The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unfair labor practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race and retaliating against Petitioner, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact On September 28, 2005, Respondent AirTran Airways hired Petitioner, who is Black, as a customer service agent. During her entire term of employment, Petitioner was assigned to Respondent's station in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Between January and June of 2006, Petitioner was issued five attendance warnings. During the same period, Petitioner was issued two written warnings that related to other violations of company policy.2 Nevertheless, on August 6, 2007, Petitioner was promoted to the position of station supervisor. Several months after her promotion, Petitioner was issued a "final warning" and suspended for three days. This occurred after an internal fraud investigation revealed that on several occasions, Petitioner received insufficient funds from customers in connection with round-trip and business class upgrades. Following the "final warning," Petitioner's employment was uneventful until February or March of 2008. At that point, Dan Mellgren, who had been employed with Respondent for approximately eight years, transferred to Fort Lauderdale from Chicago and assumed the position of station manager. Petitioner's claims of racial discrimination and retaliation relate solely to Mr. Mellgren. As explained during the final hearing, a station supervisor, the position held by Petitioner, is subordinate to one or more duty managers. In turn, duty managers report to the station manager, and the station manager reports to the director of the southern region. Mr. Mellgren admits that upon taking over as the Fort Lauderdale station manager, he made the decision that "swipe cards," which were limited in number (four or five) and permitted parking in a preferred lot closer to the terminal, would be distributed based on seniority. In addition, one swipe card was reserved for a supervisor who frequently ran work- related errands. As a result of Mr. Mellgren's change in policy, Petitioner lost her swipe card and was thereafter required to park in the regular employee lot. Although Petitioner claims that the reassignment of swipe cards was racially motivated, there is no credible evidence supporting the allegation. According to Petitioner, Mr. Mellgren committed other discriminatory acts. For example, Petitioner claims that she was not permitted to bring her children to the weekly staff meetings (which took place on her day off), while at least one white employee was permitted to do so. In contrast, Mr. Mellgren testified that all employees, including Petitioner, were authorized to bring well-behaved children to a staff meeting if said meeting occurred on the employee's day off. Mr. Mellgren further testified that at no time did he prevent Petitioner from bringing her children to a staff meeting. The undersigned accepts Mr. Mellgren's testimony as credible with respect to this issue. As an additional allegation of discriminatory conduct, Petitioner claims that Mr. Mellgren required her, on one occasion, to work eight hours without a lunch break. While Mr. Mellgren did not deny that this occurred, he explained that in the airline industry, customer service agents and supervisors will occasionally miss lunch breaks during peak hours. Any such missed lunch break is recorded in an "exception log," which enables the employee to obtain additional compensation. The undersigned accepts Mr. Mellgren's explanation concerning the incident and concludes that any deprivation of a lunch break was due solely to busy conditions at the airport. Petitioner further alleges that shortly after Mr. Mellgren's transfer to Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Mellgren forged her name on a security badge sign-out form. Mr. Mellgren testified, credibly, that this did not occur. Pursuant to AirTran Airways policy, which is outlined in the "AirTran Crew Member Handbook," an employee who is experiencing harassment based upon race or other protected classification is directed to handle the situation by first confronting the harasser politely. If the harassment continues, or if the aggrieved employee believes that a confrontation could result in harm, the employee should contact a supervisor or manager. If the complaint involves the employee's supervisor or manager, the employee is directed to take the complaint to the next level of management or to the human resources department. Petitioner admits that she did not report her issues with Mr. Mellgren to AirTran's human resources department or to a level of management superior to Mr. Mellgren. Petitioner did, however, report at least some of her problems with Mr. Mellgren to Everton Harris, a duty manager whom Petitioner trusted.3 There is no evidence that Mr. Harris communicated Petitioner's concerns to the human resources department, a superior, or anyone else. It is undisputed that on March 27, 2008, Petitioner arrived at the Fort Lauderdale station after attending training in Atlanta. Petitioner noticed that one of the gates was busy, so she decided to assist two AirTran customer service agents (Eduardo Baez and Donna Heghinian) who were working the counter. Shortly thereafter, in violation of AirTran policy, a revenue passenger (i.e., a paying customer) was bumped from a flight to accommodate a non-revenue flight attendant employed with Spirit Airlines. In the following days, AirTran's Internal Audit and Fraud Department investigated the incident to determine the identity of the employee responsible for replacing the revenue customer with the non-revenue flight attendant. During the investigation, statements were obtained from Mr. Baez and Ms. Heghinian, both of whom implicated Petitioner as the responsible party. Petitioner also provided a statement in which she vehemently denied responsibility. The findings of the investigation were subsequently provided to Ms. Kellye Terrell, an Employee Relations Manager with AirTran. Ms. Terrell is African-American. After reviewing the findings, Ms. Terrell determined that Petitioner should be separated from her employment with AirTran due to two violations of company policy.4 Ms. Terrell drafted a termination letter, which was provided to Petitioner on April 7, 2008. Although the termination letter was actually signed by Mr. Mellgren, it should be noted that Mr. Mellgren did not participate in the decision to terminate Petitioner. In addition, Mr. Harris, the only person to whom Petitioner communicated any of her complaints regarding Mr. Mellgren, did not participate in Petitioner's termination. At the time of Petitioner's termination, neither Ms. Terrell, nor any other decision-maker was aware of any complaints made by Petitioner to Mr. Harris concerning Mr. Mellgren. The undersigned finds that Respondent's decision to terminate Petitioner was based upon a good faith belief that Petitioner violated company policy by bumping a revenue passenger, as well as Petitioner's previous disciplinary history. Petitioner offered unrebutted testimony that her position was filled by a Caucasian female.5 The undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence in this case is insufficient to establish that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race. The undersigned also finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Respondent retaliated against Petitioner.
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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner on the basis of age or in retaliation.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1994 (amended March 10, 1994), Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination, based on age and retaliation, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That charge listed the most recent discrimination as October 18, 1993 and alleged that Petitioner had been rejected for a post in Panama City; that Respondent, through a Ms. Retherford, had denied Petitioner access to other applicants' records for ten days; and that Ms. Retherford, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Ciccarelli of Respondent's District 2, had made sure everyone in their District knew Petitioner's name and to avoid hiring him. To further specify his charges, Petitioner attached a December 16, 1993 memorandum from Ms. Radigan to Mr. Clary. (See below, Finding of Fact No. 56). The Charge of Discrimination then concluded, "the specific job for which I applied was set in Marianna and closed on 18 October; though I had been referred to that job by Karen Dalton, an HRS specialist at HRS headquarters, I never had a chance at that job." (P-2) By a "Determination: No Cause", dated March 20, 1995, the Commission advised Petitioner that he could file a Petition for Relief within thirty-five days, pursuant to Section 760.11 F.S. On April 22, 1995, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.. That timely Petition for Relief alleged both age and retaliation discrimination by Respondent's failure to hire Petitioner for a number of posts, none of which the Petition specifically named by position number or date. The retaliation allegation was based on Petitioner's "causing trouble," not due to his filing any prior formal complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations or upon his participation in these types of litigation on behalf of anyone else. Although the subject matter jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings is bounded by the Charge of Discrimination, the Petition for Relief, and Chapter 760 F.S., the parties were permitted to present some historical information. Even so, the parties' presentation of evidence did not always clearly correlate Respondent's dated employment advertisements for named, numbered, or described positions to specific applications of Petitioner and/or specific interviews or hirings of other persons. Respondent agency demonstrated that as of October 13, 1993, it was employing at least one employee older than Petitioner, at least one in her sixties, others in their fifties, and hundreds who were over 39 years old. However, none of this information is particularly helpful in resolving the issues in this case. While Respondent's figures may speak to longevity of employees or duration of their employment with Respondent, they are silent as to each employee's age as of the date Respondent first hired each one. (R-9) Petitioner is a white male who at all times material was 63-65 years of age. Petitioner repeatedly applied for job vacancies advertised by Respondent agency and was not hired for any of them. Every position for which Petitioner applied required, at a minimum, that applicants have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus three years' professional experience in one or more of the following employments: abuse registry; developmental services; law enforcement investigations; licensed health care; children, youth, and family services; child support enforcement; economic services; aging and adult services; licensed child day care; mental health; or elementary or secondary education. Specific types of bachelor's degrees or any master's degree could substitute for one of the three years' required experience in the named programs. Specific types of master's degrees could substitute for two years of the three years' required experience in the named programs. However, no matter how many or what type of college degrees an applicant had earned, Respondent still required applicants to have at least one year of specialized experience. (P-1, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-7). In fact, Petitioner met the foregoing requirements at all times material. "In the late summer of 1992," Petitioner first responded to one of Respondent's advertisements for a Protective Investigator position in Panama City. (P-1, P-14) He was turned down without an interview for that position by a letter dated September 22, 1992. (P-1). Feeling that he was qualified for the foregoing position and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to interview, Petitioner made an appointment with Ms. Charlie Retherford, who had advertised the position. The contents of Ms. Retherford's explanation about ten days later is not of record, but Petitioner remained dissatisfied. Petitioner next made a request pursuant to Chapter 119 F.S., The Public Records Act, to view the records of other applicants. Petitioner felt he was "hassled" over this request, but admitted that Respondent provided the records within two weeks. Petitioner did not elaborate upon why he felt "hassled," only stating that he felt two weeks was an "unreasonable delay." Petitioner analyzed the records and formed the opinion that "there was good reason to believe" Respondent did not interview him because he was over 60 years old. Petitioner testified that those applicants selected by Respondent for interviews averaged 29 years old, but Petitioner did not offer in evidence the records he had reviewed so as to substantiate his assertion. In correspondence and interviews which occurred after September 22, 1992, Petitioner revealed his age to various employees of Respondent. (See Findings of Fact 14, above, and 24, 41, and 45 below). However, an applicant's age or birth date is not required on Respondent's standard employment application form, and on Petitioner's September 5, 1992 application received by Respondent September 9, 1992 (P-14), Petitioner had left blank the "optional" line for date of birth. Therefore, it was not established that the Respondent knew, or even how the Respondent could have known, Petitioner's age prior to its September 22, 1992 failure to hire him. Despite Petitioner's testimony as to the average age of interviewees, the mean age of all the applicants up to September 22, 1992 was not established, so it is not clear whether any twenty-nine year olds or persons younger than Petitioner also were not interviewed as well as Petitioner, who was not interviewed and who was in his sixties. Additionally, no nexus between any other applicant's qualifying credentials and Petitioner's qualifying credentials was put forth. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if those applicants who were interviewed prior to September 22, 1992 were more or less qualified than Petitioner, or if there was any pattern of Respondent refusing to interview applicants of any age. By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator with its Aging and Adult Services Unit in Chattahoochee. (P-4). By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-5) By a January 22, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-6) By a January 27, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Services Abuse Registry Counselor after he was interviewed. (P-3, P-7) (See Findings of Fact 24 and 41, below. By a February 25, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Research Assistant Position No. 05396 at Florida State Hospital. (P-8) Petitioner did not offer in evidence any of his applications corresponding to the Respondent's refusals to hire him between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993. 1/ For the period of September 22, 1992 through February 25, 1993, Petitioner's only evidence of age or retaliation discrimination was his subjective personal conviction that age was a factor in Respondent's refusal to hire him and the Radigan memorandum issued ten months later and discussed in Findings of Fact 56-65, below. Affording Petitioner all reasonable inferences, the undersigned infers that due to Petitioner's post- September 22, 1992 interview with Ms. Retherford, Respondent's District 2 hiring personnel could have been aware of Petitioner's age from late September 1992 onward. However, there was no evidence presented by which it can be affirmatively determined that between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993 that Respondent knew the age of all other applicants before deciding which ones to interview or that there was a pattern of only interviewing persons under a certain age. 2/ Further, in an August 12, 1993 letter, Petitioner stated to the Secretary of Respondent agency that he had, in fact, been interviewed by Respondent in January 1993. (P-3) (See below, Finding of Fact 41.) It also must be inferred from that information that Respondent did not systematically exclude Petitioner from the interview process on the basis of age or retaliation at least through January 1993. Petitioner's last application before October 14, 1993 which was admitted in evidence is dated April 8, 1993. It was stamped "received" by Respondent on April 9, 1993. It also does not give his age or date of birth. It specifies that Petitioner was applying for a Protective Investigator position closing April 12, 1993. (P-15). In April 1993, Brenda Ciccarelli, an official in Respondent's District 2, requested Karen Dalton, a recruitment coordinator in Respondent's Personal Services Section, to review Petitioner's employment application to determine if he met the minimum requirements for employment in the advertised position. Ms. Dalton's testimony is not altogether clear as to which application or applications she reviewed in April 1993, but from the evidence as a whole, it is inferred that she reviewed Petitioner's September 5, 1992 (P-14) and/or his April 8, 1993 (P-15) applications or applications by Petitioner which were substantially similar. Ms. Dalton analyzed Petitioner's application(s) and determined that Petitioner did not meet Respondent's minimum requirements. She satisfied herself that she had made a correct analysis by conferring with Mr. Joe Williams of the Department of Management Services. By a May 7, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-9) Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from May 24, 1993 to June 7, 1993. (R-1) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from June 21, 1993 to July 26, 1993. (R-2) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Jack Connelly, then 45 years old, for Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County. (R-3) Respondent introduced a tabulation of the ages of the applicants for Position No. 48210 which was completed as of the effective date the position was filled. It included columns listing birth dates of applicants, if known; a column indicating applicants' handicaps, if any; a column indicating whether an applicant was eligible; and a column indicating which applicants were interviewed. (R-3) Mr. Connelly, the successful applicant, was interviewed, as were eleven other applicants. Ten applicants, among them Petitioner, were not interviewed. (R-3) The applicants who were interviewed were respectively forty-five, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty- four, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one years of age. The ages of those not interviewed were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two. (R-3) There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the applicants interviewed or those of Jack Connelly, who was hired, were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. There is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. 3/ Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from May 17, 1993 to May 31, 1993. (R-4) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308 Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-6) By a July 20, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-10) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Edward Bonner, then fifty- three years old, for Position 50968. He was one of the applicants interviewed. (R-6) Respondent presented another columnar tabulation completed as of the effective date Mr. Bonner was hired. It showed that the interviewed applicants were ages fifty-three, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, twenty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty-six, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one, respectively. The uninterviewed applicants were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-seven, and thirty-two respectively. (R-6) Again, there is no discernable pattern of excluding anyone by age. 4/ There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the interviewees or of Edward Bonner were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. On August 12, 1993, Petitioner wrote the agency Secretary, Mr. H. James Towey, complaining that he had been discriminated against because of his age, which he then gave as This letter listed the dates of discrimination as 9/22/92, 11/24/92, 11/24/92 again, 1/22/93, 1/27/93, 2/25/93, 5/7/93/ and 7/20/93. Therein, Petitioner admitted that Respondent had interviewed him approximately January 1993 for a System Abuse Registry Counselor position and that the interview had gone very well from his point of view. (P-3) Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308 (anticipated vacancy) Position No. 04385 in Panama City from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-7) Effective September 3, 1993, Respondent hired Johnnie A. Knop (female), DOB unlisted, for Position No. 04385. Respondent's tabulation completed on the effective date of hiring Ms. Knop showed that not counting Ms. Knop, whose age does not appear, the interviewees were thirty-eight, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-three, fifty-eight, forty-four, forty-one, forty- four, and thirty-one years of age, respectively. The non-interviewees were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two years of age. (R-8) Once more, there is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether or not Respondent hired someone older or younger than the Petitioner. 5/ There is nothing in the record to show that Johnnie Knop's qualifications were lower than Petitioner's. In September, 1993, Ms. Dalton had a conversation with Petitioner which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Based upon the contents of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, it is found that this conversation occurred on September 13, 1993 in response to letters of complaint written by Petitioner on May 20 and August 12, 1993. The Petitioner's May 20 letter is not in evidence, but it is inferred that the August 12 letter referenced in P-13 was Petitioner's complaint to Secretary Towey (P-3) concerning age discrimination and discussed above in Finding of Fact 41. During their conversation, Ms. Dalton discovered that some of Petitioner's remote job experiences were useful for certifying him qualified. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Dalton worked through a list of Respondent's job openings, and Ms. Dalton sent one of Petitioner's applications on to Cheryl Nielsen who was hiring for a position in Marianna. At formal hearing, Ms. Dalton explained credibly that she had not originally categorized Petitioner as meeting the professional experience requirement in the "elementary or secondary education" category because she misunderstood his prior application(s) which she had reviewed. Where the September 5, 1992 application had related Petitioner as employed as "a teacher at Dozier School for Boys (Washington County Program at Dozier)" and the April 8, 1993 application listed him as " a teacher at Dozier School for Boys" for eleven months in 1990-1991, Ms. Dalton previously had understood that his employment merely constituted "shopwork, independent living", which is literally part of what Petitioner had written. Ms. Dalton previously had not equated that phraseology with professional teaching experience in an elementary or secondary school. Ms. Dalton also credibly explained that she had the erroneous perception of Petitioner's past experience listed as "supervisor, driver education" at Parks Job Corps Center as being solely employment in a private driver's education school. Petitioner had written "vocational training center," to describe the Center's function. Less understandable but unrefuted was Ms. Dalton's testimony that she had not equated Petitioner's teacher status for eight years in the Oakland County, California Public Schools as "teaching" because of the way Petitioner's application(s) had presented that prior employment which had occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. Despite both applications clearly stating this was public school teaching, Ms. Dalton had once again erroneously assumed that Petitioner had worked in a driver education school, when he had, in fact, been teaching a regularly scheduled minor course curriculum of driver's education in the standard curriculum of a public high school. Apparently, she had given less emphasis to this and had become