The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent on or about April 9, 2004. The Petitioner worked as a houseman. This job description was within the Respondent's housekeeping section. His original schedule required him to work a shift that ran from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. In October or November of 2004, the Petitioner's work schedule changed and he was directed to work the overnight shift. The overnight shift personnel reported for duty from 11:00 p.m. until 7:30 a.m. The Petitioner accepted this re-assignment. The change in shift assignment was requested by Elizabeth Cortes' predecessor. Some time after December 2004, the Petitioner's supervising manager changed and Elizabeth Cortes became the director or manager for housekeeping. The Petitioner asked Ms. Cortes if he could return to the 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift. That request was not approved. The Petitioner accepted this decision and continued to work as scheduled. Ms. Cortes told the Petitioner at that time that she did not have another employee who would be available to take the night shift. In 2007 the Petitioner enrolled in school and requested that his shift be changed to a 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. shift so that he could attend school at Miami Dade. That request was approved. From the time of approval, the Petitioner was permitted to work three days from 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. (his school days) and two days from 11:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. The modification of the schedule allowed the Petitioner sufficient time to get to school in the morning. The Petitioner continued to work these shift times without complaint or issue. In November or December of 2006, the Petitioner made an application to become a banquet server for the Respondent's restaurant. He alleged that he gave the application to Elizabeth Cortes who was to sign it and forward it to Human Resources. According to Esther Sandino, the Petitioner did not file an application for restaurant server. Further, Ms. Cortes did not recall the matter. The Petitioner did not file a claim of discrimination for this alleged incident but presumably alleged that this incident demonstrates an on-going disparate treatment. There was no evidence that a non- Haitian was hired for the job as banquet server. There was no evidence any banquet servers were hired. Ms. Cortes did not hire banquet servers. Her responsibilities were directed at housekeeping. During the time Ms. Cortes was the housekeeping supervisor, the Respondent employed approximately 90 employees within the housekeeping section. Of those employees approximately 70 were Haitian. The remainder were Hispanic, Jamaican, Filipino, and other. Of the five persons who held supervisory positions, one was Haitian, two were Hispanic, one was from Czechoslovakia, and the country of origin of the fifth supervisor was unknown to Ms. Cortes. Ms. Cortes did not have the authority to terminate the Respondent's employees. Standard procedure would cause any allegation of improper conduct to be referred to the Human Resources office for follow up and investigation. There were two incidents referred for investigation regarding the Petitioner prior to the incident of April 22, 2007. Neither of them resulted in suspension or termination of the Petitioner's employment with the Respondent. On April 22, 2007, a security officer reported to the hotel manager on duty, Bingina Lopez, that the Petitioner was discovered sleeping during his work shift. Based upon that report, Ms. Lopez sent an e-mail to the housekeeping department to alert them to the allegation. When the Petitioner next reported for work, Mr. Saldana told the Petitioner to leave the property and to report to the Human Resources office the next day to respond to the allegation. The Petitioner did not report as directed and did not return to the property. Mr. Saldana did not have the authority to suspend or terminate the Petitioner's employment. Moreover, the Respondent did not send a letter of suspension or termination to the Petitioner. In fact, the Respondent assumed that the Petitioner had abandoned his position with the company. Ms. Cortes presumed the Petitioner abandoned his position because all of his uniforms were returned to the company. To avoid having the final paycheck docked, the Respondent required that all uniforms issued to an employee be returned upon separation from employment. The Petitioner acknowledged that he had his brother return the uniforms to the Respondent for him. The Respondent considered turning in uniforms to be an automatic resignation of employment. To fill the Petitioner's position (to meet housekeeping needs), the Respondent contacted an agency that provides temporary staffing. The person who came from the agency for the assignment was a male Hispanic. The male (who may have been named Lewis Diaz) arrived at the Trump Resort for work about ten days after the Petitioner left. The replacement employee's schedule was from 4:00 p.m. to midnight or 1:00 a.m. The temporary replacement remained with the Respondent until a permanent replacement for the Petitioner could be hired. It is unknown how long that was or who the eventual permanent employee turned out to be. Because the Petitioner never returned to the Trump Resort as directed, he was not disciplined for any behavior that may have occurred on April 22, 2007. The Petitioner's Employee Return Uniform Receipt was dated April 25, 2007. Prior to the incident alleged for April 22, 2007, the Petitioner had been investigated in connection with two other serious charges. Neither of those incidents resulted in discipline against the Petitioner. Both of the incidents claimed improper conduct that was arguably more serious than the allegation of April 22, 2007. Of the 400 plus employees at the Respondent's resort, the majority are Haitians. The Respondent employs persons from 54 different countries. The Petitioner's claim that he was referred to as a "fucking Haitian" by a security guard has not been deemed credible. The Petitioner was unable to indicate when the comment was made. Moreover, the Petitioner did not complain to anyone at the time the comment was allegedly made. Finally, no other employee could corroborate that the comment was made. One former employee testified that the Petitioner told him about the alleged comment. At best it was one offensive statement made on one occasion. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was treated in a disparate or improper manner based upon his national origin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by the Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 27th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Warren Jay Stamm, Esquire Trump International Beach Resort 18001 Collins Avenue, 31st Floor Sunny Isles, Florida 33160 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Derick Daniel, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, the second issue for consideration is what penalty should be imposed for such a violation.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 194525 by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. At the time of the incident in question, Respondent was employed by the FHP. For an unspecified time prior to July 11, 2011, Respondent was involved in a relationship with a woman named Tamarah Rasmussen. For some period, she shared his home with him. However, in the weeks or months preceding July 11, 2011, the couple’s relationship had deteriorated, and Respondent wanted it to end. He had, however, allowed her to remain in the home “as a friend.” On July 10, 2011, the couple had a fight, and Respondent left the house. On July 11, 2011, Respondent returned to the home after his work shift, and told Ms. Rasmussen that he wanted their relationship to end. Respondent told her he wanted to sleep in a separate bed, and took the mattress pad off of a bed in a bedroom downstairs and put it on a separate bed upstairs. Ms. Rasmussen reacted by taking the mattress pad off of the second bed and throwing it out the window. Respondent retrieved the mattress pad. Ms. Rasmussen then poured a container of water on the bed where Respondent intended to sleep. Respondent turned on the video function on his cellular phone and asked Ms. Rasmussen about her actions. She responded by telling him he was a fool and an idiot, and that he was crazy. In what can be gleaned from the tape, Respondent asked her to take her things and leave. Instead, Ms. Rasmussen approached Respondent trying to get his phone as he started to go upstairs, and began hitting him. He can be heard on the cell phone recording repeatedly asking her to stop. Ms. Rasmussen repeatedly answered “no,” and “this was good enough for you last night,” and the sound of her striking Respondent can be heard clearly. This altercation occurred as Respondent attempted to retreat up the stairs. At one point, Respondent exclaimed that Ms. Rasmussen had hit him in the face, and Ms. Rasmussen responds, “yeah, I did.” Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen end up in what appears to be a walk-in closet upstairs. At that point, Respondent told Ms. Rasmussen that she was “going down,” and that he would “arrest her myself.” Respondent appeared to be out of breath. Ms. Rasmussen responded by telling him repeatedly that she was not under arrest and he was not arresting her for anything. She told him several times to stop, and to “get off of her,” stating that she could not breathe. Eventually, she told him that he had won, and asked him to help her up. Ms. Rasmussen testified that Respondent dragged her up the stairs, hitting her head on the stairwell on the way up. She testified further that he slammed her against the wall, handcuffed her behind her back, and was sitting on top of her while he did so, and while she pleaded with him to stop. According to her, Respondent hit her several times during the time they were in the closet, and then dragged her back down the stairs by the chain on the handcuffs. She also stated that Respondent threatened to kill her, saying that if he did so he could dispose of her body in the pond on the property and no one would know unless they drained the pond. Respondent, on the other hand, testified that Ms. Rasmussen began hitting him around the head and neck, and he was retreating up the stairs in an effort to get away from her, telling her repeatedly to stop. He testified that once they reached the closet, he told her he was arresting her and placed her hands behind her back in order to handcuff her. When she told him he was not arresting her for anything, he warned her not to “make me Taze you,” and finished placing the handcuffs on her wrists, behind her back. Respondent denied sitting on Ms. Rasmussen, saying that he knelt on one knee with one foot flat on the floor, and with Ms. Rasmussen secured between his legs, as he learned in law enforcement training. While Ms. Rasmussen testified that he dragged her down the stairs of the house and then threw her down the outside steps, Respondent testified that he carried her down the stairs of the home so as not to injure her, but that she was resisting him. While the taped recording contained sounds indicating that Respondent was being hit by Ms. Rasmussen going up the stairs, the same is not true with respect to the descent. Ms. Rasmussen can be heard telling Respondent to stop, but there is no sound that can be attributed to her head banging against the wall or anyone being dragged down the stairs. Once they were both downstairs, Respondent called in a “1024” on his FHP radio, which means “officer in jeopardy, send help as soon as possible.” The consensus of those officers testifying was that this call is rarely used and is the equivalent of “calling the calvary,” because the officer needs help immediately. Both Rasmussen and Respondent exited the home once the 1024 call was placed. Rasmussen testified at hearing that Respondent offered to take the handcuffs off of her and she refused the offer, saying that she wanted the responding officers to “see me exactly this way.” She got in his truck, which was parked near his locked law enforcement vehicle, and shut the door to get out of the rain. Law enforcement responding to the 1024 call were Marcus Bailey, an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff’s Office; FHP Major Eddie Johnson; and Lieutenant Davis Ward of the Bay County Sheriff’s Office. Their arrival at the home was approximately twelve minutes from the call being received by the FHP dispatcher. The Bay County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation of the matter, and because a law enforcement officer was involved, the investigation was conducted by supervisors. As a result of the incident, Respondent was placed on administrative duty on July 11, 2012, and terminated from the FHP July 16, 2012. The officers who responded all saw the video of the cell phone recording, which was also played several times during the course of the hearing. While, curiously, two of the three refer to Respondent as “taunting” Ms. Rasmussen at the beginning of the video, the video does not display or record anything that the undersigned could describe as taunting. It portrayed Respondent expressing dismay at Ms. Rasmussen’s behavior; Respondent requesting that she get her things and leave; Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response; the sounds of Ms. Rasmussen hitting Respondent; Responding placing her under arrest and reciting her rights; and Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response and cries for help and for Respondent to let her go. Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Ronnie Baker, testified that Respondent was a great employee who went “above and beyond,” and who prior to this incident (which Sergeant Baker did not witness), had no complaints against him. Sergeant Baker, among others, testified that Ms. Rasmussen had a reputation for untruthfulness. The undersigned reviewed the tape several times. It is of limited assistance in deciphering what is, in reality, an event where the only witnesses are the participants, Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen. However, after listening to the tape and observing the demeanor of witnesses (both at hearing and in the tape), Ms. Rasmussen’s account of the incident is simply not credible. The sounds on the tape clearly support the testimony that Ms. Rasmussen was hitting Respondent repeatedly as they went up the stairs. There are no corresponding sounds to support her contention that he slammed her head into the wall or dragged her down the stairs. Moreover, the pictures of Ms. Rasmussen do not clearly depict bruising or swelling consistent with her description of the incident. There are slight red marks on Ms. Rasmussen’s wrists, but they do not provide clear and convincing evidence that he dragged her anywhere, much less down the stairs. The marks on her arms are just as likely to indicate her resisting his efforts to carry her down the stairs. Moreover, her claim that he threatened to kill her and dispose of her body in the pond on the property is totally inconsistent with Respondent’s actions in placing a 1024 request for assistance, and waiting at the front of the property for assistance to arrive. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with use of excessive force by slamming Ms. Rasmussen’s head and/or placing handcuffs on the victim tightly and/or dragging her down the stairs while handcuffed. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent slammed Ms. Rasmussen’s head against anything; that he put the handcuffs on her too tightly; or that he dragged her down the stairs while handcuffed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Spaziante (Address of record) Sandra Renee Coulter, Esquire Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald M. Bailey, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white female. Petitioner worked as a salesperson at Respondent’s Melbourne store from April 2006 to September 2006. Petitioner’s primary job duty was selling appliances to retail customers. She also performed ancillary duties, such as tagging merchandise, cleaning and organizing the showroom floor, scheduling deliveries, and making follow-up calls to customers. Petitioner was not paid a salary. Her income was solely commission-based. She earned a total of $11,826.14 while working for Respondent, which equates to an average weekly gross pay of $537.55. Petitioner had several managers during the term of her employment. She did not have a problem with any of her managers, except for Jeffrey Rock. Mr. Rock is a black male, and by all accounts, he was a difficult manager to work for. He was “strict”; he often yelled at the salespersons to “get in the box”2 and “answer the phones”; and, unlike several of the prior managers at the Melbourne store, Mr. Rock held the salespersons accountable for doing their job. Petitioner testified that Mr. Rock "constantly" made sexual comments in the store, including comments about the size of his penis and his sexual prowess; comments about sex acts that he wanted to perform on a female employee in Respondent’s accounting office, Ms. Miho; “stallion” noises directed at Ms. Miho; and a question to Petitioner about the type of underwear that she was wearing. Petitioner’s testimony regarding the sexual comments and noises made by Mr. Rock was corroborated by Neina Blizzard, who worked with Petitioner as a salesperson for Respondent and who has also filed a sexual harassment claim against Respondent. Mr. Rock denied making any sexually inappropriate comments or noises in the store. His testimony was corroborated by Guy Ruscillo and Carissa Howard, who worked as salespersons with Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard and who are still employed by Respondent. Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard testified that Mr. Rock gave favorable treatment to Ms. Howard and two other female salespersons with whom he had sexual relationships and/or who found his sexual comments funny. Mr. Rock denied giving favorable treatment to any salesperson, except for one time when he gave a “house ticket”3 to Ms. Howard because she took herself off the sales floor for six hours one day to help him get organized during his first week as manager at the Melbourne store. Ms. Howard is white. The record does not reflect the race of the other two female salespersons -- Rebecca and Shanna -- who Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard testified received favorable treatment by Mr. Rock, and the anecdotal evidence of the favorable treatment that they allegedly received was not persuasive. Petitioner did not have any complaints regarding her schedule. Indeed, she testified that Mr. Rock changed her schedule at one point during her employment to give her more favorable hours. Petitioner’s testimony about other salespersons having sexual relationships with Mr. Rock and/or receiving favorable treatment from Mr. Rock was based solely upon speculation and rumor. Indeed, Rebecca, one of the salespersons with whom Mr. Rock allegedly had a sexual relationship, was “let go” by Mr. Rock because of the problems with her job performance observed by Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard. Petitioner’s last day of work was Saturday, September 30, 2006. On that day, Petitioner came into the store with Ms. Blizzard at approximately 8:00 a.m. because, according to Petitioner, another manager had changed her schedule for that day from the closing shift to the opening shift. Mr. Rock confronted Petitioner when she arrived, asking her why she came in at 8:00 a.m. since he had put her on the schedule for the closing shift. An argument ensued and Petitioner went into the warehouse in the back of the store to compose herself. When Petitioner returned to the showroom several minutes later, Mr. Rock was engaged in an argument with Ms. Blizzard. During the argument, Ms. Blizzard demanded a transfer to another store, which Mr. Rock agreed to give her. Then, as a “parting shot,” Ms. Blizzard told Mr. Rock that he was a “racist” who was “prejudiced against white women.” Ms. Blizzard testified that Mr. Rock told her that she was fired immediately after she called him a racist. Petitioner testified that after Mr. Rock fired Ms. Blizzard, he asked her whether she wanted to be fired too. Petitioner testified that even though she did not respond, Mr. Rock told her that “you are fired too.” Then, according to Ms. Blizzard and Petitioner, Mr. Rock escorted them both out of the store. Mr. Rock denies telling Ms. Blizzard or Petitioner that they were fired. He testified that they both walked out of the store on their own accord after the argument. Mr. Rock’s version of the events was corroborated by Mr. Ruscillo, who witnessed the argument. Mr. Ruscillo testified that he heard a lot of yelling, but that he did not hear Mr. Rock tell Ms. Blizzard or Petitioner at any point that they were fired. Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard met with an attorney the Monday after the incident. The following day, Petitioner gave Ms. Blizzard a letter to deliver on her behalf to Respondent’s human resources (HR) Department. The letter, which Petitioner testified that she wrote on the day that she was fired by Mr. Rock, stated that Petitioner “was sexually harassed and discriminated against based on being a white female by my manager, Jeff Rock”; that Petitioner “previously reported numerous incidents of this discrimination and sexual harassment to upper management”; and that she was fired “as a result of this discrimination and the refusal to put up with Mr. Rock’s sexual advancement.” This letter was the first notice that Respondent had of Petitioner’s claims of sexual harassment or discrimination by Mr. Rock. Petitioner considers herself to be a very good salesperson, but Mr. Rock described her as an “average” salesperson. Mr. Rock’s characterization of Petitioner’s job performance is corroborated by Petitioner’s acknowledgement that her sales figures were lower than those of at least Mr. Ruscillo, Ms. Blizzard, and Ms. Howard. Petitioner complained to another manager, Al Sierra, about Mr. Rock’s management style at some point in mid-September 2006. She did not complain to Mr. Sierra or anyone else in Respondent’s upper management about the sexual comments allegedly made by Mr. Rock. Indeed, as noted above, the first time that Petitioner complained about the sexual comments allegedly made by Mr. Rock was in a letter that she provided to Respondent’s HR Department several days after she was fired and after she met with a lawyer. Petitioner testified that she did not complain about the sexual harassment by Mr. Rock because he threatened to fire any salesperson who complained to upper management about the way that he ran the store and because she did not know who to complain to because she never received an employee handbook. There is no evidence that Mr. Rock fired any salesperson for complaining about how he ran the store, and he denied making any such threats. He did, however, acknowledge that he told the salespersons that they were all replaceable. Mr. Rock’s testimony was corroborated by Mr. Ruscillo and Ms. Howard, who were at the sales meetings where Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard claim that the threats were made. The training that Petitioner received when she started with Respondent was supposed to include a discussion of Respondent’s policies and procedures, including its policy against sexual harassment. The trainer, Kit Royal, testified that he remembered Petitioner attending the week-long training program and that the program did include a discussion of the sexual harassment policy and other policies and procedures. Petitioner, however, testified that no policies and procedures were discussed during the training program. Petitioner was supposed to have received and signed for an employee handbook during the training program. No signed acknowledgement form could be located for Petitioner, which is consistent with her testimony that she never received the handbook. The fact that Petitioner did not receive the employee handbook does not mean that the training program did not include discussion of Respondent’s sexual harassment policies. Indeed, Petitioner’s testimony that the training program did not include any discussion regarding salary and benefit policies (as Mr. Royal testified that it did) and that she was never told what she would be paid by Respondent despite having given up another job to take the job with Respondent calls into question her testimony that the sexual harassment policy was not discussed at the training program. Petitioner was aware that Respondent had an HR Department because she met with a woman in the HR Department named Helen on several occasions regarding an issue that she had with her health insurance. She did not complain to Helen about the alleged sexual harassment by Mr. Rock, but she did tell Helen at some point that Mr. Rock “was being an ass” and “riding her,” which she testified were references to Mr. Rock’s management style not the alleged sexual harassment. Petitioner collected employment compensation of $272 per week after she left employment with Respondent. Petitioner testified that she looked for jobs in furniture sales and car sales while she was collecting unemployment, but that she was unable to find another job for approximately three months because of the slow economy at the time. She provided no documentation of those job-search efforts at the final hearing. Petitioner is currently employed by Art’s Shuttle. She has held that job for approximately nine months. Petitioner drives a van that takes cruise ship passengers to and from the airport. The record does not reflect how many hours per week Petitioner works at Art’s Shuttle, but she testified that she works seven days a week and earns approximately $500 per week. No written documentation of Petitioner’s current income was provided at the final hearing. Respondent has a “zero tolerance” policy against sexual harassment according to its president, Sam Pak. He credibly testified that had he been aware of the allegations of sexual harassment by Mr. Rock that he would have conducted an investigation and, if warranted, done something to fix the problem. The policy, which is contained in the employee handbook, states that Respondent “will not, under any circumstances, condone or tolerate conduct that may constitute sexual harassment on the part of its management, supervisors, or non-management personnel.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include “[c]reating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment or atmosphere by . . . [v]erbal actions, including . . . using vulgar, kidding, or demeaning language . . . .” Mr. Pak agreed that the allegations against Mr. Rock, if true, would violate Respondent’s sexual harassment policy. The employee handbook includes a “grievance procedure” for reporting problems, including claims of sexual harassment. The first step is to bring the problem to the attention of the store manager, but the handbook states that the employee is “encouraged and invited to discuss the problem in confidence directly with Human Resources” if the problem involves the manager. Additionally, the handbook states in bold, underlined type that “[a]nyone who feels that he or she . . . is the victim of sexual or other harassment, must immediately report . . . . all incidents of harassment in writing to your manager or the store manager, or if either person is the subject of the complaint, to the president.” Mr. Pak had an office at the Melbourne store. He testified that he had an “open door policy” whereby employees could bring complaints directly to him. The only complaint that Mr. Pak ever received about Mr. Rock was from another salesperson, Rod Sherman, who complained that Mr. Rock was a “tough manager.” Mr. Pak did nothing in response to the complaint and simply told Mr. Sherman that different managers have different management styles.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Marcella Taggart (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Respondent), in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in June 2007, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed as a systems analyst in the Respondent’s Information Technology (IT) department. The Respondent is a Florida corporation that operates a chain of grocery stores. The Respondent’s IT department is a high-security unit. A systems analyst working in the IT department has access to the Respondent’s financial and product pricing systems. Such an employee would also have access to some confidential human resources department data, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and banking information of the Respondent’s other employees. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that some co- workers harassed her by repeatedly asking questions about her hair when she wore it in a braided hairstyle. The Respondent has adopted an explicit policy prohibiting all forms of harassment. In relevant part, the policy states as follows: The very nature of harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless the person being harassed registers his or her discontent with the appropriate company representative. Consequently, in order for the company to deal with the problem, offensive conduct or situations must be reported. The policy identifies a specific formal process by which an employee who feels harassed may lodge a complaint about such behavior. The Petitioner did not file a formal complaint about the alleged harassment related to her hairstyle. