The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner on the basis of her sex or age, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment based on her sex or age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Frito-Lay, Inc. ("Frito-Lay"), makes and sells snack foods, including many familiar brands of chips. Petitioner Frances G. Danelli ("Danelli") is a former employee of Frito-Lay. Frito-Lay initially hired Danelli in or around 1998 as a packer for its West Valley, Utah, plant. When Danelli's husband was transferred to Florida, she took a job for Frito-Lay in Pompano Beach, Florida, and later moved to the company's West Palm Beach Distribution Center as a route sales representative ("RSR"). Danelli worked in Florida as a Frito-Lay RSR for more than 15 years, and her routes eventually included such large stores as Publix, Walmart, Winn-Dixie, and Target.1/ RSRs sell and deliver Frito-Lay products to retail stores, and these stores, in turn, sell the products to consumers. RSRs are responsible, as well, for presenting the company's products to shoppers in the best way possible to increase sales. So, RSRs not only sell and deliver products to stores, but they also unload the products, stock the shelves, set up displays, and remove unsold items whose sell-by dates have expired. RSRs are paid an hourly wage plus commissions. RSRs are required to compete for sales against other companies' vendors, who (like Frito-Lay's personnel) are trying to place as many of their products as possible onto the shelves of the snack food aisle. Shelf space is essential for growing sales, and competition for product placement can be fierce. There is no dispute that Danelli's performance as an RSR was fine, perhaps even exemplary. Frito-Lay considered her to be a good employee. Danelli went to work early each morning, usually arriving at the warehouse by 4:00 a.m. so that she could get to her first store by 5:00 a.m., which would give her a head start on other vendors. When Danelli got to the warehouse, she would clock in on her handheld computer, which she also used to track the goods she delivered to each store. Upon returning to the warehouse, she had paperwork to complete and print from the handheld computer. In 2013, Frito-Lay started requiring drivers of delivery trucks over a certain size, including RSRs such as Danelli, to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulations. As relevant, these regulations require an RSR to take at least a ten-hour break before driving a commercial vehicle, and they prohibit an RSR from driving a commercial vehicle after 14 consecutive hours on duty. Frito-Lay programmed its employees' handheld computers so that an employee subject to the DOT regulations would receive a conspicuous warning if he or she attempted to clock in to work less than ten hours after last going off duty. As Danelli testified at hearing, if the computer told her to wait, she would go to the warehouse, pick up some product, fix her truck, and then sign in when the handheld said she could go. Evidently, however, to get the warning, an employee needed to log on as a "regulated" employee; if, by mistake, a "regulated" employee logged on as "non-regulated," she would not get the warning. Danelli found it difficult to comply with the DOT regulations, which led to Frito-Lay's imposing discipline against her in accordance with the company's Corrective Action Process set forth in its Sales National RSR Handbook, which governed Petitioner's employment. The handbook prescribes a process of progressive discipline that begins with "coaching," which is a form of pre- discipline. As the name suggests, a "coaching" is, essentially, a nondisciplinary intervention whose purpose is to correct an issue before the employee's conduct warrants stronger measures. If coaching is ineffective, the Corrective Action Process calls for increasingly severe steps of discipline. The steps of discipline consist of a Step 1 Written Reminder, a Step 2 Written Warning, a Step 3 Final Written Warning, and a Step 4 Termination. The particular discipline to be imposed depends upon the severity of the infraction and the step of discipline, if any, the employee happens to be on when the infraction is committed. Steps of discipline remain "active" for six to nine months, depending on the step. If the employee does not commit any further disciplinary infractions during the active period, the step "falls off." If the employee commits another disciplinary infraction within the "active" period, however, he or she moves to the next disciplinary step in the Corrective Action Process. On June 5, 2014, after having previously been coached to maintain compliance with the DOT regulations, Danelli received a Step 1 Written Reminder for four violations of the 10-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. On July 25, 2014, Danelli received a Step 2 Written Warning for a new violation of the 10-hour rule. Once again, Danelli did not appeal the discipline. On October 7, 2014, Danelli was given another coaching, during which she was informed that (i) an investigation into her DOT hours was in process, and (ii) the company was concerned that she might be getting assistance on her route from her husband in violation of the RSR Performance Standards. On January 27, 2015, Danelli received a Step 3 Final Written Warning for violating the 14-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. Under the Corrective Action Process, a Step 3 Final Written Warning remains "active" for nine months and is the final step prior to a Step 4 Termination. On May 2, 2015, Danelli committed another DOT violation. Because she was already on a Step 3 Final Written Warning, she was suspended pending further investigation. Danelli maintains that this violation, and others, resulted from her making a simple mistake with the handheld computer, namely failing to log on as a "regulated" employee, which cost her the electronic warning she otherwise would have received. She points out, too, that in this instance, the violation was minor, merely clocking in ten minutes early. These arguments are not wholly without merit, and if Frito-Lay had fired Danelli for a single, ten-minute violation of the DOT regulations, the undersigned would question the company's motivation. But that is not what happened. Danelli did not just violate the ten-hour rule once or twice, but many times, after multiple warnings, and in the face of increasingly serious disciplinary steps. Further, Frito-Lay did not terminate Danelli's employment over this latest violation of the ten-hour rule, even though it would have been justified in doing so within the parameters of the Corrective Action Process. Instead, the company placed Danelli on a Last Chance Agreement. Last Chance Agreements are not specifically provided for in the Corrective Action Process but are used, at the company's discretion, as a safety valve to avoid the occasional unfortunate termination that might result from strict adherence to rigid rules. In this regard, the agreement given to Danelli, dated May 15, 2015, stated as follows: We strongly considered [terminating your employment]. However, due to the unique facts and circumstances involved here, as well as your 15 years of service with the Company, the Company is willing to issue this Last Chance Warning. This step is over and above our normal progressive disciplinary process, and is being issued on a one-time, non-precedent setting basis. . . . [A]ny subsequent violations by you may result in discipline up to and