Pinellas FL Administrative law and Civil rights Lawyers

92-2445 J. Gardner Gore, Jr. v. Pee Dee Farm Credit Service Farm Credit Bank of Columbia (1993)

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: Aug. 17, 1993 Citations: 1 F.3d 1233

1 F.3d 1233 62 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1056 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. J. Gardner GORE, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PEE DEE FARM CREDIT SERVICE; Farm Credit Bank of Columbia, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-2445. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: ..

92-1758 (1993)

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: Mar. 11, 1993 Citations: 989 F.2d 491

989 F.2d 491 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Frances W. BRIGGS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEWBERRY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; Vance O. Johnson, in his individual capacity; Mitchell Strickland, in his individual capacity; Donna Elmore, in her individual capacity, Defendants-Appelle..

18-000248 PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE vs JAYNE A. JOHNSON (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 12, 2018

The issue in this matter is whether the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office properly dismissed Respondent from her employment.Petitioner's decision to terminate Respondent for misuse of her position and unauthorized use of automated resources was appropriate.

13-003024 PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE vs RICHARD STOTTS (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 14, 2013

Whether the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office (PCSO or Petitioner) properly terminated Respondent, Richard Stotts, from his employment as a deputy sheriff for engaging in conduct that violated Petitioner's General Order 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.15, regarding the Custody of Arrestees/Prisoners.Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Act. Sheriff's disciplinary action, termination, is justified.

11-000393 REBECCA J. TURNER vs SURE-TEK POWDER COATING, INC. (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 21, 2011

The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 70-53, Pinellas County Code, by terminating Petitioner's employment allegedly because of her disability; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner because she had diabetes insipidus; Respondent's exceptions rejected; Final Order issued.

05-001906 MADALYNN A. SHEPLEY vs LAZY DAYS RV CENTER, INC. (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 24, 2005

The issue in the case is whether the Respondent unlawfully terminated the employment of the Petitioner.A transgendered person is not a member of a protected class for purposes of a sex discrimination claim.

05-000343 ST. PETERSBURG COLLEGE vs GARY J. RODRIGUEZ (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 26, 2005

The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Petitioner, St. Petersburg College, should dismiss Respondent from his employment and terminate his continuing contract.Petitioner demonstrated grounds for the dismissal of Respondent, where it proved that Respondent engaged in multiple romantic relationships with students and former students in his classes.

01-003837 RICHARD MASTOMARINO vs PINELLAS SUNCOAST TRANSIT AUTHORITY (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 01, 2001

Whether Petitioner was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondent in violation of the Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70 (“Chapter 70"). Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a bus operator by Respondent because of his disability in violation of Chapter 70.Petitioner, who was diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy, was disabled and no longer capable of driving a bus and could not perform the essential functions of the job; no discrimination; no denial of reasonable accommodation; dismiss.

Craig Lewis Berman