Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Ashley Americo Tinsley
Ashley Americo Tinsley
Visitors: 33
0
Bar #125141(FL)     License for 8 years
Tampa FL

Are you Ashley Americo Tinsley? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-005307F  MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs LINCOLN MEMORIAL ACADEMY, INC.  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 07, 2019
The issue is the amount of attorney's fees and costs to which Petitioner is entitled as the prevailing party in the underlying matter, DOAH Case No. 19-4155.The First DCA issued an opinion affirming the DOAH Final Order in 19-4155, and awarding attorney’s fees and costs for the appeal. $28,425.00 is sought by Petitioner, is reasonable, and is hereby awarded, to be added to the previously-awarded fees.
19-004155  MANATEE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs LINCOLN MEMORIAL ACADEMY, INC.  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
The issue is whether, pursuant to section 1002.33(8)(a)2., 3., and 4., and (c), Florida Statutes (2019), Petitioner has proved violations of law and other good cause to immediately terminate a charter school agreement with Respondent dated February 27, 2018, due to the immediate and serious danger to the health, safety, and/or welfare of the students of Lincoln Memorial Academy, Inc. ("LMA" or "Respondent").Petitioner met its burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent's charter school contract was appropriately immediately terminated due to a serious and immediate danger to the health, safety, and/or welfare of its students.
20-002539  MARLENA SEENAUGHT vs MORTON PLANT HOSPITAL, BAYCARE  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 03, 2020
The issue in this case is whether Morton Plant Hospital, Baycare (Morton Plant Hospital or Respondent), committed an unlawful employment 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2019). Relevant provisions of chapter 760, Florida Statutes, have been unchanged since 2015, prior to any allegedly discriminatory acts. practice against Marlena Seenaught (Ms. Seenaught or Petitioner), on the basis of her sex and in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).Petitioner failed to establish she was subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment for which Respondent was liable or that her termination was in retaliation for complaining about the harassment.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer