The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her interracial personal relationships by creating a racially hostile work environment and causing her constructive termination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was involved in an interracial personal relationship with a black man who was the father of Petitioner's child. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent owned and operated several Taco Bell franchise restaurants in and around Santa Rosa County, Florida. Respondent employed approximately 190 people. Respondent hired Petitioner as a crew member in its Milton, Florida, restaurant on January 7, 1998. Petitioner's duties included operating the cash register and cleaning the dining room and restrooms. Respondent trained Petitioner to perform her assignments. Respondent showed Petitioner how to operate the cash register, wipe the tables, mop the floors, restock the condiments, clean the toilets, and replace paper supplies in the restroom. Respondent provided Petitioner with the necessary cleaning supplies, including but not limited to mop, broom, wiping cloths, cleaning solutions, disposable gloves, toilet brush, etc. Petitioner knew where Respondent stored these supplies. She knew it was her job to clean the bathroom before her shift ended so that the facilities would be clean for the next crew. Respondent also informed Petitioner about Respondent's policy against discrimination in the workplace. This policy, which tracked the language of Florida law and Taco Bell operating manuals, was posted on a bulletin board. Telephone numbers of the general manager, the district manager, and the operating officer/owner were also posted next to the telephone in the event that an employee needed to complain about working conditions. These numbers were visible from the door of the office. Additionally, the toll free number of the national franchise company was posted through out the store so that the public or employees could call in complaints. Respondent informed Petitioner that she would be on probation for three months. After three months, employees were eligible for a small raise if they were performing their jobs successfully. Respondent gave Petitioner the first of a series of training booklets that employees could study to learn more about the business. The first booklet contained the basic information that a food service worker needed to know, including the company's policy against discrimination. After studying each booklet, the employee would take a test. If the employee passed the test, he or she could progress to the next booklet. The training booklets were designed to prepare employees for supervisory and management positions. Petitioner never took the test for the first booklet. Petitioner rode to and from work every day with her shift supervisor, Ms. Ileane McCray, a black female. Petitioner and Ms. McCray lived in the same housing complex and worked the morning shift together. Ms. McCray was not prejudiced against interracial personal relationships; her own daughter was involved in an interracial personal relationship with a white man. Ms. McCray was responsible, in part, for introducing Petitioner to Dawn Young, the general manager of the Milton restaurant and the daughter of the owner/operator. Ms. McCray told Ms. Young that Petitioner's boyfriend was in jail and that Petitioner needed a job. Ms. Young interviewed Petitioner and made the decision to hire her. On July 18, 1998, Ms. McCray directed Petitioner to clean a restroom that had been vandalized by smearing feces on the walls. Petitioner refused to clean the restroom and left the premises without telling anyone. She never returned to work. After Petitioner walked off the job, she took a trip to visit family in the State of Washington. Upon her return, Petitioner visited Ms. McCray's home and showed her family pictures from the trip to the northwest. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. McCray or Ms. Young ever made derogatory comments to Petitioner regarding her interracial personal relationship or her interracial child. Petitioner's testimony in that regard is not credible. On the other hand, Ms. McCray's testimony that she did not make derogatory remarks about interracial couples was persuasive. Under Respondent's chain of command, an employee who had a problem with a supervisor could contact the general manager and so forth up the line. Employees also could approach the owner/operating officer directly because he visited the Milton restaurant almost every day. Before Petitioner quit her job, Petitioner never complained to Ms. Young or anyone else about Ms. McCray's making racially hostile comments. Petitioner never called the district manager or the operating officer/owner to complain. The latter visited in the store almost everyday that it was open. Petitioner never called the national toll-free number. Petitioner worked for Respondent approximately six months. During that time, Respondent failed to call or show up for work on one occasion. Ms. Young and Petitioner signed an employee consultation memorandum on April 30, 1998, indicating that Petitioner would be terminated if she failed to call or show up for work again. Respondent was paying Petitioner $5.15 per hour in wages when she quit her job in July 1998. Petitioner did not return to work until November 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position as a delivery person with the Respondent on or about September 28, 1991, on the basis of his race (Black), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Portion-Trol Foods, Inc., d/b/a Mother Butler Pies, is in the business of manufacturing and delivering pies to Denny's Restaurants, and is an employer under the Florida Human Relations Act of 1977, as amended. Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Respondent on June 26, 1990. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a delivery person, whose primary duty was delivering Respondent's pies to restaurants throughout the Central Florida area, which he did in 1990 and 1991. Petitioner's direct supervisor was Percival Gordon, a black male. Petitioner, like all other employees working under direct supervision, had been informed on several occasions regarding how to properly work and interact with restaurant personnel when delivering pies to the restaurants. Petitioner displayed no patience while interacting with restaurant personnel when he delivered pies. Beginning in early 1991, Petitioner began to act rudely and abrasively toward restaurant personnel with which he interacted when delivering pies to their restaurants. This improper conduct by Petitioner included being very loud and verbal in front of restaurant customers. He offended a restaurant hostess, a restaurant unit aide, and restaurant managers with his objectionable agressive behavior. He spoke rudely to everybody, and used profanity toward restaurant managers while in the restaurants. On one occasion he removed pies from a restaurant cursing, and destroyed customer pies by placing the pies on top of another in the hands of a restaurant cook. Petitioner's supervisor gave him verbal reprimands regarding his conduct in April and May, 1991. As supervisor of delivery persons, it was a job duty to routinely visit the restaurants to which the delivery persons he supervised delivered pies. During these visits Petitioner's supervisor would talk to the restaurant manager and other restaurant personnel in an effort to obtain feedback regarding the job performance of the delivery persons over which he had supervision. On June 5, 1991, Petitioner's supervisor visited two restaurants as part of his job duties. During these visits, management personnel of the restaurants approached Petitioner's supervisor, and voiced a complaint regarding Petitioner and a specific incident where Petitioner had delivered the wrong pies to each of the restaurants, and Petitioner's response to them. Petitioner's response was abusive and inappropriate in both instances. Both management persons told Petitioner's supervisor that due to Petitioner's inappropriate conduct, they did not want to see him back in their restaurant anymore. After being informed of these two most recent acts of improper conduct by Petitioner toward those individuals to whom he delivered pies, Petitioner was issued a written counseling review on June 8, 1991, which summarized the facts regarding these incidents of improper conduct. In this written counseling review, it was explained to Petitioner that he had already been issued several verbal warnings regarding his negative attitude and use of abusive, profane language toward restaurant personnel with which he interacted. Petitioner was warned that if such an incident occurred again, further disciplinary action would be taken against Petitioner. Respondent's Bakery Plant Manager reviewed the counseling review form issued to Petitioner, and prepared a memorandum which he gave to Petitioner. In this memorandum, it was reiterated to Petitioner that if there were "any further occurrences [sic] of the type of poor behavior described that it will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. You need to understand that this is very serious, and up to you to correct immediately." Despite the above-mentioned warnings from his supervisor, Petitioner continued to conduct himself inappropriately when interacting with restaurant personnel to whom he delivered pies. In September 1991, Petitioner engaged in another act of improper conduct. On this occasion Petitioner was delivering pies to a restaurant in Apopka, Florida. On this occasion, Petitioner first spoke with a cook on duty at the time. Petitioner told the cook that he had permission from Respondent's main office "to destroy or get rid of pies out of the case that don't [sic] supposed to be there." Petitioner did not at any time during his employment with Respondent have permission from Respondent's main office to remove customer's pies from restaurants and throw them away. Petitioner began to remove the customer's pies from the restaurant and stack them one on top of the other, into the hands of the cook. Petitioner then took the pies out of the cook's hands and put them in a tub used for bussing the tables of the restaurant. After verifying the incident, the General Manager spoke with Petitioner via telephone about the incident. During the conversation Petitioner got angry with the manager, and slammed down the phone. After receiving a report regarding this most recent incident, Petitioner's supervisor went to the restaurant in Apopka, and conducted a complete investigation into what took place. The supervisor and the Baker Plant Manager evaluated this most recent incident of improper conduct by the Petitioner, in light of his prior employment history with Respondent, and decided to terminate Petitioner based upon his continued improper conduct. Their decision was based upon the fact that Petitioner had received numerous warnings regarding his inappropriate conduct, and had failed to respond in a positive manner to any of these warnings. Petitioner offered only three unsubstantiated allegations as to why he believed he was terminated based upon his race. First, Petitioner alleged that when white delivery drivers employed by Respondent delivered pies to various restaurants, restaurant personnel would not make them wait as long as they would make him wait. However, Petitioner admitted that the restaurant managers and