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner informally complained to the Respondent about such alleged harassment prior to her termination from employment. In April 2009, the Petitioner participated in a work- related meeting, during which the Petitioner perceived that she was treated by another female employee in a demeaning manner. The Petitioner reported the other employee’s behavior in an email to supervisor Terry Walden. The other employee wrote a similar email complaining about the Petitioner’s behavior at the meeting, and, according to the Petitioner’s email, the Petitioner was aware of the other employee’s report. Although the Petitioner now asserts that she complained that the incident was discriminatory, the Petitioner’s email, which was written at the time of the incident, does not state or imply that the incident was related to some type of discriminatory conduct by the other employee, or that the altercation was related to anything other than assigned work responsibilities. In May 2014, the Petitioner and a white male co-worker engaged in an office confrontation about assigned work responsibilities. Both the Respondent and the other employee separately reported the incident to supervisors. The Respondent investigated the incident and interviewed other employees who observed, but were not involved in, the confrontation. As a result of the incident, the Petitioner received a written memo of counseling on June 16, 2014, from supervisor Greta Opela for “poor interpersonal skills.” The memo reported that the Petitioner “consistently performed well in her position from a technical standpoint” but that she “has had ongoing associate relations issues.” The memo stated that the Petitioner was unable to work appropriately with other employees and that “many associates have requested not to work with her because of their previous interactions with her.” The memo noted that the Petitioner’s behavior towards her co-workers had been referenced in previous performance evaluations, as well as in direct discussions between the Petitioner and her immediate managers. In relevant part, the memo further stated as follows: Of concern, when coached or provided constructive criticism, Marcella is very unreceptive and often becomes defensive and deflects blame to others. Given Marcella has had interpersonal conflicts with numerous individuals, Marcella needs to recognize her role in these conflicts, take ownership for her actions, and work to correct her behavior. * * * Marcella must treat her fellow associates with dignity and respect. Also Marcella must take ownership for her actions and work to improve upon her relationships with her peers. Should Marcella fail to improve upon her interpersonal skills, she will be issued additional counseling, removed from her position, or separated from Publix. The Petitioner’s written acknowledgement of her receipt of the memo indicated that she disagreed with the assessment. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondent committed an act of discrimination against her because the Respondent did not issue a similar memo to the other employee. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had any reason to issue a similar memorandum to the other employee, or that the other employee had a documented history of exhibiting “poor interpersonal skills” that could warrant counseling. There is no evidence that the June 2014 memo was related in any manner to the Petitioner’s race, color, sex, age, or was retaliatory. Although the memo was placed in the Petitioner’s personnel file, the Respondent took no adverse employment action against the Petitioner as a result of the memo or the underlying incident. On June 23, 2014, the Petitioner’s house, which she owned with her husband, was partially destroyed in a fire. The Petitioner had been called to the scene after the fire commenced, and was present as the structure burned. The fire and subsequent events resulted in an investigation by the State Fire Marshall’s Office. On April 1, 2015, the Petitioner informed supervisor Opela that the Petitioner had to go to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) and was unsure whether she would return to work on that day. Thereafter, the Petitioner left the workplace and traveled to the HCSO where she presented herself for arrest on a felony charge of making a “false and fraudulent insurance claim.” After the Petitioner left her place of employment, Ms. Opela accessed an internet resource and learned of the pending charge against the Petitioner. Ms. Opela reported the information to her own supervisor, Ms. Walden, and to Susan Brose, a manager in the Respondent’s human resources department. Ms. Brose reviewed the available internet information, and then arranged with the Petitioner to meet upon her return to the workplace. At the hearing, Ms. Brose testified that the Respondent requires complete honesty from its employees, and that, according to the Respondent’s policies, dishonest of any kind is unacceptable and can result in termination from employment. Ms. Brose testified that she restates the requirement at the commencement of every personnel disciplinary meeting, and did so at the beginning of her meeting with the Petitioner, after which she asked the Petitioner to explain the situation. The Petitioner responded by stating that there had been a fire at the house, that there had been no insurance on the house, that her husband had filed a claim, and that she had asked the insurance carrier not to pursue the claim. The Petitioner denied to Ms. Brose that she had been arrested at the HCSO. Ms. Brose also spoke with William Harrison, a detective with the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud. Mr. Harrison prepared and executed the Summary of Offense and Probable Cause Statement (Probable Cause Statement), dated December 4, 2014, which formed the basis for the Petitioner’s arrest on April 1, 2015. According to the Probable Cause Statement: the Petitioner was aware at the time of the fire that the homeowner’s insurance on the house had lapsed for non-payment of the premium; the Petitioner was present at the scene of the fire and became aware that the policy could be reinstated during the “grace period” by payment of the premium due, as long as the house had suffered no damage during the uninsured period; the Petitioner was warned at the scene of the fire by an employee of the State Fire Marshall’s office that the reinstatement of the lapsed policy without disclosing the damage could constitute insurance fraud; and the Petitioner was overheard on the phone at the scene of the fire having the lapsed policy reinstated. Ms. Brose became aware that, when having the lapsed insurance policy reinstated, the Petitioner executed a “Statement of No Loss” form that provided in relevant part as follows: I CERTIFY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO LOSSES, ACCIDENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT GIVE RISE TO A CLAIM UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY WHOSE NUMBER IS SHOWN ABOVE. After completing her review of the circumstances, Ms. Brose concluded that the Petitioner had been dishonest during their meeting. Ms. Brose recommended to Ms. Walden that the Petitioner’s employment be terminated because the Petitioner worked in a high-security unit of the IT department where she had access to confidential financial information and systems, the Petitioner had been arrested for fraud, and the Petitioner was not honest when asked to explain the circumstances. On April 13, 2015, Ms. Walden terminated the Petitioner’s employment as a systems analyst for the reasons identified by Ms. Brose. The Petitioner presented no evidence that the Respondent’s termination of her employment was related to the Petitioner’s race, color, sex, age, or in retaliation for any complaint of discrimination.
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 Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Ideal Security Services, Inc. (“Respondent or Ideal”), retaliated against Petitioner, John Mercurio (“Petitioner”), for exercising his right to file a complaint on an alleged unlawful employment practice pursuant to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2019).1/
Findings Of Fact Ideal is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). While the exact number of employees is not reflected in this record, the evidence established that Ideal employs greater than 15 employees. Ideal provides security officers to different locations for access control and on-site patrol. Petitioner worked for Respondent as a security officer from June 20, 2018, through February 7, 2019. At the time he was hired by Ideal, Petitioner was informed in writing of the company’s “Interchange” practice, which provides: Although employees generally are hired to work at one specific client location or facility, the company (Ideal Services, Inc.) uses its Guard Force INTERCHANGEABLY to meet its needs: In case of cancellation of any accounts, reduction or increase in hours provided, or an employee who may request a transfer. Also Ideal Services, Inc. wishes to point out that they DO NOT guarantee a full 40 hour work week. Overtime is given to employees depending on where the overtime will occur and the availability of employees to work an assignment. Ideal Services, Inc. wishes to also point out that hourly pay rates will depend on job placement as some client assigned jobs will carry higher pay rates than others. It is therefore Ideal Services, Inc.’s policy to inform all individuals who are applying for employment that Ideal Services, Inc. DOES NOT HIRE for only one site at one set pay rate . . . because both of these are subject to change. On the date he was hired, Petitioner signed a copy of the above policy statement, acknowledging that he had read and understood its contents. Petitioner’s first assignment was to provide security at