Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

KENNETH ARUGU vs BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE, 06-001985 (2006)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 06-001985 Visitors: 26
Petitioner: KENNETH ARUGU
Respondent: BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE
Judges: HARRY L. HOOPER
Agency: Florida Commission on Human Relations
Locations: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Filed: Jun. 06, 2006
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, October 8, 2007.

Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2009
Summary: The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice because of Petitioner's national origin.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the cause of his unemployment was grounded in discrimination based on national origin.
06-1985

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


KENNETH ARUGU,


Petitioner,


vs.


BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE,


Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 06-1985

)

)

)

)

)

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


This cause came on for formal hearing before Harry L. Hooper, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 22, 2007, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: No appearance


For Respondent: Harry O. Boreth, Esquire

Glasser, Boreth & Kleppin

8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 105

Plantation, Florida 33324 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice because of Petitioner's national origin.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT


On August 2, 2005, Petitioner Kenneth Arugu (Mr. Arugu) filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination with the Florida

Commission on Human Relations (Commission) alleging that the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO), Broward County, Florida, discriminated against him because of his national origin.

Mr. Arugu asserted that he was a Nigerian. After investigation, the Commission, on April 28, 2006, issued a "Determination: No Cause." On May 30, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief. In his Petition, Mr. Arugu continued to assert that he was terminated by the BSO because of his national origin.

The case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings. It was filed on June 6, 2006. It was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Quattlebaum. It was set for hearing on August 10, 2006. Prior to that time the case was administratively assigned to Judge Rigot. On July 24, 2006, Mr. Arugu, through counsel, requested a continuance. BSO requested additional time for discovery. Judge Rigot continued the case until December 11, 2006.

On November 30, 2006, Mr. Arugu, through counsel, filed an Unopposed Motion for Continuance. In response, Judge Rigot set the case for February 20, 2007. On February 9, 2007, Mr. Arugu, through counsel, again filed an Unopposed Motion for Continuance. On April 27, 2007, the case was set for hearing on July 24, 25, and 26.

On June 11, 2007, Mr. Arugu's counsel filed a Sworn Motion for Disqualification of Presiding Judge and Memorandum of Law.

This Motion alleged that Judge Rigot was biased or prejudiced against him. Despite the absence of foundation contained in Mr. Arugu's pleading, Judge Rigot recused herself on June 19, 2007, and the case was transferred to the undersigned.

A scheduling conflict required the Administrative Law Judge to reset the hearing for August 27, 28, and 29, 2007. At the request of Mr. Arugu's counsel the case was subsequently rescheduled for August 22, 23, and 24, 2007. The day before the hearing Mr. Arugu's counsel filed a Notice of Certiorari Petition and Suggestion of Stay. This document stated that

Mr. Arugu's counsel was going to protest certain discovery orders in an unidentified court. Even if Mr. Arugu's counsel had filed an interlocutory appeal in a proper court, the filing would not, by itself, result in a stay.

On August 22, 2007, the hearing commenced as scheduled. Neither Mr. Arugu nor his counsel appeared. BSO elected to present a case demonstrating that Mr. Arugu was terminated for nondiscriminatory reasons. BSO presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered three exhibits that were accepted into evidence.

A Transcript was filed on September 18, 2007. After the filing of the Transcript, Respondent filed its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on September 28, 2007.

Petitioner did not file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2005) unless otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. It is not disputed that Mr. Arugu is a Nigerian resident in the United States, that he held the position of Treatment Counselor with the BSO, that he was discharged subsequent to being charged criminally of certain violent acts, or that BSO refused to rehire him after he was found not guilty of those charges.

  2. The BSO is an employer as that term is used in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes.

  3. Mr. Arugu was hired as a substance abuse treatment counselor by Broward County, Florida, for its drug court program, in November 1989. He worked as a mental health specialist for the Broward County Drug Court. The position, with Mr. Arugu as the incumbent, was transferred to the BSO on October 1, 1999. A mental health specialist provides guidance to individuals or groups of persons who abuse legal and illegal substances and provides, among other things, anger management advice.

