The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 70-54, Pinellas County Code, which prohibits retaliation against a person who has opposed a discriminatory employment practice, by terminating the Petitioner's employment, and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Menz was hired by Dr. Weisel as a receptionist for his dental office located in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida, on October 6, 2007. Ms. Menz's job responsibilities included answering the phone, checking patients in and out of the office, collecting co-payments, and entering treatment plans in the record. According to Dr. Weisel, Ms. Menz was a good employee because she was eager to learn, and she was very people orientated. Respondent is a professional association located in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent employees less than 15 employees and is in the business of providing dentistry services. Respondent is subject to the Pinellas County Code concerning human relations. In June 2008, Dr. Weisel sold his Tarpon Springs dental practice to Dr. Kontos. Dr. Kontos had graduated from dental school in May 2007 and had worked for another dentist office. By January 2008, Dr. Kontos wanted to purchase a dental practice in his hometown, Tarpon Springs. When Dr. Kontos purchased the practice from Dr. Weisel, Dr. Kontos had no experience in owning a business or managing employees. According to Dr. Kontos, he decided to keep all of Dr. Weisel's employees for continuity. Dr. Kontos described Ms. Menz's job duties as opening the practice in the morning, "in-putting insurance," collecting co-payments, and "doing treatment plans." By July 2008, Dr. Kontos had promoted one of the dental assistants, Daniel Mauzerolle (Mr. Mauzerolle), to office manager. During the time that Mr. Mauzerolle worked for Dr. Kontos, they became friends and would socialize together. Ms. Menz testified that she had complained to Dr. Kontos in the past about Mr. Mauzerolle about issues from work. Ms. Sholtes, a former dental hygienist for Dr. Kontos, also testified on Ms. Menz's behalf. She testified that Ms. Menz was a good employee and courteous to patients. By November 2008, Dr. Kontos hired Ms. Marchese to collect aging insurance claims and account receivables, as well as review his office procedures. According to Dr. Kontos, the dental practice had a "phenomenal" amount of outstanding insurance claims, in excess of $20,000.00, which had been denied. Ms. Marchese had worked in the dental field since 1991 and was familiar with software systems used to run dental offices. Further, she was familiar with the submission of insurance forms for dental reimbursement. On May 11, 2009, Ms. Menz opened the office at 7:00 a.m. As she turned on her computer, Ms. Menz noticed the internet web history showed that someone had used her computer the night before. Ms. Menz found that one site had been visited 28 times. Upon visiting the site, Ms. Menz found that the website contained pornographic images. Further, because Mr. Mauzerolle was the only person that worked in the evening in the office, Ms. Menz assumed that Mr. Mauzerolle was the person who had accessed the pornographic site. Ms. Menz credibly testified that she informed Dr. Kontos and told him that Mr. Mauzerolle's actions were unacceptable to her. Ms. Menz credibly testified that she told Dr. Kontos that she could not work under the conditions that she considered to be a hostile workplace environment. Dr. Kontos informed Ms. Menz that he would "take care of it." Dr. Kontos credibly testified that Mr. Mauzerolle, in addition to being the office manager, was his friend and that he was not happy with Ms. Menz reporting the issues concerning the pornography in his office. Two days later, on May 13, 2009, Dr. Kontos terminated Ms. Menz's employment. Ms. Menz credibly testified that at the time of her termination, Dr. Kontos did not provide her a reason for her termination, only stating "nothing personal, but I'm going to have to let you go." Dr. Kontos testified that he had already decided to terminate Ms. Menz's employment before May 11, 2009, when Ms. Menz complained about the pornography. According to Dr. Kontos, Ms. Marchese had informed him since the end of 2008 about errors that Ms. Menz had been making at work that cost the dental practice money. Dr. Kontos indicated that Ms. Menz made errors such as failing to collect co-payments or collecting improper co-payments and failing to fill out the insurance forms correctly. The result was that insurance claims would be denied and the dental office would lose money. According to Dr. Kontos and Ms. Marchese, on or before April 8, 2009, Ms. Menz made an error that almost cost the dental practice $2,000.00. The alleged error involved putting the wrong information concerning an insurance plan for a patient. Based on this error, Dr. Kontos testified that he made a decision with Mr. Mauzerolle and Ms. Marchese to place an advertisement for a receptionist with Craigslist to replace Ms. Menz. Later that day, Mr. Mauzerolle placed the advertisement with Craigslist. On April 9, 2009, potential job applicants began calling Dr. Kontos' office about the receptionist position. Ms. Menz took the phone messages from the applicants, including Ms. Kristen Chase. Ms. Menz credibly testified that based on phone calls that she asked Dr. Kontos about the job advertisement and whether or not she was doing a good job. Ms. Menz credibly testified that Dr. Kontos stated that she was doing a good job and not to worry about the advertisement. Further, Ms. Menz credibly testified that she asked Ms. Marchese about the advertisement. Ms. Menz testified that Ms. Marchese stated that Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace Christina Benzel (Ms. Benzel), a co-worker who worked the front desk with Ms. Menz. Ms. Menz believed Ms. Marchese because Ms. Menz had observed that Ms. Benzel's job responsibilities had been reduced. According to Dr. Kontos, sometime at the beginning of May 2009, he and Mr. Mauzerolle interviewed Ms. Chase for the receptionist job. According to Dr. Kontos, he offered Ms. Chase the job after the interview, and he had decided to replace Ms. Menz. Dr. Kontos's testimony on the point that he offered Ms. Chase the job in early May and had decided to replace Ms. Menz is not credible. Ms. Chase credibly testified that she did not receive the job offer from Dr. Kontos at the interview in early May. Further, Ms. Chase credibly testified that, because she did not hear anything from Dr. Kontos, she had assumed that she had not gotten the job. Further, Ms. Chase credibly testified that she was offered the job on May 14, 2009. Dr. Kontos testified that he had decided to terminate Ms. Menz on April 8, 2009, but that he did not tell her before May 13, 2009, because he "had to build up the nerve to do it." He testified that he felt bad having to terminate her and that he let her go because she made too many mistakes. For support concerning the number of errors made by Ms. Menz, Respondent offered the testimony of Ms. Marchese and numerous exhibits. Ms. Marchese testified that because of the number of errors occurring in the office that she moved her work space to be next to Ms. Menz. According to Ms. Marchese, she was monitoring Ms. Menz and providing "one-on-one training." Further, Ms. Marchese offered testimony that each day she would conduct an "audit trail" of the office and bring errors to Dr. Kontos's attention daily. Ms. Marchese testified that Ms. Menz failed to collect co-payments; entered insurance information incorrectly, resulting in insurance reimbursements being denied; failed to provide adequate information to support insurance billings; and gave patients incorrect estimates on the amount that the patient would owe for different treatments based on the patient's insurance plan. Ms. Marchese testified that she estimated that Ms. Menz had cost the dental office approximately $100,000.00 in lost revenue and made 90 percent of the office errors. Ms. Marchese identified a number of exhibits that supported Respondent's claim that Ms. Menz was terminated for numerous errors. Ms. Marchese further testified that in March 2009 that she told Dr. Kontos and Mr. Mauzerolle that Ms. Menz was "untrainable" and that she should be terminated. According to Ms. Marchese, in April 2009, she discussed with Dr. Kontos and Mr. Mauzerolle the error that nearly cost the practice $2,000.00 and the decision to advertise for the new receptionist. After the advertisement was taken out in Craigslist for the new receptionist, Ms. Marchese remembered being asked by Ms. Menz about the advertisement and about whether or not Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace her. Ms. Marchese testified that she told Ms. Menz that she did not know if Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace her. Ms. Marchese denied telling Ms. Menz that Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace Ms. Benzel. Ms. Marchese, however, admitted that Dr. Kontos had been unhappy with Ms. Benzel based on her internet usage at the office. Ms. Marchese testified that she informed Dr. Kontos about each of these errors daily and testified about a group of exhibits. A review of the exhibits identified by Ms. Marchese, Exhibits 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 41, and 44 shows that the documents