The Issue Whether Respondent, American Support, discriminated against Petitioner, Linda Dodge, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act) sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, based upon her sex or in retaliation for participation in a protected activity.1/
Findings Of Fact American Support is a third-party telemarketing contractor for providers of cable and satellite service, with an office located in Daytona Beach, Florida. American Support is an employer within the meaning of the Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Petitioner is a 61-year-old female who was hired on August 19, 2008, as a telemarketer for Evergreen, a predecessor company to American Support. Petitioner worked in telemarketing for approximately one year, was laid off by Evergreen, but was shortly thereafter reemployed by Evergreen as a receptionist/administrative assistant. Between October 2011 and December 2011, Petitioner solely performed receptionist duties. Petitioner was replaced as company receptionist by Debora Jenkins, whom Petitioner helped train. Ms. Jenkins was hired on a full-time temporary basis as the company was transitioning to new ownership. In December 2011, Petitioner was promoted to Human Resources Assistant by Nancy Cantero, Human Resources Director for American Support beginning in November 2011. Petitioner’s duties were to initiate and process criminal background checks and credit checks on applicants, validate I-9 information received for newly hired employees, create personnel files for new employees, and manage employee personnel files. Employee personnel files contain personal identifying information including dates of birth, social security numbers, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background and credit checks. Both parties agree that keeping applicants’ and employees’ personal information protected is a high priority for the Human Resources Department. Ms. Cantero left American Support in February 2012 and was replaced by Steven Schaible, first as a Human Resources Generalist under contract, then as corporate Human Resources Manager in March 2012. In his capacity as Manager, Mr. Schaible supervised Petitioner and two Human Resources Recruiters: Warren Hernandez and Elaine Zoe. Ms. Zoe was a virtual recruiter operating from her home in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner described Mr. Schaible as very friendly and outgoing when he first became Human Resources Manager. In mid-April 2012, Mr. Schaible hired a third recruiter, Anthony Sarelli, at a rate of $17 per hour. No evidence was introduced to establish the hourly rate of either Mr. Hernandez or Ms. Zoe, but Mr. Hernandez earned less than $17 per hour. Petitioner earned $13.50 per hour as Human Resources Assistant. On Thursday, April 19, 2012, Ms. Jenkins, the temporary receptionist, gave her notice and stated that she would be starting a new job Monday, April 23, 2012. Ms. Jenkins’ last day on the job was Friday, April 20, 2012. Mr. Schaible, together with Mary Celle, Vice President of Operations, made a decision to eliminate the position of receptionist. Mr. Schaible had been unable to keep Ms. Jenkins busy full-time with receptionist duties such as answering and routing phone calls, accepting parcel deliveries, handing out job applications, and directing individuals to appropriate offices. Mr. Schaible determined Petitioner was competent to perform these duties, in light of her previous service as company receptionist. Petitioner had the day off on Friday, April 20, 2012. When she returned to work on Monday, April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible informed Petitioner that she would take over the receptionist duties while continuing to serve as Human Resources Assistant. Petitioner was physically moved from her desk to the receptionist desk at the front of the building.2/ Neither Petitioner’s title nor her salary changed when she was moved to the receptionist desk. Mr. Schaible made efforts to reduce Petitioner’s duties as Human Resources Assistant, reassigning responsibility of managing Kahuna, a software program through which new telemarketers were assigned log-in and password information, to a payroll employee, Maryanna Hilton. Additionally, Mr. Schaible instructed Petitioner to discontinue sending personal faxes for other employees. The company had taken some steps to streamline the receptionist function to make it more efficient and less time- consuming. For example, the company moved from paper applications to an online application system. The receptionist was to direct persons inquiring about job applications to computer terminals located at the building entrance in front of the receptionist desk. Similarly, the company telephone system was changed from a switchboard to automatic routing of calls to direct extensions by department. Petitioner was instructed to continue her regular Human Resources duties, but to place personnel files in a locked Human Resources file room located ten feet from the receptionist desk when she was away from her desk. On April 24, 2012, Mr. Schaible arrived at work early and noticed a stack of employee personnel files on the receptionist desk. Petitioner was not at the desk. Mr. Schaible concluded that the files had remained on the desk overnight. The files contained copies of social security cards, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background checks and credit checks for newly hired employees. Mr. Schaible secured the files and addressed Petitioner about the issue later that day. Mr. Schaible stressed with Petitioner the importance of keeping personnel files secure, and offered to get her a rolling file cabinet. The next day, April 25, 2012, Petitioner sent Mr. Schaible the following e-mail: “I apologize for the files when I left . . . it won’t happen again.” The following day, April 26, 2012, Mr. Schaible found a personnel file containing personal identifying information on Petitioner’s desk. Mr. Schaible removed the file and placed it in the locked file room. Later that same day, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Mr. Schaible: “Will make sure forms are upside down on my desk before I take a break . . . my bad.” Mr. Schaible spoke to Petitioner that same day and explained that turning files upside down on the desk in her absence was not sufficient. He explained that personnel files must be secured in the locked file room when she was not at her desk. On Monday, April 30, 2012, Petitioner was on vacation, and Mr. Schaible sat at the front desk for at least some part of the day.3/ He discovered in one of the desk drawers over 50 completed W-4 forms for current employees. Mr. Schaible discussed with Ms. Celle the need to initiate the company’s progressive discipline policy and give Petitioner a verbal warning.4/ Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner late in the afternoon on May 1, 2012, and deliver the verbal warning. Petitioner was back in the office on May 1, 2012. While Petitioner was on a break and Ms. Hilton was manning the receptionist desk for Petitioner, Mr. Schaible discovered six personnel files on the desk. Mr. Schaible removed the files and decided to modify the verbal warning to a written warning, in essence moving to the second step of the company’s progressive discipline policy. Mr. Schaible did not have a meeting with Petitioner on May 1, 2012, as planned. On May 2, 2012, Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner at 3:00 p.m. to present her with the written warning and discuss the confidentiality issues. He requested that Carrie Santana, Manager of Customer Care and Quality, attend the meeting as well. At 3:00 p.m., Mr. Schaible asked Petitioner to come to his office. She was busily working in the Kahuna program, adding two new employees at the request of a manager in the Jacksonville office. Petitioner requested Mr. Schaible to wait until she completed the log-in and password information for the new employees. Mr. Schaible became angry, told her that task would have to wait, and ordered her into his office immediately. Petitioner accompanied Mr. Schaible to his office, where Ms. Santana was waiting. Mr. Schaible confronted Petitioner with the W-4 forms he had found in the receptionist desk on April 30, 2012, as evidence of her failure to follow his directions to secure personal information of company employees. Before Mr. Schaible brought up the six personnel files he had removed from the desk the previous day, Petitioner stated, “I quit,” stood up and left Mr. Schaible’s office, then exited the building. Petitioner denies that she quit her job on May 2, 2012, instead testifying that she stated, “I quit this,” meaning she quit Mr. Schaible’s treatment toward her. However, Mr. Schaible’s testimony that Petitioner stated, “I quit” on May 2, 2012, was corroborated by Petitioner’s own e-mail dated May 3, 2012, to company President Matthew Zemon, as well as Ms. Santana’s written memorandum dated May 3, 2012, in which she memorialized the events of May 2, 2012. The evidence conflicted as to whether Petitioner returned to the office on May 2, 2012, following the disciplinary meeting. Mr. Schaible testified he did not see Petitioner after the meeting that day or the next day, May 3, 2012. Petitioner testified that she returned to the building within 30 minutes, stating first that she went into Mr. Schaible’s office to complain about his treatment of her, but later testifying that his office door was closed, so she did not go in to see him. Mr. Schaible’s testimony on this issue is credible and accepted by the undersigned. Mr. Schaible e-mailed Ms. Celle following the disciplinary meeting on May 2, 2012, informing Ms. Celle that Petitioner had resigned. Mr. Schaible then completed a Record of Termination for Petitioner showing a separation date of May 2, 2012. The evidence showed that American Support did not accept Petitioner’s resignation. In response to Petitioner’s email of May 3, 2012, Mr. Zemon e-mailed Mr. Schaible and asked him to contact Petitioner and offer her a position in inbound/outbound sales at the high end of the pay range. Mr. Schaible did so, but Petitioner did not accept the offer. Petitioner clearly considered her assignment to the receptionist desk to be demeaning. She was subjected to comments from other employees suggesting she had been demoted because she could not perform Human Resources duties. She felt that the Human Resources Assistant did not belong at the front desk. Petitioner was overwhelmed with performing Human Resources duties while assisting job applicants at the computers, answering telephone calls that were not automatically routed, accepting delivered parcels, and dealing with the myriad inquiries typically made of the receptionist at any business. Petitioner complained that it was impossible to secure applicants’ and employees’ personal information with other employees passing by the front desk on their way in and out of the building. She noted that running back and forth to the Human Resources file room every time she was required to get up from the desk -- even though it was only ten feet away -- rendered her work inefficient, if not impossible. In support of her argument that she was discriminated against based on her sex, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible hired a second male recruiter out of a mixed pool of applicants, that Mr. Schaible made inappropriate comments about some applicants, and that he hired a male recruiter at a rate of $17 per hour -– higher than other Human Resources employees. Petitioner submitted no evidence to establish what comments were made about any applicant for the position of Human Resources recruiter. As to hourly rates of pay, Petitioner testified that the new recruiter was paid at a higher rate than Mr. Hernandez. Further, Petitioner did not produce any evidence as to the rates of pay for either Ms. Zoe or Mr. Hernandez. Petitioner also alleged that following her move to the receptionist desk on April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible instructed her not to take breaks with Mr. Hernandez, not to check her work e- mails from home, and excluded her from meetings with other Human Resources employees. However, Petitioner was unable to testify with certainty that other employees were allowed to continue checking e-mails from home. Ms. Zoe, the female virtual recruiter on the team, continued to participate in Human Resources meetings. Petitioner likewise complained that she was denied a raise while Mr. Hernandez received one. On April 19, 2012, in response to Mr. Schaible’s request, Petitioner submitted a self- evaluation for Mr. Schaible’s consideration. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hernandez told her a week later that he received a raise. Petitioner then asked Mr. Schaible about the time period for a decision on her raise; Mr. Schaible responded, according to Petitioner, “Not sure about it yet.[5/]” Petitioner’s hearsay statement alone is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Hernandez received a raise. No evidence was introduced as to the status of other employees’ evaluations or raises. Petitioner’s most-repeated claim is that Mr. Schaible treated her unprofessionally by speaking to her sharply in front of other employees, yelling when he ordered her into his office on May 2, 2012, and “slamming” the W-4 files on the desk during the disciplinary meeting. Petitioner felt his treatment of her was demeaning, harassing, and embarrassing. Petitioner presented no evidence, however, that Mr. Schaible’s treatment of her was related in any way to her status as a female. In fact, when Mr. Schaible hired a replacement Human Resources Assistant, he hired another female. Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible acted in retaliation, but could not articulate any event for which the retaliation was lodged. When questioned by the undersigned as to her retaliation claim, Petitioner testified, It just didn’t seem like the right thing for an office atmosphere, I should say, or speak to an employee in such a manner. So it’s just his mannerism and his attitude toward me that made me feel like it was a retaliation [sic] for something, and I couldn’t figure out what it was.[6/] Petitioner may very well have been put in an impossible work situation, treated unfairly, or forced to resign. However, there is no evidence that her treatment was related in any way to her status as a female. Petitioner did admit to improperly handling employee personnel files and applicant files on at least two occasions. She denies that leaving the six files on the desk when Ms. Hilton was covering for her break was improper because Ms. Hilton worked in the payroll department and had access to employee personal information. As to the W-4 forms in her desk, Petitioner admitted that even if the forms were left in the desk by Ms. Jenkins, Petitioner was ultimately responsible for securing those documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 6th day of June, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 26, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresa Urbana, began employment with Sanmar Corporation (Sanmar) in August 2008 as a seasonal employee and worked there until November 2008. She was rehired in July 2009 in a Re-stocker position. She was promoted to Order Processor and was made a full-time regular employee later that year. Sanmar is a distributor of promotional apparel and accessories to companies that sell promotional apparel. The Jacksonville location is one of seven distribution centers (DC) throughout the country. The Jacksonville DC fulfills customer orders by receiving, picking, checking, packing and shipping them. Respondent is an employer as contemplated by chapter 760, Florida Statutes. An Order Processor is responsible for picking and checking the order, and then packing the order for distribution to Sanmar's customers. The position description for Order Processor includes the following: PHYSICAL DEMANDS: While performing the duties of this job, the employee is constantly required to walk and stand. The employee is frequently required to reach with hands and arms, handle or feel product, to pull/push cart with product, grasp and perform repetitive hand, wrist and arm motions. The employee is frequently required to climb, kneel/squat, bend and carry. The employee occasionally lifts and/or moves up to 40 pounds, and seldom lifts and/or moves up to 50 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception and ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT: Work environment is moderately noisy. The employee is occasionally required to work near conveyor systems. There is exposure to dust and changes in weather conditions. Employee must be able to handle stress that is involved in meeting strenuous customer deadlines, working in high volume areas, and be flexible and able to interact with employees at all times. Paul Rhodes is the Distribution Manager and Alice Torres is Human Resources Manager for Sanmar's Jacksonville DC. Ms. Torres reports to Olivia Thurmond, Senior Manager of Human Resources. Ms. Thurmond is in the corporate headquarters for Sanmar, which is located in Issaquah, Washington. Sanmar's Employee Handbook includes an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, an Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy, and a Reasonable Accommodation Policy. Petitioner received a copy of the Employee Handbook. Allegations Related to Disability On April 21, 2011, Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to inform her of pain Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands. Petitioner informed Ms. Torres that she believed that this condition was work-related. With the help of Ms. Torres' assistant, Yadira Batlle, Petitioner completed an Accident/Incident Report. Ms. Batlle actually completed the form based on information provided by Petitioner, because Petitioner is not fluent in English, as her primary language is Spanish. The Accident/Incident Report was signed by Petitioner and references carpel-tunnel in both hands as the description of the injury. On that same day, Sanmar provided Petitioner with contact information for Solantic Baptist Occupational Health (Solantic) so she could receive evaluation and treatment for her injury which Petitioner claimed was work related. While there was some dispute as to whether Petitioner's condition was work related and covered by workers' compensation, it is undisputed that Sanmar reported the injury to its workers' compensation carrier and Petitioner did receive benefits and medical treatment through workers' compensation. On April 22, 2011, Petitioner was evaluated at Solantic. As a result of her evaluation, Petitioner was released to return to work with a work restriction of wearing wrist braces. Petitioner continued to perform her Order Processor job duties wearing