a Krispy Kreme Donuts retail location, an assignment which carried a pay rate of $9.50 per hour. In July 2018, Petitioner was assigned to several other locations, in addition to the Krispy Kreme location. Those new locations were at Daytona Beach Housing Authority apartments, including the Maley, Windsor, and Trails apartment complexes. The public housing assignments carried a pay rate of $8.50 per hour. As of August 2018, Petitioner was no longer assigned to the Krispy Kreme location, but rather was working exclusively at the public housing locations. In December 2018, another Ideal security guard was newly assigned to the same public housing complex as Petitioner. It was clear to Petitioner that this individual was a racist based on his words and actions. While standing next to Petitioner, the new security officer referred to the building residents as "monkeys." It was clear to Petitioner that this remark was made in reference to the African-American residents of the complex. Dan Montrose, the senior security officer and Petitioner’s partner, was also within earshot when the newly assigned officer made the derogatory remark. Petitioner was stunned by the racist comment, especially since Mr. Montrose’s wife is an African-American female. Petitioner also testified that on another occasion, the new officer posted a picture of a Caucasian baby on the common area's fridge with an arrow that said, "Dan" on it, as well as a black finger/arm covering the baby's mouth which said, "Dan's wife." While Petitioner’s first impulse was to report the above racist incidents to his employer, at the request of Officer Montrose he did not immediately do so. However, while the exact date of the conversation is not of record, sometime in the second or third week of December 2018, Petitioner reported the “monkey remark” to Ideal’s Manager and CFO, Diane Cox. Ms. Cox assured Petitioner that she would discuss the racist comment with the offending security guard. Ms. Cox testified that the offending security guard was given a verbal warning for his inappropriate comment, but was not otherwise disciplined because he had worked for the company for many years without incident. When Ms. Cox spoke with the offending security guard about his inappropriate remark, she did not raise the issue of the racist picture that had been posted on the common area refrigerator. According to the testimony of Ms. Cox, this is because she had not been informed by anyone about the existence of the picture, and first became aware of it when she read Petitioner’s Complaint. Ms. Cox testified that had she been informed of the racist picture, disciplinary action would have been taken against the offending employee. Again, while the exact date is not of record, sometime in late December 2018, Petitioner requested a copy of his payroll records from Ms. Cox. While gathering the records for Petitioner, Ms. Cox discovered that Petitioner’s rate of pay had erroneously not been reduced from $9.50 per hour to $8.50 per hour when he was transferred from the Krispy Kreme location to the public housing locations. Upon discovering this accounting error, Ms. Cox informed Petitioner that effective immediately his rate of pay while on duty at the public housing locations would be adjusted to $8.50 per hour, but that Ideal would not be attempting to recoup the overpayments that had been made over the previous months, since the error had been theirs. Respondent offered in evidence payroll records which demonstrated that all Ideal security guards assigned to the public housing locations were paid at the rate of $8.50 per hour. At about the same time as Petitioner’s downward rate adjustment, another Ideal security guard requested that he be assigned an additional eight-hour shift in order to bring him to 40 hours per week. In an attempt to accommodate this request, Ms. Cox contacted several of the Ideal security guards, including Petitioner, to inquire as to whether any wished to relinquish an eight-hour shift. Petitioner advised Ms. Cox that he did not want to give up an eight-hour shift, and that request was honored by Ideal. The timing of Petitioner’s reporting of the racist remarks to Ms. Cox; Petitioner being informed that his hourly rate was being reduced; and Petitioner being invited to give up a work shift; is unfortunate. Because of the temporal proximity of these events, it is understandable that Petitioner concluded that the reduction in his pay rate and attempted reduction in his assigned hours were in retaliation of his reporting the racist remarks. However, the evidence does not prove a causal link between Petitioner's complaint and the adverse action he suffered. Rather, the credible testimony of Ms. Cox established legitimate nonretaliatory reasons for how Petitioner was treated, and there is no evidence that the reasons articulated by Ms. Cox were a pretext for retaliation. Petitioner failed to persuasively prove any incidents of retaliation.
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 Ideal Security Services, Inc. did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 2020.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sanford Housing Authority (Respondent), committed an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Jimitre Smith (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who was pregnant during a portion of the time events occurred related to her employment with Respondent. At the time of Petitioner’s initial employment with Respondent, the Sanford Housing Authority operated public housing complexes within its geographical area pursuant to a HUD program to provide housing assistant to low income, qualified residents. At some point, the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over the management of Respondent’s properties. Due to the deteriorating condition of Respondent’s properties, residents were provided Section 8 vouchers so that they could obtain private rental opportunities. In the midst of the transition period, Petitioner’s employment with Respondent ended. Petitioner was initially hired by Respondent to replace a receptionist who was out on maternity leave. The assignment was part-time and temporary. It began on or about March 31, 2010. When the receptionist returned to work, Petitioner was offered a second part-time job as leasing clerk. Although the record is not clear when this second job started, it is undisputed that Petitioner sought and was granted maternity leave due to her own pregnancy on September 27, 2010. It was during this time period that the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over Respondent’s responsibilities. Mr. Fleming, an employee of the Orlando Housing Authority, served as the Interim Executive Director for Respondent. In November 2010 residents were advised of the plan to demolish the substandard housing units. Since the units would not be leased, a leasing clerk was no longer required. Although Petitioner had been told she could return to work after her maternity leave, there was no position available for her at that time. Once the Orlando Housing Authority took over management, all of the day-to-day work was assigned to its employees. Respondent kept a handful of maintenance workers, but there is no evidence Petitioner sought and/or was denied that type of job. Petitioner claimed she should have been offered or allowed to apply for a job with the Orlando Housing Authority. There is no evidence that entity was required to hire her or that it refused to hire her because of her gender or pregnancy or that Respondent refused to recommend Petitioner for employment due to her gender or pregnancy. When Petitioner was cleared for return to work in December 2010, there was not a job to return to as Respondent did not have a position for her. There is no evidence that Respondent hired anyone during or after Petitioner’s pregnancy or that Petitioner was refused a job that she was qualified to perform. Had a suitable job been available, it most likely would have come through the Orlando Housing Authority. In January of 2011, Respondent formally eliminated Respondent’s part-time position through a reduction in workforce decision. At that time, Petitioner received a severance payment from Respondent and an offer for other job training opportunities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jimitre Rochelle Smith 804 South Bay Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Ricardo L. Gilmore, Esquire Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway and Gibbons, P.A. Suite 600 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, the appropriate relief for such action.