are dated December 18 and 21, 2009. When questioned about the dates on the exhibits, Ms. Marchese testified that these exhibits were documentation from the "daily sheets" and that she had "minimized the amount of discovery." Also, she explained that the documents were "printed to condense the information into one page instead of, for instance, on exhibit 25, it would have been over 30 pages." Further, she testified that she had added the notes explaining Ms. Menz's errors to the sheets on or after December 18, 2009. The "daily sheets" were not admitted into evidence. At best, the offered exhibits may be considered summaries. Even considering the documents, the record shows that the offered exhibits show that the documents were compiled to support Ms. Menz's termination after May 13, 2009, and in response to the investigation by Pinellas County. Thus, the exhibits carry little weight in the consideration. Similarly, Exhibits 10, 11, 18, 23, and 24 are all dated after Ms. Menz's termination date of May 13, 2009. A review of Exhibit 10 shows a "Single Patient Ledger" printed up on September 8, 2009. Based on Ms. Marchese's testimony, the document shows that on April 8, 2009, the patient received two dental procedures that cost $1,050.00. According to Ms. Marchese, the patient was told to pay $215.00 for two treatments. Presumably, the balance of the dental bill would be paid by insurance. However, Ms. Marchese testified that the patient did not have dental coverage for the two procedures. Consequently, the dental office lost money on the two procedures because the patient refused to pay, and there was no insurance to bill. Although the testimony shows this event occurred before the termination, the "Single Payer Ledger" is dated after the termination. Further, a hand-written notation from the patient's chart, which is part of Exhibit 10, stating that "Valerie dropped the ball on the correct fee twice" is dated May 14, 2009, the day after her termination. Similarly, a review of Exhibits 23 and 24 shows that they are insurance claims that were denied before May 13, 2009. Ms. Marchese testified that Dr. Kontos was aware of these errors. However, Exhibits 23 and 24 only show that insurance claims were re- submitted after the date of Ms. Menz's termination. The exhibits do not support the finding that the claims were denied because of Ms. Menz or that these errors were considered before terminating her employment. These exhibits were prepared after the termination as a justification for the action as opposed to contemporaneous proof of Ms. Menz's performance. In contrast to the above listed exhibits, Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 are examples of errors and notes that were documented before Ms. Menz's termination. A review of these exhibits shows that the complained of errors occurred on January 22, 2009; February 3, 2009; March 2, 2009; and April 27, 2009. Respondent also offered the testimony of other employees from the dental office. Ms. Little, a dental hygienist, testified that she was aware that Ms. Menz made errors in entering codes for different treatment plans. She had spoken to Ms. Menz about the error, and Ms. Menz indicated that she would try to correct the problem. According to Ms. Little, the errors continued, but were not as bad. Finally, Ms. Little testified that Ms. Marchese was responsible for insurance claims with the office. Similarly, Ms. O'Leary, a dental hygienist, testified that she knew that Ms. Menz had some issues with insurance, but that she had a good working relationship with Ms. Menz. Ms. Menz candidly admitted that she made mistakes at her work and credibly testified that she was never told of the many errors that Respondent was claiming she had made or that she had cost Respondent money. Dr. Kontos admitted that that he did not individually counsel Ms. Menz about her errors. Rather than counsel individual employees, Dr. Kontos testified that it was his practice to speak to his employees as a group about errors because he wanted to avoid similar errors. Ms. Menz testified that she earned $10.75 an hour and that she had been out of work for 87 weeks. Ms. Menz agreed with her counsel's question that her calculated damages were $37,410.00. The record also shows that Ms. Menz filed for unemployment compensation, but was unclear about whether or not she received any compensation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Respondent violated section 70-54, Pinellas County Code. Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Menz the sum of $37,410.00 and interest at the prevailing statutory rate; and Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Menz reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees, if the parties are unable to agree to the amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 12th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Faulkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Jeremy W. Rodgers, Esquire Spector Gadon and Rosen, LLP 390 Central Avenue, Suite 1550 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Matthew K. Fenton, Esquire Wenzel, Fenton, and Cabassa, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33602 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 to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon alleged sexual harassment in the course of her employment and retaliation for her complaints concerning the alleged sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent at times pertinent hereto. It is undisputed that that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and that timeliness and jurisdictional requirements have been met. The Respondent obtained a contract with the United States Navy for a project to be performed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. It became the contractor for the project in approximately December of 1991. The contract, in pertinent part, provided that the Respondent would provide local cartage trucking services for the Navy on and in the environs of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The project involved loading and transportation of aircraft parts and related supplies and equipment. The Petitioner was hired as a truck driver, delivering aircraft parts for the naval aviation depot (NADEP). During the course of that employment, there came a time when the Petitioner contended that she had been discriminated against because of her gender. The Petitioner contends that in a meeting in December of 1991, she was told by Terry Meyers, an employee of the Respondent and the Petitioner's supervisor, that she "didn't look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to look for another job. The meeting in which the statements were allegedly made was a meeting called by the Petitioner's supervisor and the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis, to address certain deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance. Another employee, Mr. Braughton, was also counseled at the meeting concerning his performance as a truck driver. His was the same type of employment position as that occupied by the Petitioner. Mr. Braughton is a white male. The Petitioner maintains that she informed a white male employee, Mike Morris, of the statements allegedly made at the meeting and that he immediately made a telephone call to Mr. Frank Moody, the president of the corporation, to put the president and the corporation on notice of sexual discrimination against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was not present when Mr. Morris made that telephone call to Mr. Moody. Even had he made reference to alleged sexual discrimination in his telephone call to Mr. Moody, Mr. Morris only learned of the purported sexually-discriminatory statements from the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintained that Mr. Morris informed her that he had heard the statements made while standing at the door of the room in which the meeting occurred and that Mr. Morris initiated the telephone call on his own volition to Mr. Moody, based upon hearing those statements. Mr. Morris, however, testified to the contrary, stating that the Petitioner approached him and claimed that she was on probation and was fearful of being laid off from employment and that the Petitioner told him of the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements and that he did not hear them himself. He further testified that the Petitioner instructed him to contact Mr. Moody concerning her fears about her job and the alleged discriminatory statements or she would contact "HRO and EEO and have the contract shut down". Mr. Morris, indeed, called Mr. Moody but never mentioned the statements alleged by the Petitioner to have been made to her by Mr. Meyers during the performance evaluation meeting. In fact, it has been demonstrated by Mr. Morris' testimony, which the Hearing Officer accepts as more credible, that the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Morris about a sexually-discriminatory statement or purported sexual discrimination. Mr. Morris, instead, spoke to Mr. Moody about problems he saw occurring in the operation in Pensacola which he attributed to the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis. He told Mr. Moody that Mr. Francis was allowing employees to leave work early without Mr.. Moody's knowledge and still crediting them with working a