wrist braces. Petitioner also was evaluated by her personal physician, Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, who provided a note dated June 1, 2011, which stated as follows: This patient has bilateral moderate carpal tunnell [sic] syndrome worse at right wrist, which is interfering with her regular duties and regular activities for which she will need surgical decompression in the future. When Ms. Torres received this doctor's note, she explained to Petitioner that the note did not include any specifics as to any work restrictions. As a result, Ms. Torres advised Petitioner she could not allow her to return to work until the company received work restrictions from her doctor. Therefore, Sanmar placed Petitioner on a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On June 2, 2012, Ms. Torres sent a fax to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz with a request that he complete an attached certification of Petitioner's health condition. He completed the form, but the information he provided essentially repeated what he wrote on the June 2, 2011, note, and did not provide specific working restrictions which Sanmar requested and needed to be able to provide appropriate and safe working restrictions for Petitioner. Ms. Torres forwarded these documents to Christy Hammond, Sanmar's Leave Supervisor, who is located in the Washington office. On June 3, 2012, Lori Shutter, Sanmar's Benefits Manager, faxed a request to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, requesting that he complete an enclosed "release to return to work" form identifying work restrictions. She also attached a position description for the Order Processor position. Sanmar did not receive a completed form or further specific work restrictions from Dr. Esquivia-Munoz despite this request. Petitioner went back to Concentra, the workers' compensation medical provider, for further evaluation. Concentra identified her activity status as "modified activity" and identified her work restrictions as no pushing, pulling or lifting over zero pounds, and referred her to a hand surgeon. The facsimile shows that this information was faxed to Sanmar on June 13, 2011. Ms. Torres forwarded this information to Ms. Hammond in the corporate office, and discussed it with Mr. Rhodes. The Order Processor position involved frequent reaching, pushing, grasping, and performing repetitive hand motions. Pushing, pulling, and lifting are essential functions of the Order Processor job. Accordingly, the work restrictions received from Concentra prevented Petitioner from performing essential functions of the job of Order Processor, with or without reasonable accommodations. Sanmar found light-duty work that Petitioner could do within the work restrictions as set forth by Concentra. She was assigned to do "go-backs," which is part of the order processing job, but not the entire job. Go-backs are items, such as hats or t-shirts, found in the wrong bins. The go-back work required Petitioner to use a computer to find the product's correct location, write down that location, and carry the product to the correct location. There is no regular go-back position at Sanmar. This was a temporary assignment created to accommodate Petitioner by eliminating many of the regular functions of the Order Processor position, including pushing, pulling, picking, and packing items to fill customer orders. On June 13, 2011, Ms. Torres called Petitioner to advise her that Sanmar had light-duty work within Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner returned to work on June 15, 2011, performing go-backs at her regular rate of pay, i.e., as when she could perform all functions of the Order Processor position. On June 17, 2011, Petitioner submitted a Leave of Absence Request Form, requesting to commence leave on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres then provided a Notice of Eligibility and Rights and Responsibilities for leave under FMLA to her. This document notified Petitioner that she was eligible to receive FMLA leave, and further notified her that she needed to provide sufficient certification to support her request for FMLA leave by July 1, 2011. On June 20, 2011, Petitioner clocked in at work at approximately 12:24 p.m., after an appointment with Petitioner's hand specialist, Dr. Greider. Petitioner immediately went to the Human Resources office and provided a note from Dr. Greider which confirmed that she had an appointment with him that morning, and left his office at 11:30. Petitioner also provided a doctor's note from Dr. Greider detailing Petitioner's work restrictions. She gave the note to Ms. Batlle, because Ms. Torres was out of the office at that time. The note reads as follows: LIGHT DUTY WORK RESTRICTIONS No repetitive gripping and pinching. No repetitive pulling and pushing. No lifting greater than 5 pounds. No production keying (until further notice) Frequent rest breaks- 5 minutes per hour. Effective until pending surgery. Ms. Batlle left copies of these doctor's notes for Ms. Torres, along with a handwritten note stating that Petitioner was going home for the day. Ms. Thurmond happened to be visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes, along with Ms. Hammond by telephone, discussed Petitioner's new work restrictions and concluded that, because processing go- backs required keyboarding, gripping and pinching, Petitioner could no longer perform that light-duty work.2/ Accordingly, Sanmar approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. Beginning June 21, 2011, Petitioner began taking the FMLA leave she had requested. During this leave, Petitioner had surgery on her right hand on July 21, 2011. Petitioner remained on FMLA leave until September 13, 2011, at which point she had exhausted her FMLA leave entitlement and had still not been released to work. Rather than terminating Petitioner's employment at that time, Sanmar provided additional leave until the company was able to determine whether Petitioner would be able to return to work. Sanmar provided Petitioner an FMLA Designation Notice which informed her that her absence from September 14 through September 25 would be provided to her "as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)." On September 16, 2011, Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Dr. Greider outlining the modified work description in doing go-backs, and asking him to advise whether or not she would be able to perform those duties. Dr. Greider faxed a reply to Ms. Hammond on September 20, 2011, advising that the activities described in Ms. Hammond's letter would be acceptable. Ms. Torres and Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Petitioner dated September 22, 2011, advising her that Sanmar had received a written confirmation from Dr. Greider that she had been approved to return to work with the modified duties (performing go-backs). The letter further notified Petitioner that she was expected to return to work on September 26, 2011, which she did. Ms. Torres did not receive any complaints from Petitioner during the September to November timeframe regarding her ability to perform the go-backs duty. On November 2, 2011, Petitioner provided Ms. Torres with a note from Dr. Grieder confirming Petitioner would be out of work for surgery on her left hand from November 7 through 10, 2011. The note states the following: Patient is scheduled for hand surgery on 11/7/11 and may remain out of work from date of surgery until 11/10/11 at which point patient may return to work with no use of the left hand until follow up appointment on 11/21/11. Ms. Torres and Petitioner had a discussion regarding Dr. Greider's note during which Petitioner expressed doubt that she would be able to return to work November 10 as she still had restrictions on the use of her right hand and did not know what kind of work she would be able to perform after surgery on her left hand. Ms. Torres than contacted Ms. Hammond via e-mail requesting her assistance in confirming the work restrictions, if any, on Petitioner's use of her right hand. On November 8, 2011, Ms. Hammond, through the company's workers' compensation carrier, received confirmation from Dr. Greider's office that she was released from work restrictions with regard to her right hand as of October 17, 2011.3/ On November 9 and 10, Petitioner left voice mail messages for Ms. Torres and her assistant regarding her inability to work. On November 11, 2011, Petitioner did not report to work. Because this was the date that had been indicated by Dr. Greider as the date she was released to return to work (regarding her right hand), and after receiving guidance from Ms. Hammond and input from the workers' compensation carrier, Ms. Torres called Petitioner and informed her that Sanmar had not received any additional information from Dr. Grieder and advised Petitioner that it was Petitioner's responsibility to obtain a new note from her doctor if she could not work. Ms. Torres reminded Petitioner that she needed to come in to discuss her restrictions and possible light-duty work. Ms. Torres received another call from Petitioner on November 14, 2011. Ms. Torres reiterated to Petitioner that she needed to report to work with her restrictions so Sanmar could attempt to accommodate her appropriately. Petitioner reported to work later that same day. She met with Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres to discuss her ability to work and what accommodations would be necessary. Mr. Rhodes first advised Petitioner that she would be doing go-backs which could be performed without the use of her left hand. When Petitioner expressed concern about her ability to perform that task, Mr. Rhodes agreed to assign her a temporary light-duty position auditing the restock until they could review the matter further. Petitioner agreed to perform the restock work. Also on November 14, 2011, Ms. Torres received a fax from Dr. Grieder's office which attached the same November 2, 2011, note regarding Petitioner's restrictions. Nothing in the November 14, 2011, fax from Dr. Grieder's office changed Petitioner's work restrictions. Auditing the restock is not a regular position at Sanmar, but is one part of the many duties of the inventory department. In offering this temporary work to Petitioner, Sanmar eliminated many of the essential functions of the Order Processor job. Petitioner left the November 14 meeting with Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes and worked for about two hours. After about two hours, Petitioner apparently fainted and left work in an ambulance which transported her to the hospital. That was the last day Petitioner worked for Sanmar. Petitioner received notes from Dr. Greider dated November 21, 2011, and December 9, 2011, listing the same light duty restrictions (i.e., no repetitive gripping and pinching, no repetitive pulling and pushing, no lifting greater than five pounds, no production keying, and frequent rest breaks), valid for the left hand only. Petitioner also received a note from Dr. Greider dated January 23, 2012, indicating that she may continue previous restrictions until February 6, 2012, at which time the patient may return to work full duty. However, Ms. Hammond, Ms. Thurmond, and Ms. Torres, all testified that they did not receive this note. Petitioner was seen by an orthopedic doctor in August 2012. The doctor's note indicates that she has a permanent work restriction which precludes her from lifting more than 10 to 15 pounds. Facts regarding disciplinary action Through an employee loan program, Sanmar approves loans to employees under certain circumstances. In late December 2010, an incident arose involving Petitioner and her request for an employee loan. On December 28, 2010, Ms. Torres heard Petitioner speaking in a loud voice outside of Ms. Torres' office. She heard Petitioner accusing her assistant at that time, Sandra Colindres, of refusing to help her with papers required for such a loan. Petitioner spoke in a tone of voice that Ms. Torres felt was not appropriate for the office. She then asked Petitioner to meet with her in her office. While in Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner complained that Ms. Colindres was unwilling to help her with the loan paperwork. Petitioner had not been scheduled to work that day. Ms. Torres informed Petitioner that the loan process had very recently been changed, and that the loan would need to be approved by Human Resources if it were determined that there was a critical need. Ms. Torres considered Petitioner's tone of voice during this conversation in her office to be disrespectful, demanding and rude. At the end of this meeting, Ms. Torres told Ms. Colindres to give Petitioner the employee loan form. When Petitioner left Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner approached a co- worker who was also in the office and began talking in a loud voice about what had just happened. Ms. Torres overheard Petitioner talking about their meeting to another employee and asked Petitioner to discuss the issue in her office. Ms. Torres told Petitioner that her conduct was disruptive, unprofessional, and unacceptable. She told Petitioner that she had caused a disturbance in the workplace, that Ms. Torres would be informing the DC manager about this incident, and that Petitioner would likely be receiving corrective action.4/ Shortly thereafter, Ms. Torres accompanied a pest control representative to the break room. When they arrived in the break room, Ms. Torres observed Petitioner telling a group of employees her version of the events in her office. The employees dispersed when they saw Ms. Torres enter the break room. When Ms. Torres turned to leave the break room, she saw Petitioner complaining to yet another group of employees about the incident. Ms. Torres considered this behavior to be extremely disruptive. Ms. Torres then asked a supervisor, Tasha Porter, to instruct Petitioner to leave the premises. Ms. Torres was relatively new to the company, and she consulted with Paul Rhodes and Olivia Thurmond to determine appropriate disciplinary action that would be consistent with the company's response to similar instances of conduct. Mr. Rhodes was out of the office from December 27, 2010, through January 2, 2011. On January 3, 2011, Mr. Rhodes and Petitioner met to discuss the December 28, 2010, incident. Tasha Porter also attended the meeting and supervisor Daniel Serrano attended the meeting as an interpreter. Mr. Rhodes also spoke to and received written statements from Alice Torres, Sandra Colindres and Tasha Porter regarding the incident. After reviewing the matter, a decision was made to give Petitioner a final Written Warning for unprofessional conduct and disruptive behavior which had taken place on December 28, 2010. Petitioner refused to sign the final Written Warning, did not acknowledge that she committed the actions described, but acknowledged that the conduct described would be unacceptable and that a person engaging in such conduct could be terminated. The final Written Warning was given to Petitioner on January 10, 2011, by Mr. Serrano, who also speaks Spanish. Prior to receiving this final Written Warning, Petitioner had not reported a disability to anyone at Sanmar. There is nothing in the record to establish or suggest that any one at Sanmar knew, perceived or regarded Petitioner as having a disability at that time. On the evening of April 18, 2011, Group Lead Terri Andrews was supervising the employees on the lo-bay floor. Employees were working overtime to get all customer orders shipped by the end of the day. Ms. Andrews was at the print station, as Petitioner approached her. Ms. Andrews directed Petitioner to report to the pack line. Petitioner told Ms. Andrews that she wanted to go home. Ms. Andrews told Petitioner again to report to the pack line and Petitioner left the floor. Ms. Andrews described Petitioner as appearing agitated. Petitioner arrived at the pack line where Becquer Rosado, another Group Lead, was directing employees where they were needed the most. Mr. Becquer saw Petitioner approaching and before he could direct her to a position, she put her hand up in the air, walked past him, and told him that she would only take instructions from Patricia Alonso and not from him. This was done in front of other employees. Patricia Alonso was a Department Lead for the pack line. A Group Lead is superior to a Department Lead because Group Leads oversee several functions, while Department Leads only supervise a single function. Employees are expected to follow the directions of both Group and Department Leads. Mr. Rosado reported this incident to his supervisor, Lori Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form the following day. Ms. Andrews also reported Petitioner's behavior to Ms. Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form on April 21, 2011. It was that day that Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to talk about pain that Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands as more fully discussed in paragraph 6 above. Petitioner was not at work from April 21 until April 26, 2011. After reviewing the Employee Concern forms, Ms. Torres met with Petitioner regarding the April 18, 2011, incident. During this meeting, Petitioner denied being disrespectful to Ms. Andrews and Mr. Rosado. After speaking to Petitioner on April 26, 2011, Ms. Torres recommended that Petitioner be terminated for her actions of April 18, 2011, because Petitioner had just received a final Written Warning for her behavior on January 10, 2011. However, Mr. Rhodes decided to give Petitioner another chance and, instead of terminating Petitioner, decided that Sanmar would issue a Final Warning Follow Up Discussion Memo to Petitioner, which was done on May 5, 2011. This Discussion Memo reiterated that any future violation of company policy by Petitioner would result in further corrective action up to and including termination of employment. During May and June 2011, and pursuant to Sanmar's Voluntary Time Out (VTO) procedure, Petitioner volunteered on several occasions to go home when production was slow and Sanmar asked for volunteers. Employees interested in VTO simply had to write their names on the "Go Home Early Sheet." Sanmar then selected employees for VTO in the order in which the employees volunteered to go home early. Petitioner's name appears on the VTO sheets in evidence, and her name is near the top of the list on most days. She was not sent home early on days that she had not signed up for VTO on the Go Home Early sheet. On June 20, 2011, after leaving the doctor's notes referenced in paragraph 18 through 20 with Ms. Battle, Petitioner proceeded to the break room where Tasha Porter, a supervisor, found her engaged in a conversation with co-workers while on the clock and not on a break. When Ms. Porter asked Petitioner why she was in the break room while clocked in, Petitioner replied that she taking her break. Ms. Porter reported this to Ms. Torres. Afterwards, Petitioner returned to work processing go-backs, although another employee was doing the keyboarding, as further explained above. As discussed in paragraph 21 above, Ms. Thurmond was visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes discussed the incident in the break room and decided to issue a final Written Warning to Petitioner for falsification of time records for this incident of being "on the clock" while in the break room. This was the same meeting in which they discussed Petitioner's June 20, 2011, work restrictions. Ms. Torres and Ms. Thurmond issued a final Written Warning to Petitioner at the same meeting in which they notified her that Sanmar had approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. The weight of the evidence shows that this took place on June 21, 2011. On or around November 3, 2011, prior to Petitioner going on leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres learned of an incident involving Petitioner and her son, Manuel Sanchez, who also worked for Sanmar. Specifically, Ms. Torres learned that Mr. Sanchez may have forged Petitioner's signature on a time-off request which asked for permission to be off work on October 28, 2011. After discussing this with Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Torres concluded that he had forged his mother's name on the time-off request at her request. Sanmar considered this to be falsification of company records. This is an offense for which Sanmar has disciplined employees in the past.5/ On Friday November 4, 2011, which was Petitioner's last day at work before taking leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres discussed the forged time off request with Petitioner. Petitioner admitted that she had asked her son to fill out the request and sign her name. At the end of their conversation, Ms. Torres told Petitioner not to discuss their meeting or the situation with anyone, not even Petitioner's son, because the company was continuing to investigate the matter. Despite this instruction, Lori Pritchard, a supervisor, reported to Ms. Torres that Petitioner went directly to her son and had a heated discussion with him at the print station. Although Ms. Pritchard was unable to fully understand their conversation because it was in Spanish, Ms. Pritchard advised Ms. Torres that she believed they were discussing Ms. Torres' meeting with Petitioner. Following this incident, Ms. Torres met again with Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Sanchez admitted he and Petitioner were discussing the forged time off request at the print station on November 4. Ms. Torres, however, was unable to speak to Petitioner about this incident until November 14, 2011, when Petitioner returned to work after her November 7 (second) surgery. During the meeting with Petitioner upon her return to work on November 14, 2011, (see paragraph 30), Mr. Torres and Mr. Rhodes told Petitioner the company was still reviewing the incident regarding the forged time-off request. They advised Petitioner that they had confirmation she and Mr. Sanchez discussed the forged time off request at the print station. While Petitioner denied this, she admitted she talked about the incident with her son at home, where Mr. Sanchez also resided. Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes believed Petitioner should be terminated for the November 4 incident, because it involved an incident of insubordination, following the previous warnings of unprofessional conduct issued In January and May 2011. However, they wanted to discuss their recommendation with Ms. Thurmond and Marty Rask, Operations Manager, in keeping with the company's normal practice. Although they planned to talk to Ms. Thurmond and Mr. Rask and, with their concurrence, terminate Petitioner later during the day on November 14, they were not able to do so because of Petitioner unexpectedly became ill on that day. This began a lengthy leave of absence from which she never returned. Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres recommended that Sanmar terminate Petitioner for her insubordination on November 4, when she discussed the document falsification issue with her son in violation of Ms. Torres' instructions, as well as her dishonest and evasive response on November 14, when Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres spoke to her about the incident. The final decision to terminate Petitioner was made on November 30, 2011. However, Sanmar did not communicate the termination decision to Petitioner until January 24, 2012. This delay resulted from circumstances related to Petitioner's medical leave and on-going workers' compensation proceedings.6/ Sanmar decided to move forward with its November 30, 2011, termination decision. Sanmar's usual practice of communicating employee termination is to inform the employee in person. However, Christy Hammond had been communicating with Petitioner and respected Petitioner's request that she not be required to come to the workplace only to be fired. Therefore, Sanmar decided to issue the termination letter via mail. Accordingly, on January 24, 2012, Sanmar sent Petitioner a termination letter signed by Olivia Thurmond. Enclosed with the letter was a documentation form explaining the reasons for Petitioner's termination, i.e., Petitioner's insubordination on November 4 and her dishonest and evasive behavior on November 14, combined with her prior discipline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Teresa Urbina. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2012.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was the victim of an unlawful employment practice, by allegedly being subjected to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, based on her race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Rosa Pearl McDonald is an African- American female. She was employed at times pertinent to this dispute as a driver, delivering meals to elderly clients of the Walton County Council on Aging. The Petitioner is also a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The Respondent, Walton County Council on Aging is a charitable social services agency, domiciled in Walton County. As pertinent to this case, it delivers and serves meals to elderly clients throughout the county, through the use of hired and volunteer drivers. The Petitioner was a recently-hired driver, of less than 30 days' employment, when the operative facts occurred. The Petitioner was still in probationary employment status. The Petitioner contends, in effect, that she was subjected to disparate terms and conditions of employment due to her race. She states she was the only black driver and that her supervisor, Kay Brady, is white. The Petitioner noticed after hiring, that the food delivery boxes had the assigned drivers' names on them. The box she was assigned had only the route name. She states she had asked Ms. Brady to place her name on the box, but the route name was placed on the box instead. The Petitioner acknowledged, upon cross-examination, that she did not know who placed the route label on the food box. She was still a probationary employee at this time. The probationary period was 90 days, and the Petitioner resigned only 30 days or less, after her hiring. Inferentially, it may be that the probationary status was the reason her name was not used, or it may have been an oversight. There is no evidence other than the Petitioner's stated opinion, that the labeling situation was due to racial animus. In fact, the Petitioner had been hired, and fired, by the Respondent twice in the past, and yet it still re-hired her shortly before the subject situation arose. Moreover, Ms. Brady gave the Petitioner extra hours of work when she requested them. These facts tend to negate the existence of racial bias in the imposition of any term or conditions of the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner also contends that she was treated disparately, compared to other drivers. She maintains that a white driver, "Margaret," on occasion had guests ride along with her on her deliveries. The Petitioner states that she asked twice to be allowed to have friends ride with her on deliveries, but Ms. Brady would not allow it. Ms. Kay Brady was the Petitioner's supervisor. She established with her testimony, that the Respondent has a regularly-adopted policy of allowing no riders to accompany route drivers, other than trained volunteers or office personnel, who occasionally go along on deliveries to ascertain that client services are being provided appropriately. Occasionally spouses of regular drivers make deliveries when the driver is ill or must miss work for any reason. The Respondent also uses volunteer drivers, as well. In both situations, however, the spouses or volunteers are given training before being allowed to make deliveries to clients, chiefly because of the privacy requirements of the "Hippa Privacy Law" and the Respondent's client confidentiality policy. The point is, the Petitioner sought to have friends ride with her on deliveries (for reasons which are unclear) and her friends were not trained and oriented to the Respondent's job requirements. The Respondent had a policy of not allowing friends or family to simply accompany drivers without such training, and for reasons which did not relate to job requirements, except in unusual circumstances. One such circumstance involved a driver who needed to be allowed to take her grandchildren with her on a delivery or deliveries, when she was unable to engage a baby sitter. This was an isolated and unusual occurrence, during a time when the children were out of school for Christmas break. On such rare occasions, the Respondent has allowed children to accompany drivers on short trips, on routes near their homes and where children can safely remain in vehicles during deliveries. The above circumstance was probably the one involving driver "Margaret" which the Petitioner described in her testimony. In any event, however, the Respondent had a regular written policy regarding requirements and qualification for persons making deliveries to clients and it followed it, with the above rare exceptions. The employee handbook, Council on Aging Handbook and the Employee Handbook receipt, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 5, 6, and 4, respectively, show this policy and the fact that the Petitioner was informed of it. The Petitioner's friends, whom she sought to have accompany her, were not shown to be qualified under the Respondent's requirements. Because the reasons for requesting the accompaniment of proposed "riders" were different for employees other than the Petitioner, referenced in the above examples of policy exceptions, these other drivers were not shown to be similarly-situated exemplar employees, who received more favorable treatment. In fact, the Petitioner was favored in a different way. The Respondent was able to give the Petitioner extra hours of work "sitting" with elderly clients when their caregivers were absent. The Respondent and Ms. Brady would learn about such needs through its normal service contacts with clients and their families. Because the Petitioner is an LPN, the Respondent would refer her for extra work, to her benefit. In summary, the preponderant evidence and above facts show that no adverse employment action occurred. There were no verbal or other acts or adverse employment directives toward the Petitioner at all, much less any that evidence racial animus, by supervisors or employees. Therefore, there was no racially hostile environment, so there could not be one in which her terms and conditions of employment were altered. Moreover, since there were no disciplinary actions toward the Petitioner, nor adverse employment directives or conditions (in fact she was favored with extra hours), there could be no constructive termination. There certainly was no actual termination. The Petitioner, in fact, resigned her position, telling both Ms. Brady and Mr. Moore that it was for health reasons. She admitted as much in her testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 24th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosa Pearl McDonald 1961 McLeod Road DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Kay Brady Walton County Council on Aging Post Office Box 648 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 8, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has a corporate policy that prohibits its employees from engaging in acts of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The policy provides, in part, as follows: Discrimination Resort Travel & XChange prohibits discrimination against its employees, applicants for employment, and customers on the basis of a person’s gender, ethnicity, race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, military service or veteran status or any other classification protected by applicable law. Specifically with regard to its employees and job applicants, Resort Travel & XChange does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of the foregoing characteristics with respect to the terms and conditions of employment. Retaliation Resort Travel & XChange does not tolerate any form of retaliation taken against an employee who, in good faith, makes a complaint of discrimination or harassment under this policy, opposes such discrimination or harassment, or participates in an investigation of alleged discrimination or harassment. Anyone who engages in such retaliatory behavior will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner was hired by Respondent in March 2014 to work as an “Instructional Design & Delivery Trainer.” The written position description includes the following summary statement: [An] Instructional Design & Delivery Trainer plays an important role in making their companies more competitive by developing the skills of the workforce. They help to accelerate organizational change by developing the skills a company requires if it plans to enter new markets or needs to transform its business performance. Companies with a reputation for developing people also find it easier to recruit and retain high-caliber employees. Among the key competencies are the ability to design and deliver training, manage the learning function, measure and evaluate the results of training, and manage organizational knowledge. According to Pamela Price, Petitioner’s immediate supervisor during his term of employment with Respondent, Petitioner’s “responsibilities would have been to create, design, develop step-by-step institutional training manuals and modules, and perform classroom training of that content to new hires, as well as continuing education courses, [and] [t]o perform analytical assessments of training class participants to see at what level they were learning.” The cornerstone of Petitioner’s gender discrimination claim is his allegation that Ms. Price, on multiple occasions, made statements to Petitioner about a female worker from one of her previous jobs that performed better than Petitioner when assigned similar tasks. Petitioner offered no evidence, other than cryptic self-serving statements and conclusory allegations, which supports his allegation that Ms. Price treated him differently because of his gender. On or about September 19, 2014, Petitioner received from Ms. Price his initial six-month performance evaluation. Respondent’s employee performance evaluation rating scale ranges from “marginal” to “outstanding.” On the initial review, Petitioner received an overall rating of “marginal.” There is no evidence of record that Petitioner suffered a decrease in pay, benefits, or the loss of job-related opportunities as a consequence of having received the marginal performance rating. On or about September 22, 2014, Petitioner sent to Laura Lampkin, Respondent’s director of human resources, his response to the performance evaluation prepared by Ms. Price. In his response, Petitioner states, with respect to Ms. Price, the following: The continued push towards unrealistic deadlines and the refusal to listen or effectively address the needs and concerns expressed creates an unnecessary feeling of duress. Duress is not the inability to handle a fast paced or chaotic environment, as those are environments I thrive within. Duress, as it pertains to this example, is in the feeling to produce regardless of tangible concerns. It is, by nature, the creation of a hostile work environment which should not exist within a professional workplace. Because Petitioner expressed concern about Ms. Price’s behavior creating a “hostile work environment,” Ms. Lampkin, within a day or so of receiving Petitioner’s response, initiated an investigation to determine whether Ms. Price was in violation of Respondent’s anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation policy. At no time prior to receiving his performance evaluation did Petitioner complain about Ms. Price creating a work environment charged with discriminatory animus. Pursuant to Ms. Lampkin’s investigation, Petitioner, in support of his allegation of the existence of a hostile work environment, informed Ms. Lampkin on September 30, 2014, of the following with respect to Ms. Price: There are a good number of situations which lend themselves to an environment that promotes an air of uncertainty, insecurity – as well as the feeling of being bullied. There is [sic] also interactions and conversations, for example when Pam refers to her co-workers or friends at United Healthcare and how they would be able to perform a function that I push back against or when she fails to consider my professional assessments for training and development, which create concerns of inequality or discriminatory undertones. I have often felt, since July, that there is a determination to replace me with a personal contact from United Healthcare – as it has been referenced repeatedly about this ‘trainer’ and what she is ‘capable of.’ To the degree, where at times, I’m given the impression that I should be as capable as this mysterious person. Perhaps, in Pam’s mind I am too young to be an experienced training professional or maybe she would prefer her previous, female, co-worker. Petitioner failed to offer any evidence, credible or otherwise, that in any way supports his allegation that Ms. Price harbored gender-based discriminatory animus towards Petitioner. At the final hearing, Petitioner cross-examined Ms. Price about myriad subjects, none of which involved issues related to gender bias. Furthermore, in his direct testimony, Petitioner stated, in conclusory terms, that Ms. Price “was discriminatory on the basis of gender because she constantly made references to me about how her other trainer at her other job could do it so much easier and I was making things more complicated than they should be.” Petitioner obviously took offense to Ms. Price’s statements, but contrary to Petitioner’s allegations, these alleged statements attributed to Ms. Price do not demonstrate discriminatory animus, but instead indicate a desire by Ms. Price for Petitioner to improve his level of performance. Petitioner alleges that on October 3, 2014, Ms. Lampkin advised him that she had informed Ms. Price of Petitioner’s claim of discrimination. According to Petitioner, Ms. Price, after learning of Petitioner’s claim, retaliated against him as follows: On October 3, 2014, after I was informed by Laura Lampkin that she had spoken to Pam Price about my claims of discrimination, I received a schedule from Pam Price which included radical changes to my standard operating schedule. I was hired as a salaried employee with a 9am-5:30 p.m. schedule with flexibility in my time and freedom to take breaks and lunch as chosen. In the schedule I received from Pam Price, I was now put into an “agents” schedule, each week working a different shift (morning, afternoon and evening) along with scheduled lunch and break times. In addition, they also moved my office onto the call center floor and set me up in a cubicle with the call center agents. When I complained that the schedule change and relocation of my office to the call center floor was a retaliatory action, the schedule was immediately retracted and I was told to revert back to my standard schedule. However, they kept me on the call center floor which was an uncomfortable position and a distraction to the other agents. I also noticed that the contact I had with other employees both in the Asheville and Orlando office changed during that time. I was no longer treated as a member of management, but now I was being treated as if I was a call center agent. When I expressed this concern to another member of our management team . . . , I was informed that there was an unwritten memo going around the Asheville and Orlando office[s] that I was to be treated as if I was an agent. According to Ms. Price, during Petitioner’s first few months of employment with Respondent, his primary responsibility was “learning” about the company. Petitioner was expected to learn about company “[p]rograms, corporate compliance, policies and procedures, introduction to his teammates, understanding their positions and their roles . . . reading materials [and] having conversations.” Ms. Price, in Petitioner’s performance evaluation, was particularly disapproving of Petitioner as it relates to him failing to take advantage of a critical learning opportunity from a member of Respondent’s staff who was sent to Petitioner’s work-site to conduct a five-week training session. According to Ms. Price, Petitioner spent as little as one to two hours a day attending the training sessions when, in her opinion, more of his time should have been allocated to attending the sessions, especially since he was new to the company. In his September 19 and 22, 2014, responses to his performance evaluation, Petitioner complained that he had “not been afforded reasonable time to learn the processes and workflows contained within the products offered,” and that in order “[t]o be a subject matter expert, which is at the core of my position, I must have the complete and full immersion into the workflows and processes that make up the related products to be able to effectively and authoritatively create training documentation and train[ing] processes.” Respondent granted Petitioner’s request for “complete and full immersion.” On October 3, 2014, Respondent implemented Petitioner’s request for complete and full immersion, which resulted, among other things, in Petitioner being assigned work hours consistent with those assigned to agents in the Orlando call center. Literally within minutes2/ of being fully and completely immersed into Respondent’s workflows and processes, Petitioner, at 2:47 p.m. on October 3, 2014, was already complaining about the immersion program, as reflected in the following e-mail exchanges between Petitioner and Laura Lampkin. Petitioner to Laura Lampkin – October 3, 2014, 2:47 p.m. Laura: While I appreciate the attention to detail given to this project for immersion into the RTX Workflow and while I have explicitly stated ‘agent like immersion’ into those workflows, this is a bit above and beyond that expectation. “In order for you to get the full spectrum of calls and types of calls, I have rotated your schedule from the AM shift, Mid-Shift and Late-shift throughout the two month period of time. In addition to your shift start/stop times, you have regularly scheduled breaks and lunch, based on the particular shift you will work for that week. As an example, for the AM shift, first break is generally at 10:00 am, lunch at 12 noon and then second break at 2:00 and so on for each of the shifts. You will have Monday’s off work on the weeks that you are scheduled to work Saturdays to assist with floor coverage due to the upcoming maintenance fee season. I appreciate your assistance with floor coverage during this busy season.” [from Pamela Price to Petitioner]. There is no reasonable, acceptable, logic to Pam’s statement. The type of calls able to be handled by an RTX Exchange Agent do[es] not change throughout the course of a day or shift. There are only so many call types available and those happen, randomly, with every inbound call – regardless of time of day. Pam did mention scheduling me into the workflows, however, that was not the interpretation I expected. I would like to get this project underway without unnecessary complications. I find the radical change to my schedule a retaliatory maneuver. As the Instructional Design and Delivery Manager, my need to be exposed to the call queue and to gain the practical knowledge to speak to the agent experience does not require the coverage of three shifts, nor does it require a deviation from my normal schedule to accommodate an eight hour workday. Even though I will be using this opportunity as a ‘live learning environment,’ and will hold myself to the highest standards in customer care, while being mindful of queue wait times – I again find it a bit overboard to dictate call per hour and follow up to the level of actual agent performance. I am not transitioning into an agent position, I am simply utilizing the live call queue as the only available method for active learning and methodology. Could you kindly level set the Pam? At this time and until the current investigation is complete, I feel it may behoove all parties involved to have monitored contact. Thank you much. Laura Lampkin to Petitioner – October 3, 2014, 3:28 p.m. Jason, There actually is a logic to your schedule arrangement, and there is a difference in callers in the AM versus the PM. The AM callers do not contain as many sales opportunities, those are more likely to be basic reservations calls. Call volume is higher in the evening, and opportunities for sales are higher in the evening. The logic behind your rotating schedule arrangement is to give you the fullest exposure possible. Given the criticality of immersion in becoming a Subject Matter Expert, the goal is [to] provide you with the best possible opportunities for exposure. This will help in role playing scenarios and variation, which you expressed were much more difficult to train on without full immersion. If the new schedule is a point of contention, we can rework it. I do want you to understand that there was a great deal of thought put into your immersion plan, all centered around what is most beneficial to you and what bests [sic] affords you the chance to become a Subject Matter Expert. With regards to your statement ‘I am not transitioning into an agent position, I am simply utilizing the live call queue as the only available method for active learning and methodology[,] this is technically correct. However, again in the name of immersion and the need to become a Subject Matter Expert, we are arranging temporarily for your work tasks, work environment and product exposure to basically mimic that of an agent for your benefit. Additionally, specific to your statement ‘I again find it a bit overboard to dictate call per hour and follow up to the level of actual agent performance[,]’ I should clarify that aligning your performance standards with that of an agent is not a main focus. Of course we want you to handle calls properly – and I have no doubt you will – but I do not anticipate any detailed comparison to agents in terms of how the calls are handled. I do believe there will be periodic confirmation of phone time, again not in comparison to agents, but to ensure that the exposure and immersion are occurring. If there are confirmations of phone time, those may be used to determine whether we have fully satisfied our goal of immersion, in terms of exposing you to the phone roles and giving you the needed active time on the phones. I feel I must stress that this immersion plan is driven significantly by your continued emphasis on its importance. I wholeheartedly agree that significant exposure (as you’ve indicated, 4-6 months dedicated time, minimum) to the product and the role is necessary to create training programs and train effectively on most possible scenarios. Because we have yet to arrange dedicated time to immersion for you, and because you’ve indicated it’s critical, we are doing it now. Once the immersion plan is completed, my understanding is that you will be a Subject Matter Expert and capable of training as one. Keeping in mind that maximum exposure has been the goal for your immersion plan and your schedule, I welcome your suggested schedule changes. Thanks. Petitioner to Laura Lampkin – October 3, 2014, 5:07 p.m. Laura: I do appreciate the thoughtfulness put into the plan that I’ve requested. I must say, that from my exposure, I find the majority of inbound calls to contain a sales opportunity and while sales is an important part of our member services and revenue generation, it is not the core of the educational process or training programs expected curriculum. It is certainly necessary to have agent exposure to speak to the experiences and topics that new hires will encounter in production. More so, it is a necessity to explain the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of processes and/or procedures that are expected of an agent. I feel very comfortable in what I have expressed to both Pam and yourself as the requirements for effectively and efficiently learning and understanding the RTX Workflow to a level which is agreeable with the creation of curriculum and the training of such curriculum. The activity of taking live calls, which unfortunately was not available sooner, without interruption, is a requirement. Subject matter expertise is built upon that foundation and will continue to fluctuate until a time comes when the systems and processes used do not change on a consistent basis. As for being held to the same standards as the agent’s in production, I can only speak to what was written and manner in which it was relayed. I stand behind my statements that effective training is necessary before the ability to create, direct or lead a training class or materials. I also stand behind my statements that the schedule change is radical, causes personal conflicts and is not a necessary requirement to achieve the level of immersion and learning that has been requested. For the sake of curiosity, was there a logic to creating a structured ‘agent’ schedule which includes my start, break, lunch and end times? As a salaried employee, I was already under my own direction, likely going to extend my hours and/or utilize unscheduled Saturday’s to afford additional learning time – as I found necessary – due to the estimated time frame I had given to both Pam and yourself by request. This package is wrapped very nicely as a thoughtful contribution to my success, but as a training professional who has interacted with the agent’s and call queue – albeit limited, and with the direct knowledge of what has been lacking in my ability to be fully developed as an employee of RTX, the delivered structure places a burden on my personal needs – which are based around my expected schedule. In addition, a rotation does not deliver nor guarantee delivery of experiences that can’t be extracted from a call within my standard scheduled hours. It would be a great assistance, if we could kindly not alter my schedule and allow me the opportunity I have needed within the confines of what has been established as my schedule expectations for the last six months. Should I find that a knowledge gap exists, I will actively adjust to correct and close such gap. Ms. Price testified as to the accuracy of the matters discussed by Ms. Lampkin in her e-mail reply to Petitioner. Additionally, the undisputed evidence is that Petitioner unilaterally withdrew from the immersion program after having been a part of the same for only two weeks. The evidence is also undisputed that Respondent did not change Petitioner’s pay, benefits, or job-related opportunities as a consequence of Petitioner entering and subsequently leaving the full immersion program. The e-mail exchange between Petitioner and Ms. Lampkin show a number of things, none of which support Petitioner’s claim of retaliation. As an initial matter, Ms. Lampkin’s e-mail to Petitioner, and the related testimony from Ms. Price, clearly establishes that Respondent knows its business operations better than Petitioner. Next, Ms. Lampkin’s e-mail to Petitioner, and the related testimony from Ms. Price, establishes that Petitioner’s immersion into Respondent’s operations was a temporary assignment scheduled to last about two months and that the planned immersion was in furtherance of Respondent’s legitimate business interests of having Petitioner to perform his job at a competence level higher than “marginal.” Furthermore, Petitioner’s correspondence of September 19, 2014, wherein he specifically requests “complete and full immersion,” when compared to his correspondence of October 3, 2014, wherein he retreats to a preferred experience of ‘agent like immersion,’ shows that Petitioner was simply trying to the game the system in an attempt to avoid “plac[ing] a burden on [his] personal needs” as repeatedly referenced in his correspondence of October 3, 2014. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Respondent’s decision to fully immerse him, on a temporary basis, in its call center operations was done for reasons other than those related to improving Petitioner’s job performance, and concomitantly Respondent’s business operations. In other words, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent’s decision to fully immerse him in its call center operations was done in retaliation for his having alleged that Ms. Price discriminated against him on the basis of his gender. In the Employment Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges, in part, the following: I suffer from three chronic disabilities as explained to my employer when requesting reasonable accommodation to work from home, when not tasked with a training class, the call center floor and office space triggers disability-related episodes and limits my ability to concentrate and effectively focus. Respondent continues to make the process of providing me reasonable accommodations difficult and shows no desire to work with me, or my physician’s requirements, to allow me to quickly return to work and perform my job functions. The fact that Petitioner suffers from recognized disabilities is not in dispute. On or about October 30, 2014, Petitioner informed Ms. Lampkin during a telephone conference that he believed that he had one or more physical impairments that might warrant an accommodation. Specifically, Petitioner reported that the workplace lighting was bothersome and that he would work better with incandescent or natural lighting. Ms. Lampkin asked Petitioner to provide additional information about his lighting concerns so that Respondent could determine whether workplace modifications were necessary. Petitioner also informed Ms. Lampkin that he was not sure whether his lighting concerns were temporary or would be on-going. On November 3, 2014, Petitioner e-mailed Ms. Lampkin stating, in part, the following: I am unable to go into the call center and back office areas as it directly impacts my sense of well-being and heightens my medical concerns. Therefore I am unable to report to the office to conduct my required function of creating training curriculums and educational products. My physicians are preparing documentation for you as requested. Due to the nature of my core job functions, I am requesting that work from home be authorized as a reasonable accommodation. As of November 3, 2014, the only specific medical concern mentioned by Petitioner was his sensitivity to lighting. On or about November 11, 2014, Petitioner gave Ms. Lampkin a letter from his physician. The physician’s letter states, in part, that Petitioner should be allowed “to work from home when [he] is not tasked with conducting training classes” because Petitioner “will be better able to perform the essential functions of his position by working from home.” The letter goes on to state that “the work environment triggers severe panic attacks” and that Petitioner “has become increasingly sensitive to and made ill by various fragrances and fluorescent lighting, all of which would be eliminated by working from home.” The physician also notes that “[f]urther support of this request is the fact that [Petitioner’s] primary job functions can effectively be performed remotely, with the need for being present in the office relegated to those times when he must attend meetings for which teleconference is not available or to perform the training that he conducts.” The physician's letter did not indicate that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of his job without a reasonable accommodation. Rather the letter stated that Petitioner would be “better able to perform the essential function of this position by working from home.” Based on the rather cryptic information contained in the physician's letter, Respondent was unable to grant Petitioner's request for a reasonable accommodation. In response to the physician’s letter, Respondent, on November 13, 2014, informed Petitioner that “[a]dditional information is necessary in order to make a determination regarding [the] request for reasonable accommodation.” The additional information requested from Petitioner’s physician is as follows: What are the environmental factors which trigger the panic attacks? When is the condition(s) expected to resolve and a return to work to occur? What about the conditions(s) prevents performing daily work tasks in the workplace, but permits conduction of classroom training in the workplace? Are there other alternatives which can be