Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

VIOLET M. METCALFE vs THE FLORIDAN HOTEL, 89-006342 (1989)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 89-006342 Visitors: 31
Petitioner: VIOLET M. METCALFE
Respondent: THE FLORIDAN HOTEL
Judges: J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
Agency: Commissions
Locations: Tampa, Florida
Filed: Nov. 21, 1989
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, February 27, 1990.

Latest Update: Feb. 27, 1990
Summary: The issue in this case was to have been whether the Petition for Relief, alleging age and sex discrimination, should be granted. However, due to procedural irregularities, it was not at all clear who was supposed to be the party Respondent. See Preliminary Statement, below. 1/Complaint age and sex discrimination dismissed. Petitioner didn't appear and presented no evidence. Petitioner had burden of proof
89-6342.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


VIOLET M. METCALFE )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-6342

)

STEPHEN N. WEIS, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


On February 6, 1990, a formal administrative hearing was held in this case in Tampa, Florida, before J. Lawrence Johnston, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: No Appearance


For Respondent: Stuart R. Cohen, Esquire

Barnett, Bolt Kirkwood

100 Twiggs Street Sixth Floor

Tampa, Florida 33602 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case was to have been whether the Petition for Relief, alleging age and sex discrimination, should be granted. However, due to procedural irregularities, it was not at all clear who was supposed to be the party Respondent. See Preliminary Statement, below. 1/


PRELIMINARY STATEMENT


Apparent procedural irregularities in the handling of this case before the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) has caused considerable confusion among the parties in interest and the Hearing Officer as to the identity of the party respondent. According to the papers the FCHR referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), the Petitioner named the "Floridan Hotel" as the Respondent on the original FCHR "Charge of Discrimination" form. For an undisclosed reason, the FCHR investigated the Charge of Discrimination against "Steve Weis Realty, Inc., d/b/a The Floridan Hotel," as the Respondent, and entered a "Notice of Determination: Cause," on which the Respondent was referred to as "Steve Weis Realty, Inc., d/b/a The Floridan Hotel." The papers then disclose entry of a "Redetermination: Cause," in which the name of the Respondent is changed to "Floridan Partners, d/b/a The Floridan Hotel," and Steve Weis [sic) Realty, Inc.'s, request to be removed as a party Respondent in this case is granted." After this "Redetermination: Cause," and the apparent failure of conciliation, the Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief, which

again changed the name of the Respondent, this time to "Stephen N. Weis." The FCHR referred this Petition for Relief to DOAH without any action or even comment directed to this change, and without any explanation of the earlier changes, in the identity of the party Respondent. Moreover, again without explanation, on its "Transmittal of Petition," the FCHR changed the name of the Respondent back to "The Floridan Hotel," the Respondent named on the original Charge of Discrimination. As a result of these procedural irregularities, it was difficult for either the parties in interest or the Hearing Officer to determine who was supposed to be the Respondent. There would have been a serious question whether these apparent procedural irregularities, with the resulting confusion, would have constituted reversible error if the Petitioner had appeared to present a case.


FINDING OF FACT


  1. The Petitioner did not appear at the final hearing and there was no evidence presented.


    CONCLUSION OF LAW


  2. The Petitioner had the burden of proving the discrimination alleged in the Petition for Relief. See Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1989); Fla. Dept. of Transp. v. J. W. C., Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v. Dept. of Health and Rehab. Services, 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).


RECOMMENDATION


Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this case.


RECOMMENDED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.



J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675


Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990.


ENDNOTE


1/ See Preliminary Statement, below.

COPIES FURNISHED:


Violet M. Metcalfe

3706 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33603


Stuart R. Cohen, Esquire Barnett, Bolt Kirkwood

100 Twiggs Street Sixth Floor

Tampa, Florida 33602


Donald A. Griffin Executive Director

Human Relations Commission

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925


Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel

Human Relations Commission

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925


Docket for Case No: 89-006342
Issue Date Proceedings
Feb. 27, 1990 Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 89-006342
Issue Date Document Summary
Jul. 09, 1990 Agency Final Order
Feb. 27, 1990 Recommended Order Complaint age and sex discrimination dismissed. Petitioner didn't appear and presented no evidence. Petitioner had burden of proof
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

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