The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.1/
Findings Of Fact Mr. Charlot is a Black male of Haitian descent. Mr. Charlot was employed by the County in the Department for almost 16 years before he was terminated in December 2008. The Department operates Miami International Airport (Airport). At the time of his termination and all times material hereto, Mr. Charlot's classification was an Airport Automotive Equipment Operator II, operating heavy machinery in maintenance work at the Airport. At all times material hereto, the majority of the Department's employees were Hispanic, including the supervisors. Mr. Charlot's Dismissal before the Aviation Director By letter dated December 12, 2008, the Aviation Director, José Abreu, dismissed Mr. Charlot from employment with the Department and the County, effective the close of business on December 4, 2008, upholding the "recommendation by management" for dismissal. Mr. Abreu indicated, among other things, that, in upholding the recommendation, he considered the Disciplinary Action Report (DAR) and Mr. Charlot's work history. Furthermore, Mr. Abreu indicated, among other things, that his decision on termination was based in part upon Mr. Charlot's violations of the County's Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraphs (I), (R), and (BB), related to Mr. Charlot's arrest on grand theft charges; and that the basis for his (Mr. Abreu's) final decision was based upon Mr. Charlot's disregard for County Personnel Rules. Additionally, Mr. Abreu indicated that, because Mr. Charlot failed to attend the meeting at which Mr. Charlot would have been able to appeal management's recommendation, he (Mr. Abreu) had no additional factors to consider in making his decision. Consequently, Mr. Charlot was dismissed from employment with the Department and the County, effective close of business on December 4, 2008. The DAR dated September 25, 2008, was considered by Mr. Abreu. The DAR notified Mr. Charlot that he was charged with violating the County's Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraphs (I), (R), and (BB), which provides: (I) that the employee has been guilty of conduct unbecoming an employee of the County whether on or off duty, provided allegations shall be specific and shall describe the conduct which is the basis of the charge; (R) that the employee has misappropriated County funds, appropriated County property for personal use, or illegally disposed of County property; and (BB) that the employee has violated any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The DAR dated September 25, 2008, set forth revised facts. Those revised facts state that, on September 24, 2008, Mr. Charlot was re-arrested, arraigned, and formally charged with a third degree felony for theft of County property based upon an incident occurring on August 5, 2008; and that, also, as a result of the formal charge, the County automatically placed Mr. Charlot on suspension without pay. Additionally, the revised facts recite facts stated in a DAR dated August 6, 2008, issued as a result of the incident occurring on August 5, 2008, which cited the same violations of the County's Personnel Rules. In essence, the DAR facts state that, on August 5, 2008, Mr. Charlot was on an overtime assignment, from 11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m., repairing asphalt; that his duty was to operate the scrubber/sweeper, sweeping around the site prior to the asphalt being placed; that, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Mr. Charlot advised Kendall Davis that he would return and left the worksite; that, shortly thereafter and according to an Airfield Security Incident Report, a law enforcement officer observed Mr. Charlot on Airport property, not at the worksite, with two bags of copper wire, weighing approximately 140 pounds; that Mr. Charlot left the worksite and was found committing a crime against the County by stealing County material; that Mr. Charlot was in an area in which he was not authorized and found in a vehicle no longer in service and not able to be driven; and that the DAR was warranted because of Mr. Charlot's actions of taking County material, leaving the worksite and not performing his assigned duties while on County time. Further, the facts in the DAR dated September 25, 2008, stated that Mr. Charlot was arrested on May 11, 2006, for petty theft, but had failed to advise the Aviation Director or anyone in the chain of command about the arrest. Also, the facts stated that his failure to so advise of the arrest was a violation of Department's Rules which placed an obligation on County employees to notify their Department Director or his/her designee of an arrest, whether on or off duty, within a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed three calendar days, of the arrest. A copy of the Department's policy regarding arrests was included with the DAR. Additionally, a copy of the disposition of the charge was included with the DAR, which showed that Mr. Charlot was not prosecuted. The DAR dated September 25, 2008, concluded that the DAR was warranted based on Mr. Charlot's actions of taking County material, being formally charged with a third degree felony, leaving the worksite, not performing his assigned task while on duty, and failing to report a prior arrest to the Department. Mr. Charlot's responded to the DAR dated August 6, 2008, and his response was also included with the DAR dated September 25, 2008. The response stated, among other things, that the State Attorney's Office had decided that the evidence was insufficient to charge Mr. Charlot with committing a crime and took no action on the charge; that Mr. Charlot was on his lunch break, with his identification, and it was not uncommon for employees to take a lunch break away from the worksite; and that Mr. Charlot advised Mr. Davis that he (Mr. Charlot) was taking his lunch break and would return. Also, the response included affidavits from several employees stating that it was normal for employees to take lunch breaks away from the worksite and attesting to Mr. Charlot's performance as an employee and to his character. Mr. Charlot's Appeal of the Termination through Arbitration Having been terminated from his employment by Mr. Abreu, Mr. Charlot appealed the termination through arbitration. On September 29, 2009, the appeal was heard by a Hearing Examiner of the American Arbitration Association. The Hearing Examiner issued a written recommendation on November 22, 2009. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation was to sustain Mr. Charlot's dismissal. Mr. Charlot's Dismissal before the County Manager After arbitration, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation was considered by the County Manager. By letter dated December 3, 2009, the County Manager sustained and confirmed Mr. Charlot's dismissal from employment with the County. The Incident on August 6, 2008 Mr. Charlot was arrested and charged with burglary on August 6, 2008. He obtained counsel. The State Attorney's Office decided to nolle prose, and the charge against Mr. Charlot was dismissed. He returned to work. However, subsequently, in September 2008, Mr. Charlot was re-arrested and arraigned on a third degree felony count of grand theft regarding the incident on August 6, 2008. On September 24, 2008, the State Attorney's Office filed an information charging Mr. Charlot with the third degree felony count of grand theft. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County played a part in or influenced the action by the State Attorney's Office to re-arrest Mr. Charlot, arraign him on a different crime, and file an information against him on the different crime. By letter dated September 25, 2008, Mr. Abreu advised Mr. Charlot, among other things, that he was suspended indefinitely in accordance with the "Code of Miami-Dade County, Section 2-42, Paragraph (22), which provides: 'For the automatic suspension of any person from the County service immediately upon being indicted by any grand jury or upon having an information filed against him by any prosecuting official, such suspension to continue until any such indictment or information shall have been disposed of by a trial and conviction or acquittal of the accused or by any dismissal or quashing or reversal of the same.'" The letter further advised Mr. Charlot that, if the charges were reduced or dropped, it was his (Mr. Charlot's) responsibility to immediately advise Human Resources; and that, even if the charges were reduced or dropped, the Department may still pursue any administrative action deemed necessary. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Charlot's immediate suspension was in accordance with the County's Code. Mr. Charlot was unable to afford the continuation of representation by counsel. He entered into a plea agreement, and the charge was nolle prossed.2/ Prior Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Charlot In October 2004, Mr. Charlot was suspended for three days for an incident that occurred on July 2, 2004. He served the three-day suspension from October 13 through 15, 2004. Mr. Charlot received a DAR in July 2004 for the incident, which stated, among other things, that his minor child was with him on a sweeper during his work hours. Also, the DAR indicated previous disciplinary action taken against Mr. Charlot in November 2003 and December 2002, resulting in a five-day suspension and a three-day suspension, respectively; and indicated that the County would not tolerate continuous violation of its rules. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incident on July 2, 2004, was unreasonable or discriminatory. In November 2003, Mr. Charlot received a five-day suspension for an incident that occurred on October 11, 2003. He served the five-day suspension from November 18 through 22, 2003. Mr. Charlot received a DAR on October 14, 2003, which stated, among other things, that he failed to report to work during his scheduled work shift hours and failed to notify his supervisor that he would not be reporting to work. Also, the DAR indicated previous disciplinary action taken against Mr. Charlot for leaving work prior to the scheduled end of his shift, without swiping out of his shift, resulting in a three-day suspension. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incident on October 11, 2003, was unreasonable or discriminatory. In December 2002, Mr. Charlot received a three-day suspension for an incident that occurred on November 26, 2002. He served the three-day suspension from January 15 through 17, 2003. Mr. Charlot received a DAR on December 2, 2002, which stated, among other things, that he left the worksite in his personal vehicle during his regularly scheduled shift hours, without swiping out and without notifying his supervisor. In a memorandum dated December 30, 2002, the Assistant Aviation Director, among other things, advised Mr. Charlot of the suspension and further advised Mr. Charlot that, should he need to leave the worksite to respond to personal matters, he was required to swipe out and to ensure that his supervisor was notified. As to the incident on November 26, 2002, at hearing Mr. Charlot testified that school personnel at the school that his child was attending contacted him regarding his child experiencing a diabetic episode; and that he immediately departed the worksite for the school to give his child an insulin injection. His testimony is credible. Further, no evidence was presented to indicate that the County failed to consider his explanation at the time of the disciplinary action. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incident on November 26, 2002, was unreasonable or discriminatory. In July 1998, Mr. Charlot received a written reprimand for various incidents occurring in May 1998. He received a DAR on May 26, 1998, regarding the incidents. The written reprimand indicated, among other things, that Mr. Charlot engaged in insubordinate behavior and took an unauthorized break. Additionally, the written reprimand advised him that further such incidents would result in progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incidents in May 1998, was unreasonable or discriminatory. Alleged Employees Similarly-Situated to Mr. Charlot Mr. Charlot asserts that there are other Department employees who are similarly-situated to him and who are Hispanic. The other employees are Robert Chacon, Rodolfo deArmas, and Ricardo Mendez. No dispute exists that all of the other employees are Hispanic. Robert Chacon Robert Chacon was employed with the Department for approximately 20 years. Since 2008, he has been an Airport Maintenance Mechanic. The evidence demonstrates, among other things, that, in 2009, Mr. Chacon was suspended due to an incident not associated with the Department and which occurred outside of the workplace; that in 2001, he was issued a DAR, which he grieved, but lost; that he was a supervisor, but was demoted and is no longer a supervisor; and that he has been suspended four times. The evidence fails to demonstrate the details of or the circumstances of the suspensions, the DAR, or the demotion. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Chacon has not been charged with stealing from the Department. Rodolfo deArmas Rodolfo deArmas has been employed with the Department since 1984. He has been an Equipment Operator II for more than 15 years. The evidence demonstrates that, in 1991, Mr. deArmas was charged with a criminal offense which was not associated with the Department and for which he was not convicted; and that he has been subject to two disciplinary actions. The evidence fails to demonstrate the details of or the circumstances of the criminal offense or the disciplinary actions. Ricardo Mendez Regarding Ricardo Mendez, the evidence demonstrates that the Department charged Mr. Mendez with violating the County's Personnel Rules and that one of the Rules was the same one Mr. Charlot was charged with violating, i.e., Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraph (R); and that Mr. Mendez was dismissed and terminated in 200l for the violation. Among the alleged facts associated with Mr. Mendez's violation of Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraph (R) were that Mr. Mendez submitted more hours of work than he had actually worked and was paid for more hours than he had actually worked. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates Mr. Mendez appealed his termination through arbitration, as did Mr. Charlot. However, the evidence demonstrates that, unlike in Mr. Charlot's situation, a hearing examiner found facts favorable to Mr. Mendez and recommended reinstatement of Mr. Mendez. The County reinstated Mr. Mendez.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the discrimination complaint of Venis Charlot. S DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 26th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The stipulated issue1 is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race by denying Petitioner equal pay in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2007).2
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Subsections 760.02(6) and (10). Petitioner is an African- American female and filed a complaint of race discrimination, with the Commission. Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of Subsection 760.02(7). Respondent is the Office of the Sheriff for Brevard County, Florida. The evidence, in its entirety, does not establish a prima facie showing of discrimination. Nor does the evidence prove that Petitioner received unequal pay. Respondent first employed Petitioner sometime in October 2002. Petitioner voluntarily resigned her position of employment with Respondent on May 30, 2008, for a higher-paying position with another employer.3 On July 29, 2006, Respondent transferred Petitioner from the position of payroll specialist, in the accounting department, to a position of personnel officer in the personnel department. The transfer was a promotion, and Petitioner received a 10 percent increase in pay. Ms. Bridget Bauer replaced Petitioner in the accounting department. The supervisor in the personnel office was Ms. Imogene Mullins. Ms. Mullins supported the transfer of Petitioner and considered Petitioner to be a valuable asset due to Petitioner's varied experience, including experience in human resources. On April 3, 2008, Ms. Bauer transferred from the accounting department to another position within Respondent's organization. Ms. Denise Postlethweight, the supervisor of the accounting department, asked Petitioner to temporarily assist the accounting department until the department could replace Ms. Bauer, to train the replacement for Ms. Bauer, and to assist in interviewing applicants to replace Ms. Bauer. Petitioner agreed to perform these temporary duties. Respondent, Ms. Postlethweight, and Ms. Mullins did not promise Petitioner she would receive additional compensation for performing these temporary duties in the accounting department until the accounting department replaced Ms. Bauer. Respondent's administrative policy does not authorize compensation for temporary duties. Ms. Mullins attempted to obtain authorization for increased compensation for the temporary duties performed by Petitioner without success. No pay increase was approved because Petitioner was performing equivalent supervisory duties in the accounting and personnel departments on a temporary basis. One alleged comparator relied on by Petitioner is not a comparator. Ms. Lisa Gillis performed equivalent supervisory duties as the special projects coordinator and sheriff's assistant. However, Ms. Gillis performed equivalent supervisory duties on a permanent basis rather than a temporary basis. Respondent's administrative policy authorizes additional compensation for dual duties performed on a permanent basis. Petitioner spent much of her time during the hearing attempting to show that Ms. Mullins promised additional compensation to Petitioner as an inducement for Petitioner's agreement to perform dual duties on a temporary basis. As previously found, the fact-finder does not find that evidence to be persuasive, and, if it were, the evidence does not rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, evidence of an offer and acceptance of additional compensation between Ms. Mullins and Petitioner as an inducement for the performance of dual duties is relevant to an action for breach of contract rather than discrimination. Jurisdiction for an action for breach of contract is in circuit court rather than DOAH.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations against Respondent and dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, an African-American female, was employed as a nurse at Bayside Manor ("Bayside"), a long-term nursing facility owned and operated by Respondent. Petitioner began her employment with Respondent in or around 2004, which continued until she resigned from her position on December 5, 2013. Petitioner's Complaint, which she filed shortly thereafter, raises two discrete claims. First, Petitioner asserts that, because of her race, Respondent treated her disparately by issuing her a written reprimand without cause. Petitioner further contends that she was constructively discharged from her position due to the existence of an intolerable, racially-charged working environment. Beginning with the first issue, it is undisputed that, on December 5, 2013, a member of Bayside's administration cited Petitioner for "failure to follow policies," and that the genesis of the reprimand was Petitioner's act of maintaining possession of a drug-cart key while taking a lunch break. The parties are in sharp disagreement, though, as to whether Respondent's policies required staff members to surrender drug- cart keys while eating lunch on site. On this point, the credible evidence demonstrates that, on the date of the purported infraction, Petitioner was required to turn in her drug-cart key during lunchtime only if she left the worksite. As it is evident that Petitioner remained at Bayside during her lunch break on the date in question, the undersigned is persuaded that the December 5, 2014, reprimand should not have been issued. This does not end the inquiry, however, as Petitioner must also demonstrate, in order to prove her claim of disparate treatment, that the reprimand constituted an adverse employment action and that it was issued on account of her race. Here, Petitioner's claim fails on the first prong (making it unnecessary to address the second), for the record is devoid of evidence that the December 5 reprimand led to a materially adverse consequence such as lowered pay, demotion, suspension, loss of benefits, or the like.1/ As for the claim of constructive discharge, the evidence adduced at final hearing focused almost exclusively on the conduct of Heidi Duncan, who served as Bayside's director of nursing during Petitioner's term of employment. In particular, Petitioner testified: that Ms. Duncan frequently spoke to her in a demeaning fashion; that, on one occasion, Ms. Duncan harshly——and erroneously——scolded her for leaving work unfinished at the end of a shift; that Ms. Duncan reassigned her to a different floor of the facility (by all appearances, a change that did not affect the terms of Petitioner's employment); that, on one particular day, Ms. Duncan brusquely instructed her to do as she was told, at which point Petitioner broke into tears; that Ms. Duncan forbade her (Petitioner's) husband from visiting Bayside because of his "black man's swagger"; that, on the lone occasion when she attempted to complain about Ms. Duncan to a member of Bayside's management, her concerns were brushed aside; and that Ms. Duncan attempted to stir up marital discord between Regine Smith——Petitioner's direct supervisor, who, in turn, reported to Ms. Duncan——and Ms. Smith's husband by telephoning Mr. Smith and informing him that Ms. Smith was nowhere to be found at the worksite.2/ According to Petitioner, the straw that broke the camel's back was Respondent's erroneous issuance of the December 5 reprimand. Assuming for argument's sake that Petitioner's recounting of the foregoing incidents was credible and, moreover, that each event was the product of racial animus, the evidence fails to satisfy the high threshold applicable to constructive discharge actions——namely, that the working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person would be forced into involuntary resignation. To be sure, the comment regarding Petitioner's husband was despicable and outrageous, and the undersigned has no doubt that Ms. Duncan's abrasive management style added unnecessary anxiety to an already stressful line of work. Nevertheless, as discussed below, it has not been shown that a reasonable person in Petitioner's shoes would have felt forced to quit, particularly since the credible evidence discloses only one attempt by Petitioner (on an unspecified date) to address her concerns with a member of Bayside's management. Accordingly, Petitioner's constructive discharge claim fails.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 18th day of December, 2014.