including immediate termination. More specifically, any future violations [of the DOT regulations] will result in your immediate termination. As Danelli put it, the Last Change Agreement was a "sign of grace" from Frito-Lay. By its terms, it was intended to be "active and in effect for a period of 12 months." The undersigned pauses here to let the Last Chance Agreement sink in, because the fact that Frito-Lay did not fire Danelli in May 2015 when——for objective, easy-to-prove reasons, after a by-the-book application of progressive discipline——it clearly could have, is compelling evidence that the company was not harboring discriminatory animus against Danelli. After all, if Frito-Lay had wanted Danelli gone because of her age or her gender, why in the world would the company not have jumped at this golden opportunity, which Danelli had given it, to fire her with practically no exposure to liability for unlawful discrimination? The irony is that by showing mercy, Frito-Lay set in motion the chain of events that led to this proceeding. In or around November of 2015, Danelli underwent surgery, which required her to take some time off of work. For several years before this leave, Danelli's route had consisted of a Super Walmart and two Publix stores. When she returned, the Super Walmart had been assigned to another RSR, and to make up for its loss, Danelli's supervisor, Stanley Gamble, put a third Publix grocery on Danelli's route, i.e., Publix #1049 located in Tequesta, Florida. Danelli was acquainted with one of the managers at the Tequesta Publix, a Mr. Morgan. On her first day back, Danelli and Mr. Gamble went to that store, where Mr. Morgan told Mr. Gamble that he was "glad Frances is here." Mr. Morgan had complained to Mr. Gamble about the previous RSR, who left the store "all messed up," according to Mr. Gamble. Danelli also met Sarah Oblaczynski, the store's "backdoor receiver," which is the Publix employee who checks in merchandise. On her new route, Danelli usually went to the Tequesta store first, early in the morning. She soon ran into a vendor named Tony who worked for Snyder's of Hanover ("Snyder's"), a snack food company that competes with Frito-Lay. From the start, Tony was nasty to Danelli and aggressive, telling her that "there is no space" for two vendors. Tony was possessive about shelf space within the store, as well as the parking space close to the store's loading dock. Danelli thought, because of Tony's behavior, that he might be using drugs. On Tuesday, April 6, 2016, Petitioner had an argument with Tony over the shelf space that the store manager previously had awarded to her for the display of Frito-Lay products. Tony asserted that he had been promised the same space and said to Danelli, "You're going to take that stuff out of the shelf." Danelli told him, "No, Morgan said that's still my space." At this, Tony began cursing and pushed Danelli's cart into her, yelling, "That fucking Morgan!" Danelli later spoke to Mr. Morgan, who assured Danelli that the shelf space in question was hers and said he would leave a note to that effect for Ms. Oblaczynski. There is a dispute as to when Danelli reported the forgoing incident to Frito-Lay. She claims that, before the end of the day on April 6, she told Mr. Gamble, her supervisor, all about the matter, in detail, and requested that someone be assigned to accompany her on her route the next day because Tony planned on taking her shelf space. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble just laughed and said he did not have anybody to help her. Mr. Gamble testified, to the contrary, that Danelli had neither reported the April 6, 2016, incident to him nor asked for any assistance. (Danelli admits that she did not report the incident to Mr. Canizares, sales zone director, or to Human Resources ("HR")). Without written documentation regarding this alleged discussion, it is hard to say what, if anything, Danelli reported on April 6, 2016. It is likely that Danelli did complain to Mr. Gamble about Tony on some occasion(s), and might well have done so on April 6. What is unlikely, however, is that Danelli notified Mr. Gamble that she felt she was being sexually harassed by Tony. Tony's boorish and bullying behavior, to the extent directed at Danelli, seems to have been directed to her qua competitor, not as a woman. At the very least, the incident is ambiguous in this regard, and one could reasonably conclude, upon hearing about it, that Tony was simply a jerk who resorted to juvenile antics in attempting to gain the upper hand against a rival vendor. The undersigned finds that if Danelli did speak to Mr. Gamble about Tony on April 6, he—— not unreasonably——did not view the incident as one involving sexual harassment. As far as Mr. Gamble's declining to provide Danelli with an escort, assuming she requested one, his response is reasonable if (as found) Mr. Gamble was not clearly on notice that Danelli believed she was being sexually harassed. Danelli, after all, was by this time an experienced and successful RSR who undoubtedly had encountered other difficult vendors during her career. Indeed, as things stood on April 6, a person could reasonably conclude that Danelli in fact had the situation under control, inasmuch as Mr. Morgan had clearly taken Danelli's side and intervened on her behalf. What could a Frito-Lay "bodyguard" reasonably be expected to accomplish, which would justify the risk of escalating the tension between Tony and Danelli into a hostile confrontation? During the evening of April 6, 2016, Danelli talked to her husband about the problem at Publix #1049, and they decided that he would accompany her to the store the next morning before reporting to his own work, to assist if Tony caused a scene. On April 7, 2016, Danelli's husband drove to Publix #1049 in his own vehicle. Although no longer an employee of the company, Danelli's husband entered the store wearing a Frito-Lay hat, and he stayed in the snack aisle while Danelli went to the back to bring the order in. Ms. Oblaczynski, the receiver, presented Tony with a note from Mr. Morgan stating that Danelli's products and sales items were assigned to aisle one. In response, Tony started swearing about Mr. Morgan and the denial of shelf space, made a hand gesture indicative of a man pleasing himself, and told Ms. Oblaczynski that "they can take a fly[ing] F'n leap." Tony had made this particular hand gesture about Mr. Morgan on a number of previous occasions, in front of both men and women. Mr. Danelli left to go to work once Danelli's product was placed, and she left to go to the next store on her route. When Danelli returned to the warehouse, she went to Mr. Gamble's office and told him about the April 7, 2016, incident. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble laughed in response. Danelli asked Mr. Gamble if the company would conduct an investigation, and he said yes. She recalls that every day thereafter, she asked Mr. Gamble if he had heard anything because she thought "we [Frito-Lay] were investigating" and that HR was on top of it. Danelli admits, however, that she "intentionally" did not tell Mr. Gamble that her husband had accompanied her to Publix #1049 to assist her in the store that morning. She did not report this detail because she knew it was "bad." In conflict with Danelli's account, Mr. Gamble testified that Danelli did not report that Tony made a sexual gesture in front of her or used coarse or profane language in her presence on April 7, 2016. The undersigned finds that Mr. Gamble most likely did not laugh at Danelli or otherwise treat her dismissively upon hearing her report of the incident. If Mr. Gamble had believed the matter were so trivial or amusing, he would not likely have agreed to investigate. The undersigned finds, further, that however Danelli described the incident, she did not make it clear to Mr. Gamble that she perceived Tony's behavior as a form of sexual harassment. Danelli did not make a formal written complaint to that effect at the time, and the situation at Publix #1049 was, at the very least, ambiguous. More likely than not, Mr. Gamble viewed the troublesome vendor from Snyder's as an unwelcome business problem to be dealt with, not as a perpetrator of unlawful, gender-based discrimination. To elaborate, putting Tony's "sexual gesture" to one side momentarily, the rest of his conduct, even the cursing, while certainly objectionable, is not suggestive of sexual harassment; it is just bad behavior. Tony's temper tantrums and outbursts no doubt upset Danelli and others, but that does not turn them into gender discrimination. Further, Danelli seems to have handled the situation well until she resorted to self-help on April 7, 2016. The responsible Publix employees were already aware of the problem, and in due course, they complained to Snyder's, which unsurprisingly removed Tony from that store. Meantime, had Danelli felt physically threatened or afraid as a result of Tony's more aggressive antics, she (or Publix) could have called the police; this, indeed, would have been a safer and more reasonable alternative to bringing along her husband or another civilian for protection, which as mentioned above posed the risk of provoking a fight, given Tony's volatility. Ultimately, it is Tony's "sexual gesture" that provides a colorable basis for Danelli's sexual harassment complaint. But even this gives little grounds for a claim of discrimination, without more context than is present here. To be sure, the "jerk off gesture" or "air jerk" is obscene, and one would not expect to see it in polite company or in the workplace. Yet, although it clearly mimics a sexual practice, the air jerk is generally not understood as being a literal reference to masturbation. That is, the gesture is not typically used to convey a present intention to engage in masturbation or as an invitation to perform the act on the gesturer. Rather, the jerk off gesture usually signifies annoyance, disgust, disinterest, or disbelief. As with its cousin, the "finger" (or bird) gesture, the sexual connotations of the air jerk are (usually) subliminal. Here, there is no allegation or evidence that Tony's jerk off gesture was undertaken in pursuit of sexual gratification or was intended or perceived as a sexual advance on Danelli (or someone else)——or even as being overtly sexual in nature. (Obviously, if the evidence showed that, under the circumstances, Tony was, e.g., inviting Danelli to participate in sexual activity, this would be a different case. The undersigned is not suggesting, just to be clear, that the air jerk gesture is inconsistent with or could never amount to sexual harassment, but only that it is not unequivocally a sign of such harassment, given its commonly understood meanings.) To the contrary, it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that Tony made the gesture to indicate that he regarded Mr. Morgan's note as pointless and annoying. It was roughly the equivalent of giving them the bird, albeit arguably less contemptuous than that. For these reasons, the undersigned finds it unlikely that, assuming Danelli described the gesture (which is in dispute), Mr. Gamble thought Danelli was complaining about sexual harassment, as opposed to a very difficult vendor. On April 13, 2016, Mr. Gamble visited Publix #1049 and spoke to Ms. Oblaczynski about the situation. During this conversation, Ms. Oblaczynski stated that the "Frito-Lay people" did nothing wrong. She further specified that "the person [Danelli] had with her did nothing wrong." After speaking with Ms. Oblaczynski, Mr. Gamble met with Danelli while she was servicing her second account. Right off the bat, Mr. Gamble asked Danelli who was with her at Publix #1049 on April 7, 2016. She eventually admitted that her husband was with her in the store that day. Aware of the seriousness of her offense and the active Last Chance Agreement, Danelli asked Mr. Gamble, several times, if she would be fired. That same day, Mr. Gamble called Carlos Canizares to tell him what he had learned. Mr. Canizares instructed Mr. Gamble to stay with Danelli while she finished servicing her accounts and then to obtain a written statement from her about the incident. Later on April 13, 2016, Danelli provided a written statement in which she confirmed that her husband had been working with her at Publix #1049 the previous week. Danelli has since described this statement as a "full written account of the harassment [and] rude sexual gestures." Danelli knew, of course, that HR would review her statement, and yet she said nothing therein about having complained to Mr. Gamble or any supervisor about harassment generally or Tony in particular; about Tony's use of course or improper language; or about having requested an escort to help keep Tony in line. On the instructions of the company's HR department, Mr. Gamble conducted an investigation into the "rude sexual gesture" about which Danelli had complained. Specifically, he called Mr. Morgan, the Publix manager, and asked him about the incident. Mr. Gamble also requested that he be allowed to review any videotapes and documents concerning the incident. Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Gamble that Publix was investigating the matter. Mr. Gamble's request to allow Frito-Lay access to Publix videotapes and documents was, however, turned down. Tony's boorish behavior aside, the fact remained that Danelli, without prior approval, had allowed a non-employee to perform work or services for Frito-Lay at one of the stores on her route, which the RSR Performance Standards specifically prohibit without express authorization. RSRs who are found to have permitted non-employees to accompany them on their routes are either discharged or issued multiple steps of discipline, as Danelli knew. Because Danelli violated this rule while on an active Last Chance Agreement, Frito-Lay decided to terminate her employment. On April 26, 2016, Mr. Canizares met with Danelli to inform her that she was fired. Danelli timely appealed her termination pursuant to the company's Complaint and Appeal Procedure, electing to have her appeal decided by a neutral, third-party arbitrator. The arbitration hearing took place in January 2017. Three months later, the arbitrator ruled that Danelli's termination had been proper and carried out in accordance with Frito-Lay's employment policies. Danelli does not presently deny that she violated the DOT regulations and the company policy forbidding the use of non-employees as helpers while on duty, nor does she dispute that Frito-Lay had sufficient grounds for imposing the disciplinary steps leading to the Last Chance Agreement. Indeed, she does not contend that it would have been wrongful for Frito-Lay to have fired her in May 2015 instead of offering the Last Chance Agreement. Her position boils down to the argument that because Frito-Lay could have exercised leniency and not fired her for bringing her husband to work at Publix #1049 (which is probably true2/), its failure to do so can only be attributable to gender or