The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 475.25(1)(a),(b), and (e) and 475.42(1)(a),(b), and (d), Florida Statutes (1997), by operating as a broker without holding a valid broker's license, operating as a broker while licensed as a salesperson, collecting money except in the name of his employer, and committing misrepresentation, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust; and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in the state. Respondent is licensed in the state as a salesperson pursuant to license number 0575377. The last license issued was issued as an involuntary inactive salesperson at 361 Godfrey Road Southeast, Palm Bay, Florida 32909. After March 31, 1995, Respondent's license as a salesperson became inactive after Respondent did not renew it. Between March 1994 and January 1997, Respondent was employed as a salesperson by Prestige Homes of Brevard, Inc. ("Prestige"). Prestige is a Florida corporation wholly owned by Mr. Mark Pagliarulo and Mr. John Wales. Prestige is engaged in the business of residential construction. Mr. G. Wayne Carter was the sponsoring broker for Respondent from March 1994 through January 1997. Mr. Carter was licensed in the state as a broker until his license was revoked in 1998. Between March 1994 and January 1997, Prestige paid Respondent a sales commission of three percent of the sales price of each home constructed by Prestige and sold by Respondent. Prestige paid Respondent a weekly draw against commissions earned by Respondent. Mr. Carter, the sponsoring broker for Respondent, had no knowledge of the payments received by Respondent. Respondent did not deposit any sales commissions to Mr. Carter's escrow account. Respondent participated in various activities that violate relevant provisions in Sections 475.25 and 475.42. Respondent collected $1,100 from Marcia Pitts for a sprinkler system, a $1,000 initializing fee from Linda and David Grogan, and a $1,000 "design fee" from Mrs. Robert Leudesdorf. Respondent converted the foregoing sums to his personal use without the knowledge of his employers at Prestige and without the knowledge of Respondent's broker. Respondent operated as a broker without a valid broker's license, while licensed as a salesperson, and collected money for himself rather than for his broker or his employer. Respondent routinely designed variations on a "custom" home design without his employers' knowledge. Respondent then charged the purchasers approximately $1,000 for the plan changes. Respondent routinely deducted the $1,000 fee from the contract price Prestige charged the customer and converted the $1,000 fee directly to his personal use. Respondent failed to disclose to the purchasers that he was not acting on behalf of Prestige. The purchasers believed they were dealing with Prestige. The omission and failure to disclose amounted to a misrepresentation, false pretense, and breach of trust in a real estate transaction. For a time, Respondent's employers at Prestige condoned Respondent's "free lance" activities. Respondent's employers reduced Respondent's draws against commissions by the amount of the "free lance" fees converted by Respondent. After Respondent failed to discontinue his "free lance" activities, however, Prestige terminated Respondent's employment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 475.25(1)(a),(b), and (e) and 475.42(1)(a),(b), and (d), and revoking Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Steven Michael Wallace 361 Godfrey Road Palm Bay, Florida 32909 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner because of his age and in retaliation for complaining about age discrimination, or whether, instead, Respondent had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner that was not a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male whose date of birth is June 23, 1958. Petitioner completed high school and had specialized training in welding. He has been working since he was 14 years old and has a varied employment history. Before 2006, Petitioner was a welder for a few months with Gencor Industries. He left that position because of what he described as unsafe working conditions. Before working for Gencor, he was a warehouse manager and shop foreman for Structural Waterproofing, but was terminated when he had a disagreement with the boss. Before that job, he was self- employed in construction and photography. In 2006, Petitioner was hired as a sales consultant with the Holler Classic Group, a car dealership. Petitioner had never had a job in car sales previously, but had worked as a travel agent for 13 years. He explained that there was no money to be made in travel anymore, but he heard that there was money to be made in car sales, so he thought he would try it. Petitioner left Holler Classic after about two years, because he found it was getting hard to compete against salespersons who he claimed "were being given deals by management." Petitioner was hired on July 11, 2008, as a sales associate at Courtesy Chevrolet on West Colonial in Orlando. Courtesy Chevrolet is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act and is a subsidiary of Respondent AutoNation. Petitioner was hired by Courtesy Chevrolet as an at-will employee. The terms of his employment were that he would be paid by commissions earned on car sales and would be given a draw against commissions so that there would be compensation in case there were periods of low sales. According to Petitioner, there was no fixed amount of cars he had to sell, except that, as he acknowledged, "[y]our commissions had to outdo your draw[.]" In other words, Petitioner understood that while the draw might cover an occasional low-sales month, there could not be continual low-sales months such that earned commissions were not sufficient to cover the draw. Petitioner also testified that shortly after he started at Courtesy Chevrolet, in August 2008, the manufacturer, General Motors (GM) imposed a rule that required car salesmen to sell at least six cars per month. Petitioner testified that he was aware this rule went into effect in August 2008, but that he did not think that the new rule applied to him, because he believed he was under the "old system." No evidence was presented to establish that certain car salespersons were allowed to continue under an "old system" that was exempt from the new minimum monthly sales quota. Instead, the more credible, consistent testimony of all witnesses, besides Petitioner, was that the six-car minimum monthly sales quota applied to all dealerships with GM franchises and to all car salespersons at Courtesy Chevrolet, including Petitioner. When Petitioner began working at Courtesy Chevrolet, the general manager was Paul Letso, who was eight or nine years older than Petitioner. Shortly thereafter, Mike Taylor was hired as the sales manager, and he was Petitioner's supervisor. Mike Taylor also was older than Petitioner, approximately 59 years old. Right away, Petitioner had problems working as a car salesman at Courtesy Chevrolet. Within a month or so after starting, he complained of "theft of my commissions" by other employees. He first spoke with the local human resources person at the dealership. She told him to report the problem to Bibi Bickram, who was the head of human resources for the region. Petitioner was given Ms. Bickram's cell phone number, and he contacted her, reaching her while she was at an airport. She got back with him a month later and told him that his manager, Mike Taylor, was handling the complaint. However, Mr. Taylor denied having heard about it, and Petitioner was not happy with the handling of his complaint. When Petitioner was first hired, he underwent training and orientation and was given a large amount of material, including an AutoNation Code of Business Ethics and an Associate Handbook, for which Petitioner signed acknowledgement forms. The form that Petitioner signed to acknowledge receipt of the Code of Business Ethics informed Petitioner that he had a number of options for reporting complaints, problems, or suspected violations of the code, of the law, or of any company policies. These options included notifying a manager, contacting someone in AutoNation's corporate or regional human resources departments, or calling the ACT-AlertLine. The ACT-AlertLine is a third-party administered, tip/complaint hotline where problems or complaints regarding any AutoNation dealership can be raised, anonymously or otherwise. The toll-free number for the ACT-AlertLine was provided in the document signed by Petitioner. In addition, the undisputed testimony was that flyers with the ACT-AlertLine are on display at the Courtesy Chevrolet employee break room. There was no credible evidence that before Petitioner was notified that he was being terminated, Petitioner ever utilized any of these options to notify anyone of problems or complaints, except for the single instance discussed above when Petitioner called Ms. Bickram's cell phone to complain about theft of his commissions. Petitioner's first full calendar quarter at Courtesy Chevrolet was October to December 2008. Based on his sales figures for his first full quarter, Petitioner was given a documented verbal counseling for inadequate work performance, followed by a written corrective action record. In pertinent part, this record provided: Facts and Events: Your performance for the months of October, November and December of 2008 were below target. They were as follows: ** October - you saw 20 customers, sold 1 unit - 5% closing ** November - you saw 22 customers, sold 3 units - 13.6% closing ** December - you saw 15 customers, sold 2 units - 15.1% closing Dealership closing percentage is 27%. Due to your low performance, it has negatively impacted your income and you are currently in the rears [sic: arrears] $2751.54. Required Improvement: The level of performance is below target and you must take action to improve. As a Sales Associate of Courtesy Chevrolet West Colonial, you are responsible for utilizing the company's processes and tools while maintaining an acceptable level of performance. You must maintain a 20% closing ratio each month. . . . Failure to achieve sustained improvement in units sold or other performance issues related to your role as Sales Associate . . . will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. Petitioner signed this corrective action record, without commenting in the space provided. At the final hearing, Petitioner claimed that some of the sales figures may have been incorrect, although Petitioner was not specific in this regard and presented no evidence to support his vague claim. Petitioner's claim, more than two years after the fact, is not credible, in light of Petitioner's failure to attempt to correct any errors that may have been in the report at the time he signed it or to otherwise complain about errors in his sales figures. Petitioner acknowledged that he was having trouble meeting his sales goals, but claimed that it was because he "was being harassed" by Paul Letso and Mike Taylor. Petitioner admitted that this asserted harassment had nothing to do with age discrimination, as he was substantially younger than either one of his managers. Petitioner claimed that these two older managers were always trying to blow up his deals, such as by starting arguments with Petitioner in front of potential customers. Business was not good in the auto industry during the time that Petitioner was employed by Courtesy Chevrolet in 2008 and 2009. Overall, there was a lot of consolidation in the industry and staff reductions. Several Chrysler dealerships closed as a result of Chrysler's bankruptcy, including two AutoNation dealerships in the region: Courtesy Chrysler Jeep in Casselberry and Courtesy Chrysler Jeep in Sanford. Other dealerships were under pressure as well. As noted above, one example of how the industry pressures came to bear on the dealerships was the establishment by GM of a new requirement in August 2008 that all car salespersons at its franchise dealerships had to sell at least six cars each month. Courtesy Chevrolet was not doing well. By May 2009, the general manager of Courtesy Chevrolet (one of the managers whom Petitioner claimed had been harassing him), was terminated. In June 2009, several managers and sales associates from the closed Chrysler dealerships were brought over to Courtesy Chevrolet, consolidating the sales forces. Todd Tyree, former manager of the Casselberry Chrysler dealership, was made general manager of Courtesy Chevrolet. Mr. Tyree, though young--in his 30s--had nearly 20 years of experience in the car dealership business, with substantial managerial experience. He was charged with the task of overhauling the dealership to upgrade its facilities, improve its operations, and conform its processes to AutoNation standards, which had been loosely followed or not followed at all previously. Two former managers from the Sanford Chrysler dealership, Mike Stachowicz and Ryan Matthews, were brought over to serve in managerial/supervisory positions in the sales department. Mr. Stachowicz was in his late 40s, approximately three years younger than Petitioner, with 28 years of experience in the car business. Mr. Matthews was younger, but he still had seven years' experience in the car business. The three managers embarked on an immediate effort to tighten up on procedures, spruce up the facilities, review and evaluate employees, and work with the sales staff to turn around the performance of the dealership. According to Petitioner, a sales meeting was held the day after the new managers arrived at Courtesy Chevrolet. Petitioner claims that at this meeting, Mr. Tyree stated that he wanted a young, aggressive sales staff. Petitioner stated that all three of the new managers were present at this meeting and that there were a number of other witnesses to the statement. Despite Petitioner's claim that there were many witnesses to Mr. Tyree's statement, no witness corroborated Petitioner's claim. Mr. Tyree denied making that statement and his testimony was credible in this regard. Messrs. Stachowicz and Matthews confirmed that they never heard Mr. Tyree make such a statement, although