The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Higbee Company, d/b/a Dillard’s (“Dillard’s”), discriminated against Petitioner based upon his national origin or disability, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016).2/
Findings Of Fact Dillard’s is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Dillard’s is a department store chain. Petitioner, a Mexican male, was hired as a sales associate in the men’s department of Dillard’s store at Tallahassee’s Governor’s Square Mall on May 13, 2014. Petitioner’s job was to sell men’s fragrances directly to customers at the store. Allen Gustason was manager of the Dillard’s store at Governor’s Square Mall during the time Petitioner was employed there. Dee Thomas was the assistant store manager. Mark Kronenberger, who testified at the final hearing, was the men’s department sales manager and was Petitioner’s direct supervisor during the entire time that Petitioner worked at Dillard’s. Petitioner started at a salary of $12.00 per hour as a sales associate. His job performance and pay increases were assessed primarily on the basis of sales. On January 6, 2015, Petitioner received a raise to $12.60 per hour. On April 14, 2015, Petitioner was promoted to the position of fragrance specialist and received a raise to $14.50 per hour. Petitioner’s promotion did not change his basic duties, i.e., direct sales to customers. Petitioner’s employment at Dillard’s ended on November 28, 2015. Dillard’s did not dispute Petitioner’s testimony that he was a good and effective salesperson. Petitioner developed a regular clientele of Spanish-speaking customers who liked his ability to communicate with them in their native language. At the time of his hiring, Petitioner received, read, and agreed to abide by Dillard’s Associate Work Rules and General Policies, which among other things forbade insubordination by sales associates. “Insubordination” was defined to include failure to follow lawful instructions from a supervisor and engaging in contemptuous or taunting conduct that undermines the authority of management. As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, Petitioner claims that he is a Mexican male with a disability. The claimed disability is the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”). Dillard’s did not dispute that Petitioner has HIV. Petitioner claims that he was harassed by fellow employees because of his Mexican national origin. Petitioner claims that he complained to his supervisors, Mr. Kronenberger and Mr. Gustason, about the harassment. Petitioner claims that no effective action was taken to curb the harassment. Petitioner described a pervasive sense of discrimination at Dillard’s of which he became conscious only after about a year of working there. He testified that he is from California and had no real concept of being discriminated against because of his Mexican heritage. It took some time for him to realize and acknowledge to himself that it was happening. However, Petitioner was unable to describe many specific instances of discriminatory behavior by fellow employees. People were “mean,” or “picked on me,” or “didn’t like me,” but few of Petitioner’s complaints pointed toward racial discrimination as opposed to personal dislike. He complained that co-workers planned parties and get-togethers away from work but never asked him along, even for Mr. Kronenberger’s birthday party, but could only speculate as to the reason for his exclusion. Petitioner testified that he was an aggressive and successful salesperson. While its salespeople are assigned to specific departments, Dillard’s allows them to cross-sell in other departments. Several of the incidents described by Petitioner began when he took customers to other departments to sell them something. The undersigned infers that at least some of the bad feelings toward Petitioner were due to his perceived “poaching” of sales from other sections of the store. Petitioner testified that an employee named Carol would yell at him, apparently without provocation, so consistently that he went out of his way to avoid crossing her path. Petitioner stated that one day Carol screamed that he was good-for-nothing and was a “damn Mexican,” in front of customers and co-workers. Petitioner testified that he had no idea why she did this because he had done nothing to provoke her. He walked away, covering his ears from her abuse. Petitioner testified that he went upstairs and spoke to Mr. Gustason about the incident but that nothing was done. Petitioner stated that he returned to the sales floor. Other employees told him that Carol had worked for Dillard’s for many years and was a friend of Mr. Gustason and that he should not expect anything to be done about her behavior. Petitioner testified that an employee named Eric, who worked in the men’s department, made fun of his accent, particularly Petitioner’s difficulty in pronouncing “Saturday.” Petitioner testified that another fellow employee, a white woman named Amber who also worked in fragrance, was constantly rude and mean to him. In front of customers, Amber would say that she did not know why Petitioner was there, that he was only good for cleaning the counters. Petitioner repeatedly complained to Mr. Kronenberger about Amber. Mr. Kronenberger told him to continue doing a good job and not to focus on Amber. Petitioner stated that Mr. Kronenberger directed Amber to stay away from Petitioner’s counter, but she ignored the order and continued to harass him. Petitioner stated that matters came to a head when he was helping some female customers and went to Amber’s counter one day. He reached behind her to get the fragrance the customers wanted and Amber struck him with her elbow. The customers were aghast and complained to Dillard’s management despite Petitioner’s entreaties that they let the matter drop. Petitioner and Amber were called to the office to meet with Mr. Kronenberger and Yami Yao, the manager of women’s cosmetics. Amber denied everything. The supervisors told Petitioner and Amber to get along. They told Amber to stay away from Petitioner’s counter. Petitioner testified that Amber ignored the instruction and continued to harass him. Petitioner testified that on another day he was approached by a customer who wanted to pay Petitioner for a pair of shoes. Petitioner testified that he asked Mr. Kronenberger about it, because he did not want to steal a sale or anger anyone. Mr. Kronenberger told him that he was there to sell and that cross-selling was fine. As Petitioner was completing the sale, an older white man working in the shoe department threw a shoe at Petitioner and said, “You damn Mexican, I’m going to raise hell against you.” Petitioner testified about an altercation with Risa Autrey, a fragrance model who worked in Dillard’s and who Petitioner stated was another longtime friend of Mr. Gustason. One day, Ms. Autrey approached Petitioner--again, with zero provocation, according to Petitioner--and began berating him, saying that she had no idea why Dillard’s kept Petitioner around. This occurred in front of co-workers and customers. The customers went upstairs and complained to Mr. Gustason, who followed up by admonishing Petitioner to stop telling people to complain to him because nothing was going to come of it. Petitioner testified that a day or so after the incident with Ms. Autrey, he