The Issue Whether Respondent, AAR Airlift Group, Inc. (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Gabriel C. Gaudio (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male over 50 years of age. On or about May 9, 2009, a company located in North Carolina hired Petitioner to work as a Technical Publications Clerk. Petitioner was over 40 years of age at the time of his employment. Prior to March 2012, Petitioner relocated to Florida to continue employment with the company that then became known as AAR Airlift Group, Inc. Respondent does business in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, and has over 15 employees, one of whom was Petitioner. At all times material to this matter, Respondent employed Steve Lane (Lane) and Melvin Zahn (Zahn) as supervisors with the company. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent had policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and any other reason prohibited by law. Any employee who believed discrimination had occurred was directed to report to the local Human Resources Department or to the Corporate Vice President of Human Resources. Respondent’s employees are considered “at will.” Respondent reserves the right to involuntarily terminate any employee for any reason or for no reason unless to do so would violate law. Petitioner maintains he was terminated in retaliation for a complaint he submitted because of his age, or because of his disability. All of the actions complained of occurred between March 2012 and June 2012 (when Petitioner was terminated). It is undisputed that Petitioner’s age would establish he is a member of a protected class. It is undisputed that Petitioner was terminated after he submitted a complaint against his co-workers. Although Petitioner asserted he is disabled, Petitioner presented no evidence to establish the nature of his disability or that Respondent required him to perform tasks contrary to his physical or mental limitations. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to accommodate any claimed limitation Petitioner might have had. In April 2012, Respondent issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to Petitioner to outline areas of his job performance that needed improvement. It was anticipated that Petitioner would address the areas of concern and make improvement within 90 days. Upon receipt of the PIP Petitioner filed a claim of hostile work environment with the company’s human resources office. More specifically, Petitioner claimed two employees, Zahn , technical publications manager, and Rachel Grygier (Grygier), a technical publications librarian, had disparaged him regarding his age and disability. To address Petitioner’s complaint, Respondent initiated an internal investigation of the claim. As part of the investigation process, Respondent directed Petitioner not to disclose or discuss the accusations of his claim with anyone. Respondent sought to resolve the matter without having the allegations discussed among employees before individual statements could be taken. Contrary to the directive, Petitioner discussed his complaint against Zahn and Grygier with at least one other employee. That employee (Barnett) e-mailed support for Petitioner to JoAnne Paul (Paul), Respondent’s human resources compliance manager. When Paul confronted Petitioner as to whether he had discussed his complaint with Barnett, Petitioner falsely denied knowing Barnett. Paul took Petitioner’s failure to maintain confidentiality regarding his complaint to Lane, Respondent’s director of quality assurance and internal evaluations. Together, Paul and Lane decided to terminate Petitioner. The basis for the termination was two-fold: the failure to follow a directive not to discuss the complaint; and the lack of truthfulness when asked about knowing Barnett. Petitioner maintains that his termination was in retaliation for his complaint against Zahn and Grygier and that the company wanted him out. Petitioner presented no evidence that after his termination he was replaced with a younger employee. Even though Petitioner did not establish the nature of his disability, Petitioner presented no evidence that he was replaced by a non-disabled person or that his handicap caused Respondent to terminate him. Further, Petitioner did not establish that any area of concern noted in his PIP related to his disability. Neither Zahn or Grygier had anything to do with Petitioner’s termination. Finally, Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that filing a complaint against Zahn and Grygier was the genesis for his termination. Petitioner was a long-time employee with the company. He had started in North Carolina and moved to Melbourne with the company. Had Respondent wanted to terminate him for any reason it could have done so prior to the move or after the move. Petitioner’s claim that his complaint against Zahn and Grygier caused the termination is not supported by the weight of persuasive evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabriel Gaudio 259 Abernathy Circle, Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Chelsie J. Flynn, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP Suite 1300 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the claim of employment discrimination contained in the Petition for Relief must be dismissed due to Petitioner's execution of a release of all claims.