offered, outside of working from home, which allow the essential job functions to be performed? If so, what are those alternatives? The previous letter states that the primary job functions can be performed from home. What are those primary job functions which were referenced in that statement? The previous letter reference enclosures, but none were provided with the letter. Please provide any relevant enclosures for review. Each question asked by Respondent was reasonably tailored so as elicit responses that would better enable Respondent to analyze Petitioner’s request for accommodation and to explore the availability of other possible accommodations. On November 19, 2014, Petitioner wrote a lengthy message to Ms. Lampkin contesting Respondent's need for the additional information. In response to this missive, Ms. Lampkin, on November 20, 2014, informed Petitioner that his “request for accommodation has been conditionally denied pending the receipt of the required information.” On November 21, 2014, Petitioner sent another missive to Ms. Lampkin and argued therein that Respondent's request for additional information was overbroad and that in his opinion he had provided sufficient information so as to allow Respondent to grant his request for accommodation. In response to the concerns expressed by Petitioner, Ms. Lampkin provided a detailed explanation to Petitioner of why additional information was needed to evaluate his request for accommodation and encouraged Petitioner to provide the information “as expeditiously as possible so that we can move forward with granting you an accommodation.” His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, Petitioner had not, as of November 21, 2014, provided Respondent with sufficient information to allow Respondent to determine what reasonable accommodations were necessary and available in order to address Petitioner’s mental and physical impairments. On November 24, 2014, Petitioner supplied Respondent with what is described as “supplemental documentation” from his physician. This documentation was not, however, information entirely responsive to the six points of inquiry mentioned in Respondent’s November 13, 2014, correspondence to Petitioner. Based on the supplemental information, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would modify the workplace to accommodate Petitioner’s sensitivity to light and scents. Petitioner was directed to report to work on December 1, 2014. Petitioner did not return to work on December 1, 2014, as instructed. Petitioner e-mailed Respondent on December 3, 2014, to state that he had not received the e-mail instructing him to return to work on December 1, 2014. He also indicated that he did not believe that all of his workplace concerns had been addressed. Ms. Lampkin responded on December 5, 2014, indicating that Respondent had addressed all known workplace issues and also informed Petitioner that additional information would be considered, if supplied. Specifically, Ms. Lampkin stated to Petitioner: I, too, am willing to continue to engage in this interactive process with you. The next steps in the process, should your position remain that your condition(s) warrant further accommodation including working from home, involve your supplying me with specific responses to the informational requests I have previously made. The informational requests that I made were not entirely answered by the response I received from you dated 11/21/14. I am happy to re-send you the form so that you can provide the remaining information. Please advise. On December 9, 2014, Ms. Lampkin provided Petitioner with another copy of the form setting forth the information requested on November 13, 2014. In her correspondence of December 9, 2014, Ms. Lampkin explained that “[t]he information contained in the form that you returned to me was insufficient to enable RTX to approve your request to telecommute indefinitely or to allow RTX to evaluate what reasonable accommodations other than what RTX has already offered may be available.” On December 11, 2014, Ms. Lampkin again requested that Petitioner provide her information responsive to those items enumerated in her correspondence of November 13, 2014. On December 15, 2014, Petitioner advised Ms. Lampkin that he was expecting to receive from his physician information responsive to her requests and that he would forward the same to her as soon as possible. On or about December 18, 2014, Petitioner sent Respondent a second letter from his physician. In the letter, Petitioner’s physician stated definitively that “I do not find any other accommodations available other than for the patient to be afforded the ability to work remotely when not tasked with conducting training classes which require physical presence.” Based on that statement by Petitioner's physician, Respondent agreed to grant Petitioner a reasonable accommodation and to permit him to work from home when not tasked with conducting classroom training. Petitioner was advised that January 2, 2015, would be his official return-to-work date. Respondent acted reasonably, and communicated with Petitioner appropriately, when seeking information related to Petitioner’s desire to work from home. The evidence does not support Petitioner’s contention that Respondent unreasonably delayed granting Petitioner’s request to work from home. On or about January 5, 2015, Petitioner, via videoconference, met with Ms. Price to discuss the new hire training class that Petitioner was to conduct on January 12, 2015. The following day, on January 6, 2015, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Ms. Price and Ms. Lampkin and complained therein of not having enough time to prepare for the January 12, 2015, new hire training session. Petitioner, nevertheless, assured Respondent that “it will get done” and any questions that he could not answer during the training session “will go to the parking lot while [he] obtains an answer for the students.” On Monday, January 12, 2015, the day of the new hire training session, Petitioner, at 9:52 a.m., sent the following e-mail message to Ms. Price and Ms. Lampkin: I have spent 10.5 hours within the ER on Sandlake Road and awake for over 22 hours, so I will not be in today to begin your impromptu FAC training class. I will either be in tomorrow or we can consider this my constructive discharge/resignation and I will simply limit my interaction with RTX through the ongoing investigations. The choice is yours, of course, but kindly let me know so I can plan my Tuesday accordingly. I need to rest, now. Thank you. At 6:28 p.m., on January 12, 2015, Ms. Lampkin, in response to Petitioner’s e-mail, informed Petitioner of the following: Your absence today is unexcused. You are being given the opportunity to convert today’s absence to an excused absence by presenting a doctor’s note. If today’s absence remains an unexcused absence, you are subject to discipline. We are expecting you to be present to teach the class tomorrow, and to be ready to teach at 8:00 a.m. You were to have printed the materials earlier, and we expect that you will be ready to teach at 8:00 a.m. Petitioner did not report to work on January 13, 2015, to conduct the training session. Instead, Petitioner, at 9:41 a.m. on January 13, 2015, informed Ms. Lampkin that “the curt and underhanded behavior of RTX increases my anxieties . . . [and] it has been determined by myself and my health care providers that it is to my benefit to continue with a constructive resignation.” Respondent deemed Petitioner as having voluntarily resigned his employment with the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, Resort Travel and Xchange, did not commit unlawful employment practices as alleged by Petitioner, Jason L. Van Horne, and denying Petitioner's Employment Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent YWCA is a nonprofit corporation that sponsors educational, social, and recreational programs. The YWCA's purpose states that it is a "movement rooted in the Christian faith"; however, expressed belief in Christianity is not required for membership in the YWCA or for employment by the YWCA. Its membership is comprised of adult women seventeen years of age and older. The personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Equal employment opportunity and affirmative action will be applied in recruitment, hiring, compensation, fringe benefits, staff development, and training, promotion, and any other condition of employment regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, age, national origin, or any other nonperformance factors." (Emphasis added.) Regarding termination, the personnel policy of the YWCA expressly states that: "Reasons for staff termination must be carefully documented. They should be based upon objective performance appraisals, which in turn are based upon job descriptions, work plans, and performance standards. Except in cases of reorganization/retrenchment or termination for cause, a probationary period for work improvement must be provided, followed by another performance appraisal." The YWCA of West Palm Beach operates three facilities: Central and Residence, the Mamie Adair Branch, and the Recreation Center. The Mamie Adair Branch primarily serves the black community in West Palm Beach and includes a day-care facility. The Petitioner, Davis, was hired as the Branch Executive of the Mamie Adair Branch of the YWCA, effective July 21, 1980, at a starting salary of $12,000.00. The Petitioner was given copies of the YWCA's personnel policy, affirmative action plan, and job description. She was not given notice of particular standards of behavior to which she was required to conform away from the job. As branch Executive she was supervised by the Executive Director, Jo Prout. The Petitioner successfully completed her initial 90-day probationary period, and her annual salary was increased by five percent to $12,600.00. In October 1981, however, the Petitioner received her annual evaluation and was again placed on three months probations due primarily to an unsatisfactory working relationship with the Branch Committee. The Petitioner had a bad attitude and was antagonistic. The Petitioner became pregnant but did not immediately disclose the fact of her pregnancy. In approximately December, 1981, the Petitioner confided to a coworker that she was pregnant and the coworker, in turn, told the YWCA's Executive Director, Jo Prout, that the Petitioner was pregnant. The YWCA's Executive Director was concerned that the Petitioner's relationship with the Branch Committee would be severely adversely affected if the Committee found out the Petitioner was pregnant and unmarried. Because of this concern, the Executive Director removed the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, effective December 31, 1981. The Petitioner would not have been removed from her position on December 31, 1981, but for the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried. Prior to removing the Petitioner from her position as Branch Executive, the Executive Director did not attempt less drastic alternatives such as asking the Petitioner not to discuss or disclose her marital status or asking the Petitioner to take a leave of absence. Prior to her removal, the Petitioner had not discussed the fact that she was pregnant and unmarried with members of the Branch Committee or with the YWCA membership in general. At no time had the Petitioner advocated unwed motherhood as an alternative life- style or otherwise advocated or espoused principles contrary to her understanding of Christianity. In the past, certain employees of the YWCA whose on-the-job behavior was contrary to Christian principles received job discipline but were not removed from their positions. A desk clerk at the YWCA's residence, for example, who was found to have stolen property from residence guests was not discharged. The removal of the Petitioner from her position by the YWCA because she was pregnant and unmarried was not justified by the business necessity rule because: A requirement to conduct one's life, including one's off-the-job activities, according to Christian principles, was not disclosed to the Petitioner or to other employees; The YWCA did not discipline or discharge other employees for conduct which conflicted with the YWCA's alleged requirement to conduct one's life by Christian principles; and The YWCA did not show that a requirement of all employees to conduct their lives by Christian principles has a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Then the Petitioner was removed from the Branch Executive position, she was transferred to the position of center consultant for gymnastics. The position of the center consultant for gymnastics to which the Petitioner was transferred was a demotion in that the Petitioner went from an administrative to a non-administrative position. The transfer also changed the Petitioner's employment status from full-time employee to part-time employee with a 25 percent decrease in earned income and a lunch "hour" reduced to 30 minutes. The petitioner's new position as center consultant was a temporary one designated to last no longer than five months. Petitioner was removed from probationary status as a result of the transfer. The position of center consultant to which the Petitioner was transferred was not a legitimate position. The position did not exist prior to December 31, 1981, the date the Petitioner was transferred. No job description was ever written for this position, despite the fact that the YWCA personnel policy required job descriptions. The Petitioner was verbally assigned job tasks inconsistent with her title of center consultant, including cleaning toilets at the gymnastics center. The position was eliminated on February 16, 1982, approximately six weeks after it was created, allegedly due to financial streamlining. The YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, discriminating against her on the basis of sex and marital status by removing her from her position as Branch Executive because she was pregnant and unmarried. Moreover, this transfer was not justified by business necessity. Because the YWCA committed an unlawful employment act against the Petitioner, the Petitioner could be entitled to be reinstated to her former position or to a comparable position and could also be entitled to recover lost wages and fringe benefits, plus interest thereon, from the date of the wrongful act, December 31, 1981, to November 31, 1982, the date she was hired by the Lutheran Ministries, set off by any interim earnings and reduced by the Petitioner's unemployment compensation benefits plus her reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Regarding reinstatement, the Petitioner has been and is now willing and able to be reinstated to her former position as Branch Executive or to a comparable administrative position. The employer's argument that the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement because she was an unsatisfactory employee is rejected for the following reasons: The employer's allegations that the Petitioner will not satisfactorily perform her job if reinstated are too speculative and any doubts about the Petitioner's entitlement to reinstatement should be resolved in favor of the victim of discrimination; and In the event that the Petitioner's job performance upon reinstatement is not satisfactory, the employer may avail itself of the procedures set forth in its personnel policy to improve the Petitioner's performance or discharge her for unsatisfactory job performance. However, reinstatement may not be feasible in this case due to the fact that another employee has been placed in the Petitioner's former position. If the Petitioner is not reinstated to a comparable administrative position, then she should be compensated by the award of six months front pay in lieu of reinstatement. The Petitioner is entitled to damages in the amount of $13,551, which represents a back pay award of $11,000 plus 10 percent interest, six months front pay in the amount of $6,000, minus $1,575 for salary paid from January 1, 1982 - February 16, 1982, including two weeks severance pay and $2,974 in unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner is also entitled to costs of $232.65 and attorneys fees totaling $5,000.
The Issue Whether Respondent, City of Apopka, Florida, was guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner, Scott A. Roberts, according to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, based on his "disability"; and whether or not he received "disparate treatment."
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the formal hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a 47-year-old Caucasian male, who, in November 2004, retired from Respondent's Fire Department as a engineer-paramedic as being permanently and totally disabled. Respondent is a municipality in Orange County, Florida. After Petitioner suffered a job-related injury that resulted in an anterior disc excision and fusion, C5-C6 and C6-C7, he elected to pursue disability retirement. In furtherance of his claim of total disability, he was examined by three physicians, Drs. Portnoy, Rojas, and Goll. Drs. Portnoy and Rojas determined that Petitioner had medical limitations that disqualified him from employment as a firefighter. Dr. Goll, prior to Petitioner's decision to proceed with a disability pension, had opined that he was fit for duty without limitations. Dr. Goll had the same opinion in January 2009. In 2009, Petitioner sought re-employment with Respondent. Incidental to his effort to be re-employed, he had an additional examination by Dr. Portnoy. Dr. Portnoy examines "thousands" of firefighters for Central Florida municipalities and usually conducts examinations for Respondent. Based on Dr. Portnoy's 2009 examination of Petitioner, Dr. Portnoy determined that Petitioner "was not qualified to be a firefighter for the City of Apopka." The National Fire Protection Association Standard 1582 ("NFPSA 1582") is referenced in Subsection 633.34(5), Florida Statutes, dealing with physical qualifications of a firefighter. While not required by statute, this standard is relied on by physicians conducting qualifying examinations. Petitioner's surgery is a basis for disqualification under NFPSA 1582. Respondent accepted Dr. Portnoy's opinion and did not re-employ Petitioner based on that opinion. Kevin Kwader, offered by Petitioner as an individual who received disparate treatment, apparently had cervical surgery; however, it is unclear whether the surgery was as comprehensive as Petitioner's. Mr. Kwader was returned to work by the surgeon who performed the surgery with "no restrictions." He was never evaluated by the physician conducting annual physical examinations for Respondent as "not fit for duty." Petitioner did not seek accommodation for a disability; in fact, he indicated, specifically, that he was not seeking any accommodation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief for failure to establish an unlawful discriminatory act by Respondent, City of Apopka, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2010, 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 20th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Moore, Esquire Moore, Peterson & Zeitler, P.A. Post Office Box 536636 Orlando, Florida 32853-6636 Frank Kruppenbacher, Esquire City of Apopka 120 East Main Street Apopka, Florida 32703 Scott Roberts 2839 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent (“the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners” or “Alachua County”) committed one or more unlawful employment practices and/or retaliated against Petitioner (“Kalisha Eagle”) after she reported allegations of disparate treatment to Alachua County’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office.