confused by the explanatory material that Petitioner had added to explain the other things he had done besides teaching. She also gave less emphasis to other employments involving several years even if they included the word "teacher" because they were remote in time. (P-14 and P-15; compare P-16). After their clarifying interview, Ms. Dalton considered Petitioner qualified for the position(s) applied for, even though his qualifications previously had not been apparent to her from his written application(s). Convinced that Petitioner's application style did not present him to best advantage, Ms. Dalton advised Petitioner how to re-do his application to emphasize the factors significant to Respondent and maximize his employment opportunities with Respondent. On the basis of their conversation alone, Ms. Dalton sent a September 15, 1993 letter to Petitioner, and copied Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Ciccarelli, both employed in Respondent's District 2, to the effect that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for the Protective Investigator classification. (P-13) Petitioner revised his application to detail that some of his school activities which were remote in time actually involved teaching. He submitted the rewritten application to Ms. Dalton approximately October 14, 1993. (P-16). After the revision, Ms. Dalton credited Petitioner with three years and nine months of "teaching in an elementary or secondary school" based only on his teaching during the 1960's. She also forwarded the revised application to Marianna and Ms. Nielsen. A review of the Petitioner's only three applications in evidence (September 5, 1992 at P-14; April 8, 1993 at P-15; and October 14, 1993 at P-16) reveals that Petitioner's original application style is so detailed and thorough that some portions September 1992 and April 1993 applications are less than clear as to what entity employed him and what his title was. For instance, he frequently used job titles that were more administrative, like "program manager", than educational, like "teacher". While a thorough reading of either of the applications in Petitioner's original style would probably reveal that he had, indeed, been employed in public school teaching positions approximately 30 years before, Petitioner's original applications require much more concentrated reading than does his revision in order to sort through the material matters and exclude extraneous and cumulative material that had no significance to Respondent's application process. The unrevised applications are not clear that he actually "taught" for a total of three years and nine months in public elementary or secondary schools as understood by Respondent's assessment system. According to Cheryl Nielsen, the position in Marianna for which Petitioner was certified eligible by Ms. Dalton and which closed October 18, 1993 was a temporary position. It existed solely because the individual holding the permanent position had been on workers' compensation leave. When it became apparent to Ms. Nielsen that the injured job holder would not be returning permanently, she decided not to continue the hiring process for the temporary position. Instead, she decided to advertise and fill the position in Marianna as a permanent position once the appropriate waiting period ran out. This was a reasonable decision because it would require six weeks' training before any hiree would be useful and because by going directly to the hiring of permanent personnel, Ms. Nielsen could avoid having to repeat the training process with a different person in a short period of time. No one was interviewed or hired for the temporary position for which Petitioner applied. There is no evidence in this record to tell the undersigned if Petitioner applied for Miss Nielsen's permanent position. Indeed, there is no evidence that Petitioner applied for any positions with Respondent after October 14, 1993. On November 26, 1993, Petitioner wrote Mr. Clary, Respondent agency's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "Re:" line of this letter states that the letter refers to "'contracts' which cost HRS a fortune but serve no legitimate purpose." A fair reading of Petitioner's letter is that he was complaining concerning a letter from Dr. James Henson of Tallahassee Community College (TCC) which constituted a reply to Petitioner's inquiry concerning a TCC job vacancy announcement. Neither Petitioner's letter to Dr. Henson nor Dr. Henson's reply letter to Petitioner are in evidence to further explain what was actually going on. In his November 26, 1993 letter to Respondent's Deputy Secretary Clary, Petitioner characterized Dr. Henson's letter to him as "condescending" and "elitist" and stated Petitioner's opinion that Respondent should not have contracted with TCC to recruit field instructors because it was a waste of money. Petitioner's letter is entirely coherent, but its tone is agitated and vituperative. It attacks the agency's expenditure of funds to Dr. Henson and TCC and their qualifications. It does not mention Petitioner's age or job applications to Respondent in any way. (P-12) Apparently as a result of yet another of Petitioner's letters dated November 19, 1993, which November 19, 1993 letter is not in evidence, Ms. Radigan, Respondent's Assistant Secretary for Children and Family Services, wrote the following December 16, 1993 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Clary, copying Secretary Towey and the Assistant to the President of TCC. I wanted to give you some feed back on this issue. Mr. Sondel has written many such letters across the last six to eight years. He is very well known by the recruitment and personnel professionals in the Tallahassee area, in both the private and public sectors. Bob Roberts discussed this issue with Mr. Marshall Miller, special assistant to Dr. Henson at Tallahassee Community College (TCC). Mr. Miller suggested that DHRS [Respondent agency] should make no response to or take any action pertinent to the letter. Dr. Henson would prefer that he or his attorney make any response as he sees proper. The field instructor position in question is one of twenty new contracted professionals being recruited state wide that will be located in each district to provide clinical expertise, technical assistance, job coaching and staff training for a four unit staff in the Children and Family Services Program. Due to the nature of the job tasks that will be assigned to the new contracted professionals, the Districts expect that they will have relevant professional training and work experience in public child welfare systems. Please let me know if you have any questions, or wish to have additional information. Emphasis and bracketted explanatory material supplied. (P-11)57. The language emphasized above was not emphasized in Ms. Radigan's original memorandum, but has been characterized in Petitioner's testimony as "the smoking gun" upon which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Ms. Radigan, via "retaliatory slander", had prevented Respondent agency from hiring Petitioner throughout 1992- 1993. He attributed her remarks to be the result of his letters to the Respondent complaining of age discrimination. Petitioner testified credibly and without refutation that he had never applied for employment with Respondent before the summer of 1992 and that he was first denied employment by Respondent on September 22, 1992. This is accepted. At the time of Ms. Radigan's memorandum, Petitioner had filed no formal charges of discrimination against Respondent. Therefore, it is impossible for any retaliation by Respondent between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993, if it existed, to have been based upon formal charges by Petitioner. Petitioner's subjective reading of the Radigan memorandum to the effect that it presents him as a "kook who should not be taken seriously" is one possible interpretation, but otherwise, Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. The Radigan memorandum is dated well after Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. That alone is not conclusive to show that its contents did not affect Respondent's hiring process between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993 because it could relate back to Respondent's prior retaliatory non- hiring practices. However, a clear reading of the memorandum itself does not permit such an interpretation. First, the memorandum refers to a letter by Petitioner dated approximately a month after the Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. Although Petitioner claimed that the Radigan memorandum refers to Petitioner's complaints of age discrimination, that was not proven. Since the Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter, which the Radigan memorandum addressed, is not in evidence, it is impossible to determine precisely which of Petitioner's complaints Ms. Radigan's memorandum addressed, but even if Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter had complained of age discrimination, that complaint was made after Petitioner had ceased to apply with Respondent. Therefore, retaliation at that point could not relate backwards to hiring practices already concluded. The letters of Petitioner over six to eight years to which the body of the memorandum refers apparently include his letters to private sector entities as well as government agencies other than Respondent agency. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner had only been applying to Respondent for two, not six or more, years (see Finding of Fact 58, above) does not establish any intentional misstatement of fact by Ms. Radigan. If these letters and Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter to Respondent all contained complaints of age discrimination, then it was appropriate for Ms. Radigan to report that fact, but there simply is insufficient evidence in this record to determine if that is what happened here. Ms. Radigan's memorandum says nothing to the effect that Respondent should not hire Petitioner, that TCC should not hire him for itself, or that TCC should not recruit him for a position with Respondent. Nothing in the memorandum permits the inference that Ms. Radigan did anything except investigate the situation existing between Petitioner and TCC and report back to her superior all available information, including gossip about Petitioner from both the public and private sectors. Gossip is always reprehensible, but people talking about unspecified letters Petitioner wrote without more does not constitute retaliatory discrimination or age discrimination. Whether the situation between Petitioner and TCC had to do with TCC's failure to recruit Petitioner or with Petitioner's complaint about the cost of Respondent's contract with TCC to do its recruiting is unclear in this record. (P-12) (See Finding of Fact 55 above). If anything, the latter is more likely since in his Charge of Discrimination (P-2), even Petitioner described the Radigan memorandum as addressing "a matter only tangentially related to my employment possibilities." Therefore, no retaliation discrimination for raising the issue of age discrimination has been clearly proven.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice (Petition for Relief) filed against Respondent should be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated Marriott Forum at Deercreek (hereinafter referred to as the "Facility"), a "senior living community, nursing home." Petitioner was employed as a Certified Nursing Assistant (hereinafter referred to as "CNA") at the Facility from 1992 or 1993, until July of 1998, when she was terminated. Petitioner is black. At the time of Petitioner's termination, all of the CNAs, and all but one of the nurses, at the Facility were black. At the time of Petitioner's termination, the chain of command leading down to Petitioner was as follows: the General Manager, Joanna Littlefield; the Health Care Administrator, Sheila Wiggins, and the Interim Director of Nursing, Michelle Borland. The Director of Human Resources was Meg McKaon. Ms. Littlefield had the ultimate authority to terminate employees working at the Facility. Ms. Wiggins, Ms. Borland, and Ms. McKaon had the authority to make termination recommendations to Ms. Littlefield, but not to take such action themselves. In July of 1998, F. S., an elderly woman in, or approaching, her 90's, was a resident at the Facility. On or about July 9, 1998, Petitioner was involved in a scuffle with F. S. while giving F. S. a shower. Joyce Montero, a social worker at the Facility, was nearby in the hallway and heard the "commotion." When F. S. came out of the shower, Ms. Montero spoke to her. F. S. appeared to be "very upset." She was screaming to Ms. Montero, "Get her away from me; she hit me," referring to Petitioner. Ms. Montero noticed that F. S. "had blood [streaming] from her nostril to at least the top of her lip." The nursing staff then "took over" and "cleaned up [F. S.'s] blood" with a towel. Ms. McKaon was contacted and informed that there was a CNA who had "had an altercation with a resident." Ms. McKaon went to the scene "right away" to investigate. When Ms. McKaon arrived, F. S. was still "visibly shaken and upset." Ms. McKaon saw the "bloody towel" that had been used to clean F. S.'s face "there next to [F. S.]