according to Petitioner, they were present at that meeting. Petitioner did not produce any other witness who could support Petitioner's claim that the statement was made. There is no evidence that Petitioner complained to anyone in the human resources department, to someone at the dealership, at a regional or national AutoNation office, or even anonymously to the ACT-AlertLine, right after Petitioner claimed the statement was made by Mr. Tyree on June 6, 2009. The first mention by Petitioner of the alleged statement by Mr. Tyree about a "young, aggressive" sales staff was after Petitioner received a monthly sales associate evaluation on June 15, 2009, putting in writing to him for the second time that improvement was needed for his sub-par sales performance; after Petitioner received another monthly sales associate evaluation on July 8, 2009, giving him the lowest rating of "below target" in the categories of meeting sales objectives and meeting profit objectives; and after Petitioner received a "final warning" counseling and corrective action record on July 13, 2009, reporting another three-month period of below-par sales and commissions that did not cover Petitioner's draw. Petitioner's June 15, 2009, evaluation was signed by Ryan Matthews, who was the general sales manager. It indicated that Petitioner had only "sometimes" achieved acceptable performance goals for sales and profit margins, a grade of "C" on a scale of "A" to "D." The evaluation comment was that one-on-one training was needed to improve performance. Mr. Matthews confirmed that he conducted one-on-one training sessions with Petitioner, including sales menu training, which focuses on how numbers are presented to customers; and training in product knowledge, an area found to be critically lacking at this dealership when the three new managers arrived. However, Mr. Matthews testified, as did the other new managers, that Petitioner was not at all receptive to training, improvement, or doing anything to change how he was used to doing things. Instead, he was stubbornly resistant to change and very combative with the new managers. Petitioner apparently resented being told that he was not performing up to standards and needed to improve. Petitioner tacitly acknowledged the new managers' point by testifying that he did not understand how the new managers could come in and evaluate sales associates after only a few short days at the new dealership and expressing skepticism that they could have any kind of meaningful perspective. However, it should have been clear to Petitioner from his prior evaluation, counseling, and corrective action record issued by the prior management team that the focal point for the dealership, and the measure of his performance, would, in large part, be on sales statistics: how many cars were sold and how big was the profit margin. The recent sales information for Petitioner that was available for the new management team to review in June 2009 showed that Petitioner was credited with selling a total of 10.5 cars during the months of February, March, April and May 2009. His best month, and the only month in his employment history with Courtesy Chevrolet in which the evidence showed that he met a six-car sales minimum, was in March 2009, when he sold six and one-half units. In February, he sold three cars; in April, he did not sell a single car; and in May, he sold one car. After Mr. Tyree arrived at Courtesy Chevrolet, he had Petitioner sign a written acknowledgement memorializing the GM requirement that sales associates had to sell six cars each month, with a rolling average of 18 cars every three months. Mr. Tyree testified that he had all of the Courtesy Chevrolet sales associates sign the form that he had utilized at his prior dealership to impress upon them what they already should have been aware was the requirement imposed by GM for the dealership.3/ As noted above, Petitioner was indeed aware of this requirement, acknowledging that GM adopted this rule in August 2008, although Petitioner continued to assert that he was somehow exempt. The monthly sales associate evaluation signed by Petitioner on July 8, 2009, was signed by Mike Stachowicz. This evaluation of continued low sales production, as well as low profit-per-vehicle, was based on Petitioner's sales performance in the month of June 2009, during which he sold two cars. By the end of June 2009, Petitioner had the highest amount of arrears (draws exceeding earned commissions), more by far than any other salesperson at Courtesy Chevrolet. Petitioner signed this evaluation and wrote the following comment on it: "WILL BE FILING COMMENTS BY NEXT WEEK." Petitioner did not elaborate, or explain the nature of the comments he intended to file. Petitioner's consistent sub-par performance continued, as did his resistance to changing how he went about his business so as to be open to improving his performance. For example, despite the fact that Saturdays are the busiest days of the week for car sales, Petitioner took off Saturdays once a month to pursue his hobby of bird-watching. While the new management was willing to accommodate Petitioner's request, the expectation was that Petitioner would be receptive to making changes to improve his car sales, whether it be giving up his bird-watching Saturdays or making up for it in other ways. When this did not happen, Petitioner received his "final warning" and corrective action record on July 13, 2009, from Michael Stachowicz. This record summarized Petitioner's below-target performance in April, May, and June, with an average car sale of only one car per month. The report reminded Petitioner: "You must maintain a level of 6 units sold monthly." Petitioner remained in arrears by several thousands of dollars. Petitioner signed this record, and his sole written comment in the space provided for comments was: "WILL BE FILING COMPLAINT SOON." Petitioner did not explain his comment or volunteer any information about the nature of the complaint he was going to file. The corrective action record signed on July 13, 2009, stated that there would be a meeting in 30 days to evaluate Petitioner's progress and review his "implementation of specific actions to improve units sold." However, after just a few weeks in which the managers saw no sign of any specific actions being taken by Petitioner to improve his overall performance and no change in his attitude with regard to being resistant to change and combative, Mr. Tyree made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. Through the month of July, Petitioner's three-month rolling average was 2.166 units per month, well below the target of six units per month, and Petitioner was still in arrears by several thousands of dollars. Indeed, there was no evidence presented that Petitioner ever earned more commissions, for any period of time, than he took out in draws.4/ The termination action record was signed July 31, 2009, which was Petitioner's last day of employment, and he was terminated effective August 1, 2009. On August 3, 2009, a written complaint by Petitioner that he sent on July 28, 2009, to the AutoNation Human Resources Department in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, was received and provided to the ACT-AlertLine to log in. The complaint was then turned over to Bibi Bickram, the human resources specialist, to conduct an investigation. This written complaint by Petitioner was a five-page, single-spaced, rambling diatribe, which lobbed assorted accusations of harassment by the three new managers at Courtesy Chevrolet. The complaint alleged that Mr. Tyree "gawked" at another employee; that the female employee who was "gawked" at had violated safety regulations by coming to work in flip flops; that Michael Stachowicz showed favoritism to another female employee; that some salespersons had to work more hours than other salespersons; that one employee was absent too much; that gay customers had been made fun of; and that some employees have already been given evaluations by the new managers that had "no reflections on actual reality." Ms. Bickram conducted a thorough investigation in which she interviewed numerous sales associates, reviewed records, talked to the managers, contacted Petitioner to see if he wanted to add anything, and then prepared a detailed report that analyzed, point by point, each and every complaint raised in Petitioner's written complaint. Ms. Bickram found all of the complaints unsubstantiated, with the exception of one complaint regarding scheduling inequity, found to be partially substantiated and corrected. None of the complaint issues raised and investigated had anything to do with age discrimination. Months later, in October 2009, in connection with proceedings regarding Petitioner's entitlement to unemployment compensation, Petitioner prepared another detailed document setting forth a timeline of his view of events at Courtesy Chevrolet. This document was also logged in with the ACT-AlertLine and turned over to Ms. Bickram as a follow-up complaint to the written complaint received on August 3, 2009. The October 2009 timeline document included Petitioner's claim that in a June 6, 2009, sales meeting, the day after Mr. Tyree assumed the position of general manager, he had allegedly stated that he wanted a "young, aggressive sales staff." This claim was investigated for the first time by Ms. Bickram as part of her follow-up complaint investigation; Petitioner did not include this allegation in the July 28, 2009, written complaint. Ms. Bickram's report, issued on December 4, 2009, found that in her interviews of numerous sales associates regarding the sales meetings conducted by the new general manager, none of the associates mentioned anything about inappropriate comments. Ms. Bickram also interviewed Mr. Tyree and reported that he denied making any such statement. Further, Ms. Bickram noted that the "current sales staff ranges in age from 33 to 54," so there had been no youth movement under the new management, as one would assume would have occurred following that alleged statement. Petitioner submitted to the FCHR as part of his complaint in 2010 and offered into evidence at the hearing, a two-page letter from Petitioner to "Bebe" in human resources. On the first page, the date is typed in as "July [day obscured], 2009." On the second page, just above Petitioner's signature, the following date reference is typed in: "Post dated July 9, 2009 to be changed and signed at a later date." In this letter of uncertain actual date, Petitioner reported to "Bebe" that since his first verbal complaint to her "regarding thief [sic] of my money," he had "been subject [sic] to NON-STOP harassment" including the following itemized examples: Deliberately blowing deals by 2 General Managers, 2 General Sales managers and 3 Sales Managers. Prejudice towards GAY customers. . . Lying to customers. Having other employees, who were friends of Ian M. Simpson's, harassed and written up . . . At a meeting on June 6, 2009, Todd Tyree made a comment which insulted most of the employees at the meeting. He stated that he wanted a young and aggressive, sales staff. . . . Petitioner testified that he hand-wrote the number "13" in the date on the first page so that the letter was dated July 13, 2009. However, a handwritten date, whether 13 or some other number, cannot be discerned on the letter admitted into evidence. Petitioner's testimony was that he put the letter on Ms. Bickram's desk in her office at the Courtesy Chevrolet dealership on July 13, 2009. Petitioner claims to have personally laid the letter on her desk. While Petitioner said that he "never saw [Ms. Bickram] in the office," he also claimed that he "saw her later on that day reading the complaint." He admits he did not discuss the complaint with her at that time, stating that he "thought she would have to have time to review it." Petitioner's testimony regarding his delivery of the letter on July 13, 2009, was not credible. Ms. Bickram testified that she never received the letter Petitioner claims to have left for her on her desk. Ms. Bickram explained, credibly, that she is in her office that she maintains at Courtesy Chevrolet one or two times per week and that when she is not in the office, even if she is just out for lunch, she keeps the office locked. Others do not enter her office to leave her mail or to take items from her desk; she uses her other office at a different Courtesy location as the primary office where she receives and processes her mail. Therefore, it would not have been possible for Petitioner to have entered her office when she was not there, as he claimed, to leave a letter on her desk. It is also not credible that Petitioner would not have attempted to discuss the complaint with Ms. Bickram if, as Petitioner claimed, he had seen her reading the letter later that day. Petitioner had recently received two sub-par evaluations from the new management, and on that same day, Petitioner had received his "final warning" based on his failure to approach meeting the stated sales target of six cars per month. Petitioner had to know, with nothing but sub-par performance evaluations, below-target sales, and consistent draws exceeding commissions, his time was running out. The more credible testimony and evidence establish that Petitioner did not lodge his complaint of an age-related comment by Mr. Tyree until well after Petitioner was terminated, and that claim was contrived and not genuine. With the exception of Petitioner's claim of a single age-related comment attributed to Mr. Tyree and found not credible, Petitioner presented no direct or circumstantial evidence of any discrimination against him based on his age. To the contrary, Petitioner complained equally about harassment by former managers who were older than he and by the new management team who were younger than, or about the same age as, Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that younger and older managers alike tried to blow up his sales, started arguments with him while he was with customers, gave deals away to other salespersons, and were to blame for Petitioner's consistent sub-par sales performance and Petitioner's consistent failure to earn enough commissions to cover his draws. Petitioner's complaints have nothing to do with his age; instead, Petitioner's complaints are his attempt to blame all others, young and old alike, for his consistent failure to achieve the work performance standards set by Respondents. No credible evidence was presented to establish that Petitioner's termination was in retaliation for Petitioner's complaint about age discrimination. The more credible evidence established that Petitioner did not communicate any complaint about age discrimination until after he was given his termination notice. After Petitioner was terminated from Courtesy Chevrolet, he was hired as a car salesman at Toyota of Orlando, He started working there on December 15, 2009. After about a month and a-half, he was terminated. The reason for Petitioner's termination was not established in the record. Petitioner has been unemployed since being terminated by Toyota of Orlando and has gone back to school. No evidence was presented regarding Petitioner's efforts, if any, to obtain substantially equivalent employment, besides his brief experience with Toyota of Orlando.