Youngstown, Ohio 44505 Joseph A. Zemba, Jr. 39 Burlington Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955
The Issue Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Rina Norman, did solicit Robert Hutter for the purpose of committing a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Heather Lovell did commit a lewd act, to-wit; oral copulation on one Steven Lee Hobson, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 12, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Susan Edith Laursen, did commit a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, on one Norman Eric Williams, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about July 20, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Mite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Connie Nadine Reeves did solicit Beverage Officers F. J. Dunbar and P. M. Roberts for the purposes of prostitution, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent in this cause is Terwell, Inc. This corporation is the holder of beverage license No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, to trade as Nite Gallery II at a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida. This license is held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which organization has the responsibility of the licensure and regulation of those several business entities within the State that sell alcoholic beverages. On April 3, 1979, Officer Robert T. Hutter of the Orlando, Florida, Police Department went to the licensed premises at 1720 Lee Road. Officer Hutter was in the company of Police Officer Barrett of the same department. The two officers entered the bar in an undercover capacity and sat down and ordered a beer. After a moment, the officers were approached by a female who was a dancer in the licensed premises. The dancer's name was Rina Norman and in conversation Norman asked the officers if they wanted a "blow job" for $25.00. (This expression pertains to an offer to commit fellatio.) Rina Norman was subsequently arrested by Officer Hutter and was allowed to go to the back of the licensed premises to a dressing room area and to change from her "go go" outfit into street clothes. The suspect, Rina Norman, had also been seen dancing as a performer on the licensed premises prior to her apprehension. On the same evening, April 3, 1979, Officer Barrett had been contacted by two females in the licensed premises and from his encounter with those individuals determined to arrest them for assignation to commit prostitution or lewdness. The officer went outside briefly and then reentered the licensed premises to look for the two suspect females. One of the areas which he examined in his search for the suspects was an area in which there are two booths with curtains across the front opening of the cubicles. These booths are located down a hall leading to the female dancers' dressing room area which is on the west side of the bar. In looking in one of the booths, Officer Barrett pulled hack the curtain and found a woman identified as Heather Lovell committing an act of fellatio on a man who was in the booth with her. Lovell was-wearing a "go go" costume at the time she was seen involved in this activity. She was placed under arrest and went to the dressing room area to put on street clothes after the arrest was effected. The dressing room area which Lovell used was the same area used by Rina Norman. Lovell had also been seen by Officer Barrett in the licensed premises at an earlier time on the evening of April 3, 1979. Officers Hutter and Barrett went back to the licensed premises in the company of Beverage Officers Wallace and Boyd on April 12, 1979. At that time, Officer Hutter went to the booth area spoken of before to investigate for lewd acts. When Officer Butter pulled back the curtain to one of the booths, he observed Susan Laursen performing fellatio on a man located in the booth with her. Laursen and the man were arrested and Laursen went back to the dressing room area mentioned before to change into her street clothes. Beverage Officers Dunbar and Boyd returned to the licensed premises on July 20, 1979, at around 11:35 p.m. for the purpose of investigating alleged prostitution which was occurring in the licensed premises. The two officers seated themselves inside the bar area and they were approached by Connie Nadine Reeves, who sat by them and asked them if they would like to have a private party in the back, which would include nude dancing and a "blow job", meaning fellatio. Officer Dunbar asked if this entertainment was free and Reeves replied that, "No, the 'blow job' (fellatio) is $25.00 and dancing is $10.00." Beverage Officer Roberts had not heard this overture from Reeves and Dunbar asked Reeves to repeat her statements, which she did. Roberts then went with Reeves to the back part of the area of the hallway and the two booths which have been mentioned before. Beverage Officer Dunbar went outside to pain the assistance of the other Beverage Officer and the local police officers for purposes of effecting an arrest of Connie Nadine Reeves. Roberts followed Reeves down the hallway and into one of the booths. Reeves had motioned Roberts to follow her to this location. Reeves repeated the statement that it would cost $25.00 for a "blow job" (fellatio) and Roberts gave her $30.00 and she replied that she would keep $5.00 for a tip. Roberts seated himself on a chair in the room and Reeves told him to "Go ahead and pull it out" and he replied that he was not turned on and that she should dance. Reeves took her clothes off and danced for a few moments and then there was some