STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BRIAN C. POOLE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

) Case No. 98-4682 MANATEE ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED )

CITIZENS, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Bradenton, Florida, on February 19, 1999, before Arnold H. Pollock, an Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Brian C. Poole, pro se

817 18th Street

Bradenton, Florida 34208

For Respondent: Omer Causey, Esquire

Nelson Hesse

2070 Ringling Boulevard

Sarasota, Florida 34237 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by Respondent because of his race or gender.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

On January 8, 1996, Petitioner, Brian C. Poole, filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Respondent, Manatee

Association For Retarded Citizens, Inc., alleging he had been discriminated against in employment with Respondent because of his race and sex. Specifically, Petitioner claimed he was not paid the same as his white co-workers who had the same job title and were performing the same duties; he was denied the opportunity for advancement and job assignments; he was harassed because of his race; and policies and procedures were applied differently between his white co-workers and himself.

Because the Commission on Human Relations did not complete its investigation of Petitioner’s complaint within 180 days, Petitioner withdrew his Charge of Discrimination and filed a Petition for Relief, which was forwarded for formal hearing. By Notice of Hearing dated December 14, 1998, the matter was scheduled for formal hearing on February 19, 1999. On

February 13, 1999, Petitioner sought a continuance of the hearing claiming he had not been able to obtain counsel. Because this matter had been in process since January 1996, the date of his initial charge of discrimination, and Petitioner had had adequate time to seek counsel, the request for continuance was denied and the matter was heard as scheduled.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified at length in his own behalf, but did not introduce any documents. He claimed he had other witnesses to testify in support of his claim of discrimination, but they were not present. Petitioner contended they could not take time off from work to appear. The

Administrative Law Judge granted Petitioner 10 days from the close of the hearing to depose any witnesses he deemed appropriate. No deposition testimony was submitted.

Respondent presented the testimony of John V. Schwartz, executive director of Neighborly Senior Services, a support agency for the elderly in Manatee County and formerly CEO of the Respondent; James P. Disbro, formerly a production supervisor for the Respondent and Petitioner’s supervisor; Laurie Ann Mayberry, an employee of the Respondent who was responsible for the oversight of documentation prepared by Petitioner and other habilitation assistants; Rita K. Bouse, former co-worker of Petitioner at Respondent’s facility; Janet Kauflin Ball, the Adult Basic Education instructor at Respondent’s facility when Petitioner was employed there; and Tracy Ann Gill, Respondent’s human resources director. Respondent also introduced Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 8.

No transcript of the proceedings was furnished. Only counsel for Respondent submitted post-hearing matters. These were carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Brian Poole, started work for the Respondent, Manatee Association for Retarded Citizens (MARC) on September 7, 1993. He was employed as a habilitation assistant

   and earned $5.48 per hour. As a rehabilitation assistant, his job was to help with clients who were retarded workers employed by MARC. These workers needed supervision at all times. A part of his job was to write case notes about the workers, and these notes were reviewed by Laurie Mayberry, the Department of Heath and Rehabilitative Services liaison.

2. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor at the time was James Disbro, with whom he did not get along very well. He claims that in October 1994, after he had been employed at MARC for over a year, and had already received one raise to $6.01 an hour and was expecting another to $6.73 an hour, he was interviewed by

   Disbro who went over his performance with him to determine if he would get the raise or not. During the interview, Petitioner claims, Disbro said he felt Petitioner did not deserve a raise, but Petitioner took the matter to John Schwartz, the MARC Chief Executive Officer, who reversed Disbro’s decision to deny Petitioner the raise. As they left Schwartz’ office, however, Dosbro reportedly told Petitioner that so long as he, Disbro, was there, Petitioner would not get a promotion.

3. In November 1994, Petitioner received another evaluation to decide how large his raise would be. It ultimately was determined he should be raised by $45.00 per month. In

   December 1994, just before Christmas, a job opening was announced, for which Petitioner applied. A co-worker,

   Ms. Bradford, also applied for the job and she was interviewed

   first. Petitioner was then interviewed as well, but Ms. Bradford was given the position because, Petitioner was told, she was more qualified than he was.

