The Issue : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Division of Administrative Hearings and the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) have subject matter jurisdiction of this dispute and, aside from the jurisdictional questions, whether the City of Cottondale has engaged in a discriminatory employment action against the Petitioner based upon her race (African-American).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an unsuccessful applicant for a job vacancy for a position of secretary with the City. The Respondent is the City of Cottondale, Florida, an incorporated municipality under relevant Florida Law. As established by the testimony of Judy Powell, the City Clerk for the City, the City, at all times pertinent hereto, had fewer than 15 employees. City counsel members other than James Elmore, were paid less than $600.00 per year and did not receive forms 1099 for their compensation from the City. They do not meet the relevant criteria to be considered employees. The City's Exhibit One, in evidence, shows that the City had fewer than 15 employees. The Petitioner offered no evidence to contradict the evidence from the City, the Respondent, that it had fewer than 15 employees at all relevant times. On January 30, 2007, the City placed an advertisement in the Graceville News, a newspaper, advertising a job vacancy for the position of secretary. The job description for the position included duties involving collecting utility bills, water deposits, issuing receipts for monies, helping to maintain and record cash journals of all business transactions, preparing billing for utilities, posting ledgers, assisting with daily collections, setting-up accounts, performing customer transfers, maintaining records of water deposits paid and refunded, and preparing of payroll and all related tax reports. Pursuant to that job description, general qualifications which applicants must have included bookkeeping skills and experience. In selecting applicants who would actually be interviewed, Ms. Powell and Willie Cook, who were doing the interviews, looked for individuals who had specific job skills related to the above-referenced duties contained in the job description for that position. Nineteen individuals submitted applications for the position, including the Petitioner. Four individuals were selected to be interviewed out of the 19 individuals who had applied for the position. Those were Melissa Davis, Linda Krauser, Gail Woodham, and Denise White. There was no requirement in City policy that all applicants for a job position be interviewed. There is no evidence to show that race was a factor in determining which applicants were selected to be interviewed for the secretarial position and which were not selected. Rather, the interview selection process involved selecting persons whose application documents appeared to show evidence of some specific job skills which related to accounting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and the other duties detailed in the job description for the position in question. A white female, Melissa Davis, was selected to be interviewed because her application and cover letter indicated that she was familiar with accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, job costing, personnel, handling line telephones, customer service, preparing quarterly reports, and billing purchase orders and had experience in working with 401(k) issues and health and dental insurance. In addition, she had experience as a bank teller handling cash transactions. Another white female, Linda Krauser, was selected to be interviewed as well because her application indicated that she had previously supervised a staff of 40 people and had experience in customer service, maintaining staff records, and experience in accounting and billing. Another white female, Gail Woodham, was selected for interview because her job application and attached documents showed 20 years of experience in payroll, excel, powerpoint, computer skills, veritable spread sheets, and spread sheet tracking. An Hispanic female, Denise White, was also selected to be interviewed because her job application indicated that she had experience as a head bank teller with 17 years in a fast- paced environment and as a supervisor of tellers. She had worked in a doctor's office and had experience with record keeping. She had secretarial and billing experience working with patients for an optometry group, prepared correspondence for doctors and assisted with patient check-out. In her employment with Indian River National Bank, she had gained experience in customer service in handling accounts, and was a supervisor. Prior to that job, while working for another bank, she was a lead teller, supervisor, and handled cash flow. She had also received a prior certification regarding medical billing. The other 15 individuals who applied for the position, including Ms. Russ, were not interviewed. This decision was based upon Ms. Powell and Mr. Cook's review of the applications, and related to the relevant skills, experience, or education shown, or not shown, on those applications. There was no evidence that there was any racially discriminatory animus involved in the selection of individuals for interviews or the rejection of the other individuals who were not interviewed. The job application and resume submitted by the Petitioner indicated that her expertise and experience was primarily in caring for the elderly. There was no indication that she had any experience in bookkeeping, handling invoices, or billing. The decision not to interview the Petitioner was not based upon racial motivation, but rather, as with the case with the other applicants who were not interviewed, was based upon a review of application documents. A decision was made to select the four whose past experience, education, and job skills noted in those documents showed them most likely to be candidates with the appropriate skills and experience for the job in question. During the interviews of the four selected applicants, questions were asked them regarding accounting and bookkeeping issues. Ms. Powell, the City Clerk, finished the interview process and made the selection of the individual to be offered the position of secretary. Ultimately, Ms. White, a Hispanic female, was selected for the secretarial position and accepted the salary range offered, in the amount of $8.00 to $8.25 per hour. The applicants who were not interviewed did not have skills appropriate to the job and did not have skills substantially similar to those of the four individuals who were selected for interviews. They were particularly dissimilar in skills, experience, and education to the person ultimately hired, Ms. White.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is granted. It is further recommended, aside from the finding of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that, alternatively, a final order be entered determining that the Petitioner has not established her claim of racial discrimination in the hiring decision at issue, and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety for this reason as well. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2008, 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 5th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eulinda M. Russ Post Office Box 767 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Timothy W. Warner, Esquire Warner & Wintrode, P.A. Post Office Box 1820 Panama City, Florida 32402 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Community Education Partners, d/b/a Emerald Bay Academy, engaged in an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner Adam Killick, and, if so, what relief should be granted to Petitioner, if any.