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
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner has been discriminated against, as he has alleged, and if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, F.I.T., is located at the Melbourne airport in Melbourne, Florida. The company provides maintenance support and other general aviation support services for Florida Institute of Technology's flight school. Balazs was hired in August 1987 by Thomas Thompson, Director of Maintenance. His primary duties were the cleaning and washing of aircraft. Thompson left for a 30-day vacation the end of August, and Shop Foreman, John D. Laudenslager, was in charge. Almost immediately, Laudenslager began receiving complaints from female employees regarding Balazs' over-friendly conduct. Laudenslager told Balazs to ignore the females, and when Thompson returned, he was informed of the problem. The complaints were that Balazs would watch the women arrive at work and would jump out from behind the door and scare them. He would also make them uncomfortable by asking about their personal lives. He would also meet them at the gate with exaggerated and unwarranted attention. Thompson spoke to the women involved and confirmed their complaints. On one occasion, Thompson himself observed Balazs at his work station washing an airplane. When a female arrived, Balazs dropped his brush and walked over to the gate. As she walked past him, he turned to face her, staring and leering. Thompson discussed the behavior with Balazs and told him to leave the women alone. Balazs' conduct appeared to improve for a while. His 60 days probationary employment terminated on October 18, 1987. Thompson was reluctant to elevate him to permanent status and to give him the usual merit raise, but by the end of October it appeared that the problem might have been resolved. Balazs received his raise on November 2, 1987. On November 6, 1987, the primary recipient of Balazs' attentions complained again. Virginia Toole has worked at F.I.T. for about nine years, and presently is the senior administrative clerk in charge of records. Balazs started bothering her almost as soon as he started working there. He jumped out from behind the door to scare her, he asked about her boyfriend and asked F.I.T. students about her personal life. When she brought roses she had received from her boyfriend, he told her he could bring bigger and better. Shortly thereafter, a bag of dead roses was found hanging on the gate. After Virginia Toole complained again, John Laudenslager wrote a memo to Balazs reminding him that he had been counselled previously and informing him that further complaints would result in his immediate termination. Balazs was given the memo on November 6th. He was counselled again by Thompson and Laudenslager and was told to avoid all women at work. His response to the memo was peculiarly cavalier. He asked the foreman if he could put the memo on the bulletin board because it was so ridiculous. That evening, after maintenance hours, the company hosted a social gathering to celebrate the dedication of a new building. Balazs attended the gathering and circulated among the females present, showing them the memo and making derisive remarks related to his claim that his accusers were not identified and that the phrase "too familiar and overly friendly" was not defined to his satisfaction in the memo. One female with whom he wittingly or unwittingly shared his comments was Thompson's wife. The next day, a Saturday, Virginia Toole arrived at work just as Balazs was leaving. He followed her to her office, put his arm around her and asked her to meet him at a local lounge for drinks. He also turned to a friend who was with him and said that she was the lady who was going to get him fired. On Monday, November 9, 1987, he was fired. Ms. Toole had reported his behavior again, and his flagrant actions on the evening of November 6th obviously had not escaped the attention of his supervisors. Although he denies leaving the dead roses and putting his arm around Ms. Toole, Balazs admits that he made a point of opening the entrance gate for the women and conversing with them. He denies that his approaches were improper, but admits that he was counselled repeatedly and was told to ignore the women. He also admits that he knew of no instance where females were overly friendly with other females or males and were not disciplined. His behavior, according to Thompson, was unique, but the company would discipline others of either sex if confronted with the same or similar complaints.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that John Balazs' Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: John S. Balazs 2007 Dunbar Avenue Melbourne, FL 32901 Wayne L. Helsby, Esquire 201 South Orange Avenue Barnett Plaza Suite 740 Orlando, FL 32801 Margaret Agerton Clerk of the Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1750 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1750 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1750
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based upon her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, an African-American female, submitted an application for employment directly with the store manager, Jerry Wienhoff. Mr. Wienhoff personally interviewed Petitioner and hired her within 48 hours of her application for the afternoon clerk position. She began working for Respondent on July 21, 2009. Petitioner received a notice of a disciplinary issue on March 9, 2010. Respondent cited Petitioner for failure to complete her work in a timely manner. Petitioner was warned that if her work did not improve, her employment would be terminated. Not long after issuance of this disciplinary notice, Mr. Wienhoff, the store manager and Pensacola Regional Manager for 17 years, began receiving complaints about Petitioner's behavior. One complaint came from a long-time customer, while another came from a co-employee. The complaints were that Petitioner treated them rudely. During her employment, Petitioner complained that her work duties were heavier than those of the morning clerk. Mr. Wienhoff relieved Petitioner of certain duties related to tagging each garment dropped off during the afternoon shift. None of the other stores out of the four area stores had similar requests to remove this duty. Petitioner testified that the morning clerk, a white female, Amanda Sidner, was given a lighter workload. Petitioner further testified that Ms. Sidner was given additional hours during Petitioner's vacation, yet Petitioner was not given additional hours during Ms. Sidner's vacation. Mr. Wienhoff testified and Petitioner admitted that she took vacation days during the same week that Ms. Sidner took vacation days. Further, Petitioner was given additional hours during the days Ms. Sidner was on vacation, and the balance of those hours that Petitioner was not interested in working went to Petitioner's daughter, Anastarsia Martinez, also an African- American female. On December 14, 2010, Petitioner was issued her second and final corrective action report by Mr. Wienhoff. At that time, Mr. Wienhoff terminated Petitioner due to the ongoing complaints about her behavior in the workplace. Respondent also established the racial composition of every employee under Mr. Wienhoff's supervision. The company profile in Pensacola shows a racially diverse mix of employees. Petitioner candidly testified that she never heard Mr. Wienhoff make racially insensitive comments to her or any other employee. Her claim of discrimination is based upon favoritism. She believes that other employees were treated better than she, but did not tie this perceived favorable treatment to their race.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that no act of discrimination was committed by Respondent and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 January, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Groendyke, Esquire Douberley & Cicero 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 590 Sunrise, Florida 33323 Mary Cottrell 776 Backwoods Road Century, Florida 32535 Christopher J. Rush, Esquire Christopher J. Rush & Associates, P.A. 1880 North Congress Avenue, Suite 206 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a lumber mill in a community known as Cypress near Marianna, Florida. In 2007, Respondent hired Petitioner, an African-American male, to operate a 966 Caterpillar loader (the loader) at the mill. Melvin Lewis is an African-American male. Mr. Lewis is a second-shift supervisor. At all times relevant here, Mr. Lewis was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lewis reports directly to Ross Jackson, a white male. Mr. Jackson has been Respondent's general manager since January 2008. In May 2008, Mr. Lewis told Petitioner that the loader was slowly leaking brake fluid. Mr. Lewis instructed Petitioner to always check the loader to ensure that it had brake fluid. On or about Thursday, May 28, 2009, between 2:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., Petitioner was involved in an accident while operating the loader. Petitioner told Mr. Lewis that a log fell onto the loader, the brakes failed, and the loader went over a retaining wall. After the accident, Mr. Lewis immediately checked the brake fluid reservoir. He found the reservoir empty. Petitioner knew or should have known the standard procedure to follow when, and if, a log rolled onto a loader. In that event, the loader operator was supposed to immediately call his supervisor on the two-way radio and request help. At the time of the accident, Petitioner and Mr. Lewis had working two-way radios. Petitioner used the radio to call Mr. Lewis right after the accident. He did not call for help when the log first rolled onto the loader. On May 28, 2009, Petitioner was operating the 966 loader on a ramp that is 75-feet long and 40-feet wide with a retaining wall on each side of the ramp. At the high end of the ramp is a flat area where Petitioner was picking up logs from a pile. To get off of the flat part of the ramp, Petitioner had to accelerate backwards to then go down the ramp. When the accident occurred, Petitioner had traveled almost all of the way down the 75-foot ramp and then turned the loader 90 degrees toward the retaining wall. To go over the one and one-half foot retaining wall, the loader must have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed. The accident tore the transmission off of the loader. The loader was inoperable and had to be repaired. The cost of the repairs was over $14,000. After the accident, Mr. Lewis told Petitioner that "this is really bad." Mr. Lewis first directed Petitioner to clock-out and go home. Mr. Lewis then told Petitioner to stay until Mr. Jackson arrived at work at 5:00 a.m. When Mr. Jackson came in to work, he told Petitioner that he would be suspended until Mr. Jackson and Mr. Lewis had a chance to review the situation. Mr. Jackson told Petitioner to report back on Monday, June 1, 2009. Mr. Lewis decided that Petitioner should not be allowed to operate equipment for the following reasons: (a) Petitioner failed to keep brake fluid in the loader as instructed; (b) Petitioner failed to call for help on his radio when the log rolled onto the loader; and (c) with the log on the loader, Petitioner accelerated backward down the ramp, turned the loader 90 degrees, and drove the loader fast enough to hit the retaining wall and bounce over it. Mr. Lewis recommended termination of Petitioner's employment. Mr. Jackson concurred. Petitioner was terminated on June 1, 2009. No evidence indicates that the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment was based on his race. There was no persuasive evidence that Respondent gave any white employee more favorable treatment under similar circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2010, 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 10th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric J. Holshouser, Esquire Fowler, White and Boggs, P.A. 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2800 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gary Powell 6782 Bumpy Lane Grand Ridge, Florida 32442 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