age discrimination. Put another way, Danelli claims that but for her being a woman in her 50s, Frito-Lay would have given her another "last chance." This is a heavy lift. As circumstantial evidence of discrimination, Danelli points to the company's treatment of another RSR, a younger man named Ryan McCreath. Like Danelli, Mr. McCreath was caught with a non-employee assisting him on his route. Unlike Danelli, however, Mr. McCreath was not on any active steps of discipline at the time of the incident, much less a Last Chance Agreement. Although Mr. McCreath's disciplinary record was not unblemished, Frito-Lay did not terminate his employment for this violation of the RSR Performance Standards. Instead, he received three steps of discipline and was issued a Final Written Warning. Mr. McCreath's situation is distinguishable because he was not under a Last Chance Agreement at the time of the violation. Moreover, it is not as though Mr. McCreath got off scot-free. He received a serious punishment. Danelli could not have received a comparable punishment for the same offense because she was already beyond Step 3; her record, unlike his, did not have room for the imposition of three steps of discipline at once. The McCreath incident does not give rise to a reasonable inference that Frito-Lay unlawfully discriminated against Danelli when it terminated her employment for committing a "three-step violation" while on an active Last Chance Agreement. There is simply no reason to suppose that if Danelli, like Mr. McCreath, had not had any active steps of discipline when she violated the rule against having non- employees provide on-the-job assistance, Frito-Lay would have terminated her employment for the April 7, 2016, infraction; or that if Mr. McCreath, like Danelli, had been on a Last Chance Agreement when he violated the rule, Frito-Lay would have issued him a Final Written Warning in lieu of termination. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of Frito- Lay's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Danelli, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age- or gender-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age or gender discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay took any retaliatory action against Danelli for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay committed or permitted sexual harassment of Danelli or otherwise exposed her to a hostile work environment. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Frito-Lay did not discriminate unlawfully against Danelli on any basis.
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 Frito-Lay not liable for gender or age discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice, as alleged, in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Reza Mahallaty (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner did not testify in this case. Based upon the undisputed testimony of the witnesses, Petitioner was employed by Respondent and served as a senior assistant manager (SAM). At all times material to the allegations of the case, Respondent employed Petitioner. As a nationally recognized purveyor of food and goods to the public, Respondent presumably employs more than 15 employees. At all times material to this matter, Respondent used a management structure at its stores that included managers in training, assistant managers, senior assistant managers, and general managers. Persons seeking to become general managers typically work their way through the ranks and serve as a SAM before promotion to general manager of a store. On or before August 2010, Petitioner sought a position with Respondent as a general manager. He did not get the promotion. Thereafter, he filed the underlying complaint with FCHR. The complaint stated: I have been employed by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store since June 26, 2006. My most recent position is Senior Associate Manager. I hereby allege that I have been discriminated against due to my race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. The foregoing allegations were made under penalty of perjury and for purposes of this case have been accepted as to the facts alleged, but not as to the legal conclusion of discrimination. Petitioner presented no evidence as to his race or national origin. Petitioner’s Petition for Relief reiterated his conclusion that he had been discriminated against based upon his claim of being Iranian and of Persian origin. In addition to not having received promotions, Petitioner included complaints about retaliation that were not addressed by the FCHR. As previously indicated, retaliation issues are not part of the determination that was presented for administrative review. With regard to Petitioner’s attempt(s) to be promoted prior to August 2010, Petitioner did not present evidence that he was more qualified than the applicant Respondent chose. Respondent uses an interview process that rates the candidates for general manager by a selection team. The selection team looks at the candidates’ credentials, history with the company, and responses to the interview questions to rate each applicant for the position sought. Petitioner did not present evidence that he had achieved a higher score in the rating process than the applicant chosen. Petitioner did not present evidence that Respondent knew or should have known Petitioner was the best qualified candidate for the position of general manager. Petitioner did not present evidence that Respondent selected a candidate for general manager that had fewer years of employment with the company than Petitioner. Petitioner did not present evidence that any general manager Respondent selected in preference to Petitioner was of a race or national origin that received special deference over Petitioner. Other than Petitioner’s assertion that he must have been denied promotional opportunities due to his race and national origin, Petitioner failed to establish bias on Respondent’s part. To the contrary, Respondent asserted that Petitioner was not qualified to be a general manager because he was unwilling to master and fully support the company’s core operating systems, the company’s philosophies, and the company’s initiatives. Petitioner presented no credible evidence to refute Respondent’s assertion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Shane T. Munoz, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900 Tampa, Florida 33602 Reza Mahallaty 656 English Lake Drive Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, on the basis of Petitioner's age, Respondent (a staffing agency) unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by having him terminated from his position with Respondent's client, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent inSync Staffing, Inc. ("inSync"), is a company that recruits for, and supplies employees to, its clients, including, as relevant here, NBTY, Inc. ("NBTY"). inSync is an "employment agency" as that term is used in the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). See ¶ 13, infra. inSync does not meet face-to-face with most of the candidates it places with clients. On or around August 19, 2015, a recruiter at inSync forwarded the résumé of Petitioner Adalberto Lopez ("Lopez"), then 75 years old, to NBTY in hopes that NBTY might hire Lopez to fill the position of "QA Floor Inspector – Shift 1," a job that paid $13.50 per hour. About a week later, NBTY interviewed Lopez, and, on September 2, 2015, inSync informed Lopez that NBTY was