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 2005, the Commission filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings Petitioner's Petition for Relief. On that same date, an Initial Order was entered by the assigned Administrative Law Judge requesting certain information for the scheduling of the final hearing in this cause. Due to the parties' failure to comply with that Order, venue rights were deemed waived. On October 14, 2005, a Notice of Hearing was entered scheduling this cause for final hearing on December 19, 2005. An Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions was entered that same day requiring the parties to disclose to each other no later than seven days before the final hearing the names of their witnesses and further requiring them to exchange copies of their exhibits by that same deadline. That Order further provided that failure to timely disclose could result in exclusion of that evidence at the final hearing. On December 12 Respondent filed its Motion for Continuance of the final hearing. On December 13 Respondent filed correspondence advising that Petitioner had agreed to the continuance, that Petitioner would be out of the country the entire month of January 2006, and that Petitioner and Respondent had agreed to certain dates for re-scheduling the final hearing. One of those dates was February 17, 2006. On December 14, 2005, an Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Hearing was entered, scheduling this cause for final hearing on February 17, 2006, validating any served subpoenas for the new date, and incorporating the provisions of the first Notice of Hearing and the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. On January 26, 2006, Respondent filed its Agreed Motion for Leave to Present Testimony Telephonically, requesting that a witness who lives in New Mexico be allowed to testify telephonically at the final hearing on February 17, 2006. The Agreed Motion clearly set forth Petitioner's agreement to allow the telephonic testimony of that witness at the final hearing. On January 27, 2006, that Agreed Motion was granted, subject to Respondent making the necessary arrangements and subject to compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(5), which, inter alia, requires a notary public to be physically present with the witness to administer the oath. On February 3, 2006, Respondent filed its Notice of No Opposition advising that it did not oppose Petitioner's request for a continuance of the February 17, 2006, final hearing date. Petitioner's Motion for Continuance was filed on February 9, 2006. By Order Granting Continuance entered February 9, 2006, Petitioner's motion was granted, the final hearing scheduled for February 17, 2006, was cancelled, and the parties were afforded up to and including February 28, 2006, to advise the undersigned as to the status of this matter, as to the length of time required for the final hearing, and as to several mutually- agreeable dates for re-scheduling the final hearing. That Order further provided that failure to timely comply would result in the conclusion that this matter had been amicably resolved and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings would be closed. Neither party filed any document or pleading on or before February 28, 2006. On March 3, 2006, Petitioner filed his first Request for Discovery and sent a letter to the Clerk of the Division requesting subpoenas and indicating that he would accommodate a hearing date convenient to the undersigned and to Respondent. The letter also advised that after he had received all materials, he needed time to prepare. The letter did not provide dates for re-scheduling the final hearing in compliance with the February 9, 2006, Order. Subpoenas were issued to Petitioner pursuant to his request in that letter. The Order Re-Scheduling Hearing entered March 6, 2006, recited the provisions of the prior Order giving a deadline for providing mutually-agreeable dates for re-scheduling the final hearing and the failure of the parties to comply with that Order. It also recited that despite the earlier Order providing for the automatic closure of the Division's file if the parties failed to timely provide dates, since Petitioner had filed documents subsequent to the deadline, it was assumed that the case had not been amicably resolved. The Order re-scheduled the final hearing in this matter to be held on March 24, 2006, validated any served subpoenas for the new date, and incorporated the provisions of the first Notice of Hearing and the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. On March 14, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and a Motion for Rehearing. The Motion for Rehearing is confusing: it asks for reconsideration of his discovery request (no ruling had previously been requested or made); it complains about the December 2005 hearing date having been continued; it withdraws Petitioner's prior agreement to allow a witness to testify by telephone (which agreement had been subsequently ordered); it specifically states that Petitioner is not requesting another continuance but then speaks of requiring time to prepare that would extend well beyond the scheduled final hearing date. On March 16, 2006, Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Rehearing was filed, opposing the granting of Petitioner's pending motions. Petitioner's motions were heard telephonically on March 20, 2006. The manual he wanted produced, which Respondent agreed to give him, was ordered produced, but the remainder of Petitioner's requests were denied. An Order on Pending Motions was entered that same day to memorialize the rulings announced during the telephonic hearing. The Order specifically provided that Petitioner's request for a postponement of the final hearing was denied, a ruling made and discussed during the telephonic hearing. On March 17, 2006, Respondent filed its witness list, together with a cover letter advising that Respondent had provided Petitioner with its witness and exhibits lists in December. Petitioner has not filed any witness list in accordance with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions entered October 14, 2005. On March 22, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Quash Subpoenas, together with a request that a hearing be held on the Motion that same day. A telephonic hearing was conducted on March 22, 2006, and an Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoenas was entered. During the course of that telephonic hearing, Petitioner indicated that he might not come to the hearing. In response to that statement, the undersigned explained to Petitioner that it was up to him whether he attended the hearing, dismissed his petition for relief, or withdrew his request for a hearing. The undersigned explained to the parties that the hearing would go forward as scheduled, that Petitioner had the burden of proof in this proceeding, and that not appearing or presenting evidence would prevent him from meeting his burden of proof. After normal business hours on March 22, 2006, and therefore on March 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a Facsimile Letter to Judge Rigot. Although somewhat confusing, the Letter appears to re-argue points previously argued and memorialize Petitioner's understanding (and misunderstandings) of what transpired during the telephonic hearing on March 22, 2006. At 9:30 a.m., on March 24, 2006, Respondent's attorney and its witnesses were present for the scheduled final hearing. The undersigned waited for 35 minutes before opening the record and almost 10 minutes more before closing the record, with no appearance by Petitioner or anyone on his behalf.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissing his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 29th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, 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 Adam Killick Post Office Box 18331 Panama City, Florida 32417 M. Brenk Johnson Winstead Sechrest & Minick, P.C. 1201 Elm Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, Texas 75270
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Precision Tune Auto Care, on account of his race, or a result of a sexually abusive work environment in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who was at all times relevant to this matter, an employee of Respondent, is an African-American male. Precision owns and operates five automobile service facilities in northwest Florida. They are generally referred to as the 9th Avenue (Pensacola) facility, the 9-Mile (Pensacola) facility, the Navy Boulevard (Pensacola) facility, the Fort Walton Beach facility, and the Crestview facility. Though there was no direct testimony as to the number of persons employed by Precision, the evidence is persuasive that each facility has a minimum of 4 to 6 full-time employees. Therefore, there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondent employs more than 15 full-time employees at any given time. Petitioner’s Hiring On June 14, 2013, Petitioner started work at Respondent’s 9th Avenue location in Pensacola, Florida, as a lube-tech. When Petitioner was hired, Ms. Abbott was the manager of the 9th Avenue location, having started in that position in April 2013. Petitioner was not hired by Ms. Abbott. Rather, Mr. Geiger interviewed Petitioner and approved his hiring for the 9th Avenue lube-tech position. Prior to his employment at the 9th Avenue facility, Petitioner worked at Respondent’s Navy Boulevard facility. He was there for a single day. The circumstances of his departure were not explained. When Petitioner started work at 9th Avenue, he was provided with employee procedures handbooks issued by Respondent and by Lyons HR, Respondent’s payroll management company. Both handbooks contained policies prohibiting sexual harassment, and provided means for reporting complaints. On June 6, 2013, Petitioner signed written acknowledgement pages for each of the handbooks. Respondent’s employee procedures handbook had been revised in March 2013. The written acknowledgement page signed by Petitioner for Respondent’s employee procedures handbook was for an earlier revision. The evidence was persuasive that the page signed by Petitioner was one of a stack “kept in a drawer” for that purpose, a stack that had not been replaced when the handbook was updated. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner received the employee procedures handbooks issued by Respondent and Lyons HR. In addition, current handbooks were available at each of Respondent’s facilities for the employees’ use. Petitioner alleged in his Employment Complaint of Discrimination that he was hired at 9th Avenue because it was the only one of Respondent’s locations at which African- Americans were employed, which Petitioner attributed to Ms. Abbott’s alleged desire “to be with a black guy.”1/ The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent employed African-American workers at its other locations, in positions including those of manager and technician. Lube-techs are employed by Respondent to perform oil changes. As they gain experience, they may be assigned to perform simple maintenance work. Technicians are employed by Respondent to perform a range of automotive repairs. Technicians are required to own a set of mechanics’ tools sufficient to perform more complex work, involving mechanical work, repair and replacement of water pumps, power steering pumps and the like. When he was hired as a lube-tech at 9th Avenue, Petitioner had neither the skills nor the tools to perform work as a technician. When he started work, Petitioner was perceived as a very good employee, doing work without being asked, cleaning, and generally doing extra work around the facility. As a result, Petitioner received a raise of 25 cents per hour after six-to-eight weeks on the job. Technician work is desirable because technicians have the ability to earn commissions. Petitioner soon began asking for technician work. His requests were refused. Although Petitioner was allowed to do some extra work, Mr. Geiger believed that he was not ready to be a full-time technician. On August 5, 2013, Morgan Hancock was hired as a technician at 9th Avenue. He had previously been a technician at another Precision facility. Petitioner felt as though he should have been given the opportunity to work as a technician, and there began to be friction between Petitioner and Mr. Hancock. As a result of the perceived slight at his not being promoted to technician, Petitioner began to exhibit a “bad attitude” and his performance began to “slack off.” His willingness to do more undesirable tasks that were expected of all employees, including cleaning, deteriorated over the ensuing weeks. He made several requests to transfer to a technician’s position at other Precision facilities, discussing the matter with both Ms. Abbott and Mr. Geiger. The dates of the verbal requests are unclear, though it appears that one was made on September 5, 2013, and one was made to Mr. Geiger within two weeks prior to Petitioner’s November 20, 2013, termination. The evidence is persuasive that the requests to transfer were denied for a number of non-discriminatory reasons. First, as set forth above, Petitioner did not have sufficient skills or an adequate set of tools to work as a technician. Second, Precision had been cutting back on employees, and there were no positions open at the other facilities for someone of Petitioner’s level of skill and experience. Finally, one of Petitioner’s requests was for a transfer to the Navy Boulevard facility. Petitioner had previously worked there for a short period, and the manager simply did not want him back. There is no evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s requests for transfer were denied as a result of some racial animus, or as a result of Ms. Abbott’s alleged sexual desire for Petitioner. By the time Petitioner was at the end of his 90-day probationary period, his performance was such that he did not receive a discretionary salary increase. The evidence is persuasive that the decision was based on Petitioner’s increasingly poor job performance and not, as alleged by Petitioner, retaliation by Ms. Abbott for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy her sexual requests. On September 26, 2013, at Petitioner’s request, Ms. Abbott wrote a letter on Precision letterhead stating that Petitioner had worked for Precision since August 6, 2012. Petitioner had, in fact, started work for Precision in June 2013. Petitioner characterized the letter as evidence of Ms. Abbott’s willingness to falsify a document as a means of gaining favor with Petitioner, and as an enticement for Petitioner to provide sexual favors. Ms. Abbott testified, convincingly, that Petitioner asked her to write the letter so he could show one year of Florida residency, and therefore qualify for in-state tuition at George Stone, a technical center in Pensacola, where he wanted to take classes to gain skills to be a technician. She wanted to help him, and so wrote the letter knowing it to be false. Mr. McCoy witnessed Ms. Abbott giving the letter to Petitioner, and testified it was accompanied by no suggestive remarks. Her agreement to write the letter on Petitioner’s behalf was ill-advised, and upon its discovery, she was reprimanded by Mr. Gerhardt. The letter does not, by any means, suggest that Respondent or Ms. Abbott discriminated against Petitioner in any way, or that Ms. Abbott used the letter as an inducement for Petitioner to provide her with sexual favors. On October 7, 2013, Bret Ramsey was hired at 9th Avenue. Mr. Ramsey, who is Caucasian, was a technician who had previously worked at Respondent’s Navy Boulevard location. Mr. Ramsey worked at 9th Avenue for two weeks, at which time he transferred back to Navy Boulevard. Mr. Geiger could not remember the reason for Mr. Ramsey’s transfer, but assumed that Navy Boulevard was in need of an experienced and qualified technician. As to whether Petitioner would have been a suitable candidate for the transfer, Mr. Gerhardt testified credibly that the manager of the Navy Boulevard location would not accept Petitioner due to his past employment there. Mr. Ramsey’s transfer does not support a finding that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race, or that Ms. Abbott was “keeping” Petitioner at 9th Avenue to satisfy her sexual urges. Respondent required its employees to “clock-out” for their lunch hour and leave the premises. By so doing, it was easier to ensure that work hours were not confused with off-duty lunch hours and to “keep payroll straight.” Respondent’s policy was applied evenly to all employees. Ms. Abbott would occasionally buy lunch for all of the employees at 9th Avenue, either when they were busy, or as thanks for their hard work. Petitioner characterized Ms. Abbott’s acts of kindness and gratitude towards the employees of 9th Avenue as “buying me expensive lunches” to induce cooperation with her requests for sexual favors, a characterization that finds no evidentiary support. Petitioner testified that Ms. Abbott would come to work drunk. Aside from the fact that Ms. Abbott’s state of sobriety, or lack thereof, has no bearing on whether Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or sexual harassment, the evidence was insufficient to support Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner testified that Ms. Abbott cut his hours as retaliation for his failure to submit to her sexual advances. The time records for Petitioner demonstrates that Petitioner worked 40-hours plus overtime on 19 of the 23 weeks that he was employed at 9th Avenue, including five of his last six full weeks of employment. The other four weeks ranged from 35.90 to 38.68 hours per week. Thus, there is nothing to support the assertion that Petitioner’s hours were cut for any reason. Petitioner’s supposition that Ms. Abbott may have altered his time records--which records are managed and kept by Lyons HR--is not persuasive. Petitioner’s Termination On November 18, 2013, Ms. Abbott, after having spent the day cleaning the service pits, instructed employees to place all cars needing service on the facility’s lift racks, and not over the pits. That day, Petitioner pulled a car into position over a pit. Mr. McCoy advised Petitioner that Ms. Abbott had instructed that all cars were to be put on a rack. Petitioner responded to the effect that if Ms. Abbott wanted the car racked, she could rack it herself, sprinkling his response with some choice profanities. His response was loud enough that Ms. Abbott could overhear it through the window between the shop and the reception area. As a result of what Ms. Abbott understandably perceived as insubordination, she prepared a written warning based on the fact that “employee was told multiple times to place vehicles on lifts not over pit [and] refused.” She presented the Discipline/Discharge Form to Petitioner, who refused to sign the form to acknowledge receipt. Mr. McCoy was called in to witness that Petitioner refused to sign the warning. Petitioner became argumentative with Ms. Abbott, who then instructed him to go home for the day. Upon leaving the premises, Petitioner “peeled out” of the parking lot, spraying gravel in the direction of other parked cars. By that time, Ms. Abbott had called Mr. Geiger to discuss the circumstances of the written warning. Mr. Geiger was able to hear the sound of Petitioner’s exit from the premises. That act was taken