met with Mr. Gustason and Mr. Thomas.4/ During the course of this meeting, Petitioner disclosed his HIV status. Petitioner testified that Mr. Gustason’s attitude towards him changed immediately, and that Mr. Gustason had him fired two weeks later on a pretextual charge of stealing and insubordination. Petitioner testified that he got sick a few days before Black Friday, which in 2015 was on November 27. When he returned to work on November 25, he attempted to give Mr. Gustason a doctor’s note that would have entitled Petitioner to paid leave, but Mr. Gustason would not talk to him. Petitioner worked a long shift on Black Friday. On Saturday, November 28, 2015, he was called to Mr. Thomas’s office about an altercation he had on November 25 with Ms. Yao, the woman’s cosmetics manager. Mr. Kronenberger was also in the office. Petitioner testified that Mr. Thomas accused him of stealing, as well as insubordination to Ms. Yao, and fired him. Two mall security officers, the Dillard’s security officer, and Mr. Kronenberger escorted Petitioner out of the store. Petitioner testified that he was given no paperwork to memorialize his firing or the reasons therefor. Mr. Kronenberger testified at the final hearing. He testified that Petitioner constantly complained about someone not liking him or picking on him. Petitioner never gave him specifics as to what happened. Mr. Kronenberger stated that Petitioner never complained about racial slurs or that any of his alleged mistreatment had a discriminatory element. It was always, “This person doesn’t like me.” Petitioner had issues with tardiness and absenteeism throughout his employment with Dillard’s. Mr. Kronenberger testified that there would be days when Petitioner simply would not show up for work, or would send a text message to Mr. Kronenberger saying that he had things to do or someone he had to meet. Employment records submitted by Dillard’s supported the contention that Petitioner was frequently late for, or absent from, work. Mr. Kronenberger testified that Petitioner was erratic in his communications. Petitioner would send a text message saying he could not come in. Then he would send a text telling Mr. Kronenberger how happy he was to have the job. Mr. Kronenberger recalled once receiving a text from Petitioner at midnight that read, “I know I’ve been bad.” In November 2015, Petitioner had six unexcused absences, including four consecutive days from November 21 through 24. Mr. Kronenberger testified that Petitioner finally admitted that he needed to cut his hours in order to qualify for some form of public assistance. Mr. Gustason told Petitioner that something could be worked out to cut his hours, but that just not showing up for work was unfair to Mr. Kronenberger and the other employees. Mr. Kronenberger testified that Dillard’s would normally terminate an employee with six unexcused absences in one month under the heading of job abandonment. He stated that Mr. Gustason bent over backward to work with Petitioner and keep him on the job. When Petitioner was absent, Mr. Gustason would leave messages for him, asking him to call and let him know what was going on. During the string of November absences, Mr. Kronenberger phoned Petitioner, who said that he was afraid to come into work for fear that Mr. Gustason would fire him. Mr. Kronenberger assured Petitioner that Mr. Gustason had no such intent, but that in any event no one would have to fire him because he had not been to work in a week. Petitioner was effectively “firing himself” by abandoning his position. Petitioner showed up for work on November 25, 2015, at 4:50 p.m. He had been scheduled to come in at 9:45 a.m. Mr. Kronenberger testified that he was not present for Petitioner’s altercation with Ms. Yao, but that Ms. Yao reported she had attempted to counsel Petitioner about gifts with purchases. The promotional gifts were to be given away only with the purchase of certain items, but Petitioner was apparently disregarding that restriction and giving the gifts with non-qualifying purchases. Ms. Yao told Mr. Kronenberger that Petitioner quickly escalated the counseling into a shouting match in front of customers and co-workers. He yelled, “You’re not going to talk to me that way.” Ms. Yao told Petitioner that she worked in another department and did not have to deal with his antics. She told him that she was going to report the matter to Mr. Kronenberger and Mr. Thomas.5/ Mr. Kronenberger testified that his conversation with Ms. Yao was brief because there was no need to give many particulars. He was used to getting reports of employee run-ins with Petitioner and did not need much explanation to get the gist of what had happened. Mr. Kronenberger decided not to raise the issue with Petitioner on Black Friday, the busiest day of the year at the store. On the next day, November 28, Petitioner was called into the office to meet with Mr. Kronenberger and Mr. Thomas. Mr. Kronenberger testified that this meeting was not just about the incident with Ms. Yao but also Petitioner’s absences. In Mr. Kronenberger’s words, “[I]t was to follow up with the incident with Yami, and it was to follow up with, ‘Hey, you’ve just missed a week, you’ve been back a day, and you’re having this blow-up with a manager on the floor.’ Like, ‘What’s going on?’” Mr. Kronenberger testified that neither he nor Mr. Thomas went into this meeting with any intention of terminating Petitioner’s employment. However, two minutes into the conversation, Petitioner was on his feet, pointing fingers, and shouting that he knew what they were trying to do and he was not going to let them do it. He was quitting. Petitioner walked out of the office. Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Kronenberger to walk Petitioner out of the store so that there would be no incidents on the floor with the other employees. Mr. Kronenberger accompanied Petitioner to the fragrance area, where Petitioner retrieved some personal items, then walked him to the door. They shook hands and Petitioner left the store. Mr. Kronenberger was firm in his testimony that no security personnel were involved in removing Petitioner from the store. Petitioner was not accused of stealing. His parting with Mr. Kronenberger was as cordial as it could have been under the circumstances.6/ After Petitioner left his office, Mr. Thomas prepared a “Separation Data Form” confirming Petitioner’s dismissal for “violation of company work rules.” The specific ground stated for Petitioner’s dismissal was violation of the Associate Work Rule forbidding insubordination. Mr. Kronenberger testified that in his mind the “insubordination” included not just the scene with Ms. Yao, but the explosion Petitioner had in the meeting with Mr. Thomas. At the time of Petitioner’s dismissal, Mr. Kronenberger was unaware of Petitioner’s HIV status. Mr. Kronenberger credibly testified that Petitioner’s HIV status had nothing to do with his dismissal from employment at Dillard’s. Mr. Gustason, who apparently was aware of Petitioner’s HIV status, was not at work on November 28, 2015, and was not involved in the events leading to Petitioner’s dismissal. Mr. Thomas, the assistant store manager, made the decision to treat Petitioner’s situation as a dismissal for cause.7/ Mr. Kronenberger’s testimony is credited regarding the circumstances of Petitioner’s dismissal and as