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner filed his complaint against Respondent for race discrimination more than 180 days after the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10(10), Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact The parties' Stipulated Statement of Undisputed Material Facts constitute the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Floyd Peacock, Jr., a black male, was hired by the Respondent, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., on August 22, 1980. The Petitioner was initially hired and employed by the Respondent as a maintenance mechanic at the hire (entry) level. On August 22, 1980, James Coleman, a white male, was hired by the Respondent as a maintenance mechanic. On August 25, 1980, Elvin Higgins, a white male, was hired by the Respondent as a maintenance mechanic at the second year step level. The Respondent has had two means of filling the vacancies that arose in the plant. First, whenever someone left the Respondent's employ due to retirement, a voluntary discharge, or involuntary termination, that vacancy would be posted on a job board on the Respondent's premises. Employees wishing to transfer to the department where the vacancy arose were then allowed to apply, or bid, for the posted vacancy. Bids are awarded based upon job skills and seniority. For positions within the operations department, seniority is determined by the amount of time the employee had with the company. For maintenance positions, seniority is determined by the amount of time the employee had with the maintenance department. The second method used by the Respondent to fill vacancies was a "back- fill" procedure. When an employee's bid was awarded and that employee then transferred to another department, the vacancy created in the transferring employee's department was "back-filled" with a new hire from outside of the company. Additionally, a position that was opened for bids but not bid upon was also back-filled with new hires from outside of the company. In 1982, the Petitioner, whose pay level as a mechanic with the Respondent was at the "second step/year level," became interested in a three- year position in the ammonia methanol area and inquired about bidding for the job. He was told by the personnel manager, Laura Finn, that since he was at the two-year level, he did not qualify for the three-year position. The Petitioner did not bid for the job. Two white males, Roy Mony and Clayton Perry, who were previously employed as mechanics with Carroll Construction, as had the Petitioner, were hired at the "third step/year level" and placed in the two "third step/year level" mechanics jobs. The Petitioner filed no charge or complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations or the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission concerning his not bidding for the "three step/year level" mechanics position or the hiring and assigning of the two white males "three-step" mechanics to those positions in 1982. At the time of his "fifth-year step" mechanic's interview in 1985 for obtaining his "five year/step" pay increase, the Petitioner confirmed with his supervisor that James Coleman had been made senior mechanic and had been advanced to the "senior mechanic" pay level. The Petitioner was given a "fifth year/step" mechanic's pay increase. Soon after the 1985 pay increase interview, the Petitioner went to the Respondent's Personnel Department with his supervisor to inquire about why James Coleman had been made a senior mechanic before the Petitioner. When the personnel manager was unable to provide the reason, the Petitioner talked with a staff member of the Escambia-Santa Rosa Human Relations Commission about his being given a "fifth year/step" mechanic's pay increase while James Coleman received a senior mechanic's title and pay increase. However, the Petitioner did not file any complaint with that agency or with the Florida Commission on Human Relations or the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. In June, 1986, the Respondent had a reduction in force (RIF) that resulted in some employees' employment being terminated and other employees being reassigned to other lower level and lower paying jobs. The following actions were taken as part of the RIF process in June, 1986: Maintenance mechanics hired prior to June 10, 1977, continued in their positions. Maintenance mechanics hired after June 20, 1977, but before the Petitioner's date of hire of August 22, 1980, were assigned permanent operator positions. Fifteen or sixteen maintenance mechanics who had been hired on or after the Petitioner's date of hire were placed in a temporary job position designated as "utility operators." Among the mechanics retained in the employ of the Respondent but assigned as utility operators was Elvin Higgins, a white male senior mechanic, and the Petitioner. The remaining mechanics were discharged as a result of the RIF in June, 1986. Among the mechanics who were discharged at that time were Roy Mony and Clayton Perry, whose hiring dates were after the Petitioner's date of hire. The utility operator position was a new, temporary position created in response to the RIF. In lieu of being discharged, fifteen employees, including Petitioner, were placed in the utility operator position. Utility operators worked at reduced pay, performing work previously accomplished by independent contractors. As vacancies arose in other departments of the company, one by one, each of the utility operators were to fill these vacancies until no one remained in the utility operator position. The respondent provided the utility operators with two means of transferring out of the utility operator position into a regular, higher paying position. First, utility operators were allowed to bid on any position that was subject to the Respondent's customary bid procedure. The second means that the utility operators had for leaving the utility operator position was through the assignment of a "back-fill" position. Instead of back-filling positions with new hires from outside of the company, as was the procedure before the RIF, utility operators were to be assigned to the back-fill positions. A utility operator would be back-filled into any vacancy that had been opened up for bids under the customary bid procedure, but on which no one had bid. Second, utility operators could be back-filled into a secondary vacancy created when another employee transferred from one position to another. The utility operators were to back-fill these non-bidded [sic] positions and secondary vacancies in order of seniority with the company (i.e., by date of hire). In June, 1986, when Elvin Higgins was reduced from senior mechanic to a utility operator because of the reduction in force (RIF), the Petitioner first became aware that Elvin Higgins had previously received senior mechanic status. On July 28, 1987, Aubry Garrett, one of the utility operators, used the normal bid procedure and successfully "bid-out" of the utility operator's position and took an operator's position. The Petitioner did not bid for this position. Between the time of the RIF in June, 1986, and the time the first back-fill position arose in September, 1987, the Respondent had not provided its employees with a finalized written or oral statement about how the back-fill positions would be administered after the RIF; however, during this period before the Petitioner refused the first back-fill position, when asked about this procedure by employees, Ernest Labadie, the personnel manager, told them that utility operators would be assigned back-fill positions in the order of the employees' length of service with the company. In September, 1987, two operator positions became available for utility operators to "back-fill" as secondary vacancies. The Petitioner, as the most senior utility operator based on date of hire, was offered one of the positions, but he refused the job because it was rotating shift work and he desired to work only "day hours" like he was working as a utility operator and had worked as a maintenance mechanic. Elvin Higgins and Gene Moore, the next senior utility operators based on date of hire, accepted the "back-fill" positions and were assigned those positions in early October, 1987. At the time of the Petitioner's refusal to "back-fill" and accept the available advancement to operator, the Petitioner was informed by Ernest Labadie, the personnel manager, that the Petitioner would be placed at the bottom of the list of the utility operators for future "back-filling" of jobs by utility operators. The Petitioner made no complaint to anyone or any agency about his being placed at the bottom of the list of utility operators for "back-filling" purposes in September, 1987, and believed at that time that his placement at the bottom of the list was fair and not discriminatory. Gary Kent is a white male who is senior the Petitioner both by date of hire and by amount of time in the Respondent's maintenance department. Before the reduction in force (RIF) in June, 1986, Mr. Kent was a mechanic, but as a result of the RIF, he was transferred to an operator's position in the amines area of the company. The amines job was not shift work. On November 24, 1987, Mr. Kent bid for an operator's position in the PVC area and received the job on December 8, 1987. His move to the PVC area from the amines area resulted in an operator vacancy (secondary vacancy) in the amines area that would be "back- filled" from the utility operators' list (i.e., without the need for bidding for the vacant position). On December 8, 1987, the vacant operator position in the amines area was "back-filled" by David Hart, who was the next utility operator on the "back- fill" list since the Petitioner was at the bottom of the list. The Petitioner became aware of this assignment, or surmised that the assignment of Mr. Hart to the amines area would occur, before the announcement of the assignment was posted and when he heard that Mr. Kent had bid for the PVC area operator position. In November or December, 1987, the Petitioner spoke with the personnel manager, Mr. Labadie, about the Petitioner's chances of getting the vacant amines area operator position that was to be "back-filled" since Gary Kent had bid for the PVC operator's position. The Petitioner was interested in this operator position because it was not a rotating shift job. The Petitioner was told that consistent with the personnel manger's discussions with the Petitioner in October, 