Findings Of Fact On June 29, 2012, Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated. On July 24, 2012, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging that he was subjected to discrimination. On August 18, 2012, Petitioner signed an agreement. Under the agreement, Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner $5,000.00, net several items, provided Petitioner did not exercise his right to revoke the agreement within the seven days following execution, as provided in the agreement. Petitioner did not revoke the agreement, and Respondent discharged all obligations under the agreement. In exchange, Petitioner agreed to release Respondent from all claims, damages, suits, complaints, damages, losses and expenses, of every nature, legal or equitable, whether known or unknown, which Olascoaga ever had, now has, or may claim to have, upon or by reason of the occurrence of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever . . . . This release specifically includes, but is not limited to, a release of any and all claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act . . . . There is no contention that Petitioner was not acting knowingly or voluntarily when he executed a release of claims.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Carlos Olascoaga's Petition for Relief from employment discrimination for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of April 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John W. Cohen, Jr., began employment with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Duval Detention Center, on June 26, 1976. His position was that of Detention Care Worker I. He continued in that position as a permanent employee until his final dismissal of July 25, 1989, which is the subject of this proceeding. In the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner has complained of instances of unfair treatment on numerous occasions with both informal complaints and grievances and formal complaints. The current case arises from the Petitioner's claim that his dismissal of July 25, 1989 was discrimination in the form of retaliation, that is, the employer's alleged retaliation as the result of the previously- raised complaints and grievances. The Petitioner maintains that he first became aware that his repeated use of grievance procedures involving his employer was noticed and resented by the circulation of a cartoon in his work place, which depicted his supervisor threatening to shoot the Petitioner with a large firearm in retaliation for using grievance procedures. The Petitioner and his supervisor were named in the cartoon. The Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 1985 as a result of this belief. The Petitioner again felt that he had suffered disparate treatment by his supervisor, Ms. Thelma Menendez, while he worked under her supervision for the Respondent agency. Ms. Menendez found the Petitioner to be a good employee and gave him favorable performance appraisals but stated that she had a problem with the Petitioner because of his tardiness and excessive absence. The Petitioner was ultimately terminated for tardiness and excessive absence and filed a retaliation and harassment complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to that action by the agency. It developed, apparently in the course of investigation and proceeding with regard to that complaint, that the agency's records revealed that other employees, similarly situated to the Petitioner, some of whom apparently worked on his shift, had exhibited tardiness to the same or to a greater degree than the Petitioner, and that some of them had suffered less severe discipline, as imposed by their supervisor, Ms. Menendez. The Respondent acknowledged this problem and took action by reprimanding Ms. Menendez for her failure to document and respond appropriately to abuses of leave procedures and excessive tardiness by all employees. Because the Petitioner was aware that other employees on his shift had been frequently tardy without experiencing disciplinary actions of the same severity, he filed the retaliation and harassment complaint mentioned above. This complaint ultimately culminated in a negotiated settlement agreement between the Union representatives and attorney, who represented the Petitioner, and the Respondent. This settlement reversed the termination and reduced it to an agreed-upon 30-day suspension. Apparently, the Petitioner initially refused to sign the settlement agreement because he felt that the 30-day suspension, itself, was also harassment. On two occasions, allegations of child abuse against the Petitioner were made, pursuant to Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, apparently in connection with the supervisory duties over children in custody at the Respondent's facility where the Petitioner was employed. It is standard practice with the Respondent that any employee who has such allegations made against him must be removed from supervisory duties over children whenever the allegations are pending and until they are resolved. During the investigatory and resolution process concerning such child abuse allegations, employees are customarily and routinely reassigned to another job with the agency, which does not involve direct supervision of clients or children. Such events frequently occur at the Juvenile Detention