Gonzalez v. State Dep't of Mgmt. Servs.

124 F.Supp.3d 1317

Ramon Gonzalez, Plaintiff,

v.State of Florida Department of Management Services, Defendant.

Case No. 14-22479-COOKE/TORRES

United States District Court, S.D. Florida.

Signed August 25, 2015

Martin E. Leach, Feiler & Leach, Coral Gables, FL, for Plaintiff.

Oscar E. Marrero, Lourdes Espino Wydler, Alexandra C. Hayes, Marrero & Wydler, Coral Gables, FL, for Defendant.

OMNIBUS ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MARCIA G. COOKE, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Ramon Gonzalez ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Gonzalez") brings this action against Defendant State of Florida Department of Management Services ("Defendant" or "DMS") to recover damages for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"), Fla. Stat. § 760.01. Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 17) with supporting Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (ECF No. 16) to which Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 20) along with Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Response with Incorporated Statement of Material Facts (ECF No. 21). Defendant then filed its Reply in Support of Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25). Defendant also filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Filing (ECF No. 24), to which Plaintiff filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Strike (ECF No. 26) and Defendant filed a Reply in Support of Motion to Strike (ECF No. 27). Therefore, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant's Motion to Strike are fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.

I have reviewed Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Response and Reply thereto, Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and attached exhibits, Plaintiff's Rule 56.1 Response with Incorporated Statement of Materials Facts and attached exhibits, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Filing, the Response and Reply thereto, the record, and relevant legal authorities. For the reasons provided herein, Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Filing is granted in part and denied in part and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The State of Florida Department of Management Services is comprised of several different divisions, including the Division of Real Estate Development and Maintenance ("the Division"), which is responsible in part for the maintenance of all buildings the State of Florida owns. Def.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 1; Pl.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 1. The Division's general duties include routine maintenance work, such as plumbing, air conditioning, structural integrity, and grounds maintenance, as well as maintaining public records and administrative security, and ensuring premises safety. Id. Daniel Eberhart ("Mr. Eberhart") is the Deputy Bureau Chief of Regional Facilities at the Division and has held this position since 1997. Id. at ¶ 2. He is responsible for overseeing all buildings from Jacksonville to Marathon, Florida, and all twelve facilities managers, as well as the senior refrigeration mechanic and his staff assistant, directly report to him. Id.

In late 2010, DMS hired Norberto Fernandez ("Mr. Fernandez") as the Facilities Manager. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff was hired on November 29, 2010 as the Maintenance Supervisor for the Rohde Building in Miami, Florida. Mem. Dismissing Pl., ECF No. 18-4. Mr. Fernandez interviewed Plaintiff for the position of maintenance supervisor. Dep. Daniel Eberhart 35:15-21. Mr. Eberhart did not participate in Plaintiff's employment interview. Id. at 35:9-11. Mr. Fernandez directly supervised Plaintiff while Mr. Eberhart supervised Mr. Fernandez. Pl.'s Dep. 20:6-12. Both Mr. Fernandez and Plaintiff are Cuban males. Def.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 3 at n. 1; Pl.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 3. Mr. Eberhart did not know that Plaintiff was of Cuban nationality while Plaintiff was employed with Defendant. Dep. Daniel Eberhart 141:6-10.

As the Maintenance Supervisor for the Rohde Building, Plaintiff was responsible for a complex of two towers located in downtown Miami as well as for two additional buildings located in Opa-Locka and Doral. Id. at ¶ 3. Plaintiff was also responsible for managing a staff of seven employees, including three maintenance mechanics, two support technicians at the Rohde Building, as well as one maintenance mechanic at the Opa-Locka facility and one maintenance mechanic at the Doral facility. Id. Together with Mr. Fernandez, Plaintiff was responsible for developing work plans for the mechanical staff, reviewing maintenance work performed at the three Miami-Dade DMS buildings, and contracting with outside vendors for work order services and supplies.Id. at ¶ 4. More specifically, as the Maintenance Supervisor, Plaintiff was responsible for prioritizing work orders based on level of urgency, materials available, the duration of the job, and the ability level of all available mechanics, as well as conducting daily inspections of operations systems, including elevators and air conditioning units. Id.