full day on such occasions which, in effect, cost the corporation additional salary monies which were unearned. The meeting in which the Petitioner was allegedly confronted with the statement that she did not look like a truck driver and had three weeks to look for another job was called and conducted by Mr. Francis and Mr. Meyers was present. It is undisputed that Mr. Moody terminated Mr. Francis shortly after the telephone conversation with Mr. Morris. He replaced Mr. Francis with the current project manager, John Jacobs. Mr. Moody testified that in a telephone conversation with the Petitioner that she never mentioned to him the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements referenced above. Instead, he was told by both Mr. Morris and the Petitioner that she was concerned that she might lose her job because of the results of the meeting with Mr. Francis, in which he told her that she needed to improve her job performance. In fact, the management of the Respondent perceived a genuine job performance problem involving the Petitioner's conduct of her job duties. This was disclosed in the testimony of both Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Morris, where it was revealed that the Petitioner had had a continuing problem performing her job correctly and that Mr. Morris and the management personnel had worked with her constantly during the course of her employment term with the Respondent, taking more time and personal attention with her than with other employees. This was done in order to repetitively explain her job duties and give her additional chances to improve her work performance, in comparison to the lesser degree of attention and remedial help that they accorded other employees. Prior to February 3, 1993, the Petitioner had been employed with the Respondent for over a year. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs established, however, that even though her probationary period had long since elapsed, he still considered the Petitioner to be, in effect, an employee in training because she was deficient in correctly accomplishing all of the duties of her job. She was slow in performing her job duties, including preventive maintenance inspections of her vehicle and in making the "pickups and deliveries" of freight she was required to transport on her truck in the performance of her duties. The counseling session concerning her work performance occurring in December of 1991, referenced above, was during her probationary period. The white male employee, Mr. Rick Braughton, who was also counseled about deficient work performance on that occasion, was informed that he might not remain employed past his probationary period unless his performance improved. The Respondent had a regular practice and procedure, as part of its truck safety and preventive maintenance program, that employees, who were drivers, were required to give a preventive maintenance and safety inspection of their vehicles each day prior to leaving the company facility or terminal to transport aviation parts or other freight. This was regarded as crucial to proper job performance by the employer because of the concern about safety of the drivers and avoidance of damage, and liability for damage, to the expensive equipment and parts which the Respondent was required by its contract to transport, such as expensive military aircraft parts and related equipment. Among these preventive maintenance inspection duties that driver/employees, such as the Petitioner, were required to perform daily was the requirement to check the air in the truck tires and "top off" the tires with the required air pressure, if necessary. 10 Mr. Jacobs established that there came a time when the Petitioner was noted to have failed on multiple occasions, in the same week, to check and air her tires. Finally, upon this deficiency coming to his attention again on February 3, 1993, Mr. Jacobs suspended the Petitioner for a day without pay, for failing to check and air her tires. The Petitioner claims that she was the only employee singled out for this treatment concerning failure to inspect and air her tires. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs is deemed more credible, having observed the candor and demeanor of all of the witnesses, and it is determined that the employer had a good-faith belief that the Petitioner was deficient in this regard and that the reprimand, consisting of the one-day suspension, was justified. It was not demonstrated that, even if the Petitioner's version of events is true and that other driver/employees were not disciplined for failure to air their tires, that such a circumstance occurred as a result of the employer's knowledge of other driver/employees failing to air their tires and arbitrarily choosing not to discipline them. In fact, it was not demonstrated by preponderant, non-self-serving evidence that other employees had not been disciplined for failure to air their tires. In fact, it was not shown, other than by the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, that other employees had failed to air their tires when required. The other drivers are mostly male, but one is a female. There was no showing that she was treated any differently than the male drivers. In summary, it has been established that the employer accorded the reprimand to the Petitioner because of a good-faith belief that her performance had been deficient, on repeated occasions, in this respect. It is undisputed that prior to the date the Petitioner received the reprimand, consisting of one-day suspension without pay, that the Petitioner had a generally good attitude about her job insofar as management was able to observe. Even though management had had some concerns about her performance and the slow manner in which she was learning certain aspects of her job, with resulting deficient effects upon her performance, management forbore from using these concerns to reduce her performance rating. She received good evaluations of her performance, insofar as her personnel record is concerned, prior to the time she was suspended for one day on February 3, 1993. After the Petitioner received the suspension she developed a "bad attitude" insofar as her perception of management was concerned. She began to complain frequently about vehicle safety or purported concerns she had about the condition of her vehicle related to safety, particularly the truck brakes. Prior to her suspension, she had never complained in this regard. Management also perceived that she appeared to show down her work performance and management came to believe that it was an intentional delay of her work performance on an ongoing basis. Prior to receiving the reprimand, she was never known to complain to management concerning discrimination on account of her gender. She had never informed the project manager or any other supervisory personnel concerning her purported belief that employee Meyers was "following her". Only after she received the reprimand on February 3, 1993 did she elect to file a sexual discrimination charge with the Commission. Mr. Meyers had some supervisory authority over the Petitioner. His job duties also required that he drive his truck around the Naval Air Station and the immediate vicinity in the normal performance of his duties. This circumstance resulted in his being in close proximity to the Petitioner during the course of their respective work days. He contends that he was not purposely following her for the purpose of harassing her. The overall evidence of record reveals, however, that he, indeed, did follow or stop in her vicinity on a number of occasions to observe her work performance. This was not shown to be out of the ordinary scope of his supervisory duties, especially because of management's concern that the Petitioner was not progressing in the learning and performance of her job duties as well as other employees, including the other female driver. The project manager, Mr. Jacobs, felt that the Petitioner's attitude continued to decline after the February 3, 1993 reprimand. He felt that her attitude and performance reached its lowest level on the date she was observed to be loading "unauthorized equipment" (apparently a portion of a helicopter assembly weighing approximately 4,000 pounds) on the flatbed trailer of her assigned work truck. She was not authorized to load that equipment and apparently, according to her testimony, she did so in order to provide a substantial amount of weight on her trailer for the purpose of having her brakes inspected by the quality assurance official for the project. She went to an unauthorized area for approximately one hour to have this inspection performed without the approval of the Respondent's management. Further, it was not necessary, in order to evaluate the brakes on the vehicle for proper function and safety, to have the weight of the unauthorized load placed on the trailer. If, indeed, the brakes had been defective, it would have been entirely possible that the expensive aircraft parts she had placed on the trailer without authorization could have been substantially damaged, the truck or other property could have been damaged, and, indeed, the Petitioner or other persons could have been injured. Additionally, the Petitioner misrepresented the reason she was in the unauthorized area where she had her brakes inspected by Mr. Lett, the