personnel, who he claimed kept him waiting longer than other white drivers, were not the managers of Respondent, Mother Butler Pies, but rather of Denny's Restaurants. Second, Petitioner alleged that he believed that he was terminated by Respondent based upon his race, because he was issued shirts with different people's names on it, which his wife had to stitch his name onto for identification purposes. Third, Petitioner claimed that he believed he was terminated based on his race due to an alleged incident in which a restaurant manager started a fight with Petitioner and subsequently Respondent did not want Petitioner "to go into the store to make a delivery because he [the restaurant manager] was having a problem with the employee. He [the restaurant manager] took it out on me". Petitioner admitted that the restaurant management personnel with whom he had problems were not the managers of Respondent, Mother Butler Pies. Petitioner offered testimony concerning his damages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0320 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8(in part), 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19(in part), 21, 22, 24, 25 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or a comment on the evidence: paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(in part), 9, 10, 13, 17, 19(in part), 20, 23 COPIES FURNISHED: Veerasammy Mangali (pro se) 5642 Pendleton Drive Orlando, Florida 32839 William Curphey, Esquire 205 Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33601 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 7A-3.15(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that its special license be suspended for three days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Grapevine Restaurant No. One, Inc. d/b/a Grapevine Restaurant 4320 14th Street West Bradenton, Florida Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who has fifteen years experience in the restaurant business, was hired in October, 1984, by the Respondent, Jady's Inc., as general manager of its Baxter's restaurant in Sarasota. Since the operation was soon to be opened, Petitioner was advised that his duties included training employees, food service, and anything necessary to insure the proper and orderly operation of the restaurant. On April 2, 1985, less than a month after the restaurant was opened, Petitioner had his first accident, falling through the ceiling while checking a water heater in the attic, and striking himself on a step ladder. He injured his shoulder and neck in the fall. He did not lose any work time as a result of this incident though he was treated by a doctor and received medical compensation for the injury through Worker's Compensation. Since he continued working, however, he did not receive any payments for loss of wages. On August 21, 1985, he was again injured while working at the restaurant when he slipped and fell in the kitchen, hitting his head on the floor. He contends that his previous injury was aggravated by this accident and that he also injured his right leg. As a result of the accident, he saw several doctors including an orthopedic specialist. His injury was diagnosed as myositis, and he contends that though his leg has improved, he still has residual injuries which manifest themselves in pain radiating from the hip down the leg, and pain on the right side of his face, and in the jaw and shoulder. As a result of this second injury, he was awarded Worker's Compensation wage and medical payments and contends he still has some medical problems which tend to come and go. Petitioner continued to work after August 21, 1985, except for the initial three days he took off at the advice of his physician, and October 7, 1985, which he took off to help his wife with her liquor license. His actions were limited, however, in that he could not lift any substantial weight without pain and dizziness, but he was able to do the administrative work involved in managing the restaurant as well as serving and light food preparation. Nonetheless, on October 10, 1985, according to Petitioner, Mr. Schoenbaum terminated his employment stating at the time it was because he was injured. Petitioner contends that at the time of discharge, Mr. Schoenbaum threatened him with non- physical destruction of himself and his family through the contacts he had. When Mr. Oberoi asked for a leave of absence to recuperate and then return to work, according to Petitioner, Mr. Schoenbaum declined, stating he was injured and was not wanted at the restaurant. As a result of his injury, he received $270.00 per week as compensation for lost wages from the period October 7, 1985 through February 12, 1986. This was as opposed to his earnings of $500.00 per week plus benefits when he was discharged which, Mr. Oberoi contends, amounts to $3,000.00 in lost earnings for the period in question. After February 12, 1986, he received no more wage loss benefits. Petitioner claims that prior to his injury he was in generally good health admitting to a prior history of low back problems which occurred from four to five months before coming to work at Baxter's. He contends that this was not the injury he received while at work there. While he was working, he claims, he was paying for his own medical insurance but when he spoke with his company after the injury, he was advised that since the injuries took place at work, he should file for worker's compensation benefits instead. When Petitioner came back to work after the three day time off at the time of the second injury, he discussed with the Schoenbaums certain changes in the menu, and other matters which they wanted changed, but contends that at that time there was no discussion about the overall