to the general tenor of Petitioner’s employment at Dillard’s. Petitioner was constantly in the middle of conflicts, but never alleged until after his termination that these conflicts were due to his national origin or disability. Petitioner’s demeanor at the hearing was extremely emotional. He cried frequently and seemed baffled that Mr. Kronenberger was disputing his testimony. The undersigned finds that Petitioner’s version of events was genuine in the sense that it conveyed Petitioner’s subjective experience of his employment as he recollected it. However, the undersigned must also find that Petitioner’s subjective experience did not conform to objective reality. However, Petitioner internalized the experiences, it is not plausible that Dillard’s employees were yelling at Petitioner without provocation, hitting him, throwing shoes at him, and calling him a “damn Mexican” in front of customers. It is not plausible that Petitioner’s superiors would ignore such flagrant discriminatory behavior when it was brought to their attention. Petitioner’s feelings about the motives of his co-workers and superiors cannot substitute for tangible evidence of unlawful discrimination. Petitioner offered the testimony of two Dillard’s customers, neither of whom saw behavior from Petitioner’s co- workers that could be attributed to anything beyond personal dislike or sales poaching. Santiago Garcia testified that he noted other Dillard’s employees rolling their eyes at Petitioner, but he thought the reason might be that Petitioner talked too loud. Mr. Garcia also saw “bad looks” from other employees and believed that the atmosphere among Dillard’s employees was “tense,” but did not offer a reason for the tension. Claudia Pimentel testified, through a Spanish language interpreter, that she always went directly to Petitioner because she speaks only Spanish and Petitioner was able to help her. Ms. Pimentel noted that a female Dillard’s employee got mad at Petitioner because he sold Ms. Pimentel a cream from her counter. During the years 2015 and 2016, the Dillard’s store in Governor’s Square Mall terminated two other sales associates for insubordination. Neither of these sales associates was Mexican. One was a black female and the other was a black male. Neither of these sales associates had a known disability at the time of termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason given by Dillard’s for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Dillard’s stated reason for his termination was a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s national origin or disability. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Dillard’s discriminated against him because of his national origin or his disability in violation of section 760.10.
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 Higbee Company, d/b/a Dillard’s, did not commit any unlawful employment practices, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 October 2017.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of employment discrimination by reason of his being terminated, allegedly on account of his physical disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an "employee" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent meets the statutory definition of "employer" appearing in that Chapter. The Petitioner is a truck driver by occupation and was employed by the Respondent, Gurley Refining Company, in that capacity from February, 1982 until February 11, 1988, with the exception of a very brief period of time when he performed some other duties for that firm. This cause arose under the auspices of the Florida Human Relations Commission, an agency of the State of Florida constituted in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It is charged by that Chapter with oversight of working conditions and circumstances between employers and employees in Florida to the extent that the agency, under the mandate of Chapter 760, provides a procedure whereby employee claims of employment discrimination on account of race, age, sex, religion, national origin or disability can be adjudicated in a due process hearing environment, including hearings before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the event such claims culminate in formal disputes. During the course of the Petitioner's employment with Gurley Refining Company, in addition to being employed as a truck driver (the vast majority of his duties with that company), the Petitioner also had significant experience as a warehouse employee, handling the company's inventory and freight. The Petitioner had an unblemished record as a truck driver for the Respondent company. He had no disciplinary altercations with his supervisors and his attendance record was characterized by very few absences, sick leave and little tardiness. In approximately early January of 1988, the Petitioner suffered an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), which necessitated his absence from work for a period of approximately thirty days. His treating physician, a cardiologist, Dr. Story, of Orlando, released him approximately a month after his heart attack, but admonished him to engage in light duties, and restricting him against lifting weight in excess of seventy pounds. During the course of his illness, the operations manager of the Respondent's Lake County facility and Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Kenny Hart, had assured the Petitioner that his job would be waiting for him as soon as he recovered from his illness. In fact, however, in early February, when the Petitioner was released by his doctor to return to his job, with the restrictions mentioned above, the Petitioner requested his former job back and was refused. Mr. Hart indicated to the Petitioner that he would not hire him back, and in fact terminated him due to his medical condition, as Mr. Hart explained it. The Petitioner's doctor had not restricted him from doing his same job or from working an eight hour day, but merely had restricted him against lifting more than seventy pounds at any one time. When Mr. Hart refused to put him back to work in his old job, the Petitioner requested to be assigned to duties in the company's warehouse or bottling plant. The company had an operation involving bottling of windshield washer detergent fluid. The Petitioner had had substantial experience in those operations, especially as a checker of merchandise and as a forklift operator in the company warehouse. His physical disability would not preclude him from performing those functions. Mr. Hart, and his superior, Mr. Helton of the company's office in Memphis, Tennessee, declined to place the Petitioner in such an employment position with the company. There have been a number of instances in which the company accommodated employees by placing them at work at various positions in the company operations during the period of time they were on medical restrictions by their doctors due to some disability or illness. The Petitioner described one case in particular involving an employee who had surgery for amputation of his leg and who was allowed to come back to work performing various minor jobs during his convalescence in order to allow him some gainful employment, later being restored to more meaningful permanent duties. The Petitioner was not thus accommodated, however. The