Findings Of Fact For purposes of this case, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent in July of 2007. Although the Petitioner had worked for the Respondent in prior years (at another location), he had voluntarily left the company to pursue other opportunities. When the Petitioner returned to employment with the Respondent in connection with this case, it was ten years after a heart transplant. At the time of hiring, the Respondent knew the Petitioner's medical condition and age. The Petitioner is approximately 61 years of age. The Respondent is a national corporation with several sites for engineering and manufacture of its products. The Respondent is an equal opportunity employer and maintains policies prohibiting unlawful discrimination. One of the Respondent's facilities, Sykes Creek, is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Petitioner was hired to work at the Sykes Creek facility in the role of engineering supervisor. The Sykes Creek site builds luxury power yachts ranging from 50–to-60 feet in length. The price of these yachts runs from approximately $900,000 to $2,000,000 each. Typically, the yacht is ordered and customized to the buyer's specification. The Petitioner was responsible for supervising and directing work at Sykes Creek and reported to Kevin Shaw, his immediate supervisor. Mr. Shaw in turn reported to the plant manager, Steven Fielder. The Petitioner reviewed the work and attendance of approximately 21 hourly employees. When the Petitioner was hired (2007), the Sykes Creek facility produced 116 yachts and employed approximately 575 people. Within the Petitioner's department (engineering) there were 26 people; four others like Petitioner were salaried employees. The economic crunch that struck most of the nation drastically reduced the Respondent's business. In 2008 the Respondent instituted unpaid furloughs and layoffs due to the lack of business. By 2009 the economic condition in the industry had not improved. Accordingly, the Respondent had to make additional cuts to its staff. To that end, Mr. Fielder advised Mr. Shaw that the Petitioner's department would have to be cut to reduce the number of hourly employees and one salaried employee. To determine who should be cut, the Respondent looked to the number of years of service with the company and the skill set/education they provided for the facility. The Petitioner had the shortest length of service with the Respondent except for an employee named Julie Halesma. That person was not chosen for lay-off because she was a credentialed industrial engineer. The Petitioner did not have those credentials. The Petitioner was not offered a lower, hourly paid position because he did not have the skill set to perform the work as well as the hourly employees who were already doing the jobs. A number of employees were laid off the same day the Petitioner was dismissed. The Petitioner's job position was eliminated and has not, as of the date of hearing, been restored. The Respondent has continued to lay off workers. In 2009 the Sykes Creek facility was down to 175 employees. The engineering department was down to 15 people. Absent a return to more prosperous times, it is not expected that the facility will be able to rehire employees. The job tasks that the Petitioner performed are now shared by other employees at the facility. Throughout his time at the Sykes Creek facility, the Petitioner was allowed to take time off as needed to attend to medical issues. Based upon the frequency of the medical leave, the Respondent knew or should have known that the Petitioner's medical condition required monthly treatment. The extent of the medical treatment, however, was unknown to the Respondent. As a salaried employee the Petitioner did not have to "punch the clock." The Respondent allowed the Petitioner to complete his work as he might dictate so that he was free to leave the facility to attend to his medical needs. Clearly, the Respondent knew the Petitioner had had the heart transplant at the time of hiring but that medical condition did not impede the Petitioner's ability to perform his job assignments. The medical situation required that he be absent, but there is no indication that Petitioner could not perform his job. The cost of the Petitioner's medical care was unknown to the persons charged with making the lay-off decisions. The cost of the Petitioner's medical care played no part in the decision to eliminate the Petitioner's job. Similarly, the Petitioner's age did not play a part of the Respondent's decision to eliminate the Petitioner's job. The Respondent articulated legitimate business reasons for eliminating the Petitioner's job position. Clearly the Respondent knew of the Petitioner's age at the time of hiring. The Respondent did not replace the Petitioner with a younger employee. The Respondent's explanation for whom it chose to retain in employment was not based upon an employee's age but rather legitimate business interests. Episodes during which the Petitioner required medical attention at the facility did not rise to a level to cause the Respondent to be concerned for Petitioner's medical well-being. Incidents of the Petitioner being light headed or with low blood sugar did not cause the Respondent to seek to eliminate the Petitioner's job position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by the Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Rolf J. Bierman 1035 Palmer Road Rockledge, Florida 32955 Brian W. Koji, Esquire Bona M. Kim, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue, Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about September 25, 2010, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination against Respondent with the FCHR. Pursuant to the FCHR's procedure, an investigation of the matter was completed, that resulted in a Notice of Determination: No Cause. Essentially, the FCHR found that based upon the allegations raised by Petitioner there was no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice occurred. Thereafter, Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination, and to seek relief against Respondent for the alleged violation. The FCHR forwarded the matter to DOAH for formal proceedings. DOAH issued a Notice of Hearing on April 15, 2011, that was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. It is presumed, the parties received notice of the hearing date, time, and location. In fact, counsel for both parties did appear. Prior to the hearing, the parties engaged in discovery and Petitioner participated in a deposition on or about May 24, 2011. It is undisputed that Petitioner knew or should have known of the hearing date, time, and place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. John Gadd, Esquire The Law Offices of W. John Gadd 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Glenn Michael Rissman, Esquire Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterman, PA 200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2100 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the termination of the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent was an act of retaliation against the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Beginning on July 16, 2003, the Petitioner became employed by CFI Resorts Management, Inc. (CFI), in the housekeeping department at Westgate Vacation Villas (Villas). CFI employs more than 15 employees and is the operator of the Westgate Resorts/Westgate Vacation Villas. At all times material to this case, CFI maintained a written anti-discrimination policy and established procedures for the reporting of alleged discrimination. The Petitioner received a copy of the written policy when she became employed by CFI at the Villas. The CFI policies were also accessible on the company intranet, to which all employees had access. From 2003 through 2005, the Petitioner attempted to transfer from the housekeeping department to various other departments at the Villas. Her attempts were unsuccessful, primarily because she lacked the qualifications or experience to perform the jobs she sought. In 2005, while still employed in the housekeeping department, the Petitioner began a consensual sexual relationship with Geoff Price, a supervisor in the security department at the Villas. On February 17, 2006, the Petitioner requested and received a transfer from housekeeping to the Villas security department, where she became employed as a security officer. At the time of the transfer, the Petitioner did not meet basic qualifications for employment as a security officer. She was unable to speak or write English sufficiently to allow her to prepare the reports required by her position. After she began working in the security department, other employees had to assist her in preparing the reports. The Petitioner was routinely late for her assigned work shift, and she sometimes slept on the job. The sexual relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Price continued after she began her employment in the security department. Other employees were aware that the Petitioner and Mr. Price were engaged in a sexual relationship and were hesitant to complain about her lack of job skills or performance. Security department supervisors were unable to manage the Petitioner because she was involved with Mr. Price. One supervisor testified that the Petitioner was essentially unmanageable because the sexual relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Price allowed the Petitioner to "get away" with her poor job performance. He testified that other employees had to "walk on egg shells with [the Petitioner] there." The Petitioner received no warnings or written reprimands during her security department employment, and her hourly pay rose from $9.50 to $10.57. The Petitioner and Mr. Price engaged in sexual activity two or three times a month, during working and non-working hours, usually in Mr. Price's office or in hotel rooms at the Villas. The Petitioner and Mr. Price also engaged in sexual activity at the home of Clinton Skinner, a security department manager. On three occasions, Mr. Price surreptitiously recorded video of sexual activity between the Petitioner and Mr. Price using a computer located at Mr. Skinner's home. The videos, dated April 26, 2009, February 11, 2010, and March 24, 2010, were recorded without the Petitioner's knowledge. The video recordings were copied onto at least one DVD and were exhibited at the Villas to other employees by Mr. Price. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Price were married to other people during the period they engaged in sexual activity. The Petitioner became aware that other employees had seen the videos, and she complained to Mr. Price about the recording and exhibition of their sexual activity. In May 2011, the Petitioner discontinued the sexual relationship with Mr. Price. On or about June 6, 2011, the Petitioner contacted Roger Cuccaro (director of security at the Villas) and Angel Rivera (CFI's regional human resources director) and complained about the surreptitious recording, the DVD, and the fact that other employees had been allowed to see the video recordings. The Petitioner submitted a written statement of her complaint to CFI a few days later. CFI commenced an investigation into the Petitioner's allegations. Mr. Price was to be interviewed on June 16, 2011, but he resigned immediately prior to the interview and refused to cooperate in the investigation. The investigation soon expanded to a review of the Villas' security department operations, and numerous employees were interviewed. The investigation revealed the extent of the sexual activity between the Petitioner and Mr. Price and revealed that other co-workers had engaged in similar sexual activity. Additionally, investigators learned that two sexually-involved employees had engaged in an incident of physical violence while at work. CFI investigators also discovered that the Petitioner was unqualified for the position she held, was frequently late for her shift, and was unable to perform essential tasks of her position without assistance from other employees and that she, and other security department employees, would sleep while on the job. CFI investigators reviewed usage of the company email system and discovered that some security department employees, including the Petitioner, had used office computers and email to send numerous explicit pornographic photographs to co-workers and to other persons beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2009. CFI policy prohibits use of office email for various non-business purposes, including dissemination of discriminatory, hostile, suggestive or otherwise inappropriate email. After reviewing the results of the investigation, and in consultation with the corporate human resources director, Mark Waltrip, the chief operating officer for CFI, decided that he needed to "clean house" in the security department. CFI attempts to create a wholesome "family-type" atmosphere for guests staying at its properties. The security department is an important element in maintaining such an environment. Mr. Waltrip reasonably believed that the behavior of numerous security department employees was contrary to the expectations of CFI and was detrimental to operation of the resort. CFI terminated the employment of Security Director Cuccaro, Human Resources Regional Director Rivera, and Security Manager Skinner. All security department employees who participated in the dissemination of the pornographic email, including the Petitioner, were terminated from employment. CFI terminated the employment of other security department employees for various reasons related to the operations of the department. At the hearing, Mr. Waltrip testified that he would have fired Mr. Price had he been presented with the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner's employment by CFI was terminated on August 17, 2011. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence that any of the terminations, including her own, were unreasonable or unwarranted. There was no evidence presented that any of the employees who engaged in dissemination of the pornographic email were not terminated from employment. The evidence failed to establish that CFI terminated the Petitioner's employment in retaliation for her complaint about Mr. Price's surreptitious recording of their sexual encounters and subsequent exhibition of the DVD.
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 Petitioner's complaint against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Janice D. Kerr, Esquire J. D. Kerr, P.A. Suite 7 20 South Rose Avenue Kissimmee, Florida 34741 M. Jesusa Cruz Panton, Esquire Panton Law Firm PL 1094 Plaza Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34743 Myrna Lizz Maysonet, Esquire Brandon Hill, Esquire Richard Wayne Epstein, Esquire Greenspoon Marder, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32801 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment and/or retaliation while employed with Respondent in violation of Subsections 760.10(1)(a) and/or (7), Florida Statutes (2008).1
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the definition found in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired as an employee of Respondent in July 1993, as an X-ray technologist ("tech") in the Radiology Department. She is an adult female and, as such, is a member of a protected class. During her employee orientation, Petitioner received and read a copy of Respondent's Employee Handbook. Among other things, Respondent's Employee Handbook addresses the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace. Respondent's policy strictly prohibits sexual harassment and states that Respondent "will not tolerate such action by employees." Respondent's policy also encourages any employee who feels that he/she is being subject to sexual harassment to discuss and/or make a complaint with the Human Resources Department. Any such complaint is handled according to Respondent's Policy No. 9510-17, in order to ensure appropriate investigation and action. Respondent's employees also receive computer-based training regarding sexual harassment and Respondent's policy prohibiting the same, every year. Petitioner received this computer-based training regarding sexual harassment. In October 2006, Petitioner started training to be a magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") tech. Petitioner was chosen to be cross-trained from an X-ray tech to a MRI tech by Greg Phillips, who was then the manager of Diagnostic Imaging. Phillips became her unofficial "mentor" at Respondent's facility. Petitioner received on-the-job training for an MRI tech from Chris Depelteau, Amy Brantly, and Lucinda Swales, all of whom were MRI techs at the time. In December 2006, Petitioner received a secondary job code which allowed her to work independently as an MRI tech part-time. Essentially this meant that she could "take call." That same month, Paul Licker was hired by Respondent as lead MRI tech. Depelteau had also applied for this job, but had not been chosen. Upon being hired by Respondent, Licker was also made aware of its policy regarding sexual harassment. As lead MRI tech, Licker was responsible for scheduling the MRI techs, ordering supplies, working on protocols, ensuring that patients were being properly scanned and treated, and following up with the MRI techs as they cared for patients. Therefore, Licker became Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Like all the other MRI techs, Licker also trained Petitioner in MRI. In training Petitioner, Licker often taught her different techniques or ways of doing things than the way she had been taught by the other MRI techs. Licker, on several occasions, sought to teach Petitioner his way of doing things on the computer, which was different from the others. In doing so, Licker invaded Petitioner's workspace and engaged in inappropriate touching, particularly by covering her hand with his while manipulating the mouse, to the point that she became uncomfortable. Licker also started implementing changes and different ways of doing things throughout the MRI department. As lead MRI tech, Licker had the authority to implement such changes. Also, during this same period, if Licker added patients or made other changes to her schedule, Petitioner would argue with or complain to him. In fact, Petitioner did not like Licker and also told Depelteau and other employees that Licker was a "bad supervisor." Licker himself recognized that Petitioner did not like the way he was supervising the department. A few weeks after Licker started working for Respondent, Petitioner approached Phillips complaining that Licker was calling her, other female employees, and patients, "Babe." For instance, Licker would say, "Babe, I need you to do this for me," when asking Petitioner to complete a task. Petitioner indicated that she thought that the use of this term was inappropriate and demeaning and that it made her uncomfortable. In fact, other employees who were friendly with Petitioner understood that Licker was using the term "Babe" the way another person might use the terms "Sweetie," or "Honey," i.e., in a non-sexual or non-derogatory way. However, understanding that Licker was a new supervisor who may not have understood that the term suggested something sexual in using the term "Babe," Phillips suggested to Petitioner that she speak directly with Licker to resolve this issue. Phillips also spoke to Licker directly regarding his use of the term "Babe." Specifically, Phillips advised Licker that he "needed to carefully choose his words around patients and employees." Phillips also advised Licker that some people did not like being addressed by "Sweetie or Hun or Babe," and that he should refrain from using these terms in the workplace. Licker understood Phillips' suggestion and tried to refrain from calling Petitioner, or anybody else, "Babe" or any word similar to the term. Petitioner did not complain about any other alleged inappropriate conduct by Licker to Phillips, or any other manager, until February 1, 2007. However, shortly after he started working for Respondent, Licker made an inappropriate comment in the cafeteria to Petitioner. Licker stated to other employees that he could not sit next to Petitioner because they were sleeping together. Licker made a similar inappropriate comment to Dana Keach when he first started employment at Parrish. He suggested that there was a lesbian relationship between Keach and another woman. This conduct was not reported until much later. Prior to February 1, 2007, it became readily apparent that the MRI department was suffering serious setbacks because the department employees were not working cooperatively together. The biggest problem in the MRI department appeared to be a lack of teamwork resulting from the staff's inability to communicate effectively with one another. Licker advised Gallacher that he was struggling in his "daily interactions" with Depelteau and Petitioner and that he simply "could not make the group happy, whether it was scheduling or time off or just getting through