quality assurance officer. In this connection, because she had begun to complain repeatedly about the condition of her brakes and her vehicle (after her reprimand), the project manager, Mr. Jacobs, had had certain other employees come in on several occasions at approximately 6:00 a.m., before normal working hours, and before the Petitioner arrived on the job site, to inspect the Petitioner's truck for safety and appropriate preventive maintenance purposes. These employees were not informed that it was the Petitioner's truck they were inspecting at the time they were told to do the inspections. The Respondent was attempting to ascertain the true condition of the Petitioner's truck and determine whether her reports concerning safety problems, particularly with her brakes, were accurate or not. In fact, on the morning of the day when the unauthorized load was placed on the truck and the Petitioner had Mr. Lett perform the inspection of her brakes at the unauthorized area, one of the Petitioner's co-employees had inspected her brakes before she arrived to take custody of her truck that morning. He had determined that the brakes were operating properly. The Petitioner and Mr. Lett apparently felt that the brakes were deficient when they were inspected early in the afternoon of that day. The record does not reveal whether the brakes were deficient when Mr. Lett inspected them or that some change in the adjustment of the brakes or other problem had arisen since the employee inspected them early that morning and found them to be in proper operating order. Be that as it may, management was of the belief on that day and prior thereto that the Petitioner, although reporting brake deficiency problems, did not truly experience such brake deficiency problems with her truck. This belief was based upon management perceptions concerning the Petitioner's attitude after her reprimand and upon the independent, confidential inspections management had other employees do on the Petitioner's truck. Accordingly, whether its belief was accurate or not, management was of the good-faith belief, on the date she was observed loading unauthorized, expensive equipment onto the flatbed truck, in an unnecessary fashion, for the purpose of having her brakes inspected, while being absent from her work assignment for one hour in an unauthorized area, that it had performance-related reasons to terminate her, which it did. This decision was made against the background of the increasingly poor attitude displayed by the Petitioner since her reprimand and because of the continuing problems management had experienced with the Petitioner's job performance since her initial employment one and one- half years previously. Although the Petitioner testified that as early as December of 1991, the management of the Respondent had spoken with her regarding her work performance and she interpreted that meeting as an attack on her gender and not upon her poor work habits, this contention was not verified by any other testimony. Having observed the candor and demeanor of the Petitioner versus that of the other witnesses, it is determined that her testimony is less creditable because of its self-serving nature. Although the Petitioner testified that a comment was made that "she did not look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to find another job, this was not verified through testimony of any other witness. To the extent that any other witnesses testified concerning these statements being made in a belief that discrimination had been exhibited toward the Petitioner, the evidence reveals that this information only came to these people through self-serving reports by the Petitioner herself. Meyers directly contradicts that these statements were made to the Petitioner and he states that he never heard anyone tell her that she had three weeks to look for a job or that she "didn't look like a truck driver". The petitioner provided no testimony or evidence which could show how these alleged statements constituted "sexual discrimination" or how the statements related to her sexual discrimination claim. It was not shown that any member of management, with employment-decision authority, made or condoned such statements even if it had been established that they evidenced gender-based discrimination, which was not done. The Petitioner did not complain of sexual discrimination per se until after she had received a reprimand from management. Likewise, she began to repetitively claim that her equipment was unsafe after the reprimand. The Petitioner may have been overly sensitive to management's concern for safety inspections of her truck because of being reprimanded for safety violations and was afraid she would "get into trouble" with management if she did not constantly report feared safety problems. The fact was established, however, that management had a genuine, good-faith belief that it was being harassed by these repetitive, unsafe equipment reports by the Petitioner, given the then- prevailing atmosphere surrounding the Petitioner's employment, characterized by her less than satisfactory attitude, as perceived by management, and the fact that management's confidential inspections of her equipment did not reveal any safety problems of the type reported by the Petitioner. Finally, it is especially noteworthy that during this period of time when the Petitioner made the claim of sexual discrimination and retaliation based upon her claim, that the Respondent had in its employ, in an identical job position, a female truck driver who had had no unsatisfactory experience by management with her performance, was not subjected to investigative or disciplinary measures, and who is still satisfactorily employed with the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition herein in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1459 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact which are not in separately-numbered, discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs contain some proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and some which are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are intertwined with argument and discussions of the weight of the evidence or testimony. Because the paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact contain both findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and which the Hearing Officer rejects, discrete, specific rulings thereon are not practicable. It suffices to say that all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are subordinate to, but have been considered and addressed in the findings of fact portion of this Recommended Order and have been in that fashion completely ruled upon. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The same considerations are true of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Some portions of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent consist of merely discussions and argument concerning the weight of the evidence and some are acceptable to the Hearing Officer based upon the Hearing Officer's determination of the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence. Some are rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact made on the same subject matter. Here, again, this Recommended Order completely and adequately addresses the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, and the Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer and to the extent they are inconsistent therewith, they are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence or as being immaterial, unnecessary, or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry W. McCleary, Esquire 3 West Garden Street Suite 380 Pensacola, FL 32501 Donna Gardner, Esquire 213 South Alcaniz Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marlowe D. Robinson ("Petitioner"), was unlawfully discriminated against by Respondent, Broward County School District ("BCSD"), his employer, based on his disability and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination, in violation of chapter 760 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner worked for BCSD for approximately 20 years prior to the termination of his employment on May 8, 2018. Petitioner is a disabled veteran. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was employed as the Head Facility Serviceperson at BCSD's office in the Katherine C. Wright Building ("KCW"). On February 5, 2016, Richard Volpi began working at KCW as the Manager of Administrative Support and as Petitioner's immediate supervisor. During Mr. Volpi's third day on the job, Petitioner told him that he was not happy that Mr. Volpi was at KCW and that KCW was "his house." He also told Mr. Volpi that he did not work because he "delegated to his crew." On February 18, 2016, Petitioner filed two internal labor grievances. In the first, he asked to have his job title changed to "Building Operations Supervisor." In the second grievance, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Volpi and Jeff Moquin, Chief of Staff, created a hostile and unclean work environment. Mr. Volpi processed the grievances by having a meeting with Petitioner on February 25, 2016. Finding no basis for the grievances in the collective bargaining agreement, Mr. Volpi denied them. On October 10, 2016, Mr. Volpi met with Petitioner to discuss a significant pattern of Petitioner coming in late, failing to notify BCSD when arriving late, staying after his scheduled shift to make up time without authorization, failing to call in as required for sick days, and failing to have pre- authorization for using accumulated leave. After the meeting, Mr. Volpi issued a written "Meeting Summary," which included counseling, based on Petitioner having come in late 24 days since August 1, 2016, and only notifying Mr. Volpi's assistant of the tardiness on three of those 24 days. The "Meeting Summary" was not considered discipline and stated, "If for any reason you need to change your shift hours to assist you in getting to work on time, please let me know." On October 19, 2016, Petitioner filed his third internal labor grievance after Mr. Volpi became his supervisor. The third labor grievance made numerous allegations against Mr. Volpi, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, unspecified Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") violations, and retaliation for filing prior grievances. On October 26, 2016, Petitioner submitted a request for intermittent leave pursuant to FMLA. The next day, Petitioner was notified that his FMLA leave request was incomplete, and was therefore denied. Petitioner was later granted intermittent FMLA leave with the agreement that he was to provide advance notification of his anticipated absences. On November 9, 2016, Petitioner was notified in writing to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on November 16, 2016, for a pre- disciplinary conference to discuss Petitioner's failure to adhere to the directive of October 10, 2016, to notify Mr. Volpi if he was going to be late, out for the day, or working outside his scheduled hours. The letter specified that Petitioner was late October 11, 13, and 17, 2016, without notifying Mr. Volpi, and that Petitioner was late and worked past his regular scheduled hours on October 21, 25, and November 7, 2016. The letter also specified that Petitioner "called out" (took time off) without notifying Mr. Volpi on October 31 and November 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, 2016. In response, Petitioner filed a fourth grievance against Mr. Volpi alleging retaliation, bullying, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and various policies of BCSD. On November 16, 2016, Mr. Volpi memorialized in writing that Petitioner failed to show up for the November 16, 2016, pre-disciplinary meeting. On November 21, 2016, Petitioner was notified in writing that he was to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on November 30, 2016, for a pre-disciplinary meeting to replace the original meeting scheduled for November 16, 2016. Petitioner was not disciplined for not showing up to the November 16, 2016, meeting. The meeting on November 30, 2016, went forward as scheduled and Petitioner was issued a verbal reprimand on December 5, 2016, his first discipline from Mr. Volpi, for Petitioner's ignoring the prior directive to contact his supervisor if he was going to be late, absent, or wanted to work beyond his scheduled shift. He was again reminded that he had to make such notifications and have permission in advance of working hours other than his regular shift. On January 12, 2017, Petitioner was granted a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the ADA. The accommodation granted permitted Petitioner to report to work within one hour of his scheduled work time and leave within one hour of his scheduled end time ("flex time"). Additionally, Petitioner was required to notify his supervisor in advance of using flex time. Mr. Volpi assisted Petitioner in the accommodation process. Mr. Volpi provided Petitioner the accommodation paperwork and advocated for Petitioner to be granted an accommodation. On January 26, 2017, Petitioner again came in late without providing Mr. Volpi advance notice of intent to use his flex time. On January 27, 2017, Mr. Volpi sent an email to Petitioner reminding Petitioner that he was required to notify him if he is going to be late. This was not considered discipline. On March 21, 2017, Petitioner was notified in writing that he was to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on March 27, 2017, for a pre-disciplinary meeting regarding ongoing excessive tardiness and failure to adhere to his work schedule. On March 23, 2017, Petitioner filed his fifth internal labor grievance, again alleging harassment (among other claims) against Mr. Volpi. On March 28, 2017, Petitioner filed his sixth internal labor grievance, again making harassment allegations against Mr. Volpi. On April 6, 2017, Petitioner was issued a Written Reprimand by Mr. Volpi for his nine days of tardiness in February and March and his failure to notify Mr. Volpi in advance. On April 7, 2017, Petitioner appealed the Written Reprimand. Petitioner also filed his seventh and eighth internal labor grievances alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation. Petitioner filed his Charge with the FCHR on April 13, 2017. Mr. Volpi conducted a first-step grievance hearing on April 27, 2017, and as a result of the discussion with Petitioner, who agreed to notify Mr. Volpi in advance of his inability to arrive at work as scheduled, the April 6, 2017, Written Reprimand was reduced to a verbal warning. The FCHR dismissed Petitioner's Charge with a No Reasonable Cause Determination on October 10, 2017. Between January 1 and February 15, 2018, Petitioner came to work late 14 days without providing prior notice, was absent without leave two days, and worked overtime one day without prior authorization. As a result, BCSD issued a three- day suspension on February 21, 2018. On February 22, 2018, Mr. Volpi met again with Petitioner to go over the expectations and provided a reminder memo not to work unauthorized hours without prior approval. On March 13, 2018, Mr. Volpi asked BCSD to issue a ten-day suspension to Petitioner for his ongoing failure to report to work at assigned times, unauthorized overtime, and absences without leave. In response, Petitioner filed yet another labor grievance. BCSD approved the ten-day suspension on April 10, 2018. Despite the ADA accommodation, increasing discipline, multiple counseling meetings and reminders, Petitioner continued his pattern of tardiness, unauthorized overtime, and absences. Accordingly, BCSD terminated Petitioner's employment on May 8, 2018. Petitioner's discipline and ultimate termination were not performance based, but rather, related solely to ongoing attendance issues.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing FCHR Petition 201700954. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2018.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was the victim of an unlawful employment practice, by allegedly being subjected to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, based on her race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Rosa Pearl McDonald is an African- American female. She was employed at times pertinent to this dispute as a driver, delivering meals to elderly clients of the Walton County Council on Aging. The Petitioner is also a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The Respondent, Walton County Council on Aging is a charitable social services agency, domiciled in Walton County. As pertinent to this case, it delivers and serves meals to elderly clients throughout the county, through the use of hired and volunteer drivers. The Petitioner was a recently-hired driver, of less than 30 days' employment, when the operative facts occurred. The Petitioner was still in probationary employment status. The Petitioner contends, in effect, that she was subjected to disparate terms and conditions of employment due to her race. She states she was the only black driver and that her supervisor, Kay Brady, is white. The Petitioner noticed after hiring, that the food delivery boxes had the assigned drivers' names on them. The box she was assigned had only the route name. She states she had asked Ms. Brady to place her name on the box, but the route name was placed on the box instead. The Petitioner acknowledged, upon cross-examination, that she did not know who placed the route label on the food box. She was still a probationary employee at this time. The probationary period was 90 days, and the Petitioner resigned only 30 days or less, after her hiring. Inferentially, it may be that the probationary status was the reason her name was not used, or it may have been an oversight. There is no evidence other than the Petitioner's stated opinion, that the labeling situation was due to racial animus. In fact, the Petitioner had been hired, and fired, by the Respondent twice in the past, and yet it still re-hired her shortly before the subject situation arose. Moreover, Ms. Brady gave the Petitioner extra hours of work when she requested them. These facts tend to negate the existence of racial bias in the imposition of any term or conditions of the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner also contends that she was treated disparately, compared to other drivers. She maintains that a white driver, "Margaret," on occasion had guests ride along with her on her deliveries. The Petitioner states that she asked twice to be allowed to have friends ride with her on deliveries, but Ms. Brady would not