Petitioner could have performed any of the types of duties mentioned above, involving the warehouse or the bottling plant or driving a truck once again, because all were within the scope of his years of experience with the company and his physical abilities, even as restricted by his doctor. The Petitioner was making $7.80 an hour when he was terminated and during the year after his termination from February 11, 1988 to approximately February 1, 1989, the Petitioner was not able to get regular employment. For a time after termination, he was receiving unemployment compensation and thereafter worked at casual labor jobs involving loading and unloading trucks for a trucking company. He also worked at laying sewer lines, doing manual labor. During the year after his termination, the Petitioner and his wife earned approximately $18,000. Four thousand dollars of that sum was from the wife's part-time employment. The Petitioner had grossed approximately $30,000 in the past full year he worked for the Respondent company, that is, 1987. In February, 1989, the Petitioner again obtained full-time employment in a truck driving position with another firm. He is again making approximately $30,000 gross salary per year. At the time Petitioner was off work from his job with the Respondent due to his heart condition, and at the time of his termination, no mention was made or information given him about any right to medical disability to leave. The Petitioner apparently missed approximately thirty days of work, and then was terminated under the above conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Human Relations Commission finding that an unlawful employment practice occurred by Respondent's discrimination against the Petitioner on account of his handicap, and that he be accorded all relief allowed under the above-cited authority, including back pay of $16,000 and related benefits in accordance with the requirements of Section 760.10(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 16th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Allen Reynolds 2356 Oliver Avenue Leesburg, FL 32748 Mr. R. D. Helton Director of Operations Gurley Refining Company Post Office Box 626 Memphis, Tennessee 38101 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 240, Building F 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 =================================================================
The Issue Did Respondent, Emerald Grande, LLC (Emerald), discharge Petitioner, Shelia Demons, on account of her race in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2013)?1/
Findings Of Fact By Notice dated December 3, 2013, the hearing was originally scheduled for January 14, 2014. On January 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a request that the hearing be continued. The undersigned continued the hearing until February 4, 2014. On January 17, 2014, Respondent filed an Unopposed Motion for Continuance. The undersigned continued the hearing until March 11, 2014. On March 7, 2014, Respondent filed a Motion to Exclude Petitioner’s Undisclosed Witnesses and (Proposed) Exhibits on the grounds that Petitioner had not disclosed her witnesses and exhibits to Respondent as required by the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. The hearing convened as scheduled at 9:00 a.m., Central Time, on March 11, 2014. Counsel for Emerald and Emerald's representative and witnesses appeared. Emerald had previously timely provided Petitioner with its witness and exhibit lists. As of 9:16 a.m., Ms. Demons had not appeared or contacted the office of the undersigned. At 9:17 a.m., counsel for Respondent moved, ore tenus, for an order of dismissal. The undersigned informed counsel for Respondent that a written recommended order would be entered granting Respondent’s motion. Ms. Demons presented no evidence. Emerald presented no evidence. The hearing was adjourned at 9:20 a.m. When the undersigned left the hearing room at 9:30 a.m., Petitioner had still not appeared or contacted the office of the undersigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny the Petition for Relief of Shelia Demons. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2014, 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 17th day of March, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is David L. Lucas. He was employed by Respondent, Marc Downs, Inc., a clothing store chain, from August of 1989 until January 28, 1990. Approximately two months before the conclusion of his employment with Respondent, Petitioner and other employees employed in the Marc Downs Store located in the Wal-Mart Shopping Center on East Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, Florida, began working under the supervision of a new store manager. The new store manager was Desiree DeVelder, a white female. In addition to DeVelder, there was one other white female employee on the store's sales staff. The remainder of the ten person sales force in the clothing store was black. Petitioner was the only black male member of that sales force. Petitioner and other employees became increasing aware of DeVelder's discomfort at working with a predominantly black sales force. She kept to herself when at all possible. She confided to Petitioner that she did not like the way that the black people acted and on one occasion she stated that there were too many blacks working in the store. On January 28, 1991, DeVelder called a meeting of the store employees after the store had closed for the day. She presented each of the black employees, but not the solitary white employee, with a form entitled "Employee Disciplinary Notice". The form had been filled out for each black employee recipient and documented that the employee was the subject of disciplinary action for "poor attitude and not following Marc Down's Employee Policy Manual". The form further documented that the corrective action was to be a 30 day probationary period for the employee and that unemployment compensation would not be paid if the employee quit or was dismissed from employment during the probationary period. Each form for each employee was signed by DeVelder. DeVelder asked each of the black employees to sign their individual forms. Petitioner asked for an explanation of the form. DeVelder refused to provide an answer and Petitioner said he would think about it and provide DeVelder with a decision the next day. As he turned to leave, DeVelder struck him in the back and began screaming at him that he was fired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petition for Relief and directing the payment to Petitioner by Respondent of back pay at the rate of $400 per month from January 28, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 13th day of May, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner Maia Fisher (Petitioner) on the basis of her gender and retaliated against Petitioner because of her pregnancy in violation of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 16. Petitioner is a female and filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Respondent engaged in gender discrimination and retaliation after Petitioner disclosed her pregnancy. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 16. Respondent operates a printing business. Respondent is a corporation wholly-owned by Mr. John Disbrow and Ms. Angela Disbrow. Mr. and Ms. Disbrow are the principal operators and decision-makers. Respondent was Petitioner's employer. Petitioner was an employee during the relevant period. Petitioner began her employment with Respondent sometime in March 2008. Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on July 28, 2008. Petitioner discovered in June 2008 that she was pregnant. Petitioner informed Mr. and Ms. Disbrow. Mr. Disbrow instructed Mr. Alfred Buranda to terminate Petitioner’s employment sometime in July 2008. Mr. Buranda was the head of human resources for Respondent at that time, but has since moved on to other employment. Mr. Buranda refused to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Mr. Buranda conducted a teleconference with Petitioner in his office on July 28, 2009. Mr. Buranda telephoned Mr. and Ms. Disbrow on his office speaker phone with Petitioner present in his office. Mr. and Ms. Disbrow explained to Petitioner by speaker phone that the pregnancy was the reason for the termination of employment. Respondent owes Petitioner unpaid compensation in the total amount of $2,820.00. Respondent owes Petitioner back wages for unpaid overtime equal to $720.00. Respondent owes Petitioner unpaid commissions equal to $2,100.00. Back wages in the amount of $720.00 is the product of multiplying an hourly overtime rate of $12.00 by the total of uncompensated overtime equal to 60 hours. Unpaid commissions of $2,100.00 are composed of two parts. Petitioner made five sales under $500.00 for which Respondent owes a commission of $100.00 for each sale and a total of $500.00 for all five sales. Petitioner made eight sales over $500.00 for which Respondent owes a commission of $200.00 for each sale and a total of $1,600.00 for all eight sales. Petitioner has been living in a shelter for battered women. Contact and service on Petitioner has been problematic. The Board may require an investigator or other means to provide Petitioner with actual notice of the final order in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order issued in this proceeding should find that Respondent is guilty of discrimination and retaliation on the basis of gender in violation of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37 and require Respondent and its principals to pay Petitioner $2,820.00 in unpaid compensation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Maia Fischer 2302 48th Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34207 Camille Blake, EEO Manager Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1101 John Disbrow ADCO Printing 8412 Sabal Industrial Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33619
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Optical Shop (Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01– and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner, Janice Jennings (Petitioner), to discrimination in employment and by discharging Petitioner in retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to Respondent’s discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent is a corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Respondent operates an optical shop in a Veteran’s Administration (V.A.) Hospital located in Lake City, Florida. At its Lake City location, Respondent fills prescriptions written by eye physicians at the V.A. Hospital, assists patients with choosing frames, and fits patients with their prescription eye glasses. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is fast-paced, with a constant stream of patients, averaging 50-to-60 patients a day. If the optical shop is running behind schedule, it is problematic because often physicians at the V.A. Hospital are waiting to see the patients served by the optical shop. In 2009, Petitioner interviewed for a position at Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City, Florida. During her interview, Petitioner advised Respondent that she had competent computer skills and significant experience working in an office environment and with eye doctors. On May 27, 2009, Respondent hired Petitioner as a part- time clerk at the optical shop. Petitioner was terminated prior to working 90 days for Respondent. When Petitioner was hired, two full-time employees worked at the optical shop: office supervisor, Jean Hartup, and optician, Kathleen Denton. Ms. Hartup has been employed with Respondent for approximately five years. Ms. Denton has been with the optical shop for approximately two and a-half years. As office supervisor, Ms. Hartup can be distant with employees and “hard” at times. She can also be “direct” when speaking to employees. Ms. Hartup demonstrates these traits with all of the employees at the optical shop. Ms. Hartup has written up Ms. Denton in the past and the two have had personality conflicts. Both Ms. Hartup and Ms. Denton assisted with training Petitioner. Evidence indicated that Petitioner received adequate training to perform the tasks she was assigned to perform as a clerk. She often had to be re-trained on the same tasks. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is a very small room, approximately ten-feet by ten-feet square inside the V.A. Hospital. There are two small desks in the shop and it is very crowded. Petitioner was aware of the small working environment at the time she accepted employment with Respondent as a part- time clerk. Past and present employees at the optical shop have had to share desk space. Sometimes work has to be performed in the hallway because of the small office space. All new hires for Respondent are subjected to a 90-day probationary period. As explained in Respondent’s “Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits,” of which Petitioner was aware: There will be a 90-day probationary period during which time the employer may terminate the employee at any time for any reason or for no reason regardless of any other provision of these policies. Sick leave and personal days are accrued but cannot be used during this period. Respondent’s Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits also provides: [Respondent] does not and will not tolerate any employee discriminating against their work peers for any reason i.e., race, color, religion, sex, national origin or handicap. Any known verifiable discrimination will be grounds for immediate termination. Once on the job, Petitioner was not proficient on the computer and, despite repeated training, failed to show any improvement and was slow in performing her job duties. Because of this, service to patients at the optical shop slowed down and the optical shop was frequently behind, resulting in physicians having to wait for patients being served by the optical shop. Ms. Hartup became frustrated with Petitioner’s unsatisfactory job performance and the resulting delays. In addition, Petitioner began to show a lack of interest in her job and even stated that she “didn’t really need a job; she just wanted to be out of the house.” Despite repeated training and opportunities to improve her work performance, Petitioner failed to improve. Petitioner was given a notebook with information from the American Board of Opticians for review but she failed to read it or return it to Respondent. Prior to the end of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner called Respondent’s corporate headquarters in Mississippi and spoke to Mary