  4. Mr. Arugu's supervisor was Kristina Gulick. Her title was Director of the Department of Community Control. She

    assumed this position in 2001. Her immediate supervisor is Colonel Wimberly and his immediate supervisor is Sheriff Ken Jenne. Mr. Arugu began working for Ms. Gulick in 2002.

  5. Teddy Meisel is the assistant director of the Department of Community Control and reports to Ms. Gulick. He has known Mr. Arugu since 1997. He learned that Mr. Arugu had been arrested sometime after June 20, 2003. Subsequent to October 24, 2003, he reviewed an investigation into the activities of Mr. Arugu and as a result, decided he should be terminated. Although Mr. Meisel was aware that Mr. Arugu was a Nigerian, that fact did not enter into his decision to recommend that he be terminated.

  6. He discussed his recommendation with Ms. Gulick, who agreed, and forwarded a recommendation of dismissal to Colonel Wimberly. Ultimately, Sheriff Jenne signed off on the dismissal.

  7. The investigation reviewed by Mr. Meisel, Ms. Gulick, and Colonel Wimberly was prepared by Sergeant Wilfred Medina of the BSO's Office of Professional Compliance. He opened the investigation on June 21, 2003, and completed it on October 24, 2003.

  8. Sergeant Medina interviewed Mr. Arugu on September 21, 2003, in connection with his arrest by the Plantation Police Department (PPD) on June 20, 2003. The PPD had charged him with

    two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence and resisting arrest without violence.

  9. A review of the probable cause affidavit prepared by the arresting officers revealed that two PPD officers responded to a domestic disturbance complaint made by Lauretta Arugu, the estranged wife of Mr. Arugu. When the officers arrived at

    Ms. Arugu's residence, Mr. Arugu struck them repeatedly. The officers used pepper spray to gain control of him and thereafter arrested him.

  10. Based on this information, Mr. Arugu was suspended from his employment without pay. He was ordered to report to the Office of Professional Compliance on June 23, 2003, so that he could meet with Lieutenant Arndt of that office, and with Sergeant Medina. During that meeting Mr. Arugu provided the officers with a hand-written letter that was completely different from the version of events provided by the arresting officers. Mr. Arugu asserted that the arresting officers brutalized him.

  11. On June 25, 2003, Sergeant Medina learned that Mr. Arugu had been arrested by the Sunrise Police Department

    (SPD) on September 14, 1997. A report prepared by SPD indicated that on that date two SPD officers observed Mr. Arugu selling shoes from the trunk of his automobile at the Sawgrass Mall. He was arrested for operating a business without a license. After

    being placed in a patrol car, he exited the vehicle and attacked two SPD officers.

  12. Although it is a violation of the Broward County Code of Ethics Manual to fail to report an arrest to one's supervisor, a policy about which Mr. Arugu was aware, he did not inform Mr. Meisel of his arrest by SPD.

  13. During the interview, Mr. Arugu did not inform Sergeant Medina of his arrest in 1997 by SPD for the offense of battery on a law enforcement officer. He stated that he had no criminal record and denied ever having been arrested prior to the June 20, 2003, arrest. Sergeant Medina concluded that

    Mr. Arugu was not a truthful person.


  14. During Sergeant Medina's interview, Mr. Arugu made no claim that he was the victim of prejudice based on his national origin or any other status.

  15. On July 11, 2003, pursuant to Ms. Arugu's petition, a permanent restraining order was served on Mr. Arugu. The restraining order forbade him from being in the presence of

    Ms. Arugu or contacting her. Mr. Arugu nevertheless called Ms. Arugu's home and left messages on her answering machine. This was reported to the judge, who issued the order. On October 14, 2003, the judge, who issued the order, found that

    Mr. Arugu had indeed violated the order and admonished him, but did not incarcerate him.