offering him the job. Lopez accepted the offer. NBTY, not inSync, made the decision to hire Lopez. At all times, inSync acted essentially as a go-between, introducing Lopez to NBTY and helping him apply for the job, informing Lopez of NBTY's training and drug test requirements for new employees, and providing him with documents that NBTY wanted completed and returned in the ordinary course of new-hire onboarding. One of the documents that Lopez was required to sign and submit was the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), which is used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, administrator of the federal E-Verify program, to determine whether an employee is authorized to work in the United States. The E-Verify program provided NBTY with a result of Tentative Nonconfirmation ("TNC"), meaning that there was, at a minimum, some discrepancy between the information provided in Lopez's Form I-9 and that available in other public records. A TNC does not necessarily disqualify an employee from continuing to work, but it does need to be resolved to avoid the possibility of termination. In this instance, there is no persuasive evidence that the TNC led NBTY to take any adverse action against Lopez. There is, moreover, no evidence that inSync took any adverse action against Lopez as a result of the TNC. Lopez's first day of work at NBTY was September 14, 2015. The next day, NBTY terminated Lopez's employment. Nevertheless, Lopez showed up for work on September 16 and was told, again, that he no longer had a job. There is no persuasive evidence that inSync played any role in NBTY's decision to fire Lopez. inSync did, however, communicate this decision to Lopez, telling him that he had "been terminated due to not catching on fast enough." This was the reason for the termination given to inSync by NBTY. There is no persuasive evidence that this was not, in fact, NBTY's reason for firing Lopez. There is no persuasive evidence that NBTY eliminated Lopez's job, but there is, likewise, no evidence that NBTY filled the vacant position after Lopez's termination, nor (it obviously follows) any proof regarding the age of Lopez's successor (assuming NBTY hired someone to replace Lopez). There is no evidence concerning the candidates, if any, that inSync referred to NBTY after Lopez had been fired. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of inSync's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Lopez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that inSync did not discriminate unlawfully against Lopez on the basis of his age.
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 inSync not liable for age discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 26th day of October, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact By Notice dated October 16, 2014, the final hearing was scheduled for December 15, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. Although the undersigned convened the final hearing on the date and time indicated in the Notice, neither Petitioner nor counsel for Respondent was present. As of 10:00 a.m., Petitioner had not appeared or contacted DOAH. At that point, the undersigned announced that, in light of Petitioner's nonappearance, the hearing would be adjourned and that a recommended order of dismissal would issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 16th day of December, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) James Leroy Padgett, General Counsel Putnam County School Board 200 South 7th Street Palatka, Florida 32177 (eServed) David C. Wade 126 Raintree Woods Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent based on disability.
Findings Of Fact On February 7, 2011, an Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing was entered setting the day, time, and location of the final hearing in this case. The Order was mailed to the last known, valid address of the Petitioner. The Order was not returned. On February 16, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter in this case indicating she was aware of the date, time, and location of the rescheduled final hearing. This cause came on for hearing as noticed. After waiting more than 15 minutes, Petitioner failed to appear to prosecute her claim. There has been no communication from the Petitioner indicating that she would not be attending the final hearing. Petitioner has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence a violation of chapter 760. In this case, Petitioner failed to appear at the hearing after proper notice of the hearing was issued. Because Petitioner failed to appear, no evidence that Respondent violated chapter 760 was presented. Absent such evidence, Petitioner has not carried her burden of proof in this matter and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold R. Mardenborough, Esquire Carr Allison 305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joyce Herring 501 South Main Street Havana, Florida 32333 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's suspension in March 2004 and subsequent dismissal in March 2004 were not, in fact, imposed in consequence of her gross insubordination (which insubordination Respondent allegedly used as a pretext for the adverse employment actions), but rather were in truth retaliatory acts taken by Respondent because Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction contained a statement of undisputed material facts, which provided as follows: A. [a.] [Petitioner Diane] Scott [("Scott")] was employed as a teacher's aide in the Monroe County Public School System for approximately 13 years. The [Monroe County School] Board [(the "Board"), which is the governing body of Respondent Monroe County School District,] suspended [Scott] without pay in March 2004 pending termination for just cause. Scott timely requested a formal hearing. [b.] On August 18, 2004, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale of the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") conducted a formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 04-2060 to determine whether Scott's employment should be terminated. Judge Meale issued a Recommended Order on October 25, 2004, holding, on the basis of extensive findings of fact, that Scott had "repeatedly refused to obey direct orders, essentially to allow the school system to function as an educational resource, free from her harassment of other employees trying to do their jobs." Judge Meale recommended that the Board terminate Scott's employment for just cause, i.e. gross insubordination. [c.] On November 16, 2004, the Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Meale's Recommended Order in its entirety. Scott did not appeal the Final Order. B. [d.] In November 2004, Scott filed with the FCHR and the EEOC a Charge of Discrimination, signed November 12, 2004 (the "Charge"), wherein she alleged that the Board had retaliated against her for having filed an earlier charge of discrimination. The Charge was received by the FCHR on or about November 22, 2004, and docketed as Charge No. 150-2005-00405. [e.] In the Charge, Scott stated the "particulars" of her claim against the Board as follows: I am black. I filed a charge of discrimination under 150-2004-00146. In retaliation, Respondent placed papers in my fie [sic] that pertained to someone else and papers that were not signed by me. In further retaliation, Respondent placed me on suspension. I believe all of the above occurred in retaliation for filing the aforementioned charge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.