Walker. Petitioner complained to Ms. Walker that Ms. Hartup was being too hard, was impatient, and was expecting too much of her. Petitioner did not raise concerns with Ms. Walker that she was being discriminated against based on her race, or that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment because of her race. In fact, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever complained of race discrimination or a hostile work environment based on race discrimination while she was still employed by Respondent. During that first telephone conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Walker suggested to Petitioner that she should talk to Ms. Hartup about the problems. Petitioner assured Ms. Walker that she would. Two days later, Ms. Walker called Ms. Hartup and inquired whether Petitioner had discussed her concerns with Ms. Hartup. Petitioner, however, had not spoken to Ms. Hartup about her complaint. Ms. Walker gave Ms. Hartup the authority to run the optical shop at Lake City, including making hiring and firing decisions. Ms. Walker did not discipline Ms. Hartup because of Petitioner’s complaints. Rather, Ms. Walker told Ms. Hartup to handle the situation regarding Petitioner’s complaints. Ms. Hartup then met with Petitioner and they spoke about Petitioner’s concerns that Ms. Hartup was being too harsh and about Petitioner’s poor work performance. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Hartup felt the situation had been resolved. Petitioner subsequently advised both Ms. Denton, as well as Ms. Walker at Respondent’s headquarters, that the conversation with Ms. Hartup had gone well and that their issues had been resolved. Petitioner’s work performance, however, did not improve. Prior to the end of her 90-day probationary period of employment, Respondent terminated Petitioner from employment for poor work performance, for failing to reach her capabilities as an employee, and because her poor work performance was a detriment to Respondent’s Lake City optical shop. Petitioner testified that, from her point of view, she truly felt as though she had been discriminated against because of her race. That testimony, however, was without further support and was unpersuasive, especially in view of the fact that there is no evidence that Petitioner ever mentioned to anyone during her employment with Respondent that she believed she was being discriminated against. There was otherwise no evidence presented at the final hearing that would support a finding that Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaint against Ms. Hartup. Further, the evidence produced at final hearing does not support a finding that either the manner in which Petitioner was treated during her employment with Respondent, or her termination from that employment, was based on Petitioner’s race. Respondent filled the position of part-time clerk left vacant after Petitioner’s termination by hiring a Native- American male.
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 Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 July, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a claim by petitioner, William C. Eagle (petitioner or Eagle), that in February 1994 he was denied employment as a delivery helper by respondent, S. R. Perrott, Inc., on account of a real or perceived handicap. According to the complaint, at the time the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, petitioner was suffering from a "soft tissue injury" from a "work related accident with his former employer." Because the evidence shows that in February 1994 petitioner did not enjoy in some measure the full and normal use of his physical facilities, he was a handicapped person, at least temporarily, within the meaning of the law. A preliminary investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Respondent is a beer distributor in Ormond Beach, Florida. Whether respondent employs "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" so as to be subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, is not of record. In February 1994, petitioner learned of an opening for a delivery helper at respondent's plant. The position required that the employee unload beer kegs weighing 167 pounds from a delivery truck onto a dolly and then push the dolly into the business establishment. At that point, the employee would have to bend over and lift the keg off of the dolly to a waist-high position and place it in the desired location. Empty kegs would then be loaded onto the dolly and taken back to the truck and loaded. Since a truck would typically make up to 30 to 40 stops per day, the helper was required to engage in repetitious bending, twisting and lifting of heavy objects. After filing an application with respondent, petitioner was interviewed by respondent's general manager, Gary Connors, on February 23, 1994. During the interview, petitioner failed to disclose that he had suffered a back injury on a previous job, he was receiving worker's compensation benefits, he was then being treated by a doctor, and because of the injury, he was, at least arguably and temporarily, a handicapped individual. Without these undisclosed facts, Connors believed Eagle was qualified for the job and told him to report to work the next morning as a delivery helper. Like every other applicant, however, Eagle was also told that the job was contingent on his successfully passing a pre- employment physical examination. On the same morning that petitioner began work, or February 24, 1994, Connors contacted the office of Dr. James W. Bennett, a local chiropractic physician who conducted employment physicals for respondent, to set up an appointment for Eagle. During his telephone conversation with Dr. Bennett, Connors learned that Eagle was being treated by Dr. Bennett for a back injury suffered on his previous job, and that he had been examined by Dr. Bennett on February 14, 1994, or ten days earlier. Dr. Bennett accordingly saw no need to re-examine Eagle, and he advised Connors that Eagle could aggravate "an existing, active injury," and that he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Based on this information, Connors immediately spoke with the plant manager, Richard Shaffer, and instructed him to recall Eagle from his route and terminate his employment. In making this employment decision, Connors was not motivated by discriminatory animus, but rather he made the decision solely because of Eagle's inability to pass a pre-employment physical examination, a prerequisite for employment for all job applicants. Indeed, at that time, while Connors knew that Eagle had a pre-existing back injury through conversations with Dr. Bennett, he neither knew, or had reason to believe, that the injury constituted a handicap under the law. Shaffer recalled Eagle from his route and discharged him around noon on February 24, 1994. Since Shaffer did not know the reason for the termination, he told Eagle to check back in a few days and he would find out the specific reason for his discharge. A few days later, Eagle returned and met with Connors who told him that he was discharged because he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Several months later, Eagle filed his charge of discrimination. At hearing, Eagle denied that he was handicapped and asserted that as of February 1994 he "felt fine" physically. Indeed, he