Center. On the two occasions involving the Petitioner, the Petitioner was reassigned to maintenance duties at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner consistently protested this reassignment to maintenance duties because other employees in similar situations had not been reassigned to maintenance duties but, rather, to other employment duties, not involving maintenance. Although he protested the reassignment for this reason, he performed in the maintenance or janitorial capacity for over 13 months. The Petitioner remained in the maintenance position, pursuant to his reassignment, because of the allegations pending against him until an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings was issued and, presumably, an agency Final Order, which removed the disqualification involving the child abuse allegations, effective July 22, 1987. Upon his second such reassignment to maintenance duties, on August 16, 1988, the Petitioner refused to climb up on the roof of the building to perform roof repair work when asked to do so by his supervisor. Instead, he filed a complaint with one of his supervisors, Sub-district Administrator Lucy Farley. In any event, because both allegations of child abuse were disproved, the Petitioner was reassigned to his normal duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The only reason for reassignment to the maintenance duties was because such removal from child supervision duties is mandatory under Department rules and policies. Although the Petitioner maintains that he was subjected to harassment of some sort because he was the only known employee who was given maintenance duties in the face of such allegations, it was established that he was reassigned to maintenance or janitorial duties because those were the only positions available in order for him to continue employment with the agency at the facility until the charges were resolved. His salary and benefits were not affected by this action. It was not demonstrated that he was singled out for reassignment to maintenance duties for any reasons of harassment, disparagement or disparate treatment of any kind. Likewise, it was not proven that the cartoon allegedly circulated in the Petitioner's work place was published by, authored by, or otherwise done at the instance of or within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, it cannot be probative of any intent or motive on the part of the employer to harass the Petitioner on the basis of previously- filed grievances or complaints against the employer or for any other reason. It cannot serve as evidence that the ultimate dismissal, which is the subject of this proceeding, constituted a retaliatory dismissal by the employer. On July 14, 1989, the Petitioner reported to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He was performing his regular duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The client population was high in the facility at that time, and employees were generally unable to take regularly-scheduled breaks from their duties. On that morning, the Petitioner worked without a break from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m. He then maintained that he felt ill and notified Mr. Arnett Morrell and Mr. Carlton Smith, his coworkers and/or supervisor, that he intended going to the staff lounge to eat. Prior to leaving his work area ("Module A"), the Petitioner advised Mr. Bernard Brock, who was the "Floor Coordinator" between "A" and "B" Modules, that he needed to go eat. He secured Mr. Brock's agreement to cover his module or duties while he took a break. The Petitioner then proceeded to "master control", the control center for the facility. At the master control station, Detention Care Worker Supervisor, Reginald Chambliss, asked the Petitioner why he had not followed proper procedures by calling the master control center before he left his module to come to master control or to leave his module for any reason. The Petitioner responded by explaining that he had secured coverage of his duties and his module from Mr. Brock and two other workers. He also stated to Mr. Chambliss that he had not had a break since 7:00 a.m. that morning and was feeling sick. After some discussion, the Petitioner advised Mr. Chambliss again that he was sick and needed to eat or that he would have to take leave time. Mr. Chambliss then gave the Petitioner his keys so that he could unlock his personal effects. The Petitioner then returned to his module to get his personal effects. The Petitioner later returned to master control to "clock out" because he had apparently decided to leave the work place. Mr. Chambliss approached the Petitioner in the vicinity of the time clock and informed him that he would not be able to authorize him taking leave time that day if the Petitioner left the building. The Petitioner moved toward the time clock in order to carry out his intention to "clock out" of the building while Mr. Chambliss was standing between him and the time clock. Mr. Chambliss repeated his instructions to the Petitioner that if he clocked out, he would not approve his taking leave. The Petitioner ordered Mr. Chambliss to get out of his way, which Mr. Chambliss did not do. Then the Petitioner apparently swore at Mr. Chambliss and said something to the effect of "I am tired of this shit" and then struck Mr. Chambliss one or more