Findings Of Fact Lockheed Space Operations Company ("LSOC"), is an employer within the definition found in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Sylvia Dewalt (Petitioner) is an "employee" of LSOC as defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, and has been employed by LSOC since 1983. Petitioner is an adult female, and a naturalized U.S. citizen of Philippino descent. Petitioner works as a communications technician presently on the third shift in LC-39 Operations, which operates and maintains the voice communications system for ground operations in connection with the Space Shuttle orbiter program. Dewalt worked on the first shift at that location from 1983 until November 5, 1990 (except for 8 to 10 months in 1985), and again from July, 1991 until April, 1992. During the latter part of 1990, Respondent William E. Brown was Dewalt's lead technician on the first shift. A lead technician is an hourly wage employee and is not a supervisor, but is responsible for assigning work to the other technicians on the shift and insuring that it was completed in a timely manner. Brown is not an "employer" within the definition of Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, but was an agent of Respondent LSOC. Vernon "Sonny" Whitten was the supervisor of the first shift and an employee and agent of LSOC at all times relevant. Respondent Benny Douglas was Petitioner LSOC's second level supervisor beginning in the spring of 1990. He supervised, among others, Whitten and Len Adcock, the supervisor of the third shift. Prior to 1990, Petitioner's second level supervisor was Rod Langley, who retired. Respondent Derald Roth was the Respondent LSOC's manager of voice systems and was Benny Douglas' supervisor at all times relevant. Prior to October, 1990, Petitioner experienced various comments, proposals and name-calling related to her sex and national origin by other employees during her employment with Lockheed. However, she has not reported these incidents since they did not affect her position as a technician. In LC-39 Operations, for many years through October of 1990, posters of women in skimpy clothes have been displayed in the locker room within the view of supervisors. A locker displaying photographs of naked and skimpily clad women was posted on the inside of a technician's locker and was left open and in full view of female employees including Petitioner, who found them to be demeaning to women. Additionally, in LC-39 Operations, male technicians would refer to females as bitches, and use other negative language about women, such as "my old lady, the bitch at home, or that F woman." Frequently, they would openly discuss sexual topics regarding women. Petitioner found this language offensive and occasionally reported it to her supervisors. It was commonly known that she objected to offensive language used in her presence. The day shift supervisor did not chastise individuals concerning their use of degrading language about women, although the language took place in his hearing. Neither the day shift supervisor nor Douglas instructed that the photographs or posters of women be taken down or covered. In 1985, when both Petitioner and Respondent Brown worked together on third shift, Brown grabbed Petitioner on the inner portion of her right thigh, closer to her pelvis than to her knee. Petitioner got upset and told him not to touch her anymore. After Petitioner objected to Brown about his touching her, Brown's disposition toward her changed. He became easily upset with Petitioner. He would question her response time on a job, and follow her around. Brown even appeared to be obsessed with Petitioner. Petitioner left the third shift in 1985, in part, due to the problems with Brown. In 1985, when Douglas was employed as an engineer, without supervisory responsibilities, he would come on the third shift on occasion to support major testing and validations. Douglas jokingly asked Petitioner to sit on his lap several times. Each time Petitioner told Douglas that she was not going to sit on his lap. Sometimes she ignored Douglas and simply walked away. After Douglas became a supervisor and prior to October 10, 1990, Petitioner experienced what she perceived to be additional unwanted sexual attention from Douglas. This occurred in the form of another request to sit on his lap; an invitation to go on a dive trip to the Keys with him and, during the summer of 1990, having him touch her on her arm. Petitioner objected to these actions by Douglas. Petitioner's employment evaluations showed her to be a high level performer with no productivity or attendance problems. Petitioner has received numerous commendations, both individually and as a team member, during her employment with Lockheed. Prior to October, 1990, Petitioner had served as a temporary lead technician numerous times, resulting in a temporary pay increase of 50 cents per hour on each occasion. Prior to October 1990, for two years, Petitioner "specialized" by working on a daily basis in CCR, the communications control room, also known as "the console". Other technicians who specialized were Larry Skidmore, assigned to bridges; Mike Stevens, assigned to the pad; and Jerry Bennington, assigned to OISD. On October 10, 1990, Petitioner was confronted by Respondent Brown. He was upset by a rumor he had heard and called Petitioner names including "bitch, pineapple picker, and split tail." He flailed his arms at her in anger and physically backed her into a corner, causing her to feel helpless and very scared. Petitioner was offended by the assault and found these terms degrading of her gender and nationality. Petitioner was able to extract herself from the room. Petitioner reported Brown's actions to her supervisor Sonny Whitten about an hour later. Whitten said he would look into the situation. Brown was known to be short-tempered and loud with all technicians, both male and female, whom he felt were not performing adequately. In fact, two other technicians on the first shift, Henry Eddleman and Kevin DuBois, had also complained to Whitten that Brown yelled at them. Eddleman and DuBois are white males. Later that day, October 10, 1990, Brown, Whitten and Bennie Douglas met concerning several complaints they had received about Brown's demeanor toward other communications technicians. Brown demanded to "meet his accusers". Petitioner was standing in the next room and was brought in to the meeting. Upon being questioned, Petitioner explained in detail what had occurred earlier in the day. Brown, still upset, called Petitioner a "prima donna". He was verbally corrected for making this remark by Whitten. At the end of the meeting Brown and Petitioner were asked if they could work with each other. They said yes and the matter appeared to be resolved and the incident was not documented. However, during the next two days, Brown's demeanor toward Petitioner became jittery, short-tempered, upset and snappy. He paced a lot and acted like he was ready to explode. He was constantly shifting all the time. On October 12, 1990, Brown approached Petitioner, who was working on an updated prints project. He demanded that Petitioner stop what she was doing, and do a calibration run. Petitioner responded by asking if she could finish what she was doing or if Brown could get someone else to do the task. Brown became very agitated and went directly to the supervisor about her. By the time Whitten approached her, Petitioner was at a stopping point in doing the prints. Whitten simply told her she could go do the calibration run at this time, which she did. Supervisor Whitten did not reprimand or correct Petitioner. During the period of time that Brown was acting in an agitated and upset manner toward her, Petitioner went to her supervisor Sonny Whitten to state that she was afraid that Brown was going to hit her due to his demeanor and past violent history. Whitten's response was nonchalant and he stated, "oh well, if he hits you, it will solve all our problems." Petitioner approached Whitten again the next work day and again expressed her fear of Brown. She advised Whitten that she understood that Brown had knocked the teeth out of his previous victim. Again, Whitten appeared unconcerned and stated that it doesn't take much to lose a few teeth. In light of the continued threat posed by Brown, Petitioner requested at a meeting with supervisors Adcock, Whitten and Douglas, that the incident of October 10, 1990 with Brown be documented and that she be given a copy of the report. Adcock agreed that the incident should be documented. Douglas strenuously disagreed. He stated that it was a first time incident and he would not document it. Douglas further stated that he checked with EEO and they stated that the term "prima donna" was not a discriminatory statement. Adcock reminded Douglas that Brown had harassed Petitioner in the past and this was not a first time incident. Douglas still refused to document the incident. Lockheed's supervisor's handbook requires that a verbal warning be documented by a memo entitled an AVO. The supervisor's handbook also lists offenses which would be grounds for termination. At a separate meeting with Adcock shortly thereafter, Douglas referred to the dispute between Brown and Petitioner as "a pissing contest". He stated angrily: "That little bitch doesn't tell me what to do", referring to Petitioner. This was repeated by Douglas several times, sometimes with the term "Philippino Bitch" used. Brown used derogatory language about Petitioner during this time period in the presence of Len Adcock, referring to Petitioner as "a pineapple picker, a split tail, that Philippino bitch". He repeated the comments in front of supervisor Sonny Whitten, stating "This split-tail is going to ruin the outfit." He also stated them in front of Gerry Patten, calling her a "Philippino, wet-back, green-card carrying bitch." Brown's denial that he used this language in reference to Petitioner is unworthy of belief. Brown's testimony that he considered Petitioner his friend is not credible. During the period of time between July, 1990, and the fall of 1990, Brown spoke outside of the workplace about Petitioner in a negative way on a continual basis. He spread the rumor stating that Petitioner was having an affair with her supervisor and for that reason received special favors at work. At this same time, late October, 1990, a rotation policy was instituted by management for the first shift in LC-39 Operations. The purpose of the policy change was to train technicians to become proficient at various tasks. Only lead technicians and one senior technician at each job experienced enough to train others were allowed to "specialize" - that is, do mostly one type of job and not rotate. This would remove Petitioner from her work assignment. She was the only technician who was specializing who would be pulled off of her normal assignment and she was the only female technician who was specializing. Pursuant to Lockheed policy, Petitioner contacted her next level supervisor, Derald Roth about documenting the incident with Brown and about her concern about being the only specializing technician to be pulled from her assigned area. Roth stated that he agreed with and would support Bennie Douglas's position on both counts. Petitioner next went up the chain of command to Brad Wilkinson to ask for documentation of the October 10th Brown incident and about the specialization issue. Wilkinson refused to document the incident and stated that Brown had been given a verbal warning and that they would assign Brown to the pad to separate him from Petitioner. Petitioner requested a meeting with her next level of supervision and to Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) officer Leroy Scott and company counsel, Dennis Diemoz. At the same time Petitioner was requesting a written reprimand of Brown, she began expressing to Whitten that she feared physical violence from Brown. This fear for her safety was confirmed when Petitioner's husband called Douglas a few days later. Douglas moved to immediately separate the two by temporarily transferring Brown to another position in LC-39 Operations which was temporarily vacant. Shortly thereafter, Douglas' supervisor, Roth, met with his superiors, employee-relations managers, and union officials to discuss a solution to the Petitioner/Brown conflict. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (the Union), which represented both Petitioner and Brown, took the position that Brown could not be unilaterally transferred because he had not been found guilty of any offense. The Union indicated that if any transfers were to be made, both employees should be transferred, and, further, since Brown was the more senior of the two, he should be given first choice of assignments. Petitioner was then called to a meeting with her union steward and Roth. Roth told her that "all of this had to stop", and that she would be transferred to the shops area for a six month's "cooling down" period. Brown was to be transferred as well. Roth stated that when he said "all of this had to stop", he was referring to Petitioner's going up the chain of command asking for documentation of the incident between herself and Brown. Roth viewed both transfers as a form of discipline; and stated that Petitioner being disciplined for the "allegation that was not totally proven" and that she had been insubordinate. At no time did Roth communicate to Petitioner that she was being disciplined for being insubordinate. The transfer AVO stated that Petitioner was being moved to "maintain productivity and improve day-to-day operations." On November 5, 1990, Brown and Petitioner were transferred out of LC- 39 Operations. The transfers were to be for six months, at which time Brown and Petitioner would be permitted to transfer back into LC-39 Operations. Petitioner was transferred to Voice Systems Shops (Shops) and Brown to the Communications Distribution and Switching Center (CD&SC). The hourly rate of pay remained the same for each following the transfer. Douglas told Len Adcock that if Petitioner did not "learn who's boss, she may never come back. If she's not a good girl, learn to be a good girl and knows who's boss. . . . Later, Douglas reiterated to Adcock and Whitten, that "no way we're going to bring her "Petitioner" back, shes got to be -- learn to be a good girl." Roth told Len Adcock that until Petitioner had learned her lesson and was a good girl she would not come back to LC-39 Operations and referred to the dispute between Petitioner and Brown as a "pissing contest". When Len Adcock again tried to talk to Douglas about Petitioner's transfer and suggested that Douglas might be motivated by Petitioner having rebuffed Douglas's past advances, Douglas threatened Adcock, saying that he [Douglas] and Roth could take care of Adcock too. They had lots of things on Adcock. He should stay out of it and behave himself. The sexually aggressive acts of Douglas were reported to EEO Officer Leroy Scott by Petitioner in December, 1990 or January, 1991 and by Len Adcock in January, 1991. LeRoy Scott acknowledged these disclosures in a memo to Gene Stone, Dennis Diemoz and Frank McTernan, dated 1-23-91, but produced no internal memorandum concerning the disclosures nor did he institute any investigation. Douglas threatened technician Addison in approximately January, 1991, about vocally supporting Petitioner and that if Addison continued to do so, he could figure on having problems with it. The transfer of Petitioner and Brown did not result in their physical separation as intended, as they were both moved to the same end of the Space Center. Due to his new job assignment, Brown turned up in Petitioner's area two or three times per week. When Brown was in Petitioner's work area, he would walk nearby and glare at her, making her feel uncomfortable. If Brown had moved and Petitioner had stayed in LC-39 Operations, they would have been separated by approximately five miles and would have had minimal or no contact. Petitioner immediately objected to her transfer and requested a transfer back to LC-39 Operations. Petitioner continued to object to the failure to document the Brown incident and the transfer, by seeking a meeting with the EEO officer LeRoy Scott. Scott was unable to give her a reason that she had been transferred and stated he would look into it. Petitioner brought Ray Pittman and Addison with her to a meeting with Scott to document that she had previously been harassed by Brown and by Douglas, and to explain that she believed her transfer was a form of retaliation. Scott informed Petitioner for the first time at the second meeting that she had been transferred because of her "subjective fear" of Brown. Scott was advised that this was not a solution because Brown had plenty of access to Petitioner while she was in Shops. In written form, Scott told Petitioner that in order to be considered for a transfer back to LC-39 Operations that she should "do the best you can in your present assignment and avoid any contact that may exacerbate the situation." Petitioner next contacted company counsel, Dennis Diemoz, via the company hotline. Diemoz was informed of the history of the situation by Petitioner, including the fact that Brown had called her names, and that, after the transfer, she was still in close proximity to Brown. Petitioner was the first one to bring it to the attention of Deimoz that she was still in close proximity to Brown. Nonetheless, several more months passed between Petitioner informing Deimoz of the fact that Brown was still in close proximity to her and Petitioner being moved back to LC-39 Operations. Ultimately, after proceeding up the chain of command, hiring an attorney, filing a complaint with the Florida Human Relations Commission, Petitioner was returned to LC-39 Operations on July 1, 1991. The re-assignment was 8 months after she was originally transferred and at least five months after Dennis Deimoz was on notice that the transfer had not resulted in a physical separation of Brown and Petitioner. In the meantime, persons with less seniority than Petitioner were allowed to transfer into LC-39 Operations, including Carole Chauncey, who had eight years less seniority than Petitioner. Brown has stayed in the position at CD&SC, and has not returned to LC- 39 Operations. After returning to LC-39 Operations, Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliatory acts in the following manner: Douglas and Whitten treated the Petitioner in a cold unfriendly manner, ignoring her presence, and failing to offer any normal civil greetings to her. The "welcome back" banner which was hung up by Petitioner's fellow technicians was torn down by Respondent Douglas within an hour of it being put up. During the same period, a male co-worker's "welcome back" banner was left up for seven days, upon his return from Desert Storm. On July 1, 1991, the day that Petitioner returned to LC-39 Operations, supervisor Sonny Whitten began keeping a journal which focused primarily upon the activities of Petitioner. Later, after Carole Chauncey complained about misconduct by Mike Evolga, another technician, he kept a journal about Chauncey as well. Petitioner was approached and chastised by Supervisor Whitten for not being at her work station immediately at 7:30 a.m., when other coworkers who were in Room 2R14 talking and having coffee were not similarly chastised. Later in the same day, Whitten and Douglas approached Petitioner and asked if she had a problem following the rules regarding work hours. Petitioner was the only technician who was previously specializing who was subject to the "training rotation" schedule, implemented by Roth and Douglas in late October 1990. Other specializing technicians, who were all males, Jerry Bennington, Mike Stevens and Larry Skidmore, were allowed to continue to specialize and were not required to rotate work stations. Coincidentally, the rotational training program which had been in the works prior to Petitioner's transfer was not implemented until Petitioner's return to LC-39 Operations in July, 1991. None of the male technicians previously identified as specializing [Bennington, Stevens & Skidmore] were placed upon the rotation schedule and Petitioner was the only specializing technician subject to the rotation requirement. Petitioner was denied the opportunity to recoup her overtime that she would have received if she had not been involuntarily transferred, although the department had voted that anyone who had left on an involuntary basis would be able to get their hours back. A male technician who had left the department during Desert Storm was allowed to recoup his hours; Petitioner was not, under the orders of Bennie Douglas. Petitioner was twice denied to serve as temporary lead, with enhanced pay, due to a