described in some detail the type of heavy manual labor he had performed with another employer up to the time he applied for the position. He also contended that the injury was minor and would not interfere with a delivery helper's tasks. But testimony from Dr. Bennett established that as of February 24, 1994, Eagle had "a current, precarious injury," namely, moderate chronic lumbar sprain strain, that work restrictions with his former employer had been recommended, and that Eagle was "highly likely" to worsen that injury should he engage in the job activities required of a delivery helper. This testimony was not credibly contradicted. Although Eagle was later discharged from Dr. Bennett's care on April 1, 1994, Eagle could not pass the pre-employment physical examination on February 24, 1994, when the employment decision was made, and thus he did not qualify for the job. Eagle further suggested at hearing that, assuming he was handicapped, respondent failed to take reasonable steps to accommodate his disability. But Eagle made no request for accommodation either at the time he sought the position or after he learned the reason for his termination. Even if Eagle had requested accommodation, respondent had no positions in the business that did not require some heavy lifting except for a secretarial slot, for which Eagle was not qualified. Moreover, respondent's general manager did not know, or even believe, that Eagle was handicapped and thus may have required accommodation. Then, too, in order to accommodate Eagle, respondent would have had to make fundamental alterations in its work program or even create a new job. Eagle did not rebut this showing at hearing, and he failed to respond with any evidence regarding his individual capabilities and suggestions for possible accommodations by respondent within the restrictions imposed by Dr. Bennett. There is no evidence regarding the compensation Eagle would have received as a delivery helper. The record also fails to establish his compensation since that time, and thus there is no basis on which to make a finding as to lost wages. Whether petitioner seeks reinstatement as a delivery helper is also not of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition for relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 18th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1788 Petitioner: Petitioner filed an "order" with nine unnumbered paragraphs containing a mixture of proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5 and 8. 6-8. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 9. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence or a conclusion of law. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Daniel Williams, Esquire P. O. Box 1007 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Winston K. Borkowski, Esquire P. O. Box 1725 Ormond Beach, Florida 32175 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Florida Civil Rights Act or the Act).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent at various times beginning in February 1999 and ending in her termination effective September 30, 2004. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. At all relevant times, Respondent is in the hotel business. Respondent provides related services and amenities to its guests and to the general public, including a restaurant and bar on the hotel premises. Petitioner commenced her employment with Respondent as a waitress and was eventually promoted to bartender. At all relevant times, she worked under the supervision of Kurt Pfister (Pfister). At no time prior to the commencement of her employment, nor at any time during her employment, did Petitioner advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or that she required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. Likewise, Petitioner never advised Respondent that she had ever been diagnosed, treated, or hospitalized for any medical condition or disability. In fact, as Petitioner herself admits, she first claimed to be disabled approximately two weeks after she was terminated. Petitioner, as well as all of Respondent's employees, were trained in and required at all times to follow all of Respondent's policies and procedures generally applicable in its workplace. Additionally, every employee was trained in and expected to comply at all times with all policies and procedures applicable to his or her particular job. Violation of any of Respondent's policies or procedures subjected an employee to disciplinary action ranging from counseling to termination. As a bartender, Petitioner was trained and responsible for taking food and beverage orders; to present patrons with their bill(s); and to collect an approved form of payment, including cash. With regard to cash, Petitioner was trained in Respondent's policies and procedures known as "cash control policies." Cash control policies included a specific process for reconciliation of cash and tips at the end of each shift and a process for making cash drops and filling out deposit logs. Petitioner and all similarly situated employees were required to comply with cash control policies and were subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination if they failed to do so. Petitioner was qualified for her bartending position, and from the beginning of her employment through September 16, 2004, Respondent was well satisfied with Petitioner's work. Petitioner was often called upon to train new bartenders with regard to Respondent's policies, including cash control policies. She did so very well. For her efforts, Petitioner achieved the status of Respondent's most senior bartender, and as a reward was given the best shifts. Respondent enforced a policy against smoking on its grounds, except that smoking was permitted in a small, outside area at the south end of the premises. Petitioner was well familiar with the smoking policy and to Respondent's knowledge, complied with it until September 16, 2004. On that date, Petitioner was discovered smoking in a liquor storage room located inside the hotel building. She was given a written reprimand. Apart from the smoking infraction, Petitioner's September 16, 2004, shift was uneventful. She gave no indication to her customers or supervisors that she was in distress or could not perform her duties on account of disability or any other reason, nor that she required any type of accommodation(s) to perform her job. Yet, on that night, Petitioner failed to follow cash control policies at the end of her shift. Of most concern to Respondent was that Petitioner left work with her cash sales short for the evening in the amount of $97.64. On September 17, 2006, Pfister learned of the policy violations and the attendant cash shortage; he thereupon contacted Petitioner by telephone. Petitioner again did not indicate to Respondent that she could not perform her duties on account of disability or any other reason, nor that she required any type of accommodation(s) to perform her job and to comply with cash control policies. Petitioner conversed normally with Pfister and acknowledged that she had the $97.64 belonging to Respondent. Although she was not scheduled to work again until September 21st, she agreed to meet with Pfister and to return the money on September 19, 2004. Petitioner did not show up for the meeting. Neither did she return the money, or