4. What bothers Petitioner about the situation is that while he was being interviewed, Disbro kept interrupting to get Petitioner to do other things. When Petitioner later complained to the CEO about this, he was told Disbro would be counseled about it and that he should overlook Disbro’s conduct.

5. At this particular time, the only black employees at MARC were Petitioner and Mr. Lee. Others were hired later. Petitioner contends that a black female employee quit because of similar working conditions, but there is no identification of the employee or independent evidence of when or why she quit. It also appears other black employees were employed on a routine basis.

6. When Petitioner came to work on January 31, 1995, he was told he did not get the job he had been interviewed for before Christmas. It seemed to Petitioner that everyone but him knew the job had gone to the female employee. He relates that another female employee told him that she could have had the job because of her close relationship with management. Again, however, there is no independent evidence to support this claim.

7. Petitioner contends that the environment within his section was uncomfortable for him. That is why he applied for other jobs within the organization. It was to get out of the

   situation in which he found himself more than to seek promotion.

   
   

8. As an indication of what he considers to be the antipathy toward blacks in evidence at MARC, Petitioner notes that when one black employee was absent from work on January 31, 1995, a white assistant commented that Petitioner and Lee would know where he was because they lived on that side of town. To Petitioner, this was a case of the white employee inferring that because Petitioner and Lee were black, they would automatically know where other black employees lived. The employee who allegedly made this comment was not identified. Later that day, however, another "anti-black" comment was made regarding a white residence manager to the effect that he was not a "preppie" because he went with a black girl. According to Petitioner, comments such as this were not uncommon at Respondent’s facility at the time, but there is no independent evidence to support the claim. At an in-service luncheon one day, Petitioner recounts, a white lady implied that the two black attendees were rude and inconsiderate and did not know how to act in public. She allegedly stated they should be grateful they had been taken out for lunch. There is no evidence to indicate if Petitioner present at the time, or who the speaker was.

9. On February 9, 1995, Petitioner was absent from work. While he was gone, Ms. Carrol, a lab worker, approached Mr. Lee, a black employee, and asked him if he believed Petitioner was sick or out looking for another job. Mr. Lee called Petitioner

   at home and reported this. While Petitioner considers this a racially motivated comment, absent any independent information surrounding it, it is not found to be so.

10. On February 10, 1995, Disbro told Petitioner and

    
    

    Mr. Lee to move all the furniture out of the work shop and clean the shop. While the two black employees were pulled off their jobs to do this, all the white employees, both male and female, continued to do their regular jobs. Being away from his duties to do the clean-up put Petitioner behind in his regular duties. When Petitioner tried to talk to Disbro about why other employees couldn’t help with the move, Disbro allegedly said he and Lee were to do it and a complaint to Mr. Schwartz would be non- productive. No evidence was presented to support Petitioner’s claim this was racially motivated. The mere fact that two black males were directed to do manual labor does not prove racial discrimination absent a showing there were others capable of doing the work who were not occupied with other, more demanding duties.

11. On February 15, 1995, Petitioner was supervising a female client who needed help to go to the bathroom. Consistent with the rules for that situation, Petitioner called for help but was put off with what he considered to be a lie. When he reported this to Disbro, Disbro said to forget it. Petitioner is sure that if it had been him who was complained about, Disbro would have taken corrective action, but there is no evidence to

    show this.

    
    

12. In late February 1995, a special training program in Orlando was announced. Management asked who wanted to go. It was reported that those who received the training would be certified and would receive more money. Though Petitioner applied, he was not selected to go. When he asked if his failure to get the training would be held against him if he applied for a better job, he was told it would not. However, subsequent to the training, whenever he applied for any jobs in that area, he was rejected because he was not trained. Mr. Schwartz, the CEO, contends that all employees were offered the opportunity for in- house training. Training away from the facility, however, was offered to those who would best benefit from the training due to their responsibilities. Schwartz insists that in making the selection of those to attend the away-training, the employee’s performance and disciplinary records were not considered - just the need for the training. One of those selected was Ms. Sparks, who had a background in special education and a demonstrated ability to deal with retarded clients. The agency’s position seems reasonable, and no evidence was offered to indicate its assertion is not true.