times, inflicting a cut in the vicinity of his eye. The Petitioner then apparently left the immediate vicinity of Mr. Chambliss at the master control station. Mr. Chambliss called Supervisor II, Andrea Cash, on the intercom and she came to the area of the master control station where the incident occurred. He informed Ms. Cash of the details of the incident. When Ms. Cash arrived, the altercation was over and the Petitioner appeared relatively calm, although Mr. Chambliss was still upset. Ms. Cash then contacted District Administrator, Lucy Farley, who contacted her immediate supervisor, in turn, by telephone. On instructions from her superiors, Ms. Cash ordered the Petitioner to leave the facility and not to come back. She notified all shifts verbally and by memorandum that if the Petitioner should return to the facility, the Sheriff's Office should be summoned. Mr. Chambliss was advised by superiors to press charges and did so. Ultimately, however, he and the Petitioner entered into an agreement to drop the charges; and the State's Attorney did not prosecute the assault charge. On July 27, 1989, the Petitioner was notified by Administrator, Lucy Farley, that his dismissal would be effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 1989. The Petitioner met with Ms. Farley in the company of an AFSME Union Representative on July 24, 1989 apparently to discuss some sort of resolution to the conflict; however, Ms. Farley terminated the Petitioner. The Department has a policy that any assault or striking of an employee or supervisor is adequate grounds for termination. Mr. Chambliss and other supervisory personnel consider an employee assault to be an unusual and severe incident. The Petitioner was terminated for assaulting another staff member and using abusive language toward that staff member. Because the Petitioner struck his supervisor three times, causing injury to him, in an unprovoked manner, it was determined by the employer to be reasonable grounds for termination. The Department's rules and policies allow for termination for such an offense, and whether or not mitigating circumstances are considered is discretionary with the employer. The Petitioner made no showing of any disparate treatment in this regard. He made no showing that other employees had assaulted a co-employee or supervisor and had not been terminated but, rather, had been subjected to either no discipline or some lesser degree of discipline. In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any other such assault incident had occurred. The Petitioner simply showed no instances where other employees similarly situated, involved in a similar incident had been subjected to less severe discipline. Consequently, the Petitioner made no showing of a prima facie case of disparate discriminatory treatment in connection with his termination.
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 arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of John W. Cohen, Jr. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-7300 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted, but not necessarily as probative of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-10. Accepted, but not as probative of material issues presented, standing alone. 11. Accepted, but not in itself probative of the material dispositive issues presented. 12-14. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 16-23. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-28. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as being immaterial. Accepted as to the first clause, but as to the second, rejected as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as irrelevant. It was not demonstrated that other employees for whom mitigating circumstances may have been considered were similarly situated to the Petitioner in the instant case situation. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 D. Ola David Qualified Representative 600 Victory Gardens Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott Leemis, Esq. HRS District 4 Legal Office P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief filed by Jonathan W. Harris in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact In February 2006, Respondent hired Petitioner, an African-American male, knowing that he had a criminal record. Respondent employed Petitioner as a porter. Respondent employed other African-American and Caucasian people as porters, housekeepers, and janitors. Initially, Respondent paid Petitioner $7.25 per hour. Respondent was impressed with Petitioner's enthusiasm and willingness to perform physically demanding work. Respondent gave Petitioner a reward for always being on time and not being absent. Respondent eventually raised Petitioner's salary to $10.00 per hour or $400 per week. Respondent gave Petitioner the promotion so that he and his wife could qualify for a mortgage. Respondent helped Petitioner pay off his wife's credit card debt for the same reason. After Petitioner and his family moved into their new home, Carol Collett, Respondent's Caucasian General Manager, helped Petitioner furnish the house. Ms. Collett also attended the christening of Petitioner's new baby. Ms. Collett tried to help Petitioner as much as she could because she believed that everyone deserves a second chance. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked the night shift when there was no supervisor on the premises. Petitioner's position required Ms. Collett's trust because his duties included taking care of the front desk. From approximately June 2007 through November 2007, Petitioner worked an average of 62 hours per week with no overtime compensation. There is no persuasive evidence that the other porters, Caucasian and/or African-American, were paid more than Petitioner or for overtime work. Petitioner never requested a raise, but he did request to work as a janitor. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that a janitor's position was available. More importantly, Petitioner lacked the skills to perform janitorial/maintenance work for Respondent. In time, Ms. Collett noticed a change in Petitioner's behavior. On one occasion, Petitioner's wife informed Ms. Collett that Petitioner had not come home with his pay check. On or about November 3, 2007, Ms. Collett confronted Petitioner about his declining job performance and his suspicious activities involving hotel guests. Petitioner denied that he was using or selling drugs or that he brought hookers to the job site. During the conversation, Petitioner began to cry, stating that he had let Ms. Collett down. Petitioner said that he "would rather to go back jail where life was easier and he would not have the pressure of daily life." Ms. Collett did not have a chance to terminate Petitioner because he left voluntarily. Petitioner came back to the hotel one time to pick up his last pay check. At that time, Ms. Collett confronted Petitioner about some money that was missing from the front office. The office had been locked the night before, but someone had entered it through the ceiling from the adjoining room. Petitioner could not find another job. He is now in prison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 27th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth W. Johnson, DC #646344 Gulf Correctional Institution 699 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 Jerome D. Mitchell, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 1326 South Ridgewood Avenue Suite 8 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a claim by petitioner, William C. Eagle (petitioner or Eagle), that in February 1994 he was denied employment as a delivery helper by respondent, S. R. Perrott, Inc., on account of a real or perceived handicap. According to the complaint, at the time the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, petitioner was suffering from a "soft tissue injury" from a "work related accident with his former employer." Because the evidence shows that in February 1994 petitioner did not enjoy in some measure the full and normal use of his physical facilities, he was a handicapped person, at least temporarily, within the meaning of the law. A preliminary investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Respondent is a beer distributor in Ormond Beach, Florida. Whether respondent employs "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" so as to be subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, is not of record. In February 1994, petitioner learned of an opening for a delivery helper at respondent's plant. The position required that the employee unload beer kegs weighing 167 pounds from a delivery truck onto a dolly and then push the dolly into the business establishment. At that point, the employee would have to bend over and lift the keg off of the dolly to a waist-high position and place it in the desired location. Empty kegs would then be loaded onto the dolly and taken back to the truck and loaded. Since a truck would typically make up to 30 to 40 stops per day, the helper was required to engage in repetitious bending, twisting and lifting of heavy objects. After filing an application with respondent, petitioner was interviewed by respondent's general manager, Gary Connors, on February 23, 1994. During the interview, petitioner failed to disclose that he had suffered a back injury on a previous job, he was receiving worker's compensation benefits, he was then being treated by a doctor, and because of the injury, he was, at least arguably and temporarily, a handicapped individual. Without these undisclosed facts, Connors believed Eagle was qualified for the job and told him to report to work the next morning as a delivery helper. Like every other applicant, however, Eagle was also told that the job was contingent on his successfully passing a pre- employment physical examination. On the same morning that petitioner began work, or February 24, 1994, Connors contacted the office of Dr. James W. Bennett, a local chiropractic physician who conducted employment physicals for respondent, to set up an appointment for Eagle. During his telephone conversation with Dr. Bennett, Connors learned that Eagle was being treated by Dr. Bennett for a back injury suffered on his previous job, and that he had been examined by Dr. Bennett on February 14, 1994, or ten days earlier. Dr. Bennett accordingly saw no need to re-examine Eagle, and he advised Connors that Eagle could aggravate "an existing, active injury," and that he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Based on this information, Connors immediately spoke with the plant manager, Richard Shaffer, and instructed him to recall Eagle from his route and terminate his employment. In making