07-002848 Thomas Robinson vs. Alliance Laundry Systems Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, November 14, 2007.

Summary: Employer did not discriminate against employee based on race.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THOMAS ROBINSON , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 07 - 2848

)

ALLIANCE LAUNDRY SYSTEMS , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

on September 20, 2007, in Marianna, Florida, before Susan B.

Harrell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division

of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Thomas Robinson, pro se

5156 Brywood Lane

Campbellton, Florida 32426

For Respondent: P. Michelle Bedoya, Esquire

Holland & Knight, LLP

50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900

Jackso nville, Florida 32202

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated

against Petitioner based on his race.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 7, 2006, Petitioner, Thomas Robinson

(Mr. Robinson) filed an employment disc rimination complaint with

the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission), alleging

that Respondent, Alliance Laundry Systems (Alliance), committed

an unlawful employment practice by denying him a promotion based

on his race. On May 21, 2007, the C ommission entered a Notice

of Determination: No Cause, determining that there was no cause

to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred.

On June 22, 2007, Mr. Robinson filed a Petition for Relief with

the Commission, requesting an adminis trative hearing.

The case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge to

conduct the proceedings. The case was originally assigned to

Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger, but was reassigne d to

Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Harrell to conduct the final

hearing.

At the final hearing, Mr. Robinson testified in his own

behalf and called Edward Mount as his witness. Petitioner’s

Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted in evidence. Petitioner’s

Exhi bit 3 was identified but not admitted in evidence. Alliance

called Rick Pyle as its witness. Respondent’s Composite

Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were admitted in evidence.

The one - volume Transcript was filed on October 17, 2007.

The parties agreed to file thei r proposed recommended orders

within ten days of the filing of the Transcript. Alliance filed

its Proposed Recommended Order on October 25, 2007. As of the

date of this Recommended Order, Mr. Robinson has not filed a

post - hearing submittal.

FINDINGS OF F ACT

1. Mr. Robinson, an African - American, was employed by

Alliance at its Marianna, Florida, office from 1987 to 2006,

when the facility closed. Mr. Robinson worked his way up from

the assembly line, making $4.00 per hour, to steel yard

coordinator, maki ng $14.87 per hour.

2. Mr. Robinson applied for the position of fabrication

supervisor in 2004 and 2005. Both times, other people were

chosen for the position.

3. In 2004, Mr. Robinson was a finalist for the

fabrication supervisor position. Steven Rams ey, a white male,

was chosen for the supervisor position. Mr. Ramsey was hired

from outside the company. Mr. Ramsey had considerably more

experience as a supervisor than Mr. Robinson.

4. In October 2005, the position for fabrication

supervisor became va cant again. Mr. Robinson again applied for

the position. The applicant pool was narrowed to two

candidates, Mr. Robinson and John Warren (Mr. Warren), a white

male. Both Mr. Robinson and Mr. Warren were interviewed by a

committee consisting of the plant manager, the general manager,

and hiring manager. Both candidates were current employees of

Alliance.

5. Alliance was looking for a supervisor with strong

interpersonal skills. Both Mr. Robinson and Mr. Warren were

valued employees of Alliance. In com paring their past

evaluations at Alliance, Mr. Warren’s performance evaluations

were stronger than Mr. Robinson’s.

6. Mr. Robinson received two evaluations in 2004. On

March 1, 2004, he received a score of 40 out of a possible 50.

It was noted that Mr . Robinson needed to improve his

relationships with other supervisors and lead workers. On

May 12, 2004, he received a score of 40 on his annual

evaluation. Again, it was noted that Mr. Robinson needed to

improve his relationships with other supervisors and lead

workers.

7. Mr. Robinson received a score of 41 on his annual

evaluation dated June 1, 2005. It was noted in his evaluation

that he had improved in the area of interpersonal relationships

over the past year.

8. Mr. Warren received a score of 4 8 on his annual

evaluation dated May 17, 2004. In the area of interpersonal

relationships, his supervisor wrote:

"Best in Fabrication." Leans forward to

meet every challenge, keeps supervisors,

peers and customers briefed at every step.

