Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

JULIA GRIFFITH vs BRADFORD COUNTY FARM BUREAU, 12-002422 (2012)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 12-002422 Visitors: 19
Petitioner: JULIA GRIFFITH
Respondent: BRADFORD COUNTY FARM BUREAU
Judges: E. GARY EARLY
Agency: Commissions
Locations: Gainesville, Florida
Filed: Jul. 13, 2012
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, May 6, 2013.

Latest Update: Jul. 23, 2013
Summary: Whether the Petitioner proved the elements necessary to demonstrate that she was subject to an unlawful employment practice as a result of Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, maintaining a sexually-hostile work environment.Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent had the requisite number of employees to be considered an "employer" under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, either individually or as a part of an integrated enterprise.
TempHtml


STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS


JULIA GRIFFITH, EEOC Case No. 510201200410


Petitioner, FCHR Case No. 2012-00708


v. DOAH Case No. 12-2422


BRADFORD COUNTY FARM BUREAU, FCHR Order No. 13-048


Respondent.

/


FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE


Preliminary Matters


Petitioner Julia Griffith filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes (2011), alleging that Respondent Bradford County Farm Bureau committed an unlawful employment practice on the basis of Petitioner’s sex (female) by subjecting Petitioner to sexual harassment.

The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on June 8, 2012, the Executive Director issued a determination finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal proceeding.

An evidentiary hearing was held by video teleconference at sites in Gainesville and Tallahassee, Florida, on January 18, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge E. Gary Early.

Judge Early issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated May 6, 2013, concluding that Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof that Respondent had the requisite number of employees to be an “employer” as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the Recommended Order.


Findings of Fact


A transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was not filed with the Commission. In the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the


Filed July 23, 2013 10:54 AM Division of Administrative Hearings


Administrative Law Judge, the Recommended Order is the only evidence for the Commission to consider. See National Industries, Inc. v. Commission on Human Relations, et al., 527 So. 2d 894, at 897, 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Accord, Gantz, et al.

v. Zion’s Hope, Inc., d/b/a Holy Land Experience, FCHR Order No. 11-048 (June 6, 2011), Mack v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, FCHR Order No. 11-026 (March 17, 2011), Hall v. Villages of West Oaks HOA, FCHR Order No. 08-007 (January 14, 2008), Beach-Gutierrez v. Bay Medical Center, FCHR Order No. 05-011 (January 19, 2005), and Waaser v. Streit’s Motorsports, FCHR Order No. 04-157 (November 30,

2004).

We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact.


Conclusions of Law


We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter.

We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law.


Exceptions


Neither of the parties filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order.


Dismissal


The Petition for Relief and Complaint of Discrimination are DISMISSED with prejudice.

The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110.


DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of July , 2013. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS:


Commissioner Gilbert M. Singer, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Lizzette Romano; and

Commissioner Mario M. Valle


Filed this 23rd day of July , 2013, in Tallahassee, Florida.


/s/ Violet Crawford, Clerk

Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 488-7082


Copies furnished to:


Julia Griffith

c/o Jamison Jessup, Qualified Representative 557 Noremac Avenue

Deltona, FL 32728


Bradford County Farm Bureau c/o Robert E. Larkin, III, Esq. Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A.

906 North Monroe Street, Ste. 100

Tallahassee, FL 32303


E. Gary Early, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this 23rd day of July , 2013.


By: /s/ Clerk of the Commission

Florida Commission on Human Relations


Docket for Case No: 12-002422
Issue Date Proceedings
Jul. 23, 2013 (Agency) Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
May 06, 2013 Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
May 06, 2013 Recommended Order (hearing held January 18, 2013). CASE CLOSED.
Mar. 18, 2013 Petitioner's Notice filed.
Mar. 15, 2013 Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Mar. 11, 2013 Order Granting Extension of Time.
Mar. 08, 2013 Respondent's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time filed.
Feb. 19, 2013 Order Establishing Date for Closure of Record.
Jan. 18, 2013 CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Jan. 11, 2013 Respondent's Notice of Filing filed.
Nov. 09, 2012 Order Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for January 18, 2013; 9:30 a.m.; Gainesville, FL).
Nov. 08, 2012 Amended Updated Status Report (to amend certificate of service) filed.
Nov. 08, 2012 Updated Status Report filed.
Nov. 06, 2012 Status Report filed.
Oct. 26, 2012 Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by November 5, 2012).
Oct. 26, 2012 Unopposed Motion for Continuance filed.
Oct. 26, 2012 Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Oct. 24, 2012 Subpoena Ad Testificandum filed.
Oct. 22, 2012 Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Oct. 22, 2012 Notice of Filing of Petitioner's Amended Witness and (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
Oct. 22, 2012 Notice of Filing (Proposed) Exhibits, (Proposed) Exhibit List and Whitness List filed.
Oct. 22, 2012 Notice of Filing of Petitioner's Witness and (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
Aug. 21, 2012 Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for October 29, 2012; 9:30 a.m.; Gainesville, FL).
Aug. 21, 2012 CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
Aug. 20, 2012 Compliance with Initial Order filed.
Aug. 20, 2012 Motion to Shorten Time to Respondent to Discovery, in the Alternative, Motion to Continue Hearing filed.
Aug. 10, 2012 Order Accepting Qualified Representative.
Aug. 10, 2012 Petitioner's Motion for Jamison Jessup to Serve as Petitioner's Qualified Representative filed.
Aug. 10, 2012 Notice of Appearance (Jamison Jessup) filed.
Jul. 26, 2012 Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Jul. 26, 2012 Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for September 20, 2012; 9:30 a.m.; Gainesville and Tallahassee, FL).
Jul. 13, 2012 Initial Order.
Jul. 13, 2012 Charge of Discrimination filed.
Jul. 13, 2012 Notice of Determination: No Cause filed.
Jul. 13, 2012 Determination: No Cause filed.
Jul. 13, 2012 Transmittal of Petition filed by the Agency.
Jul. 13, 2012 Petition for Relief filed.

Orders for Case No: 12-002422
Issue Date Document Summary
Jul. 23, 2013 Agency Final Order
May 06, 2013 Recommended Order Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent had the requisite number of employees to be considered an "employer" under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, either individually or as a part of an integrated enterprise.
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