[1] Scott also alleged that the unlawful retaliation took place between the dates of August 18, 2004, and August 24, 2004.2 [f.] . . . Charge No. 150-2004-00146 (the "Prior Charge"), which allegedly triggered the Board's allegedly retaliatory acts, had been brought against the Board in November 2003. . . . [To repeat for emphasis,] the retaliation claim asserted in the [present] Charge is based on alleged adverse employment actions that the Board took, allegedly, in response to Scott's filing the Prior Charge in November 2003. [g.] In her Charge Scott alleged that the Board's unlawful retaliation consisted of (a) placing papers in her personnel file that didn't belong there and (b) putting her on suspension. Regarding the allegedly spurious papers, . . . [f]ive . . . are . . . documents pertaining to another teacher's aide in Monroe County whose name is "Diane M. Scott." (Petitioner Scott is also known as Diane Hill Scott but not, so far as the record reveals, as Diane M. Scott.) The papers relating to the "other" Diane Scott are: (1) an Oath of Public Employee form dated December 20, 1996; (2) an Employer's Statement of Salary and Wages dated April 24, 2001; (3) an Employer's Statement of Salary and Wages dated March 13, 2002; (4) a Civil Applicant Response dated December 20, 1996, which notes that the individual (identified as "Diane Marie Scoh") had failed to disclose a prior arrest; and (5) a copy of the school district's anti-discrimination policy, apparently signed by the other Ms. Scott on August 23, 2002. [h.] In addition to these five papers, Scott claims that her personnel file contained an unsigned copy of the school district's anti-discrimination policy, bearing the handwritten note "Diane Hill Scott refused to sign——8/24/00." Scott asserts that before last year's administrative hearing, she had never seen this particular document. Because of that, she alleges, its presence in her file is evidence of discriminatory retaliation. [i.] Regarding the alleged retaliatory suspension [on which the Charge is based in part], Scott [actually] was referring to three separate suspensions: (1) a three-day suspension in May 2003; (2) a three-day suspension in October 2003; and (3) the suspension in March 2004 that was part and parcel of the proceeding to terminate Scott's employment. It is undisputed that Scott was in fact suspended from employment on each of these three occasions. However, [by] a letter to Scott from the Director of Human Resources dated October 3, 2003, [the Board had] formally rescind[ed], as the product of "error and miscommunication," the three-day suspension Scott was to have served that month. [j.] On April 26, 2005, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights on Scott's Charge against the Board. In this notice, the EEOC stated that it was unable to determine whether the Board had violated Scott's civil rights. Thereafter, on May 12, 2005, the FCHR issued Scott a Right to Sue letter. Scott timely filed a Petition for Relief ("Petition") with the FCHR on June 6, 2005. The FCHR immediately transferred the Petition to DOAH, initiating the instant action. The undersigned hereby adopts the foregoing as findings of fact. Following the principle of estoppel by judgment (discussed in the Conclusions of Law below), it is found that, prior to being suspended from employment in March 2004, Scott repeatedly had refused to obey direct orders; she had been, in other words, grossly insubordinate at work. The evidence in the record is insufficient to persuade the undersigned——and consequently he does not find——that the Board used Scott's gross insubordination as a pretext for taking adverse employment actions, namely suspension and dismissal, against Scott. The evidence is likewise insufficient to establish, and thus it is not found, that the Board in fact suspended and discharged Scott in retaliation for filing the Prior Charge. It is determined, therefore, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the Board did not unlawfully retaliate against Scott when it terminated her employment on the ground that she had been grossly insubordinate, which misbehavior constitutes just cause for firing a teacher's aide, see §§ 1012.01(2)(e) and 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat., and hence is a legitimate, non- retaliatory basis for taking adverse employment action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding the Monroe County School District not liable to Diane Scott for retaliation or unlawful discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Limited Edition Interiors, Inc. (Respondent), committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination and an act of retaliation against an employee, Arlene Matvey (Petitioner), in violation of Pinellas County Code sections 70-53(a) and 70-54(1).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was an interior furnishings retailer located in Largo, Florida, and owned by William S. Miller (Mr. Miller) and Judith L. Miller (Mrs. Miller), a married couple. Mrs. Miller was the president of the company. Mr. Miller was the secretary/treasurer of the company. Both Mr. and Mrs. Miller were generally present at the business. The Respondent was an "employer" pursuant to the definition of the term set forth within the applicable Pinellas County Code provision. On October 31, 2005, the Respondent hired the Petitioner to work as the office manager and bookkeeper in a full-time, salaried position. The Petitioner's duties included tracking various accounts, preparing sales invoices, preparing the payroll, preparing certain tax records, and general office filing. The Petitioner, a single mother, had been unemployed for an extended period prior to being hired by the Respondent. Both Mr. and Mrs. Miller knew that the Petitioner needed the financial support provided by her job. Mr. Miller was the Petitioner's supervisor. Their work areas were in relatively close proximity, with Mr. Miller occupying an office space with a door and the Petitioner occupying a workstation immediately outside Mr. Miller's office. There was a second workstation also located outside Mr. Miller's office, and, on occasion, a third employee was present in the area. A few months after the Petitioner began employment at the Respondent, Mr. Miller began to make remarks about the Petitioner's physical appearance, particularly her "derriere." The remarks were frequent and were heard by other employees. The Petitioner was offended by the remarks and routinely told Mr. Miller to stop. On more than one occasion, Mr. Miller asked the Petitioner to sit on his lap. The Petitioner objected to Mr. Miller's requests and told him so. On at least one occasion, the exchange between Mr. Miller and the Petitioner was overheard by another employee. At various times, Mr. Miller called male employees and the Petitioner into his office to view sexually-suggestive photographs on his computer, some of which were described as pornographic. The Petitioner and other employees objected to the display of photographs and told him that they objected to his showing them the photos. At other times, Mr. Miller called the Petitioner into his office and showed her pornographic images on his computer screen. She felt disturbed by his behavior and told him of her objection. At times during the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent, Mr. Miller made purposeful and inappropriate physical contact with the Petitioner's body. Such contact included attempts to grab the Petitioner