." F. S. told Ms. McKaon that she was "afraid [of Petitioner] and that she [had been] punched in the nose" by Petitioner. In accordance with Facility policy, Petitioner was suspended for three days pending the completion of an investigation of F. S.'s allegation that Petitioner had "punched" her. Ms. Wiggins and Ms. McKaon presented Petitioner with a written notice of her suspension, which read as follows: Description of employee's behavior . . . . On July 9, 1998, one of our residents [F. S.] was being given a shower by [Petitioner]. [F. S.] stated that [Petitioner] punched her in the nose. (She was crying and bleeding: witnessed by Joyce Montero). Suspension For Investigation To provide time for a thorough investigation of all the facts before a final determination is made, you are being suspended for a period of 3 days. Guarantee Of Fair Treatment Acknowledgement I understand that my manager has recommended the termination of my employment for the reasons described above and that I have been suspended for 3 days while a decision regarding my employment status is made. I understand that the final decision regarding my employment status will be made by the General Manager. The suspension period will provide time for an investigation of all facts that led to this recommendation. I understand that the General Manager will be conducting this investigation. I further understand that if I feel I have information which will influence the decision, I have a right to and should discuss it with the General Manager. I am to report to my manager on July 13, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. Petitioner was asked to sign the foregoing notice, but refused to do so. Ms. McKaon conducted a thorough investigation into the incident. Following her investigation, she came to the conclusion that there was "enough evidence to terminate" Petitioner. As a result, she recommended that Ms. Littlefield take such action, the same recommendation made by Ms. Wiggins. After receiving Ms. McKaon's and Ms. Wiggins' recommendations, Ms. Littlefield decided to terminate Petitioner's employment. The termination action was taken on or about July 23, 1998. At this time, the Facility was on "moratorium" status (that is, "not allowed to accept any more patients") as a result of action taken against it by the Agency for Health Care Administration because of the "many" complaints of mistreatment that had been made by residents of the Facility. Ms. Wiggins was given the responsibility of personally informing Petitioner of Ms. Littlefield's decision. After telling Petitioner that her employment at the Facility had been terminated, Ms. Wiggins escorted Petitioner out of the building and to the parking lot. In the parking lot, Ms. Wiggins said to Petitioner something to the effect that, she, Ms. Wiggins, was "going to take all of the black nurses in the Facility." (What Ms. Wiggins meant is not at all clear from the evidentiary record.) Following Petitioner's termination, the racial composition of the CNA staff at the Facility remained the same: all-black, as a black CNA filled Petitioner's position. There has been no persuasive showing made that Petitioner's race played any role in Ms. Littlefield's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief based on such finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 20th day of June, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on February 23, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Respondent processes the release of all medical records for Osceola Regional Medical Center (Medical Center) in Kissimmee, Florida. Petitioner works for Respondent as a site coordinator at the Medical Center, and, in this capacity, supervises certain personnel responsible for processing requests for medical records. Rosana Perez Gomez (Rosana) and Keblena Johnson (Keblena) are two of the employees supervised by Petitioner. Rosana is of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino ancestry (Hispanic). Petitioner and Keblena are of African ancestry (Black). Petitioner's immediate supervisor is Dana Telese. No evidence was offered regarding Ms. Telese's race or ethnicity. While at work on November 9, 2010, Petitioner was in a verbal altercation with Rosana. Petitioner was yelling at and belittling Rosana, and witnesses to Petitioner's conduct reported the same to Ms. Telese. At no time during the altercation did Rosana yell at or otherwise act inappropriately towards Petitioner. After the incident was reported, Ms. Telese contacted Petitioner to discuss the circumstances surrounding the event. During the discussion with Ms. Telese, Petitioner denied any wrongdoing and indicated that it was Rosana who had behaved inappropriately. Out of a sense of frustration, Petitioner, during her initial discussion with Ms. Telese, offered to tender her resignation. Later that same day, Petitioner informed Ms. Telese that she had changed her mind about resigning because she had "moved past this incident." After consulting with Petitioner and speaking with witnesses to the incident, Ms. Telese concluded that Petitioner, and not Rosana, was the one that had behaved inappropriately. Consequently, Ms. Telese, on November 18, 2010, verbally counseled Petitioner about her behavior. The verbal counseling was memorialized in a memorandum. Ms. Telese took no action against Rosana as it was determined that Rosana did nothing wrong during the incident on November 9, 2010. On December 30, 2010, Ms. Telese requested of Rosana that certain work-related documents be scanned into the computer. In order to complete the task, Rosana asked co-workers Keblena and Diana David for assistance with scanning the documents. Keblena, in response to Rosana's plea for assistance, started chiding Rosana about the request. Keblena then inexplicably, after announcing that she was on the first day of her menses, grabbed the documents that needed scanning and flung them to the floor. The entire exchange between Keblena and Rosana was witnessed by Petitioner. Despite having the opportunity to do so, Petitioner did not intervene in the situation between Keblena and Rosana until after the documents had been thrown to the floor by Keblena. On January 2, 2011, Rosana emailed Ms. Telese and reported the incident. Petitioner did not initially report the incident to Ms. Telese, but did offer an account of the confrontation only after she was requested to do so by Ms. Telese. On January 6, 2011, Ms. Telese contacted Petitioner and requested that she provide a written statement regarding the document-throwing encounter between Keblena and Rosana. Petitioner complied with the request on the same day. In her written narrative, Petitioner described the exchange between the two women, but omitted any reference to Keblena having flung documents to the floor. The omission was intentional. Petitioner and Keblena are personal friends and often socialize during and after work hours. The two also attend the same church. Additionally, Petitioner, at the time of the incident on December 30, 2010, knew that Keblena had been previously disciplined by Respondent and, further, that Keblena was in the throes of having her employment with Respondent terminated. Because of her relationship with Keblena, Petitioner was less than forthcoming when describing Keblena's role in the document-throwing incident of December 30, 2010. After learning of the December 30, 2010, incident, Ms. Telese contacted Respondent's human resources department and consulted with Sharon Spivey who works for Respondent as a human resources generalist. Ms. Spivey, like Petitioner, is also Black. On January 7, 2011, Ms. Spivey investigated the document- throwing incident by speaking to all witnesses, including Petitioner and Rosana. Upon completing her investigation, Ms. Spivey recommended to Ms. Telese that Petitioner should be issued a "written warning" for her failure to timely intervene and, otherwise, diffuse the situation between Rosana and Keblena. It was not recommended that disciplinary action be taken against Rosana. Ms. Telese accepted Ms. Spivey's recommendation, and on January 14, 2011, issued Petitioner a written warning. Petitioner's written warning provides, in part, as follows: Emerald is expected to adhere to HealthPort/site policies and procedures in respect to employee's conduct and professional behavior. Emerald is expected to maintain a high level of professionalism and display high customer service skills when dealing with customers and co-workers. As the Site Coordinator, Emerald is not allowed to form cliques with any of the employees that indirectly report to her. Written Warning – Failure to adhere to the required standards and action plan items listed in this document or any further violation of company/site policies and/or procedures, essential job functions, or customer/regulatory requirements will result in further disciplinary action upto [sic] and including termination of employment. The "verbal counseling" and "written warning" that Petitioner received were the only actions taken by Respondent against Petitioner as a result of the November 9, 2010, and December 30, 2010, events. Neither the "verbal counseling" nor the "written warning" caused Petitioner to sustain a reduction in pay, a demotion, a loss of promotion opportunity, or other privilege of employment. As a result of Keblena's role in the document-throwing incident, Respondent severed its employment relationship with her. As for Rosana, Petitioner offered no credible evidence that demonstrates the existence of a factual basis upon which Respondent should have taken disciplinary action against her. Respondent provides to employees like Petitioner a document that Respondent calls an Associate Handbook. The Associate Handbook provides general information about Respondent's policies and procedures and directs that "associates are responsible for reading and understanding the Associate Handbook, as well as adhering to all Company policies and procedures." The Associate Handbook has a section covering associate discipline. This section provides as follows: HealthPort strives to prevent the need for associate discipline by clearly communicating expectations and policies and adhering to its Open Door Policy so associates can express concerns or seek clarification constructively. When necessary, HealthPort administers discipline for unsatisfactory workplace or work-related conduct equitably and consistently. The major purpose of any disciplinary action is to correct the problem, to prevent recurrence, and to prepare the associate for satisfactory service in the future. HealthPort does not have a progressive disciplinary policy. Appropriate disciplinary action will be administered by the Company in its sole discretion on a case- by-case basis taking into consideration the nature of the infraction, the extent to which an associate has engaged in other infractions, and other circumstances relevant to any given situation. HealthPort may utilize some or all of the following types of associate discipline: verbal warnings, written warnings, final written warnings, termination of employment. Employment with HealthPort is at will, based on mutual consent, and both the associate and HealthPort have the right to terminate employment at any time, with or without cause or advance notice, for any reason not prohibited by law.