allow it. Ms. Kay Brady was the Petitioner's supervisor. She established with her testimony, that the Respondent has a regularly-adopted policy of allowing no riders to accompany route drivers, other than trained volunteers or office personnel, who occasionally go along on deliveries to ascertain that client services are being provided appropriately. Occasionally spouses of regular drivers make deliveries when the driver is ill or must miss work for any reason. The Respondent also uses volunteer drivers, as well. In both situations, however, the spouses or volunteers are given training before being allowed to make deliveries to clients, chiefly because of the privacy requirements of the "Hippa Privacy Law" and the Respondent's client confidentiality policy. The point is, the Petitioner sought to have friends ride with her on deliveries (for reasons which are unclear) and her friends were not trained and oriented to the Respondent's job requirements. The Respondent had a policy of not allowing friends or family to simply accompany drivers without such training, and for reasons which did not relate to job requirements, except in unusual circumstances. One such circumstance involved a driver who needed to be allowed to take her grandchildren with her on a delivery or deliveries, when she was unable to engage a baby sitter. This was an isolated and unusual occurrence, during a time when the children were out of school for Christmas break. On such rare occasions, the Respondent has allowed children to accompany drivers on short trips, on routes near their homes and where children can safely remain in vehicles during deliveries. The above circumstance was probably the one involving driver "Margaret" which the Petitioner described in her testimony. In any event, however, the Respondent had a regular written policy regarding requirements and qualification for persons making deliveries to clients and it followed it, with the above rare exceptions. The employee handbook, Council on Aging Handbook and the Employee Handbook receipt, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 5, 6, and 4, respectively, show this policy and the fact that the Petitioner was informed of it. The Petitioner's friends, whom she sought to have accompany her, were not shown to be qualified under the Respondent's requirements. Because the reasons for requesting the accompaniment of proposed "riders" were different for employees other than the Petitioner, referenced in the above examples of policy exceptions, these other drivers were not shown to be similarly-situated exemplar employees, who received more favorable treatment. In fact, the Petitioner was favored in a different way. The Respondent was able to give the Petitioner extra hours of work "sitting" with elderly clients when their caregivers were absent. The Respondent and Ms. Brady would learn about such needs through its normal service contacts with clients and their families. Because the Petitioner is an LPN, the Respondent would refer her for extra work, to her benefit. In summary, the preponderant evidence and above facts show that no adverse employment action occurred. There were no verbal or other acts or adverse employment directives toward the Petitioner at all, much less any that evidence racial animus, by supervisors or employees. Therefore, there was no racially hostile environment, so there could not be one in which her terms and conditions of employment were altered. Moreover, since there were no disciplinary actions toward the Petitioner, nor adverse employment directives or conditions (in fact she was favored with extra hours), there could be no constructive termination. There certainly was no actual termination. The Petitioner, in fact, resigned her position, telling both Ms. Brady and Mr. Moore that it was for health reasons. She admitted as much in her testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosa Pearl McDonald 1961 McLeod Road DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Kay Brady Walton County Council on Aging Post Office Box 648 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent was Petitioner’s employer at the time of Petitioner’s alleged unlawful termination, or is otherwise liable to Petitioner for alleged unlawful termination under any theory of successor liability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a Legal Assistant by Igler & Dougherty Law Offices, P.A. (Igler & Dougherty), in Tallahassee, Florida, for approximately three-and-a-half years. Petitioner was terminated by Igler & Dougherty by letter dated February 6, 2012, allegedly for failure to make “adequate progression to date.” Petitioner alleges that she was unlawfully terminated after treatment for migraine headaches during an extended hospital stay. Respondent, Adams and Reese, LLP, is a limited liability law partnership headquartered in Louisiana, with offices in Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Florida, and Washington, D.C. Charles P. Adams, Jr., is Respondent’s Managing Partner. In mid-summer 2012, Respondent approached George Igler, Partner in Igler & Dougherty, about the possibility of joining Adams and Reese to establish the firm’s Tallahassee office. Mr. Adams was primarily responsible for all discussions with Mr. Igler and other members of Igler & Dougherty who eventually joined Respondent. On October 1, 2012, Respondent announced the official opening of its Tallahassee office. The new office was located at 2457 Care Drive, the building that formerly housed Igler & Dougherty. At no time before October 1, 2012, did Respondent maintain an office or employ individuals in Tallahassee, Florida. Mr. Igler and Mr. Dougherty joined Respondent as partners. Other former Igler & Dougherty lawyers joined Respondent as partners and associates. Respondent also hired some of the support staff from Igler & Dougherty. Respondent did not hire Petitioner. Respondent did not merge with Igler & Dougherty, did not acquire the assets of Igler & Dougherty, and did not assume the liabilities of Igler & Dougherty. Igler & Dougherty retained its accounts receivable and work in progress, and Mr. Igler and Mr. Dougherty continued to wrap up the business of Igler & Dougherty after joining Adams and Reese. Respondent is managed by its Managing Partner and an Executive Committee comprised of six partners. None of the attorneys or employees of Igler & Dougherty hired by Respondent are Executive Committee members. Respondent has two classes of partners, capital partners and income partners. Only capital partners have an ownership interest in the firm. Only one of the seven attorneys hired by Respondent from Igler & Dougherty, Mr. Igler, is a capital partner. On October 12, 2012, the date Respondent opened its Tallahassee office, Respondent had 114 additional capital partners, none of whom had worked for Igler & Dougherty. At no time did Respondent employ Petitioner. Respondent did not participate in Petitioner’s termination nor did it have any role in the decision to terminate her. At the time Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination with the Commission, the Florida Secretary of State website showed that Igler & Dougherty, P.A., was an active Florida registered corporation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Kelli Lawhead in FCHR No. 2013-00581. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Suzanne Van Wyk Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lauren F. Strickland, Esquire Marie A. Mattox, P.A. 310 East Bradford Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Leslie A. Lanusse, Esquire Adams and Reese, LLP 701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500 New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Lauren L. Tafaro, Esquire Adams and Reese, LLP 701 Poydras Street 4500 One Shell Square New Orleans, Louisiana 70139 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission of Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by retaliating against Petitioner for filing a charge of discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jacques Pierre (Petitioner or Mr. Pierre) is black and his national origin is Haitian. He has worked in the United States for 24 years. On or about January 25, 2006, Mr. Pierre filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a charge of discrimination against his employer, Respondent, SSA Security, Inc., a/k/a Security Services of America, a California Corporation (Respondent or SSA). SSA, under a subcontract with a federal government contractor, Alutiiq-Mele, provided security services for a federal building in Miami. SSA continued to employ Petitioner as a security guard when it took over the contract from his previous employer, Superior Protection. Contractors and managers changed, in the past, but the security guards stayed the same. On August 10, 2006, and August 15, 2006, first Mr. Pierre, then a representative for SSA signed an agreement to settle the EEOC complaint. With a letter dated August 23, 2006, Mr. Pierre received a settlement check in the amount of $1,257.04, and he was advised to report any future unlawful harassment or discrimination charges by use of a "Harassment Hotline and [to] speak with your local area manager, Barry Hirsch [sic]." Captain Barry Hersch was Mr. Pierre's immediate supervisor. The agreement was approved, in principle, by Kent Jurney, Sr., an SSA corporate