  16. In Mr. Arugu's Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Mr. Arugu specifically alleged that Roy Vrchota, Assistant Inspector General told him, while his criminal case was pending, that he would be reinstated if he was found not guilty at the end of the criminal case addressing the June 30, 2003, incident. Mr. Vrchota testified under oath that he never told Mr. Arugu that he would be reinstated. Upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found as a fact that Mr. Vrchota did not tell him that.

  17. Mr. Vrchota was the person who discovered the previous arrest by SPD. Mr. Vrchota does not believe that Mr. Arugu is a truthful person. Mr. Arugu never made any allegations to him with regard to being a victim of prejudice. He did not learn that Mr. Arugu was a Nigerian until he was deposed in this case.

  18. On September 12, 2003, Mr. Arugu was found not guilty of charges addressing the June 30, 2003, incident. On

    September 29, 2003, Mr. Arugu sent the BSO a letter asking to be reinstated. In a letter dated December 23, 2003, Mr. Arugu was informed that he was not going to be reinstated.

  19. The fact that Mr. Arugu was a Nigerian was not taken into consideration by those in the decision-making process.

  20. Mr. Arugu's conduct was contrary to BSO standards and that is why he was discharged.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  21. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. §§ 120.57(1) and 760.10(7) Fla. Stat.

  22. Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes, states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual on the basis of race or sex. Because direct evidence of discrimination was conspicuous by its absence in this case, Mr. Arugu, in order to prevail, was required to prove his case by indirect evidence.

  23. To prove a case by indirect evidence, the charging party, Mr. Arugu in this case, must prove disparate treatment. In order to do so, the charging party generally bears the burden of proof established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). Under this well established model of proof, the charging party bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

  24. If the charging party is able to make out a prima facie case, the burden to go forward shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for the employment action. See Department of Corrections v. Chandler, 582 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

  25. The employer then has the burden of production, not persuasion, and need only persuade the finder of fact that the decision was non-discriminatory. Id. Alexander v. Fulton County, Georgia, 207 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000). The charging party must then come forward with specific evidence demonstrating that the reasons given by the employer are a pretext for discrimination. "The employee must satisfy this burden by showing directly that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the decision, or indirectly by showing that the proffered reason for the employment decision is not worthy of belief." Department of Corrections v. Chandler, supra at 1186; Alexander v. Fulton County, Georgia, supra.

  26. Mr. Arugu claims he was discharged because of prejudice based on national origin. To establish a prima facie

    case of discrimination based on national origin, he must prove that: (1) he is a member of a protected class, African/Nigerian; (2) he was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) his employer treated similarly situated employees, who are not members of the protected class, more favorably; and

    (4) he was qualified for the job or benefit at issue. See McDonnell, supra; Gillis v. Georgia Department of Corrections, 400 F.3d 883 (11th Cir. 2005).

  27. Mr. Arugu, because he failed to appear at the hearing, did not prove that he was a member of a protected class,

    Nigerian or otherwise. However, he will nevertheless be deemed to be an African/Nigerian for purposes of these proceedings and, therefore, a member of a protected class.

  28. Mr. Arugu was the subject of an adverse employment practice. He was discharged from his job. He was not, however, qualified to remain in his job because it is unacceptable for a member of a sheriff's department to become aggressive in the presence of arresting officers. Moreover, his supervisors believed that a person in the business of teaching anger management who cannot control his own anger should find another vocation.

  29. There was no evidence that BSO treated members not of a protected class more favorably. Accordingly, he did not prove a prima facie case of racial discrimination. See Holifield v.

    Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1563 (11th Cir. 1997).


  30. Even assuming that Mr. Arugu had demonstrated a prima facie case of discrimination, BSO demonstrated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for refusing to continue to employ him. That is, BSO believed that he physically attacked law enforcement officers on two occasions and learned that he violated a restraining order.