vacillation in the rules about how the temporary lead was selected. However, Petitioner was compensated for the loss in pay for the error made in the first instance. Finally, in March of 1992, Petitioner was linked to an investigation of missing "Triflow", a lubricant, which focused on some cans of the lubricant ordered by Len Adcock and allegedly picked up by Petitioner. The investigation of this matter disclosed that the Triflow had never been received in the supply department and therefore was not missing. However, the suggestion by management that she was somehow linked with allegedly stolen supplies, upset the Petitioner and induced her to transfer to third shift for protection from further retaliatory acts. The "Triflow" investigation was instituted on the same day that Lockheed employees including Sonny Whitten, Derald Roth and Bennie Douglas met with LeRoy Scott to review Petitioner's FCHR complaint and to begin to formulate their responses. Shortly after Petitioner transferred to third shift, the training rotation was discontinued. Upon Petitioner's transfer to third shift, hostile acts continued as follows: The Petitioner exercised her option to work a "flex time" schedule, meaning that she would come in during the latter portion of the second shift and then leave work before the conclusion of third shift. The normal practice was for preshifters to check in with the lead technician; however, Petitioner was instructed by the shift supervisor Chuck Ehrhardt, that Ehrhardt needed to hear her voice, and that he could not accept her lead tech's word that she was on the premises. A male preshifting employee, John Wolff, was not required to personally check in with Ehrhardt on a day to day basis. Douglas came onto third shift and made inquiries about Petitioner's use of sick time, the reason for her preshifting and questioned how she got along with her coworkers. He further demanded to have Petitioner's unlisted home telephone number. Douglas did not make such inquires about any other third shift technician. Douglas harshly admonished Petitioner and threatened to write her up for insubordination because she did not correctly follow a newly implemented procedure on the handling of PRACAs. However, the procedure was not put in writing until after both of the allegedly incorrect PRACAS had been completed by Petitioner. Douglas referred to Petitioner as a "non-cooperative non team playing bitch", in the presence of technician Gerry Patten. On another occasion, he referred to Petitioner as a bitch in the presence of Patten in connection with a discussion of the PRACA procedure, saying "I'm going to make this bitch do as she is told." Petitioner repeatedly reported the actions she was experiencing to company counsel, Dennis Deimoz, and to LeRoy Scott. Douglas used sexual innuendo, ridicule and demeaning comments about women in the presence of another female technician, Carole Chauncey, in LC-39 Operations, which caused her to feel uncomfortable and humiliated. Although Carole Chauncey discussed these allegations against Douglas with LeRoy Scott of EEOC and Robert Granger of Human Resources, no formal investigation was done. Carole Chauncey complained to her supervisor, Sonny Whitten, sometime in the early 1990s that Mike Evolga, another technician, was making sexual gestures to a female gate guard and that Evolga was "out of control". Douglas stated to Whitten in the presence of Chauncey several days later that gestures do not constitute harassment according to Lockheed attorneys, and no further inquiry into the matter was conducted. Technician Mike Evolga referred to women as "dumb broads", and "damned broads" in the presence of supervisor Sonny Whitten without Whitten admonishing Evolga about making such denigrating remarks. In November of 1991, Chauncey met with Robert Granger, of the Human Resources Department of Lockheed and made complaints about sexual joking and innuendos in LC-39 Operations and management condoning it. Granger apprised LeRoy Scott of these facts and was not instructed to conduct any further investigation. Vicki Weekes, who became Sonny Whitten's secretary in November of 1993, was warned by Whitten that LC-39 Operations was a male working environment and that a lot of women had gone to EEO over a lot of little things and he did not want any of this EEO "crap". Management in LC-39 Operations have been advised that photos and posters of scantily clad women, which are visible in the workplace, are offensive to women. Nevertheless, they did not see the problem and have allowed the practice to continue. The Petitioner was damaged in that she lost overtime pay in an amount of approximately $7,000.00, plus interest, by virtue of being transferred out of her department and then deprived of the opportunity to recoup her overtime upon returning to the department. The Petitioner has incurred attorney's fees and costs in bringing this action, of a total amount to be determined at a supplemental proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered as follows: Respondents Douglas, Roth and Brown should be dismissed, as they are not subject to personal liability under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes; Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of her sex and national origin by being subjected to a hostile work environment; Petitioner was discriminated against by Respondent LSOC by unlawful retaliation; Petitioner be compensated for her damages in accordance with applicable law; and Respondent LSOC be directed to cease and desist its unlawful conduct directed toward Petitioner and such other remedies as the Commission may deem appropriate; and Petitioner be awarded her attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of this action. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3 (date of employment began in 1983), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), 73(a), (b), (c), (d), 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85 in part, 86, 88 (in part). Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 16, 77, 82, 84, 85 (in part), 87, 88 (in part), 89. Respondents' LSOC, Douglas and Roth Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 (in part), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (in part), 10, 12 (in part), 13 (in part), 14, 15, 16, 18 (in part), 19 (in part), 20, 21, 22 (in part), 23 (in part), 24 (in part), 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 38 (in part), 40. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 18 (in part), 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36, 37, 38 (in part), 42, 43. Rejected as aaginst the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 4 (in part), 9 (in part), 11, 12 (in part), 13 (in part), 17, 19 (in part), 22 (in part), 23 (in part), 33, 39, 41. Respondent Brown did not file separate proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter J. Hurtgen, Esquire David M. DeMaio, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 5300 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Susan K. W. Erlenbach, Esquire Erlenbach & Erlenbach, P.A. 503 South Palm Avenue Titusville, Florida 32796 William R. Clifton, Esquire 412 Brevard Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue With regard to DOAH Case No. 98-5090 (FCHR Case No. 95- 5752), the issue is: Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by failing to select Petitioner for the position of environmental manager in the Fall of 1994 because of his age or gender. With regard to DOAH Case No. 98-3611 (FCHR Case No. 96- 1298), the issue is: Whether the Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 by retaliating against Petitioner by terminating him from his position because the Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).
Findings Of Fact DOAH Case No. 98-5090 Discrimination Petitioner began his employment with Respondent in the Southwest District in Tampa on October 1, 1991, as an Engineer III with the air pollution program. He transferred to the Central District in Orlando, Florida, on June 3, 1994. Petitioner is an "employee" and Respondent is an "employer" under the statute. On or about September 26, 1994, Petitioner applied for the position of environmental manager in the Orlando Central District. At the time of his application, he had been with Respondent for almost two years but in the Orlando office for less than four months. Petitioner met the minimum qualifications for the position and is a male over 40 years of age. In September 1994, Alex Alexander was the director of the Central District and the hiring supervisor for the position of environmental manager. Alex Alexander conducted the interviews, decided who would be interviewed, and made the final decision regarding selection. He was assisted in the selection process by James Bradner, who had formerly occupied the environmental manager position. Bradner was an Engineer IV. The previous engineering position was reclassified to environmental manager, prior to advertising it, to eliminate the engineering functions. Alexander was seeking someone who could act as assistant to the director in environmental matters and to represent him on various matters before public and governmental bodies. Alexander determined that it was essential that the candidate have experience in a wide variety of Respondent's regulated programs, as well as with public presentations in dealing with Florida legislators and local government officials, and negotiating and managing Respondent's contracts. In 1994, Alexander was 69 years of age. From the evidence, it appears Alexander had no predisposition as to the age or gender of the selected candidate. He would have preferred a mature candidate if he could have found one who met all of the other requirements. There were 13 applicants for the position of environmental manager of whom nine, including Petitioner, met the minimum qualifications for the position. Four applicants were selected by Alexander to be interviewed, including three females and one male, all under 40 years of age. None of the three male applicants over the age of 40, who met the minimum qualifications for the position, were interviewed. In September 1994, T. Patrick Price was the operations manager for the Central District and his duties included serving as personnel liaison between the Central District and the Bureau of Personnel Services in Tallahassee. As a practical matter, Price's assistant, Minnie Yates, performed most of the clerical functions associated with personnel matters including recruitment and the preparation of recruitment and hiring packages. Price and the selectee, Ruth McLemore, had a "live-in, domestic relationship." They subsequently wed and were married at the time of hearing. Petitioner failed to show that Price was in a position to influence the selection of McLemore, either directly or indirectly. Price removed himself in the early stages from the selection process, when he learned that McLemore had applied for the environmental manager position. Furthermore, had Price not removed himself from the selection process, his role would have been limited to reviewing the applications to determine which applicants possessed the minimum qualifications for the position, and later ensuring that the selected applicant was among the most qualified applicants. The greater weight of evidence did not support the assertion that Price was in a position to influence directly or indirectly, the outcome of the selection process or which candidates were selected for interview. In September 1994, Petitioner had over 20 years of experience as an engineer at the United States Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. However, his experience with programs regulated by Respondent was limited to one year with an Orlando company involving domestic waste, approximately 20 months with the air program in Tampa, and less than four months with the industrial wastewater program in Orlando. Petitioner testified that he had dealt with legislators and their aides in New Hampshire and Maine but offered no proof of experience with the Florida Legislature. Petitioner testified that he did not have experience with or knowledge of Respondent's contracting procedures. While Petitioner testified that he had experience in making public presentations in New Hampshire, and in writing reports in the Southwest District, he failed to attach any writing samples or examples of relevant public presentations to his application. The selected applicant, Ruth McLemore-Price, f/k/a Ruth McLemore, is a white female under 40 years of age. In September 1994, she was an Environmental Specialist III in the Storage Tank program of the Division of Waste Management in the Central District of Respondent. From 1987 to 1988, McLemore was a Biological Scientist I in the Environmental Health Section of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. She was hired by Respondent in 1988 as an Environmental Specialist I in the Domestic Wastewater Section. At the time of her application, she had over seven years of professional experience with environmental programs in Florida, including but not limited to: domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, drinking water, storage tanks, hazardous waste, and solid waste. Additionally, her application includes examples of her numerous public presentations and writing samples. She had extensive contract experience including contracting with local governmental programs. Whereas Petitioner had more years of professional experience, McLemore's experience was more relevant to the position of environmental manager and better met the required knowledge skills and abilities required of the position. Petitioner was unable to produce any proof of his assertion that the group of applicants interviewed must be in statistical parity with protected groups within the District or within Respondent. Rather, the evidence showed that there is no such requirement. Likewise, there was no evidence that merely meeting the minimum qualifications of a position requires that the candidate be interviewed, and the evidence demonstrated this not to be the case. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent classified applicants in such a way so as to discriminate against him due to his age and gender. The evidence showed that the classification of applicants by age, gender, and race was created after the selection process was completed in order to comply with Respondent's requirements, the Age Discrimination Act, and the Civil Rights Act. Further, there was no credible evidence that Respondent's actions were a pretext for discrimination, that the employment decision was grounded in discriminatory animus, or that a discriminatory reason motivated Respondent in its actions. DOAH Case No. 98-3611 In March 1995, following Alexander's retirement, Vivian Garfein became director of the Central District. Within a few days of her arrival, Petitioner approached her and lodged a complaint regarding his non-selection for the environmental manager position. Garfein looked into the matter, and subsequently, advised Petitioner that she found no irregularities in the selection process. Petitioner advised her that he was aware that he had formal remedies and on May 19, 1995, he filed his initial complaint with FCHR. Petitioner alleges that, within hours of complaining to Garfein, a course of retaliation commenced, perpetrated by his immediate supervisor Ali Kazi, which continued until, and was the cause of his resignation in December 1995. These acts included: In April 1995, Kazi returned Petitioner's April timesheet with instructions to complete and sign it before submitting it to his supervisor. Petitioner alleges that this was harassment because it was intended as a preliminary submittal and, therefore, was obviously incomplete. In November 1995, Petitioner alleges that Kazi conducted his performance evaluation and completed it within two minutes. The evaluation encouraged him to attempt to reduce his leave without pay. Petitioner asserted that all of his leave without pay was unavoidable and necessary; and, since he was the hardest worker in the District and kept his work up-to- date, Kazi had no basis for making such a recommendation. Petitioner further alleged that Kazi harassed and retaliated against him by forwarding an e-mail critical of Petitioner which Kazi had received from a supervisor in another program. The remaining incidents of alleged retaliation involve Kazi's refusal to allow Petitioner to make up leave days or requiring him to adjust his timesheet so as not to qualify for vacation pay in August and November 1995. The testimony showed, however, that the timesheet was submitted on the last day of the employee's work month, and it was entirely reasonable for his supervisor to assume that it was his final submittal. It was undisputed that Petitioner took substantial leave without pay (approximately 10 weeks between June 1 and November 7, 1995). This was reasonably perceived by Respondent to be excessive. Petitioner offered no evidence that a longer performance evaluation was in any way required. There was no evidence that Petitioner was ever counseled or otherwise disciplined as a result of the e-mail. Therefore, merely forwarding it could not be deemed as harassment or retaliation. The evidence showed Petitioner had accumulated excessive leave without pay. It was Respondent's policy to discourage excessive leave without pay. It was also undisputed that Kazi had the discretion to perform the acts alleged to be harassment. While it is true that Kazi's actions caused Petitioner to lose pay, the acts are permitted and justified by legitimate business reasons. Additionally, there was no credible evidence that Garfein or any other supervisor had instructed him to treat Petitioner any differently than any other employee.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Donald A. Garrepy, pro se Post Office Box 276 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802 For Respondent: Marshall G. Wiseheart, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED as follows: A final order be entered by FCHR dismissing with prejudice the petition of Donald A. Garrepy in DOAH Case No. 98- 5090 (FCHR Case No. 95-5752). A final order be entered by FCHR dismissing with prejudice the petition of Donald A. Garrepy in DOAH Case No. 98- 3611 (FCHR Case No. 96-1298). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Donald A. Garrepy Post Office Box 276 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03802 Marshall G. Wiseheart, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination complaint Petitioner filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a very well-credentialed, internationally-recognized cancer researcher who is black and a native of Cameroon. He has been granted lawful permanent residence status in the United States (with an EB-1 classification, signifying that he is an alien with "extraordinary ability"). Petitioner received his Doctor of Medicine degree in 1999 from the University of Yaounde I in Cameroon. He spent the next five years as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York.3 He worked in the Department of Orthopaedics (under the supervision of Randy N. Rosier, M.D., Ph.D.) for the first two of these five years and the James P. Wilmont Cancer Center (under the supervision of Dr. Rosier and Joseph D. Rosenblatt, M.D.) for the remaining three years. Petitioner enjoyed a considerable amount of independence, and was "very productive," during his time at the University of Rochester Medical Center. In June 2005, Petitioner began working as a post- doctoral associate assigned to the Viral Oncology (VO) program at UM's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (Sylvester) in Miami, Florida. He remained in this position until his termination (which he claims was discriminatorily motivated) in September 2006. Sylvester "serves as the hub for cancer-related research, diagnosis, and treatment at [UM's] Miller School of Medicine" (Miller). The VO program is administratively housed in the Division of Hematology/Oncology of Miller's Department of Medicine. Dr. Rosenblatt, Petitioner's former supervisor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the Chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology. According to the Sylvester website, the goals of the VO program include: Investigating the mechanisms of oncogenesis and innate immune subversion in viral associated cancers including those that arise in immunocompromised patients. Devising novel and targeted therapeutic and preventive strategies for viral associated malignancies. Implementing basic and clinical international collaborative studies in developing nations that have a high incidence of these tumors. William Harrington, Jr., M.D., is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, "in charge" of the VO program. Dr. Harrington, who is white, is a 1984 Miller graduate. He has been working for UM since his graduation 24 years ago. For the past 17 or 18 of these years, he has held positions having supervisory authority over other UM employees. As the head of the VO program, Dr. Harrington runs a "small" laboratory (Dr. Harrington's lab) staffed by a post- doctoral associate, lab technicians, and a research nurse (all of whom he directly supervises). Dr. Harrington's lab is a "hundred percent funded by [competitive] peer review grants": four from the National Institutes of Health (NIH); one from the Leukemia Society; and one from the State of Florida. It is "one of the best-funded labs" at UM. In addition to running his lab, Dr. Harrington also sees and treats patients at UM's Jackson Memorial Medical Center (Jackson Memorial). Approximately 95% of his patients are indigent, with a large number of them being of African descent (black). Dr. Harrington "specializes" in viral lymphomas, with a strong emphasis on diseases that occur predominantly in persons of African descent (certain AIDS-related lymphomas, HTLV-related lymphomas, and Burkitt lymphoma). Over the years, Dr. Harrington has had occasion to do work outside the United States, in areas where these diseases are prevalent, including the Afro-Brazilian state of Bahia, where, approximately 12 years ago, he met his wife Tanya, who is of African descent. Dr. Harrington has also "worked with colleagues in Zambia . . . on AIDS-related lymphomas and pediatric Burkitt lymphomas." Approximately seven or eight years ago, Dr. Harrington "sponsored post-doc[toral] trainees from Zambia in his lab." Dr. Harrington was introduced to Petitioner by Dr. Rosenthal. After reviewing Petitioner's "bio-sketch," Dr Harrington interviewed Petitioner and was sufficiently impressed to offer Petitioner an unadvertised post-doctoral position in his lab. Dr. Harrington hired Petitioner because Petitioner had the "skillset" Dr. Harrington was looking for. Dr. Harrington was particularly influenced by Petitioner's background, including publications, in NF-kappaB signaling, which was an "area[] of [Dr. Harrington's] interest." Moreover, Dr. Harrington thought Petitioner was a "smart capable man." At the time he hired Petitioner, Dr. Harrington was aware Petitioner was black and from Cameroon. Neither Petitioner's race, nor his national origin, played any role in Dr. Harrington's hiring decision. As a post-doctoral associate, Petitioner was the "senior lab person" working under Dr. Harrington's supervision. He was expected to assume a "higher level [of responsibility] than other staff personnel in [the] lab . . . in terms of doing a given set of experiments or [other] work." Dr. Harrington and Petitioner initially enjoyed a cordial working relationship. They had "excellent rapport" and even socialized after work hours. At Dr. Harrington's invitation, Petitioner came over to Dr. Harrington's house approximately "every other Friday" and for the Thanksgiving holiday. Although Dr. Harrington did not hire Petitioner specifically to "build[] international research programs," once Petitioner was hired, Dr. Harrington did discuss the matter with Petitioner, and he authorized Petitioner to initiate contact with cancer investigators in Cameroon to explore the possibility of their collaborating with Dr. Harrington on a project involving NF-kappaB signaling and Burkitt lymphoma. After having received Dr. Harrington's authorization, Petitioner "made contact with some of [his] mentors back in Cameroon, all [of whom were] involved in [Cameroon's] national cancer control program." On July 13, 2005, Dr. Harrington himself sent an e- mail to these Cameroonian investigators, which read as follows: Thank you Dr. Mouelsone for your response. I was considering putting together a project on Burkitt lymphomas that would principally be a study on the biology of the tumor in endemic and HIV associated cases. We would collaborate with investigators in Brazil and Africa. The study would be focused on targets that could be exploited in novel therapies as well the role of ebv [Epstein Barr virus] in different types of tumors. We already have IRB approval for collection of residual lymphoma specimens as well as protocols for the processing that would be required. A challenge in any grant is keeping the project focused and attractive scientifically for the reviewers. The participating center would have to have the capability to identify and consent patients as well as processing and storage . . . . Therefore one would need reagents, a research nurse (maybe 50%) salary and liquid nitrogen dewar as well as some support for a PI. Maybe I could send everyone the aims of a recently submitted grant to see if it would be possible. I could send our informed consent document since it broadly covers all viral associated tumors. I am attaching a recent article and I sincerely appreciate your help. I also am a fan of the Cameroon's football team the "indomitable lions." Dr. Harrington ultimately determined to collaborate exclusively with the Brazilian investigators, with whom he had a longstanding professional relationship, and not with the Cameroonian investigators, on this particular project. During the first several months of Petitioner's employment, he engaged in research involving NF-kappaB signaling. He also helped write an article (entitled, "Zidovudine: A Potential Targeted Therapy for Endemic Burkitt Lymphoma") that was published in the East African Medical Journal. When presented with the draft of the article that Petitioner had prepared, Dr. Harrington commented to Petitioner (by e-mail dated July 28, 2005), "[T]his is better than the one I wrote." Petitioner also contributed to the preparation of a successful NIH grant application submitted on September 1, 2005, by Dr. Harrington (as Principal Investigator/Program Director) seeking funding for his lab, as well as for collaborators in Brazil and at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, to "investigate in primary BLs [Burkitt lymphomas] the form of EBV [Epstein Barr virus] latency and its relationship to NF- k[appa]B"; to "determine the susceptibility of primary tumor cell lines to antiviral apoptosis"; and to "investigate commonly available, inexpensive agents that are known to induce the EBV lytic cycle and potentiate phosphorylation of AZT [azidothymidine, also known as Zidovudine]." The grant application was "based on . . . work that had been done [prior] to [Petitioner's coming to work in Dr. Harrington's lab]." The following individuals were listed as the "key personnel" on the grant application: Dr. Harrington; Iguaracyra Araujo, M.D., of Brazil; Jose Barreto, M.D., of Brazil; Carlos Brites, M.D., Ph.D., of Brazil; Dirk Dittmer, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Isildinha Reis, Ph.D., of UM. The following statements were made on the grant application concerning Dr. Reis' and Petitioner's anticipated roles in the proposed project: Isidinha Reis, Ph.D. (Biostatistician) will be in charge of the statistical component of this project including periodic analysis of data pertaining to this grant. She will participate in phone conferences with Ms. Shank and Luz. She will be particularly important for the conduct of this study since she is Brazilian by birth and fluent in Portuguese. 7.5% support is requested. Valentine Andela (Post Doctoral Fellow) will be in charge of all the day-to-day laboratory aspects of Dr. Harrington's component of the project. This includes receipt of isolates shipped from Brazil and then forwarding them to Dr. Dittmer, cell culture, DNA and RNA preparation and hybridization, EMSA and immunoblot analysis, cryopreservation of samples, etc. 50% support is requested. In the fall of 2005, Dr. Harrington discussed with Petitioner an article published in a "science magazine" that reported on Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) microRNAs, which, at the time, was a relatively unexplored area of research and one in which Dr. Harrington "definitely [did] not" have any "expertise." During the discussion, Petitioner expressed an interest in studying EBV microRNAs. Dr. Harrington "agreed [this] would be an interesting project to pursue," and he "thought [Petitioner] could do a good job" on it. With Dr. Harrington's approval, Petitioner thereafter started his research of EBV microRNAs, a project that consumed most of his work time during the remainder of his employment with UM. The project included helping draft a manuscript detailing the findings of the research. The experiments that Petitioner did as part of the project were on tumor samples that had been "collect[ed]" and "intial[ly] analy[zed]" by Brazilian investigators with whom Dr. Harrington had collaborated with in the past. In November 2005, Petitioner advised Dr. Harrington that he was considering participating in a clinical residency program, and Dr. Harrington "agreed to help [Petitioner] out" in any efforts he might make to seek a residency position. At Petitioner's request, Dr. Harrington wrote a letter of reference (dated November 16, 2005), "highly recommending" Petitioner for such a position. Dr. Harrington indicated in his letter, among other things, that in the "relatively brief time" that Petitioner had worked for him, Petitioner had "exceeded [Dr. Harrington's] expectations and made novel findings in the area of lymphoma and Epstein Barr virus." In addition to writing this letter of reference, Dr. Harrington, on Petitioner's behalf, contacted Stephen Symes, M.D., who at the time was the "head of the [Jackson Memorial medical] house staff program." Dr. Symes told Dr. Harrington that the "logical thing for [Petitioner] to [first] do [was] . . . a clinical rotation" at a teaching hospital, such as Jackson Memorial (during which he would act as either an observer or as an actual member of a medical team). Petitioner had planned to participate in a two-week clinical rotation at Jackson Memorial in December 2005, but had to change his plans because, when December came, he was still immersed in the EBV microRNA research project he had undertaken and had no time to do the rotation. Dr. Harrington was pleased with the quality of the work that Petitioner was doing on the project. In an e-mail he sent Petitioner on March 6, 2006, Dr. Harrington stated that he was "really excited about [Petitioner's] work," which he described as "novel and probably the best thing to come out of [his] little lab." On or about March 20, 2006, Dr. Harrington provided Petitioner with his written annual performance evaluation. He gave Petitioner an overall rating of "exceeds standards," with Petitioner receiving an "exceeds" rating in the categories of "Job Knowledge," "Supervision Required," "Quality of Work," "Adaptability," "Customer Service," and "Safety," and a "meets" rating in the category of "Time Management." Dr. Harrington made the following handwritten comment on the evaluation with respect to the latter category: I would like him to maintain more regular hours but his work is outstanding. Dr. Harrington felt compelled to make this comment because, although he "liked the work [Petitioner] was doing," "there were issues [regarding Petitioner's] disappearing for long periods of time [from Dr. Harrington's lab without telling Dr. Harrington where he was] and [Dr. Harrington] thought that this was becoming problematic." These "unexplained absences" from the lab were becoming more frequent and Dr. Harrington felt like Petitioner was "pushing the envelope." The improvements that Dr. Harrington had hoped to see in Petitioner's attendance did not materialize, and the relationship between the two deteriorated precipitously. On March 29, 2006, following a confrontation he had with Dr. Harrington, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Dr. Harrington, in which he advised: I did not mean to be rude this afternoon and you are absolutely right in pointing out that I am tense and consequently reactive. All things considered, I am putting undue pressure on myself. I am pretty much accepted in the Master of Arts in International Administration (MAIA) program at the UM. It is a professional degree program that puts a lot of weight on a practicum of the degree candidate[']s choice. I had proposed to implement the strategy articulated in the attached manuscript, which was previously funded in 2003 by an NCI-UICC grant for international cancer research and technology transfer. I am going to commit[] to the MAIA program, get it done in a year, and then reassess. I can go on to work in international developmental aid or go on to do a residency. If I was pushing for a tenure track faculty position, it is in part because I wanted to pursue the first option, but do it gradually over 3 years under your wing. Of course, I was counting on that plan being in line with your grand scheme, i.e. developing international programs. Dr. Harrington responded that same day by sending Petitioner the following e-mail: Ok I can help you with letters etc. I understand and that sounds like a good program. I want to expand these studies to Africa and hopefully in the future we can work together. I need your help on this paper. I think you have done very nice work. Things are pretty tough in the academic arena these days. A few days later, on April 1, 2006, Dr. Harrington, upset with what he felt was Petitioner's continuing lack of respect for his supervisory authority over the operation of the lab, sent Petitioner an e-mail, in which he stated the following: I have given this some thought and I don't think that this is working out with you. I am tired to see that you have simply disappeared without even a word to me and although you do very nice work it isn't worth it to me at this point. I also did not like the way you simply dismissed the fact that I had to do the work as outlined in the grant. I have tried very hard to go out of my way to accommodate you but at this point I feel that I have no authority at all. I want you to sit down on Monday and give me all the data for this paper, raw and otherwise. I also received all the pictures from Iguarcyra and the tumors are on the way. If you don't want to finish this then I will send everything to [D]irk. It is too bad because there is a lot we could have accomplished. Later that month, on April 28, 2006, reacting to another instance of Petitioner's being away from the lab when he was expecting Petitioner to be there, Dr. Harrington sent the following e-mail to Petitioner: I have been waiting around here to look at the figures. If you don't come in you should call, or if you leave for the majority of the day, you should call. I have spoken to you about this to no avail. You are a smart guy but am sick of this. Finish your paper and find another job. You will have to leave the computer here too. I will not ask for a raise for you nor a faculty position. Dr. Harrington sent Petitioner a follow-up e-mail the next day, which read as follows: I really am disgusted. You have thrown away everything this year, both for you and me. Your unstable behavior makes me question everything you have done also and so I will have to cancel submitting this paper until Lan[4] or JC can repeat some of the work. You are throwing away your tuition benefits also and have adversely affected everyone, most of all yourself. I have contacted the appropriate ones about this. I strongly urge you to do all I have outlined below.[5] I will not consider anything else. In an April 30, 2006, e-mail to Dr. Harrington, Petitioner responded: I will let the facts speak for themselves. Prior to joining your lab, I spent over five years working in a highly interactive and competitive environment. My record is infallible. You have in fact benefited tremendously from my intellect, my experience and especially my poise. I trust you would assemble an ethics committee to probe my work. I expect a letter of termination in due form and I would transfer all of the research material accordingly. This e-mail generated the following response from Dr. Harrington, which was communicated to Petitioner later that day by e-mail: Poise, what a joke. If you walk off with the data and th[]e computer I will call security. The morning of May 2, 2006, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Dr. Harrington: Dear Dr. Harrington: Per your request, I will transfer everything to Lan no later than next week, Monday the 8th. This was all a set up anyway, to bog me down in the lab. So I would not make a fuss about any of this. I will put this all behind me. Nonetheless, I have backed up every relevant document that exonerates me from any denigration. In a way, I should thank you for throwing me out to the world and bringing me to face my fears. So thank you. Valentine Dr. Harrington replied a little more than a hour later, stating in an e-mail to Petitioner: I have always t[h]ought that you were the smartest person that has worked for me. Your work is really beautiful and I certainly could not have done it. I am very disturbed over this and I don't see why you could not level with me. Your behavior at times was just too much, not your demeanor but the fact that you simply went on mental walkabouts and disappeared. You have to get a grip on your ego and not wear it on your sleeve. I had really thought we could have basically kicked ass in this area but I don't think that you realize the precarious nature of this business and that you have to be careful about straying into something or somebody that will leave you []no[] grant money. Valentine you can ask Joe. I spent most of my time bragging about your work to everyone. If you are smart, which you obviously are, then you don't have to go around telling that to people, they know. The most important thing is that you get along with people and when you would just not show up without even calling it really pissed me off. It was telling me that I am not even worth a phone call. I can be a real asshole, again ask Joe, and I have done myself harm from being so. But like it or not I am a lot older and more senior than you. You will far surpass me in research if you get a grip on your ego. If not there will be an ever shrinking number of people that care. I would like for you to call me on my beeper or cell. Petitioner defended himself in the following manner in an e-mail he sent to Harrington later that morning: You cannot say that I [am] an egomaniac. I give of myself and I give very generously. That is the record I left in Rochester and that is the record I have left in your lab. To say people there will be an ever shrinking number of people who care is again not true. You should know that whenever I call[ed] on a favor from Rochester, for example getting into the . . . MA in Intl Admin [program], the response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. I never thought I was smart and never said it. This much I know, I work very hard and I have a generous heart and I will not l[]ose my way. Those are all the values I ever had and I will stick to it. God promised the path would be rough, but the landing would be safe. Again, thank you. Valentine. The final e-mail of the morning was sent by Dr. Harrington to Petitioner. In it, Dr. Harrington informed Petitioner: I am trying to get in contact with the [B]razilians and check on the id of the sa[m]ples one final time and I will try to submit the paper this week. The "paper" to which Dr. Harrington was referring in his e-mail was the manuscript (written by both Petitioner and Dr. Harrington) of the EBV microRNA research project Petitioner was spearheading (EBV microRNA Manuscript). On or about May 12, 2006, following an instance of Petitioner's not "com[ing] in [to the lab] nor call[ing] to advise [Dr. Harrington] of [his absence]," Dr. Harrington spoke with Petitioner about his "unexcused absences" and provided him with specific verbal instructions regarding his attendance and use of his work time. In a May 12, 2006, e-mail, Dr. Harrington informed Desiree Uptgrow of Sylvester's human resources office of the talk he had had with Petitioner and the directives he had given him. The e-mail read as follows: I spoke to Mr. Andela regarding his unexcused absences from work. I referred to the recent time on Friday, when he did not come in nor call to advise me of this. I also spoke to him about concentrating on work and not other activities while in the lab. I will not excuse this or any further incidents. He is expected to comply with the following: 1) arrival at work at a reasonable hour, by this I mean between the hours of 9 to 10 am and cessation of work at a reasonable hour by this I mean 5-6 pm. 2) Weekly goals will be outlined by me in terms of expected experiments to be performed (of course results may vary since the nature of research may not be predictable). 