13. In March 1995, a social worker from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Ms. Peterson, accidentally threw away an assessment of a client Petitioner had done and asked Petitioner to re-do it. Petitioner refused and she

    complained to Disbro who, in what Petitioner considered to be a harsh manner, directed him to do so. Petitioner felt this was unfair and wrong, aside from Disbro’s use of abusive language. It is a fact, however, that case notes are the responsibility of the habilitation assistant. If no record is made, there is no way to recover information relating to the clients. Though Petitioner claimed he was being treated unequally in that other assistants did not have to do what he was directed to do, this allegation was unexplained.

14. On March 16, 1995, Petitioner complained to Disbro about the way he felt he was being treated. Disbro said that they would work it out - the past was past. However, later that day a statement was made that Petitioner was improperly eating in the workshop. When Petitioner told Disbro he was not eating, Disbro replied that there were chicken bones all over; a comment which Petitioner took as racially-oriented. Petitioner claims to have been humiliated by the comment, and when he got upset at that comment, he claims Disbro wrote him up for his response. Disbro claims the write-up was for eating on duty. He claims he saw chicken bones in the trash in Petitioner’s area, and eating at a work station is not permitted under MARC rules.

15. After that incident, Petitioner requested to see Mr. Schwartz, but his request went unanswered. This led Petitioner to believe that not only was his rapport with his

    supervisor, Mr. Disbro, poor, but so it was with Mr. Schwartz.

    Petitioner concluded this also based on his perception that

    
    

    Mr. Schwartz never acted on any of his complaints against Disbro.

    
    

16. In early May 1995, Ms. Carrol came into Petitioner’s workshop at least three to five times a day. Petitioner felt she was spying on him, but when he complained about this to Disbro, Disbro contended she was just lonesome for her old work group.

    He indicated he would follow up on it, but to Petitioner’s knowledge, nothing further was said about that situation. However, at the end of the day, Disbro called Petitioner aside and spoke to him about a reported safety violation. He was told another worker had reported that she thought Petitioner was improperly running a machine which could have resulted in injury to a client. When Petitioner indicated he was not satisfied with Disbro’s attitude toward other employees "spying" on Petitioner, and asked to speak with Mr. Schwartz, Disbro reportedly stated "I really hate you guys." Disbro would not explain what he meant by that comment, but Petitioner considered it a racial slur. Disbro denies having made the comment. Assuming it was made, however, absent other evidence to support Petitioner position, it cannot be concluded that the comment was racially motivated. It could well have been a reference to a myriad of other things.

17. On May 19, 1995, Petitioner noticed a posting for a job which he felt he could do and which would get him out of the environment in which he was having so much trouble. Petitioner applied for the job but heard nothing about it in response. He

    was the only applicant from within the agency, and the job was not a promotion. He reports that all the associates laughed at him when he applied, and he didn’t know why. A month later, when Petitioner still had not heard about the job, he was told by a

    co-worker that the job had been filled. When he checked on it and found that report was true, he asked the personnel staffer why he hadn’t been interviewed and, reportedly, she just laughed. This made it clear to Petitioner that he was not going to get any other job at MARC.

18. Mr. Schwartz claims it is normally MARC policy to promote from within if they have personnel in house who possess the needed qualifications. He recalls the incident about which Petitioner complains. This job required an enormous amount of non-supervised performance, and due to Petitioner’s record of absenteeism, tardiness, and other documented problems, it was felt he did not meet the qualifications of the job. Management believed Petitioner needed much more structure and direct supervision than this particular job would provide.

19. On June 21, 1995, he told the personnel people he felt he had been discriminated against in his initial hiring, his salary, in promotions, and in working conditions. He was told to speak with Mr. Schwartz about it, but when he tried to do so, Schwartz suggested he speak with someone else in the agency,

    Mr. Paul Welsh. Petitioner was not able to reach Mr. Welsh for several days, however, both Mr. Schwartz and the personnel

    staffer indicated it was MARC policy to hire first from within the agency. In Petitioner’s case, Mr. Schwartz said he didn’t think it was a question of discrimination, but he would look into it.

