Opinion ID: 492497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Job Cancellation

Text: 14 The lower court also found that Florida Power's cancellation of the FOA position was not the result of racial discrimination but was justified due to a company hiring freeze. The record shows that there was a hiring freeze ordered by the president of Florida Power in June 1982. (R. 3-85). Florida Power had approved the creation of the FOA position around May of that year. Leigh testified that he and the actual hiring manager, Arthur Ball, decided that filling the FOA position would abolish another more important union position. 2 Therefore, they agreed that they would cancel the FOA position, and that Mr. Ball would notify each of the seven applicants for the position. 15 The appellant claims that this story is not credible because the notice she received gave a different reason for eliminating the FOA position. The notice only stated that the position's duties and responsibilities needed revision. However, Leigh testified that he and Ball had decided 16 that it wasn't necessary to put in that letter all the little details [of why we were] doing this because of the union or ... because we don't want to abolish any jobs. I asked him to write a letter that was more general in nature simply stating that we were abolishing the job for management decisions, basically. 17 (R. 3-104). 18 The appellant also argued that the new position offered on July 5, 1983 (Labor Resources Manager) had the same duties as the FOA position but required higher qualifications (a college degree) in an attempt to keep her from getting the job. This is an incorrect assertion as the new position supervised many more people and controlled a much larger financial budget. 19 Although we are not totally convinced that there was no racial discrimination involved, the district court did rely on plausible evidence in light of the record viewed in its entirety. On this basis, the lower court's findings of fact must be affirmed.