  31. Even if it were necessary to go to the next level of the McDonnell analysis, Mr. Arugu did not produce any evidence that BSO's asserted legitimate reasons were a pretext for

    discrimination. Therefore, Mr. Arugu did not meet his burden of showing that a discriminatory reason, more likely than not, motivated the decision to discharge him. Consequently,

    Mr. Arugu has not met his burden of showing pretext.


  32. In summary, Mr. Arugu has failed to carry his burden of proof that BSO engaged in racial discrimination toward him

when it discharged him.


RECOMMENDATION


Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief.

DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

HARRY L. HOOPER

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) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us


Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 2007.

COPIES FURNISHED:


Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Odiator Arugu, Esquire The Florida Law Firm, PLC

1990 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789


Harry O. Boreth, Esquire Glasser, Boreth & Kleppin

8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 105

Plantation, Florida 33324


Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301


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: 06-001985
Issue Date Proceedings
Feb. 23, 2009 Mandate filed.
Feb. 06, 2009 Opinion filed.
Jul. 07, 2008 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellee`s motion filed June 24, 2008, for extenson of time is granted filed.
Apr. 21, 2008 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant`s motion for extension of time is granted filed.
Apr. 11, 2008 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant is directed to file and show cause in writing by April 24, 2008, why the case should not be dismissed.
Jan. 22, 2008 Acknowledgment of New Case, DCA Case No. 4D08-160 filed.
Dec. 19, 2007 Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
Dec. 19, 2007 Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
Nov. 05, 2007 Notice of Change of Address, Telephone and Telecopier Numbers filed.
Nov. 02, 2007 Petitioner`s Answer to Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
Nov. 01, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
Oct. 23, 2007 Petitioner`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
Oct. 08, 2007 Recommended Order (hearing held August 22, 2007). CASE CLOSED.
Oct. 08, 2007 Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Sep. 27, 2007 Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Sep. 27, 2007 Respondent`s Notice of Filing Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Sep. 18, 2007 Transcript filed.
Sep. 18, 2007 Respondent`s Notice of Filing Hearing Transcript filed.
Sep. 13, 2007 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Ordered that the petition is redesignated as a petition for review of nonfinal agency action; petition is dismissed as untimely filed.
Aug. 27, 2007 Acknowledgment of New Case, DCA Case No. 4D07-3261 filed.
Aug. 22, 2007 CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Aug. 21, 2007 Notice of Certiorari Petition, and Suggestion of Stay filed.
Aug. 20, 2007 Respondent`s Filing of Exhibit List and Copies of Exhibits filed.
Aug. 14, 2007 (Joint) Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Aug. 07, 2007 Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (Amended) (hearing set for August 22 through 24, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Lauderdale, FL).
Jul. 31, 2007 Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
Jul. 27, 2007 Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for August 22 through 24, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Lauderdale, FL).
Jul. 26, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Set Aside Orders or in the Alternative Motion for Rehearing filed.
Jul. 24, 2007 Order Denying Petitioner`s Motion for Contempt, and Other Sanctions.
Jul. 24, 2007 Memorandum to Judge Hooper from O. Arugu regarding setting a motion hearing filed.
Jul. 24, 2007 Order Denying Petitioner`s Motion to Set Aside Orders, or in the Alternative, Motion for Rehearing.
Jul. 23, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion for Contempt, and other Sanctions filed.
Jul. 23, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion to Set Aside Orders, or in the Alternative, Motion for Rehearing filed.
Jul. 23, 2007 Notice of Serving Proposal for Settlement and Offer of Judgment to Petitioner, Kenneth Arugu filed.
Jul. 20, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion to Set Aside Orders, or in Alternative, Motion for Hearing filed.
Jul. 20, 2007 Unopposed Motion for Change of Hearing Date or, for Continuance of Hearing filed.
Jul. 17, 2007 Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