problem with the music and she yelled out of the room for someone to get the jukebox working. This problem with the jukebox occurred a couple of times. At this point, Roberts arrested Reeves for violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, pertaining to lewd acts. In the interim, Beverage Officer Dunbar and the other law enforcement officers had entered or reentered the licensed premises and attempted to go up the hallway to the booth area and were confronted by a number of females in "go go" attire who tried to keep them from going into that area and in doing so stated that the area was private and was to be used by employees only, referring to the area of the booths. Officer Dunbar went back to the booth where Roberts had made his arrest and at this point Reeves was protesting her arrest and acting belligerent. Dunbar left that location and met Beverage Officer Wallace, who was talking to Ron Wells, a corporate officer of the Respondent. Wells was asked to go with Dunbar to try to convince Reeves to accompany the officers without further incident. The officers asked Wells if Reeves were his employee and Wells responded that she was. Wells was then told by Dunbar to straighten her out, meaning that if she did not get dressed they would take her into custody without clothing. Wells then talked to Reeves and she left and went to the dressing room mentioned before in this case and dressed herself. Reeves also stated that she was an employee at the licensed premises.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the beverage license of the Respondent, Terwell, Inc., No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, which allows the Respondent to trade as Nite Gallery II in a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Marcella Taggart (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Respondent), in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in June 2007, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed as a systems analyst in the Respondent’s Information Technology (IT) department. The Respondent is a Florida corporation that operates a chain of grocery stores. The Respondent’s IT department is a high-security unit. A systems analyst working in the IT department has access to the Respondent’s financial and product pricing systems. Such an employee would also have access to some confidential human resources department data, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and banking information of the Respondent’s other employees. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that some co- workers harassed her by repeatedly asking questions about her hair when she wore it in a braided hairstyle. The Respondent has adopted an explicit policy prohibiting all forms of harassment. In relevant part, the policy states as follows: The very nature of harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless the person being harassed registers his or her discontent with the appropriate company representative. Consequently, in order for the company to deal with the problem, offensive conduct or situations must be reported. The policy identifies a specific formal process by which an employee who feels harassed may lodge a complaint about such behavior. The Petitioner did not file a formal complaint about the alleged harassment related to her hairstyle. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner informally complained to the Respondent about such alleged harassment prior to her termination from employment. In April 2009, the Petitioner participated in a work- related meeting, during which the Petitioner perceived that she was treated by another female employee in a demeaning manner. The Petitioner reported the other employee’s behavior in an email to supervisor Terry Walden. The other employee wrote a similar email complaining about the Petitioner’s behavior at the meeting, and, according to the Petitioner’s email, the Petitioner was aware of the other employee’s report. Although the Petitioner now asserts that she complained that the incident was discriminatory, the Petitioner’s email, which was written at the time of the incident, does not state or imply that the incident was related to some type of discriminatory conduct by the other employee, or that the altercation was related to anything other than assigned work responsibilities. In May 2014, the Petitioner and a white male co-worker engaged in an office confrontation about assigned work responsibilities. Both the Respondent and the other employee separately reported the incident to supervisors. The Respondent investigated the incident and interviewed other employees who observed, but were not involved in, the confrontation. As a result of the incident, the Petitioner received a written memo of counseling on June 16, 2014, from supervisor Greta Opela for “poor interpersonal skills.” The memo reported that the Petitioner “consistently performed well in her position from a technical standpoint” but that she “has had ongoing associate relations issues.” The memo stated that the Petitioner was unable to work appropriately with other employees and that “many associates have requested not to work with her because of their previous interactions with her.” The memo noted that the Petitioner’s behavior towards her co-workers had been referenced in previous performance evaluations, as well as in direct discussions between the Petitioner and her immediate managers. In relevant part, the memo further stated as follows: Of concern, when coached or provided constructive criticism, Marcella is very unreceptive and often becomes defensive and deflects blame to others. Given Marcella has had interpersonal conflicts with numerous individuals, Marcella needs to recognize her role in these conflicts, take ownership for her actions, and work to correct her behavior. * * * Marcella must treat her fellow associates with dignity and respect. Also Marcella must take ownership for her actions and work to improve upon her relationships with her peers. Should Marcella fail to improve upon her interpersonal skills, she will be issued additional counseling, removed from her position, or separated from Publix. The Petitioner’s written acknowledgement of her receipt of the memo indicated that she disagreed with the assessment. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondent committed an act of discrimination against her because the Respondent did not issue a similar memo to the other employee. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had any reason to issue a similar memorandum to the other employee, or that the other employee had a documented history of exhibiting “poor interpersonal skills” that could warrant counseling. There is no evidence that the June 2014 memo was related in any manner to the Petitioner’s race, color, sex, age, or was retaliatory. Although the memo was placed in the Petitioner’s personnel file, the Respondent took no adverse employment action against the Petitioner as a result of the memo or the underlying incident. On June 23, 2014, the Petitioner’s house, which she owned with her husband, was partially destroyed in a fire. The Petitioner had been called to the scene after the fire commenced, and was present as the structure burned. The fire and subsequent events resulted in an investigation by the State Fire Marshall’s Office. On April 1, 2015, the Petitioner informed supervisor Opela that the Petitioner had to go to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) and was unsure whether she would return to work on that day. Thereafter, the Petitioner left the workplace and traveled to the HCSO where she presented herself for arrest on a felony charge of making a “false and fraudulent insurance claim.” After the Petitioner left her place of employment, Ms. Opela accessed an internet resource and learned of the pending charge against the Petitioner. Ms. Opela reported the information to her own supervisor, Ms. Walden, and to Susan Brose, a manager in the Respondent’s human resources department. Ms. Brose reviewed the available internet information, and then arranged with the Petitioner to meet upon her return to the workplace. At the hearing, Ms. Brose testified that the Respondent requires complete honesty from its employees, and that, according to the Respondent’s policies, dishonest of any kind is unacceptable and can result in termination from employment. Ms. Brose testified that she restates the requirement at the commencement of every personnel disciplinary meeting, and did so at the beginning of her meeting with the Petitioner, after which she asked the Petitioner to explain the situation. The Petitioner responded by stating that there had been a fire at the house, that there had been no insurance on the house, that her husband had filed a claim, and that she had asked the insurance carrier not to pursue the claim. The Petitioner denied to Ms. Brose that she had been arrested at the HCSO. Ms. Brose also spoke with William Harrison, a detective with the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud. Mr. Harrison prepared and executed the Summary of Offense and Probable Cause Statement (Probable Cause Statement), dated December 4, 2014, which formed the basis for the Petitioner’s arrest on April 1, 2015. According to the Probable Cause Statement: the Petitioner was aware at the time of the fire that the homeowner’s insurance on the house had lapsed for non-payment of the premium; the Petitioner was present at the scene of the fire and became aware that the policy could be reinstated during the “grace period” by payment of the premium due, as long as the house had suffered no damage during the uninsured period; the Petitioner was warned at the scene of the fire by an employee of the State Fire Marshall’s office that the reinstatement of the lapsed policy without disclosing the damage could constitute insurance fraud; and the Petitioner was overheard on the phone at the scene of the fire having the lapsed policy reinstated. Ms. Brose became aware that, when having the lapsed insurance policy reinstated, the Petitioner executed a “Statement of No Loss” form that provided in relevant part as follows: I CERTIFY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO LOSSES, ACCIDENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT GIVE RISE TO A CLAIM UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY WHOSE NUMBER IS SHOWN ABOVE. After completing her review of the circumstances, Ms. Brose concluded that the Petitioner had been dishonest during their meeting. Ms. Brose recommended to Ms. Walden that the Petitioner’s employment be terminated because the Petitioner worked in a high-security unit of the IT department where she had access to confidential financial information and systems, the Petitioner had been arrested for fraud, and the Petitioner was not honest when asked to explain the circumstances. On April 13, 2015, Ms. Walden terminated the Petitioner’s employment as a systems analyst for the reasons identified by Ms. Brose. The Petitioner presented no evidence that the Respondent’s termination of her employment was related to the Petitioner’s race, color, sex, age, or in retaliation for any complaint of discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of May, 2016.