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Ian Simpson's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 2011.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a preneed sales agent should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following relevant Findings of Fact are made. Petitioner seeks a license as a preneed sales agent so that she may work at Good Shepherd Memorial Gardens Funeral Home (“Good Shepherd”). Petitioner plans to work as a family service advisor to help families with preneed services. A preneed sales agent assists families with planning for funeral or burial needs prior to death. Petitioner anticipates she would conduct meetings with potential customers at the cemetery or in their homes. Petitioner worked with Good Shepherd from January 2018 until June 2018. Although Petitioner is currently not employed at the funeral home, she anticipates that Good Shepherd would allow her to return to work if her application for licensure is approved. Respondent is the state entity responsible for regulating licensure of persons who provide preneed sales services under chapter 497, Florida Statutes. When applying for any license under chapter 497, Respondent considers whether the applicant has a criminal record. An applicant must disclose any felony offense that was committed within 20 years immediately preceding the application. The Board then considers the applicant’s criminal history and whether the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to members of the public who might deal with the applicant in preneed transactions. Petitioner has a criminal history involving an incident that occurred two years ago. In September 2016, Petitioner’s husband placed Petitioner’s then eight-year-old daughter in a dog cage because the daughter had allegedly mistreated the family dog. Petitioner returned home from work, found her daughter in the dog cage, and removed her. In a separate but related incident, Petitioner watched her husband take her daughter to her bedroom. Petitioner entered the daughter’s bedroom and saw her husband spanking her child with a flip-flop sandal on her behind. At no point did Petitioner attempt to protect her daughter from her husband’s abusive actions or report him to the appropriate authorities. The abuse was ultimately reported by a roommate who lived in the home. On June 12, 2017, Petitioner (age 28) pled nolo contendere to one count of child neglect without great bodily harm, a third-degree felony, in violation of sections 827.03(1)(e) and 827.02(2)(d), Florida Statutes. The court sentenced Petitioner to: one day of jail time with credit for time served, probation for 24 months, 100 hours of community service (within the 18 months of probation), and peaceful contact with her daughter. Petitioner was also ordered to pay court costs and fees and fines in the amount of $937.00. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner’s husband, who was not the child’s biological father, pled guilty to two counts of child abuse without great bodily harm. Among other things, he was ordered to have no contact with the child. Prior to the criminal offense at issue in this matter, Petitioner had no criminal history. In addition, Petitioner has had no known contact with law enforcement since the criminal offense. In a Notice of Intent to Deny issued on April 26, 2018, Respondent notified Petitioner that her application for a preneed sales agent license had been denied as follows: On June 7, 2017, Ms. Hoff pled no contest to a felony charge of child neglect without great bodily harm and was sentenced to 24 months of probation, 100 hours community service, assessed court costs and fines in the amount of $937.00, and her parental rights were terminated. The [A]pplicant stated that her criminal probation will not be completed until June 2019. The Applicant stated that she has not yet paid the fines and fees assessed in this [criminal] matter. The Applicant stated that she is still married to the gentleman she was married to at the time of the arrest. This gentleman was involved in the criminal allegations of child neglect. On May 1, 2018, Petitioner timely requested a hearing disputing the factual basis for the denial of licensure. Petitioner has completed 40 hours of the 100 hours community service requirement. She anticipates that she may be eligible for early termination of her probation after she completes the community service hours. Petitioner did not present any evidence of community service other than court- ordered community service. Prior to submitting her application, Petitioner completed approximately 150 to 175 hours of training in preneed sales, covering family planning, death certificates, Veterans Affair benefits, types of burial products, and financial plan development. Petitioner provided no explanation regarding why she did not protect her daughter from abuse. In addition, Petitioner continues to live with her husband and indicated that she has not yet divorced him due to financial reasons. Petitioner has not presented sufficient evidence to meet her burden to prove that she is not a danger to the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services enter a final order denying Shayla Hoff’s application for licensure as a preneed sales agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is subject to the Florida corporate income tax for tax years 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 plus accrued penalties and interest since July 7, 1977, the date Petitioner was mailed a proposed notice, of deficiency by the Respondent, Department of Revenue.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing herein; the documentary evidence received; the Respondent's memorandum in support of the assessed deficiency; the Petitioner's memorandum in response thereto; and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a Final Order herein denying Petitioner's protest of the proposed deficiency and penalties as set forth hereinabove. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of handicap, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 37-year-old Caucasian male. Respondent is an insurance agency registered and licensed to do business in Florida and headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. Respondent is a direct marketer of insured products, including health insurance policies, and non-insured products, such as lifestyle benefit programs and telemedicine. Respondent uses a call center model to market insurance products. At the call center, sales agents take calls from prospective clients and are paid a "base wage" plus commission. Since sales agents are paid a base wage, they must meet minimum sales requirements to help offset the fixed costs associated with their employment. Petitioner became employed at Respondent's Miramar call center as a sales agent starting on or about September 9, 2013. His employment duties entailed calling potential sales leads and selling non-major medical insurance policies over the telephone. The position for which Petitioner was hired did not have a specified term of employment, and Petitioner and Respondent did not execute an employment contract when Petitioner was hired.1/ Petitioner's work hours were from approximately 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., five days per week. Sales agents, including Petitioner, were paid $12.50 per hour, with a guaranteed salary of $500 per week, plus a commission on sales made. In late September 2013, Petitioner became ill. His illness manifested itself as shortness of breath and coughing. By late October 2013, his illness had progressed to the point that he was experiencing acute respiratory distress episodes. Petitioner testified that he experienced shortness of breath that, at times, made it "physically impossible" to talk on the telephone. However, he also testified that "I was on the phone doing what I was supposed to be doing, making calls and talking to potential customers, and I was doing it in a way in which other agents did it, which was normal and customary."2/ During his employment tenure with Respondent, Petitioner took time off work for medical appointments related to his condition, but he could not recall how many times, or for how long. There was no evidence presented showing that Respondent was aware of the specific reason for Petitioner's medical appointments. On October 30, 2013, the day he was terminated, Petitioner experienced a respiratory distress episode and had to use the nebulizer while at work. He also had experienced a similar episode at work approximately two days before and had had to use the nebulizer. Petitioner did not inform Respondent that he was experiencing shortness of breath, respiratory distress, or any other medical condition that interfered with his ability to perform his job. The persuasive evidence establishes that Respondent's human resources representative had witnessed the acute respiratory distress episode that Petitioner suffered the day he was terminated. However, there is no direct evidence that anyone with Respondent in a position (such as supervisors or managers) to make decisions about Petitioner's employment was made aware of his shortness of breath, acute respiratory distress episodes, or use of the nebulizer while at work. On October 30, 2013, Respondent terminated Petitioner from his employment. The evidence shows that at the time Petitioner was terminated, he was informed that it was due to inadequate sales production.3/ Petitioner testified at the hearing, on rebuttal, that when he was terminated, the manager who fired him "made a comment to me that I couldn't do my job, referring to the fact that I was short of breath on the phone, not to the——to a reference of low sales."4/ There is no other evidence in the record that Petitioner was told that he was being fired because he was physically unable to do his job. Petitioner testified that he did not recall having been informed, before his termination, that he was not meeting performance expectations. He testified that he did not know how his sales performance compared to that of other agents whose employment duties were the same as his. He testified that he did not believe he was the lowest-performing sales agent at the call center. He also testified that he believed he was the only person terminated that day. However, he did not articulate any specific factual or perceptual bases for these beliefs. At the time he was terminated, Petitioner asked to be given two extra days, until Friday of that week, to allow new medications he recently had been prescribed to be given a chance to work so that he could talk on the telephone without experiencing severe shortness of breath. Respondent declined to provide him the two extra days before terminating him. Petitioner had been employed with Respondent for approximately seven-and-a-half work weeks5/ when he was terminated. Petitioner testified that as of October 30, 2013, he was "disabled,"6/ although he did not know it at that time. He testified, persuasively, that he continued to have difficulty breathing after being terminated. Sometime after he was terminated, Petitioner was determined eligible for Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") benefits from the Social Security Administration, and eligible for vocational rehabilitation services from the Florida Department of Education, Division of Vocational Rehabilitative Services.7/ Petitioner asserts that even though he did not notify Respondent that he was disabled before he was terminated, he believes that Respondent's supervisors and managers perceived him being as disabled due to his respiratory distress episodes, shortness of breath, and use of a nebulizer while at work, and that they terminated him on that basis. However, as noted above, the evidence does not show that anyone in a position to make decisions about Petitioner's employment was aware of his health condition before Respondent terminated him. At the time of Petitioner's employment, Stephen Fingal was Respondent's director of enrollment and oversaw the sales department, including the call centers. Petitioner was among the employees Fingal supervised. Fingal testified that each call center sales agent was required to make a minimum of 12 "primary" insurance policy sales per week8/ in order to cover his or her $500 per week salary,9/ as well as the cost of "leads," which are generated through Respondent's commercial advertising programs, and break down to a fixed cost of roughly $1,500 to $2,000 per week per agent. The competent, persuasive evidence, consisting of Fingal's testimony and sales logs,10/ shows that Petitioner consistently failed to meet the minimum sales performance standard over the entire term of his employment with Respondent. During Petitioner's first week of employment, he was being trained, so made no sales. He made four total sales his second week of employment; no sales his third week of employment; one total sale his fourth week of employment; 17 sales of mostly ancillary policies his fifth week of employment; no sales his sixth week of employment; nine