by Mr. Geiger and Ms. Abbott as a second instance of misconduct warranting discipline. Ms. Abbott discussed the situation regarding Petitioner with Mr. Geiger and Mr. Gerhardt. The decision was made by the three of them, based upon that day’s behavior and Petitioner’s increasingly bad attitude, that Ms. Abbott should terminate Petitioner from employment. November 19, 2013, was a scheduled day off for Petitioner. When Petitioner returned to work on November 20, 2013, he presented Ms. Abbott with a letter in which he requested a transfer to another Precision location. In his letter, he indicated that he had previously discussed a transfer with Ms. Abbott because of “lack of communication, lack of supervision, lack of procedure standards and underlying personality conflicts.” No mention was made of any discriminatory or sexually inappropriate actions on the part of Precision or Ms. Abbott. Petitioner requested that Ms. Abbott sign the transfer request to acknowledge receipt, which she did. Her acknowledgement of receipt of the transfer request does not support a finding that Respondent or Ms. Abbott discriminated against Petitioner. Ms. Abbott advised Petitioner that a transfer was out of the question, and that he was being terminated from employment. Petitioner demanded that she give him a copy of his termination papers. Ms. Abbott advised that he would be faxed his Termination Record by Respondent’s human resources department. Petitioner then left the premises. He was subsequently sent a copy of the Termination Record as stated. Uniform Return When Petitioner left the employ of Respondent, he failed to return the company-issued uniforms, valued at $466.00. On January 6, 2014, after several verbal attempts by Ms. Abbott to recover the uniforms, Mr. Gerhardt sent a certified letter to Petitioner at his address of record. The address to which the letter was mailed, 6881 Twiggs Lane, Pensacola, Florida 32305, is the same address provided to the FCHR by Petitioner in his December 29, 2013 Employment Complaint of Discrimination, and his July 21, 2014 Petition for Relief. Mr. Gerhardt’s letter advised Petitioner that if he did not return the uniforms by January 31, 2014, the matter would be turned over to the state attorney. Petitioner did not return the uniforms and, as promised, the matter was turned over to law enforcement. Respondent has taken legal action to recover uniforms from former employees in the past, including Caucasian former employees. Ultimate Findings of Fact Up to and including the time of his termination, Petitioner did not contact the employee hotline, file a complaint, discuss with co-workers or management, or otherwise claim that he had been the subject of discrimination because of his race, or that Ms. Abbott had acted in a sexually inappropriate way towards him. No witness, other than Petitioner, testified that they ever saw Ms. Abbott dress “provocatively” or in other than standard work attire, ever heard Ms. Abbott tell off-color or racially-charged jokes, or ever heard or observed Ms. Abbott interacting with Petitioner in an inappropriate manner. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that any personnel decisions regarding Petitioner, including those regarding his requests to transfer, his written warning, and his termination, were made due to Petitioner’s race, or in furtherance of any effort to sexually harass or obtain sexual favors from Petitioner. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that any persons who were not members of the Petitioner’s protected class, i.e., African-American, were treated differently from Petitioner, or were not subject to similar personnel policies and practices.
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 that Respondent, Precision Tune Auto Care, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Reggie Dancy, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-0068. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 29th day of December, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to an unlawful employment practice on the basis of his age in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on exhibits admitted into evidence, testimony offered by witnesses, and admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation. Mr. Ferrell is a 65-year-old male, who is employed at Florida A & M University as a registrar officer. Mr. Ferrell has worked in the registrar’s office in various positions since 2003. Florida A & M University is a university located in Tallahassee, Florida. At all times material to this matter, Florida A & M University employed more than 15 full-time employees. Mr. Ferrell alleged that four employees, Lefevere Jordan, Cornelius McGlockton, Dyamond V. Smith, and Antonio Witherspoon were treated more favorably than he was treated because they are younger than he is. Specifically, he asserted that Mr. Jordan received a pay raise; Mr. McGlockton and Mr. Witherspoon received a promotion; and Ms. Smith was hired at a higher pay rate for the same position that he holds (registrar officer). Mr. Ferrell’s job responsibilities as a registrar officer include maintaining the state course numbering system, maintaining the university course catalog, scheduling classes, and scheduling events. During the time that Mr. Ferrell has been employed by Florida A & M University, he has never been disciplined for poor work performance or otherwise. Mr. Ferrell testified that in 2012 or 2013, Dr. Onwunli promised him and Mr. Jordan a $5,000 raise. Dr. Onwunli denied she made the promise. The undersigned finds Mr. Ferrell more persuasive on that fact. Regarding Mr. Witherspoon, he is currently classified as a registration coordinator. His job responsibilities include supervising three employees, transferring credits, and project management. The coordinator position was advertised on May 20, 2016. Mr. Witherspoon applied for the position and was hired. Mr. Ferrell did not apply for the coordinator position. Similar to Mr. Ferrell, Mr. McGlockton is classified as a registrar officer. His job responsibilities include processing enrollment verifications and maintaining the electronic online catalog. Mr. McGlockton has website experience and successfully completed training for managing the electronic catalog system in 2015. Ms. Smith is also classified as a registrar officer. Her job responsibilities include processing test credits, maintaining the Ad Astra system, and assisting with the academic advisement module. On February 16, 2017, the registrar officer position was advertised. Ms. Smith applied for and was hired for the position. However, Mr. Ferrell did not apply for the position posted in February 2017. At hearing, Mr. Ferrell acknowledged that he did not apply for the coordinator or the registrar officer positions. He explained that he did not believe he was qualified for the coordinator position because he does not possess a master’s degree. However, despite not having a master’s degree, the position qualifications included “a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate area of specialization and two years of progressive experience in an academic environment.” Regarding the registrar officer position, understandably, he testified that he did not apply because his position carried the same title. There was no evidence offered at the hearing to demonstrate that Mr. Ferrell did not meet the qualifications for the advertised positions. Dr. Agatha Onwunli is the University Registrar at Florida A & M University. She supervises 20 employees, including Mr. Ferrell. Her job responsibilities include making hiring and promotion decisions, and training employees who work in the registrar’s office. As described supra in these findings of fact, several registrar officers perform different tasks and she makes hiring decisions based on the needs of the office. Mr. Ferrell alleges Florida A & M University unlawfully discriminated against him on the basis of age. The crux of this case rests with the age of the other employees that are relied upon for comparison. Mr. Ferrell offered testimony regarding Mr. Jordan, Mr. Witherspoon, Mr. McGlockton, and Ms. Smith to prove a similarly situated employee outside his protected class, based on age, was treated more favorably than he was treated. Mr. Ferrell testified that the employees could not be his age for various reasons. However, there was no evidence presented at hearing regarding the age of the four employees offered as comparators. In his PRO, Mr. Ferrell attached exhibits that reflect the age of Mr. Jordan, Mr. Witherspoon, and Ms. Smith. However, the exhibits were not offered during the hearing and as a result, they are not evidence of record. A finding of fact may only be based exclusively on evidence of record.1/ Thus, the undersigned may not consider the exhibits offered post-hearing to make a finding of fact regarding the age of Mr. Jordan, Mr. Witherspoon, and Ms. Smith. The undersigned finds that there was not sufficient evidence presented at the final hearing regarding the age of Mr. Jordan, Mr. Witherspoon, Mr. McGlockton, and Ms. Smith.