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 finding that Respondent, HealthPort Technologies, LLC, did not commit an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, Emerald McNeil, and denying Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, LP Ormond Beach, LLC d/b/a Signature Healthcare ("Signature") committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race by subjecting her to disciplinary procedures that were not applied to non-minority employees.
Findings Of Fact Signature is an employer as that term is defined in subsection 760.02(7). Signature is a provider of long-term nursing care in many markets in the United States. Signature operates the skilled-nursing facility in Ormond Beach that is the locus of this proceeding. Petitioner is a black female. On February 29, 2012, Petitioner was hired by Signature as a Certified Nursing Assistant (“CNA”). Petitioner’s job consisted of providing personal care to the residents of Signature’s Ormond Beach facility, including assisting the residents with their activities of daily living (“ADLs”). Signature terminated Petitioner’s employment in August 2013, when she failed to show up for work or call to notify her superiors that she would not be there. Petitioner did not contest the grounds of her dismissal in this proceeding. Petitioner’s complaint is limited to her allegations of disparate treatment on the job at Signature. At the time of her hiring, Petitioner was provided a copy of Signature’s “Stakeholder Handbook,” a document setting forth the company’s employment policies, including its anti- discrimination and anti-retaliation policies. The handbook sets forth Signature’s policies and procedures that prohibit, among other things, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, national origin, or any other categories of persons protected by state or federal anti-discrimination laws. Prior to filing her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR, Petitioner never made a complaint of employment discrimination while working at Signature. Signature also has a written “Abuse, Neglect and Misappropriation Policy” (abbreviated herein as the “Abuse and Neglect Policy”). Petitioner received a copy of this policy during her orientation and raised no objection to any of its contents. The policy states that the facility will “immediately report and thoroughly investigate allegations of mistreatment, neglect, abuse, misappropriation of resident’s property or any injury of unknown origin.” The policy further states, “Employees accused of participating in alleged abuse will be immediately suspended until the findings of the investigation have been reviewed by the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, and Human Resources Director.” Signature’s uniform practice is to suspend the accused employee without pay during the investigation. If the investigation discloses that the employee did not commit the alleged abuse, then the employee receives back pay for the period of the suspension. On September 27, 2012, Petitioner’s supervisor, Director of Nursing Judy Wade, issued a “Stakeholder Performance Improvement Plan” to Petitioner because of resident complaints. Ms. Wade wrote: You’ve had three residents complain of your care in the past five months. Complaints summarized as “less than gentle” care, that you told resident you couldn’t provide care because we didn’t have enough staff, sitting in resident room without resident’s permission, rudeness, and lack of assistance to residents in need.[2/] These complaints resulted in you being removed from providing care for these residents. Staff complaints summarized as: Not open to direction, makes excuses, confrontational, not a team player, and off the floor without informing nurse. Ms. Wade went on to outline Petitioner’s future expectations, which included providing care “in a timely, gentle and caring manner,” assisting co-workers and taking direction from superiors “in a positive, friendly manner,” and not leaving the floor without permission of the supervising nurse. The Performance Improvement Plan concluded with the statement, “If any expectation is not fully met your employment will be terminated.” Petitioner was not suspended pursuant to the Performance Improvement Plan because it addressed work performance issues, not “abuse” or “neglect” as defined by the Abuse and Neglect Policy. In late October 2012, Signature suspended Petitioner without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an incident in which a resident whom Petitioner had placed upright in a wheelchair, fell out of the wheelchair and was injured. At the hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she placed the resident in the wheelchair and saw the resident fall. Petitioner’s only contention is that a white co-worker, Claudia Dominique, was also present and witnessed the fall but was not suspended. Luz Petrone, then the human relations director for Signature’s Ormond Beach facility, and Tiffani Petersen, the facility’s abuse prevention coordinator, testified that at the time of the incident they were not aware of any involvement by or allegation of abuse and neglect against Ms. Dominique. Therefore, they were in no position to suspend Ms. Dominique for the resident’s fall. Both women testified that Ms. Dominique would have been suspended if there had been an allegation of her involvement in the incident. The investigation concluded that Petitioner needed additional training on wheelchair usage but that she had not engaged in any abuse or neglect. Signature reinstated Petitioner to her position and paid her for the time she had missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On November 19, 2012, Petitioner was suspended without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an allegation of abuse and neglect. Petitioner did not allege that any white employees were involved in this incident. The record does not disclose the specifics of this incident, but does indicate that the investigation concluded with a finding that Petitioner had not engaged in any abuse or neglect. Petitioner was reinstated to her position on November 26, 2012, and reimbursed for the work she missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On January 15, 2013, Petitioner was suspended without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation into an allegation that she was being “rough” with a resident while providing care. One of Petitioner’s co- workers, Tina Williams, was involved in the incident and was also suspended pending the investigation. The investigation concluded that Petitioner needed additional training but had not engaged in any abuse or neglect.3/ Petitioner was reinstated to her position and paid for the time she missed while on suspension, as was Ms. Williams. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. On March 5, 2013, Signature suspended Petitioner without pay pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Policy pending an investigation regarding rough handling of a resident and failure to toilet a resident when the resident asked to use the bathroom on March 2. A white co-worker, Patricia Capoferri, was also involved in the incident and was also suspended without pay pending investigation. Ms. Capoferri asserted that the resident in question was assigned to Petitioner but that Ms. Capoferri had to answer the resident’s call light because Petitioner would not do so.4/ Ms. Capoferri claimed that she had to answer Petitioner’s “lights all the time, because she don’t answer them.” Upon completion of the investigation, Signature determined that the allegations of abuse or neglect against Petitioner were not substantiated. Petitioner was reinstated to her position and paid for the time she had missed while on suspension. Petitioner was not otherwise disciplined for this incident. Petitioner credibly testified as to the hardship caused by the suspensions imposed on her during the investigations. It is reasonable to assume that a person attempting to survive on a CNA’s wages can scarcely afford to go a week without being paid, even when she ultimately receives full compensation for the suspension. Petitioner suffers from high blood pressure, and the tension generated by the frequent suspensions required several visits to her physician. On March 11, 2013, Signature terminated Ms. Capoferri’s employment as a result of the investigation. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Capoferri never went into the resident’s room on March 2, and that Signature suspended and fired Ms. Capoferri in order to cover its tracks regarding its pattern of discriminatory actions against Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that Signature acted against Ms. Capoferri only after Petitioner filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR. However, Ms. Capoferri was suspended on March 5, three days before Petitioner filed her complaint. Ms. Capoferri was fired on March 11, three days after Petitioner filed her complaint, but Ms. Petrone and Ms. Petersen credibly testified that they were unaware of the complaint at the time Ms. Capoferri’s employment was terminated. Petitioner offered no credible evidence to support her somewhat fanciful claim that Signature would fire a white employee solely to shield itself from a charge of discrimination by a black employee. Signature offered persuasive evidence that it applies its Abuse and Neglect Policy consistently and without regard to race or any other protected category. In April 2013, an allegation of abuse and neglect was made against Nancy Harnonge, a white CNA working at the Ormond Beach facility. Consistent with its policy, Signature suspended Ms. Harnonge without pay pending investigation and then reinstated her to her position with back pay after the investigation concluded that the allegations could not be substantiated. In May 2010, an allegation of abuse and neglect was made against Ms. Capoferri, who was suspended without pay pending investigation and then reinstated with back pay after the investigation did not substantiate the allegations. Petitioner never complained of discriminatory treatment or harassment to any supervisor at Signature prior to filing her Employment Complaint of Discrimination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Signature for her several suspensions pending investigation of abuse and neglect allegations. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Signature's stated reasons for her suspensions were a pretext for race discrimination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Signature discriminated against her because of her race in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner made no claim that her dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that she made while an employee of Signature.