officer. The language of the agreement is, in relevant part, as follows: Removal of all Disciplinary Notices in File. Company agrees to remove all writings related to disciplinary actions taken against Employee from Employee's personnel file maintained by the Company. Employee understands that the removal of said documents does not prevent the Company from issuing disciplinary notices and/or taking disciplinary action against Employee as necessary in the future should Employee violate the Company's rules of [sic] policies. * * * 4. Confidentiality Clause. The Employee and the Company agree to the following confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement: (a) The parties represent and agree that they will keep the terms and amount of this agreement completely confidential. The parties will not hereafter disclose any information concerning this agreement to anyone, including but not limited to, any past, present or prospective employee of the Company or any prospective employer of the Employee. On August 25, 2006, the federal government changed the requirements in the contract. No longer would security guards be allowed to take breaks at the start or end of their shifts, but only during the middle. Mr. Pierre was made aware of the change. In violation of the requirement, on September 1, 2006, Mr. Pierre took his break at the end of his shift. The federal government contract also prohibited security guards from being on the work premises more than 30 minutes before or after their shifts. On August 28, 2006, Mr. Pierre returned to his work site and entered the building more than 30 minutes after his shift to retrieve keys and a telephone charger. Mr. Pierre also got into a loud and profane argument with another worker during his unauthorized return to the building. Mr. Pierre admitted he had an incident where he got into an argument with and "fired back" at a supervisor in 1995 or 1996. Beginning on or about July 10, 2006, Petitioner began to request, but initially was denied, leave. Mr. Pierre was feeling threatened and harassed by his supervisors and was suffering physically as a result. On a form dated August 25, 2006, Mr. Pierre said he was requesting leave from September 11 to September 25, with a return date of September 27, 2006. Spaces on the form to indicate whether it was approved or disapproved, and by whom are blank. As the reason for the request, Mr. Pierre indicated "stress related: as a result of retaliation.” This time, Captain Hersch, approved the request and Mr. Pierre went on vacation in September 2006. On September 5, 2006, as instructed by Mr. Jurney, another Miami supervisor, Bill Graham, issued a memorandum to Mr. Pierre requiring him to attend a mandatory meeting "about several important issues and notifying him of his "temporary removal from the schedule until this meeting has taken place." Copies of the memorandum were sent to Mr. Jurney and Captain Hersch. The evidence is insufficient to determine if other security guards who violated the same rules were subjected to the same consequences, or if discipline was uniformly applied. Mr. Pierre requested, either through his supervisor, Captain Hersch, or directly to Mr. Graham, that the attorney who handled his EEOC complaint and settlement agreement be allowed to attend the meeting with him. Mr. Jurney denied the request. Because he never attended a meeting, Mr. Pierre remained "off the schedule." For the remainder of 2006 and in early 2007, he was working part-time only at his second job with the State Department of Corrections. Mr. Pierre's income was reduced from $15 an hour ($17 minus $2 for insurance) for 40-hour weeks with SSA, plus $1,000 every two weeks from Corrections to only his Corrections pay. The evidence is insufficient to determine how long Mr. Pierre was, or if he still has, a lower income and what, if any, efforts he has taken to secure alternate employment to mitigate damages. SSA supposedly notified Mr. Pierre, in a memorandum dated September 22, 2006, that he was suspended without pay for two weeks for his rule violations and his failure to attend the mandatory meeting. The authenticity of the memorandum was questioned, and no witnesses testified to sponsor it or to explain why it was necessary, given the fact that Mr. Pierre was already "off the schedule." On October 3, 2006, Mr. Pierre filed a charge of retaliation with the Florida Commission on Human Relations which, on July 2, 2008, found that reasonable cause existed to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. In the fall of 2006, Mr. Pierre applied for a job with the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (Miami- Dade). It was his understanding that his background investigation had been successfully completed, but that SSA had not responded to a reference form. Mr. Pierre took the form to SSA. The form, dated October 4, 2006, was completed by Captain Hersch, who responded, in relevant part, as follows: Reason for termination (voluntary/fired)? NON APPLICABLE Describe the applicant's work performance. GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE Describe the applicant's attendance record. GOOD OVERALL Was the applicant ever disciplined for any reason? If YES, please explain. YES CONFIDENTIAL." Is applicant able to work well with others? YES Is applicant trustworthy? YES Describe applicant's work habits? KNOWS HIS JOB, AND DOES IT Is applicant eligible for re-employment? If NO, please explain why. STILL EMPLOYED There is no explanation why Captain Hersch mentioned the confidential agreement, but not the subsequent disciplinary actions that were the focus of concern to Mr. Jurney and Mr. Graham, which could have been disclosed without violating the agreement. Based on the earlier assurances from Miami-Dade, Mr. Pierre, having put "no" when asked about discipline of his job application, believes the contradictory response from SSA caused him not to get the job. He received a letter informing him, but without giving specific reasons, that he was not hired by Miami-Dade. He failed to prove the correctness of his belief. Mr. Pierre testified, but presented no supporting evidence, that he could have earned up to $120,000 a year with Miami-Dade. SSA received notice on the second anniversary of its contract, in October 2006, that the federal government contract would not be renewed. Some time in 2007, most likely in February, at Mr. Pierre's request, he met with Mr. Jurney. It was not until that meeting, Mr. Pierre remembered, that Mr. Jurney had someone remove pre-settlement discipline records from his personnel file. By that time, SSA no longer had a contract with the federal government and was transferring its personnel over to work for the next contractor, Alutiiq. Mr. Pierre asked to be transferred and Mr. Jurney testified that he contacted someone at Alutiiq and asked for Mr. Pierre to be interviewed, but the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that SSA attempted to transfer Mr. Pierre to Alutiiq, or what the routine procedures were for transferring security guards. When Mr. Pierre found out that the necessary paperwork was never sent from SSA to Alutiiq, he tried unsuccessfully for two or three weeks to contact SSA. It is reasonable to believe that SSA, while not allowing Mr. Pierre to work, would not help him transfer over to the next contractor. Mr. Pierre was not transferred and was not employed by Alutiiq. Mr. Jurney testified unconvincingly that he made non-federal contract job offers to Mr. Pierre and Mr. Pierre found the offers acceptable, “but he didn’t accept them.” It is inconceivable that Mr. Pierre, who has three children to support and a wife who works part-time, would have rejected any legitimate job offer at that time. Mr. Pierre and Mr. Jurney, a former highway patrol trooper and member of an advisory board for the Florida Highway Patrol, discussed Mr. Pierre’s desire to be a trooper. Mr. Jurney offered to assist him but that employment never materialized. As a corporate officer, Mr. Jurney was responsible for overseeing hundreds of contracts involving 1,500 employees. He was senior to Mr. Graham and Captain Hersch. Yet, once he authorized the EEOC settlement, he became directly involved in the decision-making concerning discipline and consequences for Mr. Pierre. There is no evidence that Mr. Pierre had ever come to his attention before he approved the settlement.