this employment decision, Connors was not motivated by discriminatory animus, but rather he made the decision solely because of Eagle's inability to pass a pre-employment physical examination, a prerequisite for employment for all job applicants. Indeed, at that time, while Connors knew that Eagle had a pre-existing back injury through conversations with Dr. Bennett, he neither knew, or had reason to believe, that the injury constituted a handicap under the law. Shaffer recalled Eagle from his route and discharged him around noon on February 24, 1994. Since Shaffer did not know the reason for the termination, he told Eagle to check back in a few days and he would find out the specific reason for his discharge. A few days later, Eagle returned and met with Connors who told him that he was discharged because he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Several months later, Eagle filed his charge of discrimination. At hearing, Eagle denied that he was handicapped and asserted that as of February 1994 he "felt fine" physically. Indeed, he described in some detail the type of heavy manual labor he had performed with another employer up to the time he applied for the position. He also contended that the injury was minor and would not interfere with a delivery helper's tasks. But testimony from Dr. Bennett established that as of February 24, 1994, Eagle had "a current, precarious injury," namely, moderate chronic lumbar sprain strain, that work restrictions with his former employer had been recommended, and that Eagle was "highly likely" to worsen that injury should he engage in the job activities required of a delivery helper. This testimony was not credibly contradicted. Although Eagle was later discharged from Dr. Bennett's care on April 1, 1994, Eagle could not pass the pre-employment physical examination on February 24, 1994, when the employment decision was made, and thus he did not qualify for the job. Eagle further suggested at hearing that, assuming he was handicapped, respondent failed to take reasonable steps to accommodate his disability. But Eagle made no request for accommodation either at the time he sought the position or after he learned the reason for his termination. Even if Eagle had requested accommodation, respondent had no positions in the business that did not require some heavy lifting except for a secretarial slot, for which Eagle was not qualified. Moreover, respondent's general manager did not know, or even believe, that Eagle was handicapped and thus may have required accommodation. Then, too, in order to accommodate Eagle, respondent would have had to make fundamental alterations in its work program or even create a new job. Eagle did not rebut this showing at hearing, and he failed to respond with any evidence regarding his individual capabilities and suggestions for possible accommodations by respondent within the restrictions imposed by Dr. Bennett. There is no evidence regarding the compensation Eagle would have received as a delivery helper. The record also fails to establish his compensation since that time, and thus there is no basis on which to make a finding as to lost wages. Whether petitioner seeks reinstatement as a delivery helper is also not of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition for relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1788 Petitioner: Petitioner filed an "order" with nine unnumbered paragraphs containing a mixture of proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5 and 8. 6-8. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 9. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence or a conclusion of law. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Daniel Williams, Esquire P. O. Box 1007 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Winston K. Borkowski, Esquire P. O. Box 1725 Ormond Beach, Florida 32175 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2004), popularly known as the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Florida Civil Rights Act).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Hispanic female. Petitioner was employed by Respondent in records for almost 15 years prior to July 16, 2004, when she was terminated. Respondent is a municipal corporation located in Miami- Dade County, Florida, and an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Respondent provides a variety of public services generally associated with cities of comparable size, including a full service police department. At all relevant times, Hispanics comprised approximately half of the police department's workforce. Many of these individuals were employed in supervisory capacities. Four Hispanics were supervisors in Petitioner's chain of command. In her position in records, Petitioner was responsible to timely and accurately process official police documents. Such processing included the completion of forms and transmittal documents and timely copying, filing and production of such documents to appropriate individuals and authorities (document processing). Failure to discharge any of the foregoing responsibilities is reasonably deemed by Respondent to be incompetence, and a firing offense(s). In her position in records, Petitioner was also responsible to comply with all directives of supervisors and to cooperate in internal affairs investigations. Cooperation in this context includes providing sworn statements and/or answering questions under oath as may be required by Respondent. Failure to comply with directives and to cooperate in internal affairs investigations are reasonably deemed by Respondent to be insubordination, and firing offenses. On April 29, 2004, a member of the public presented himself to records and requested a copy of an official police record to which he was entitled to access, specifically a traffic ticket. Records could not locate the document because it had not been properly processed by Petitioner, who was responsible for doing so. Having become aware of a problem with this particular document processing, Respondent thereupon took reasonable steps to determine whether this was an isolated error by Petitioner. In so doing, Respondent discovered and documented a high volume of document processing errors with respect to official police records for which Petitioner was responsible. In February 2004, one of Petitioner's supervisors – one who happened to be Hispanic -- issued a written directive (the February directive) to all records employees which required that they disclose, on a weekly basis, any "backlogs" of document processing work. In direct violation of the directive, Petitioner never disclosed existence of her backlog, which was, by April 29, 2004, extremely large. Now on notice of the backlog and deeply concerned about its potential effects on the police department and the public it serves, and pursuant to police department policy, an internal affairs investigation was initiated under the leadership of the same Hispanic supervisor. Over the course of the investigation, Respondent learned that the problem(s) revealed on April 29, 2004, were only the "tip of the iceberg." The internal affairs investigation uncovered “hundreds and hundreds” of additional document processing errors. Virtually all of the errors discovered involved official police records for which Petitioner was responsible. In the course of the internal affairs investigation, Petitioner was directed to give a sworn statement, and refused to do so, which refusal was deemed to constitute insubordination. Petitioner’s errors as documented in the internal investigation demonstrated incompetence. Her failure to comply with the February directive and to provide a sworn statement to internal affairs investigators constituted insubordination. At the conclusion of the internal affairs investigation, Petitioner was terminated for incompetence in the performance of her document processing responsibilities and for insubordination. Petitioner failed to discredit the factual underpinnings of Respondent’s decision to terminate her employment; neither did she establish any discriminatory basis upon which Respondent terminated her employment. Respondent replaced Petitioner with an Hispanic, who remained employed by Respondent through and including the time of the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter its final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christina Quintero 4780 Northwest 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33126 David C. Miller, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt Sun Trust International Center, 28th Floor One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Mojo Old City BBQ ("Mojo"), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his gender.
Findings Of Fact Mojo is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Mojo owns and operates a restaurant at 5 Cordova Street in St. Augustine. Mojo has put in place written policies and procedures that prohibit, among other things, discrimination or harassment on the basis of race, gender, national origin, or any other categories of persons protected by state or federal anti- discrimination laws. The policies also provide a specific complaint procedure for any employee who believes that he or she is being discriminated against or harassed. At the time of his hiring, Petitioner received an orientation that thoroughly explained the anti-discrimination and reporting policies. Testimony at the hearing established that Petitioner was again informed of these policies at an employee insurance meeting held in October 2013. Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Mojo on August 2, 2013, as a dishwasher. Petitioner testified that “from day one” he was called names and harassed by everyone at Mojo, employees and managers alike. He stated that an employee named Linwood Finley would yell that he didn’t want to work with a man who looked like a girl, or a “he/she.” Mr. Finley said, “I don’t want to work with a man that can't have kids.” Petitioner testified that the managers and staff would accuse him of looking between their legs. Employees would walk up to him and try to kiss him. He was told that he had to go along with these antics or find somewhere else to wash dishes. Petitioner testified that he believed he was fired for refusing to kiss other male employees. He had seen Mr. Finley and another male employee kissing behind the restaurant. He stated that two male employees had tried to kiss him and he refused their advances. Petitioner testified that he complained about the kissing to anyone who would listen. He said, “I’m not a woman, I’m a man. I got to come in here every day to the same stuff over and over. Y’all act like little kids.” Petitioner stated that when he