contact Pfister to advise when, or if, she would return the money. Respondent was entitled, at that point, to treat the matter as a theft; to terminate Petitioner's employment; and to seek law enforcement's assistance in recovering its money. Instead, Respondent exercised forbearance and gave Petitioner an indefinite suspension to afford her additional time to return the money and to explain to Pfister her reason(s) for failing to follow cash control policies on September 16, 2004. Respondent enforced a policy it called the no-call, no-show rule. Under the rule, employees are required to provide Respondent with four hours’ notice if for any reason they are unable to report on time for a scheduled shift. Absent extraordinary circumstances, which do not exist here, failure to provide the required notice is ground for disciplinary action. On September 21, 2004, and again the next day, Petitioner failed to report for her scheduled shift(s). She also failed to fulfill the four-hour notice requirement of the no call, no-show rule. For these two violations of the no-call, no-show policy, Petitioner was given a written warning. On September 23, 2004, Petitioner telephoned Pfister from an undisclosed location and advised she could not work previously scheduled shifts for the balance of the week. At first, Petitioner claimed she wanted time off on account of her “health.” Pfister offered her the opportunity to submit medical documentation in support of her request. At that point Petitioner stated that she was not seeing a doctor(s), and further stated that she was out of the state with her boyfriend. Petitioner added that she did not care about the hotel; that she was going to take care of herself first. Pfister responded that Petitioner should call him upon her return to town because the issue concerning the $97.64 could not remain unresolved. In the course of this conversation, Petitioner did not advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or that she required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. Petitioner's next contact with Respondent was on September 29, 2004, when Petitioner called Pfister and said she was back in town and wanted to meet with him. It was agreed the meeting would take place the following day at 1:00 p.m. and would also be attended by Rick Reilly (Reilly), Respondent’s senior vice president. Petitioner did not arrive at the appointed time and did not call to explain her absence. Instead, she arrived at 2:10 P.M. Petitioner smelled of alcohol; she swayed, staggered, and slurred her speech. She was profane and belligerent. Petitioner again failed and refused to return Respondent's money or to explain why she took the money. As previously and repeatedly noted, Petitioner did not take this opportunity to advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. She did, however, state that she was "not coming back" and demanded a paycheck and vacation pay. Reilly asked her if she was resigning and she replied, "I guess so." Fearing that Petitioner would attempt to deny or to retract her ambiguous resignation when she sobered up, Pfister and Reilly made a reasonable determination, based upon legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons, to terminate her employment effective September 30, 2006. The termination was not pretextual. There was no evidence regarding who, if anyone, replaced Petitioner. There was no evidence Petitioner was, at any time, treated less favorably than any similarly situated co- worker on account of her membership in any protected class, or for any other reason. Petitioner did not dispute that Respondent had no reason, at any relevant time, to believe she needed accommodations of any sort to perform her job. On October 15, 2004, Pfister received a fax from Petitioner requesting a "leave of absence, medical reason." In apparent support thereof, Pfister also receive a fax purporting to be from a doctor and further purporting to provide a medical explanation for Petitioner's request for "leave of absence, medical reason." In the latter fax, a representation was made that Petitioner was presently hospitalized for "an undetermined amount of time" due to "depression symptoms for the last several month (sic) in context of stressors related to her job and impending hurricanes." This information, such as it was, was untimely and was insufficient to cast doubt upon the bona fides of Petitioner's termination. On November 1, 2004, Petitioner came to Pfister's office to pick up her check(s) and, at last, to return Respondent's money. She made no comment or complaint regarding any alleged disability; neither did she indicate in any way that she believed herself to be a victim of discrimination. In sum, Petitioner could have been terminated as early as September 16, 2004, for legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons. There is no persuasive evidence that disability played any role in Petitioner's termination. Indeed, there was no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was, at any time, disabled within the meaning of the Act, or within the meaning of any other state or federal law. There was no evidence that Petitioner was replaced by a non-disabled individual, nor that she was, at any time, treated less favorably than any similarly situated co-worker.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 9th day of November, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Clarence E. Burtoft, was hired by respondent, Southern Linen Service, in November, 1982 as assistant general manager at its Daytona Beach plant. Prior to this employment, he had back surgery performed in Augusta, Georgia but the effects of such surgery did not interfere with his job duties. After being on the job for approximately three days, he was told by the regional manager that labor costs needed to be reduced, and that one employee must be laid off. He was also told to shift two female employees from one department to another. There is a dispute between the parties as to what the actual instructions were, and whether they were in fact carried out by Burtoft. Nonetheless, the employer construed Burtoft's actions as not complying with its instructions, and Burtoft was accordingly terminated the following day and told he was not the right man for the job. The back surgery was not related in any respect to the termination and Burtoft himself acknowledged as much. Burtoft's complaint is that his job records at Southern Linen Service contain a notation that he was fired for refusing to follow instructions. He only wants that adverse information removed. 1/ He is not contending that his employer unlawfully discriminated against him, or requesting that his job be reinstated with full back pay. Indeed, it was only after he visited the State employment office that he filed this complaint upon that office's encouragement. At no time was he ever told by any Florida Commission on Human Relations representative that its jurisdiction extended only over certain employment practices, and that any complaint must necessarily be founded on some form of discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed by Clarence E. Burtoft be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1984, 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 2nd day of March, 1984.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2017.