20. A few days after this conversation, Mr. Schwartz’ secretary told Petitioner that Mr. Schwartz wanted to see him. When the two met, Schwartz asked Petitioner if he felt he was being discriminated against. Petitioner explained how he felt. Schwartz then thanked Petitioner and said he would get back to him. On June 27, 1995, Schwartz told Petitioner he had been too busy to talk to Mr. Welch about Petitioner’s situation but would do so and get back to him. The next day Schwartz called Petitioner to tell him he had met with Welch and would speak with Petitioner the next day.

21. Petitioner did meet with Schwartz the next day and Schwartz told him that HRS had changed the requirements of the job he had applied for and that was the reason he wasn’t selected. Petitioner asked to see the changes but was not shown anything to support Schwartz’ claim. Petitioner claims he asked if the training he had applied for but not received would have helped, but Schwartz was unable to give him a firm answer. When Petitioner asked if there were some form he could fill out to complain about the treatment he had received, he was told to ask the secretary. The secretary advised him she didn’t have the forms. Several days later Petitioner saw an EEOC poster with an

    800 number which he called. When he explained his situation, he was told what to do and furnished with the forms he needed. He filled them out and submitted them, which initiated this action.

22. Petitioner resigned from MARC in August 1995, after about a year and a half on the job because he was fed up with what was going on as it related to him. Documentation introduced at the hearing reflects that on most appraisals he received he was rated down because of his attitude, yet he continued to received periodic pay raises. However, though Petitioner and

    Ms. Sparks, a white employee, were doing the same work, he discovered, when he accidentally received her paycheck instead of his own, that she was making more than he was. Mr. Schwartz indicates, however, that Ms. Sparks dealt with more difficult clients than did Petitioner, which required her to assume a greater responsibility than his, and according to Mr. Schwartz, she had far greater experience in the program than he did.

    According to a co-worker, Ms. Ball, Ms. Sparks has a background in special education. She had the proper attitude for working with retarded clients and was very conscientious and dedicated. She had an extra ability to work with autistic individuals and those with behavioral disorders. If true, and no evidence was presented to show it was not, this would justify her receiving a higher pay than Petitioner who was only employed at the facility for a total of a year and a half.

23. According to Mr. Schwartz, MARC had several other

    individuals doing the same work as Petitioner was doing. Three were black males, and the remainder were white females. MARC had an equal employment policy which was enforced. At the time Petitioner was employed there approximately 30 percent of the employees were male and 70 percent were female. There were two Hispanics of whom one was male and one was female. The reason for the predominately female employee census was that most applicants for jobs were female. The racial mix at the facility,

    25 percent black and 75 percent white, was approximately equivalent to that in the community.

24. Schwartz categorically denies there was any policy calling for a difference in pay due to race or gender, nor were minority males singled out for the dirty jobs, as Petitioner contends. He admits, however, that because Petitioner and Lee were the only two males on the floor in that shop, they were assigned jobs from time to time which females could not do readily, because of their size or strength.

25. The immediate supervisors, such as Disbro in Petitioner’s case, were responsible for day-to-day supervision and were usually left alone to manage their work load and their employees. If, however, a situation arose which needed next- level intercession, Schwartz would step in. He was the appeal authority in disciplinary matters, and remembers serving as such several times for Petitioner. He cannot recall the details of the incidents, however.

    
    

26. Mr. Schwartz also recalls an incident where Petitioner was requested to bring in a doctor’s slip to justify his being absent for several days. The documents Petitioner presented were inconsistent with his story. On follow-up, it was determined that neither was a legitimate report relating to Petitioner’s condition. One was from a gynecologist and one from a pediatrician.

27. Mr. Schwartz also acknowledges that Petitioner came to him to express concern over Disbro’s alleged comments which Petitioner felt were racially motivated. In that same vein, though Petitioner contends that MARC management did not want minority job coaches to represent it in the community,

    Mr. Schwartz denies that race or gender played any part in promotions or assignments. The sole issue was who could best do the job.