total sales his seventh week of employment; and no sales the week he was terminated.11/ The evidence does not establish a pattern linking Petitioner's lack of productivity to any documented episodes of shortness of breath or respiratory distress. Over Petitioner's entire tenure with Respondent, he sold a total of only 33 policies. Of these, only 15 were primary health insurance policies. By contrast, using the 12-sales-per week minimum performance standard, an agent whose sales performance level was marginally adequate would have sold at least 60 primary policies over a five-week period——approximately four times more than Petitioner sold over a six-and-a-half week period. To prove this point, Respondent presented the sales productivity information for two other sales agents, whose performance was characterized as "average," for the same time period as Petitioner's employment. These agents sold approximately two times more primary policies and three times more ancillary policies than Petitioner sold during the same period. On cross-examination, Fingal characterized Petitioner's comparative sales performance as "in the lower quadrant." When asked whether it was possible that 20 to 25 percent of the sales agents performed at a lower level than Petitioner, Fingal answered "probably not." Fingal testified, persuasively, that Respondent declined to give Petitioner the requested two additional days because he asked for them when he was terminated. By that point, Respondent already had determined, based on Petitioner's consistent failure to meet minimum performance standards over his entire employment term, that Petitioner was not going to be a productive employee.12/ Respondent does not hire part-time sales agents, and at the time Petitioner was terminated, there were no sales positions that did not involve speaking on the telephone. Additionally, at the time Petitioner was terminated, Respondent did not have any available non-sales positions into which Petitioner could transfer. Moreover, even if such positions were available, there was no evidence showing that Petitioner was qualified for them. In any event, the evidence shows that Petitioner never requested to be transferred to an alternative employment position that did not entail speaking on the telephone. Petitioner did request what he characterized as an "accommodation" of two additional days, but, as discussed above, Respondent declined because it had already decided to terminate him due to his consistently inadequate performance over the term of his employment. Petitioner posited that he was not the lowest performing sales agent, but he did not present any evidence to support that supposition. He also posited that he was the only sales agent terminated that day, but, again, did not present any evidence supporting that supposition. He did not present any evidence showing that non- disabled call center sales agents who performed at or below the same level as he performed were not terminated. He presented no evidence showing that Respondent subsequently filled his position with a non-disabled person. In fact, approximately ten months after Petitioner was terminated, Respondent substantially reduced its call center sales agent work force, closed the Miramar call center, and consolidated its call center operations at its Boca Raton location, in an effort to reduce the substantial cost associated with having call centers in multiple locations. This is consistent with Respondent's assertion that Petitioner was terminated because he was not a profitable employee and that Respondent was losing money in continuing to employ him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2016, 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 9th day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Petitioner, Classie Sales, Inc. (Classie), is entitled to be compensated for produce sold and delivered to Respondent, Tolar Farms (Tolar), and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact On June 30, 1990, Roger Harloff, on behalf of Roger Harloff Farms, and John A. Tipton, Secretary of Classie Sales, Incorporated, a sales agent founded by Harloff, entered into a written agreement whereby Classie would serve as sales agent for all sales of produce grown by or on Roger Harloff Farms. Between October 17, 1995 and December 9, 1995, Classie, on behalf of Roger Harloff Farms, sold watermelons with a total net sales price of $170,839.27 and tomatoes with a total net value of $1,720.00 to Tolar Farms. These sales were not direct sales to Tolar but transactions wherein Tolar was to sell the produce to whomever would buy it at an agreed price and would withhold its 3/4 per pound commission from the sales price, remitting the balance to Classie. Trucks arranged for by Tolar picked the produce up at the growing field and at the time of pickup, Classie issued to Tolar a packet jacket for each load sold. As the loads were sold Tolar would issue a ticket for that load which bore the shipping date, the lot number, the farmer, the transporting trailer's tag, the truck broker, the truck driver, and the weight of the product. Sometime later, when the produce was sold, Tolar issued an invoice bearing Classie Sales' logo, reflecting Tolar as the buyer and showing the lot number which corresponded to the load ticket, the shipping date, a description of the produce, the quantity, the unit price for that load, and the extended price from which was deducted Tolar's commission and an unspecified assessment. These documents were then forwarded to Classie. The terms of the sale between Tolar and Classie, on behalf of Harloff, were loose. The invoice documents reflected a net due 21 days after invoice date. The first delivery in issue here was made on October 17, 1995, and 21 days after that is November 7, 1995. The amount reflected by the deliveries made after that date is $27,509.72. Respondent, Preferred, claims that since Classie continued to make deliveries to Tolar's drivers after it was not paid within 21 days after the first shipment, it failed to mitigate its damages and should not be paid for any deliveries made after November 7, 1995. Classie was not paid for any of the instant invoices by Tolar, but Classie did not become concerned about Tolar's failure to make timely payment until January 1996. Tolar's payment and pricing practices were no different during this time than in years past. Typically, Tolar would start out quickly notifying Classie of the sales. As the number of shipments grew, however, the time for notification grew longer. It must be noted that less than two months transpired from the date of the first shipment in issue to the last.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a Final Order in this matter directing Tony and Robert Tolar, d/b/a Tolar Farms, to pay Classie Sales, Inc., the sum of $172,559.27. In the event this sum is not paid by Tolar, the Department should apply the bond posted by Preferred National Insurance Company in the amount of $75,000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 15th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-1776A To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein as the testimony of the witness. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the issues. Accepted and incorporated herein. Respondent Preferred's Proposed Findings of Fact. Preferred accepted all of Classie's Proposed Findings of Fact but suggested an amendment to Number 14. The suggested amendment was made a part of the Findings of Fact made by the Hearing Officer. Respondent Tolar's Proposed Findings of Fact: Tolar consented and agreed to all Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact except for Number 9. The substance of Tolar's objection to Classie's Number 9, relating to a provision for a commission, has been made a part of the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer. COPIES FURNISHED: Hywel Leonard, Esquire Carlton Fields Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Scott R. Teach, Esquire Meuers and Associates, P.A. 2590 Golden Gate Parkway, Suite 109 Naples, Florida 34106 David A. Higley, Esquire Higley and Barfield, P.A. The Maitland Forum 2600 Lake Lucien Drive, Suite 237 Maitland, Florida 32751-7234 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discharging Petitioner because of his age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent produces flexible packaging, develops technology to fill that packaging with liquids, and provides services to incorporate its flexible packaging systems into its customers' facilities. Respondent primarily produces "bag-in- box" products and manufacturing systems for customers such as Pepsi-Cola and Wendy's, as well as various customers in the milk, juice, and chemical business. Respondent operates two manufacturing facilities, one located at its headquarters in Romeville, Illinois, and another located in Union City, California. Petitioner was born on April 24, 1946. In 1996, Respondent hired Petitioner as a sales representative, and he served in that position until he was discharged on April 19, 2004. Petitioner initially was assigned to service the Upper Midwest Region and was based in Chicago, Illinois. In 1999, Respondent reassigned Petitioner to the Southeast Region. After his reassignment to the Southeast Region, Petitioner continued to live in the Chicago area for several years. However, in December 2002 or January 2003, Petitioner and Respondent mutually agreed that Petitioner would relocate to Florida. Because the move resulted from a mutual decision between Petitioner and one of Respondent's founders, Respondent paid $25,000 towards Petitioner's moving expenses. After the move, Petitioner continued to be responsible for the same geographical territory and the same customers as before the move. Joe Pranckus is Respondent's vice president of sales. At the time of Petitioner's discharge, the sales department consisted of a customer service department and four geographical sales territories: the Central, Western, Eastern and Mexico Regions. The Central and Western Regions (where Respondent's manufacturing facilities are located) each were overseen by a regional manager. The Eastern and Mexico Regions did not have regional managers. As Petitioner was located in the Eastern Region, Mr. Pranckus served as his direct supervisor. From 1999 until his dismissal, Petitioner was Respondent’s only sales representative in the Southeast. His primary responsibility was to maintain and increase Respondent’s business in that region of the country. The Rapak sales department as a whole is generally responsible for maintaining and increasing Respondent’s overall sales. This involves not only selling products and services, but also following up with customers to help them solve problems and otherwise to ensure their happiness. Because his primary responsibility was maintaining and increasing sales, Mr. Pranckus judged Petitioner almost exclusively by his year-to-date sales numbers as compared to the same period in the previous year. These numbers were calculated by Mr. Pranckus on a fiscal-year basis, from May 1st through April 30th. For the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus established a goal for Petitioner of 15 percent growth in sales. The minimum expectation was that Petitioner maintain at least the same amount of sales he had the previous year. During the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus e- mailed Petitioner his sales-versus-last-year figures on almost a monthly basis. By the end of June 2003, Petitioner had sold only 84 percent as much as he had sold through June 2002; by the end of July, only 87 percent as much as he had sold through July 2002; by the end of August, 91 percent; September, 81 percent; October, 90 percent; November, 85 percent; December, 87 percent; and by the end of March 2004 (eleven months into the fiscal year), he had sold only 88 percent as much as he had sold through the first eleven months of the 2002-2003 fiscal year. In short, as the fiscal year drew to a close, it was clear that Petitioner was going to suffer a net loss of business for the year. In late October 2003, Petitioner suffered a heart attack and underwent triple bypass surgery. Petitioner was unable to work for approximately two months while recovering from surgery. However, Petitioner returned to work in January 2004, initially working on a limited basis. Petitioner's sales numbers suffered because he lost some certain accounts owing to factors beyond his control (such as product quality and price issues). Nonetheless, Petitioner concedes that it was his job to replace his lost sales, no matter what caused his customers to switch suppliers. Mr. Pranckus typically holds one sales meeting each year for his entire staff. In February 2004, Mr. Pranckus held one of those meetings. At that meeting, Mr. Pranckus informed Petitioner that "changes would be made if [his] numbers didn't improve." In his application for unemployment compensation, Petitioner stated that Mr. Pranckus also warned him on March 10, 2004, that he needed to improve his sales numbers. Finally, Mr. Pranckus sent an e-mail to Petitioner on March 27, 2004. In that e-mail, Mr. Pranckus delivered the following written warning: Your territory is at a critical state. We can not continue along this path. Sales must be improved immediately or we will need to change. We agreed at our sales meeting to get this back on track. It is not showing up in the numbers and activity. Call me and let me know how we can help. On April 19, 2004, Mr. Pranckus discharged Petitioner because of his poor performance. His year-to-date sales figures were unacceptably low, as compared to the previous year, and Mr. Pranckus saw no evidence of plans or activity designed to improve matters. After Petitioner was discharged, he filed an application for unemployment compensation. On the application, Petitioner stated that he was discharged “for failure to achieve sales goals.” Later in that same application, in response to a request to “briefly summarize your reason for separation from this employer,” Petitioner wrote: “I did not achieve my sales goals.” Petitioner did not assert anywhere in his application for unemployment benefits that he was discharged because of his age. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner was 57 years old (almost 58). Mr. Pranckus did not know Petitioner’s exact age, but he would have guessed (based on physical appearance) that Petitioner was in his mid-50s at the time. Mr. Pranckus did not consider this to be “old.” In fact, Petitioner is not much older than Mr. Pranckus. Mr. Pranckus interviewed three individuals to fill Petitioner’s position. He ultimately selected Jim Wulff. Mr. Pranckus did not know their ages at the time of the interviews, but he would have guessed (again, by appearance) that Mr. Wulff was in his mid-50s and that the other two interviewees were in their mid- to late 40s and mid- to late 50s, respectively. In fact, Mr. Wulff was born on May 26, 1948, so he was 55 years old (nearly 56) when Mr. Pranckus hired him. Sales analysis from June 2003 showed that eight Rapak employees or representatives did not meet the 100 percent sales goal. Those listed were either Rapak non-supervising employees with direct responsibility for sales, supervising employees, or non-employee independent brokers. However, none of these employees, whether younger or older, was similarly situated to Petitioner at the time of his discharge. As an initial matter, there were four other non- supervisory employees with direct responsibility for sales: Dennis Hayes, Marvin Groom, Donald Young, and Keith Martinez. The other individuals responsible for sales were either supervisory employees or non-employee independent brokers. Because the two supervisors have management responsibilities and are responsible for their entire regions and the individuals who report to them, they are not judged primarily by whether they personally meet the 100 percent or 115 percent sales-versus- last-year objectives. Brokers, meanwhile, are not employees. Rather, they are independent contractors paid on a straight commission, so Respondent receives value from their services regardless of how much they sell. Mr. Hayes was the only other employee who performed the exact same job as Petitioner, but he reported to Regional Manager Dan Petriekis in the Central Region, not directly to Mr. Pranckus. Moreover, as of March 2004, Mr. Hayes had sold 127 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year.1 Mr. Hayes is almost ten years older than Petitioner. Mr. Young was also responsible for sales, but he was semi-retired, serviced only one customer and received a base salary for his work. As of March 2004, however, Mr. Young had sold 115 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year. Mr. Young is more than twelve years older than Petitioner. Finally, while Keith Martinez and Marvin Groom had some responsibility for sales, their positions were “radically different” from Petitioner’s. Whereas Petitioner could identify certain problems with Respondent’s machinery and products and would refer those problems to a service technician to assist his customers, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez were both originally hired as service technicians. Based on this experience, they could and did not only identify technical problems, but also performed the necessary maintenance and repair work on the spot, in addition to performing preventative maintenance. Petitioner, by contrast, has spent his entire working life as salesman. Accordingly, he was neither capable of, nor expected to, perform these additional maintenance and repair functions. As a result, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez received more leeway on their sales performance than Petitioner because they brought additional value to Respondent’s business that Petitioner could not offer. Nonetheless, as of March 2004, Mr. Groom was running at 100 percent versus the prior year and Mr. Martinez was running at 87 percent. Mr. Groom is roughly three years younger than Petitioner, and Mr. Martinez is 15 and one-half years younger than Petitioner. Respondent paid Petitioner $113,000 in salary and commissions during his last full calendar year of employment with Rapak. Petitioner was out of work for ten months after his dismissal. During that time, he received $8,000 in unemployment compensation from the State of Florida and $8,942.33 in severance pay from Respondent. In his new job, Petitioner projects that he will earn $100,000 in his first year but admits that he could make at least $113,000 because his compensation is once again dependent upon sales commissions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent committed no unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of July, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Gail C. Selvaggio, who currently resides in Palm Beach Gardens Florida, and at the time of the events complained of resided in Tallahassee, Florida. The Respondent is the Knight-Ridder Publishing Company, doing business as The Tallahassee Democrat (hereafter "The Democrat"). The Democrat is located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Petitioner commenced her employment with the Respondent as a secretary in its advertising department on February 13, 1978, at a salary of $160 per week. Petitioner's supervisor in the advertising department and the person for whom she primarily performed her secretarial duties was the advertising director, Martin Steinberg. Petitioner was hired to replace Judy McGinnis, who had been an administrative assistant to the previous advertising director whom Steinberg had replaced. McGinnis, who had supervisory duties in her position, had terminated her employment approximately six months prior to the time Petitioner was hired. When McGinnis left, her vacancy was advertised in August, 1977, as administrative assistant pursuant to the instructions of John Veenstra, the then advertising director. No one was hired at that time. When Veenstra left The Democrat in late 1977, the position was frozen. When Steinberg was hired by Respondent as its advertising director, he informed Personnel that he wanted a secretary and not an administrative assistant. Personnel then contacted the people who had earlier applied for the administrative assistant position and invited them to apply again, but informed them that the position had been changed to that of a secretary. Petitioner was referred to The Democrat on February 9, 1978, by Snelling and Snelling, an employment agency. A job counselor at that agency advised Petitioner that The Democrat had an opening for an administrative assistant, information given in a job order when McGinnis left The Democrat in August, 1977. The employment agency did not have any official business connection with The Democrat, and The Democrat had not informed the agency of any job opening when the agency referred Petitioner to The Democrat six months after the agency's job order was written. Based upon the information given her by the agency, Petitioner completed an application for employment with The Democrat by stating that she was applying for the position of administrative assistant. Petitioner was interviewed for employment by Tracy Rowe, who was at that time the personnel assistant at The Democrat. Ms. Rowe conducted approximately ninety percent of the initial employment interviews for The Democrat. She would then refer qualified applicants to the department head where the position was open. Rowe informed Petitioner during the initial interview that the position was not an administrative assistant position but rather was a secretarial position. Petitioner took a typing test as part of this initial interview. Petitioner then interviewed with Mr. Steinberg on February 9, 1978, and on February 10, 1978. Steinberg told Petitioner that the position was that of a secretary and explained to her the history of the position as it was held by Ms. McGinnis and his reasons for not wanting an administrative assistant. Steinberg had earlier told Rebecca Bradner when she interviewed for the position that the position was secretarial. He had also earlier told Mr. Harwell, the publisher of The Democrat, that he expressly did not want an administrative assistant because he did not want anyone with that much authority. Steinberg discussed with Petitioner possibilities of advancement during both her interviews and early employment, including agreeing with Petitioner's suggestion that she might write a training manual, which she never did, and conduct a sales training program. He did not make any promises to her regarding her future advancement or assignments. Petitioner received a salary increase to $180 per week within two weeks after beginning her employment, in accordance with her agreement with Steinberg. This was done to enable Petitioner to pay a lower fee to her employment agency. Steinberg did not promise any other pay increase to Petitioner. Petitioner was given an orientation program at The Democrat so that she could become familiar with the various departments of the newspaper and know who to consult with if problems arose when Steinberg was not in the office. Petitioner had no supervisory responsibilities in her position at The Democrat. During the initial months of her employment, Petitioner was basically a satisfactory employee, although she made mistakes in typing correspondence and various monthly reports. Steinberg brought these errors to her attention during the early months of her employment. Steinberg's practice in correcting documents and correspondence was to circle or underline the error in ink, thereby requiring the page to be retyped even if the error were minor. At times, he would sign correspondence without first reading it and later would find errors on the copy returned to him prior to filing, after the original of the letter had been mailed. Steinberg followed the practice of marking errors in ink from the beginning of Petitioner's employment. This practice was a personal habit of his which he followed with other employees as well. This practice was not an attempt on his part to harass Petitioner. Karen Sheffield, who sometimes handled secretarial duties for Steinberg, did not interpret this practice as harassment, although she frequently retyped the same document several times because of this practice. Petitioner made errors in the addresses and salutations of Steinberg's correspondence, which errors were especially noticeable to those to whom the letters were addressed. Several of the people with who Mr. Steinberg corresponded informed him of errors that had been made, and one person received a letter so full of typographical errors that he involved the publisher of The Democrat in the matter. Petitioner had the responsibility to correct correspondence. Steinberg did not instruct her to leave incorrect punctuation or grammar or spelling in a letter. Steinberg discussed Petitioner's unacceptable performance of her job duties with other management personnel, including Keith Helen, Walter Harwell, and Vernelle Tucker, on several occasions. Mr. Harwell advised Steinberg that it was necessary for Steinberg to turn out better work and that the secretary should be more careful. Steinberg counseled Petitioner about her mistakes and told her she needed to improve her performance on several different occasions. Petitioner was informed specifically about errors in the "Merchant letter" in May, 1978, and about errors in other letters as they occurred. Petitioner occasionally filled in for outside salespersons and made their calls for them when they were on vacation or sick. She performed as well as could be expected, although she made more errors than the regular salespersons made. Steinberg and Petitioner had a friendly, personal relationship in the earlier months of her employment and exchanged confidences with each other. Petitioner is a friendly, outgoing, gregarious person, and it was not unusual for her to put her arms around male employees while at work and hug them and even kiss them. On one occasion, Tracy Rowe observed Petitioner walk up behind Steinberg when he was sitting at a desk and throw her arms around him and kiss him. Steinberg, as a supervisor, was demanding but fair. Petitioner had marital problems in the fall of 1978 and discussed those problems with Steinberg. Her marriage terminated in a divorce in November, 1970. Beginning approximately in August and September, Petitioner's job performance suffered as she began to spend more time away from her desk. Part of the reason for her time away from her duties was her participation as co- chairperson of The Democrat's United Way campaign. She voluntarily assumed duties in connection with that campaign above any required of her and more than her co-chairperson. She frequently returned from United Way luncheons much later than the other employees who were in attendance at those luncheons. Although she chose to entertain at some of the luncheons, she had time to eat during the business portion of the meetings and could have returned to work sooner. During this time period, Steinberg discussed with Petitioner and with other management personnel problems with correspondence typed by Petitioner and with her tardiness. Prior to her divorce, Petitioner began to date another employee of The Democrat, Ron Selvaggio, her present husband, who was then head of the promotion department at The Democrat. Petitioner was frequently observed in his office to an extent greater than her United Way role required. Additionally, she often went to lunch with him and frequently returned late. Petitioner frequently socialized with others in the department. She would leave her desk to socialize with other employees, and other employees would come by her desk. Many employees noticed that Petitioner spent an unusual amount of time not working, and this fact was conveyed to Steinberg by other management personnel. The time spent by Petitioner socializing and participating in the United Way campaign prevented her from completing her work in a timely manner. Steinberg discussed this with her and with other management personnel. There was always work to be done in the advertising department, and Petitioner's neglect of her duties was noticed by other employees of The Democrat who depended on her to get their work done. Steinberg, complained to