Jul. 12, 2007 Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for August 27 through 29, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Lauderdale, FL).
Jul. 09, 2007 Order Denying Petitioner`s Motion for Clarification of Orders.
Jul. 05, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion for Clarification of Orders filed.
Jun. 29, 2007 Respondent`s Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Imoposition of Sanctions for Failure to Obey Discovery Orders filed.
Jun. 28, 2007 Order Denying Petitioner`s Motion for Imposition of Sanctions for Failure to Obey Discovery Orders, and Demand for Attorney Fees.
Jun. 28, 2007 Order Granting Motion for Protective Order.
Jun. 22, 2007 Letter to Judge Hooper from H. Boreth regarding confirmation of hearing dates filed.
Jun. 20, 2007 Subpoena ad Testificandum (2) filed.
Jun. 20, 2007 Subpoena ad Testificandum filed.
Jun. 19, 2007 Response in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Disqualification of Presiding Judge filed.
Jun. 19, 2007 Notice of Transfer.
Jun. 19, 2007 Order Granting Motion for Disqualification.
Jun. 13, 2007 Letter to Judge Rigot from H. Boreth regarding available hearing dates.
Jun. 13, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion for Imposition of Sanctions for Failure to Obey Discovery Orders, and Demand for Attorney Fees filed.
Jun. 12, 2007 Respondent`s Motion for Protective Order filed.
Jun. 12, 2007 Sworn Motion for Disqualification of Presiding Judge and Memorandum of Law filed.
Jun. 08, 2007 Petitioner`s Answer to Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Request for Production filed.
Jun. 01, 2007 Order Granting Renewed Motion.
Jun. 01, 2007 CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
May 31, 2007 Respondent`s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner`s Renewed Motion for Witness Testimony by Telephone filed.
May 01, 2007 Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
Apr. 27, 2007 Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 24 through 26, 2007; 9:30 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes, FL).
Apr. 25, 2007 Memo to Judge Rigot from O. Arugu regarding available dates filed.
Apr. 24, 2007 Letter to Judge Rigot from H. Boreth regarding dates of availability filed.
Apr. 16, 2007 Letter to Judge Rigot from H. Boreth regarding availability filed.
Mar. 19, 2007 Respondent`s Resonse to Petitioner`s Revised Request to Produce Pursuant to Hearing on Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 19, 2007 Notice of Service of Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Revised Request to Produce Pursuant to Hearing on Petitioner`s Motion to Compel for Production of Documents filed.
Mar. 19, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Revised First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent Pursuant to Hearing on Petitioner`s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Response to Interrogatories filed.
Mar. 19, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Renewed Motion for Witness Testimony by Telephone filed.
Mar. 15, 2007 Order Granting Extension of Time.
Mar. 14, 2007 Respondent`s Motion for Extension of Time filed.
Mar. 13, 2007 Respondent`s Supplemental Response to Order of Administrative Law Judge Dated February 14, 2007 filed.
Mar. 13, 2007 Notice of Service of Respondent`s Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Mar. 09, 2007 Respondent`s Notice of Potential Need for Extension of Time filed.
Feb. 28, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Third Request to Produce filed.
Feb. 28, 2007 Notice of Service of Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Third Request to Produce filed.
Feb. 26, 2007 Petitioner`s Renewed Motion for Witness Testimony by Telephone filed.
Feb. 23, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Order of Administrative Law Judge Dated February 14, 2007 filed.
Feb. 19, 2007 Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Motion for Clarification filed.
Feb. 19, 2007 Order of Clarification.
Feb. 16, 2007 Respondent`s Motion for Clarification filed.
Feb. 14, 2007 Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by March 15, 2007).
Feb. 13, 2007 Petitioner`s Answer to Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
Feb. 12, 2007 Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Feb. 12, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Response to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
Feb. 09, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
Feb. 09, 2007 Unopposed Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed.
Feb. 09, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Response to Petitioner`s Second Request to Produce filed.
Feb. 09, 2007 Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Witness to Appear and Testify by Telephone filed.