28. Petitioner also objects to being the only employee written up as the result of an incident when a client eloped, even though at least one other employee was present at the time. Habilitation assistants are responsible for the well-being of their clients and cannot afford to lose track of clients whose safety is at risk. Petitioner was the individual responsible for the client who eloped.

29. Disbro, as Petitioner’s immediate supervisor, oversaw the employment of eight employees. Of these, four, including

    Petitioner, were black and four were white. Most were female. All did the same type of work, except for specific personal care issues where gender was a consideration. Work requiring heavy lifting was done by whoever was there to do it and was capable of doing so. Pay was based on performance without regard to minority status or gender.

30. While Petitioner was supervised by Disbro there were times when Disbro felt it necessary to discipline him. In one case Disbro observed Petitioner sleeping at work. This was also observed by a vocational trainee, and others have seen similar instances. Petitioner claims he was not sleeping and that the observers were mistaken because of his small eyes. Disbro has no doubt that Petitioner was sleeping, and from personal observation of Petitioner at hearing, his eyes did not appear significantly smaller than those of any other person.

31. Petitioner was written up for tardiness numerous times during the course of his employment, as well as for a general lack of attentiveness. As a result, he was placed on probation for a period of time, and at least one pay raise was deferred. On one occasion, he was suspended without pay for three days. Though Petitioner claimed he was discriminated against when not selected to attend away training, he was scheduled for an in- service training which he failed to attend and failed to call in to advise he would not be there. When subsequently asked why he had not been present, Petitioner claimed he didn’t need the

    training being offered. On August 23, 1995, he was issued a letter of reprimand for this.

32. According to Disbro, at no time did he ever address Petitioner or any minority employee in a racially derogatory manner. He denies ever having used the term, "you guys," to Petitioner. He adamantly rejects any contention that he treated Petitioner any differently than any other employee, and denies he was ever instructed to do so. Disbro contends Petitioner could not take constructive criticism and when corrected, would become very defensive.

33. Petitioner’s progress notes kept on the clients he served were not up to par, according to Ms. Mayberry, the individual responsible for developing client program systems and overseeing documents prepared by Petitioner and other habilitation assistants. Case notes have to be a direct reflection of the program plans, and must show goals, accomplishment, plans, and the like. The goals indicated what information needed to be reported, and case notes were the support documents for funding from HRS, Medicaid, and other fund sources.

34. In the opinion of Ms. Mayberry, Petitioner had an ongoing struggle with the documentation system. He was not the only habilitation assistant who had problem with case notes, and whenever she found a problem, she would send a memo about it to the assistant and to Disbro. Though the other assistants

    cooperated, Petitioner’s general attitude toward case notes was that he was willing to sit down with her and review them, but he often became frustrated and felt he was being picked on. As a result, she developed fill-in forms to help him provide the proper information. Nonetheless, Petitioner seemed to have both an attitude problem and an ability problem with the case notes.

    As other assistants improved in the note preparation, Petitioner continued to struggle without much improvement.

35. Ms. Bouse, also an habilitation assistant, as were Petitioner and Mr. Lee, could not recall either ever having been singled out for dirty jobs. She observed Petitioner on the job and noted that he slept a lot during the workday and talked on the phone a lot. In her opinion, he did not do his job very well. He was absent a lot and often tardy, and when he was not there, the other assistants had to do his work as well as their own.

36. Ms. Lawrence worked with Petitioner one day shortly after she was hired during which he showed her the ins and outs of the cable contract on which he and his crew were working. After that day, she took that contract over from him. On one occasion, Ms. Lawrence and Petitioner attended a convention in Sarasota, and during the course of a lecture, she had to wake him twice. Other than that incident, she denies having seen him sleep on the job.

37. Janet Ball has worked at MARC for 19 years as the adult basic education teacher. As a part of her duties, though she did not supervise Petitioner, she could observe him for approximately an hour and a half per day while she was working in the same module as he was. On at least two occasions she observed him asleep. On one of those it appeared his son had been sick all night. She considers this significant because the safety of the

    clients is an issue. Petitioner supervised ten individuals, all

    of whom were severe and profoundly retarded, and he had to remain alert at all times with them.