cleanliness of the restaurant or other discrepancies which they now claim support their termination of his services. He claims there was no discussion of his work performance at any time or any indication they were dissatisfied with his accomplishment of his duties. Mr. and Mrs. Schoenbaum, who are the main owners of Jady's, Inc., also have an extensive background in the restaurant business and claim this is the first discrimination complaint ever filed against them. The Schoenbaums decided, at the time they hired Petitioner, to put him in the restaurant business with the understanding he was to get a salary and a 10% equity position if the restaurant made money for fifteen months. The arrangement did not work out. As a result of what the Schoenbaum's consider Petitioner's poor management, the restaurant was losing money at a steady rate. They terminated his employment, reluctantly, because they did not want to run the restaurant themselves. The decision was not made frivolously. The decision to discharge Petitioner was made after an extended period of observation during which they determined, among other things, that Petitioner's daily cash reports for two months were all incorrect. As of October 30, 1986, the restaurant had lost over $100,000.00 and Mr. Oberoi was discharged because he had done a poor job in its operation, had demonstrated a lack of motivation, and appeared to be uninterested in what was going on. He was totally responsible for the operation and the Schoenbaums attribute the financial loss they sustained directly to his inadequate management and operational skills. When the Schoenbaums began to realize they would have to terminate Mr. Oberoi's services, they asked each of the opening managers to write down items they found when they came to work which should have been done the night before. There were many. In addition, the bank utilized by the restaurant had reported that charge slips were not being filled out properly. Sales appeared to be going down. Mr. Oberoi often did not come to work on time and closed the restaurant early, and waitresses were given keys to come in and open up without supervision when it was Petitioner's responsibility to be there. During the three days in August, 1985 that Petitioner was off after his second accident, Mrs. Schoenbaum inspected the facility and found it to be filthy. Food was not stored properly, the refrigerator was dirty, and other defects in operation were clearly obvious. When the Schoenbaums talked with Mr. Oberoi on his return, they relate, he admitted he was not performing properly. They counseled with him, pointing out where he needed to improve and put him on probation. Improvement was not, however, forthcoming. In light of all the continuing deficiencies in Petitioner's performance and considering the fact that the restaurant was losing money, the Schoenbaums decided the situation could not continue and on October 10, 1985, discharged Mr. Oberoi in the presence of Mr. Hershorin. Mr. Schoenbaum confirms Mrs. Schoenbaum's testimony. As he observed it, Petitioner's performance in the beginning was acceptable and they tried to work together as a team to overcome the problems inherent in the start up of a restaurant operation. As time went on, things did not get any better but consistent with his management style, Mr. Schoenbaum tried to allow Petitioner to manage the restaurant without over supervision because he felt Petitioner had the background to get the job done. According to Mr. Schoenbaum, cleanliness, food quality, and the serving of a reasonable product at a reasonable price are paramount considerations in the operation of a restaurant and under Petitioner's management, the restaurant was not meeting those goals. Mr. Schoenbaum began to feel that though Petitioner was trying, he was not succeeding in running a quality operation. From time to time, when Mr. Schoenbaum would come into the restaurant, he would see Petitioner sitting and talking with people rather than managing and supervising. As a result of his concern, Mr. Schoenbaum warned Mr. Oberoi of his dissatisfaction and gave him an ultimatum that the deficiencies must be corrected. Mr. Hershorin, part owner of the restaurant, also confirms the Schoenbaum's observations. Based on his observations and experience in the restaurant business, it was his opinion that Petitioner's operation was not good. Mrs. Schoenbaum asked him to go in and handle the restaurant for the three days Mr. Oberoi was gone in August, 1985. When he did, he found the food in the refrigerator smelled; there was accumulated residue on the racks; food had spoiled; kitchen equipment was not even superficially clean; there was residue on the floor; and in sum, the general housekeeping was poor. Mr. Hershorin was present when the Schoenbaums met with Petitioner to discuss his performance and how the operation could be improved. He felt the Schoenbaums wanted the discussions to be of a positive nature to help Petitioner improve. They told him what needed to be done and put him on probation for a period, and it was clear to Mr. Hershorin that Petitioner understood what was being said to him and his status. Unfortunately, nothing changed as a result of this counseling and ultimately the Schoenbaums had to terminate Petitioner. Petitioner denies any counseling prior to termination or any probationary period being imposed. He claims the Schoenbaums did not discuss his work performance with him at any time, nor did they discuss shortages, lack of proper paper work, erroneous deposits, failure to insure that charge clips were filled out properly, or that he was allegedly leaving equipment on over night. Mr. Oberoi emphatically contends nothing was said about his performance until