Mr. Warren not o nly knows his customers, he

has mastered the ability to identify

customer needs before the customer realizes

the need — and regularly exceeds customer

expectations. Mr. Warren teaches customer

service by example — what I call a "smooth

operator."

9. On his 2005 annual evaluation, Mr. Warren received a

perfect score of 50. It was noted in his evaluation that

Mr. Warren was a "solid role model."

10. The evaluations of Mr. Warren and Mr. Robinson played

an important role in determining who would be hired as

f abrication s upervisor. Based on the evaluations, Mr. Warren

was the stronger candidate.

11. Ed ward Mount (Mr. Mount) testified on behalf of

Mr. Robinson. Mr. Mount is an African - American, who was

employed with Alliance until November 2005. Mr. Mount left

Alliance because the Alliance plant in Marianna was closing and

would be relocated to Wisconsin. When Mr. Mount left Alliance,

he was making $45,000 a year as a floor supervisor on the second

shift. Mr. Mount felt that he had been treated fairly by

Alliance and that Alliance had not discriminated against him

based on his race during his employment with Alliance. During

his tenure with Alliance, he was promoted more than five times

and was given bonuses and raises.

12. Mr. Robinson felt that Rick Fr ayniak (Mr. Frayniak) ,

who was f abrication m anager, was discriminating against him

because of his race. However, Mr. Mount described Mr. Frayniak

as a “hard but fair” supervisor, who had a hands - on approach to

management. Mr. Mount never heard Mr. Frayni ak make any racial

remarks and did not feel that Mr. Frayniak had discriminated

against him based on his race.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2007).

14. Mr. Robinson contends that Alliance failed to prom o te

him because of his race. Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida

Statutes (2005) , 1 provides:

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail to refuse to

hire any individual, or otherwise

discriminate against any individual with

respect to compensation, terms, conditions,

or privileges of employment, because of such

individual’s race, color, religion, sex,

national origin, age, handicap, or marital

status.

15. The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.01,

Florida Statutes, et seq. , is modeled after Title V II of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000, et seq. ;

therefore, case law interpreting Title VI I is also relevant to

cases brought under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Florida

Department of Community Affairs v. Bryant , 586 So. 2d 1205, 1209

(Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

16. In a discrimination case, the petitioner has the

initial burden of establishing a pr ima facie case of

discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792,

93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973). If the petitioner

proves a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts

to the employer to proffer a legitimate, non - discr iminatory

reason for the action it took. Texas Department of Community

Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d

207 (1981). The employer’s burden is always one of production,

not persuasion, as it always remains the petitioner’s bu rden to

persuade the fact finder that the proffered reason is a pretext

and that the employer intentionally discriminated against the

petitioner. Id. at 252 - 256.

17. In order to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination, Mr. Robinson must establish the following:

(1) h e is a member of a protected class; (2) h e suffered an

adverse employment action; (3) h e is qualified for the job at

issue; and (4) s imilarly situated employees outside the

protected class were treated more favorably. Kelliher v.

Ven eman , 313 F.3d 1270, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002).

18. Mr. Robinson did establish a prima facie case of race

discrimination. As an African - American, he is a member of a

protected class. He was denied a promotion. He was qualified

for the position for which h e applied, and a white candidate was

hired for the position.

19. Alliance credibly established that the white candidate

was more qualified for the position than Mr. Robinson. The

decision to hire Mr. Warren rather than Mr. Robinson was based

on the emplo yees’ evaluations and not on race.

20. Mr. Robinson has failed to establish that Alliance did

not promote him to a supervisory position because of his race;

therefore, he has failed to establish that Alliance committed an

unlawful employment practice.

REC OMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a f inal o rder be entered dismissing

Mr. Robinson’s Petition for Relief.

DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November , 2007 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Flori da.

S

SUSAN B. HARRELL

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

ww w.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 14th day of November , 2007 .

ENDNOTE

1/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

Statutes are to the 2005 edition.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Denise Craw ford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Thomas Robinson

5156 Brywood Lane

Campbellton, Florida 32426

P. Michelle Bedoya , Esquire

Holland & Knight, LLP

50 North Laura Street, Suite 3900

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Cecil Howard, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.