3) an attitude of collegiality in that if there is down time for whatever reason help would be offered by him to other lab personnel. 4) no unexplained long absences from the lab during the day. An expected lunch break of an hour is acceptable. Further deviations from the above will result in a second and third entry into his file whereupon he will be subject to dismissal. William Harrington MD As he put it in his testimony at the final hearing, Dr. Harrington "had no problem with [Petitioner's] going somewhere for an hour or going somewhere for a couple of hours and doing something, but [he] had problems with [Petitioner's] simply disappearing and not giving [him] . . . the courtesy of letting [him] know what was going on." On June 1, 2006, Dr. Harrington (as the corresponding author) submitted the EBV microRNA Manuscript (which was entitled, "Targeted Suppression of CXCL11/I-TAC by EBV encoded BHRF1-3 microRNA in EBV related B-Cell Lymphomas" and is hereinafter referred to as the "First Manuscript") to Blood, a medical journal published by the American Society of Hematology. Petitioner was listed as the first author in the manuscript. Among the other individuals given authorship credit were the Brazilian investigators. It was Dr. Harrington's decision to include them. He felt that "they clearly deserved to be co- authors" and that "it would have been unethical to not have included them." Petitioner disagreed with Dr. Harrington's assessment of the Brazilian investigators' entitlement to authorship credit. In a July 17, 2006, decision letter, Blood's associate editor advised Dr. Harrington that the First Manuscript had been evaluated and deemed "not acceptable for publication in Blood." On July 20, 2006, after what he considered to be further instances of insubordinate conduct on Petitioner's part, Dr. Harrington sent an e-mail to Ms. Uptgrow (as a follow-up to the May 12, 2006, e-mail he had previously sent her), in which he stated the following: There have been a couple of recent incidents which I want to submit in writing. Last week Mr. Andela called me and said that his flight from DC was cancelled or overbooked and he would be late. I replied that this was OK but he never called, emailed or showed up to work. Yesterday he came in past 11 am and also did not call. More concerning is that I had asked him to set up an experiment and later asked my lab tech to assist. When I spoke to my tech this morning he told me that Mr. Andela was not doing the experiment because he saw no reason to. I consider this to be insubordination. Later that same day (July 20, 2006), Ms. Uptgrow sent an e-mail to Nicole Lergier and Lynetta Jackson of Miller's human resources office advising of Dr. Harrington's desire for "assist[ance] in the termination of [Petitioner] based on [Petitioner's] continue[d] lack of following instructions " The afternoon of July 24, 2006, Dr. Harrington and Petitioner engaged in the following argumentative e-mail exchange, evidencing the further decline of their relationship: 1:51 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner I asked you to do the bl-8 line and Peterson line. I don't care to hear that you chose not to do them. 2:05 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington Sorry but I don't know what you are talking about - and it is very disconcerting. I told you we had done the BL8 line and you told Lan to send the Peterson line to Dittmer for profiling. That's where we left off on that - this was reiterated at the meeting you convened with Lisa, Lan, Julio and I. 2:10 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner No that is not true. Lan said that you did not want to do another primary and I said repeatedly that I wanted it done. Your problem [V]alentine is that you think that you are in charge, ie I want a tenured position, I don't want to do old things etc. while I have to keep the grant money coming in. I respect your ability to do certain things and you are a s[m]art guy but clearly you would prefer to be autonomous. The question is how do you attain that. 2:44 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington Dr. Harrington- that is hearsay - you and I had this conversation over the BL8 and the P[e]terson and I said the BL8 had been done and I would run the P[e]terson line in parallel with the dicer exp[erimen]t, once I had gotten the conditions right. I don't think I am in charge - and just how could I, when day in and day out you seek to undermine every "independent" effort I make, that's what[']s expected of a post-doctoral fellow... Every independent effort I have led has panned out - not because I am smart but because I put the time and effort to think it through. When I joined your lab, it was on a 1 year stint - and now I am starting on my second year because you[] wanted it that way. I joined your lab to work on NFkappB, which is what you are funded for and what I had some expertise in, but then you had me work on something totally novel - miRNAs - and the work is done. If I asked for a tenure track position - it is because I recognized (or I thought I did) that you needed someone permanent in the lab - furthermore I was investing too much time and effort on the miRNA work... despite my best efforts (which you do not acknowledge) this is not working out. So I am going right back to the drawing board by doing a residency - we had agreed on this back in May that I was taking a month off in August to do a rotation. I am taking off to Europe for a short vacation on the 6th of August to prepare for my 2 week clinical rotation. So to answer your question - I am giving up on any autonomy and I am going right back to doing a residency. 3:02 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner You never told me about vacation time but ok... you said you would be out for aug (without pay) so am I to presume that aug 6th will be your last day? We don't seem to get along and that's that, no hard feelings. 3:09 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington August 5th would be my last day. 3:17 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner And I will try my best to make sure that happens[.] [Up] until the 5th I would appreciate it if you did run Peterson and bl-8 since they will be cleaner than the primaries. Although not obligated to do so, Dr. Harrington agreed to make sure that Petitioner was paid for the two weeks that, according to his July 24, 2006, 2:44 p.m. e-mail to Dr. Harrington, he was going to be spending doing his clinical rotation (after his trip to Europe). Petitioner left Miami on August 5, 2006, and went to Russia to participate in a two-week "short course" for which he received three credits towards his MAIA degree at UM. (He had enrolled in the MAIA degree program earlier that year.) On August 10, 2006, while he was still in Russia, Petitioner sent the following reply to an e-mail he had received from Dr. Harrington "regarding when [his] return date from the 2 week clinical rotation would be": Sorry I missed that - the 8th of September. Thanks. Petitioner returned to Miami from Russia on August 18 or 19, 2006, "exhausted" and "burned out." He stayed home to rest until returning to work on September 8, 2006. He never did the clinical rotation he told Dr. Harrington he was going to do, but he nonetheless was paid by UM (as Dr. Harrington said he would be) for the two weeks he represented he was going to be engaged in this activity. At no time during his absence from work did Petitioner tell Dr. Harrington he was, in fact, not doing a clinical rotation. He concealed this information because he "wanted to avoid a confrontation" with Dr. Harrington. Dr. Harrington, however, was not entirely in the dark about the matter. On August 22, 2006, through e-mail correspondence, he had checked with Dr. Symes to see if Petitioner had "ever showed up for a clinical rotation" at Jackson Memorial and had been told by Dr. Symes that he had "not heard from [Petitioner] at all." When Petitioner returned to work on September 8, 2006, Dr. Harrington asked him for documentation showing that he had done a clinical rotation at Jackson Memorial during the time he had been away. Petitioner told Dr. Harrington that he did not have any such documentation. Dr. Harrington understood Petitioner to "follow[] that up by saying he had done a clinical rotation in Rochester." Dr. Harrington then "asked [Petitioner] for documentation of that clinical rotation," which Petitioner was unable to produce. The conversation ended with Dr. Harrington telling Petitioner to leave the lab and go home, explaining that he would be bringing the matter to the attention of the human resources office. At this point, Dr. Harrington had decided that it was "just impossible to continue the working relationship" he had with Petitioner and that Petitioner had to be terminated. He was convinced that Petitioner had lied to him about doing a clinical rotation and that, by having been absent from work for the two weeks he was supposed to have been doing such a rotation, Petitioner had effectively abandoned his job. Moreover, Dr. Harrington felt that Petitioner had "exploited" him and was continuing to disregard his supervisory authority. Later in the morning on September 8, 2006, Petitioner sent Dr. Harrington the following e-mail: Hi Dr. Harrington This is just written confirmation that you asked me not to resume work today and to stay away until you had convened a meeting with human resources. Thanks Valentine Petitioner never returned to Dr. Harrington's lab. September 8, 2006, was his last day in the "work environment" of the lab. As he had promised he would, Dr. Harrington made contact (by e-mail) with the human resources office. He concluded the e-mail by stating: At this point, under no circumstances will I allow Mr. Andela back into my lab and he is dismissed. Lynetta Jackson of the human resources office responded to Dr. Harrington by sending him, on September 11, 2006, the following e-mail: Dr. Harrington, We're required to follow a process when terminating employees. As we discussed a few weeks ago, all terminations must be approved by Paul Hudgins.[6] I'm still out of the office for medical reasons. This matter is being referred to Nicole Lergier/Karen Stimmel for follow-up. Nicole Lergier was the human resources employee who handled the matter. Ms. Lergier met with just Petitioner on September 14, 2006. At the outset of the meeting, she informed Petitioner that there was a "request for [his] termination" made by Dr. Harrington. She explained that Dr. Harrington "was concerned that [Petitioner] had taken several weeks off to complete a clinical rotation for which [Petitioner] had been paid but [for] which [he] had never registered," and that Dr. Harrington considered Petitioner's conduct to be "job abandonment and . . . grounds for immediate termination." She then went on to tell Petitioner that the purpose of the meeting was to give Petitioner the opportunity, without Dr. Harrington's being present, to give his side of the story and "to bring forward any issues." Petitioner took advantage of this opportunity. He defended himself against the charges Dr. Harrington had made against him and countercharged that Dr. Harrington had been abusive, "manipulative[,] and unprofessional." At no time did Petitioner complain to Ms. Lergier that Dr. Harrington was "prejudiced against [him] because [he was] black or because [he was] from Cameroon." Petitioner indicated to Ms. Lergier that he "had no interest in going back to Dr. Harrington's lab," but that, among other things, he wanted the EBV microRNA Manuscript to be published. On the same day that the meeting took place, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Ms. Lergier: This is in response to Dr. William J. Harrington's complaint that I abandoned my job functions. The attached e-mails dated Monday 7/24/2006 indicate that I was gone on leave, without pay. What[']s more, there [is] evidence of professional misconduct, manipulation and negative inputs on Dr. Harrington's part. This is not the first instance. The e-mails dated Tuesday 5/2/2006 to 4/28/2006 document another one of many such instances. The time I took off in August was not nearly enough to recover from a tremendously negative work environment where I nonetheless made many positive contributions, in ideas, manuscripts and grants. The facts speak for themselves. At this point, I do not intend to return to work with Dr. Harrington and I trust Human Resources would find a constructive solution to this problem. Approximately an hour later, Petitioner received an e- mail from Dr. Harrington, which read as follows: Your paper will be submitted with you as first author. I have 9 tumor blocks corresponding to the patients in [B]razil and a couple of new ones here that we will assay for eber, cxcl-11 (we got a new ab.) and LMP-1. Lan has repeated the rpa's on the lines (BL-5, R) and several new primaries and they look very good, cleaner than the previous ones. Once I get this done I will send you a draft prior to submission. Dr. Harrington subsequently submitted a revised version of the First Manuscript (Revised Manuscript) to Blood. The Revised Manuscript was "shorter," but not "substantially different from the [First] [M]anuscript." Petitioner was still listed as the first author, which Dr. Harrington "thought was [only] fair since . . . [Petitioner] had done most of the lab work on that article." Dr. Harrington did not believe that, in submitting an "abbreviated" manuscript with Petitioner's name on it as first author, he was doing anything that was contrary to Petitioner's interests or desires. Notwithstanding Dr. Harrington's best efforts, the Revised Manuscript, like the First Manuscript, was rejected for publication in Blood. Although listed as the first author, Petitioner had not "sign[ed] off" on, or even seen, the Revised Manuscript before its submission to Blood. He ultimately received an e- mailed copy from Dr. Harrington. The next day, upon running into Dr. Harrington on the UM campus, Petitioner told him: [Y]ou cannot put my name on a paper that I didn't write. You can't have me as a first author on a manuscript that I didn't sign off on. Take my name off that paper. I have moved on. Dr. Harrington complied with Petitioner's request. Petitioner's name was not on the version of the EBV microRNA Manuscript Dr. Harrington submitted to another medical journal, Cancer Research, "sometime in late 2007," which was accepted for publication and published in March 2008. On or about September 20, 2006, Petitioner was contacted by Ms. Uptgrow and given the option of resigning his position or being terminated. Petitioner told Ms. Uptgrow that he "wasn't going to resign." On September 25, 2006, Dr. Harrington sent Petitioner the following letter, advising Petitioner that his employment was being terminated "effective immediately": As you know, you have been counseled many times regarding your unsatisfactory performance and attendance issues. Unfortunately, these problems persist despite our counseling efforts. There have been several emails and conversations that have taken place, which you were advised that any further incidents would result in additional disciplinary action. Specifically, we had agreed you would take the weeks of August 5, 2006 - August 18, 2006- off for vacation and this would [be] followed by a 2 week clinical rotation[.] [Y]ou notified your supervisor that you would return on September 8, 2006, 3 weeks after completing your vacation. Despite all of the previous warning and effort to work with you on the problems that concerned your supervisor, it has continued. Due to your failure to adhere to University policies and procedures and ongoing problems, you have left us no alternative but to terminate you effective immediately. Any accrued vacation will be paid to you in your final paycheck. You are to return all University property issued to you upon employment to Desiree Uptgrow to expedite the processing of your final check. Please contact Benefit Administration, (305)284-6837, regarding continuation of benefits you may be entitled to. You should receive information regarding COBRA benefits from the Office of Benefits Administration in a separate letter. If you do not receive this letter, please contact the Office of Benefits Administration at (305)243-6835. Dr. Harrington's termination of Petitioner's employment was based solely on what Dr. Harrington perceived to be Petitioner's deficiencies as an employee. Neither Petitioner's race, nor his national origin, played any role in this or any other action Dr. Harrington took affecting Petitioner. On September 29, 2006, four days after his termination, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Dr. Harrington: Hi Dr. Harrington: Dr. Symes urged me to do a 2 week clinical rotation/observership with Hem/Onc as the department of internal medicine no longer offers this. Would it be possible to do it with you, starting next week, Wednesday the 3rd of October. Thanks for your consideration. On the advice of UM legal counsel, Dr. Harrington did not respond to this e-mail. Instead of seeking other employment following his termination, Petitioner "focused" on completing the requirements to obtain his MAIA degree at UM. In accordance with UM policy, he continued to receive tuition remission benefits for the 2006 fall semester (the semester in which he was terminated), but after that semester, the benefits ceased. Petitioner believes that he has completed the requirements for his MAIA degree and is entitled to receive his diploma and final transcript, which UM has withheld. UM's records, however, reflect otherwise. They reveal that he has not yet received any credit for the Practicum in International Administration (INS 517) course that he needs to obtain his degree. This course involved Petitioner's writing and defending a thesis. In the spring of 2007, while Petitioner was working on his thesis, his car, which was parked on the UM campus, was ticketed by the City of Coral Gables police and subsequently towed by Downtown Towing Company for "safekeeping." After unsuccessfully attempting to retrieve his vehicle, he demanded that UM compensate him for his loss. UM (acting through its Assistant General Counsel, Judd Goldberg, Esquire) and Petitioner engaged in settlement negotiations. At least as early as August 8, 2007, UM insisted, as a condition of its agreement to any settlement, that Petitioner sign a full and general release reading, in pertinent part, as follows: In exchange for the promises which the University makes in this Agreement, Andela agrees to waive voluntarily and knowingly certain rights and claims against the University. . . . . The rights and claims which Andela waives and releases in this Agreement include, to every extent allowed by law, those arising under . . . the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, and 1964, . . . the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 . . . and any amendments to said laws. This is not a complete list, and Andela waives and releases all similar rights and claims under all other federal, state and local discrimination provisions and all other statutory and common law causes of action relating in any way to: (a) Andela's employment or separation from employment with the University which accrued or may have accrued up to the date of execution of this Agreement; and/or (b) Andela's status as a student at the University which accrued or may have accrued up to the date of execution of this Agreement. . . . On September 13, 2007, Petitioner filed his employment discrimination complaint with the FCHR (complaining, for the first time to anyone, that he had been a victim of race and national origin-based discrimination by UM, acting through Dr. Harrington). On September 22, 2007, Petitioner sent the following letter to Mr. Goldberg: I will not surrender my civil rights by signing the full and general release agreement, in order to receive a settlement for my above referenced car that was swindled. Compelling me to surrender my civil rights is an act of retaliation, based on your knowledge of an employment discrimination complaint filed against the University of Miami. As specified on page two-paragraph two- of the attached letter from the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), "the law prohibits retaliation against any person making a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing on an alleged unlawful employment practice." Unless you correct this unlawful act by the end of business day - Monday 24th of October - I will notify the FCHR. Mr. Goldberg responded by sending Petitioner the following letter, dated September 24, 2007: This letter acknowledges receipt of your correspondence of September 22, 2007 addressed to myself and President Shalala. The University does not believe that the settlement and general release agreement is retaliatory. Indeed, the settlement and general release agreement was provided to you before you filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. At this juncture, the University will respond to the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations when it is formally advised of the charge by the Commission.