1987, the Petitioner was not eligible to "back-fill" the position because he was at the bottom of the "back-fill" list. The Petitioner accepted the explanation and understood the policy and procedure for "back-filling." The Petitioner made no complaint to anyone about assigning the amines area operator's job to Mr. Hart instead of to the Petitioner. In January, 1988, Bruce Holiday, a white male who is senior to the Petitioner by amount of time in the Respondent's maintenance department and who has been working as an operator after the reduction in force, bid for and received on February 1, 1988, the assignment back into the maintenance mechanic. The Petitioner had bid for this position but has no complaint of racial discrimination about his not being awarded the position because Mr. Holiday was a senior to the Petitioner for the maintenance mechanic position by the amount of time in the maintenance department. In February, 1988, the Petitioner and the other two last remaining utility operators, Randy Mock and Lawrence Pearce, were assigned and "back- filled" to operator positions. The Petitioner made no complaint and has no complaint about this assignment. In November, 1988, Gary Kent, who was also senior to the Petitioner both by date of hire and by amount of time in the Respondent's maintenance department, bid for and received on November 20, 1988, an assignment back into the maintenance department as a maintenance mechanic, a position subject to the customary bidding procedures. The Petitioner had also bid for this position. The announcement of Mr. Kent's assignment was posted on the bulletin board for employees to see. The Petitioner became aware of the assignment of Mr. Kent to maintenance on or before the posting of the announcement on November 16, 1988. On or about November 16, 1988, the Petitioner discussed with Mr. Labadie, the personnel manager, Mr. Kent's bidding and being assigned into the maintenance department as a mechanic. The Petitioner complained that since Mr. Kent had previously bid and received the PVC position in December, 1987, Mr. Kent, in the Petitioner's view, had decided at that time that Mr. Kent did not want to go back into the maintenance department. Therefore, the Petitioner surmised that, even though Mr. Kent would later be the senior person eligible to be awarded a maintenance mechanic job if he had bid it, Mr. Kent should have been "placed at the bottom of the list" for purposes of bidding on any maintenance mechanic positions. The Petitioner asserted that this would be consistent with his being placed at the bottom of the "back-fill" list when he refused to accept the "back-fill" assignment in September or October, 1987. Mr. Labadie asserted in response to the Petitioner that there was nothing inconsistent since Mr. Kent's assignment was pursuant to and consistent with the Respondent's bidding procedures and policies for maintenance department positions which were in effect and used both before and after the RIF (and under which the Petitioner was allowed to bid and did bid for mechanic's positions); while the Petitioner's assignments from utility operator to the operator positions were governed by the "back-fill" procedure. The Petitioner personally did not agree with and did not accept this explanation, although he understood the two different procedures, and told Mr. Labadie that it was Petitioner's opinion that the bidding and "back-filling" should operate the same way. In January, 1989, the Petitioner again had a similar conversation with Mr. Labadie about Mr. Kent's bidding and being assigned a maintenance mechanic's job and the Petitioner's being put at the bottom of the "back-fill" list for assignment to operator positions. In late February, 1989, Ricky Cook and John Rink, both white males who are senior to the Petitioner by the amount of time in the Respondent's maintenance department and who had been working as operators after the June, 1986 reduction in force, bid for and received assignments back into the maintenance department as mechanics. The Petitioner has no complaint, based on racial discrimination or otherwise, as to these assignments. The Petitioner's employment discrimination charge was filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on March 27, 1989, and filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 31, 1989. On or about March 29, 1989, the Petitioner bid for and received assignment to maintenance mechanic in the Respondent's maintenance department, along with Larry Perritt, who is a white male and who was a senior to the Petitioner by the amount of time in the Respondent's maintenance department. The Petitioner was assigned the job on April 16, 1989, at the senior mechanic pay level. The Petitioner has no complaints about any of these assignments. The Petitioner received a pay increase at the "top level" of senior mechanic in October, 1989, after serving six (6) months in that position. In October, 1989, Elvin Higgins, after bidding for the position, was assigned to maintenance mechanic at the senior mechanic pay level.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charges. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of June, 1995. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 19th day of June, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Johnson, Esq. Spriggs & Johnson W. College Ave. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ralph B. Peterson, Esq. Beggs & Lane P. O. Box 12950 Pensacola, FL 32576-2950 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esq. Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The threshold issue in this case is whether Petitioner knowingly and voluntarily waived all claims, including claims for employment discrimination, against Respondent, his former employer. If he did not, then the question is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his alleged disability when it terminated his employment.
Findings Of Fact A. Background Facts Petitioner Waldemar Casanova ("Casanova") is a high school graduate who has completed four years of college level courses in the field of business administration. As of the final hearing, he had worked in the airline industry for more than 30 years. In 1987, Casanova began working for Respondent Worldwide Flight Services ("Worldwide"), a ground handling services organization that specializes in, among other things, providing customized cargo, ramp, passenger, and technical services to various passenger and cargo airlines. Casanova was stationed in New York City for about 12 years, providing services to Worldwide's client, American Airlines, at the John Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports. In 1999, Casanova transferred to Florida, where he continued to work in furtherance of a contract between Worldwide and American Airlines to provide passenger services at the Fort Lauderdale Airport. Casanova initially was assigned to work as a Ramp Supervisor, in which position he was responsible for overseeing passenger baggage services. Thereafter, in the spring of 2002, Casanova was assigned to work as a Cabin Services Supervisor, in which position he was responsible for overseeing the cleaning and servicing of aircraft.1 Facts Relating to Casanova's Hernia Surgery In June 2002, Casanova underwent hernia surgery. He took a leave of absence from work to recover. A couple of months later, Casanova's doctor certified that Casanova could return to "light" work duties on September 3, 2002. The doctor's certificate specified that, upon his return to work, Casanova should not lift more than 10 pounds. To accommodate this restriction, when Casanova returned to work in September 2002, Worldwide reassigned him, temporarily, to its administrative office, where Casanova was responsible for reviewing attendance records. Cancellation of the Contract Between American Airlines and Worldwide and the Consequences Thereof On Casanova's Employment with Worldwide. Effective September 15, 2002, American Airlines canceled its ramp-handling/cabin services contract with Worldwide at the Fort Lauderdale Airport. As a result, Worldwide laid off approximately 33 employees in September and October 2002, including Casanova and five or six other supervisors who, like Casanova, were employed in connection with the American Airlines contract. By letter dated September 18, 2002, Worldwide informed Casanova that he was being laid off. In that letter, Worldwide offered Casanova a lump sum severance payment equaling 13 weeks of pay at his base salary in exchange for, and subject to, Casanova's execution of a Severance Agreement and General Release ("Agreement"). The Agreement was enclosed with the September 18, 2002 letter. The release contained in the Agreement provided, in pertinent part: I agree . . . to release Worldwide . . . from any and all claims for relief of any kind, whether known to me or unknown, which in any way arise out of or relate to my employment or the termination of my employment at Worldwide Flight Services, concerning events occurring at any time up to the date of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any and all claims of discrimination of any kind. This settlement and waiver includes all such claims, whether under any applicable federal law, including but not limited to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Pay Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Older Worker Benefit Protection Act, or under any applicable state or local laws I further agree not to file a claim or suit of any kind against Worldwide Flight Services et al. . . . I further agree not to bring, continue, or maintain any legal proceedings of any nature whatsoever against Worldwide Flight Services et al. before any court, administrative agency, arbitrator or any other tribunal or forum by reason of any such claims, demands, liabilities and/or causes of action, arising out of, relating to or resulting from my employment or termination from employment . . . . In the September 18, 2002, letter, Worldwide also advised Casanova that the decision whether to accept the terms and conditions of the Agreement was completely voluntary, that he should consult with an attorney of his choice before signing the Agreement, and that he could take up to 45 days to consider the Agreement. In addition, Worldwide advised Casanova that, if he had any questions concerning his separation package, he could consult either with Alvin Brown, a human resources representative at Worldwide's corporate headquarters, or Barry Simpson, then General Manager at Worldwide's Fort Lauderdale station. Casanova signed and dated the Agreement on October 2, 2002.2 He then returned the instrument to Worldwide, where Barry Simpson executed the Agreement on the company's behalf, also on October 2. By the terms of the Agreement, Casanova was afforded a period of up to seven days after execution of the Agreement to revoke the acceptance of its terms. At no time during the seven-day revocation period did Casanova notify Worldwide that he wanted to revoke his acceptance of the Agreement. After the expiration of the seven-day revocation period, and in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Casanova received a lump sum payment of $8,091.20 by check dated October 26, 2002, which sum constituted 13 weeks of severance at Casanova's base salary.3 Since his receipt of this payment, Casanova has neither tendered back nor