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 LP Ormond Beach, LLC d/b/a Signature Healthcare did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2014, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Arthrex is a company that designs and manufactures orthopedic surgical tools, implants and devices for surgeons, medical facilities, and hospitals. Arthrex is regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and maintains certification through the International Organization for Standardization ("ISO"). Arthrex is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a Hispanic female, whose primary language is Spanish. Beginning in June 2001, Petitioner worked in the cleaning and packaging area of Arthrex's production facility. "Cleaning" in this context should not be confused with janitorial services. Petitioner's job was more technical and exacting and involved the maintenance of a sterile, disinfected work area and equipment in the manufacture of items that, in some cases, are surgically implanted in the human body. She worked in the company of 10 to 12 co-workers within a relatively confined space. Arthrex obtains staffing for its cleaning and packaging area through an independent contractor, Randstad, a large employment services company. On June 13, 2003, Petitioner accompanied a friend to the local Randstad office to assist the friend in applying for a job with Arthrex in the cleaning and packaging area. Petitioner became angry with the Randstad representative who performed the screening and testing of Petitioner's friend. Petitioner believed that the Randstad employee decided at the outset not to hire her friend, and so tested the friend on difficult subjects having nothing to do with the Arthrex cleaning and packaging job, such as her ability to use a computer and her ability to "write, read and talk perfect English." Petitioner stated that other applicants were not subjected to the same scrutiny as was her friend and that both she and her friend felt humiliated by the "rude" Randstad employee. Immediately after the job interview, the Randstad representative phoned Margarita Alvarez, the human relations manager for Arthrex, and told Ms. Alvarez that Petitioner had "made a scene" at the Randstad office. Ms. Alvarez asked the Randstad representative to put her complaint in writing, and she would then address the matter with Petitioner. Shortly after the phone call, Ms. Alvarez was conducting an employee relations meeting in her office when Petitioner walked into her office. Petitioner began complaining loudly about the "ridiculous" hiring process employed by Arthrex, waving her hands and stamping her foot in anger. Ms. Alvarez told Petitioner that she would discuss the matter after her meeting was over. Petitioner walked out of Ms. Alvarez's office saying, "Thank you for nothing." Petitioner then proceeded to stamp her way down to her workplace, continuing to display her anger and disrupt the work of the other employees in her area by complaining loudly about Arthrex's hiring practices. Ms. Alvarez testified that Petitioner's behavior violated Arthrex's written policies regarding hostile, disruptive behavior in the workplace. Ms. Alvarez prepared a written warning called "performance correction notice" dated June 17, 2003. The notice described the disruptive behavior Petitioner engaged in on June 13, 2003, and stated that Petitioner was expected to maintain a "friendly work environment" and to express her disagreements with company policy "respectfully[,] . . . in private with [her] immediate supervisor or with Human Resources." The notice further warned Petitioner that any further "unprofessional conduct" (antagonism, disruptive behavior or hostility) could subject Petitioner to a "final warning." On the afternoon of June 18, 2003, Petitioner met with Ms. Alvarez and Lea Custodio, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, who had taken the day off on June 13, 2003. Ms. Alvarez presented Petitioner with the performance correction notice. She explained that while she understood Petitioner's frustration, she could not allow such displays of temper in the workplace. Ms. Alvarez testified that she believed Petitioner understood the situation, and she encouraged Petitioner to write down her thoughts, comments, or corrections before signing the notice. Ms. Alvarez told Petitioner that she could write her response in Spanish, if that would allow her better to express herself. Ms. Alvarez is fluent in Spanish. On June 19, 2003, Petitioner submitted a handwritten note to Ms. Alvarez. Written in Spanish, the note expressed Petitioner's belief that the Randstad representative discriminated against her friend by imposing unreasonable requirements for the cleaning position in question. Petitioner was not disciplined in any way for either the form or content of this note, which was incorporated with the performance correction notice as part of Petitioner's employment file. Petitioner testified that she could not recall having been disciplined for the June 13, 2003, incident. She denied causing a disturbance at the Randstad facility or at her own workplace. She admitted writing the note and submitting it on June 19, 2003, but testified that Ms. Alvarez asked her to document the incident because of other complaints she had received about the Randstad representative. Petitioner's testimony is inconsistent with the documentary evidence, including the self-justifying language of her own handwritten note. Ms. Custodio's testimony corroborated that of Ms. Alvarez's concerning the disciplinary meeting held on June 18, 2003, at which Petitioner was given the performance correction notice and counseled by Ms. Alvarez as to the company's expectations regarding her behavior. Petitioner's testimony as to the June 13, 2003, incident and its aftermath is not credible. On or about August 10, 2003, a personal conflict arose between Petitioner and a co-worker, Pierre Escanio. Petitioner loudly questioned the quality of Mr. Escanio's work. In the cleaning and packaging area, the workers' products were commingled into single lots and sent to Arthrex's quality control division for review. Petitioner claimed to be concerned that Mr. Escanio's poor work would cause quality control to return the entire lot, meaning that everyone would have to redo their work. Ms. Custodio, the supervisor, attempted to calm the situation by telling Petitioner that she would talk to Mr. Escanio about his work. Ms. Custodio did so despite the fact that she had trained Mr. Escanio and knew him to be a competent employee. Ms. Custodio next told Petitioner that she would separate Petitioner's work from that of Mr. Escanio, marking the items so they would know whose work had been rejected by quality control. Despite Ms. Custodio's effort, Petitioner continued to complain. Ms. Custodio finally told Petitioner to stop making these complaints in front of the other dozen or so people in the work area. Ms. Custodio believed that Petitioner was questioning her authority in front of the other employees. She went to Ms. Alvarez to discuss the situation and obtain the assistance of the Human Resources Department in addressing the problem of Petitioner's insubordination. Ms. Custodio told Ms. Alvarez that she could no longer handle the situation with Petitioner. In keeping with the policies of Arthrex's Human Resources Department, Ms. Alvarez investigated the matter, conducting interviews with employees who witnessed Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Alvarez testified that her investigation led her to conclude that "there was a serious problem in the department." After a final consultation with Arthrex's general counsel, Ms. Alvarez recommended that Petitioner's employment be terminated for insubordination. Ms. Custodio agreed with the recommendation. By letter dated August 12, 2003, and signed by Ms. Alvarez, Arthrex terminated Petitioner's employment. The letter stated the following express reasons for Petitioner's termination: Previous written warning referring to disruptive behavior of 6/17/2003. Numerous reports of negative comments about the company and management in front of other employees. Antagonistic behavior with supervisor and coworkers. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that her language or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. Petitioner's chief claim is that she was terminated for refusing to obey instructions from her supervisors, including Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez, to cease speaking Spanish in the workplace. Both Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez credibly denied giving any such instructions to any Arthrex employee. Arthrex does have a "Language Policy" that requires employees to be proficient in English to ensure that FDA regulations and ISO certification standards are met, because the company "has determined that the English language is the most common and effective means of communications" in the United States. The policy requires employees to communicate business-related information in English, but states that it "is not intended to prevent or discourage any employee from speaking their native language at Arthrex for certain business related matters, on their own time or with regard to non-business matters." The evidence established that all but one or two people in Petitioner's work area were native Spanish speakers and that they were allowed freely to communicate in Spanish in their day-to-day work activities. Employees were encouraged to communicate with their supervisors in their native language, if doing so improved the quality of the information conveyed. Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez each testified that they knew of no Arthrex employee who had ever been disciplined for speaking a language other than English in the workplace. At the hearing, Petitioner repeatedly made reference to the efforts of one lower-level supervisor, Renee Vanderberg, to force the employees in Petitioner's section to refrain from speaking Spanish and confine their work conversations to English. However, the evidence established that once the Human Resources Department learned of Ms. Vanderberg's actions, she was admonished to cease directing the employees to speak English. When Ms. Vanderberg continued to press the issue, Arthrex terminated her employment. The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the reasons for Petitioner's termination were limited to those set forth in the termination letter of August 12, 2003.