On January 2, 2013, Mr. Eberhart issued a memorandum outlining his concerns regarding Mr. Fernandez's work performance. Mem. Re: Performance Concerns, ECF No. 18-4. Mr. Eberhart noted that Mr. Fernandez needed to improve his communication skills by more consistently responding to tenant requests, timely responding to emails and phone messages, and maintaining more frequent communication with the regional office and Tallahassee headquarters. Id. The memorandum also recommended that Mr. Fernandez meet with staff more frequently to ensure that performance standards were met, proper maintenance schedules were maintained, and that required preventative maintenance records were maintained. Id. Mr. Fernandez was warned that "corrective action … [was] expected to begin immediately" as "further violations may result in more severe disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal." Id. Subsequently, on April 5, 2013, Tom Berger ("Mr. Berger"), Director of the Division, decided to terminate Mr. Fernandez. Def.'s Stmnt Material Facts ¶ 5; Pl.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 5. Mr. Berger cited Mr. Fernandez's poor supervisory performance as the reason for his termination, especially his hostile demeanor and insubordination towards his superiors, which created an intimidating and unprofessional work environment in the Rohde Building. Id.

As a result of Mr. Fernandez's termination, Mr. Eberhart assigned Plaintiff and Lissette Fernandez ("Ms. Fernandez"), Mr. Fernandez's administrative assistant, joint responsibility over the facilities. Id. at ¶ 6. Ms. Fernandez is a female from the Dominican Republic. Id. at n. 2. While Plaintiff was tasked with determining all requested maintenance projects and ensuring that the preventative maintenance programs were kept up to date, Mr. Eberhart requested that all work requests be routed through him for final approval. Id. at ¶ 6. Mr. Eberhart wanted to be the final decision-maker for all maintenance requests for budgeting purposes because he did not believe that Plaintiff had the necessary familiarity with these issues since in the past he simply made all of his requests to Mr. Fernandez, who then took care of the details in his role of Facilities Manager. Id. Under this new arrangement, Ms. Fernandez oversaw all administrative functions while Plaintiff was responsible for supervising all maintenance tasks, an arrangement that Plaintiff believed improperly made Ms. Fernandez his superior even though she lacked the necessary knowledge regarding the maintenance and structure of the building. Id.

On April 20, 2013, Mr. Eberhart participated in a conference call with his supervisor, Bureau Chief Darren Fancher, the Division's human resources liaison, Kris Parks, and his assistant Belinda Huang. Dep. Daniel Eberhart 82:18-83:11. During this call, Mr. Eberhart discussed Plaintiff's poor attitude at work, his inability to communicate with staff, tenants, and vendors in a respectful and effective manner, as well as Plaintiff's issues with following department procedures. Def.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 7; Pl.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 7. More specifically, Mr. Eberhart shared that several DMS staff members complained that Plaintiff would berate and belittle them in front of building tenants, vendors, and members of the public, and that Plaintiff micromanaged them.Id. at ¶ 8. Additionally, Ms. Fernandez also received complaints from several employees, tenants, and vendors about Plaintiff's loud, aggressive, and intimidating manner. Id. at ¶ 9. Tenants reported back to her that Plaintiff had a bad attitude when responding to their maintenance calls and that he would complain about having to make the necessary repairs. Id. Plaintiff often failed to visit tenants with maintenance issues. Dep. Lissette Fernandez 32:5-33:13. When Ms. Fernandez confronted Plaintiff about his failure to respond to tenants' issues, he responded that he would tend to the tenants' concerns on his own schedule, not on theirs. Id.

In addition to tenant and vendor complaints about Plaintiff's attitude, Plaintiff also failed to adhere to Mr. Eberhart's request to rout all work requests through him. Def.'s Stmnt. Material Facts ¶ 10. Plaintiff instead authorized work without prior approval. Id. For example, Plaintiff authorized a vendor to perform maintenance work on a fence before a purchase order had been finalized. Id. Therefore, the work was performed before a verified method of payment was in place. Id. In another incident, a security company providing security at the Rohde Building damaged a light pole that required repair. Id. at ¶ 11. Mr. Eberhart determined that the security company should pay for the repairs directly, but Plaintiff, without any prior discussion with Mr. Eberhart, took it upon himself to pay for the repairs using his purchase card. Id....