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 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 5th day of April, 2018.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a residential facility for persons with various disabilities. It maintains several buildings to house its clients. On September 1, 2000, Petitioner, who is female, began her employment with Respondent. She was employed as a consumer adviser. In that position she was responsible for transporting clients to and from appointments, picking up various medications and some clerical duties as needed. Initially, she was assigned to work the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift at one of the Respondent’s facilities. Sometime around August 26, 2000, Petitioner was reassigned to the night shift because, through a miscommunication, Respondent’s director believed Petitioner had cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy. The director thought the nightshift would be less stressful during this time period. However, the evidence showed that it was Petitioner’s father who had cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy. The manager’s belief that it was Petitioner who had cancer was genuine and the shift change was made in order to help Respondent. Indeed, at the time Respondent never complained that the change in shift was made to sexually harass her. Around September 10, 2002, Petitioner claimed she was sexually accosted by a co-worker, Tommy Moore. Mr. Moore worked the same shift as Petitioner and at the same building. Petitioner testified that while she was on the phone to her supervisor, Otelia Arnold, Mr. Moore entered the room and began making lewd gestures of a sexual nature to her. At one point he allegedly came up behind her and rubbed his penis against her. Petitioner reported the incident to Ms. Arnold while she was on the phone with her. Ms. Arnold did not testify at the hearing and there were no corroborating witnesses to the incident. Mr. Moore denied the acts alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner did not report the incident to the executive director and did not report the incident to the police. On the other hand, Petitioner grew very emotional during the hearing while testifying about the incident. However, the totality of the evidence was insufficient to establish that Petitioner was accosted by Mr. Moore during her phone call to her supervisor. Sometime after September 10, 2002, Petitioner began to arrive at work one to three hours ahead of her scheduled work time. Petitioner claimed at the hearing that she arrived early because she didn’t like to ride the bus at night. Co-workers complained about the disruption her early arrival caused in the care of the residents. Therefore, on October 16, 2002, the director gave Petitioner a memorandum instructing her not to arrive at work more than one-half hour before her shift. At the time of the memorandum, Petitioner did not explain her reasons for arriving early to the director. Nor did Petitioner complain to the director that she felt she was being sexually harassed. There was nothing in the record that demonstrated the director’s action was done in order to sexually harass Petitioner or to maintain a sexually hostile work environment. Indeed, the first complaint of sexual harassment of which the director was aware occurred when he received Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination from the Alachua County EEOC office sometime after November 5, 2002. That charge alleged that Petitioner had been sexually harassed by Mr. Moore as described above. The director immediately investigated the allegation and did not find any evidence that the incident had occurred. Nevertheless, the director reassigned Mr. Moore to another facility and prohibited him from having any contact with Petitioner. The evidence did not show any adverse action was taken against the Petitioner in retaliation for filing her complaint. The evidence was unclear and disjointed regarding specific events following November 5, 2002. At some point, Petitioner telephonically contacted various employees at home while she was at work. Several of these contacts caused the employees and their families to complain to the director. Because of these complaints, Petitioner was instructed not to contact co-employees at home concerning work-related matters. On July 19, 2003, Petitioner observed a resident with scrapes and bruises on his arms. The scrapes and bruises were old self-inflicted injuries from which the resident had picked the scabs. She reported the resident’s condition to the abuse hotline maintained by the Department of Children and Family Services. Dexter Miller was the staff member responsible for the care of the resident during the prior shift. Without any authority to investigate further and in violation of the director’s earlier directive, Respondent tried to call Dexter Miller at home. She spoke with Mr. Miller’s wife and told her that the director planned to blame the abuse on Mr. Miller and that Mr. Miller was required to report to work immediately. Petitioner then contacted Mr. Miller at his other job and told him that the director was going to blame him for the abuse. None of this information was true. As a result of these phone calls and misinformation, Petitioner was terminated from employment with Respondent on July 23, 2003. The basis for Petitioner’s termination was legitimate and reasonable. Finally, there was nothing in the evidence that linked Petitioner’s termination or any directives she received from the director to any sexual abuse or sexual harassment by Respondent. Likewise, there was nothing in the evidence that Respondent permitted a sexually hostile environment to exist or persist. Therefore, due to the lack of evidence, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the 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 7th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Latanya Grimes 3204 Southwest 26th Terrace, Apartment A Gainesville, Florida 32608 Herbert Webb, Esquire 4400 Northwest 23rd Avenue, Suite E Gainesville, Florida 32602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was not re-employed as a "mechanic-carpenter" by the Respondent school board based upon the Petitioner's age.
Findings Of Fact James W. Jones was employed from 1983 to 1993, as a mechanic-carpenter by the school board. In early 1993 he traveled to the Bicentennial Youth Park (BYP) to deliver supplies from his shop to Mr. Evans, the teacher assigned to the BYP. At that time Mr. Evans informed Jones of an upcoming opening at the BYP for a carpenters position and asked him if he would be interested in filling the position. The Petitioner replied that he would be interested. The position in question was posted and advertised as two part-time carpenter positions. Mr. Jones did not wish a part-time position and eventually the administration of BYP gained authorization and funding for a temporary, full-time position at the BYP. Mr. Jones, had been trying to leave the facilities maintenance department because of personality conflicts with his supervisor, Buel Lee. He consequently accepted the temporary, full-time position at the BYP on April 23, 1993. Prior to accepting the temporary position at BYP, the Petitioner was informed by Mr. Al Evans, Billy Wiesneski, and Terry Ellis that the position was temporary and would only last as long as funding for the position was available. In fact, Mr. Jones signed a letter, dated May 3, 1993, confirming his understanding that the position at BYP was temporary and that its duration was dependent upon the duration of funding allocated by the school board. He signed that letter in the presence of Mr. Ellis and Mr. Lee on May 4, 1993.1 Additionally, Mr. Jones admits that he signed a Notice of Personnel Action form on April 23, 1993, describing the job as temporary from April 23, 1993, to June 30, 1993, and stating that "annual re-appointment will be based on availability of project funds. . .". Mr. Jones also told a co-worker, John Driggers, that he knew the position could end in a year but that he was going to take the position anyway because by that time he would have the 10 years of service required to be vested in the pension plan. Mr. Driggers was also aware that Mr. Jones wished to transfer out of the facilities maintenance department at that time. In summary, although Mr. Jones denies that he knew the position was temporary, that is not the case, as shown by the preponderant evidence discussed in the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact on this subject matter. In any event, the only issue properly before the Division and the undersigned Judge, is whether Jones was not hired into a mechanic-carpenter position in the facilities maintenance department at a later date because of his age. His knowledge regarding the temporary nature of the position at the BYP is wholly irrelevant to a decision in this case because of the issues pled and noticed to the opposing party in the Petition. In any event, after voluntarily accepting that position he knew to be temporary, the funding finally ran out on March 31, 1994.2 Because funding no longer existed to support the carpenter position at BYP, the Petitioner was not re-appointed to that position and