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 Arthrex Manufacturing did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) Whether Petitioner filed her charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations within 365 days after the alleged discriminatory act; and (2) Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in connection with Petitioner’s employment by Respondent on the basis of her national origin, gender, or pregnancy.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Olivera is a Cuban-American female. The City hired her, effective March 8, 1993, to work as a secretary in the City Manager’s office. After one week, Olivera was promoted to the position of Office Manager, a more demanding job that entailed much greater responsibilities. The evidence regarding Olivera’s performance as Office Manager is in conflict. Her supervisors believed that Olivera was a marginal employee who failed to discharge her duties satisfactorily. The City has placed in evidence a number of contemporaneous memorandums and other documents that memorialize one or another of Olivera’s perceived performance deficiencies. In contrast, Olivera believed she was performing well, and that her supervisors’ complaints about her were, for the most part, false, exaggerated, or unfair — and worse, a pretext for unlawful discrimination. (Olivera admitted that she had had problems with tardiness during her first year of employment, but all agreed that Olivera had corrected this particular deficiency.) In short, Olivera perceived that she had been singled out for disproportionately harsh treatment and had been made the scapegoat when others failed to do their jobs. More ominously, Olivera accused the City Manager, R.J. Intindola, of constantly having made racist comments about Blacks and Cubans. She claimed that Mr. Intindola uttered racial slurs with such frequency that the workplace became hostile. Further, Olivera asserted that her complaints about Mr. Intindola’s behavior fell on deaf ears. As with the issues pertaining to Olivera’s job performance, the evidence regarding Mr. Intindola’s conduct is in conflict. Mr. Intindola himself denied having uttered the slurs that Olivera put on his lips, yet he admitted that “one time,” in Olivera’s presence, he had referred to another employee, Christy Dominguez, as a “crazy Cuban.” Mr. Intindola claimed that everyone present knew that he was kidding and laughed at the repartee between him and Ms. Dominguez. No one who testified at hearing corroborated Olivera’s account of Mr. Intindola’s conduct. Indeed, Ms. Dominguez, who has been employed with the City since May 1974, disclaimed having witnessed any discriminatory behavior in the workplace there, despite having been the subject of the one possibly derogatory comment that Mr. Intindola indisputably made. On or around April 24, 1995, Olivera was asked to resign her employment with the City to avoid being fired, which would be the consequence of her refusal. Faced with this choice, Olivera submitted a letter of resignation dated April 24, 1995. Thereafter, she received severance pay equal to two-months’ salary. Some time later, most likely during the first few weeks of March 1996, Olivera filed both a Charge Questionnaire and an Affidavit (collectively, the "Federal Forms") with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). In the Federal Forms, Olivera alleged that the City had discriminated against her, primarily on the basis of her national origin. The EEOC notified Olivera by letter dated March 22, 1996, that, because her charge had not been timely filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the commission had forwarded the Federal Forms to the FCHR. On May 6, 1996, according to a date stamp on the face of the document, the FCHR received a Charge of Discrimination that appears to have been signed by Olivera on April 14, 1996. In this Charge of Discrimination, Olivera again alleged that the City had discriminated against her on the basis of national origin, in violation of her rights under the Florida Human Rights Act. Ultimate Factual Determinations The evidence in this record is not sufficient for the trier to ascertain whether, as a matter of objective historical fact, Olivera adequately performed on the job or not. Suffice it say that a preponderance of evidence fails to establish anything except that Olivera, on the one hand, and her supervisors, on the other, sincerely believed the opinions they expressed on this subject. In other words, Olivera honestly believes that she performed competently and was discriminated against. Her supervisors at the City, in turn, honestly believe that Olivera did not measure up to the Office Manager’s position and needed to be let go for that legitimate reason and no others. The upshot of this inconclusiveness is that Olivera has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of evidence, that the City violated her civil rights. Olivera’s conviction that she was the victim of unlawful discrimination, no matter how sincerely and firmly held, is not proof of the fact, at least not without more than the evidence in this record establishes. By the same token, the evidence does not exactly exonerate the City, in the sense of proving that its hands were completely clean or that it acted honorably in respect of Olivera. Rather, more likely than not, Mr. Intindola did on occasion make offhand comments about Cubans at which some persons could take offense. A preponderance of evidence fails to show, however, that he uttered these remarks with a discriminatory intent; that Olivera (or anyone else) suffered any material harm or humiliation as a result of hearing them; or that he did so with such frequency or in such fashion that his conduct could be called extreme. In sum, while it is fair to infer, and the trier so finds, that Mr. Intindola was not always as sensitive to the feelings of others as, in hindsight, he probably should have been, there is nevertheless insufficient evidence to support a finding that he acted willfully or that Mr. Intindola’s occasionally insensitive behavior was so consistently and frequently repeated as to become a condition of Olivera’s employment with the City. Likewise, the greater weight of evidence fails to establish that the environment in which Olivera worked was a hostile or abusive one. On this record the trier cannot say that, more likely than not, the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, insult, and ridicule. Further, the evidence does not establish that Olivera was treated differently than similarly situated employees who were neither Cuban- American, female, nor pregnant. In the final analysis, then, considering the totality of the circumstances, the evidence presented at hearing demonstrates no more than that the City terminated the employment of an at-will employee for performance-related reasons unrelated to her national origin, gender, or medical condition (pregnancy).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Olivera's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent is liable to Petitioner for employment discrimination in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 63-year-old female, who was employed by Respondent in its Child Support Program in the Tallahassee Service Center from June 9, 1997, to April 5, 2010. In 1997, Petitioner became employed as a Revenue Specialist II (“RS II”) in the Payment Processing and Funds Distribution (“PPFD”) section, where she performed financial reviews and audits of client financial accounts. On January 28, 2005, Petitioner was promoted to RS III in that section, where Petitioner continued to perform financial reviews and audits, and assumed supervisory duties, including interviewing candidates and training new employees. In that position, Petitioner was considered a PPFD team expert. At her request to “learn something new,” Petitioner was transferred to the Administrative Support section in April 2009. She was assigned half-time to the Administrative Paternity and Support (“APS”) team, and half-time to support the PPFD team. The split-time arrangement was terminated in July 2009, and Petitioner was assigned to APS full-time. On December 7, 2009, Petitioner received her first performance evaluation for her new position. The evaluation covered the time period from April 17, 2009, to January 29, 2010.2/ Petitioner’s supervisor, Katherine Osborne, rated Petitioner’s overall performance at 2.11. Petitioner was placed on a Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) concurrent with her December 7, 2009 performance evaluation. The CAP period ended on February 8, 2010. On February 16, 2010, Petitioner was notified, in writing, that the Department intended to demote her to the position of RS II because she did not successfully complete the expectations during the CAP period, or “failed the CAP.” Petitioner exercised her right to an informal hearing to oppose the intended demotion. On March 2, 2010, Petitioner was notified, in writing, that she was being demoted to the position of RS II because she failed the CAP. Petitioner resigned from her position with the Department, effective April 5, 2010. On September 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), challenging her demotion as illegal employment discrimination. On February 12, 2011, the EEOC issued its determination, stating that it was “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the [requisite] statutes.” Petitioner’s 2017 Applications On August 16, 2017, the Department advertised 20 openings for an RS III (position 4372) in customer service administration. Petitioner applied for the position, met the screening criteria, took and passed the skills verification test, and was interviewed for the position. Petitioner was interviewed by a selection committee composed of Tiffany Clarke, Janeen Evans, and Jonathan McCabe. Each of the three committee members rated Petitioner’s interview as “fair” on a scale which ranged from “poor,” “fair,” and “good,” to “excellent.” Petitioner was not considered for the position following her interview. While the Department made some offers to candidates, ultimately the Department did not hire any candidates for position 4372. On October 2, 2017, the Department advertised 30 openings for an RS III (position 6380) in customer service administration. The main difference between the screening criteria for positions 4372 and 6380 was in education and experience. Position 4372 required applicants to have child support experience, while position 6380 gave a preference to applicants with child support experience. The Department’s goal in revising the requirements was to increase the applicant pool in response to the advertisement for position 6380. Petitioner applied for position 6380, met the screening requirements, passed the skills verification test, and was interviewed for the position. Petitioner was interviewed by a selection committee composed of Tiffany Clarke, Lance Swedmark, and Taronza Robinson. All three committee members rated her interview as “good,” and recommended advancing Petitioner’s application for reference checks. Mr. Swedmark conducted reference checks on Petitioner’s application. During that process, he was informed of Petitioner’s prior CAP failure, demotion, and resignation. Based on that information, the selection committee determined Petitioner would not be considered for the position. Hires for Position 6380 The Department hired 30 applicants from the pool for position 6380. Of the 30 hires, 10 were over age 40. Specifically, their ages were 56, 50, 49, 49, 48, 46, 44, 43, 42, and 41. Petitioner was 61 years old when she applied for position 6380. None of the members of the selection committee were aware of Petitioner’s age when she applied, or was interviewed, for the position. The ages of the 30 new hires were compiled from human resources records specifically for the Department’s response to Petitioner’s March 2018 charge of discrimination. None of the members of the selection committee were aware of Petitioner’s 2010 EEOC complaint against the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Jacquelyn James, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2018-04904. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2019.