[7] If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call my office directly as it is my office that handles all legal matters for the University. Thank you for your attention to this matter. This letter constitutes communication regarding settlement and cannot be used for any other purpose. At no time has Petitioner filed any employment discrimination complaint with the FCHR alleging that he was retaliated against for having engaged in activity protected by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (although he did make such allegations in the Petition for Relief he filed in the instant case).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding UM not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2008.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether, Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner based upon her race or sex and whether she was subjected to retaliation after complaining to the Respondent concerning the alleged harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner became employed on October 10, 2005, at HOM. She worked as a general laborer and finisher at times pertinent to this case. HOM is a manufacturer of mobile and modular homes at its Lake City, Florida, plant. It has in excess of 15 employees and is therefore a statutory employer with the meaning of Section 760.02(2), Florida Statutes (2006). The Petitioner has a number of blemishes on her employment record with the Respondent. She had performance problems prior to the events leading up to the termination of her employment. She was disciplined for an incident occurring on December 21, 2005, for failure to report to required overtime work, as well as for insubordination. Steve Weeks, the Respondent's Production Manager, deemed the failure to report for required overtime work to be insubordination and a violation of the company's attendance policy. She received an employee warning notice on May 3, 2006, regarding a perceived need for her to "pickup the pace and for her attendance." Mr. Weeks told Ms. Pate that she needed to increase her production pace and needed to work on her attendance and work quality. The Petitioner was given to understand that her employment could be terminated for further violations. The Petitioner maintains she has been subjected to "harassment." Specifically, she complains that her co-workers in the finishing department harassed her by "bumping into me and playing threatening songs, threatening, talking about they were going to beat my behind, you know, just constantly threatening." Her complaints concern Priscilla Berry, Katherine Belford, and Melody Adkins. Melody Adkins is a white female, Priscilla Berry and Katherine Belford are African-American females. Most of the Petitioner's complaints concern Katherine Belford and Priscilla Berry. The Petitioner admits that these individuals never indicated they were committing any alleged harassing acts because of the Petitioner's race or gender. She further acknowledges that the harassment "may not have been for my race" and that the harassment "might have been because I was a female and I was doing my job and I didn't hang with that certain group" of females. No male employees are alleged to have threatened or harassed the Petitioner and she never complained to her direct supervisor, Tommy Smith, concerning any problems related to her race or gender. Ms. Pate spoke to Supervisors Weeks and Smith in an effort to stop the harassment and threats. In response to her complaints Mr. Weeks talked to the supervisors and employees involved in the incidents Ms. Pate complained about and told them they were not to bring personal problems to the work place. Mr. Smith separated the Petitioner from Ms. Belford and Ms. Berry because of the antagonism that had developed between them. He directed her to perform her duties in a different location in order to alleviate the hostilities. The Petitioner called the HOM corporate office on June 27, 2006, and spoke to Mr. Jeff Nugent. Mr. Nugent directed the Regional Human Resources Director, William Allen, to investigate the Petitioner's complaints. Mr. Allen spoke to the Petitioner by phone on June 29, 2006, and arranged a meeting with her for July 11, 2006. The Petitioner told Mr. Allen during that phone conversation that she was being harassed and threatened and that the supervisor was not doing anything to alleviate the matter. She told him that "they" were discriminating against her because she was a black woman and the supervisors were still doing nothing to alleviate her harassment, in her view. The Petitioner met with Mr. Allen on July 11, 2006. Mr. Allen also met with other employees. The plant had been shut down during the first week of July and immediately thereafter on July 11, 2006, the Petitioner had the meeting with Mr. Allen. She found him responsive to her complaints. He took notes during the meeting with the Petitioner and with the other employees he interviewed. The Petitioner complained that she was being harassed and threatened by the above-referenced women on the job, that she "went up the chain of command" to get the harassment to stop but that it had not stopped. She did not complain to Mr. Allen that she was being harassed based on her gender or her race, however. Mr. Allen determined that the problem between Ms. Pate and the other employees was based upon difficulties in "getting along well" or, in effect, personality differences. He also determined that the Respondent had responded to the prior complaints by separating Ms. Pate from working with the employees about whom she had complained. On July 13, 2006, Mr. Smith observed Ms. Pate out of her assigned work area while using a cell phone. The use of a cell phone during working hours, and in working areas, violates company policy. Mr. Smith asked Ms. Pate to report to the plant office to speak to Mr. Weeks. Upon arriving at the office, the Petitioner told Mr. Smith and Mr. Weeks that she was leaving because she did not feel well. Mr. Weeks told Ms. Pate that she could leave the premises, but she would have to bring in a physicians note to prevent the absence from being unexcused. She returned to work the next scheduled work day and did not bring in a physician's note as directed. The previous work day's absence was thus an unexcused absence. Mr. Weeks decided to terminate the Petitioner's employment for her attendance problems and for her failure to submit a doctor's note justifying her absence of July 13, 2006. Her unexcused lack of attendance caused her to have excessive absences in violation of the Respondent's adopted attendance policy. The Petitioner's employment was terminated on July 17, 2006. The Petitioner never told Mr. Weeks that she felt her employment was being terminated in retaliation for her having called the corporate office to complain, or that she was being harassed because of her race and gender.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 10th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah Pate 862 Northeast Coldwater Street Lake City, Florida 32055 Kevin E. Hyde, Esquire Foley & Lardner LLP One Independent Drive, Suite 1300 Post Office Box 240 Jacksonville, Florida 32201-0240 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Gulf Coast Community College (Respondent or the College) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner Derek A. Robinson (Petitioner) to discrimination in employment or by subjecting Petitioner to adverse employment actions in retaliation of Petitioner’s opposition to the College’s alleged discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. The College is a public institution of higher education located in Panama City, Florida. In 1998, Petitioner was hired by the College to work in its custodial department as a custodian. Petitioner held that position until his termination on February 11, 2009. The College's custodial department is part of the College's maintenance and operations division (collectively, ?Maintenance Division?) managed by the campus superintendent. The two other departments within the Maintenance Division are the maintenance and grounds departments. During the relevant time period, there were approximately 40 to 50 employees in the Maintenance Division. Of those, there were approximately 21 to 28 custodians in the custodial department. Most of the custodians were African-Americans and there were only three Caucasian custodians. The Caucasian custodians were Tom Krampota, Josephine Riley, and Tommy Gillespie. Custodial staff typically work shifts beginning at 2:00 p.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. They are generally assigned housekeeping duties for a specific building. In addition to Monday through Friday, the College is also open on most weekends. Prior to 2001, the College began designating one employee to work a non-rotating weekend shift. Unlike other custodians, the designated weekend custodian worked from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Fridays and 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The weekend custodian was not assigned to a particular building, but rather worked in various buildings as needed and was to be available to open doors to campus buildings during weekend hours. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian from 2001 until his duties were changed in September 2008. Dr. John Holdnak, who worked for the College for 26 years in various capacities, including four years as Director of Human Resources, was the one who established the position of designated weekend custodian. Dr. Holdnak served as the College's Vice-President for Administration Services for his last eight years of employment with the College until leaving in July, 2008. As vice-president, Dr. Holdnak reported directly to the president of the College, Dr. James Kerley. Sometime prior to 2008, Dr. Holdnak observed that the departments in the Maintenance Division were underperforming, not adequately supervised, and failing to meet expectations. Dr. Holdnak observed that the Maintenance Division employees took excessive breaks and showed lack of effort in their work. For example, mold was found in some of the classrooms, an open window with a bird's nest was found in another, maintenance orders were backlogged, and Dr. Holdnak received a number of complaints from faculty and College employees regarding the Maintenance Division's level of service. As a result of Dr. Holdnak's observations, the College removed the campus superintendent from his position because of the superintendent's inability to manage line supervisors, provide leadership, or supervise personnel. After that, Dr. Holdnak personally supervised the Maintenance Division for a time in order to assess and develop a solution to the problem. Based upon Dr. Holdnak's assessment, the College sought applications for a new campus superintendent who could change and clean-up the culture of the Maintenance Division. At the time, the three department supervisors within the Maintenance Division were: Carlos "Butch" Whitehead for maintenance, Dan Doherty for custodial, and Ronny Watson for grounds. All three supervisors were Caucasian. The vacancy for the campus superintendent position was advertised. Dr. Holdnak encouraged John Westcott to apply for the campus superintendent position because he had previously worked with Mr. Westcott on a College construction project and was impressed with his vigor and work ethic. Mr. Westcott, a Caucasian, applied. So did custodial department supervisor, Dan Doherty, and three other candidates. Mr. Westcott disclosed on his application that he had been convicted of a felony twenty years prior to his application. Dr. Holdnak determined that Mr. Westcott's prior conviction would not impact his candidacy for the position. The applicants were screened by a selection committee composed of a number of College employees from various divisions, including Petitioner. Of the five applicants who applied, the selection committee's first choice was John Westcott, who was qualified for the position. Petitioner did not agree with the selection committee's first choice and was not impressed with Mr. Westcott during the screening process because Mr. Westcott referred to himself as the "terminator." Based upon the selection committee's first choice and the conclusion that Mr. Westcott satisfied the necessary criteria to change the Maintenance Division's culture, Dr. Holdnak recommended that the College hire John Westcott as the new campus superintendent. John Westcott was hired as campus superintendent in January 2008. Once Mr. Westcott was hired, Dr. Holdnak specifically directed him to take control of his departments, ?clean up the mess? and hold his mid-level supervisors responsible for their subordinates' results. Dr. Holdnak instructed Mr. Westcott to take a hands-on approach, physically inspect and visit the buildings to ensure cleanliness, increase effectiveness, stop laziness, and decrease work order backlogs. During his tenure, Mr. Westcott increased productivity and reduced backlogs. Mr. Westcott took more initiative than previous superintendents with cleaning and maintenance, and he conducted weekly walkthroughs. While Mr. Westcott was campus superintendent, the backlog of 400 work orders he had inherited was reduced to zero. During Mr. Westcott's first month as campus superintendent, he had an encounter with a Caucasian employee named Jamie Long. On January 31, 2008, Mr. Westcott issued a written memorandum to Mr. Long as a follow-up from a verbal reprimand that occurred on January 28, 2008. The reprimand was Mr. Westcott's first employee disciplinary action as campus superintendent. According to the memorandum, the reprimand was based upon Mr. Long's confrontation and argument with Mr. Westcott regarding the fact that Mr. Westcott had been ?checking-up? on him. According to the memorandum, Mr. Westcott considered "the manner in which [Mr. Long] addressed [him as] totally inappropriate and could be considered insubordination." Mr. Long disputed Mr. Westcott's version of the incident and later sent a letter to College President Dr. Kerley dated June 23, 2008, complaining about "the alleged incident of insubordination" and the "almost non-stop harassment by John Westcott." There was no mention or allegation in the letter that John Westcott was racist or had discriminated against anyone because of their race. After Dr. Holdnak left the College in July 2008, John Mercer assumed his responsibilities. Mr. Mercer, like Dr. Holdnak, had the perception that custodial work was below par based on complaints and personal observations. He therefore continued to direct Mr. Westcott to address these deficiencies to improve the custodians' performance. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian when Mr. Westcott was hired. In February 2008, Dr. Holdnak discovered a problem with the amount of paid-time-off Petitioner received as a result of his weekend schedule. The problem was that if a holiday fell on a weekend, Petitioner would take the entire weekend off, resulting in a windfall of 37.5 hours in additional paid-time- off for Petitioner over other employees because his work hours on the weekends were longer. In order to correct the problem, in approximately March 2008, Petitioner was placed on a similar holiday pay schedule as all other employees. At the time, the then-director of the College's Department of Human Resources, Mosell Washington, who is an African American, explained the change to Petitioner. According to Mr. Washington, Petitioner was not happy about the change in his holiday pay schedule. Petitioner, however, does not blame Mr. Westcott for initiating the change. Because of the change in his holiday pay schedule, Petitioner was required to work or use leave time for the additional working hours during the Fourth of July weekend in 2008. Petitioner called and asked to speak with Mr. Westcott regarding the issue. During the phone call, Petitioner used profanity. After being cursed, Mr. Westcott hung up the phone and then advised Mr. Washington, who told Mr. Westcott to document the incident. The resulting written reprimand from Mr. Westcott to Petitioner was dated July 11, 2011, and was approved by Mr. Washington. When Mr. Washington presented Petitioner with the written reprimand, Petitioner refused to sign an acknowledgement of its receipt and abruptly left the meeting without any comment. Petitioner did not tell Mr. Washington that he believed he was being targeted or discriminated against because of his race. In addition to setting forth Mr. Westcott's version of what occurred, the written reprimand advised Petitioner that the College had a grievance procedure, and also stated: I have an open door policy and will gladly address any concerns you may have whether personal or job related. If you have a grievance, tell me, but in the proper manner and in the proper place. Petitioner did not take advantage of either the College's grievance procedure or Mr. Westcott's stated open door policy. The College maintains an anti-discrimination policy and grievance policy disseminated to employees. The College's procedure for employee grievances provides several levels of review, starting with an immediate supervisor, then to a grievance committee, and then up to the College's president. Under the College's anti-discrimination policy, discrimination and harassment based on race or other protected classes is prohibited. Employees who believe they are being discriminated against may report it to the Director of Human Resources. Likewise, harassment is prohibited and may be reported up the chain of command at any level. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the College handbook and policies on August 17, 2007. In addition, both the College President, Dr. Kerley, and Vice President, John Mercer, maintain an ?open door? policy. After receiving the July 11, 2008, written reprimand, Petitioner spoke to both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, at least once, on July 15, 2008. Petitioner, however, did not tell them that he had been discriminated against because of his race. In fact, there is no credible evidence that a report of race discrimination was ever made regarding the July 11, 2008, written reprimand prior to Petitioner's termination. Petitioner, however, did not agree with the July 11, 2008 written reprimand. After speaking to Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, Petitioner met with Jamie Long, the Caucasian who had earlier received a write-up from Mr. Westcott, for assistance in preparing a written response. The written response, dated August 4, 2008, and addressed to Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and Mr. Mercer, stated: On July 25, 2008, I was called into Mosell Washington's office and was given a written letter of reprimand from John Westcott, the Campus Superintendent, which states that on July 3, 2008, I had used profanity in a phone conversation with him regarding my 4th of July work schedule. From the schedule that I received in February, from Mosell Washington, I believed I was off that weekend. I am writing this letter to dispute Mr. Westcott's version of our conversation and to protest the letter of written reprimand. Mr. Westcott says in the reprimand that I was insubordinate to him and had used profanity. I did not use profanity, and I do not believe that I was insubordinate in any manner to him during our brief conversation. I feel that my work record and my integrity speaks for itself. I have never been insubordinate, or been a problem to anyone until John Westcott, and had I known that I was supposed to be on the job that weekend, I would have been there. Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and John Mercer all deny receiving the written response. In addition, contrary to the written response, at the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that he used profanity during the call and said ?ass? to Mr. Westcott. Moreover, the written response does not complain of race discrimination, and Dr. Kerley, Mr. Mercer, Dr. Holdnak, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Westcott all deny that they ever received a complaint of race discrimination regarding the incident. Evidence presented at the final hearing did not show that the written reprimand given to Petitioner dated July 11, 2008, was racially motivated, given in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expression or conduct, or that a similarly-situated non-African-American who used profanity to a supervisor would not be subject to such a reprimand. Mr. Westcott generally worked a more traditional Monday through Friday schedule and, because of Petitioner's weekend work schedule, had minimal contact with Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Westcott would not usually be on campus with Petitioner, except Fridays, and the two men rarely spoke until Petitioner's work schedule was changed in September 2008. During the weekends that he worked at the College, Petitioner was on-call and expected to return communications to his pager or mobile phone, even during his lunch breaks, regardless of his location. On Friday, August 22, 2008, after receiving a request from faculty member Rusty Garner, Petitioner’s supervisor Dan Doherty asked Petitioner to clean the music room floor. On Sunday afternoon, August 24, 2008, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott were working when they received word from Mr. Garner that the music room floor had not been cleaned. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioner by cell phone and pager, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott drove around the College campus to find him. They were unsuccessful. The reason Petitioner could not be reached was because he had left campus and had left his telephone and pager behind. According to Petitioner, he was on lunch break. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott found another employee, Harold Brown, to help prepare the music room for Monday. Mr. Mercer was upset because he had to take time out from his own work to find someone to complete the job assigned to Petitioner. That same afternoon, Mr. Mercer reported the incident by e-mail to Mr. Washington and requested that appropriate action be taken. On August 27, 2008, Petitioner’s supervisor, Dan Doherty, issued a written reprimand to Petitioner for the August 24th incident. No evidence was presented indicating that the written reprimand was racially motivated, or that a similarly situated non-African-American who could not be located during his or her shift would not be subject to such a reprimand. In September 2008, Dr. Kerley unilaterally determined that no single employee should work his or her entire workweek in three days. He believed this schedule was unsafe, and not in the best interests of the college. He therefore directed Mr. Westcott and Mr. Mercer to implement a rotating schedule for the weekends. Mr. Westcott was not in favor of the change because it meant additional scheduling work for him to accommodate new rotating shifts. No credible evidence was presented that the schedule change was because of Petitioner’s race, or made in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expressions or actions. From August 27, 2008, through January 2009, there were no other disciplines issued to Petitioner or reported incidents between Petitioner and Mr. Westcott. In December, 2008, a group composed of most of the custodial employees, including Petitioner, conducted a meeting with the College's president, Dr. Kerley, and vice-president, Mr. Mercer. The group of custodians elected their new supervisor James Garcia, an Asian-Pacific Islander, as their spokesperson for the meeting. The custodians' primary purpose for the meeting was to address complaints regarding Mr. Westcott’s management style, his prior criminal conviction, and approach with employees. They felt that Mr. Westcott could not be pleased. Various concerns about Mr. Westcott expressed by the employees were condensed into three typed pages (collectively, ?Typed Document?) consisting of two pages compiled by Jamie Long and his wife Susan Long which contained 12 numbered paragraphs, and a third page with six unnumbered paragraphs. Mr. Garcia did not transmit the Typed Document to the president or vice- president prior to the meeting. Neither Jamie Long nor his wife attended the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Garcia read several of the comments from the Typed Document and Dr. Kerley responded to each comment that was read. Mr. Garcia did not read through more than the first five of the 12 items listed on the Typed Document. The Typed Document was not reviewed by the president or vice-president and they did not retain a copy. Petitioner asserts the comment listed in paragraph 9 on the second page of the Typed Document constitutes a complaint or evidence of racial animus. Although not discussed at the meeting or reviewed by Dr. Kerley or Mr. Mercer, paragraph 9 states: During a recent candidate forum, Westcott used the term ?black ass? in regard to School Superintendent James McCallister. This was heard by at least two witnesses. Q. Are such racial slurs and inappropriate, unprofessional behavior condoned and acceptable? Mr. Westcott denies making the alleged statement referenced in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document. No evidence of other racial remarks allegedly made by Mr. Westcott was presented. There is no evidence that the College or its administration condoned the alleged statement. President Kerley, Vice President Mercer, and Mr. Washington all gave credible testimony that they were not made aware of the statement and that, if the statement in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document or any alleged racial discrimination by Mr. Westcott had been brought to their attention, immediate action would have been taken. As a result of custodial employees’ complaints about Mr. Westcott’s management style, Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer required Mr. Westcott to attend several sessions of management training. In addition, Dr. Kerley counseled Mr. Westcott against using harsh tactics and rough language that may be acceptable on a construction site, but were not appropriate on a College campus. On February 9, 2009, Mr. Westcott observed both Petitioner and a co-worker leaving their assigned buildings. He asked their supervisor, Mr. Garcia, to monitor their whereabouts because he thought that they appeared to not be doing their jobs. Mr. Westcott also told Mr. Garcia that, although the two workers may have had a legitimate reason for walking from their assigned buildings, he had not heard anything on the radio to indicate as much. The next day, on February 10, 2009, Mr. Garcia told Petitioner that Mr. Westcott had wanted to know where they had been headed when they left the building the day before. Petitioner responded by saying that if Mr. Westcott wanted to know where he was, Mr. Westcott could ask him (Petitioner). Later that day, Petitioner spoke to Mr. Washington on campus. Petitioner was very upset and said to Mr. Washington, ?What’s wrong with Westcott? He better leave me alone. He don’t know who he’s messing with.? Later that same afternoon, Petitioner had a confrontation with Mr. Westcott. According to a memorandum authored that same day by Mr. Westcott: I [John Westcott] had stopped outside the mailroom to talk with Beth Bennett. While talking with her I observed Derek [Petitioner] leave Student Union West. After seeing me, he returned to Student Union West and waited outside the door. Beth walked toward the Administration building and I headed through the breezeway. Derek approached me and said that he had heard that I wanted to ask him something. I asked him what he was talking about. He said that I wanted to ask him where he was going the evening before. I said ok, where were you going? Derek said that it was ?none of my f_ _ _ ing business.? I told him that since I was his supervisor, that it ?was? my business. At this time, he stepped closer to me in a threatening manner and said ?if you don’t stop f_ _ _ ing with me, I’m going to f_ _ _ you up.? I told him that if he would do his job, that he wouldn’t have to worry about me. He replied ?you heard what I said--- I’ll f_ _ _ you up?, as he walked back into SUW. I left the breezeway and went to John Mercer’s office to report the incident. Mr. Westcott’s testimony at the final hearing regarding the incident was consistent with his memorandum. While Petitioner’s version of the confrontation is different than Mr. Westcott’s, at the final hearing Petitioner admitted that Mr. Westcott had a legitimate question regarding his whereabouts and that he failed to answer the question. And, while he denied using the specific curse words that Mr. Westcott attributed to him, Petitioner testified that he told Mr. Westcott to leave him the ?hell? alone because he was doing his job. While there is no finding as to the exact words utilized by Petitioner to Mr. Westcott, it is found, based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, that on the afternoon of February 9, 2009, Petitioner was confrontational towards Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner refused to answer a legitimate question from Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner demanded that Mr. Westcott leave him alone even though Mr. Westcott had a legitimate right to talk to Petitioner about his job, and that Petitioner used words that threatened physical violence if Mr. Westcott did not heed his warning. After Mr. Westcott reported the incident to Mr. Mercer, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott went to Dr. Kerley and advised him of the incident. Dr. Kerley believed the report of the incident and that Petitioner had threatened Mr. Westcott. Mr. Washington was then informed of the incident. After reviewing Petitioner’s employment history, including Petitioner’s recent attitude problems, as well as Mr. Washington’s own interaction the same day of the latest incident, Mr. Washington concluded that Petitioner should be terminated. Mr. Washington gave his recommendation that Petitioner be terminated to Dr. Kerley, who adopted the recommendation. The following day, February 11, 2009, Mr. Washington called Petitioner into his office and gave him a memorandum memorializing Petitioner’s termination from his employment with the College. The memorandum provided: This memorandum is written notification that because of a number of incidents which the administration of the college deems unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate, you are hereby terminated from employment at Gulf Coast Community College, effective immediately. At the time that he presented Petitioner with the memorandum, Mr. Washington provided Petitioner with the opportunity to respond. Petitioner told Mr. Washington, ?It is not over.? Petitioner did not state at the time, however, that he believed that his termination, change of schedule, or any disciplinary action taken against him were because of racial discrimination or in retaliation for his protected expression or conduct. Further, at the final hearing, Petitioner did not present evidence indicating that similarly-situated non-African- American employees would have been treated more favorably than was Petitioner for threatening a supervisor. Further, the evidence presented by Petitioner did not show that the decision to terminate him was based on race or in retaliation for protected expression or behavior, or that the facts behind the reason that Petitioner was fired were fabricated. Following his termination, Petitioner met with both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer and apologized for acting wrongly. The empirical record evidence of discipline against College employees in the Maintenance Division during Mr. Westcott’s tenure does not demonstrate a tendency by Mr. Westcott or the College to discriminate against African- American employees. The majority of disciplines and the first discipline taken against Mr. Long by Mr. Westcott were administered to Caucasians. In total, Mr. Westcott only reprimanded five employees. Of these, three were Caucasian -- Mr. Long, Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. Doherty. Despite the fact that the majority of the custodians were African-American, only two African-Americans were disciplined -- Petitioner and Harold Brown. During Mr. Westcott’s employment, the only two employees who were terminated were Petitioner and a white employee, Mark Ruggieri. Excluding Petitioner, all African-American witnesses testified that Mr. Westcott treated them equally and not one, except for Petitioner, testified that they were treated differently because of their race. The testimony of Petitioner’s African-American co-workers is credited over Petitioner’s testimony of alleged discrimination. Harold Brown’s discipline was based upon the fact that he gave the College’s master keys to an outside third-party contractor. Although Mr. Brown disagreed with the level of punishment he received, in his testimony, he agreed that he had made a mistake. Mr. Brown further testified that he did not believe African-Americans were targeted. According to Mr. Brown, Mr. Westcott did not discriminate against him because of his race, and ?Westcott was an equal opportunist as far as his behavior? and ?seemed agitated towards everybody when he was in his moods.? Mr. Garcia was the lead custodian when Petitioner was terminated and is currently the College’s custodial department supervisor. While several employees told Mr. Garcia that they did not like Mr. Westcott’s management style, Mr. Garcia never heard a racist comment and testified that Mr. Westcott was strict and threatened the entire custodial and maintenance staff. Butch Whitehead believes that Mr. Westcott attempted to get him and his maintenance crew ?in trouble.? He had no personal knowledge of the manner in which Mr. Westcott treated Petitioner. Mr. Whitehead's testimony does not otherwise support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist or that the College discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. Tom Krampota, a Caucasian and longtime employee and former supervisor, agreed that Mr. Westcott was firm with all custodians and complained about everybody, but was not a racist. Lee Givens, an African-American, testified that his custodial work was monitored because Mr. Westcott took issue with dust and cleanliness, but that if he did his job Mr. Westcott did not bother him. Mr. Givens did not testify that he felt discriminated against because of his race, but rather stated that Mr. Westcott made the job hard for ?all the custodians.? Horace McClinton, an African-American custodian for the College, provided a credible assessment of Mr. Westcott in his testimony which summarized how Mr. Westcott treated all of his subordinates: There were certain things that he wanted us to do that we should have been doing already, and he was just there to enforce it . . . he did not think anybody was doing their job . . . . He was put there to make sure we were doing our job . . . . I don't think he was a racist. Mr. McClinton further testified that all Maintenance Division employees, including Caucasian supervisors, were afraid of Westcott because it was ?his way or the highway.? Latoya ?Red? McNair testified that he was being monitored like the other custodians but did not believe it was because of race. Just as Petitioner’s co-workers’ testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist, Dan Doherty’s deposition testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott’s actions against Petitioner were because of race. A review of Mr. Doherty’s deposition reflects that Mr. Doherty has no first-hand knowledge of actual discrimination. Mr. Doherty stated, ?I don't know? when asked how he knew Westcott was motivated by race. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Doherty, five African-Americans were singled out, including Petitioner, Mr. McClinton, Mr. Givens, Mr. McNair, and Mr. Brown. Two of these alleged ?victims? outright denied that Mr. Westcott treated them unfairly because of race. The others did not testify that they believed Mr. Westcott treated them differently because of race. Mr. Doherty testified that besides the five identified, the remaining African-Americans were not criticized or targeted. Mr. Doherty also conceded that it was possible that Mr. Westcott just did not like the five custodians. Further, despite the fact that Mr. Doherty was written up by Mr. Westcott more than any other employee, including Petitioner, Mr. Doherty never reported Mr. Westcott for discrimination and did not state in his exit interview from the College that Mr. Westcott was a racist or complain that race was an issue. Rather than supporting a finding that Mr. Westcott was motivated by race, Mr. Doherty’s testimony demonstrated that the problems he had with Mr. Westcott were similar with those pointed out by others—-namely, that Mr. Westcott had a prior criminal conviction, had a harsh management style, and closely scrutinized all workers. While Petitioner and Mr. Long contend that they raised the issue of discrimination with the College's management, the College's president, vice-president, director of human resources, former vice-president, and superintendent all deny receiving a report of discrimination or that any employment action was based on race or in retaliation. Mr. Long’s testimony that he complained of race is not substantiated because he did not witness any discrimination first hand. He also never documented his alleged concerns about racial discrimination prior to Petitioner's termination. In addition, in his testimony, Mr. Long admitted that he never heard Mr. Westcott use a racially discriminatory term. Likewise, Petitioner never documented alleged discrimination until after being terminated. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and the failure of Petitioner and Mr. Long to document alleged complaints when an opportunity was presented, it is found that the allegations of reported complaints of discrimination by Mr. Long and Petitioner are not credible. Further, the testimony from Petitioner’s co-workers and supervisors, which indicates that Mr. Westcott was harsh with all employees but not racially discriminatory, is credited. It is found that Petitioner did not show that any employment action by the College or Mr. Westcott against him was based on race. Rather, the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that Petitioner was not targeted or treated differently from any other employees based upon race. The evidence also failed to show that Petitioner was retaliated against because of his protected expression or conduct. In sum, the evidence did not show that Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or wrongful retaliation, and Respondent proved that Petitioner was terminated for engaging in a pattern of unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate behavior, including a threat to his supervisor’s supervisor, John Westcott.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Corrections (Respondent or the Department) constructively discharged Petitioner Lou Armentrout (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by subjecting Petitioner to a hostile work environment because of Petitioner’s race, age, or gender.