therefore his employment with the Volusia County School Board ended on March 31, 1994. Subsequently, on May 20, 1994, a mechanic-carpenter position became available in a the facilities maintenance department under the supervision of Buel Lee, for whom Jones had worked prior to taking the position at BYP. The Petitioner applied for that position. He was interviewed by Mr. Lee and considered for employment as a new applicant who had never before worked for the Respondent, as opposed to a laid-off employee under the applicable collective bargaining agreement arrangement concerning re-hire of laid-off personnel. The Petitioner was not entitled to preference in hiring normally given to laid-off employees because he had not been "laid-off." The lay-off provision in the collective bargaining agreement defines "lay-off" as "the separation of employee for lack of work or funds without any fault or delinquency on the employee's part." The lay-off provision applies only to employees who have been given an appointment for a definite duration and the funding for the position is cut by the government before the appointment naturally expires by its own terms. Since Jones was simply not re-appointed upon the natural expiration of his appointment, the lay-off provisions would not be applicable to his situation. Jones was not entitled to nor was he given preference over other applicants for the 1994 mechanic-carpenter position based on seniority because he was not the most senior applicant for the position. In fact, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, he lost all seniority when he terminated from employment or was not re-appointed on March 31, 1994. Therefore, when he applied for the mechanic-carpenter position 1994, he as not entitled to any more consideration than is given to a new applicant. When he applied for that position in 1994, Mr. Lee, the hiring supervisor, interviewed all applicants and made the ultimate decision to hire Walter "Ed" Hayman for the position, instead of the Petitioner. Mr. Lee interviewed every applicant for that position. He treated Jones as a new applicant rather than a laid-off or senior employee, consistent with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. On the other hand, Mr. Lee was required by the collective bargaining agreement to give Hayman preference over Jones since Hayman had worked for the Respondent on an uninterrupted basis since 1991. Lee had received a letter of reference from a Mr. Frye, an independent contractor and Hayman's previous employer, indicating that Hayman had worked as a journeyman for 5 years. Mr. Lee thus believed that Hayman met the qualifications for the job. Lee felt that both Hayman and Jones were skilled in carpentry and did not make his decision based upon his judgment of their respective skills in their profession. Rather, Mr. Lee made a determination that Hayman was the best qualified for the position based on his knowledge of how each of them got along with others in the work place. Mr. Lee knew, and Jones admits, that during the time that he previously worked for Lee, Gary Gallencamp requested that he not have to work beside Jones any longer. Jones admits that in fact he had a lot to do with the reasons Gallencamp did not want to work with him anymore. Lee also knew, and Jones admits, that during the time that he previously worked for Lee, another employee, Ed Owensby, requested that he not have to work with Jones any longer. In fact, he stated that he would be forced to quit if he were required to continue working with Jones. Finally, Mr. Lee called Mr. Evans, Mr. Jones' most recent supervisor, to ask him for a reference regarding Jones' performance at the BYP. Mr. Evans told Mr. Lee that Jones had trouble getting along with the maintenance man, Earl Green, when working at the BYP. Even Jones admits that he had problems with Mr. Green's work. Contrarily, Mr. Lee had observed Hayman getting along well with the co-workers during the time he performed work in conjunction with the facilities maintenance department when he was working for the Respondent as a "grounds man." Therefore, based upon personal experience and the information he received from others, Mr. Lee made the decision to hire Mr. Hayman instead of Mr. Jones. Lee never even considered the ages of Hayman or Jones when making that hiring decision. In fact, Lee himself was approximately 48 or 50 years old when he hired Hayman. Lee does not have a history of hiring younger workers. In fact, the very person Lee hired to replace Jones, when Jones transferred to the BYP, was Mr. Fred Jacobs, who was then aged 57. The only three applicants hired by Lee after Jones transferred to the BYP and before Hayman was hired, were approximately 40 years old. During that time frame, Lee hired Eric Hoffman, who was 43 or 44 years old. Jeff Straker was in his late thirties or forties, and Fred Jacobs was 57. Thus, in their totality, Mr. Lee's hiring practices do not reflect any-age related bias. In addition, neither the Respondent's pay plan, nor its pension plan, set forth in the collective bargaining agreement, are related to age. The Respondent's pay ranges are based upon job classification (i.e., mechanic-carpenter) and years of service. Upon being separated from his employment, Jones was being paid at a level commensurate with 11 years of service. Had he begun his employment with the school board immediately upon completion of his vocational training, he would have been 34 or 35 years old and earned the same salary he was making in March 1994, when he was separated from employment. Likewise the pension plan provides that every employee, regardless of age, vests after having provided 10 years of service.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That for all of the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the school board discriminated against him because of his age in making the subject re-hiring decision. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent City of Gainesville committed an unlawful employment practice when it terminated Petitioner's employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white male. Petitioner's employment as a police officer was terminated by Respondent City of Gainesville on September 17, 2008. On the evening of June 26, 2008, Petitioner was voluntarily working an extra duty assignment at the Super Wal- Mart store on Northeast 12th Avenue in Gainesville. Wal-Mart had been experiencing problems with juveniles entering the store in large groups and causing disturbances and property damage. At approximately 11:15 p.m., Ms. Felicia Stallworth, a black female, pulled into a handicapped-parking space and hung her handicapped-parking decal from her rear-view mirror. She was accompanied by two children: her twelve-year-old son and her seven-year-old niece. At the time, Petitioner, who was in uniform and wearing his badge, was engaged in conversation with the occupants of a vehicle parked in another handicapped-parking space. Stallworth and the children exited her vehicle and began walking to the store's entrance. Because Stallworth was talking on her cell phone while she was walking, she heard Petitioner say something but did not know what he said. She stopped walking and asked him what he wanted. Petitioner rudely and loudly demanded to see her documentation to prove she was entitled to park in a handicapped-parking space. Stallworth complied by walking back to her vehicle, sitting in the driver's seat with the driver's door open, and retrieving her handicapped-parking registration from her glove compartment. While she was doing so, Petitioner, who was standing just outside the car door, was shining a flashlight into her car so that it was shining in her face. She told him several times to move the flashlight because she could not see, but he ignored her and continued to shine it in the same manner. Concerned for the safety of the children who were standing at the back of the car on the passenger side, she instructed the children to get back in the car so as to be out of the path of passing vehicles. Petitioner rudely and loudly told them to stand in front of the car instead. The children complied. Stallworth retrieved the registration and handed it to Petitioner. She also handed him her placard. She then attempted to get out of the car so she could put her purse on the hood of the car so she could find her driver's license. As she stood up, Petitioner crossed his arms in front of his chest in a blocking motion and, using them, shoved her forcefully against her car and then down into the driver's seat. Her glasses were knocked askew, and the side of her face and earlobe began to burn, likely from being scraped against the doorframe. After she was shoved back into her car, Stallworth was able to find her driver's license in her purse, and she handed it to Petitioner. When Petitioner finished examining her placard, her placard registration, and her driver's license, he handed the documents back to Stallworth and told her to have a nice day. Petitioner walked to the door of the store, turned and looked at Stallworth, and stood there, apparently laughing at her. Some of the numerous witnesses to this encounter between Petitioner and Stallworth came up to her, inquired as to how she was, and walked