Vernelle Tucker that his work was not being completed because of Petitioner's activities in the United Way. Mrs. Tucker counseled Petitioner and told her that her job duties still had to be fulfilled despite her participation in the United Way campaign and that her work was priority. Steinberg began to write private memoranda on Petitioner's performance and work habits beginning in November, 1978, at the suggestion of Mrs. Tucker. Steinberg told Tucker that he did not believe Petitioner should get a raise because of her poor work performance, and Tucker told him to start documenting problem areas. Steinberg did not show those memoranda to Petitioner, nor did he forward them immediately to the personnel office to be included in her file. However, in most of these instances, Steinberg counseled Petitioner at the time about the matters he had noted. Other supervisors at The Democrat followed the same practice with regard to private memoranda. This practice allowed them to record their observations and counsel the offending employee in the hope that whatever problem existed might be eliminated. If the problems were not resolved in that manner, the memoranda could then become part of the employee's file. Otherwise, the memoranda could be destroyed without ever being sent to Personnel, so that temporary problems need not become a part of the employee's permanent file. The memoranda by Steinberg were made at the time of the events recorded and were not manufactured as after-the-fact justification for Petitioner's termination. It is the policy of The Democrat to include raises for its employees in the annual budget. The supervisors actually determine which employees will get raises and how much they will receive. The supervisors have authority to withhold any or all of the budgeted raise from an employee. Petitioner did not receive a raise budgeted for December, 1978, because her job performance did not warrant a pay raise. The paperwork Petitioner was required to complete increased during the fall of 1975 due to the normal increase in advertising business experienced by The Democrat from the return of students to school and the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday seasons. Other reasons for the increase in workload at that time are that budgeting and forecasting for the following year is conducted during the fall, as is preparation of the next year's rate structure. The workload increases for everyone in the advertising department at that time of year. Petitioner's workload did not increase as a result of any attempt by Steinberg to harass her. In December, 1978, Petitioner approached Karen Sheffield about a transfer because of the increased paperwork. Sheffield was the secretary to Mrs. Tucker and Mr. Selvaggio at that time. She did not work in personnel. Petitioner did not approach anyone in Personnel about a transfer. Petitioner was not overworked in comparison with other employees. Petitioner was assigned the responsibility for answering a bank of telephones during the time that the advertising department was in a temporary working area due to construction in the building. Steinberg could give that task to no one else due to spacing in the temporary work area. Petitioner was assigned the task of copying multiples because Jean Ash Webb, who had been performing the duty, had been incurring a considerable amount of overtime because of that duty together with her other duties. Steinberg reassigned this task to Petitioner to reduce that overtime. The amount of overtime worked is a matter of great importance to management at The Democrat. Steinberg instructed Petitioner to use carbons in making copies where practicable rather than using a copying machine. He told her that the reason for using carbons was to save money. This change was effected at the direction of Mr. Harwell, the publisher, who was concerned over expenses at that time. There was a valid business reason for the use of carbons. This policy was instituted throughout The Democrat and not simply against Petitioner. Petitioner resented being given what she considered to be menial tasks and complained to other employees about having to perform such tasks. She complained about having to collate the Belden (Building) Study. She complained about having to perform the task of copying multiples. She complained about being overworked. She complained about having to retype letters. Petitioner's hours of employment were changed to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., effective January 18, 1979. Petitioner had changed her own work hours to suit her personal schedule on several occasions prior to her hours being changed to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Her method of changing her hours was simply to begin coming in at a different time and then to secure approval from Steinberg after he noticed the change. The reason for the change to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. was to provide assistance to the outside sales staff upon their return to the office in the afternoon after making sales calls. Outside salespersons in the advertising department frequently work late to finish the required paperwork and layouts for ads sold during the day. Persons used to provide such assistance to the outside sales staff after normal hours are known as "ad-assists." Petitioner was assigned ad-assist duties only for part of the day, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. There had been a need for an additional person in the ad-assist position for some time. The need for an additional person in that position had been under discussion by outside salespersons and by the management of the advertising department for several months. Steinberg had discussed the problem with Petitioner and had solicited her advice on how to handle the problem. Mr. Harwell would not approve hiring a new employee for the position because of the financial pressures on The Democrat at that time. Steinberg, with Keith Balon, considered and evaluated the secretaries, clerks and others in the department to see whose hours could be changed and who had the most work flexibility. Steinberg also discussed his selection with Mr. Harwell. Petitioner's duties as secretary were more flexible and less demanding than those of Jean Ash Webb, Dianna Moyer, Becky Savilla, and Linda Crews, who were other employees of the advertising department considered for the move. Jean Ash Webb and Linda Crews could not be moved into the ad-assist position because they had specialized jobs to perform and because they had deadline functions which required their presence at a specific time in the morning and, thus, dictated their departure time in the evening. Also, Dianna Moyer worked for Keith Balon and the sales staff, and Ms. Savilla worked for other supervisors. Steinberg did not have anyone other than Petitioner to place into the ad-assist position. Harwell agreed with Steinberg's decision. There was a legitimate business reason for changing Petitioner's hours to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Democrat is a twenty-four-hour business. Employees other than Petitioner have left the company because they would not work the hours they were assigned. Petitioner informed Steinberg and others that she would not accept the change in her hours and that she would look for another job. Petitioner complained to other employees about the change in her hours and made derogatory remarks about Steinberg. Mr. Harwell told Steinberg that he should get a timetable for Petitioner's departure so that new people could be interviewed for the position, and he suggested a two-week period. Harwell also instructed Steinberg to caution Petitioner about "bad-mouthing" either the company or Steinberg during her remaining time at The Democrat. He instructed Steinberg that if Petitioner made statements which could hurt the morale of the department, she should be terminated immediately. Steinberg initially advised Petitioner that she could continue to work at The Democrat until she found a new job so long as she did not make derogatory remarks about him or The Democrat. Petitioner initiated conversations with other employees in which she complained about Steinberg. These remarks were creating a morale problem in the department. She also told other employees that her telephone was being tapped. On January 22, 1979, Steinberg asked Petitioner for a timetable for her expected departure so that plans could be made for her replacement. Petitioner refused to provide a timetable. Petitioner continued to make derogatory remarks about Steinberg. Upon the instructions of Mrs. Tucker, Steinberg discharged Petitioner on January 23, 1979. Upon Petitioner's termination, another person assumed the ad-assist duties in the 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. time slot. The day Petitioner was discharged, she interviewed with Keith Balon, the retail advertising manager, for a position as an outside salesperson in the advertising department. Steinberg was aware of this interview and did nothing to prevent Petitioner from interviewing or from obtaining the position. In fact, he did not include his private memoranda in her personnel file and did not inform Mr. Balon of the existence of such memoranda or their contents. Outside salespersons for The Democrat regularly worked until 7:00 p.m. and frequently as late as 8:30 p.m. in order to complete their duties for that day. Petitioner gave no explanation regarding how she could work those hours for Mr. Balon when she had refused to work until 7:00 p.m. for Mr. Steinberg. Balon hired another person whom he believed to be more qualified than Petitioner. His decision was not made to discriminate against Petitioner in any way. In October, 1978, Steinberg gave Petitioner a 3" X 5" card stating "from one who is one to one who could be one Thanx Marty." Above that notation was drawn a large six-pointed star. Steinberg gave the card to Petitioner in response to several gifts given to him by her and her statement to him that she wanted to be his "Jewish mother." The card did not have any sexual connotation, and Petitioner did not perceive any sexual connotation to the card. Steinberg frequently worked on Saturdays after having been out of the office during the latter part of the workweek. He called Petitioner on occasion at her home on Saturday mornings when he had a question about what had happened at work. Steinberg also called his other employees at their homes on Saturday mornings for the same purpose. Although some social conversation did occur during the calls to Petitioner, the calls were not used to sexually harass her. There were no statements made about sex during these calls. When Petitioner announced her engagement to Mr. Selvaggio, Steinberg expressed a concern since an employee of his would be married to another department head. There was no sexual connotation to this remark. By Petitioner's own testimony, this remark related to Steinberg's concern for the confidentiality of certain information concerning his department. He also discussed his concern about confidentiality with Mr. Harwell and with Mrs. Tucker during this same time period. Steinberg once mentioned to James Reeves, Petitioner's then husband, that Petitioner was like an "office wife." Reeves did not consider the remark to have any sexual connotation but rather understood that Steinberg meant that Petitioner was his confidant. Petitioner married Mr. Selvaggio, who was then the promotion manager of The Democrat, on December 21, 1978. There was some confusion between Steinberg and Petitioner regarding the time she was to take off for her wedding. However, Petitioner admits that this was simply a misunderstanding. This confusion was not an incident of sexual harassment. There were two romantic interludes between Petitioner and Steinberg which occurred in the board room at The Democrat. The first incident occurred in September, 1978, when Petitioner was helping to compile and collate the Belden (Building) Study, which was an advertising research study that had been made. Petitioner complained about having to perform such a menial task although Rebecca Bradner, a supervisor, participated in the collating as did several other employees. Petitioner told Ms. Bradner that the collating was not Petitioner's job, that she was going to lunch, that she would take a long lunch, and that if Steinberg did not like that, he could come in and tell her so. Bradner relayed this information to Steinberg. Steinberg then came to the board room. While Petitioner and Steinberg were alone in the board room, he kissed her, and she kissed him. This was a voluntary act on the part of both persons. The second incident occurred several weeks later when Steinberg invited Petitioner to walk to the board room with him. When they got there, they began kissing each other. Steinberg touched Petitioner's breasts, and Petitioner placed her hands on his genitals. Again, each participated willingly and voluntarily. Steinberg's only superiors at The Democrat were Mrs. Tucker and Mr. Harwell. Petitioner admitted she never reported the board room incidents or any alleged incidents of sexual harassment to either of those persons, to any other management or supervisory personnel at The Democrat, or to any other employee of The Democrat. Further, neither Harwell nor Tucker, nor any other management or supervisory personnel at The Democrat had any knowledge of any alleged incidents of sexual harassment. Petitioner admitted that Steinberg never expressly or indirectly conditioned her continued employment or any term or condition of her employment upon acceptance of sexual advances. Petitioner does not know of anyone who was ever terminated from employment at The Democrat because he or she filed a complaint about a supervisor for any reason, nor of any employee who was ever fired because of making allegations of sexual harassment against a supervisor. On one occasion, Petitioner told Mrs. Tucker that Steinberg wanted to know where and with whom Petitioner went to lunch. This occurred in connection with the concern of Steinberg that Petitioner was returning late from United Way luncheons. Tucker agreed to speak with Steinberg about Petitioner's duties with the United Way. Petitioner told Tucker during this conversation that Steinberg was infatuated with Petitioner; however, Petitioner did not indicate that she found the alleged infatuation to be a problem for her, and she specifically did not inform Tucker of any alleged sexual advance or sexual harassment. Further, Petitioner later told Tucker that things had improved. The Democrat conducts what are called "management coffee breaks," at which "rank and file employees" meet with the publisher, Mr. Harwell, and the personnel director, then Mrs. Tucker. Supervisors and department heads are specifically excluded from attending. These conferences are used so that the employees may present grievances, complaints, or discuss any other problems or policies that they wish. At these sessions, employees are encouraged to speak with management privately on matters that cannot be discussed in a group meeting. Petitioner attended one of these conferences and could have used it to bring her alleged problems to management's attention. The Tallahassee Democrat's employee handbook contains a statement of policy which prohibits discrimination. The Democrat has a policy regarding supervisors having affairs with employees. Two supervisors, one male and one female, had previously been terminated because of sexual relationships with their employees. Other employees of The Democrat knew about these supervisors being terminated, Mr. Harwell testified that he would have taken corrective action by terminating Steinberg had Harwell known of any sexual harassment by Steinberg. Petitioner presented no evidence of discrimination based upon her sex or marital status and failed to request any affirmative relief.