Findings Of Fact Findings Adduced from Testimony and Evidence Presented during the Final Hearing The Alachua County Board of County Commissioners has adopted a policy mandating that “[d]iscrimination against any person in recruitment, examination, appointment, training, promotion or any other employee action because of political opinions or affiliations or because of race, color, age, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identify or expression is prohibited.” That same policy statement also prohibits “[r]etaliation against any person for bringing an allegation forward, filing a complaint or participating in an investigation of alleged unlawful discrimination.” Alachua County’s governmental offices are served by an Information Technology Department (“the IT Department”) which consists of five teams: the help desk, applications, security, telecommunications, and networking. The network team handles infrastructure or hardware- related requests that require someone to go into the field in order to resolve a problem. The network specialist position is an entry level position for the network team, and there is only one network specialist position in the IT Department. The network specialist’s duties include desktop support and assisting network analysts in projects and tasks involving server support and network infrastructure. Also, the network specialist is the “first responder” to any help desk calls that cannot be resolved within 30 minutes over the phone. In addition, the network specialist installs software and ensures that devices such as printers and scanners are operating properly. The network team also consists of network analysts who handle more complex tasks than the network specialist and perform high-level work on servers. There are five to seven network analysts in the IT Department. During the time period relevant to the instant case, Virgilio Vensamoye managed the network team. Much like the information technology field as a whole, Alachua County’s IT Department predominantly consists of males. Of the 44 employees in the IT Department, approximately 34 are males and 10 are females. There are no females currently working on the network team. The IT Department hired Ms. Eagle (an African-American female) on August 4, 2008, to work on the help desk as a support technician. Ms. Eagle had a substantial amount of experience with and/or knowledge of information technology prior to beginning her employment with Alachua County. For instance, she earned a certificate in PC Support Services from Santa Fe Community College in 2001 and an associate of science degree in computer information systems analysis from Santa Fe Community College in 2002. Ms. Eagle has also earned several certifications related to computer science. Ms. Eagle’s performance evaluations and the testimony given at the final hearing indicate that she was performing well at the help desk. Following an interview,1/ during which she outperformed two other internal candidates, Ms. Eagle was promoted to the network specialist position on February 1, 2010. The network specialist position paid Ms. Eagle $22.33 an hour and was a 59-percent increase over her previous compensation rate. In the two years following her promotion, Ms. Eagle continued to perform well. For example, Mr. Vensamoye wrote a performance evaluation covering the period between October 1, 2010, and September 30, 2011, stating the following: “Kalisha has an exceptional attitude for helping us to resolve any problem we may have. She has taken over the tasks to assist the help desk as a first responder to help desk calls and ISR’s. She is always willing to help at a moment’s notice like she did when the Guardian ad Litem moved to their new offices.” Ms. Eagle made it known to several of her co-workers that she was looking to be challenged through her work and to use those challenges to grow as an IT professional. That desire was also set forth in her performance evaluations. In the performance evaluation mentioned above, Ms. Eagle wrote that, “I want to learn and have more participation during new server installations, setup and administration of Active Directory.” When their work schedules allow, IT Department employees have opportunities to work with more experienced co- workers and learn through on-the-job training. The testimony presented at the final hearing strongly suggests that network analysts within the IT Department are willing to assist those with less knowledge to improve their skills through on-the-job- training. In October of 2011, David Velez (a network analyst) left the IT Department. While his position was vacant, Mr. Vensamoye assigned some of Mr. Velez’s network analyst duties to Ms. Eagle. That decision was set forth in a November 7, 2011, e-mail stating that Ms. Eagle “will be taking over Animal Services and Community Services but during this transition, please keep Kenny and me informed of any help desk calls assigned to Nikki2/ for these two depts. I want her to have a successful take over in responsibilities.” Ms. Eagle testified during the final hearing that the aforementioned e-mail led her to believe that she would be hired to fill one of the vacant network analyst positions. That belief may have been reinforced by a November 28, 2011, e-mail from Mr. Vensamoye which described special circumstances under which the network analysts (who are salaried employees) could be paid for working an amount of hours beyond what is considered usual and customary. Mr. Vensamoye began his November 28, 2011, e-mail by stating the following: “To all, (Except Nikki because this does not apply to you at least not yet but you need to know too).” Ms. Eagle also believed that a promotion to network analyst was imminent because of her understanding that two people who previously held the network specialist position (Chris Johnson and Ian Van Kirk) had become network analysts approximately 18 months after they were hired as the network specialist. A committee interviewed Ms. Eagle for the network analyst positions, but her inability to answer certain questions demonstrated that she was not ready to assume that role. The IT Department ultimately hired two external applicants to fill the vacant positions. Mr. Vensamoye testified that the successful candidates had prior experience as network analysts and gave good interviews. In addition, one of the applicants had a veteran’s preference. Ms. Eagle was very upset that she was not hired to fill one of the vacancies and felt that the questions asked during her interview were unfair. There was no testimony or documentary evidence indicating whether any other network analyst positions came open during Ms. Eagle’s tenure in the IT Department. Mr. Vensamoye testified that vacancies at the network analyst level are infrequent. Ms. Eagle became even more upset when one or more of her co-workers asked for the equipment she had been using to handle the network analyst duties that Mr. Vensamoye had assigned to her via the November 7, 2011, e-mail. Ms. Eagle asserts that no one told her that she would no longer be handling network analyst duties once the vacant positions were filled. Because of the unsuccessful interview and the equipment issue mentioned above, Ms. Eagle visited Alachua County’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office (“EEO Office”) on January 12, 2012. Up to this point, Ms. Eagle claims that she was receiving enough opportunities to acquire the skills necessary to become a network analyst. Ms. Eagle did not file a formal complaint on January 12, 2012, but she did meet with an intake specialist within the EEO Office. The intake specialist made the following entries in the EEO Office’s computer system describing Ms. Eagle’s allegations: [Ms. Eagle] is upset that she is being unfairly treated. She says she is being passed over for certain jobs & projects that could lead to on the job training & experience & promotions. [Ms. Eagle] says her supr. [sic] Ken H., takes her equip. [sic] which impairs her ability to perform tasks and gives it to news emps. [sic]. [Ms. Eagle] says she interviewed for a position w/i [sic] her area and the position was given to two newer ext. [sic] emps. [sic]. [Ms. Eagle] says Ken said to her that she is not given certain projects becuz [sic] they require the tech to “get under desks” or work after hours/weekends becuz [sic] she is a single parent. [Ms. Eagle] says she never suggested that daycare was a problem and it prevents her from recd [sic] overtime. [Ms. Eagle] spoke with mgr. [sic] Vensamoye who says he will address the issue. Soon thereafter, Jacqueline Chung (the lead person in the EEO Office) learned of Ms. Eagle’s allegations and spoke to her. However, Ms. Eagle stated that she did not want to file a formal complaint. Instead, her visit to the EEO Office was merely a way for her to explore her options. Ms. Chung discussed Ms. Eagle’s concerns with the IT Department’s management. Because of her visit to the EEO Office, Ms. Eagle asserts that the IT Department began to retaliate against her by not assigning her to work on high-level projects. According to Ms. Eagle, her work for the remainder of 2012 was limited to desktop support and only one “project.” On or about Christmas of 2012, Ms. Eagle was seriously injured in a car accident and did not return to work until March 10, 2013. According to Mr. Vensamoye, Ms. Eagle had not completely recovered from the car accident upon her return to work. As a result, Mr. Vensamoye assigned Ms. Eagle to “light duty” tasks which would not require her to lift heavy objects or walk long distances. At the beginning of 2013, Ms. Eagle began to feel isolated at work. She alleges that her work orders decreased and that she was only allowed to observe others doing high-level work. Ms. Eagle would have preferred that she be allowed to do that work with someone watching and providing feedback. Ms. Eagle further alleges that she was slowly being removed from field work. Another issue arose when Ms. Eagle was allegedly asked to “groom” William Martinez. This was supposedly communicated to her via an e-mail dated May 14, 2013, in which Kenny Shore (the person who usually assigned work to Ms. Eagle and others in the IT Department) asked Ms. Eagle to rebuild a computer from scratch. Along with other instructions, Mr. Shore stated that “we want Billy Martinez to observe/assist with this project. Use him as much as you can to assist you with things like updates, backing up the data, whatever you think. Want to get Billy up to date with this kind of a project.” The IT Department was not providing any preferential treatment to Mr. Martinez. Mr. Martinez began working for the IT Department 19 years ago as a support technician on the help desk. At some point after he was unsuccessful in obtaining the network specialist position that was ultimately offered to Ms. Eagle, Mr. Martinez concluded that he would have to take matters into his own hands in order to earn a promotion. Mr. Martinez’s first step in earning a promotion involved handling help desk calls that could not be handled over the phone. As mentioned above, the help desk personnel typically forwarded such calls to the network team, and a member of the network team then went out into the field in order to resolve the problem. However, rather than forwarding such calls, Mr. Martinez handled them himself, and he was doing so based on his own initiative. Members of the network team came to respect Mr. Martinez’s abilities. They allowed Mr. Martinez to watch them perform high-level network tasks, and they eventually allowed him to perform such tasks. He ultimately earned a promotion to senior support technician. As a result of the issues described above, Ms. Eagle asserts that she visited Mr. Vensamoye’s office on September 30, 2013, and was ready to immediately tender her resignation. According to Ms. Eagle, Mr. Vensamoye responded to her concerns by offering her a part-time schedule. Ms. Eagle signed and submitted a letter to Mr. Vensamoye on September 30, 2013, stating the following: Due to extenuating circumstances dealing with the daily care of my children, I am formally requesting a reduction of my work schedule in order to accommodate the needs of my family. Upon approval, I am requesting to change my schedule to 8:30am- 12:30pm, Monday through Friday effective at the earliest convenience. I understand my salary will be adjusted accordingly to this reduced working schedule. I certainly appreciate all the assistance you may provide to this request. A memorandum dated October 1, 2013, and signed by Mr. Vensamoye and Ms. Eagle indicates that her request to work part-time was approved, and she began working 20 hours a week on October 7, 2013. The IT Department prides itself on resolving its clients’ problems as quickly as possible and providing prompt customer service. Witnesses from the IT Department persuasively testified that it is efficient to have a single person or group of persons working continuously to resolve a problem. Under such circumstances, the problem is typically solved much faster than it would be if assigned to someone working a part-time schedule. Therefore, the IT Department did not assign any complex tasks to Ms. Eagle while she was on a part-time schedule. Her tasks were limited to those that could be handled relatively quickly. At some point in 2014, Mr. Vensamoye became concerned with certain aspects of Ms. Eagle’s behavior at work. Accordingly, he met with her on June 9, 2014, and issued the following “memorandum of understanding” which stated: As a follow up to our conversation today, we have agreed to take the following actions: Your schedule will remain 8:30 to 12:30 Monday to Friday as we agreed on October 7th, 2013. You are expected to be on time for assignments and meetings. Do not leave team meetings without express permission. Every Monday morning you will meet with Kenny Shore to review the list of tasks assigned to you and to plan your assignments for the week. On a daily basis, Victor Paul will follow up the progress of tasks assigned to you and he may make any necessary changes to your work load as priorities change. You must communicate immediately with Victor or me if you have any type of concerns that may affect your job performance. Limit the personal use of the phone calls during your assigned work schedule. Please be sure your cell phone bill is in good standing to avoid disruptions in service. The County will not be able to reimburse you for cell phone services for the month disruption of services occurs. Do not spend extended periods of time in consultation with Orin Yaw during your work day. You are disrupting his tasks and yours. If you need to consult on any technical issues, please refer to a member of the network team. After receiving the memorandum of understanding, Ms. Eagle returned to the EEO Office on June 17, 2014, to complain about the memorandum. Ms. Eagle also reported that nothing had changed since her last visit to the EEO Office in January of 2012. Ms. Eagle believed that the counseling memorandum was further retaliation for her initial visit to the EEO office. Ms. Eagle also thought that the IT Department was beginning to retaliate against her through other means. For example, Ms. Eagle was supposed to begin taking the lead on certain assignments in June or July of 2014. However, she had to complete a background check beforehand. Ms. Eagle saw no need for a background check when she had spent the last six years working for Alachua County. Ms. Eagle further claims that the IT Department retaliated against her by closely monitoring her time and assigning her to work with interns. Ms. Chung met again with Ms. Eagle for about two hours on July 21, 2014. In a July 22, 2014, e-mail, Ms. Chung summarized Ms. Eagle’s concerns as follows: Process for work order assignments (not being given work and hearing that others are getting assignments) Departmental assignments (not given certain depts [sic] even after being trained on their system) Computer builds (part of your position responsibilities, not given to interns) Being told to assist interns and others on assignments instead of being given the lead. The perception that others are being groomed/their futures considered, but you are not able to work on a full-time basis. On July 23, 2014, Ms. Chung sent an e-mail to Ms. Eagle notifying her that she was going to meet with Mr. Vensamoye that day about the concerns listed above. Ms. Chung also stated that she intended to schedule a follow-up meeting with herself, Ms. Eagle, and the management of the IT Department because it would “be helpful to have all parties at the table as we discuss a game plan to move forward.” Ms. Eagle, Ms. Chung, the County’s Human Resources Department, and the IT Department met in September of 2014, to address Ms. Eagle’s concerns. However, Ms. Eagle became frustrated with Ms. Chung and the Human Resources Department and essentially dismissed them from the meeting. Ms. Eagle made it known that she only wanted to deal with the IT Department from that point forward. Toward the end of 2014, management within the IT Department became concerned that Ms. Eagle’s position would be eliminated or that it would be permanently converted into a part-time position. Therefore, Ms. Eagle was asked to return to full-time status, and she did so on January 12, 2015. Upon her reinstatement to full-time status, Ms. Eagle’s assignments were no longer limited to issues that could be resolved in a short time frame. Ms. Eagle asserts that the past pattern of retaliation or disparate treatment continued after she returned to full-time status. According to Ms. Eagle, she only received 24 work orders for the entire year of 2015. Ms. Eagle resigned on October 2, 2015, and her resignation letter read as follows: Please accept this letter as my formal resignation from the Alachua County Information Service Department Network Specialist Position under the Network Team Division effective