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, a Caucasian male, was born on March 23, 1949. At the time of the alleged unlawful employment practice at issue in this case, Petitioner was 52-53 years old. Petitioner was employed by Respondent since 1973. He was terminated effective August 15, 2001. Respondent, at all times material to this case, is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Respondent, at all relevant times, is in the business of providing telephone services to individuals and businesses in south Florida and elsewhere. At all relevant times, Petitioner was employed as a Service Technician. Service Technicians are responsible to install and repair telephone equipment in response to customer requests. At all relevant times, Respondent employs individuals as Service Technicians who are older than Petitioner. Many other individuals employed as Service Technicians are over the age of 40 at all times relevant to this case. Beginning in 1997, Respondent began to evaluate its Service Technicians according to a system called "Integrated Technicians Performance Plan [ITP].” The purpose of ITP was to improve customer service by evaluating Service Technicians and the individuals who manage them, on a regional basis, in accordance with standardized performance measures. Service Technicians whose ITP evaluations revealed deficiencies, including Petitioner, were provided assistance pursuant to individualized Technician Development Plans (TDP) and given a reasonable period of time to improve. From the time ITP was implemented in 1997, Petitioner was at all relevant times on a TDP because of deficiencies in his job performance. Petitioner's job performance was consistently deficient from 1997 throughout the remainder of his employment. From 1997 throughout the remainder of his employment Petitioner was provided assistance to help him improve his performance. Despite the assistance provided, Petitioner failed to improve his job performance to minimum levels required of all Service Technicians and required by his TDP. By August 2001, supervisors responsible for the training, evaluation and supervision of Service Technicians had determined that Petitioner did not maintain his job performance at the minimum levels required of Service Technicians and did not fulfill the requirements of his TDP. Accordingly, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner could have been terminated earlier than he was. In consideration of the fact that Petitioner had been a long-time employee of the company, he was given more time to improve his performance than company policy required. Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that age played any role in Petitioner's termination. Petitioner did not prove that after he was terminated, a younger worker replaced him. Similarly, Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that he is disabled within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act, or that any disability played any role in his termination. Petitioner alleged his disabilities as “war wounds, tinnitus and hearing loss.” Petitioner never informed Respondent that he suffered from any war wounds, tinnitus, hearing loss, or any other physical or mental impairment, disability, or handicap which might constitute a disability within the meaning of the Act. Furthermore, Petitioner never informed Respondent that the disabilities alleged would in any way prevent him from performing his job as a Service Technician, or from satisfying the TDP developed to assist in ameliorating his performance deficiencies. Petitioner never informed Respondent that the alleged disabilities substantially impacted any major life function, or affected Petitioner’s ability to perform the essential functions of his Service Technician job. Respondent was not, at relevant times, on notice that Petitioner might suffer from any war wounds, tinnitus, hearing loss, or any other physical or mental impairment, disability, or handicap which might constitute a disability within the meaning of the Act. Respondent never perceived Petitioner to be disabled at times relevant to this case. During his employment as a Service Technician, Petitioner did not indicate a need for or make any request to Respondent for accommodations for any physical condition. Finally, Petitioner alleged that his termination was in retaliation for complaints he had filed in another forum. This allegation was not proved; rather, the evidence established that Petitioner never opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under the Florida Civil Rights Act. In sum, the evidence established that Respondent discharged Petitioner solely on account of inadequate job performance as a Service Technician, and not on account of his age, disability, or in retaliation for complaints filed in another forum.
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 Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2005, 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 11th day of October, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Eden Cabaret (“Respondent” or “Eden Cabaret”), is liable to Petitioner, Terry Doss (“Petitioner”), for employment discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01 through 760.11, Florida Statutes (2019).1 1 Except as otherwise noted, all references to the Florida Statutes herein, are to the 2019 version, which was in effect when the actions complained of in Petitioner’s Complaint occurred.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male who currently resides at 12 Adkinson Drive in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner holds a certification in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) repair and maintenance. The evidence is unclear whether Petitioner is a licensed HVAC contractor. Respondent is an entertainment club in Pensacola, Florida, owned by Timothy McEvoy. The evidence is insufficient to establish how many employees are employed by Respondent. Mr. McEvoy came to know Petitioner through Mr. McEvoy’s girlfriend, Rachel Johnson, in June 2019. At that time, Petitioner had full-time employment, but needed rental housing and was available for extra part-time work. Mr. McEvoy owned a rental home at 7490 Rolling Hills Road in Pensacola and informed Petitioner that he could rent a room from him there for $150.00 per week. The rental home was partially occupied by Mr. McEvoy’s cousin, Kent Leyonmark, but another room was available in the home. Mr. McEvoy took Petitioner to the Rolling Hills property and showed him around. Mr. McEvoy introduced Petitioner to Mr. Leyonmark, suggesting that Petitioner may rent a room there. The rental arrangement at Rolling Hills did not work out, however, because, as Mr. McEvoy testified, Mr. Leyonmark is a racist and would not allow Petitioner to move into the house.2 Feeling obliged to Petitioner, Mr. McEvoy suggested Petitioner could rent a room at the five-bedroom home he and Ms. Johnson were then renting. Sometime in early June 2019, Petitioner moved into Mr. McEvoy’s rental home, occupying a bedroom with a private bath. No formal rental agreement, written or otherwise, was ever reached. Mr. McEvoy then hired Petitioner to do some HVAC work for him. Petitioner performed a number of jobs for Mr. McEvoy at Marcone Supply, a commercial business located in a building owned by Mr. McEvoy. Petitioner worked on the AC duct system, installed an air return, and completed an insulation job. Petitioner further found an airflow problem at the front of the store and repaired a restriction causing the problem at Marcone Supply. Over the next few weeks, Petitioner performed work for Mr. McEvoy at Eden Cabaret, as well as other rental properties owned by Mr. McEvoy, and at his beach house on Pensacola Beach. No formal employment agreement was reached between the two men. Typically, Petitioner sent a text to Mr. McEvoy informing him that Petitioner was finished with his regular job and asking if Mr. McEvoy needed him for any work. After Petitioner informed Mr. McEvoy that he had worked approximately 20 hours, Mr. McEvoy told Petitioner, “It would be best if you 2 Mr. McEvoy’s testimony is entirely hearsay, but is not being used to prove that Mr. Leyonmark is a racist, and no finding is made in that regard, but is limited to show that, for whatever reason, Petitioner did not take a room at the Rolling Hills property. keep a sheet with start and stop time and [a] brief description of what you worked on by day.” When Petitioner had worked 37 hours, he texted Mr. McEvoy, “Didn’t know when you was [sic] going to pay me the hrs. I work [sic].” He also stated, “I also old [sic] y’all some rent.” Later, Petitioner sent a text asking Mr. McEvoy, “Did u need money for rent[?]” The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. McEvoy responded to that text message. Mr. McEvoy never paid Petitioner for the hours he worked. Petitioner never paid Mr. McEvoy any rent. In addition to staying at Mr. McEvoy’s home rent-free, Petitioner had the use of a car owned by Mr. McEvoy. Petitioner used the car to get to and from work—both his first job and the second part-time work he did for Mr. McEvoy. Mr. McEvoy testified that he allowed Petitioner to use the car because the rental house was not near a public bus route. At Petitioner’s prior residence he took the bus to work. Petitioner purchased gas for Mr. McEvoy’s car. Petitioner also inquired about buying the car from Mr. McEvoy. But, Petitioner never paid anything to Mr. McEvoy for using the car. In early July, Mr. McEvoy informed Petitioner that the house they were all living in had been put on the market for sale by the owner. Mr. McEvoy and Ms. Johnson, who was pregnant at the time, planned to move before the baby was born. In July, Mr. McEvoy informed Petitioner, “[W]e have committed to be out of here by the end of this month so you should plan accordingly.” Petitioner lived with Mr. McEvoy and Ms. Johnson for four to six weeks. During that time period, Petitioner worked a total of 73.5 hours on repairs and maintenance at several properties owned by Mr. McEvoy, including Eden Cabaret. When Petitioner requested, via text message, to be paid for the hours worked, Mr. McEvoy asked Petitioner to call him to discuss the issue. Mr. McEvoy did not contest the number of hours Petitioner worked, but wanted to discuss “where we stand for the work you did vs. the housing and transportation we provided.” The two men never discussed the issue face-to-face, and never came to an agreement in a series of text messages either. When asked by the undersigned how Mr. McEvoy’s failure to pay him was related to his claim of discrimination, Petitioner explained that he was the only black man that worked for Mr. McEvoy and that Mr. McEvoy paid all his other employees. Petitioner did not introduce any evidence of particular individuals employed by Respondent, what type of work they performed, or their rate of pay. Mr. McEvoy claims Petitioner was never Respondent’s employee. Rather, Mr. McEvoy testified that he engaged Petitioner, as he does many workers, as an independent contractor to work on any number of properties he owns.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law herein, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Commission issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Terry Doss, failed to prove that Respondent, Eden Cabaret was his employer, and dismiss Petition for Relief No. 2021-26984. protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position held: (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) other similarly-situated employees, who are not members of the protected group, were treated more favorably than Petitioner. See McDonnell-Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Petitioner met the first two elements: he is a member of a protected class; and is qualified to work in maintenance of HVAC systems. However, Petitioner is unable to prove the third element, that he suffered an adverse employment action. The evidence was persuasive, and is accepted, that Petitioner was compensated for the work he performed in the form of lodging and transportation, and not monetarily. Assuming, arguendo, Petitioner was subjected to an adverse employment action, he failed to prove the fourth element, that similarly-situated employees, who are not members of the protected class, were treated more favorably. For purposes of proving disparate treatment, a comparator must be similar to Petitioner in “all material respects.” See Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia, 918 F.3d 1213, 1217 (11th Cir. 2019). Similarity among comparators is required for the comparisons to be meaningful. Petitioner testified generally that other white employees were paid by Mr. McEvoy for their work. However, he did not introduce any specific comparators who were similarly- situated. Petitioner did not introduce evidence of the treatment of any non-black workers who had the use of rooms at Mr. McEvoy’s rental home or use of Mr. McEvoy’s personal vehicle. Petitioner failed to prove discrimination in compensation based on his race. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Timothy McEvoy Eden Cabaret 4001 North Davis Highway Pensacola, Florida 32503 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Terry Lynn Doss 12 Adkinson Drive Pensacola, Florida 32506 Timothy McEvoy Post Office Box 32562 Gulf Breeze, Florida 32562