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations declaring that Gail C. Selvaggio was not discriminated against on the basis of her sex or marital status and dismissing her Petition for Relief with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Jaffry, Esquire S. Jack Carrouth, Esquire Horne, Rhodes, Jaffry, Horne & Carrouth Post Office Box 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Charles L. Early, Jr., Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dana Baird, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Norman A. Jackson Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position with the Respondent in retaliation for reporting an unlawful employment practice that occurred in June 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was an "employee" of the Respondent as defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, and was employed by Respondent for approximately two years. Aaron Rents, Inc., is a national furniture rental and sales company which does business in some locations, including locations in Florida, as Aaron's Rental Purchase. Petitioner, Jerome Carter, was employed by the company at an Aaron's Rental Purchase store in Kissimmee, Florida, from approximately August 2, 1993, until August 19, 1995. Petitioner was initially hired as a delivery driver and progressed to Assistant Credit Manager, Credit Manager, and finally Sales Manager of the Kissimmee store. In August 1995, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Store Manager Steven Liberti. Liberti reported to District Manager Leonard Alonzo, who was supervised by Florida Regional Manager Joseph Fedorchak. As the Sales Manager, one of Petitioner's most important job duties was greeting and interacting with customers. He typically had the first contact with each customer as they walked into the store, and his demeanor, as he greeted them, influenced whether they felt comfortable and were likely to make a purchase. Petitioner, however, was not appropriately welcoming and friendly. Petitioner's attitude was withdrawn and not very cordial. Petitioner himself admitted that he "never look[s] happy." Petitioner's sullen demeanor was the topic of numerous discussions with his supervisors. In an effort to address the Petitioner's concerns and improve his work performance, the District Manager initiated a conversation to elicit any complaints the Petitioner might have. Petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with his position as a Credit Manager and the length of time since his last raise. As a result, Alonzo transferred the Petitioner to the Sales Manager position and gave him a pay increase. After the transfer, however, Petitioner's demeanor did not brighten. Concerned, the District Manager again inquired about the cause of the Petitioner's apparent unhappiness. Petitioner merely acknowledged that his attitude needed improvement and promised that he would "straighten up" and "be more outgoing." Each time they had that discussion, however, Petitioner's behavior would improve for only a short time, then return to his previous melancholy. The Store Manager also talked to Petitioner at least twice about his attitude toward his job, telling him that he needed to smile more often. Although the Petitioner's behavior would temporarily change after these discussions, Liberti observed that the improvement lasted only about 24 hours. In August 1995, sales at the Kissimmee store were at an all-time low. Petitioner's supervisors attributed the location's failure to meet its sales goals at least in part to the Petitioner's inability to interact with customers and make sales. After their repeated discussions with him did not result in lasting improvement, the Managers felt they had no choice but to terminate Petitioners employment. Fedorchak concurred that, because the Petitioner could not seem to display an appropriate attitude and demeanor for a Sales Manager, his services were no longer needed. Petitioner admits that when he was discharged, the reason that he was given was that he "did not look happy." Approximately two months before Petitioner left the Kissimmee store, one incident with racial overtones was brought to the Store Manager's attention. In June 1995, store employees Mark Mars and/or Jesus Rivera reported to Liberti that another store employee, Michael Flowers (who is white), had used the term "nigger" during a discussion with store employee Kenny Tatum (who is black). Liberti informed Alonzo about the complaint and an investigation was conducted. When the Managers spoke with Tatum, he explained that Flowers had used the expression "nigger, please," which was slang for "you've got to be kidding," during a conversation between the two men. He assured them that he had not been offended. Nevertheless, because Alonzo and Liberti felt it was highly inappropriate for Flowers to use such language in the store, they gave him a reprimand and warning. In his deposition testimony, Petitioner recalled learning about the occurrence from several other employees. Petitioner did not personally witness it or hear Flowers use the offensive term, but merely claimed to have reported to Liberti what he had been told. According to Petitioner, Liberti responded to this information by affirming that such behavior would not be tolerated. Petitioner admits that he was never told, and had no reason to believe, that Aaron's authorized, encouraged, or instructed Flowers to use racially derogatory language in the store or that he had done so on Aaron's behalf. When Petitioner allegedly reported the occurrence to Liberti, he only believed that a co-employee had made an inappropriate comment at work. The incident involving Flowers and Tatum was unrelated to Petitioner's discharge. None of the three individuals involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner associated him with the incident or any opposition to it. Liberti does not recall discussing the incident with Petitioner, and neither Alonzo nor Fedorchak knew that Petitioner even claimed to have had some involvement in reporting it until after he was discharged. Moreover, none of the conversations among the three about their decision to terminate Petitioner included any reference to Flowers' comment or the subsequent events. No one who opposed the incident suffered any adverse consequences. Rivera and/or Mars reported the comment, and neither of them experienced any unfavorable employment actions as a result.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order which dismisses the Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerome L. Carter, Sr. 2188 McClaren Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34744 Daniel F. Piar, Esquire Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent employed in Florida 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks. Respondent employed Petitioner as a life insurance sales agent from January 16, 1984, to August 24, 1984. Her only relevant prior experience was selling life insurance out of her home for about one month. Petitioner worked in Respondent's Orlando office. During 1984 about 20 sales agents worked in this office. The sales agents were divided into three staffs, which were headed by Michael Gentile, John Lowe, and Richard Ruffo. The three staff managers were supervised by the District Manager, Ron Quick, who managed the Orlando office. Mr. Quick was in turn accountable to James Stathis, who was the Regional Vice President in charge of the southeast region of the United States. Each sales agent was responsible for a "debit." A debit was a sales area within the area covered by the Orlando office. The success of the new sales agent is determined by the amount of premiums arising out of her new sales less the amount of lost premiums due to "lapses." New sales are sales to new customers or sales of new policies to existing customers. Lapses are policies, in the agent's debit, that policyholders fail to maintain or renew. The agent is evaluated in terms of sales credits, which is a direct measure of commissions and is thus a product of the number and size of policies sold. The agent is also evaluated in terms of net premium growth, which is the total premiums paid less premiums lost due to lapses. The agent's compensation is based on taking sales credits reduced by lapses occurring during the first year on policies for which the agent received the sales credit. The agent also receives monthly and annual bonuses under the Sales Persistency Incentive program. The amount of each bonus is based on the sales credits and lapse rate. The lower the lapse rate, the greater the bonus. Although a new agent is expected to conserve the business existing in the debit at the time of assignment to the area, there is a guaranteed Sales Persistency Incentive bonus for the first 39 weeks of the agent's employment. As with other new sales agents in Respondent's Orlando office, Petitioner received little formal training in such critical areas as sales techniques and generating new customers. She received no encouragement from her supervisors to take advantage of outside training opportunities, such as the new life agent's program sponsored by the National Association of Life Underwriters. Instead, as with other new agents in Respondent's Orlando office, Petitioner underwent a short period of in-office training and then went into the field under the close supervision of her staff manager, Mr. Ruffo. For a short period, Mr. Ruffo rode with Petitioner extensively and joined her on calls on customers. Thereafter, Petitioner's training opportunities were largely limited to weekly staff meetings at which the agents discussed successful sales, periodic attention from the staff manager who would from time to time ride with an agent in an effort to assist sales, and the availability of Mr. Ruffo and Mr. Quick to answer questions or help with problems. Petitioner applied herself diligently to her new job. She scheduled three or four sit-down appointments everyday, which was at least as much as other agents scheduled. However, she was frustrated initially by her lack of success in conserving business. Her debit had previously been serviced by a sales agent who had been very popular with the customers. This agent had gone to work with another life insurance company, which offered certain policies that compared favorably to Respondent's products. Much of Petitioner's time was spent in an unsuccessful effort to conserve this business. Unhappy after several weeks with what she felt had been a lack of training under Mr. Ruffo, Petitioner requested that Mr. Quick assign her to another staff manager. Although such a reassignment was highly unusual, Mr. Quick, who had already discussed with Petitioner her low productivity, transferred her to Mr. Gentile on April 9, 1984. One of the first things that Mr. Gentile did was to throw away all of Petitioner's files in which she recorded her contact with each customer. He criticized her long and straight hair style, the high pitch of her voice, and her overly polite way of dealing with people. He questioned her ability to succeed in the business. Nearly all of the criticisms were made outside of the presence of other employees. Mr. Gentile had been a staff manager for only a few months. He had previously been a successful sales agent. His father had worked for Respondent for many years and was known to Mr. Quick and Mr. Stathis. As a staff manager, Mr. Gentile rode on a rotating basis with the 6 to 8 agents under him. During the first two weeks after Petitioner was assigned to Mr. Gentile's group, he rode with her regularly. After the first two weeks and until June 12, Mr. Gentile rode with Petitioner at least once every other week. After being transferred to Mr. Gentile's group, Petitioner was highly reliant upon his advice due to her desire to become a successful life insurance agent. For instance, she followed his advice about quitting the union in order to please company management. She withdrew from the union by a memorandum submitted on June 4, 1984. She also accepted at face value Mr. Gentile's questioning of her ability, and she soon began to feel that he was right. On June 12, 1984, Mr. Gentile was riding with Petitioner. After two calls, Mr. Gentile told Petitioner that he wanted to discuss the "electricity between us." He said that he had some personal problems and was attracted to her. He explained that part of the reason that he had been so critical of her was due to this attraction he felt. He suggested that they cancel their last appointment because it was an unlikely sale anyway. He advised her to quit her job and become his girlfriend. Petitioner insisted that they make the last call, which they did, and it resulted in a sale. After the last call, they returned to the parking lot where Mr. Gentile had left his car. While still in Petitioner's car, Mr. Gentile tried to unbutton her blouse. He grabbed her head and tried to shove it into his lap. He then exposed his penis to her. Petitioner rejected all of his advances, and he finally left her car. Petitioner immediately drove home and called her boyfriend, to whom she recounted this incident. She was crying and very upset and confused. He suggested that she report the incident to the company, but she said that she was afraid that she would lose her job. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner recounted the incident to another sales agent, Susan Arthur. Ms. Arthur told Petitioner to report the incident. Petitioner did not report the incident at that time, but instead continued to work hard selling insurance in her debit. As had been true since she started working with Respondent, she did not meet with much success. Notwithstanding this fact, Mr. Gentile did not suggest that he ride with her again until about August 6, 1984. This was an unusually long period of time for a new sales agent to go without riding with the staff manager, especially if the agent were as unproductive as Petitioner. However, it was also customary for a supervisor to ride with an agent for a few weeks and then leave the agent on her own to allow the agent to try the techniques that she had observed. Additionally, about one week after the incident, a new agent, Charles Denham, was assigned to Mr. Gentile's group. For the next several weeks, Mr. Gentile was thus almost exclusively occupied with the training of Mr. Denham. Neither Mr. Quick nor any of the other employees of the Orlando office who testified saw any indication of sexual harassment on the part of Mr. Gentile toward Petitioner or anyone else at anytime. Two of the witnesses at the hearing were two of the other three female sales agents working in the Orlando office during 1984. One of them, Ms. Arthur, was in the office only one day a week, and the other was in a different staff group than Petitioner. The third employee-witness, Mr. Lowe, was the manager of another staff group. Also, much of the daytime work of the sales agents and their staff manager consisted of travel outside of the office. Thus, these witnesses had limited opportunity to observe incidents of sexual harassment. Mr. Gentile informed Petitioner on August 6 that he would be riding with her again in about three weeks. Petitioner responded that she would not do so because of his previous behavior. Petitioner felt that everything had been "okay" during the eight weeks after the incident. Mr. Gentile immediately reported to Mr. Quick that Petitioner refused to ride with him, although he did not explain why. He and Mr. Quick agreed that Petitioner had not worked out. From Mr. Quick's point of view, this decision was reasonable because of Petitioner's ongoing lack of productivity. Mr. Quick was, at that time, unaware of the June 12 incident or the criticisms that Mr. Gentile had directed toward Petitioner, nor could he reasonably have been aware of these problems, except to the extent that an effectively communicated sex discrimination policy could have encouraged Petitioner to have reported the problems sooner to Respondent and Mr. Quick. On August 8, 1984, Mr. Gentile informed Petitioner that she was "out." She asked what that meant, and he replied that she was fired. Mr. Gentile's announcement surprised Petitioner. She had never received any warning from either Mr. Gentile or Mr. Quick that she was in danger of losing her job. Respondent did not maintain any policy of written performance evaluations in the Orlando office, but relied instead on periodic oral exchanges between the District Manager and each sales agent. Petitioner went to see Mr. Quick the same day as her conversation with Mr. Gentile to learn why she had been fired. Mr. Quick deftly avoided confiding that she was being fired and instead discussed her poor productivity, which Petitioner admitted. She also admitted that she had been exploring other employment opportunities and had even taken an aptitude test for one job. These facts had been previously reported to Mr. Quick from another source. She disclosed to Mr. Quick the June 12 incident. He asked her why she would want to hurt Mr. Gentile, but promised that the company would start an immediate investigation. Mr. Quick routinely solicited resignations from unproductive agents rather than fire them. His purpose was to avoid grievances under the collective bargaining agreement, which permitted an employee to file a grievance for a firing only after one year of service. Consistent with his practice of obtaining the resignation of poor producers in their first year, Mr. Quick concluded the August 8 conversation with Petitioner by asking that she submit her written resignation by August 10 to take effect on August 31. In cleaning up her office in preparation for her departure, Petitioner found a management book belonging to Mr. Ruffo, who had lent it to her months earlier. She found in the book a document setting forth Respondent's policy concerning sexual harassment and the procedure for reporting acts of sexual harassment. Prior to submitting her resignation, Petitioner sent a letter dated August 8, 1984, to Respondent's Equal Employment Specialist listed in the policy statement, Patricia DiNallo-Raebel. In the letter, Petitioner described the June 12 incident, as well as the above-described criticism that she received from Mr. Gentile. After a telephone conversation between Petitioner and Ms. DiNallo-Raebel on August 10, Mr. Stathis was informed of the charges and directed on August 13 to commence an investigation. Mr. Stathis telephoned Petitioner's home on August 14 and left a message with her sister that he would be visiting the Orlando office on August 20 and 21 in order to conduct an investigation into her charges. A couple of days later, Mr. Stathis spoke to Petitioner by telephone and told her that she was not fired and that her resignation was no longer being demanded. He also tried to make an appointment to see her on August 20, 21, or, if necessary, 22. Mr. Stathis was to be on vacation for the week beginning August 27 Petitioner told Mr. Stathis that she had an appointment with the union lawyer on the afternoon of August 21 and did not want to see Mr. Stathis before obtaining advice of counsel. Mr. Stathis replied that Respondent would not arrange its schedule to suit Suzie Blackburn, and, if she could not see him, he would close the file. She reluctantly agreed to see him, but later changed her mind and called him and said that she would not see him until she had first met with her attorney. Mr. Stathis nevertheless proceeded to Orlando and conducted his first interview early in the morning of August 20 in his hotel room. The interview was with Mr. Quick, who recounted Petitioner's poor performance as a sales agent and reiterated her charges against Mr. Gentile. Mr. Stathis and Mr. Quick then drove to the Orlando office where they happened to find Petitioner. In a brief exchange, Petitioner told Mr. Stathis that she could not talk to him before seeing her attorney. Mr. Stathis again expressed his displeasure with her refusal to speak with him at that time. The remainder of Mr. Stathis' investigation consisted of interviews of four sales agents and Mr. Gentile. The interviews were short, lasting from 20 to 30 minutes. Each interview was conducted in the office and presence of Mr. Quick. The only agent interviewed who was in Petitioner's staff group was Ms. Arthur, who was infrequently in the office or in contact with Mr. Gentile. Being in different staff groups, the other agents had limited opportunity to observe Mr. Gentile's behavior with respect to Petitioner. Ms. Arthur, who was the top sales agent in the Orlando office, told Mr. Stathis that Petitioner informed her of the matter shortly after the June 12 incident. Another female agent, Sherry Andrews, told Mr. Stathis that Petitioner told her of the incident in late July--well before Petitioner rejected Mr. Gentile's order that they ride together. In his interview, Mr. Gentile denied that the incident had taken place, as he had previously when asked about it by Mr. Quick. The next day, August 21, Petitioner cancelled a meeting that was to take place between her and Mr. Stathis late in the afternoon after she had had an opportunity to meet with she union lawyer. Mr. Stathis transferred Petitioner on August 22 to Mr. Lowe's staff group and informed Mr. Lowe to supervise her carefully. Ending his investigation at this time, Mr. Stathis concluded that Petitioner's allegations were without merit. Late in the day on August 23, Petitioner informed Mr. Lowe that she wanted to be treated as a new agent with respect to a guaranteed salary and lapse relief under the Sales Persistency Incentive bonus plan. She told him that he should inform management of her desires. Mr. Lowe asked her to come to the office that evening to call prospects, but she never did. On the morning of August 24, prior to learning of any response to her demands of the prior afternoon, Petitioner turned in her employee materials and indicated that she would not be back. She had previously secured employment with another life insurance company at a higher rate of pay than the $88.21 per week that she was making at the time of her departure from Respondent. Although this job was originally due to start on September 1, 1984, her new employer was later required to postpone her starting date to October 1, 1984. At his request, Mr. Gentile was returned to sales agent status in early December 1984. He is no longer employed by Respondent. Petitioner's productivity was poor before and after the June 12 incident. Her total 1984 sales credits were only $153,901, which, at the time of her departure, were the lowest among the other seventeen sales agents in the Orlando office, except for one who had been working for only nine weeks at the time of Petitioner's departure and another who had been on disability leave for four months. She had the highest rate of first-year lapses in the office, which reflected a poor success rate in keeping her own business. By contrast, another new sales agent, who had some prior disability insurance sales background, earned during the same period sales credits of $792,968 and had a first-year lapse rate only one-tenth that of Petitioner. Attrition is not uncommon among first-year life insurance sales agents in the Orlando office. Respondent's attrition rate among first-year agents is 30% to 40%. In December 1983, Arturo Pagan, a male sales agent in the Orlando office, quit after earning only $103,019 in sales credits after 29 weeks for an average of $3552 per week. Considering Petitioner's average through August 17 rather than August 24 in order to account somewhat for the distractions of her last days on the job, Petitioner averaged sales credits of $4900 per week-- better than Mr. Arturo but still well below all of her coworkers at the time of her departure. The two other male sales agents cited by Petitioner in her Petition as having lower productivity also terminated. John Plummer resigned on June 23, 1984. In 20 weeks, he earned sales credits of $100,398 for an average of $5000 per week, which is slightly better than Petitioner's average. He also had a much lower first-year lapse rate. Charles Denham resigned in early October 1984, after only about three months service that was characterized by low productivity. Respondent's investigation was deficient in several respects and not conducted in good faith. Mr. Stathis, who exhibits a "take charge," confrontational attitude, undoubtedly intimidated Petitioner, who is shy and was, at the time, inexperienced and somewhat naive. When Mr. Stathis bullied Petitioner into scheduling an appointment on short notice, he explicitly told her that her needs were subordinate to those of Respondent and, in light of his pressing vacation plans, even Mr. Stathis. Mr. Stathis disingenuously cited Petitioner's uncooperativeness as a prime reason for closing the investigation and concluding that her charges were unfounded. At all times material hereto, Respondent maintained a policy condemning both quid pro quo and hostile working environment sexual harassment. This policy encouraged any person who felt that he or she had been the subject of sexual harassment to report it to Ms. DiNallo-Raebel and assured such person that he or she would suffer no retaliation. A copy of this policy statement was contained in the management book that Mr. Ruffo had happened to lend to Petitioner. Otherwise, copies of this statement were not distributed to employees or posted in a prominent place. The collective bargaining agreement did not clearly provide for arbitration of grievances involving claims of sexual harassment. Following her departure from Respondent, Petitioner commenced proceedings with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Negotiations ensued, but no agreement was ever reached between the parties. The cause determination was not based on the merits, but was the result of a misunderstanding by the Commission that Respondent had elected to discontinue its participation in the investigation. The determination was based on a file lacking certain documents that Respondent intended to produce.
Recommendation In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of sex discrimination in employment. ENTERED this 13th day of July 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobe Lev, Esquire Egan, Lev & Siwica Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Genevieve Pluhowski, Esquire Associate Counsel John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company Post Office Boy 1 Boston, MA 02117 Dana Baird General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Agerton Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 =================================================================