into the store with her. Petitioner followed Stallworth while she was in the store. When Stallworth left the store, she saw Petitioner walk behind her car, write down her license tag, and then get into his vehicle. Stallworth thought he was "running her tag" and became afraid of what he might do to her next. She called a relative who worked for the Alachua County Sheriff's Office and asked that person to come to Wal- Mart and watch her leave. After calling, she went back into the Wal-Mart to wait. When she came out again, she and Petitioner did not interact. Before Petitioner shoved her against and then into her vehicle, Stallworth had made no threatening remark or gesture that would cause Petitioner to have any concern for his safety. After Stallworth returned to her home, her back started hurting, and her face and earlobe still burned. She telephoned the City of Gainesville Police Department and complained about Petitioner's unacceptable treatment of her. The complaint was forwarded to Sergeant Lance Yarbrough, the Sergeant on the midnight shift. At 1:45 a.m., when he had "cleared" the matter he was working on, he called Stallworth. She described what had happened, including Petitioner's demeanor and her injuries. She told Yarbrough she had obtained the names and telephone numbers of some of the witnesses who had seen the entire encounter. After attending to some additional duties, Yarbrough arrived at the Wal-Mart at 3:00 a.m. to talk to Petitioner about his use of force on a disabled person. Petitioner's version of what had happened essentially matched Stallworth's, including admitting he had "pinned" her to her vehicle. By the end of their conversation, Petitioner had become confrontational about defending what he had done and demanded of Yarbrough, "Do you have a problem with that?" Yarbrough answered Petitioner in the affirmative. Yarbrough tried to obtain a copy of Wal-Mart's video surveillance tape, but a copy of the tape could not be made by Wal-Mart employees at that hour. After he left Petitioner, Yarbrough, a white male, completed an Administrative Investigation Referral Form regarding Petitioner's treatment of Stallworth, which he considered a violation of the City's Policies and Procedures Number 19, Rule 19. That Form is, essentially, a referral to the police department's internal affairs office. He filed that form on June 27, 2008, in his name and in Stallworth's name. Stallworth filed her own form on that same date. Wal-Mart has a policy of releasing copies of its video surveillance tapes only to law enforcement officers conducting official business. Internal Affairs investigator Sergeant Jorge Campos, a white male, contacted Wal-Mart and arranged to obtain a copy of the video of Wal-Mart's parking lot showing Petitioner's encounter with Stallworth. When he later called Wal-Mart to make sure the copy was ready, he was told that another police officer had come to pick it up, and the copy had been given to him. Campos requested an additional copy and when he went there to pick up that copy, the Wal-Mart loss prevention employees showed Campos the video and also a video of Petitioner picking up the copy of the video that had been made for Campos. Since Petitioner had come there in a police car and in uniform, they had assumed that Petitioner was obtaining the copy of the video for official purposes. In fact, Petitioner never reported to the police department that he was conducting an investigation and that he had obtained evidence of his encounter with Stallworth. Further, he never turned over to the police department his copy of the video so it could be preserved as evidence in the evidence room, as required by department policy. Petitioner did not obtain the video for law enforcement purposes, therefore, but rather for personal purposes. Campos watched the copy of the surveillance video he had obtained from Wal-Mart in conjunction with his investigation. He also interviewed and obtained sworn statements from Yarbrough, from Stallworth, and from all of the identified witnesses who were willing to speak with him about what they saw. During the course of the internal affairs investigation, it was discovered that Petitioner had also repeatedly contacted Stallworth's personal physician, allegedly in his capacity as a police officer, to ascertain what Stallworth's disability was that would have made her eligible for a handicapped placard. Eventually, Petitioner did speak with a doctor in that office who disclosed Stallworth's disability. Campos attempted to interview Petitioner, but Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for the scheduled appointment. Campos' further attempts to interview Petitioner were unsuccessful. At the conclusion of his investigation, Campos prepared his report and consulted with the Chief of Police as to an appropriate disposition of the matter. It was concluded that Petitioner had violated Rule 19 regarding his encounter with Stallworth by his (1) excessive use of force, (2) obtaining a video recording under the color of a law enforcement officer for personal use, and (3) obtaining medical information under the color of a law enforcement officer without proper legal service. It was determined that Petitioner's employment should be terminated. Policy 19, Rule 19 prohibits "[i]mmoral, unlawful, or improper conduct or indecency, whether on or off the job[,] which would tend to affect the employee's relationship to his/her job, fellow workers' reputations or goodwill in the community." The range of penalties for the first offense is from instruction plus 5 days' suspension up through dismissal, and for the second offense is dismissal. Petitioner exercised his right to file a grievance regarding his termination and participated in a multi-level grievance process within the City. His grievance was unsuccessful, and he was terminated from his employment as a police officer. At no time during Petitioner's conversation with Sergeant Yarbrough, during the internal affairs investigation, or during the City's grievance process did Petitioner raise any allegation of disparate or discriminatory treatment of him by the City due to his race or his sex. Sergeants Yarbrough and Campos are, like Petitioner, white males.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 16th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel M. Nee, Esquire City of Gainesville 200 East University Avenue, Suite 425 Gainesville, Florida 32601-5456 Jarrod Rappaport 402 Northwest 48th Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32607 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner charged that Respondent Employer had committed an unlawful employment practice by racial discrimination.
Findings Of Fact This cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about February 17, 2005, following a "Determination: No Cause" by the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the filing of a timely Petition for Relief by Petitioner. Final Hearing was originally noticed on March 2, 2005, for June 1, 2005. Following numerous continuances requested by one or both parties or occasioned by problems arising out of service of discovery by Respondent upon Petitioner, a Notice of Hearing was issued on August 26, 2005, for December 1, 2005, in Jacksonville, Florida. On November 14, 2005, an Amended Notice of Hearing, amended only as to location within the City of Jacksonville was entered and served. Two days before December 1, 2005, which was the date that had been scheduled for final hearing since August 26, 2005, Petitioner telephoned the office of the undersigned to orally request a continuance. The undersigned's secretary advised him the request must be made in writing. The very day before the scheduled hearing, Petitioner filed a "Motion for Extension With Cause," which was essentially a request for a continuance based on Petitioner's allegedly having been unable to obtain legal counsel and unable to engage in discovery using subpoenas. This pleading also indicated that Petitioner had received the November 14, 2005, Amended Notice of Hearing and that he was aware of the new location for the final hearing. Petitioner's Motion was untimely, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.210. The record of the Division does not indicate that Petitioner ever applied for any type of subpoena and does indicate that Petitioner had many months in which to obtain an attorney. Because there was no time for a written order to be entered before the final hearing date, the undersigned, through her secretary, advised Petitioner that his Motion was denied as without good cause and that he should appear for the hearing the following day. At the time and place appointed, the final hearing was convened on December 1, 2005. Respondent was represented by a corporate agent, witnesses, and legal counsel, all of whom had traveled some distance to be there. After waiting 30 minutes, neither Petitioner, nor any attorney on his behalf, had appeared. The undersigned "sounded the docket" outside the hearing room, and Petitioner was not there, either. It was further determined that Petitioner had not telephoned the office of the undersigned to indicate any reason he could not physically attend the final hearing. After 40 minutes, Respondent orally moved to dismiss.
