834 So. 2d 329 (2003) John William WRIGHT, Appellant, v. RING POWER CORPORATION, d/b/a, Diesel Construction Company and Frank Datson, Appellee. No. 5D02-58. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. January 3, 2003. Paul Bruce Brockway and William P. Galione of Steven A. Bagen & Associates, P.A., Gainesville, for Appellant. *330 Thomas R. Ray of Holbrook, Akel, Cold, Stiefel & Ray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee. PALMER, J. John William Wright appeals the final judgment entered by th..
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against based upon his age when he was not selected for promotion by the Respondent Corporation, and when he was ultimately terminated.Petitioner demonstrated prima facie case of age discrimination, but did not overcome Respondent employer's showing or legitimate reason for termination and hiring of younger replacement with preponderant evidence of pre-text.
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against based upon his age when he was not selected for promotion by the Respondent Corporation, and when he was ultimately terminated.Petitioner demonstrated prima facie case of age discrimination, but did not overcome Respondent employer's showing or legitimate reason for termination and hiring of younger replacement with preponderant evidence of pre-text.
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner has a disability (back injury) for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and whether her termination was because of her race (Black) or due to excessive absenteeism and tardiness.Petitioner did not demonstrate a prima facie case of disability discrimination; still in probationary period and no permanent physical impairment that she could show impaired major life activity.
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was terminated from his employment by the Respondent based on discrimination because of his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to prove prima facie case and, in any event, failed to show that management restructuring eliminating his job was pretext for racial discrimination.
The issue is whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes, by allowing Petitioner to be sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor.Petitioner did not prove a prima facie case of sexual harassment; no credible evidence that her supervisor made unwanted sexual advances.