after he filed his complaint. Both Mr. Schoenbaum and Mr. Hershorin deny knowing that Petitioner had filed a worker's compensation claim or that his discharge was as a result of his incapacitation subsequent to his injury. They contend, as does Mrs. Schoenbaum, and it is found, that Petitioner's injury had no bearing on his termination and his disability was not the cause thereof. Petitioner claims he was never considered disabled prior to coming to work at Baxter's and had never filed a Worker's Compensation claim prior to the ones resulting from his injuries there. A Worker's Compensation Order, introduced by Respondents, however, indicates that Petitioner was injured twice before, in 1983 and 1984, and suffered permanent injury. Admitting this on cross examination, Petitioner contends he was totally recovered at the time of the current injuries and that the worker's compensation form admitting to prior injury was signed at the suggestion of his attorney to facilitate settlement of a collateral lawsuit. Mr. Oberoi also appears to have placed substantial pressure on Mr. Brockway, another employee at the restaurant, to execute a false affidavit. Mr. Brockway claims Mr. Oberoi contacted him so often, he ultimately signed the affidavit merely to be left alone and during the week prior to the hearing, he was again contacted by Petitioner with another affidavit which would indicate that Petitioner was discharged because of his injury. Mr. Brockway declined to sign it. Though Petitioner contends now he is unemployed, he is the principal owner of a corporation which operates a restaurant at Sarasota Square Mall. Mr. Oberoi contends that the work there is done by his family and that he has no part in the operation. This is disputed by Mr. Hershorin who claims to have seen Petitioner behind the counter there on at least two occasions and working in the area on at least three other occasions. Further, when Mrs. Schoenbaum called out there prior to hearing, she was advised to talk with Petitioner who was totally in charge of the operation. Based on the above, Petitioner's credibility is suspect and considering the evidence as a whole, it is found that Petitioner's performance at Baxter's restaurant during the time he was manager there was, for the most part, unsatisfactory. It is that unsatisfactory performance which culminated in his discharge, not the fact that he was injured, filed a worker's compensation claim, or was disabled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Turffs, Esquire 1444 First Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 Sue Schoenbaum Vice-President Jady's Inc. 4201 Deepwater Lane Tampa, Florida 33615 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Bldg. F., Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel FCHR Bldg. F., Suite 240 325 John Knox Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton Clerk FCHR Bldg. F., Suite 140 325 John Knox Rd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed August 24, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on or about June 29, 1977 Respondent failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course wools had been discontinued. Three witnesses were called by Petitioner, two witnesses were called by Respondent and one exhibit was admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's holds a 4 COP special restaurant beverage license and the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction over the parties and the violations alleged. On or about 12:30 a.m. June 29, 1977 beverage agents Meek and Shepherd entered Pete and Lenny's, seated themselves at the bar and ordered drinks. After finishing their drink they ordered a second drink and inquired of the bartender, Richard Bohan, if they could get food. He replied that they could get sandwiches at the Banana Boat next door. Further questioning by the agents elicited responses that Respondent had stopped serving and the cook had been transferred next door, that the Banana Boat served sandwiches until 1:30 a.m., that Respondent usually offered New York strip steaks but "not this late", and that the Banana Boat and Pete and Lenny's were owned by the same corporation. After identifying themselves as beverage agents and asking for the manager, Meek and Shepherd inspected the kitchen and restaurant area. Inspection of the kitchen revealed the only cooking equipment to be a microwave oven, empty icebox at 420 F, no evidence that food had been prepared in the kitchen for several days, insufficient silver to serve 200 diners simultaneously as required by regulations for special restaurant licenses, and musicians instrument cases occupying a substantial portion of the kitchen floor. Unopened boxes of silver was produced from the storeroom in sufficient quantity to meet the minimum requirements of the regulations. Respondent's witnesses testified that the icebox had been inoperative for a day or two and food had been removed to next door, but that they were not refusing to serve full course meals. The only meal offered appears to have been the New York strip steak either cooked next door or in the microwave oven. No facilities were available in the kitchen with which to prepare vegetables and these witnesses testified potato salad was served as the vegetable. Pete and Lenny's is a night club where the music is loud and continuous. When the live band is on break recorded music is provided. On the evening of the inspection by beverage officers Meek and Shepherd little, if any, food had been served in Pete and Lenny's.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Dome Grill, Inc. (the Grill), discriminated against Petitioner, Jennifer Morehead, on the basis of her age.