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Asian female born February 25, 1970. Petitioner speaks Chinese and English. Petitioner speaks with a Chinese accent. She does not speak or understand Spanish. Respondent is a state agency responsible for “the incarceration and supervision of offenders through the application of work, programs, and services." See § 20.315(1), Fla. Stat. At all material times, Respondent employed more than 15 persons. Petitioner was employed by Respondent at its Lake Correctional Institution (Institution) from September 16, 2011, until October 12, 2012, as a Senior Registered Nursing Supervisor. Petitioner's duties as a Senior Registered Nursing Supervisor included the supervision of approximately 80 nurses at the Institution. While employed at the Institution, Petitioner worked directly under the supervision of the Institution's Chief Health Officer. When Petitioner was hired, the Chief Health Officer was Dr. Moreno. Dr. Moreno’s annual performance evaluation of Petitioner for the period ending February 29, 2012, gave Petitioner an overall 3.51 performance rating score, indicating that Petitioner “consistently meets and may occasionally exceed the performance expectation of the position.” Petitioner never received an evaluation score below a 3, indicating that the employee at least “meets expectation,” on any written evaluation of her performance while she was employed by the Institution. After Dr. Moreno resigned in April or May 2012, Dr. Virginia Mesa was hired as Chief Health Officer of the Institution in May of 2012. Dr. Mesa is Hispanic. Dr. Mesa’s supervision was often harsh. Dr. Mesa had a bad temper and would raise her voice and reprimand employees in the presence of others, including inmates. Dr. Mesa described her supervisory style as the “team approach.” She advised that, instead of meeting with employees individually, she would meet them as a “team.” She would meet every morning with the nurses in the medical unit and once a week in the psych unit. Petitioner attended these meetings. During the meetings, Dr. Mesa would often address the group, many of whom were Hispanic, in Spanish instead of English. Many of the discussions were regarding Dr. Mesa’s medical direction and discussion about patients’ cases. Dr. Mesa knew that Petitioner did not speak Spanish. On more than one occasion, Petitioner asked Dr. Mesa what was being said, and Dr. Mesa would reply, “Ask one of the nurses.” Although Dr. Mesa never specifically mentioned Petitioner’s race, age, or gender, she treated Petitioner harshly and made fun of Petitioner’s Asian accent behind her back. On one occasion, while Petitioner was not present, Dr. Mesa made a joke of Petitioner’s pronunciation of a word by substituting Petitioner’s mispronunciation with a vulgar term, repeating the word a number of times in the presence of other employees and laughing with those employees while poking fun at Petitioner. While not mentioning Petitioner’s race, it is evident that the joke was designed to ridicule Petitioner on account of Petitioner’s race.2/ Petitioner was made aware by others that Dr. Mesa belittled her behind her back. Dr. Mesa’s contempt for Petitioner was overt. Dr. Mesa would raise her voice and glare at her, and challenge Petitioner’s competence as a supervisor and medical professional in front of others in a bullying way. Dr. Mesa would humiliate Petitioner by testing Petitioner’s bedside nursing skills in front of other nurses and inmates, knowing that Petitioner had not been working as a nurse for a number of years, primarily because Petitioner had been working in an administrative position. Feeling as though her authority was being undermined by Dr. Mesa, and wanting to improve her business relationship and obtain some direction from Dr. Mesa, Petitioner asked for private meetings with Dr. Mesa on numerous occasions. Dr. Mesa refused. In addition, despite Petitioner’s continued requests that she use English, Dr. Mesa continued to address Hispanic staff in Spanish during morning staff meetings. Dr. Mesa did, however, meet privately with Gary Assante, a white male, who, although not licensed in a medical profession, was an administrator with the Institution with lateral authority to that of Petitioner. Instead of giving directions directly to Petitioner, Dr. Mesa would give directions through Mr. Assante to Petitioner. Some of the directions were of a medical nature. Dr. Mesa would also use nurses supervised by Petitioner to deliver directions to Petitioner. Dr. Mesa’s tactics undermined Petitioner’s supervisory authority. Petitioner became frustrated because Dr. Mesa’s tactics were interfering with Petitioner’s ability to do her job. Petitioner complained to the assistant warden of the Institution, Assistant Warden Young, of Dr. Mesa’s intimidation and behavior. In particular, Petitioner complained that, in addition to her intimidation of Petitioner, Dr. Mesa threatened nursing staff members with termination on several occasions. Assistant Warden Young set up a meeting between Petitioner, Mr. Assante, and Dr. Mesa to discuss the issues in July 2012. During the meeting, Dr. Mesa stated that she is paid too much to listen to the allegations. Despite Petitioner’s complaints, Dr. Mesa’s intimidating behavior continued. On August 22, 2012, without any prior warning of disciplinary action, Dr. Mesa brought Michelle Hanson to Petitioner’s office. Michelle Hanson was the Regional Nursing Director of the Department’s Region 3 Office, which included the Institution. During the meeting, Dr. Mesa questioned Petitioner’s competency as a nurse and told Petitioner that she wanted to demote her. Petitioner told Dr. Mesa that she did not want a demotion and asked Dr. Mesa to specify the problems with Petitioner’s performance. Dr. Mesa never did. In fact, there is no evidence of verbal counseling or reprimands from Dr. Mesa in Petitioner’s personnel file. Dr. Mesa never provided a written evaluation of Petitioner’s performance while Petitioner was employed by the Institution. Near the end of August or early September, Petitioner verbally complained to the Institution’s warden, Warden Jennifer Folsom, about Dr. Mesa’s behavior. Dr. Mesa’s intimidation continued. On September 16, 2012, Petitioner provided Warden Folsom with a letter explaining how Dr. Mesa’s “workplace bullying” was adversely affecting Petitioner and the workplace environment, asking “higher level management for assistance and to make a reasonable working environment,” and advising that Dr. Mesa had asked Petitioner to take a demotion. Petitioner’s letter explained, in part: I strongly feel workplace bullying is linked to a host of physical, psychological, organizational and social costs. Stress is the most predominant health effect associated with bullying in the workplace. My experience with workplace bullying is developed poor mental health and poor physical health, inability to be productive and loss of memory and fear of making key decisions. Recently, I also turn to other organizations for job opportunities and I have been asked by Dr. Mesa and Mr. Assante where do I go for interview and how long will this last by asking for days and hours for interviewing. My fearful of retaliation even made me so scared to ask for job interviewing. Petitioner met with Warden Folsom the next day, September 17, 2012. During the meeting, Warden Folsom assured Petitioner that Dr. Mesa did not have the authority to demote her, and gave Petitioner someone to contact in Employee Relations regarding her concerns. Warden Folsom followed up the meeting with a letter dated September 17, 2012, stating: It has come to my attention that you have alleged harassment by your supervisor. You are being provided the name and contact number for the Intake Officer at the Regional Service Center. Norma Johnson (407)521-2526 ext. 150 Please be aware the Department does not tolerate inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Your allegations will be looked into and any appropriate action taken. The letter was signed by Warden Folsom and a witness, as well as by Petitioner, acknowledging receipt. It was copied to Norma Johnson, Employee Relations. After that, Petitioner spoke a couple of times by telephone with Norma Johnson. She told her that Dr. Mesa was continuing to harass and bully her in the workplace, and that Dr. Mesa was causing a hostile work environment. Despite Petitioner’s complaints, nothing changed. It is apparent that Petitioner’s complaints were ignored. In fact, Dr. Mesa claimed that she never heard about complaints that she treated individuals that are Hispanic differently than she treated Petitioner, and could not recall if the Warden ever approached her regarding Petitioner’s complaints. Incredibly, Dr. Mesa testified that she was not made aware of Petitioner’s complaint that she was speaking Spanish and Petitioner could not understand until after Petitioner left her employment with the Institution. After Petitioner’s meeting with the Warden and conversations with Norma Johnson, Dr. Mesa continued to speak Spanish at meetings with staff and Petitioner could not understand. Dr. Mesa continued to direct Petitioner through other employees. And Dr. Mesa continued to raise her voice and challenge Petitioner’s competence in front of other employees. The evidence supports Petitioner’s claim that the way she was treated was discrimination, based upon Petitioner’s race. The evidence does not, however, support Petitioner’s claims that she was discriminated against based upon Petitioner’s age or gender. The harsh treatment Petitioner received, based upon her race, undermined Petitioner’s supervisory authority and interfered with Petitioner’s ability to do her job. The discrimination was overt, continuous, and created a hostile work environment that was intolerable. Petitioner, in essence, was forced to leave the employ of the Institution. Approximately two weeks later, on September 28th or 29th, 2012, after deciding that she could no longer endure the situation, Petitioner sent the following letter to Dr. Mesa and Warden Folsom: Dear DOC: Please accept this letter as my formal notice of resignation from Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor effective 10/12/12. This is the most difficult decision I have ever made throughout my career; however, my time here at Lake Correctional Institution has been some of the most rewarding and memorable years of my professional life. I sincerely appreciate the opportunities that I have been given to contribute to the organization’s success, while growing professionally and personally. Sincerely, Lou Armentrout Cc Human Resource: Please leave all my leave times (annual and sick leaves) in people first until receiving notification from me. Thank you for your assistance. In the year following Petitioner’s resignation, the health care services were privatized and provided by Corizon Health, Inc. Most employees kept their jobs that they held prior to privatization. Had Petitioner remained with the Institution, it is likely that she would have transitioned over to an equivalent position with Corizon Health, Inc. After leaving the Institution on October 12, 2012, Petitioner obtained a job with the Department of Health on October 26, 2012. Petitioner suffered a loss of pay in the amount of $2,222.40 during the period of her unemployment between October 12, 2012, and October 26, 2012. Petitioner’s pay at her new job with the Department of Health is $299.32 less per two-week pay period than her job at the Institution. $299.32 per two-week pay period equals $648.53 less each month ($299.32 X 26 weeks = $7,782.32/year ÷ 12 months = $648.53/month ÷ 30 = approximately $21.62/day). The time period between the date Petitioner began her new job with the Department of Health on October 26, 2012, and the final hearing held January 16, 2015, equals 26 months and 21 days. The loss in pay that Petitioner experienced in that time period totals $17,315.80 ((26 month x $648.53/month) + ($21.62/day x 21 days) = $17,315.80). The total loss in pay ($2,222.40 + $17,315.80) that Petitioner experienced from her resignation until the final hearing is $19,538.20. Petitioner also drives 92 miles further each work day to her new position with the Department of Health. The extra cost that Petitioner incurs to get to her new job, calculated at the State rate of $0.445 per mile, equals $40.94 per day. Taking into account 260 work days per year (5 work days per week), from beginning of Petitioner’s new job through the date of the hearing equals a total of $23,663.32 (578 days x $40.94/day), without subtracting State holidays or vacation days. Subtracting nine State holidays and two weeks for vacation each year results in a total of $21,943.84 to reimburse Petitioner for the extra miles driven each work day through the day of the final hearing (536 days x $40.94/day).
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 the Department constructively discharged Petitioner Lou Armentrout by subjecting her to a hostile work environment on account of Petitioner’s race in violation of the Act; Ordering the Department to pay Petitioner $19,538.20 in back pay through the date of the final hearing, January 16, 2015, plus $21.62 per diem thereafter through the date of the Commission's final order, with interest accruing on the total amount at the applicable statutory rate from the date of the Commission's final order; Ordering the Department to pay Petitioner $23,663.32, as an additional aspect of back pay, for extra daily travel expenses incurred to get to and from her new job through the date of the final hearing, plus $40.94 for each work day thereafter that Petitioner drives to her new job through the date of the Commission's final order, with interest accruing on the total amount at the applicable statutory rate from the date of the Commission's final order; Ordering the Department to make arrangements to reinstate Petitioner to an equivalent position with Corizon Health, Inc., for service at the Institution; Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by the Department; and Awarding Petitioner her costs incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2015.
The Issue The issues are (1) whether the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner was timely under Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes, and (2) whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 when it terminated Petitioner's employment as a retail sales associate in May 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Parties Petitioner is an African American female. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding (i.e., January through May 1998), Petitioner was 49 years old. Respondent is a retail department store chain with stores located throughout Florida, including a store in Oviedo, Florida. Respondent is an employer subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner's Employment With Respondent On or about January 30, 1998, Petitioner was hired by Respondent to work as a retail sales associate in Respondent's Oviedo store. She was originally assigned to work in the women's clothing department. Petitioner was interviewed and hired by Heidi Jensen, a white female. Ms. Jensen was the assistant sales manager responsible for the women's clothing department, and was Petitioner's direct supervisor throughout the course of Petitioner's employment. Petitioner was hired as a part-time employee at a rate of $9.00 per hour. As a part-time employee, she worked approximately 20 hours per week. Petitioner's schedule was flexible; she worked eight hours on some days and four hours or less on others. She was typically scheduled on the closing shift (i.e., nights), rather than the opening shift. On February 7, 1998, Petitioner signed a certification indicating that she had read and agreed to abide by Respondent's work rules and policies. Those rules include the following directive, hereafter referred to as "Work Rule 10": Associates must exhibit positive behavior toward their job, Management, supervisors, and co-associates in all of their actions and speech. Customers must always be treated courteously. Anything to the contrary will not be tolerated. On February 8, 1998, Petitioner attended a general orientation at which the work rules and policies were discussed. That orientation was also attended by other recently-hired employees, including non-African American employees. Petitioner received additional training from Respondent throughout her employment, including customer service and sales training and direction for handling merchandise returns. That training was also provided to other employees, including non- African American employees. Petitioner never received formal training on how to "open" the store. However, as noted above, Petitioner typically worked during the closing shift rather than the opening shift. Slightly more than a month into her employment, Petitioner's co-workers began complaining about her unprofessional behavior. The complaints alleged that Petitioner yelled at co-workers; that she initiated arguments with co- workers in front of customers regarding who should get credit for the customer's purchases; that she referred to the customers in the woman's department (which caters to larger women) as "fat pigs"; that she stole customers from her co-workers; that she referred to some of her co-workers as "vultures" and others as "bitches" or "wolves," often in front of or within "earshot" of customers; and that she generally upset or harassed co-workers through her attitude and derogatory comments. The complaints came from eight different co-workers, at least one of whom was an African American female. The complaints were made in writing by the co-workers, typically through signed, hand-written statements given to Ms. Jensen or the store manager. Petitioner denied making any of the statements or engaging in any of the conduct alleged in the complaints. In response to the complaints, she took the position that she was being "singled out" by her co-workers because her aggressive tactics made her a more successful salesperson than most of her co-workers. Despite Petitioner's denials, Ms. Jensen determined that disciplinary action was appropriate based upon her investigation of the complaints. Ms. Jensen gave Petitioner a verbal warning "concerning using a positive attitude towards merchandise and customers" on March 7, 1998, and she gave Petitioner a formal written warning for her lack of positive attitude towards customers and co-workers on March 19, 1998. Both warnings cited Work Rule 10 as having been violated. Despite the warnings, Petitioner's conduct continued to generate complaints from her co-workers. She received another verbal warning from Ms. Jensen on April 17, 1998, and she received a formal written warning from the store manager on April 22, 1998. Again, the warnings cited Work Rule 10 as having been violated. Petitioner continued to deny any wrongdoing. She again claimed that she was being "targeted" by her co-workers because of their "jealousy and envy" over her success as a salesperson. The April 22, 1998, written warning stated that "[i]f there is one more report of negativity or verbal abuse of customers or associates, [Petitioner] will be terminated." It also enumerated Respondent's "expectations" with respect to Petitioner's conduct, including a requirement that Petitioner "never confront an associate in front of a customer" (emphasis in original). At some point after the April 22, 1998, written warning, Petitioner was transferred from the women's department to the casual department to give her a "clean slate" with her co-workers. Despite the transfer, Petitioner's co-workers continued to complain about her behavior. The complaints were of the same nature as the complaints discussed above, e.g., stealing sales from other co-workers and initiating confrontations with co-workers over customers in the customer's presence. On May 22, 1998, Petitioner and a co-worker, Brenda Ross, "had words" over a customer. When confronted about the incident by Ms. Jensen, Petitioner "was loud and aggressive" towards her. As a result of this incident and the prior warnings, Ms. Jensen recommended that Petitioner's employment be terminated. The store manager accepted Ms. Jensen's recommendation, and, Petitioner was terminated on May 22, 1998. Thus, the term of Petitioner's employment with Respondent was less than four months. After she was fired, Petitioner returned to her work station to retrieve her belongings. While doing so, she confronted Ms. Ross and called her a "lying bitch" (according to Petitioner's own testimony at the hearing) or something similarly derogatory.1 There are no videotapes of the incidents described above. None of the co-workers who reported the incidents testified at the hearing. Nevertheless, the co-worker's contemporaneous hand-written reports of the incidents which were received into evidence (Respondent's Exhibits 21-30) are found to be credible based upon their general consistency and the corroborating testimony of Ms. Jensen at the hearing. By contrast, Petitioner's testimony regarding the incidents was not credible. There is no credible evidence to support Petitioner's allegations that she was denied the opportunity to file complaints against her co-workers. Nor is there any credible evidence that Petitioner did file complaints (alleging discrimination or anything else) which were ignored by Respondent's management. By all accounts, Petitioner was a good salesperson; her sales per hour were high and, on several occasions, they were the highest in the department where she was working. Ms. Jensen complemented Petitioner on at least one occasion for her high level of sales. Petitioner was also punctual and had a good attendance record. She was on track to receive a pay increase at her next review. However, as a result of the unprofessional behavior detailed above, she was fired prior that review. Petitioner is currently unemployed. She has not held a job since she was fired by Respondent in May 1998. However, she has only applied for four or five other jobs since that time. Petitioner's Discrimination Claim Petitioner first contacted the Commission regarding her allegation that Respondent discriminated against her on or about June 29, 1998. On that date, she filled out the Commission's "intake questionnaire." On the questionnaire, she indicated that she had sought assistance from attorney Anthony Gonzales, Jr. (Attorney Gonzales) regarding the alleged discrimination by