the day." MRI's problems grew to the point that Phillips and Gallacher both stepped in to try to improve communications and teamwork among Licker, Petitioner, Depelteau, and Shelly Hugoboom, the MRI CT assistant. The entire MRI department engaged in team-building meetings and even worked with the medical center's chaplain in an attempt to learn to work together. These department meetings were intense and discussion often became heated among the MRI staff members. In addition to these team-building meetings, Gallacher met with staff members individually to discuss their concerns. Gallacher also addressed the interpersonal skills issues between Petitioner and Hugoboom. Specifically, Gallacher met with the two employees together "to see if they could put [their issues] to rest and move on." In the midst of these efforts to improve the department, Petitioner came to Phillips on February 1, 2007, complaining that Licker was continuing to call her "Babe," and that he had also offered her some concert tickets. Phillips observed that Petitioner was extremely upset and immediately contacted Human Resources Manager Roberta Chaildin to start an investigation in regard to Licker's alleged behavior. Phillips and Chaildin spoke with Petitioner and Licker, individually, regarding Petitioner's claims. When questioned regarding the concert ticket, Licker explained that he had been looking to sell an extra ticket that he had. Licker advised Phillips and Chaildin that Petitioner had taken his offer to sell her the extra ticket "out of context," when she assumed that he was asking her to the concert on a date. Licker specified that he had asked Petitioner if she wanted to buy his extra ticket and "tag along" with him and his friends to the concert. Licker also offered his extra ticket to other people besides Petitioner. After speaking with Petitioner and Licker, Phillips and Chaildin determined that they were dealing with a "he-said- she-said situation and a misunderstanding." "He said, I was trying to sell the ticket or give it away. She said, he had asked me out on a date to a concert." Phillips and Chaildin determined that this was not a case of "sexual harassment" by Licker. They did, however, warn Licker that as a supervisor, he had to be "extremely careful" in how he spoke to his subordinate employees. Phillips and Chaildin advised Petitioner that they had investigated her claim and concluded that there was no evidence of sexual harassment. They encouraged her, however, to file a report if she continued to have issues with Licker. Over five months passed without a complaint or incident. Then on July 11, 2007, Licker verbally counseled Petitioner regarding her having accumulated nine tardy appearances ("tardies") at work since January 1, 2007. In speaking with Petitioner, Licker wanted to ensure that Petitioner understood that she needed to be on time in the future, as she had exceeded the number of tardies deemed acceptable by Respondent. To ensure that nothing said during the verbal counseling session was misconstrued by Petitioner, Licker had another supervisor, Boyd Wallace, serve as a witness. The tardies cited in Licker's verbal counseling to Petitioner were unrelated to instances when he would excuse her from work due to slower volume in the MRI department. On August 21, 2007, Licker observed Petitioner on the telephone being advised by security that she had parked in a "no parking" zone. During the conversation, Petitioner became agitated. Licker documented and filed the incident. Phillips personally addressed this incident with Petitioner. On October 10, 2007, the MRI department was working an already full schedule when Licker had to add a patient to the schedule due to an emergency situation. Petitioner objected to Licker adding another patient to the day and became withdrawn and resentful. Licker instructed Petitioner that she needed to change her attitude and become more cooperative. The evidence is not persuasive that Licker assigned Petitioner "menial tasks" after she complained about his having offered her the concert tickets in February 2007. In October 2007, Gallacher, Phillips and Chaildin met Petitioner and issued her a Decision Day disciplinary letter. A "Decision Day" meeting and letter is a management tool in which the employee is given a paid day off to contemplate whether they wish to remain an employee of Respondent. This resulted from Respondent's concerns regarding her "interpersonal skills." This was an issue that had been continuously addressed by Licker and other supervisors or managers at Respondent. The incident which prompted the progressive disciplinary action involved Debbie York, a relatively new employee who resigned from the MRI department, claiming that Petitioner and her interactions with other employees and with Licker was the reason for her leaving. During the Decision Day meeting, Petitioner stated that she was the "victim" and brought up the previous incidents of allegedly being sexually harassed. Petitioner was reminded that she had not complained of any other instances of alleged sexual harassment since she complained of Licker's offering her concert tickets in February 2007 and that the matter was investigated and resolved. From the point of view of management, the Decision Day meeting was intended to address Petitioner's on-going issues with her co-workers and her supervisor. However, Petitioner did not bring up any new incidents of alleged sexual harassment by Licker during the Decision Day meeting. Following the meeting, Petitioner took her Decision Day letter and returned to work. The Decision Day letter called for the creation of an Action Plan, which Respondent uses to help a struggling employee "become invested with the organization and with [his or her] team." Thereafter, Petitioner met with Gallacher to discuss what should be included in her Action Plan. On November 7, 2007, an Action Plan was drafted and signed. It included a number of initiatives designed to assist Petitioner in being "re[-]engaged" with the MRI department. Despite being placed on an Action Plan, Petitioner continued to have issues with Licker being her supervisor. On November 20, 2007, Licker verbally counseled Petitioner for her failure to discuss changes in her weekly schedule with him. Licker specifically identified Petitioner's "communication skills" as a continuing issue. On December 19, 2007, Petitioner was suspended without pay for two days for stating that Licker was being an "asshole," or something to that effect, in front of a co-worker. Petitioner accepted responsibility for her comment. Along with her suspension, Petitioner was also issued a written warning stated in pertinent part, "Upon your return [from suspension], you will be expected to demonstrate a high level of interpersonal skills towards your co-workers, management and this organization and work on completion of your Action Plan items. Any reports of less than acceptable behavior or performance or deviation from a Diagnostic Imaging or PMC policy or procedure will result in immediate termination." As a result of the written warning, Petitioner also lost 50 percent of her annual merit increase. In January 2008, management considered that the MRI department was still very "dysfunctional." Scott Hazelbaker, the new executive director of Diagnostics/Cardiovascular, met with all of the MRI employees as a group to discuss his "expectations of working together as a team." Hazelbaker also discerned that Licker lacked leadership skills to be an effective supervisor. In fact, none of the MRI employees had much respect for Licker's management style. On April 10, 2008, Hazelbaker, Gallacher, and Chaildin met with Petitioner to discuss her progress under the Action Plan. During the meeting, Hazelbaker reviewed Petitioner's history toward Respondent, explaining that her negative attitude could not be tolerated. Specifically, her negativity, failure to be a team player, and refusal to embrace or become engaged in Respondent's culture were detrimentally affecting the work of MRI as a whole. Hazelbaker continued by advising Respondent that as a result of her "track record," she could either resign from her employment or be terminated. Petitioner was advised that if she resigned, Respondent would pay her for two weeks in lieu of having her work through her notice period, pay her the balance of her personal leave bank, extend her health benefits for two weeks so that she could fill her prescriptions, and even designate her eligible for rehire in its system. At the end of the meeting, Petitioner tendered her resignation notice to Respondent. At no time during the meeting did Petitioner ask to leave the room or make a call in order to seek advice or legal counsel. Further, at no time during the meeting did Petitioner raise her past issues regarding Licker and the alleged sexual harassment she suffered. The evidence is persuasive that Licker did not influence the decision to terminate Petitioner. He had not asked for her to be terminated. In August 2009, more than one year after Petitioner resigned, Respondent received a complaint regarding Licker from then-X-Ray Tech Dana Keach, who claimed that Licker made sexually suggestive comments to her. Following an investigation, Licker was terminated, effective September 24, 2009, for "communication unsuitability between care partners." It does not appear that Licker was terminated for engaging in sexual harassment. The evidence is not persuasive that during the time he was employed by Respondent that Licker had inappropriate discussions in the workplace on numerous occasions in front of both male and female employees; nor that Licker would also discuss pornography in the workplace.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Lesa Burkavage's, claims of unlawful sexual harassment and retaliation against Respondent, Parrish Medical Center. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 July, 2010.