by her waist and to rub his clothed genital area against the Petitioner's clothed buttocks. The Petitioner consistently objected to Mr. Miller's behavior and told him of her objections. Other employees observed Mr. Miller's conduct and the Petitioner's objections to his behavior. On one occasion, Mr. Miller called the Petitioner into his office and told her a joke that included his displaying the outline of his penis through his pants, at which time the Petitioner voiced her objection to Mr. Miller. In September 2007, Mr. Miller appeared at the Petitioner's home, and, while there, he exposed his penis to the Petitioner and attempted to entice the Petitioner into sexual activity. He had not been invited to come to her home, and he left the premises when she directed him to do so. At various times during her employment, Mr. Miller asked the Petitioner to expose her breasts to him, and she objected and declined to do so. She eventually complied with the request on one occasion, because she feared losing her job if she refused. Subsequently, Mr. Miller told a male employee that the Petitioner had acceded to his request to see her breasts. The male employee relayed the conversation to the Petitioner, who felt humiliated by the incident. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to suggest that the Petitioner invited or encouraged Mr. Miller's inappropriate behavior. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner routinely told Mr. Miller of her objections to his conduct at the time it occurred. Because the Petitioner had been unemployed prior to being hired by the Respondent and was afraid of losing her job, she did not complain to Mrs. Miller about Mr. Miller's conduct. At the beginning of 2008, the Petitioner advised Mr. Miller that she felt he was "sexually harassing" her. Mr. Miller thereafter began to engage in a pattern of verbal harassment directed towards the Petitioner's job performance. He began to assign tasks to the Petitioner unrelated to her prior bookkeeping or office manager duties. She was assigned to monitor the store inventory, prepare sales tags and attach them to floor samples, dust the store, and clean the kitchen. Mr. Miller routinely criticized the Petitioner's work skills, argued with her about the performance of her duties, and called her "stupid." Prior to January 2008, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Miller had expressed any significant dissatisfaction with the quality of the Petitioner's work as office manager or bookkeeper. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner was unable or unwilling to perform the office manager and bookkeeper tasks for which she was hired. Indicative of Mr. Miller's general attitude towards the Petitioner, he used a parrot that was kept at the store to intimidate the Petitioner, who was afraid (perhaps irrationally) of the bird. Mr. Miller clearly knew that the Petitioner was fearful of the bird, yet he would stand behind the Petitioner while she was working and hold the bird near the Petitioner's head, terrifying her. In early 2009, Mr. Miller again called the Petitioner into his office and showed her pornographic images on his computer screen. She again advised him of her objection to his conduct. Prior to 2009, the Petitioner had not talked with Mrs. Miller about her husband's conduct, because the Petitioner remained concerned about losing the job. However, in February 2009, while the two women were both in the store's lunchroom area, the Petitioner advised Mrs. Miller of Mr. Miller's conduct and asked Mrs. Miller to intervene. Mr. Miller had been out of the store for much of February 2009. He returned to work on February 23, 2009, and the Petitioner testified that he left her alone for a few days after his return. However, on March 2, 2009, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner's employment as a salaried, full-time employee, transferred her into an hourly wage position, and reduced her employment hours. She was partially relieved of her bookkeeping responsibilities and was assigned additional store tasks such as moving old boxes and cataloging their contents. The Respondent asserted that the March 2, 2009, action was the result of deteriorating business conditions. The Respondent asserted that the store revenues had declined and that they were required to reduce payroll costs by reducing personnel. The Respondent failed to provide any credible evidence supporting the assertion that deteriorating sales and income were the rationale behind the alteration of the Petitioner's work responsibilities. After March 2, 2009, Mr. Miller routinely continued to criticize the Petitioner's work performance. On July 23, 2009, Mr. Miller and the Petitioner became engaged in a heated discussion in the office area, during which he referred to her as a "fucking c-nt." Although Mr. Miller testified that he did not intend for the Petitioner to hear his insult, he said it loudly enough to be overheard by another employee who was also in the office area. Mr. Miller had previously used the same phrase to refer to other women, including Mrs. Miller. The Petitioner immediately reacted, screaming at Mr. Miller that he could not use the phrase and stating that she would be filing "a complaint" against him. The Petitioner left the office area and went into the store area, loudly protesting Mr. Miller's insult and intending to advise Mrs. Miller of the incident. Because there were customers in the store at the time, Mrs. Miller focused more on calming the Petitioner and not disrupting the store. After speaking briefly with Mrs. Miller, the Petitioner returned to the office area to collect her possessions. Mr. Miller approached the Petitioner and placed his hands in the area of her neck, which caused the Petitioner to feel physically threatened. The Petitioner took her possessions and left the store. The Petitioner next returned to work on July 27, 2009, at which time she was told that she was no longer the office manager and bookkeeper. At the hearing, Mr. Miller testified that the Petitioner was removed from the office because the situation had become volatile. Mrs. Miller testified that, because the Petitioner was argumentative, a decision had been made to remove her from the office. On July 27, 2009, when the Petitioner asked Mrs. Miller why she was no longer the office manager, Mrs. Miller said the Petitioner's job had been changed "because of Bill," meaning Mr. Miller. As of July 27, 2009, the Petitioner had no further office management responsibilities and retained only janitorial and store tasks. The Petitioner was also directed to call the store before coming in to see if she was needed on that day. On some days, the Petitioner was told there was no work for her. On August 14, 2009, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner's employment. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the termination of the Petitioner's employment was related to dissatisfaction with her performance as the Respondent's office manager and bookkeeper, or to the performance of the other tasks that were subsequently assigned. The Respondent asserted that economic conditions caused them to terminate some employees, including the Petitioner, but there was no credible evidence presented to support the assertion. The evidence presented during the hearing established that employees who were terminated were fired for non-performance of their job duties. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner's termination or the reduction in her work hours was related to the Respondent's economic condition. At the hearing, employees (both current and former) described Mr. Miller's treatment of women as degrading and humiliating. Employees who worked for the Respondent concurrently with the Petitioner were aware that she was being humiliated by Mr. Miller's behavior. In addition to the Petitioner, Mr. Miller previously assigned janitorial duties to an employee whom he disfavored when he wanted the employee to quit. After the Petitioner's employment was terminated by the Respondent, the Petitioner attempted to obtain another job. During the period of unemployment, the Petitioner received $300.00 per week in unemployment compensation benefits. As of November 9, 2006, the Petitioner earned a bi- weekly salary of $1,600.00 from the Respondent. As of February 1, 2006, the Respondent provided health insurance coverage for the Petitioner as a benefit of her employment and continued such coverage after her termination and through December 31, 2009. As of April 29, 2010, the Petitioner became employed by Gentry Printing Company as a full-time bookkeeper earning $15.00 per hour and working a 40-hour week. On July 17, 2010, the Petitioner received a raise from Gentry Printing Company to $16.00 per hour for the 40-hour week. Gentry Printing Company withholds $22.50 from the Petitioner's weekly income as her contribution to the medical insurance program. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented testimony related to damages. The evidence established that the Petitioner was entitled to an award of $32,745.00 in back pay. The Respondent presented no corresponding evidence or testimony related to damages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Respondent violated Pinellas County Code sections 70-53 and 70-54 and ordering the Respondent to pay the sum of $32,745.00 plus interest at the prevailing statutory rate to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Robert G. Walker, P.A. 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 33756 Sherri K. Adelkoff, Esquire 1159 South Negley Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217 Leon W. Russell, Director/EEO Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Peter J. Genova, Jr., EEO Coordinator Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination should be dismissed as untimely pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination dated June 2, 1998, alleges that Respondent discriminated against him because of his age and in retaliation for opposing illegal behavior. FCHR received the Charge of Discrimination on June 18, 1998. For purposes of this Recommended Order of Dismissal, it is assumed that the Charge of Discrimination was timely filed with FCHR. As of December 15, 1998, 180 days after Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination, FCHR had not assigned an investigator to investigate Petitioner's complaint or taken any other action related to the complaint. As of January 19, 1999, 35 days after December 15, 1998, Petitioner had not requested an administrative hearing. By letter dated June 2, 1999, Petitioner requested FCHR to forward his complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings. FCHR received the request for an administrative hearing on June 7, 1999. This request was filed 354 days after June 18, 1998, 174 days after December 15, 1998, and 139 days after January 19, 1999. Petitioner does not argue or present any facts to support a finding that the doctrines of equitable tolling or excusable neglect apply in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of sexual harassment and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Benjamin Bullard's Petition for Relief. S DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 3rd day of December, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Benjamin Bullard 12211 Park Drive Hollywood, Florida 33026 Spencer D. West, Esquire Stephen N. Montalto, Esquire Mitchell & West, LLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 406 Miami, Florida 33145 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sanford Housing Authority (Respondent), committed an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Jimitre Smith (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who was pregnant during a portion of the time events occurred related to her employment with Respondent. At the time of Petitioner’s initial employment with Respondent, the Sanford Housing Authority operated public housing complexes within its geographical area pursuant to a HUD program to provide housing assistant to low income, qualified residents. At some point, the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over the management of Respondent’s properties. Due to the deteriorating condition of Respondent’s properties, residents were provided Section 8 vouchers so that they could obtain private rental opportunities. In the midst of the transition period, Petitioner’s employment with Respondent ended. Petitioner was initially hired by Respondent to replace a receptionist who was out on maternity leave. The assignment was part-time and temporary. It began on or about March 31, 2010. When the receptionist returned to work, Petitioner was offered a second part-time job as leasing clerk. Although the record is not clear when this second job started, it is undisputed that Petitioner sought and was granted maternity leave due to her own pregnancy on September 27, 2010. It was during this time period that the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over Respondent’s responsibilities. Mr. Fleming, an employee of the Orlando Housing Authority, served as the Interim Executive Director for Respondent. In November 2010 residents were advised of the plan to demolish the substandard housing units. Since the units would not be leased, a leasing clerk was no longer required. Although Petitioner had been told she could return to work after her maternity leave, there was no position available for her at that time. Once the Orlando Housing Authority took over management, all of the day-to-day work was assigned to its employees. Respondent kept a handful of maintenance workers, but there is no evidence Petitioner sought and/or was denied that type of job. Petitioner claimed she should have been offered or allowed to apply for a job with the Orlando Housing Authority. There is no evidence that entity was required to hire her or that it refused to hire her because of her gender or pregnancy or that Respondent refused to recommend Petitioner for employment due to her gender or pregnancy. When Petitioner was cleared for return to work in December 2010, there was not a job to return to as Respondent did not have a position for her. There is no evidence that Respondent hired anyone during or after Petitioner’s pregnancy or that Petitioner was refused a job that she was qualified to perform. Had a suitable job been available, it most likely would have come through the Orlando Housing Authority. In January of 2011, Respondent formally eliminated Respondent’s part-time position through a reduction in workforce decision. At that time, Petitioner received a severance payment from Respondent and an offer for other job training opportunities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jimitre Rochelle Smith 804 South Bay Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Ricardo L. Gilmore, Esquire Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway and Gibbons, P.A. Suite 600 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