attempted to tender back the severance payment to Worldwide. At hearing, Casanova admitted that he had understood fully the language and effect of the Agreement, including the release of all claims, and that he knowingly and voluntarily had accepted the terms of the Agreement as well as the benefits provided to him thereunder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing with prejudice Casanova's Petition for Relief because, for valuable consideration, Casanova knowingly and voluntarily released Worldwide of and from any claims arising out of his employment with Worldwide. Alternatively, the final order should declare that Worldwide is not liable to Casanova because (a) he is not a handicapped individual and (b) even if he were a handicapped individual, Worldwide has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Casanova's discharge, which Casanova failed to prove was a pretext for discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 8, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has a corporate policy that prohibits its employees from engaging in acts of discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The policy provides, in part, as follows: Discrimination Resort Travel & XChange prohibits discrimination against its employees, applicants for employment, and customers on the basis of a person’s gender, ethnicity, race, color, creed, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, military service or veteran status or any other classification protected by applicable law. Specifically with regard to its employees and job applicants, Resort Travel & XChange does not tolerate discrimination on the basis of the foregoing characteristics with respect to the terms and conditions of employment. Retaliation Resort Travel & XChange does not tolerate any form of retaliation taken against an employee who, in good faith, makes a complaint of discrimination or harassment under this policy, opposes such discrimination or harassment, or participates in an investigation of alleged discrimination or harassment. Anyone who engages in such retaliatory behavior will be subject to appropriate discipline, up to and including termination. Petitioner was hired by Respondent in March 2014 to work as an “Instructional Design & Delivery Trainer.” The written position description includes the following summary statement: [An] Instructional Design & Delivery Trainer plays an important role in making their companies more competitive by developing the skills of the workforce. They help to accelerate organizational change by developing the skills a company requires if it plans to enter new markets or needs to transform its business performance. Companies with a reputation for developing people also find it easier to recruit and retain high-caliber employees. Among the key competencies are the ability to design and deliver training, manage the learning function, measure and evaluate the results of training, and manage organizational knowledge. According to Pamela Price, Petitioner’s immediate supervisor during his term of employment with Respondent, Petitioner’s “responsibilities would have been to create, design, develop step-by-step institutional training manuals and modules, and perform classroom training of that content to new hires, as well as continuing education courses, [and] [t]o perform analytical assessments of training class participants to see at what level they were learning.” The cornerstone of Petitioner’s gender discrimination claim is his allegation that Ms. Price, on multiple occasions, made statements to Petitioner about a female worker from one of her previous jobs that performed better than Petitioner when assigned similar tasks. Petitioner offered no evidence, other than cryptic self-serving statements and conclusory allegations, which supports his allegation that Ms. Price treated him differently because of his gender. On or about September 19, 2014, Petitioner received from Ms. Price his initial six-month performance evaluation. Respondent’s employee performance evaluation rating scale ranges from “marginal” to “outstanding.” On the initial review, Petitioner received an overall rating of “marginal.” There is no evidence of record that Petitioner suffered a decrease in pay, benefits, or the loss of job-related opportunities as a consequence of having received the marginal performance rating. On or about September 22, 2014, Petitioner sent to Laura Lampkin, Respondent’s director of human resources, his response to the performance evaluation prepared by Ms. Price. In his response, Petitioner states, with respect to Ms. Price, the following: The continued push towards unrealistic deadlines and the refusal to listen or effectively address the needs and concerns expressed creates an unnecessary feeling of duress. Duress is not the inability to handle a fast paced or chaotic environment, as those are environments I thrive within. Duress, as it pertains to this example, is in the feeling to produce regardless of tangible concerns. It is, by nature, the creation of a hostile work environment which should not exist within a professional workplace. Because Petitioner expressed concern about Ms. Price’s behavior creating a “hostile work environment,” Ms. Lampkin, within a day or so of receiving Petitioner’s response, initiated an investigation to determine whether Ms. Price was in violation of Respondent’s anti-discrimination, harassment and retaliation policy. At no time prior to receiving his performance evaluation did Petitioner complain about Ms. Price creating a work environment charged with discriminatory animus. Pursuant to Ms. Lampkin’s investigation, Petitioner, in support of his allegation of the existence of a hostile work environment, informed Ms. Lampkin on September 30, 2014, of the following with respect to Ms. Price: There are a good number of situations which lend themselves to an environment that promotes an air of uncertainty, insecurity – as well as the feeling of being bullied. There is [sic] also interactions and conversations, for example when Pam refers to her co-workers or friends at United Healthcare and how they would be able to perform a function that I push back against or when she fails to consider my professional assessments for training and development, which create concerns of inequality or discriminatory undertones. I have often felt, since July, that there is a determination to replace me with a personal contact from United Healthcare – as it has been referenced repeatedly about this ‘trainer’ and what she is ‘capable of.’ To the degree, where at times, I’m given the impression that I should be as capable as this mysterious person. Perhaps, in Pam’s mind I am too young to be an experienced training professional or maybe she would prefer her previous, female, co-worker. Petitioner failed to offer any evidence, credible or otherwise, that in any way supports his allegation that Ms. Price harbored gender-based discriminatory animus towards Petitioner. At the final hearing, Petitioner cross-examined Ms. Price about myriad subjects, none of which involved issues related to gender bias. Furthermore, in his direct testimony, Petitioner stated, in conclusory terms, that Ms. Price “was discriminatory on the basis of gender because she constantly made references to me about how her other trainer at her other job could do it so much easier and I was making things more complicated than they should be.” Petitioner obviously took offense to Ms. Price’s statements, but contrary to Petitioner’s allegations, these alleged statements attributed to Ms. Price do not demonstrate discriminatory animus, but instead indicate a desire by Ms. Price for Petitioner to improve his level of performance. Petitioner alleges that on October 3, 2014, Ms. Lampkin advised him that she had informed Ms. Price of Petitioner’s claim of discrimination. According to Petitioner, Ms. Price, after learning of Petitioner’s claim, retaliated against him as follows: On October 3, 2014, after I was informed by Laura Lampkin that she had spoken to Pam Price about my claims of discrimination, I received a schedule from Pam Price which included radical changes to my standard operating schedule. I was hired as a salaried employee with a 9am-5:30 p.m. schedule with flexibility in my time and freedom to take breaks and lunch as chosen. In the schedule I received from Pam Price, I was now put into an “agents” schedule, each week working a different shift (morning, afternoon and evening) along with scheduled lunch and break times. In addition, they also moved my office onto the call center floor and set me up in a cubicle with the call center agents. When I complained that the schedule change and relocation of my office to the call center floor was a retaliatory action, the schedule was immediately retracted and I was told to revert back to my standard schedule. However, they kept me on the call center floor which was an uncomfortable position and a distraction to the other agents. I also noticed that the contact I had with other employees both in the Asheville and Orlando office changed during that time. I was no longer treated as a member of management, but now I was being treated as if I was a call center agent. When I expressed this concern to another member of our management team . . . , I was informed that there was an unwritten memo going around the Asheville and Orlando office[s] that I was to be treated as if I was an agent. According to Ms. Price, during Petitioner’s first few months of employment with Respondent, his primary responsibility was “learning” about the company. Petitioner was expected to learn about company “[p]rograms, corporate compliance, policies and procedures, introduction to his teammates, understanding their positions and their roles . . . reading materials [and] having conversations.” Ms. Price, in Petitioner’s performance evaluation, was particularly disapproving of Petitioner as it relates to him failing to take advantage of a critical learning opportunity from a member of Respondent’s staff who was sent to Petitioner’s work-site to conduct a five-week training session. According to Ms. Price, Petitioner spent as little as one to two hours a day attending the training sessions when, in her opinion, more of his time should have been allocated to attending the sessions, especially since he was new to the company. In his September 19 and 22, 2014, responses to his performance evaluation, Petitioner complained that he had “not been afforded reasonable time to learn the processes and workflows contained within the products offered,” and that in order “[t]o be a subject matter expert, which is at the core of my position, I must have the complete and full immersion into the workflows and processes that make up the related products to be able to effectively and authoritatively create training documentation and train[ing] processes.” Respondent granted Petitioner’s request for “complete and full immersion.” On October 3, 2014, Respondent implemented Petitioner’s request for complete and full immersion, which resulted, among other things, in Petitioner being assigned work hours consistent with those assigned to agents in the Orlando call center. Literally within minutes2/ of being fully and completely immersed into Respondent’s workflows and processes, Petitioner, at 2:47 p.m. on October 3, 2014, was already complaining about the immersion