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Morehead is now a 51-year-old female, who, at the time of this incident had three years of experience as a cashier. On January 9, 2012, Ms. Morehead spoke with Michael Karamalakos (Mr. Karamalakos), the owner of the Grill, about any openings at the Grill. Mr. Karamalakos invited Ms. Morehead to come to the Grill the following day to discuss an open cashier position. The Grill is located at 561 Central Avenue, St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. On January 10, 2012, Ms. Morehead arrived at the Grill for her interview. She encountered Kostas Karamalakos (K.K.), a son of the owner. When K.K. heard that Ms. Morehead was there to interview for the cashier position, K.K. stated something to the effect: "We wouldn't be interested in you. We are looking for someone young and beautiful." K.K. admitted to making a statement to this effect, although he could not remember his exact words. Ms. Morehead was stunned by K.K.'s remarks. K.K. did not offer to get his father for the interview, nor did Ms. Morehead complete an interview for the cashier position. After K.K. repeated his statement to Ms. Morehead a second time, she left the Grill. Once Ms. Morehead left the Grill, she confided in a friend Jennifer Zoellner about K.K.'s statement. Not believing that anyone would verbalize that kind of discriminatory sentiment, Ms. Morehead and Ms. Zoellner returned to the Grill. Upon entering the Grill, Ms. Zoellner asked K.K. to repeat what he had said to Ms. Morehead. K.K. did so, informing Ms. Zoellner that the Grill was looking for a young and beautiful college-aged cashier. After a heated exchange between Ms. Zoellner and K.K., the two women left the Grill. Alex Karamalakos (A.K.), another son of the owner was also present when Ms. Morehead and Ms. Zoellner returned to the Grill. A.K. was standing in close proximity to K.K. when the two women entered the Grill. A.K.'s testimony that he did not hear K.K.'s discriminatory statement when K.K. repeated it to the two women is not credible. A.K. became visibly upset with K.K. when K.K. uttered his discriminatory statement to the women. A.K. neither apologized for his brother's statement nor stated that it was not the position or policy of the Grill. K.K. admitted to making the discriminatory statement to Ms. Morehead. K.K. is the youngest son of Mr. Karamalakos and is recognized by patrons as belonging to the owner's family. K.K. lives above the Grill (with other members of his family), spends time at the Grill, and attends college. K.K. prepares and eats his breakfast and lunch at the Grill. K.K. may not be on the payroll of the Grill, but he continues to perform minor tasks at the Grill. K.K. admitted that he has, in the past, held himself out as a manager of the Grill. The Grill has hired people who are over 40 years of age. Mr. Karamalakos maintained that he is the only person who has the authority to hire and/or terminate Grill employees. However, when he is away from the Grill, A.K. is in charge, and A.K. is considered the general manager of the Grill. A.K. and K.K. do not get along. Although there was testimony that other younger cashiers have been hired by the Grill, no testimony was received as to who was hired as the cashier at the time Ms. Morehead made her inquiry at the Grill. It is unknown whether a younger person was hired for the position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim for relief filed by Petitioner, Jennifer Morehead, should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock 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 8th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a restaurateur, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners, who are African-Americans, by refusing to serve them based upon race.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 7, 2001, Petitioners Veronica King and Walter King (the “Kings”), who were then on vacation in Miami Beach, Florida, decided to eat dinner at La Playa de Varadero Restaurant (“La Playa”), a Cuban restaurant near their hotel.2 They entered the restaurant some time between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. Though the dining room was full of patrons, there were a few empty tables. The Kings seated themselves. The Kings reviewed the menus that were on the table and conversed with one another. They waited for a server, but none came promptly. After waiting about 10 or 15 minutes, Mrs. King signaled a waitress, who came to their table and took their drink and food orders.3 The waitress brought the Kings their drinks without delay. The food, however, did not appear, and the Kings grew increasingly impatient and irritated. It seemed to the Kings, who are African-Americans, that other customers——none of whom was black——were being served ahead of them.4 After about a half an hour or so, having yet to be brought food, the Kings decided to leave without eating. On the way out of the restaurant, the Kings paid the cashier for their drinks. They complained to the cashier about the slow service and expressed to her their dissatisfaction at having waited so long, and in vain, for their meals.5 The Kings perceived that the cashier and other employees, including their waitress who was standing within earshot, were indifferent to the Kings’ distress. Ultimate Factual Determinations At the material time, La Playa was a “public food service establishment” within the reach of Section 509.092, Florida Statutes, and hence subject to liability for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that La Playa refused to serve, or otherwise unlawfully discriminated against, the Kings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Kings’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2003.