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 directing that Respondent cease the discriminatory employment practice evidenced in this case and awarding Petitioner back pay at the rate of $15.00 an hour for each normal 40-hour work week between September 5, 2006, and the date of the final order, offset by earnings from substitute employment, if any. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 27th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald G. Polly, Esquire Hawkins & Parnell, LLP 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243 Jacques Pierre 19601 Northwest 12th Court Miami, Florida 33169 Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on May 4, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American woman who was employed by Respondent from July 2000 until her termination on January 24, 2001. At the time she was hired, the staff at the store location where Petitioner was employed was comprised of mostly black females. Initially, Petitioner held the position of hotline operator. In December 2000, she became an assistant manager of the store and another African-American woman, Latasha Green became the store manager. According to Petitioner, problems began to arise after she and Ms. Green were promoted to managerial positions. While an assistant manager, Petitioner's duties included closing the store and taking deposits to the bank where she had a key to the store's safe deposit box. On January 5, 2001, Petitioner and Ms. Green attended a meeting with their supervisor, Jason Rudd, a white male. This meeting was upsetting to Petitioner because of comments made to her and to Ms. Green by Mr. Rudd. In particular, Mr. Rudd commented that there were too many "dark clouds" in the store, which Petitioner interpreted to be racist remarks. At the January 5, 2001, meeting, Petitioner learned that a white male, Jason Smith, was going to be brought in as the new store manager. With this change in personnel, Ms. Green was demoted from store manager to assistant manager and Petitioner was demoted from assistant manager to hotline operator. When Petitioner was demoted, she did not receive a cut in pay. Petitioner informed Mr. Rudd that it was her intention to leave her employment with Respondent because her sister was ill. She informed Mr. Rudd that January 25, 2001, would be her last day. However, she was terminated on January 24, 2001. Between January 4 and January 24, 2001, three white males were hired, and four black females, including Petitioner and Ms. Miller, were discharged. The reason for her termination on the Report of Employee's Termination form was "not working out." However, on the same form, her job performance, attendance, and cooperation were rated as "good." Additionally, the form had a blank following the question, "Would you rehire this employee?" The blank was filled in, "yes." Petitioner filed for unemployment compensation and initially received $512.00 in unemployment benefits. However, after a telephone hearing, the Division of Unemployment Compensation informed her that she must repay the $512.00. At the time of her discharge, Petitioner was earning approximately $250.00 per week. Petitioner seeks back pay, the $512.00 in unemployment compensation, and a verbal apology from Respondent.
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 finding that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination and paying Petitioner $50.00 in back pay. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 2003.
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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of employment discrimination by reason of his being terminated, allegedly on account of his physical disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an "employee" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent meets the statutory definition of "employer" appearing in that Chapter. The Petitioner is a truck driver by occupation and was employed by the Respondent, Gurley Refining Company, in that capacity from February, 1982 until February 11, 1988, with the exception of a very brief period of time when he performed some other duties for that firm. This cause arose under the auspices of the Florida Human Relations Commission, an agency of the State of Florida constituted in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It is charged by that Chapter with oversight of working conditions and circumstances between employers and employees in Florida to the extent that the agency, under the mandate of Chapter 760, provides a procedure whereby employee claims of employment discrimination on account of race, age, sex, religion, national origin or disability can be adjudicated in a due process hearing environment, including hearings before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the event such claims culminate in formal disputes. During the course of the Petitioner's employment with Gurley Refining Company, in addition to being employed as a truck driver (the vast majority of his duties with that company), the Petitioner also had significant experience as a warehouse employee, handling the company's inventory and freight. The Petitioner had an unblemished record as a truck driver for the Respondent company. He had no disciplinary altercations with his supervisors and his attendance record was characterized by very few absences, sick leave and little tardiness. In approximately early January of 1988, the Petitioner suffered an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), which necessitated his absence from work for a period of approximately thirty days. His treating physician, a cardiologist, Dr. Story, of Orlando, released him approximately a month after his heart attack, but admonished him to engage in light duties, and restricting him against lifting weight in excess of seventy pounds. During the course of his illness, the operations manager of the Respondent's Lake County facility and Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Kenny Hart, had assured the Petitioner that his job would be waiting for him as soon as he recovered from his illness. In fact, however, in early February, when the Petitioner was released by his doctor to return to his job, with the restrictions mentioned above, the Petitioner requested his former job back and was refused. Mr. Hart indicated to the Petitioner that he would not hire him back, and in fact terminated him due to his medical condition, as Mr. Hart explained it. The Petitioner's doctor had not restricted him from doing his same job or from working an eight hour day, but merely had restricted him against lifting more than seventy pounds at any one time. When Mr. Hart refused to put him back to work in his old job, the Petitioner requested to be assigned to duties in the company's warehouse or bottling plant. The company had an operation involving bottling of windshield washer detergent fluid. The Petitioner had had substantial experience in those operations, especially as a checker of merchandise and as a forklift operator in the company warehouse. His physical disability would not preclude him from performing those functions. Mr. Hart, and his superior, Mr. Helton of the company's office in Memphis, Tennessee, declined to place the Petitioner in such an employment position with the company. There have been a number of instances in which the company accommodated employees by placing them at work at various positions in the company operations during the period of time they were on medical restrictions by their doctors due to some disability or illness. The Petitioner described one case in particular involving an employee who had surgery for amputation of his leg and who was allowed to come back to work performing various minor jobs during his convalescence in order to allow him some gainful employment, later being restored to more meaningful permanent duties. The Petitioner was not thus accommodated, however. The Petitioner could have performed any of the types of duties mentioned above, involving the warehouse or the bottling plant or driving a truck once again, because all were within the scope of his years of experience with the company and his physical abilities, even as restricted by his doctor. The Petitioner was making $7.80 an hour when he was terminated and during the year after his termination from February 11, 1988 to approximately February 1, 1989, the Petitioner was not able to get regular employment. For a time after termination, he was receiving unemployment compensation and thereafter worked at casual labor jobs involving loading and unloading trucks for a trucking company. He also worked at laying sewer lines, doing manual labor. During the year after his termination, the Petitioner and his wife earned approximately $18,000. Four thousand dollars of that sum was from the wife's part-time employment. The Petitioner had grossed approximately $30,000 in the past full year he worked for the Respondent company, that is, 1987. In February, 1989, the Petitioner again obtained full-time employment in a truck driving position with another firm. He is again making approximately $30,000 gross salary per year. At the time Petitioner was off work from his job with the Respondent due to his heart condition, and at the time of his termination, no mention was made or information given him about any right to medical disability to leave. The Petitioner apparently missed approximately thirty days of work, and then was terminated under the above conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Human Relations Commission finding that an unlawful employment practice occurred by Respondent's discrimination against the Petitioner on account of his handicap, and that he be accorded all relief allowed under the above-cited authority, including back pay of $16,000 and related benefits in accordance with the requirements of Section 760.10(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 16th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Allen Reynolds 2356 Oliver Avenue Leesburg, FL 32748 Mr. R. D. Helton Director of Operations Gurley Refining Company Post Office Box 626 Memphis, Tennessee 38101 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 240, Building F 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 =================================================================