Respondent. Petitioner also listed Attorney Gonzales as her representative on the "intake inquiry form and complaint log" completed on or about July 10, 1998. Petitioner consulted with Attorney Gonzales in April 1998, prior to her termination. Although Petitioner claimed at the hearing that Attorney Gonzales did not agree to represent her beyond the initial consultation, Petitioner provided the Commission a copy of Attorney Gonzales' business card and a copy of the check by which Petitioner paid Attorney Gonzales' consultation fee with the Commission's intake documents. Based upon those documents, the Commission apparently (and reasonably) assumed that Attorney Gonzales was Petitioner's attorney because it subsequently directed various letters to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Jr., Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address. Petitioner filed her formal charge of discrimination on November 9, 1998. The charge did not reference Attorney Gonzales. Nevertheless, on December 7, 1998, the Commission sent a letter to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Jr., Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address confirming receipt of the charge of discrimination. The record does not include any correspondence from Attorney Gonzales to the Commission in response to the December 7, 1998, confirmation letter. However, Attorney Gonzales continued to receive correspondence from the Commission regarding Petitioner's charge of discrimination after that date. On February 2, 1999, the Commission sent a letter to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address indicating that Petitioner's charge of discrimination had been pending for over 180 days and identifying the options available to Petitioner. The letter was accompanied by an "election of rights" form which was to be completed and returned to the Commission. Attorney Gonzales apparently forwarded the form to Petitioner because Petitioner completed and signed the form and returned it to the Commission on June 17, 1999. This strongly suggests that there was an attorney-client relationship between Attorney Gonzales and Petitioner at the time. Indeed, if there was no attorney-client relationship, either Petitioner or Attorney Gonzales would have informed the Commission in connection with the return of the form that Attorney Gonzales was not representing here. However, neither did. The record does not include any additional communications between the Commission and Petitioner and/or Attorney Gonzales between June 1999 and August 2001. Notably absent from the record is any notice to the Commission that Attorney Gonzales was no longer representing Petitioner. On August 31, 2001, the Executive Director of the Commission issued a "no cause" determination on Petitioner's charge of discrimination. On that same date, the Clerk of the Commission sent notice of the determination to Petitioner "c/o Anthony Gonzales, Jr., Esq." at Attorney Gonzales' address. The notice stated that "[c]omplainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE" (emphasis supplied and capitalization in original), and further stated that the claim "will be dismissed" if not filed within that time. Attorney Gonzales contacted Petitioner by telephone after he received the notice of determination. The record does not reflect the date of that contact. However, Petitioner testified at the hearing that Attorney Gonzales informed her during the telephone call that the deadline for requesting a hearing had not yet expired. Accordingly, the contact must have occurred prior to October 5, 2001, which is 35 days after August 31, 2001. Despite the notice from Attorney Gonzales, Petitioner did not immediately file a Petition or contact the Commission. She did not contact the Commission until October 16, 2001. On that date, she spoke with Commission employee Gerardo Rivera and advised Mr. Rivera that Attorney Gonzales was not representing her. Mr. Rivera indicated that the Commission would send an "amended" notice directly to her. An "amended" determination of no cause was issued by the Executive Director of the Commission on October 26, 2001. On that same date, an "amended" notice of determination was mailed to Petitioner. Included with the "amended" notice was a blank petition for relief form. Petitioner completed the form and mailed it to the Commission. The Petition was received by the Commission on November 28, 2001,2 which is 33 days after the date of the "amended" determination, but 89 days after the date of the original August 31, 2001 determination. Mr. Rivera's affidavit (Exhibit P1) characterized the mailing of the original determination to Attorney Gonzales as "our [the Commission's] error" and a "mistake." The preponderance of the evidence does not support that characterization. Specifically, the record reflects that it was Petitioner who gave the Commission the impression that Attorney Gonzales was representing her, and neither Petitioner nor Attorney Gonzales did anything to advise the Commission otherwise during the two and one-half years that the Commission investigated Petitioner's charge of discrimination and sent letters to Attorney Gonzales on Petitioner's behalf. Indeed, Petitioner testified at the hearing that the October 16, 2001, conversation with Mr. Rivera was the first (and only) time that she informed the Commission that Attorney Gonzales was not representing her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 31st day of December, 2002.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Milos, illegally terminated Petitioner based on her race (Black), in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA"), section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Petitioner is a Black female who worked for Milos as a line cook. Respondent is a Greek restaurant located in Miami, Florida. On January 12, 2016, Respondent hired Petitioner for a line cook position. Petitioner was interviewed and hired by Arsan. Arsan supervises all back-of-the-house staff and was Petitioner's supervisor throughout her entire 20-month period of employment. On May 30, 2016, approximately four and a half months after Petitioner's hire at Milos, Arsan gave Petitioner a raise in pay because he felt that she was performing well. Many of the employees Arsan supervises at Milos are Black. PETITIONER'S PERFORMANCE ISSUES AT MILOS On September 23, 2016, Petitioner was suspended for insubordination and violating company policies and procedures. Resp. Ex. 7 and 8. More specifically, Arsan was notified by the sous chef that there had been an argument between Petitioner and a coworker. Arsan attempted to investigate the dispute and found Petitioner to be very emotional and aggressive during the investigation. She was asked to leave but refused. Eventually, she left the premises. This incident came on the heels of another similar incident involving a verbal argument with a coworker, which occurred on September 17, 2016. Subsequently, on April 28, 2017, Petitioner was involved in another workplace argument with an employee named Rosa Salazar ("Salazar"). Resp. Ex. 10. The manager on duty intervened and attempted to resolve the dispute and calm the parties down. After he did so, Petitioner left work without permission and left early the following day as well. On June 27, 2017, a third employee named Ishay (a.k.a., Ayse Akbulut) complained that she could not work with Petitioner at their assigned station because Petitioner was "being rude and territorial." Resp. Ex. 11. Arsan spoke to Petitioner and resolved the matter between the two employees. However, he documented the incident as other employees had previously complained about Petitioner creating a hostile working environment. On June 30, 2017, Petitioner reportedly was involved in yet another workplace incident with Sonya Cabret ("Cabret"). Cabret complained that Petitioner made racially charged and demeaning comments to her based on Cabret's Haitian national origin. More specifically, Cabret complained that Petitioner called her an "ignorant Haitian," a "f ing Haitian," and stated that Cabret does not know how to speak English and that Cabret could not find a job anywhere else. Two months prior, Salazar had also complained that Petitioner made derogatory remarks to her based on Salazar's Latin ethnicity. Resp. Ex. 12 and 13. Salazar recounted that Petitioner had called her a "f ing Latino." Arsan disciplined Petitioner by counseling her and sending her home for the day. Each of the above incidents occurred prior to Hurricane Irma in September 2017. The undersigned finds that these incidents, and their related warnings and discipline, are relevant to the ultimate decision to discharge Petitioner and have some bearing on the propriety and necessity for termination. PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO RETURN TO WORK AFTER HURRICANE IRMA At some point in time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Arsan informed all employees that Milos would be closed at the end of the work day due to the approaching landfall of Hurricane Irma. Petitioner had been scheduled to report to work on September 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., but she did not do so. At 12:40 p.m. on September 6, 2017, Petitioner texted Arsan that she could not report to work because she was evacuating to Georgia due to Hurricane Irma. However, she hoped to return to work the following Tuesday (September 12, 2017). Resp. Ex. 14. After the hurricane had passed, on September 10, 2017, Arsan sent a group text message to all back-of-the-house staff alerting them that the restaurant was "closed for Monday" (September 11, 2017) and "we will be probably open for Tuesday" (September 12, 2017). Resp. Ex. 15. Petitioner received this text message. Petitioner never informed Arsan that she would not be back from Georgia by September 12, 2017, as she mentioned in her text message on September 6, 2017. Believing Petitioner would be back in Miami on September 12, 2017, Arsan scheduled Petitioner to work Wednesday, September 13, 2017. Resp. Ex. 16. On September 13, 2017, Petitioner did not call in or report for work. That same day, Arsan called Petitioner to find out why she did not report to work. Petitioner did not answer or return Arsan's call. On September 14, 2017, Petitioner again failed to call in or report for work. Arsan again attempted to reach Petitioner by telephone, but she did not answer. Arsan then sent Petitioner a text message notifying her that she was scheduled to be at work. Petitioner responded to Arsan's text messages on September 14, 2017, and the following discussion ensued: Arsan: "Denise you are scheduled to work today[.]" Petitioner: "Nobody called me and told me anything I cannot get out until Tuesday or Wednesday I'll [sic] area was hit bad and the bus is [sic] down here start running Wednesday[.]" Arsan: "Denise everybody is at work except you. How the bus starting [sic] on wednesday, [sic] half of staff is using the bus and they are here, The buses working [sic] fine." Petitioner: "When you come to my family I don't care about no job [sic] that's not my life we had an emergency down here we don't have any lights some of the buses is not running my house got water in it I am coming from Georgia so I might not be back until Thursday I have a lot of stuff to take care of in my house[.]" Arsan: "Please help let [sic] me understand your situation are you in Miami? or Georgia? Petitioner: I will be in Miami tonight I still have a lot of stuff to do at my. . . . Resp. Ex. 14. Arsan and Petitioner did not have any further communications after this text message exchange. Further, Petitioner did not initiate or attempt to send any more text messages to Arsan after the September 14, 2017, exchange. Petitioner did not report for work scheduled on September 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20. Petitioner testified that she did not report to work from September 13, 2017, to September 20, 2017, because she was attending to damage to her home caused by the hurricane. Based on Petitioner's text message that she does not "care about no job [sic]," Arsan, after consulting with Milos' outside contracted human resource company, removed Petitioner from the schedule for the week of Monday, September 18, 2017, to Sunday, September 24, 2017. On September 21, 2017, Petitioner showed up at Milos to work. Arsan believed Petitioner had abandoned her job and did not expect her to report to work again. After she arrived, Arsan directed Petitioner to speak to Faundez, Milos' outside human resource representative at Eleva Solutions. Contrary to what Petitioner told Arsan (i.e., that she missed work because she was attending to damage in her home from the hurricane), Petitioner gave Faundez three different reasons for her failure to call in or show up for work the preceding week: she did not know that she was supposed to be at work; there was no bus transportation; and (c) Petitioner had to be evacuated. Faundez concluded that Petitioner's reasons for failing to appear for work were inconsistent and conflicted with each other. She also did not believe that Petitioner had provided a definitive or plausible answer explaining why she had not returned to work. After consultation, Faundez and Arsan decided together to terminate Petitioner's employment. Arsan was not the sole decision-maker with respect to Petitioner's termination. Prior to her termination and despite having received Respondent's antidiscrimination policy and complaint procedures, Petitioner never complained that Arsan was discriminating against her because of her race. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner was unable to identify any employee(s) outside of her protected class who engaged in the same conduct and were not terminated from employment. Specifically, on cross-examination, Petitioner admitted that she was unable to identify a single non-Black employee who failed to show up for work following the hurricane and who was not terminated from employment. The evidence Petitioner offered to support her race discrimination claim was vague, unpersuasive, and included only conclusory and general allegations by her that Arsan "was a racist" and is a "nasty human being." There were no emails, texts, documents, or other direct evidence from Petitioner or Arsan supporting her claim that she was fired by Milos because of her race. Likewise, Petitioner called no witnesses to offer any compelling facts or circumstances to support her claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief with prejudice and find in Respondent's favor. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of October, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was dismissed from her employment with Respondent on the basis of racial discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. She was employed as a Revenue Specialist I by the Department's Child Support Enforcement Program for a little over four years, from September 20, 2000, until January 28, 2005. On January 24, 2005, the Department notified Petitioner by letter that her employment would be terminated, effective January 28, 2005, for violating three Disciplinary Standard Rules and the Department's policies related to "loafing," conduct unbecoming an public employee, and the misuse of state property and equipment. The Department charged Petitioner with using the State's SunCom system to make 711 personal long-distance calls totaling 5,483 minutes in the 18-month period from December 1, 2002, to May 31, 2004.1 Petitioner claimed that some of calls, totally about 700 minutes, were not personal calls.2 Petitioner admitted that the balance of the calls, totaling about 4,783 minutes, were personal calls. When Petitioner began employment with the Department, she signed a form acknowledging that she read and understood the "Department of Revenue Personnel Disciplinary Procedures and Standards Rule (#12-3.011, F.A.C., effective July 1999)." This rule includes a prohibition against personal use of state property or equipment without authorization. The rule further provides that the disciplinary action for a violation of this prohibition ranges from oral reprimand to dismissal for the first occurrence, suspension to dismissal for the second occurrence, and dismissal for the third occurrence. Petitioner did not receive authorization to use the SunCom system for personal long-distance calls. Petitioner admitted that she knew it was wrong to use the SunCom system to make personal long-distance calls, but she "really didn't think that it was something that [she] would be terminated for." Petitioner believes her co-workers also used the SunCom system to make personal long-distance calls. Even if this claim were relevant to the issue of whether the disciplinary action taken against Petitioner was discriminatory, she presented no evidence to support the claim. Petitioner argues that her dismissal for misuse of the SunCom system was a pretext for her dismissal and that racial discrimination was the true reason. Petitioner did not pursue at the final hearing her initial claim that age discrimination was another basis for her dismissal. Petitioner presented no evidence of written or oral statements made by Department supervisors or administrators indicating a racial motive for her dismissal. The sole basis for Petitioner's claim of racial discrimination is that other Department employees who were not African-Americans were not dismissed for their misuse of the SunCom system. In determining what disciplinary action to take against an employee, the Department considers mitigating factors, including the quality of the employee's work performance and his or her length of employment. On December 3, 2003, Petitioner received an oral reprimand from her immediate supervisor, Betty Tanner, for tardiness. On February 25, 2004, Petitioner received another oral reprimand from Ms. Tanner for tardiness. On January 5, 2005, Petitioner received an oral reprimand from Ms. Tanner for an absence without leave and a "Memo of Concerns" because of unsatisfactory work performance issues. Respondent's Exhibit 4 is a compilation of information about 25 cases of SunCom misuse by Department employees from 1996 through 2006. The list of employees is organized according to the number of minutes of SunCom misuse in an 18-month period. Of the 25 cases reported, Petitioner ranks third highest in total minutes of SunCom system misuse. Respondent's Exhibit 4 indicates that the worst SunCom abuser was M.D., an African-American male, who had 15,000 minutes of SunCom misuse. In the case of M.D., the Department's human resources administrator recommended that M.D. be dismissed, but he was ultimately demoted, instead. According to the Department's witness, Nancy Kelly, the decision not to dismiss M.D. was because of his length of service (7 years) and good work record. The next worse case of SunCom abuse by a Department employee involved L.W., an African-American female who had 13,186 minutes of SunCom system misuse. L.W. had 18 years of service and a good work record. Dismissal was recommended for L.W., but she was suspended, instead. Dismissal was recommended for a Caucasian male employee, F.S., who had 11 years of service and who had misused 4,574 minutes on the SunCom system. He resigned before his dismissal. An African-American female, L.C., with nine years of service, was allowed to refund the value of 3,551 minutes of personal use of the SunCom system. The Department's disciplinary actions in the 25 cases of SunCom system misuse do not indicate a pattern of racial discrimination. It should be noted that the director of the Child Support Enforcement Program in which Petitioner works, Lilly Bogan, is also an African-American. In considering mitigating factors, the Department determined that Petitioner's past incidents of unsatisfactory work performance and her relatively short length of service did not provide a basis for taking disciplinary action other than dismissal for her extensive misuse of the SunCom system. The Department followed the procedures set forth in Subsection 110.227(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), that are required before an agency can dismiss a Career Service employee, including giving written notice of the proposed disciplinary action, providing an opportunity to appear before the Department official taking the action, and providing an appeal to the Commission. Petitioner failed to prove that racial discrimination was the reason for her dismissal. The more persuasive evidence in the record shows that the reason Petitioner was dismissed was the reason given to her by the Department's Employee Relations Manager, "It was the minutes and they were just way too high."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 3rd day of January, 2007.
