welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Brett Purcell Owens
Brett Purcell Owens
Brett Purcell Owens
Visitors: 54
0
Bar #112677(FL)     License for 10 years; Member in Good Standing
Tampa FL

Are you Brett Purcell Owens? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

USC: 42 U.S.C 12112

Florida Laws: 120.569, 120.57, 760.01, 760.02, 760.08, 760.10, 760.11, 760.20, 760.23, 760.34, 760.37

20-000155  BRIDGET AND TONNY WALKER vs LGI HOMES-FLORIDA, LLC  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 16, 2020
Did Respondent, LGI Homes-Florida, LLC (LGI), discriminate in housing against Petitioners, Bridget and Tonny Walker, on account of their race in violation of section 760.23 Florida Statutes (2018)?1 1 All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2018 compilation unless noted otherwise.Petitioners did not prove fair housing violation. For section 760.23(1) one must make bona fide purchase offer. No proof that 4 bedroom house was available. So refusal to show not discriminatory. No proof of discriminatory advertising or other marketing.
19-005141  LATELRA LEWIS vs PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 25, 2019
The dispositive issue presented is whether Respondent, Publix Super Markets, Inc. (“Publix” or “Respondent”), is a “public accommodation” as defined by section 760.02(11), and is therefore subject to the terms of the FCRA. Having concluded that the Publix location where the alleged discriminatory action took place is not a “public accommodation” as defined by section 760.02(11), it is unnecessary to determine whether the alleged discriminatory action indeed took place.Petitioner failed to prove, based on the facts in the record, that Respondent's grocery store was a "public accomodation" as defined by section 760.02(11), and was therefore not subject to the FCRA.
19-003195  FRANCESCA THOMAS vs SMA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 11, 2019
Whether Petitioner, Francesca Thomas, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, SMA Behavioral Health, Inc., based on her alleged handicap/disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, section 760.01, Florida Statutes.Petitioner did not prove that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice based on disability discrimination. Accommodations offered to her, although perhaps not optimal, were reasonable.
19-002531  MICHELE EDWARDS vs PUBLIX SUPERMARKET  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 15, 2019
Whether Petitioner, Michele Edwards, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Publix Supermarket, based on her race, 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2019), unless otherwise noted. color, sex, and national origin, as well as by retaliation, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.Pet. failed to prove that Resp. discriminated against her based on her race, color, or national origin, or in retaliation for her protected activity. Further, Resp. presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment actions.

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