program, as reflected in the following e-mail exchanges between Petitioner and Laura Lampkin. Petitioner to Laura Lampkin – October 3, 2014, 2:47 p.m. Laura: While I appreciate the attention to detail given to this project for immersion into the RTX Workflow and while I have explicitly stated ‘agent like immersion’ into those workflows, this is a bit above and beyond that expectation. “In order for you to get the full spectrum of calls and types of calls, I have rotated your schedule from the AM shift, Mid-Shift and Late-shift throughout the two month period of time. In addition to your shift start/stop times, you have regularly scheduled breaks and lunch, based on the particular shift you will work for that week. As an example, for the AM shift, first break is generally at 10:00 am, lunch at 12 noon and then second break at 2:00 and so on for each of the shifts. You will have Monday’s off work on the weeks that you are scheduled to work Saturdays to assist with floor coverage due to the upcoming maintenance fee season. I appreciate your assistance with floor coverage during this busy season.” [from Pamela Price to Petitioner]. There is no reasonable, acceptable, logic to Pam’s statement. The type of calls able to be handled by an RTX Exchange Agent do[es] not change throughout the course of a day or shift. There are only so many call types available and those happen, randomly, with every inbound call – regardless of time of day. Pam did mention scheduling me into the workflows, however, that was not the interpretation I expected. I would like to get this project underway without unnecessary complications. I find the radical change to my schedule a retaliatory maneuver. As the Instructional Design and Delivery Manager, my need to be exposed to the call queue and to gain the practical knowledge to speak to the agent experience does not require the coverage of three shifts, nor does it require a deviation from my normal schedule to accommodate an eight hour workday. Even though I will be using this opportunity as a ‘live learning environment,’ and will hold myself to the highest standards in customer care, while being mindful of queue wait times – I again find it a bit overboard to dictate call per hour and follow up to the level of actual agent performance. I am not transitioning into an agent position, I am simply utilizing the live call queue as the only available method for active learning and methodology. Could you kindly level set the Pam? At this time and until the current investigation is complete, I feel it may behoove all parties involved to have monitored contact. Thank you much. Laura Lampkin to Petitioner – October 3, 2014, 3:28 p.m. Jason, There actually is a logic to your schedule arrangement, and there is a difference in callers in the AM versus the PM. The AM callers do not contain as many sales opportunities, those are more likely to be basic reservations calls. Call volume is higher in the evening, and opportunities for sales are higher in the evening. The logic behind your rotating schedule arrangement is to give you the fullest exposure possible. Given the criticality of immersion in becoming a Subject Matter Expert, the goal is [to] provide you with the best possible opportunities for exposure. This will help in role playing scenarios and variation, which you expressed were much more difficult to train on without full immersion. If the new schedule is a point of contention, we can rework it. I do want you to understand that there was a great deal of thought put into your immersion plan, all centered around what is most beneficial to you and what bests [sic] affords you the chance to become a Subject Matter Expert. With regards to your statement ‘I am not transitioning into an agent position, I am simply utilizing the live call queue as the only available method for active learning and methodology[,] this is technically correct. However, again in the name of immersion and the need to become a Subject Matter Expert, we are arranging temporarily for your work tasks, work environment and product exposure to basically mimic that of an agent for your benefit. Additionally, specific to your statement ‘I again find it a bit overboard to dictate call per hour and follow up to the level of actual agent performance[,]’ I should clarify that aligning your performance standards with that of an agent is not a main focus. Of course we want you to handle calls properly – and I have no doubt you will – but I do not anticipate any detailed comparison to agents in terms of how the calls are handled. I do believe there will be periodic confirmation of phone time, again not in comparison to agents, but to ensure that the exposure and immersion are occurring. If there are confirmations of phone time, those may be used to determine whether we have fully satisfied our goal of immersion, in terms of exposing you to the phone roles and giving you the needed active time on the phones. I feel I must stress that this immersion plan is driven significantly by your continued emphasis on its importance. I wholeheartedly agree that significant exposure (as you’ve indicated, 4-6 months dedicated time, minimum) to the product and the role is necessary to create training programs and train effectively on most possible scenarios. Because we have yet to arrange dedicated time to immersion for you, and because you’ve indicated it’s critical, we are doing it now. Once the immersion plan is completed, my understanding is that you will be a Subject Matter Expert and capable of training as one. Keeping in mind that maximum exposure has been the goal for your immersion plan and your schedule, I welcome your suggested schedule changes. Thanks. Petitioner to Laura Lampkin – October 3, 2014, 5:07 p.m. Laura: I do appreciate the thoughtfulness put into the plan that I’ve requested. I must say, that from my exposure, I find the majority of inbound calls to contain a sales opportunity and while sales is an important part of our member services and revenue generation, it is not the core of the educational process or training programs expected curriculum. It is certainly necessary to have agent exposure to speak to the experiences and topics that new hires will encounter in production. More so, it is a necessity to explain the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of processes and/or procedures that are expected of an agent. I feel very comfortable in what I have expressed to both Pam and yourself as the requirements for effectively and efficiently learning and understanding the RTX Workflow to a level which is agreeable with the creation of curriculum and the training of such curriculum. The activity of taking live calls, which unfortunately was not available sooner, without interruption, is a requirement. Subject matter expertise is built upon that foundation and will continue to fluctuate until a time comes when the systems and processes used do not change on a consistent basis. As for being held to the same standards as the agent’s in production, I can only speak to what was written and manner in which it was relayed. I stand behind my statements that effective training is necessary before the ability to create, direct or lead a training class or materials. I also stand behind my statements that the schedule change is radical, causes personal conflicts and is not a necessary requirement to achieve the level of immersion and learning that has been requested. For the sake of curiosity, was there a logic to creating a structured ‘agent’ schedule which includes my start, break, lunch and end times? As a salaried employee, I was already under my own direction, likely going to extend my hours and/or utilize unscheduled Saturday’s to afford additional learning time – as I found necessary – due to the estimated time frame I had given to both Pam and yourself by request. This package is wrapped very nicely as a thoughtful contribution to my success, but as a training professional who has interacted with the agent’s and call queue – albeit limited, and with the direct knowledge of what has been lacking in my ability to be fully developed as an employee of RTX, the delivered structure places a burden on my personal needs – which are based around my expected schedule. In addition, a rotation does not deliver nor guarantee delivery of experiences that can’t be extracted from a call within my standard scheduled hours. It would be a great assistance, if we could kindly not alter my schedule and allow me the opportunity I have needed within the confines of what has been established as my schedule expectations for the last six months. Should I find that a knowledge gap exists, I will actively adjust to correct and close such gap. Ms. Price testified as to the accuracy of the matters discussed by Ms. Lampkin in her e-mail reply to Petitioner. Additionally, the undisputed evidence is that Petitioner unilaterally withdrew from the immersion program after having been a part of the same for only two weeks. The evidence is also undisputed that Respondent did not change Petitioner’s pay, benefits, or job-related opportunities as a consequence of Petitioner entering and subsequently leaving the full immersion program. The e-mail exchange between Petitioner and Ms. Lampkin show a number of things, none of which support Petitioner’s claim of retaliation. As an initial matter, Ms. Lampkin’s e-mail to Petitioner, and the related testimony from Ms. Price, clearly establishes that Respondent knows its business operations better than Petitioner. Next, Ms. Lampkin’s e-mail to Petitioner, and the related testimony from Ms. Price, establishes that Petitioner’s immersion into Respondent’s operations was a temporary assignment scheduled to last about two months and that the planned immersion was in furtherance of Respondent’s legitimate business interests of having Petitioner to perform his job at a competence level higher than “marginal.” Furthermore, Petitioner’s correspondence of September 19, 2014, wherein he specifically requests “complete and full immersion,” when compared to his correspondence of October 3, 2014, wherein he retreats to a preferred experience of ‘agent like immersion,’ shows that Petitioner was simply trying to the game the system in an attempt to avoid “plac[ing] a burden on [his] personal needs” as repeatedly referenced in his correspondence of October 3, 2014. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Respondent’s decision to fully immerse him, on a temporary basis, in its call center operations was done for reasons other than those related to improving Petitioner’s job performance, and concomitantly Respondent’s business operations. In other words, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent’s decision to fully immerse him in its call center operations was done in retaliation for his having alleged that Ms. Price discriminated against him on the basis of his gender. In the Employment Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner alleges, in part, the following: I suffer from three chronic disabilities as explained to my employer when requesting reasonable accommodation to work from home, when not tasked with a training class, the call center floor and office space triggers disability-related episodes and limits my ability to concentrate and effectively focus. Respondent continues to make the process of providing me reasonable accommodations difficult and shows no desire to work with me, or my physician’s requirements, to allow me to quickly return to work and perform my job functions. The fact that Petitioner suffers from recognized disabilities is not in dispute. On or about October 30, 2014, Petitioner informed Ms. Lampkin during a telephone conference that he believed that he had one or more physical impairments that might warrant an accommodation. Specifically, Petitioner reported that the workplace lighting was bothersome and that he would work better with incandescent or natural lighting. Ms. Lampkin asked Petitioner to provide additional information about his lighting concerns so that Respondent could determine whether workplace modifications were necessary. Petitioner also informed Ms. Lampkin that he was not sure whether his lighting concerns were temporary or would be on-going. On November 3, 2014, Petitioner e-mailed Ms. Lampkin stating, in part, the following: I am unable to go into the call center and back office areas as it directly impacts my sense of well-being and heightens my medical concerns. Therefore I am unable to report to the office to conduct my required function of creating training curriculums and educational products. My physicians are preparing documentation for you as requested. Due to the nature of my core job functions, I am requesting that work from home be authorized as a reasonable accommodation. As of November 3, 2014, the only specific medical concern mentioned by Petitioner was his sensitivity to lighting. On or about November 11, 2014, Petitioner gave Ms. Lampkin a letter from his physician. The physician’s letter states, in part, that Petitioner should be allowed “to work from home when [he] is not tasked with conducting training classes” because Petitioner “will be better able to perform the essential functions of his position by working from home.” The letter goes on to state that “the work environment triggers severe panic attacks” and that Petitioner “has become increasingly sensitive to and made ill by various fragrances and fluorescent lighting, all of which would be eliminated by working from home.” The physician also notes that “[f]urther support of this request is the fact that [Petitioner’s] primary job functions can effectively be performed remotely, with the need for being present in the office relegated to those times when he must attend meetings for which teleconference is not available or to perform the training that he conducts.” The physician's letter did not indicate that Petitioner was unable to perform the essential functions of his job without a reasonable accommodation. Rather the letter stated that Petitioner would be “better able to perform the essential function of this position by working from home.” Based on the rather cryptic information contained in the physician's letter, Respondent was unable to grant Petitioner's request for a reasonable accommodation. In response to the physician’s letter, Respondent, on November 13, 2014, informed Petitioner that “[a]dditional information is necessary in order to make a determination regarding [the] request for reasonable accommodation.” The additional information requested from Petitioner’s physician is as follows: What are the environmental factors which trigger the panic attacks? When is the condition(s) expected to resolve and a return to work to occur? What about the conditions(s) prevents performing daily work tasks in the workplace, but permits conduction of classroom training in the workplace? Are there other alternatives which can be offered, outside of working from home, which allow the essential job functions to be performed? If so, what are those alternatives? The previous letter states that the primary job functions can be performed from home. What are those primary job functions which were referenced in that statement? The previous letter reference enclosures, but none were provided with the letter. Please provide any relevant enclosures for review. Each question asked by Respondent was reasonably tailored so as elicit responses that would better enable Respondent to analyze Petitioner’s request for accommodation and to explore the availability of other possible accommodations. On November 19, 2014, Petitioner wrote a lengthy message to Ms. Lampkin contesting Respondent's need for the additional information. In response to this missive, Ms. Lampkin, on November 20, 2014, informed Petitioner that his “request for accommodation has been conditionally denied pending the receipt of the required information.” On November 21, 2014, Petitioner sent another missive to Ms. Lampkin and argued therein that Respondent's request for additional information was overbroad and that in his opinion he had provided sufficient information so as to allow Respondent to grant his request for accommodation. In response to the concerns expressed by Petitioner, Ms. Lampkin provided a detailed explanation to Petitioner of why additional information was needed to evaluate his request for accommodation and encouraged Petitioner to provide the information “as expeditiously as possible so that we can move forward with granting you an accommodation.” His protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, Petitioner had not, as of November 21, 2014, provided Respondent with sufficient information to allow Respondent to determine what reasonable accommodations were necessary and available in order to address Petitioner’s mental and physical impairments. On November 24, 2014, Petitioner supplied Respondent with what is described as “supplemental documentation” from his physician. This documentation was not, however, information entirely responsive to the six points of inquiry mentioned in Respondent’s November 13, 2014, correspondence to Petitioner. Based on the supplemental information, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would modify the workplace to accommodate Petitioner’s sensitivity to light and scents. Petitioner was directed to report to work on December 1, 2014. Petitioner did not return to work on December 1, 2014, as instructed. Petitioner e-mailed Respondent on December 3, 2014, to state that he had not received the e-mail instructing him to return to work on December 1, 2014. He also indicated that he did not believe that all of his workplace concerns had been addressed. Ms. Lampkin responded on December 5, 2014, indicating that Respondent had addressed all known workplace issues and also informed Petitioner that additional information would be considered, if supplied. Specifically, Ms. Lampkin stated to Petitioner: I, too, am willing to continue to engage in this interactive process with you. The next steps in the process, should your position remain that your condition(s) warrant further accommodation including working from home, involve your supplying me with specific responses to the informational requests I have previously made. The informational requests that I made were not entirely answered by the response I received from you dated 11/21/14. I am happy to re-send you the form so that you can provide the remaining information. Please advise. On December 9, 2014, Ms. Lampkin provided Petitioner with another copy of the form setting forth the information requested on November 13, 2014. In her correspondence of December 9, 2014, Ms. Lampkin explained that “[t]he information contained in the form that you returned to me was insufficient to enable RTX to approve your request to telecommute indefinitely or to allow RTX to evaluate what reasonable accommodations other than what RTX has already offered may be available.” On December 11, 2014, Ms. Lampkin again requested that Petitioner provide her information responsive to those items enumerated in her correspondence of November 13, 2014. On December 15, 2014, Petitioner advised Ms. Lampkin that he was expecting to receive from his physician information responsive to her requests and that he would forward the same to her as soon as possible. On or about December 18, 2014, Petitioner sent Respondent a second letter from his physician. In the letter, Petitioner’s physician stated definitively that “I do not find any other accommodations available other than for the patient to be afforded the ability to work remotely when not tasked with conducting training classes which require physical presence.” Based on that statement by Petitioner's physician, Respondent agreed to grant Petitioner a reasonable accommodation and to permit him to work from home when not tasked with conducting classroom training. Petitioner was advised that January 2, 2015, would be his official return-to-work date. Respondent acted reasonably, and communicated with Petitioner appropriately, when seeking information related to Petitioner’s desire to work from home. The evidence does not support Petitioner’s contention that Respondent unreasonably delayed granting Petitioner’s request to work from home. On or about January 5, 2015, Petitioner, via videoconference, met with Ms. Price to discuss the new hire training class that Petitioner was to conduct on January 12, 2015. The following day, on January 6, 2015, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Ms. Price and Ms. Lampkin and complained therein of not having enough time to prepare for the January 12, 2015, new hire training session. Petitioner, nevertheless, assured Respondent that “it will get done” and any questions that he could not answer during the training session “will go to the parking lot while [he] obtains an answer for the students.” On Monday, January 12, 2015, the day of the new hire training session, Petitioner, at 9:52 a.m., sent the following e-mail message to Ms. Price and Ms. Lampkin: I have spent 10.5 hours within the ER on Sandlake Road and awake for over 22 hours, so I will not be in today to begin your impromptu FAC training class. I will either be in tomorrow or we can consider this my constructive discharge/resignation and I will simply limit my interaction with RTX through the ongoing investigations. The choice is yours, of course, but kindly let me know so I can plan my Tuesday accordingly. I need to rest, now. Thank you. At 6:28 p.m., on January 12, 2015, Ms. Lampkin, in response to Petitioner’s e-mail, informed Petitioner of the following: Your absence today is unexcused. You are being given the opportunity to convert today’s absence to an excused absence by presenting a doctor’s note. If today’s absence remains an unexcused absence, you are subject to discipline. We are expecting you to be present to teach the class tomorrow, and to be ready to teach at 8:00 a.m. You were to have printed the materials earlier, and we expect that you will be ready to teach at 8:00 a.m. Petitioner did not report to work on January 13, 2015, to conduct the training session. Instead, Petitioner, at 9:41 a.m. on January 13, 2015, informed Ms. Lampkin that “the curt and underhanded behavior of RTX increases my anxieties . . . [and] it has been determined by myself and my health care providers that it is to my benefit to continue with a constructive resignation.” Respondent deemed Petitioner as having voluntarily resigned his employment with the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, Resort Travel and Xchange, did not commit unlawful employment practices as alleged by Petitioner, Jason L. Van Horne, and denying Petitioner's Employment Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2016.