Feb. 09, 2007 Letter to Judge Rigot from H. Boreth requesting subpoenas filed.
Feb. 07, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Response to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
Feb. 07, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
Feb. 05, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Response to Petitioner`s Second Request to Produce filed.
Feb. 02, 2007 Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
Dec. 20, 2006 Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
Dec. 18, 2006 Notice of Hearing (hearing set for February 20 through 22, 2007; 9:30 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes, FL).
Dec. 11, 2006 Memo to O. Arugu from H. Boreth advising of available dates for hearing filed.
Dec. 01, 2006 Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by December 11, 2006).
Nov. 30, 2006 Unopposed Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed.
Oct. 05, 2006 Notice of Service of Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Revised First Request for Admissions of Fact filed.
Sep. 21, 2006 Letter to O. Arugu from H. Boreth responding to the request for production filed.
Sep. 07, 2006 Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Revised Request for Admissions of Fact filed.
Aug. 21, 2006 Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
Aug. 17, 2006 Notice of Service of Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s First Request to Produce filed.
Aug. 17, 2006 Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 11 through 13, 2006; 9:30 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes, FL).
Aug. 17, 2006 Notice of Service of Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Aug. 16, 2006 Notice of Service of Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Second Request to Produce filed.
Aug. 15, 2006 Joint Report of Available Dates for Hearing filed.
Aug. 14, 2006 Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
Aug. 14, 2006 Notice of Service of Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner filed.
Aug. 11, 2006 Petitioner`s Report of Availability Dates for Hearing filed (with complete certificate of service).
Aug. 08, 2006 Petitioner`s Opposition to Respondent`s Motion to Strike Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions of Fact under Penalty of Perjury filed.
Aug. 08, 2006 Order on Discovery Motions and Regarding Hearing Dates.
Aug. 08, 2006 Petitioner`s Opposition to Respondent`s Motion to Strike Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions of Fact under Penalty of Perjury (filed with no. 5 missing).
Aug. 07, 2006 Petitioner`s Report of Availability Dates for Hearing filed (without complete certificate of service date).
Aug. 07, 2006 Respondent`s Report of Available Dates for Hearing filed.
Aug. 04, 2006 (Proposed) Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery filed.
Aug. 04, 2006 Respondent`s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Discovery filed.
Jul. 28, 2006 Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by August 7, 2006).
Jul. 24, 2006 Respondent`s Motion to Strike Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions of Fact under Penalty of Perjury filed.
Jul. 24, 2006 Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance of Hearing filed.
Jul. 20, 2006 Notice of Service of Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent filed.
Jul. 20, 2006 Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Request to Produce filed.
Jul. 20, 2006 Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Second Request to Produce filed.
Jul. 20, 2006 Notice of Service of Petitioner`s First Request for Admissions of Fact under Penalty of Perjury filed.
Jun. 22, 2006 Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
Jun. 20, 2006 Order Directing Filing of Exhibits.
Jun. 20, 2006 Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Jun. 20, 2006 Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for August 10, 2006; 9:00 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, FL).
Jun. 14, 2006 Respondent`s Response to the Division`s Initial Order filed.
Jun. 06, 2006 Initial Order.
Jun. 06, 2006 Employment Complaint of Discrimination fled.
Jun. 06, 2006 Determination: No Cause filed.
Jun. 06, 2006 Notice of Determination: No Cause filed.
Jun. 06, 2006 Petition for Relief filed.
Jun. 06, 2006 Transmittal of Petition filed by the Agency.

Orders for Case No: 06-001985
Issue Date Document Summary
Feb. 20, 2009 Mandate
Feb. 04, 2009 Opinion
Dec. 17, 2007 Agency Final Order
Oct. 08, 2007 Recommended Order Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the cause of his unemployment was grounded in discrimination based on national origin.
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