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 and Charge of Discrimination herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, Esquire 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 Antwoine L. Edwards, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Steven Bell Post Office Box 2117 Interlachen, Florida 32148
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on April 22, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent from August 2008 until his termination on or about January 9, 2009. Respondent, Arena Sports Café (Arena), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Arena is a restaurant/night club which offers the viewing of televised sporting events, and is generally known as a sports bar. Arena is adjacent to The Coliseum, another establishment with the same owners, Trisha Lawrence and Randy Berner. The owners are Caucasian. The Coliseum is an entertainment venue with live and recorded music, dancing, and stage acts. The Coliseum does not serve food, and does not have a kitchen. When hired in August 2008, Petitioner worked as a prep cook as part of the kitchen staff. He performed various duties including preparation of meals in the kitchen as well as preparing food for Respondent’s large salad bar. Petitioner holds a Food Handling Certificate and a Safe Serve Certificate, which he attained through a local college. Petitioner was paid $12.00 per hour, and generally worked a 40-hour work week. At the time Petitioner was hired, the Arena was brand new and very popular. When the Arena opened in August 2008, it featured lunch and dinner seven days per week. Weekends were particularly busy because college and pro football games were televised in the fall. However, the Arena saw a drop in demand for weekday lunches. During the fall of 2008, Anthony Cyr, a Caucasian, was employed by Arena as its general manager. Petitioner was already employed by Respondent when Mr. Cyr began employment there. According to Petitioner, Mr. Cyr used the word “nigger” (the "N" word) in the context of telling a joke on three occasions in October and November 2008. Mr. Cyr used this word in the presence of the kitchen staff, including Petitioner. Petitioner informed Mr. Cyr that this was offensive and objected. Mr. Cyr did not use the "N" word other than these three occasions, and did not use it again after Petitioner objected. Petitioner did not report this incident to anyone, including the owners of Arena. As one of the owners of Arena, Ms. Lawrence would sometimes eat meals at Arena. At some point in January 2009, she voiced her displeasure to Mr. Cyr as to meals which she believed to have been prepared by Petitioner. She was never made aware of Petitioner’s allegations regarding the use of racial slurs by Mr. Cyr. According to Ms. Lawrence, she instructed Mr. Cyr to terminate Petitioner from employment because of his cooking abilities. Mr. Cyr informed Petitioner that his employment was terminated, and informed him that it was due to his job performance. Mr. Cyr also informed Petitioner that the decision to terminate Petitioner was Ms. Lawrence’s, not his. Mr. Cyr’s testimony regarding using the “N” word contradicts Petitioner’s testimony, and is somewhat inconsistent with Ms. Lawrence’s testimony regarding the reason Petitioner was fired. That is, Mr. Cyr denies using the “N” word in front of Petitioner. As for the reason he fired Petitioner, Mr. Cyr testified that it was due to a reduction in business following football season. There is no dispute, however, that Ms. Lawrence was the decisionmaker regarding the decision to fire Petitioner. Regarding the conflicting testimony as to whether Mr. Cyr used the “N” word, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony in this regard to be credible and more persuasive. That is, the undersigned finds that Mr. Cyr did use the “N” word in front of Petitioner in the workplace. As for the reason Petitioner was fired, Ms. Lawrence did acknowledge that business slowed down at Arena around the time she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner, and that the salad bar was phased out the month after Petitioner was terminated. However, she insists that she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner because of the quality of his cooking. In any event, there does not appear to be a dispute that Mr. Cyr told Petitioner that he was being fired due to job performance issues. At some time after Petitioner was terminated, Mr. Cyr was terminated from Arena because, in Ms. Lawrence’s words, he “was not that great.” When Petitioner was terminated, two Caucasian cooks remained employed at Arena. While Petitioner was not actually replaced, his duties were assumed by the remaining Caucasian staff. Since his termination, Petitioner has worked for approximately three weeks at another eating establishment. Otherwise, he has been unsuccessful finding employment despite his efforts. Respondent employs minorities and non-minorities in positions with both Arena and The Coliseum. The undersigned has reviewed the evidence of record, oral and written, as to the number of minority and non-minority employees and as to whether Respondent hired primarily non-minority persons in the better paying positions. The evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding that Respondent engaged in racially motivated hiring practices. There is no evidence that Petitioner complained to Ms. Lawrence or the other owner of Arena that he was being discriminated against on the basis of race. When he complained to Mr. Cyr, the offending remarks stopped. There was no competent evidence presented that Ms. Lawrence knew of the racial slur used by Mr. Cyr in the workplace in Petitioner’s presence. There is no evidence that Ms. Lawrence’s decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was related in any way to any racial remark used by Mr. Cyr.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Steven deLaroche, Esquire 1005 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from January, 1986, until March 7, 1988. Petitioner worked as a tailor and performed alterations at Respondent's store located in Altamonte Springs. In the latter half of 1987, Mr. Pease became the manager of the Altamonte Springs store and thus became Petitioner's supervisor. As had the prior manager, Mr. Pease and Petitioner worked out a schedule that did not require Petitioner to work in violation of his religious principles. However, relations between Petitioner and Mr. Pease were not good. Shortly after becoming manager, for independent business reasons, Mr. Pease decided to reduce the amount of fitting done in the store. The effect of this decision was to reduce the amount of work available for Petitioner. At about this time, Petitioner suffered an accident unrelated to employment. The accident resulted in an extended absence from work. Petitioner received his physician's approval to return to work on February 16, 1988, but failed to do so. Without prior notice, Petitioner showed up at the store on March 7, 1988, and informed Mr. Pease that Petitioner was ready to return to work. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the work schedule had already been arranged for the week. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the only days he could work were Saturday, March 12, and Sunday, March 13. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that he could not work Sundays due to his religious beliefs. Mr. Pease reiterated that no other time was available that week. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that Petitioner understood that he was being fired. Mr. Pease told him that he was not being fired; rather, he was quitting if he left Respondent's employment. Two days later, Petitioner filed for unemployment compensation benefits. He never reported to work with Respondent again. Consistent with his Petition for Relief, Petitioner offered no evidence of discrimination due to national origin. Nothing in the record suggests the existence of any such discrimination. Petitioner has also failed to prove the existence of any religious discrimination. There is no evidence that Mr. Pease refused to try to accommodate Petitioner's religious beliefs with respect to work schedules after the weekend of March 12-13. The only evidence is that when Petitioner suddenly reported to work, the only days immediately available were the weekend days. The record does not even disclose whether Mr. Pease linked the two days, so as to prevent Petitioner from working the Saturday without working the Sunday. There is nothing in the record suggesting that Mr. Pease told Petitioner that if he failed to work the coming Sunday, he would lose his job. In sum, Petitioner has left it entirely to conjecture whether Mr. Pease would have failed to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Pease was never presented with that opportunity. In addition, Petitioner has produced no evidence that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. There is no evidence of the number of employees working for Respondent at the relevant time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be dismissed. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5689 Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Adopted in substance. 4-5. (first sentence) Adopted. 5. (second sentence) Rejected as irrelevant. 6-10. Adopted. s 11. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Weceslao Lugo Palermo 7505 Armstrong Road Lockhart, FL 32810 Richard D. Pease 590 West Highway 436 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