complained, the harassment would stop for the rest of that day but would resume on the following day. Petitioner testified that there is a conspiracy against him in St. Augustine. For the last five years, he has been harassed in the same way at every place he has worked. Petitioner specifically cited Flagler College, the Columbia Restaurant, and Winn-Dixie as places where he worked and suffered name calling and harassment. Petitioner testified that he wanted to call several employees from Mojo as witnesses but that he was unable to subpoena them because Mojo refused to provide him with their addresses. Petitioner could provide no tangible evidence of having made any discovery requests on Mojo. Petitioner was terminated on November 29, 2013, pursuant to a “Disciplinary Action Form” that provided as follows: Roderick closed Wednesday night2/ in the dish pit. Again we have come to the problem with Roderick not working well with others causing a hostile work environment. This has been an ongoing issue. This issue has not resolved itself, and has been tolerated long enough. Roderick has been talked [to] about this plenty of times and written up previously for the same behavior. The documentary evidence established that Petitioner had received another Disciplinary Action Form on October 2, 2013, providing a written warning for insubordination for his hostile reaction when a manager asked him to pick up the pace in the evening. Laura Jenkins, the front-house supervisor at Mojo, was present at Mojo on the night of November 27, 2013. She testified that Petitioner had a history of getting into arguments with other kitchen employees that escalated into screaming matches during which Petitioner would commence calling the other employees “nigger.” Ms. Jenkins stated that on more than one occasion she had asked Petitioner to cease using “the ‘N’ word.” On the night of November 27, Petitioner was running behind on the dishes, so Ms. Jenkins asked another kitchen employee, Colin Griffin, to pitch in and help him. Petitioner did not want the help and argued with Mr. Griffin. Ms. Jenkins testified that Petitioner was screaming and cursing. The situation was so volatile that Ms. Jenkins felt physically threatened by Petitioner. She was afraid to discipline him that evening while she was the sole manager in the restaurant. On November 29, Ms. Jenkins met with kitchen manager Billy Ambrose and general manager Linda Prescott. They decided that Petitioner’s actions could not be tolerated anymore and that his employment would be terminated. Mr. Ambrose testified that on several occasions he sent people to help Petitioner in the dish pit and Petitioner refused their help. Petitioner would get into arguments with other employees over such things as the proper way to stack dishes. Mr. Ambrose named four different employees, including Mr. Finley, whom he sent to help Petitioner. Each one of them reported that Petitioner started an argument. Mr. Ambrose stated he went in to help Petitioner himself on one occasion and that Petitioner “kind of gave me attitude” despite the fact that Mr. Ambrose was his supervisor. Mr. Ambrose testified that Petitioner had an argument with Mr. Finley one morning that resulted in Mr. Ambrose having a cautionary talk with both employees. Mr. Ambrose sent Mr. Finley to help Petitioner in the dish pit. Petitioner stated, “Nigger, I don’t need your help.” Mr. Ambrose asked if there was a problem. Petitioner said, “No, we’re fine.” Mr. Ambrose asked Mr. Finley if everything was all right. Mr. Finley replied, “Yeah, I guess he’s just having a bad day.” Mr. Ambrose returned to his work only to find, five minutes later, that the two men were nose to nose arguing about the fact that Mr. Finley wasn’t washing dishes the way Petitioner liked. Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Ambrose, and Ms. Prescott all testified that they had never seen another employee harass Petitioner and had never heard of such a thing occurring. Petitioner never complained to any of these supervisors about discrimination or harassment of any kind. All three testified that they had never seen male employees kissing one another on the job nor seen any male employee attempt to kiss Petitioner. The three supervisors never heard any employee make comments about Petitioner’s appearing to be a girl. Ms. Jenkins testified that as a gay woman she would absolutely not allow any discrimination based on Petitioner’s gender orientation. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Mojo for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Mojo's stated reasons for his termination were a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s gender. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Mojo discriminated against him because of his gender in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that his dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that he made while an employee of Mojo. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner ever complained to a superior about the alleged harassment.
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 Mojo Old City BBQ did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2015, 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 23rd day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of June, 2017.
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.