October 2, 2015. It has been a pleasure working with all of you the last 8 years and I wish everyone here the best in the years to come. I thank all of you once again for this opportunity and I give a special thanks to those who took the time to make this opportunity special for me. Specific Findings Regarding Ms. Eagle’s Allegations of Disparate Treatment and Retaliation In her filings with the Commission and during the course of the final hearing, Ms. Eagle made several allegations about how she was the victim of disparate treatment during her tenure with the IT Department. Furthermore, she alleges that the IT Department’s management retaliated against her when it learned that she had visited the EEO Office. The following findings specifically address each of those allegations. Ms. Eagle’s primary allegation is that the IT Department’s management did not assign her the type of work assignments that would further her professional development and prepare her for promotion to a network analyst position. In support of this allegation, Ms. Eagle asserted that Ian Van Kirk (who held the network specialist position prior to Ms. Eagle) had the opportunity to take the lead on projects and to work on servers. However, Mr. Vensamoye testified Mr. Van Kirk was always under supervision. Also, while conceding that Mr. Van Kirk worked on servers during his tenure as a network specialist, Mr. Vensamoye testified that the IT Department was short-handed at the time. In addition, Mr. Vensamoye reiterated that Mr. Van Kirk never made any final decisions. Ms. Eagle also alleged that the IT Department hampered her professional development by not assigning her complex tasks and by not inviting her to participate in an adequate number of high-level projects. When she was invited to participate on such projects, her participation was allegedly limited to observation with no “hands-on” work. While not expressly saying so, Ms. Eagle clearly implies that observing others working on high-level projects did nothing to further her knowledge and professional development. First of all, Ms. Eagle’s own testimony indicated that she had been assisting network analysts prior to her unsuccessful interview for a network analyst position. According to Ms. Eagle, that work and her other work within the IT Department adequately prepared her to assume a network analyst’s duties. Moreover, there was testimony indicating that Ms. Eagle was assigned projects that were far more involved than the help desk calls typically handled by a network specialist. Those projects were opportunities for professional development. For example, Jim Bledsoe (a network analyst within the IT Department) testified about a project in which the IT Department enabled county commission meetings to be streamed over the internet. Mr. Bledsoe was the leader of that project and asked for Ms. Eagle to be assigned to it because she had expressed a desire to participate in a highly visible assignment. During the course of this project, Ms. Eagle assisted Mr. Bledsoe and was able to watch him build a server. Ms. Eagle also assisted Mr. Bledsoe in connecting computers in the Alachua County Transfer Station to the County’s main network via a radio frequency link. Mr. Bledsoe also testified that Ms. Eagle was the point-of-contact between the IT Department and the Guardian ad Litem office. While the Guardian ad Litem Office was a small department in comparison to others, Ms. Eagle was completely responsible for that office’s information technology needs. Ms. Eagle had an open invitation to participate in any projects that interested her. Mr. Vensamoye testified that employees within the IT Department are encouraged to confer with more experienced co-workers and gain knowledge by assisting those co-workers with certain tasks. Chris Johnson testified that when he was a support technician, network analysts were very receptive to allowing him to watch or assist with projects. Testimony during the final hearing indicated that Ms. Eagle’s desire to improve her skills dramatically decreased at some point after she became a network specialist. For example, Mr. Bledsoe testified that Ms. Eagle unexpectedly left the transfer station project before it was completed, and Mr. Johnson testified that Ms. Eagle was talking on her phone during the entire duration of the project. Mr. Johnson also testified that he stopped asking Ms. Eagle if she wanted to accompany him on projects because she no longer seemed to be interested and was difficult to locate. Finally, Victor Paul (Ms. Eagle’s direct supervisor) testified that Ms. Eagle’s interest in learning new skills disappeared during her final two-and-a-half years in the IT Department. Also, the IT Department understandably avoided assigning Ms. Eagle complex assignments when she was working a part-time schedule. As noted above, the IT Department prides itself on providing a high level of customer service and wanted to avoid situations in which a client’s problem went unresolved simply because an IT Department employee could only devote a limited amount of time to the problem. Ms. Eagle also asserted that her professional development was hampered by the fact that she was not assigned to cover on-call support. Mr. Vensamoye persuasively testified that the IT Department was under strict budgetary constraints at the time in question. Because Ms. Eagle was an hourly employee who would have to be paid overtime, it was more economical for the IT Department to assign salaried employees to on-call duty. Ms. Eagle also alleges that Mr. Martinez was “groomed” for advancement and that a great deal of her network specialist work was improperly diverted away from her and to Mr. Martinez. This appears to be the primary basis for her repeated assertions that she was getting “no work.” Given that Mr. Martinez had worked in the IT Department for 17 years prior to earning his promotion to senior support technician, one can hardly say that the IT Department’s management had singled him out and was “grooming” him for promotion. Instead, the testimony indicates that Mr. Martinez made a conscious decision to volunteer for extra work and earn his promotion. In fact, Mr. Shore testified during the final hearing that Mr. Martinez “worked his ass off and he was there every day” during the time period at issue. In order to reach his goal of earning a promotion, Mr. Martinez was handling help desk calls that would normally be assigned to a network specialist such as Ms. Eagle. Therefore, he appears to have been filling a void that resulted from Ms. Eagle’s downtime following her accident and her subsequent part-time status. Furthermore, while Mr. Shore vigorously disputed any assertion that Ms. Eagle was not getting her fair share of work assignments, he testified that Ms. Eagle was difficult to locate in 2014 and 2015. Therefore, it is certainly understandable that certain assignments were shifted to Mr. Martinez when Ms. Eagle could not be located. Ms. Eagle also alleges that the IT Department’s management retaliated against her by subjecting her to increased monitoring, requiring her to obtain a security clearance, and by issuing the memorandum of understanding to her. Mr. Vensamoye and Mr. Paul testified that the same amount of monitoring was being applied to all of the IT Department’s employees. Ms. Eagle was not being singled out, and there was no evidence to the contrary. With regard to the security clearance, Victor Paul (Ms. Eagle’s direct supervisor) testified that obtaining such a clearance is something that must be done periodically. Therefore, asking her to do so was not an attempt at retaliation. Mr. Vensamoye testified that Ms. Eagle was taking an inordinate amount of time to complete assignments in the few months preceding the memorandum of understanding’s issuance. Also, it became difficult to find her during working hours and, when she was able to be located, she was often in the break room or talking on her telephone. Accordingly, the memorandum of understanding was an effort to address those issues rather than disciplinary action. Finally, Ms. Eagle alleges that she was subjected to disparate treatment when certain equipment was taken from her possession after the IT Department hired two network analysts in 2012. The equipment in question was related to the network analyst duties that Ms. Eagle was covering after the incumbent left the IT Department. Ms. Eagle was very upset when she was not hired for one of the network analyst positions, and the retrieval of the equipment appears to have been “salt in the wound.” However, after the two network analyst positions were filled, it was reasonable to expect that the persons hired would need that equipment. As discussed below in the Conclusions on Law section, Ms. Eagle was required to prove her allegations of disparate treatment and retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no disparate treatment or retaliation. Specifically, the greater weight of the evidence does not establish that Alachua County took any action which led to a serious and material change in the terms of Ms. Eagle’s employment.
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 Ms. Eagle’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 August, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner when her employment assignment with Respondent was terminated in November 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 48-year-old African-American female. On or about September 10, 2004, Petitioner was placed with AT&T Wireless as a customer service specialist by a staffing agency, AppleOne. Petitioner's job duties as a customer service specialist included answering phone calls from AT&T Wireless' customers about their bills and assisting them with problems that they were having with their accounts. For the most part, Petitioner received positive feedback regarding her job performance as a customer service specialist. That feedback, which is reflected on the Advisor Evaluation Detail forms received into evidence as Exhibit P7, came from her supervisors as well as from quality assurance specialists. Petitioner testified that she generally got along well with her co-workers,2 but that she preferred getting assistance and taking instruction from men rather than women. After AT&T Wireless was taken over by Cingular, Petitioner and the other customer service specialists working for AT&T Wireless were required to attend a two-week training class regarding Cingular’s policies and procedures. The training class attended by Petitioner was also attended by her supervisor, Wendy Miller. Ms. Miller is a white female. On the first day of the class, Petitioner was having trouble logging into the computer system that was being used in the training class. Ms. Miller, who was sitting directly behind Petitioner, attempted to ask Petitioner a question about the problems that she was having and/or provide her assistance, but Petitioner simply ignored Ms. Miller. According to Petitioner, she ignored Ms. Miller because she was trying to pay attention to the teacher. As a result of this incident, Ms. Miller sent an e-mail to AppleOne dated November 30, 2004, which stated in pertinent part: It has been decided by Sandy Camp and myself to end [Petitioner’s] temporary assignment due to insubordination. She has been coached on her attitude for which she is not receptive to and several other people have mentioned that they do not want to help her due to her not wanting to listen. The last incident was today during our CSE class where she demonstrated insubordination and disrespect to me. In a later e-mail, dated March 7, 2005, Ms. Miller described the incident in the training class as follows: [Petitioner] was one of the reps not able to get into [the computer] system so I was attempting to assist her because she was sitting directly in front of me. I attempted to ask her a question and she turned her back to me & put up her hand as to say “don’t speak to me” and she completely ignored me even as I kept speaking to her. . . . . The descriptions of the incident in Ms. Miller’s e- mails are materially the same as Petitioner’s description of the incident in her testimony at the hearing. On the evening of November 30, 2004, Petitioner was called by someone at AppleOne and told that her assignment with Cingular had been terminated. Petitioner was paid by AppleOne during her entire tenure with AT&T Wireless and Cingular. Petitioner’s salary while she was working at AT&T Wireless and Cingular remained constant at $10 per hour. Petitioner’s entire tenure with AT&T Wireless and Cingular was approximately two months. Petitioner testified that she did not receive any other assignments through AppleOne after her assignment with Cingular was terminated. She attributed her inability to get other assignments through AppleOne to the fact that AppleOne "sided with" Cingular, who was its client, but there is insufficient evidence to make such a finding. In January 2005, Petitioner filed separate charges of discrimination with the Commission against AppleOne and Cingular. According to Petitioner, she was paid $400 by AppleOne to settle her claim against that company. Petitioner testified that she sold vacation plans and did other “odd jobs” between November 2004 and mid-February 2005 when she was hired by Sears as a home delivery specialist. Her job duties in that position include contacting customers to coordinate the delivery of appliances purchased from Sears. Petitioner testified that her initial salary with Sears was $9 per hour and that as of the date of the hearing her salary was $10 per hour. Petitioner testified that other customer service specialists had “problems” or “personality conflicts” with Ms. Miller, but she was unable to identify any other employee (of any race or age) who was similarly insubordinate or disrespectful towards Ms. Miller (or any other supervisor) and who received discipline less severe than termination. Petitioner’s actions toward Ms. Miller during the training class were disrespectful, at a minimum. Petitioner testified that Ms. Miller acted like a white supremacist, but there is no credible evidence in the record to support that claim. Petitioner also testified that AT&T Wireless and Cingular did not have any permanent customer service specialists that were as old as she, but there is no credible evidence in the record to support that claim. Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding the race, age, or other characteristics of the person who filled her position at Cingular after her assignment was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s discrimination claim against Cingular. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 25th day of October, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Born in Rio de Janeiro, petitioner Paul Sergio Inacio emigrated to the United States from Brazil in 1961, when he was still a teenager. He first worked for respondent for a brief time in 1976. On June 6, 1980, he returned to respondent's employ as a journeyman welder mechanic at Crist Electric Generating Plant, a position he still held at the time of hearing. A "mile square with seven generating units" (T.187), the plant is in Florida, as are respondent's headquarters. Several hundred people work for respondent at Crist Electric Generating Plant alone. In "late June, 1980" (T.235) somebody began calling Mr. Inacio "Julio," nicknaming him after a Hispanic character in a television series (Sanford & Son). The actor portraying Julio "used to drag a goat through the living room . . . and acted . . . stupid." T.236; T.64. Despite (or perhaps because of) petitioner's telling people he did not like being called "Julio," the sobriquet caught on. Even during his initial eight-month probationary period, he made his objections known. T.115, 180. He felt freer to press the point, once the probationary period ended, although at least one friend advised him to do so might be counterproductive T.235-6. Mr. Inacio never referred to himself as Julio. T.28, 99-100, 115, 146-7, 180, 194, 198. Once "he almost got in a fight with [a co-worker] because the guy called him my little Puerto Rican buddy Julio." T.28. Before he retired from his employment as a supervisor with respondent, on July 30, 1987, Murdock P. Walley repeatedly addressed, or referred to petitioner in his presence, as "Julio," "wop," "spic," and "greaser." Mr. Walley's last day at work was "in April or along about then." T.472. Behind petitioner's back, Mr. Carnley heard Mr. Walley refer to petitioner as "wetback," "wop" or "the greaser." T. 27. Co-workers have called him "spic," "wetback," and "greaser" to his face, (T.30) as well as behind his back. Mr. Peakman, another maintenance supervisor, testified that he was guilty of a single lapse: I didn't see him and I asked, "Where's Julio?" And then I caught myself, I said, "Excuse me, where's Mr. Inacio?" I corrected myself right then. T.455. In or about January of 1989, (T.271), Jimmy Lavon Sherouse, maintenance superintendent since May of 1987, referred to petitioner as "Julio" at least once, in the break room. Willard A. Douglas, a supervisor of maintenance at the plant since December of 1981, referred to petitioner as "Julio" frequently. Described as abrasive, Mr. Douglas, also known as "Bubba," has "single[d] Paul out." T.46. But it appeared at hearing at least as likely that Mr. Douglas singled petitioner out because of a run-in which had nothing to do with Mr. Inacio's background, as that he discriminated against him on account of national origin. Prior to June of 1989, continuously since 1981 (T.29), Howard Keels, Calvin Harris, Mike Taylor, Ronnie Yates, and Bill Sabata, Control Center supervisors, C. B. Hartley, supervisor over the coal docks, John Spence and David Hansford, both maintenance supervisors at the time, Mike Snuggs, Joe Patterson, Ed Lepley, Tommy Stanley and Dennis Cowan, supervisors of the laboratory department, Dennis Berg and Joe Kight, schedulers, Tom Talty, the assistant plant manager, Joe Lalas and Larry Swindell, both operations supervisors, all called petitioner "Julio" "[t]o his face in [the] presence" (T.27) of Ricky Carnley, a fellow welder mechanic who testified at hearing. T.21-26. Others also heard supervisors call petitioner "Julio." T.79-80, 110, 144-6, 178-9, 195-6, 237-9, 537-8. Not without reason, petitioner came to feel that "(a)nything associated with Hispanic heritage that could come up, I was called at some point or other by practically anybody." T.267. Angelo Grellia, a fellow mechanic who testified "I'm a wop, you know" (T.79) (emphasis added) remembered co-workers calling petitioner a "wop." A newspaper cartoon posted on a bulletin board in the employee break room (not the bulletin board reserved exclusively for management's use) depicted a man using a two-by-four. Petitioner "is known for using two-by-fours a lot to move stuff, pry stuff for leverage." T.34. The cartoon was labelled "Julio." Another time somebody posted a newspaper clipping, a report of a parricide, complete with picture; the killer's name had been lined through and Mr. Inacio's had been substituted. T.112, 158, 179. After two days, a fellow employee took it down (T.158), apparently without Mr. Inacio's ever seeing it. Still another time somebody posted "a National Geographic picture" (T.181) that resembled petitioner "and the caption said, can you guess who this is." T.181. Somebody had guessed and written in "Julio." T.243. According to uncontroverted testimony, white Anglo-Saxon men "were not selected to be the butt of these sorts of jokes." T.159. Over the plant's public address system, in Mr. Talty's presence, Charles Brown referred to petitioner as "Paul Inasshole," a play on his surname. T.25. No other employee was ridiculed in such a fashion, as far as the evidence showed, (T.49) but broadcasts in a similarly offensive vein ("An asshole" "A nasty hole") took place repeatedly over respondent's public address system. T. 24-25, 48-49, 71, 144-146, 163, 240. At all pertinent times, respondent had widely disseminated written equal opportunity and affirmative action policies with the stated "intent . . . to provide all employees with a wholesome work environment." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. "Company policy prohibits intimidation or harassment of its employees by any employee or supervisor." Id. But, as Barbara Louise Mallory, an "Equal Employment Opportunity representative" (T.477) in respondent's employ, conceded, the "conduct that went on was against [Gulf Power's] policies and against the law." T.484. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 stated that employees "subjected to conduct which violates this policy should report such incidences to their immediate supervisor, a higher level of supervision, or the Company's Equal Employment Opportunity Representative in the Corporate Office." Id. In the present case, both respondent's immediate supervisors and "a higher level of supervision," were well aware of the harassment to which petitioner was subjected, before he officially reported it. Supervisors were themselves guilty of harassment. On February 8, 1988, Mr. Sherouse, the maintenance superintendent, addressed "a routine shift meeting with employees [and] discussed with them the need to refrain from destruction of employees' or company property." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Mr. Sherouse "essentially said . . . some employees . . . were being singled out . . . . " T.295. He told employees at the meeting that "such an incident . . . could result in an action up to termination." Id. At the same meeting he "also discussed cartoons and calendars that could be considered . . . racial or sexual harassment . . . [directing that] they must be removed now." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. These matters were also discussed at an employee information meeting in January of 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. But harassment of petitioner continued. "[Q]uite frequently . . . thick heavy grease would get smeared on his toolbox, underneath the drawers of his toolbox." T.34. The lock on his locker was glued or "zip-gripped" shut several times, and had to be cut to open the locker. Respondent's Exhibit No. He is the only employee (T.39) who had to change clothes because some sort of itching powder was put in his clothes. Somebody put "Persian Blue," a particularly persistent dye, in his glove. At respondent's counsel's behest a list was prepared of "employees who have experienced problems with someone tampering with their tools or person[a]l lockers," Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, during the two years next preceding the list's preparation on August 4, 1989. Of the nine employees listed, seven were white Caucasians whose tools or books had been lost or stolen. 1/ Unlike the native-born men on the list, petitioner and Debbie Mitchell, the only other person listed, were subjected to repeated instances of vandalism and other harassment, including unflattering references in cartoons posted on the bulletin board in the break room. Although petitioner did not request it, management assigned him a new locker, something they did for no other employee. According to a co-worker, petitioner, who once taught welding at Pensacola Junior College, "likes to do a good, clean, responsible job" (T.185) of welding. But, on October 22 and 23, 1988, when petitioner and Millard Hilburn worked on "the #7 bottom ash discharge piping," Respondent's Exhibit No. 21, at Willard Douglas' behest, they failed to stop seepage from the pressurized pipe (which was in use while they worked) by welding, and resorted to epoxy which, in Mr. Douglas' "opinion[,] . . . [was] bad judgement and very poor workmanship." Id. Of 30 or 40 welders respondent employed at Crist, only one or two "still have a clean record. Eventually somebody is going to get a leak." T.202. Petitioner's work record is basically a very good one, although not perfect. Nevertheless Mr. Sherouse, after putting petitioner's name on a list of three "employees who for different reasons are not performing their jobs," Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, summoned petitioner to a conference about his job performance, on January 20, 1989. The other two employees were Scott Allen, whose problem was "attitude . . . distrust, dislike . . . just unbelievable" (T.443; 420) and Ed Lathan who "hadn't been there since June of '87" (T.420) except sporadically "working light duty." T.420. Mr. Sherouse also prepared various memoranda concerning petitioner; and caused other managers to prepare still other memoranda. Only after the January conference was petitioner involved in the repair of a boiler tube that failed. (He welded one end of a replacement piece that may have been improperly sized and had already been welded in place by others.) In contrast to petitioner's involvement in two incidents (only one of which occurred before the filing of the complaint), at least one other welder mechanic working for respondent had made five welds that failed in short order. On April 11, 1989, petitioner was assigned the job of cleaning plugged nozzles on intake screens for units four and five (although ordinarily operators themselves did such routine maintenance.) He first went to the control room for units four and five and asked directions to the intake screens, which are part of the cooling system. Misunderstanding directions, he went to the wrong cooling system intakes, those for units six and seven, instead of those for four and five, and started work without finding a red tag (used to indicate that somebody from operations had "isolated" the equipment) and without placing his own tag on an electrical switch that equipment operators use. He did, however, place tags on valves that had to be opened in order for the system to operate. When Mr. Sherouse heard what had happened he sent Mr. Inacio home from work. Although Mr. Sherouse did not at that time "announce termination or non- termination, pay or no pay" (T.436), petitioner was eventually paid for the time off, which lasted two days during the purported pendency of an investigation, which consisted of "going back and looking at his files." T.437. Without credible contradiction, several people testified that mistaking one piece of equipment for another occurred not infrequently (T.85) at the Crist plant. The evidence showed that much more serious safety lapses had, in general, elicited much milder responses from management. Petitioner was criticized more harshly than non-minority employees for the same or comparable performance. T.31-33, 73-74, 112-120, 130-131, 148-9, 150-4, 186-7, 197, 257- 263. Petitioner's safety record was "better than most." T.424. An Indian who works at the Crist steam plant, Ron Taylor is known as "Indian" or "Chief." T.52. Supervisors referred to Nicholas Peterson as "a damned Greek" (T.111) when he worked at respondent's Crist plant. "From January 1982 until March 1990," just about every supervisor at Crist "refer[red] to some . . . blacks as being niggers." T.135. Objection was sustained to admission of colored Beetle Bailey comic strips crudely altered to depict cartoon characters engaged in oral sex. But Ms. Mitchell testified without objection to other "extremely vulgar cartoons" (T.157) she saw posted on the bulletin boards including one with her name on it. T.159. (When she complained to Mr. Sherouse, he eventually reported back to her that the reference was to a different Debbie.) At Crist Electric "they use the good ole boy theory . . . [i]f you fit into their select group, you're taken in, you're trained . . . you get better selection of jobs. If you're not, you're an outcast." T.136. Petitioner "definitely" got more than his share of "dirty jobs," specifically precipitator work and condenser work. T.183; 85-86, 147-8. Petitioner's "pride was hurt." T.265. He felt humiliated. Unfair criticism affected his morale. T.36. At least one co-worker "could sense . . . that he felt like he was not wanted there." T.37. He considered leaving his employment and even told at least one Gulf Power official that he was doing so. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Discriminatory treatment affected his ability to concentrate, and so his job performance. T.36, 37.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR order respondent to refrain from harassing or otherwise discriminating against petitioner on account of his national origin. That the FCHR award petitioner reasonable attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Solutia, Inc., discriminated against the Petitioner Darlene Fitzgerald, by allegedly denying her employment because of her hearing impairment. Embodied within that general issue is the question of whether, under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and other relevant law, the Respondent is an "employer"; whether the Petitioner is handicapped or disabled; whether the Petitioner is qualified for the position for which she applied; whether the Petitioner requested a reasonable accommodation from the alleged employer; whether the Petitioner suffered an adverse employment decision because of a disability; and whether the Petitioner has damages, their extent, and whether the Petitioner properly mitigated any damages.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darlene Fitzgerald, is a 34-year-old woman who alleges that she applied for a "carpet walker" position with either the Respondent or "AmStaff" in March 1998. The Respondent, Solutia, Inc. (Solutia), is a company which owned and operates a manufacturing plant that manufactures fibers and carpet in Escambia County, Florida. A number of independent contractors operate at the Solutia plant, performing certain phases of the manufacture and related services and operations there, including "AmStaff" and "Landrum." AmStaff is a contractor which operates a tire yarn plant and a Kraft plant at the Solutia facility. AmStaff hires its own employees to work in its operations at the Solutia plant. It is solely responsible for all hiring, counseling, disciplinary and termination decisions concerning its employees. AmStaff has its own payroll, does the Social Security withholdings for its employees, pays workers' compensation premiums on its employees and provides retirement benefits to its employees. Landrum is a staff leasing company which is responsible for certain jobs at the Solutia plant, including carpet walkers. Landrum is solely responsible for all of its hiring, counseling, disciplinary and termination decisions concerning its employees. Landrum has its own payroll, does its own Social Security withholdings for its employees and pays workers' compensation premiums on its employees. A carpet walker is a person who tests carpet for wear and tear. A carpet walker is required to work 40 hours per week and to walk approximately 18 miles a day testing carpet. Neither Solutia nor AmStaff employs carpet walkers. The Petitioner has never been to Solutia's facility or offices and has never gone out to the Solutia plant to apply for a job. She has had no contact with anyone representing or employed by Solutia concerning a job. All of the Petitioner's contacts concerning employment in March 1998, were with either AmStaff or Landrum. The Petitioner testified that she saw a newspaper ad that AmStaff was taking job applications, but never produced a copy of that ad. The Petitioner went to AmStaff to fill out an employment application. AmStaff's office is not at the Respondent Solutia's plant. The Petitioner gave conflicting testimony as to the date she allegedly applied with AmStaff for a carpet walker position. First, she testified that she applied for the position on March 15, 1998, which was a Sunday. After that was established by the Respondent, as well as the fact that AmStaff was closed on Sundays, the Petitioner then maintained that she applied for the carpet walker position on March 19, 1998. This date is incorrect, however, as evidenced by Respondent's Exhibit two in evidence, which is AmStaff's "notification of testing." According to the Petitioner the company name printed on the employment application she filled out was AmStaff. The Petitioner was then scheduled for testing by AmStaff on March 12, 1998, at Job Service of Florida (Job Service). The notification of testing clearly indicates that the Petitioner applied for a job with AmStaff. While at the Job Service, the Petitioner spoke with an individual named Martha Wyse. The Petitioner and Robin Steed (an interpreter who accompanied the Petitioner to the job service site), met Martha Wyse, who never identified her employer. Subsequent testimony established that Martha Wyse was AmStaff's recruiting coordinator. Martha Wyse has never been employed at Solutia nor did she ever identify herself as being employed by Solutia. All applicants with AmStaff must be able to meet certain physical requirements, including, but not limited to pushing and pulling buggies weighing 240 to 1,080 pounds; lifting 50 to 75 pound fiber bags, lifting 60 pound boxes, stacking and pouring 55 pound bags and working indoors in temperatures of up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. The Petitioner admitted that she could not push or pull buggies weighing 240 pounds; could not lift 50 to 75 pound fiber bags, could not lift 60 pound boxes nor stack and pour 55 pound bags or work indoors in temperatures in the range of 100 degrees. Additionally, the Petitioner admitted that her obstetrician and gynecologist had restricted her, in March 1998, to no lifting or pushing. On September 24, 1998, the Petitioner was involved in an automobile accident. Her doctors restricted her to lifting no more than 25 to 30 pounds as a result of the injuries sustained in the automobile accident. Because of the injuries sustained in the automobile accident, the Petitioner was unable to work and applied for Social Security disability. Apparently she was granted Social Security disability with attendant benefits. AmStaff employees must work around very loud machinery. There is noise from the machines themselves, combined with that of the air conditioning equipment. Horns blow signaling that forklift trucks are moving through the employment area. The machinery also emits a series of beeps that are codes to let employees know to do different things at different times regarding the machinery. Although the Petitioner stated that she had no restrictions concerning her hearing and could hear everything with the help of her hearing aid, she also stated that she could not stand loud noises generated by machines. In addition to the physical requirements, AmStaff employees were required to work rotating shifts. The employees had to rotate between a 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., shift and a 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., shift. The Petitioner did not want to work from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Additionally, AmStaff's employees were required to work 36-hour weeks followed by 42-hour weeks on alternating week schedules. The Petitioner did not want to work more than 20-hours per week in 1998, and in particular the months of April through September 1998. She did not want to work more than 20-hours per week, as she did not want to endanger her Social Security income benefits or have them reduced. Landrum did not have an opening for a carpet walker position at the time the Petitioner allegedly applied for that position. The Petitioner did not ask AmStaff or Landrum for any disability accommodations. If an employee is not entirely aware of the sounds and signals emanating from a plant and the machinery within the plant, that employee cannot respond immediately or accurately to situations that may cause problems with the machinery and ultimately could cause injury to the employee or to other employees. If a bobbin is not seated properly on a machine, for example, the machine will begin to produce a clanking noise. If the noise is not heard by the operating employee and the bobbin is not re-seated properly it can become detached from the machine and be thrown by the force of the machine potentially striking either the operator or anyone who happens to be moving through the machine aisle nearby at the time. Further, there are over 300 alarm boxes throughout the plant. These alarms are used in emergency situations. The alarms indicate the type of emergency, the location of the emergency and its severity. There are different types of warnings for vapor clouds and evacuations. All warnings come through that alarm system. An employee must listen for the type of sound or blast, the number of sounds or blasts and the sequence of the sounds or blasts in order to determine the type of emergency and to know how to react to it. The Petitioner was unemployed from September 24, 1998 until April 2000, when she became employed at Walmart. She left her employment at Walmart in July of 2000. After leaving Walmart the Petitioner has not been employed and has not looked for work. She apparently worked at Popeye's Fried Chicken for an undetermined period of time after March 1998. From April to September of 1998, she voluntarily restricted her work to no more than 20-hours per week in order to keep from reducing her Social Security disability benefits.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, as well as the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 6th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Danny L. Kepner, Esquire Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge, P.A. 226 South Palafox Street, Ninth Floor Pensacola, Florida 32501 Erick M. Drlicka, Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon 30 South Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