38. Since his resignation from MARC, Petitioner has worked for a construction company at $9.50 per hour for 40 to 50 hours per week. However, on July 28, 1996, he was involved in an automobile accident which kept him out of work for a while, and, in any event, made it impossible for him to do construction work ever again. After his recovery, Petitioner worked at several jobs including temporary services. At one job, with Wellcraft, he earned $7.77 per hour for a 40 hour week, plus overtime, and worked there for about two months until he was fired for leaving the job early. He then went to work for a cleaning service and eventually obtained his own franchise from which he earns approximately $2,000 per month. Except for his period of recuperation after the accident, he has worked full-time since leaving MARC, at a rate higher than he earned there.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

39. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

40. Petitioner contends that the Respondent herein, MARC, has discriminated against him in employment because of his race and gender by, inter alia, failing to provide him opportunity for away training; by failing to promote him to positions for which he was qualified, and by either generating or permitting an

    atmosphere of racial prejudice to permeate the workplace. For Petitioner to prevail in his claim of discrimination based on race or gender, he must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination.

41. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, makes it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against any individual in hiring, terms of employment, or status as an employee, on the basis of, inter alia, the employee’s race or gender.

42. Petitioner has testified to what he contends are repeated instances of discrimination. Included among these, but not exclusively listed, are failing to provide him the same training opportunities as others so that he could compete for promotion with others performing similar duties, and not promoting him to positions for which he was qualified, while giving promotions to white females. He also claims that he was paid less than a female employee of similar tenure doing the same or similar work. He contends he was spied upon; was forced to perform dirty work that white employees were not required to perform; was disciplined for alleged misconduct he did not commit; and was improperly addressed in racially inappropriate terms by his immediate superior and others. Petitioner further claims that when these various problems were taken by him to the appellate authority, his claims were disregarded and corrective action not taken.

43. Petitioner testified to all these alleged infractions,

    but presented no supporting corroborative evidence, though he was given the opportunity to do so. Respondent’s evidence confirms that Petitioner was not sent to away training when others were; that he was not promoted to positions for which he applied, and that he was disciplined from time to time, when necessary.

    However, Respondent demonstrates a reasonable and non- discriminatory basis for each and every action it took or failed to take.

44. Petitioner was not sent to away training because, the evidence shows, others had better qualifications and had shown a more convincing background which would indicate they would more likely benefit from the training. Petitioner was not selected for certain positions because his performance record did not justify promotion. His excessive tardiness and absenteeism, coupled with a tendency to sleep on duty, and his attempt to falsify a legitimate basis for an absence did not form a proper basis for increased responsibility. Further, his inability or unwillingness to learn how to keep proper case notes, and his failure to exercise proper supervision of his clients, allowing an elopement on one occasion, justify the marginal ratings he received on more than one assessment.

45. The evidence of record also demonstrated clearly that Respondent did not apply any different employment policies or conditions to Petitioner or any other minority employee than it applied to white co-workers.

46. Further, Petitioner was not fired but voluntarily resigned from employment with the Respondent. To be sure, had Petitioner shown his departure was as the result of employer supported or tolerated actions, such as racially inappropriate language, which made it impossible for Petitioner to remain employed there, his voluntary departure would not prevent a determination in his favor. However, the evidence of discrimination presented by Petitioner does not constitute a preponderance of the evidence and Petitioner has failed to carry his burden. Because his departure from employment with MARC was not shown to be caused by racial and gender discrimination, Petitioner is not entitled to economic damages or reinstatement. The fact that he has been almost constantly employed since his departure, at a rate in excess of what he earned at MARC, would not support an award of economic damages even had Petitioner shown actionable discrimination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Brian C. Poole’s Petition For Relief alleging employment discrimination based on race and gender.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1999.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Brian C. Poole

817 18th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208

Omer Causey, Esquire Nelson Hesse

2070 Ringling Boulevard

Sarasota, Florida 34237

Sharon Moultry, Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149

Dana Baird, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 98-004682

Orders for Case No: 98-004682