STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LADAN GREGORY,

Petitioner,

vs.

NEW HOME STAR FLORIDA, LLC,

Respondent.

/

Case No. 19-6647

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this matter was conducted before Administrative Law Judge Brian A. Newman of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2019),1 on February 6, 2020, in Fort Myers, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ladan Gregory, pro se

Apartment 218

357 Joel Boulevard

Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936

For Respondent: Taylor Holop, Authorized Representative2

New Home Star Florida, LLC 145 West 2nd Street Chicago, Illinois 60126

1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2019).

2 Mr. Holop is not an attorney; he is employed as the senior director of corporate operations of New Home Star. New Home Star confirmed that Mr. Holop was authorized to represent its interests in this proceeding by filing a Notice of Non-Attorney’s Authority to Represent Respondent with DOAH on February 5, 2020.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, New Home Star Florida, LLC (New Home Star or Respondent), committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner, Ladan Gregory (Ms. Gregory or Petitioner), on the basis of her race, national origin, or religion, and/or in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Ms. Gregory filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission), alleging that New Home Star violated the FCRA by discriminating against her based on her race, national origin, and religion, subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and/or by retaliating against her. On December 10, 2019, the Commission notified Ms. Gregory that no reasonable cause existed to believe that New Home Star committed an unlawful employment practice.

On December 17, 2019, Ms. Gregory filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission in which she realleged a discriminatory employment practice and claimed to have been terminated in retaliation for unspecified conduct. The Commission transmitted the Petition for Relief to DOAH to conduct a chapter 120 evidentiary hearing.

The final hearing was held on February 6, 2020, in Fort Myers, Florida, with both parties present. Ms. Gregory testified on her own behalf and called Diana Wohnig as a witness. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted into evidence. Taylor Holop testified on behalf of New Home Star and called Mary Lindeman, and Dan Wolowicz as witnesses. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 3 were admitted into evidence.

At the close of the hearing, the parties were advised of a ten-day timeframe following DOAH's receipt of the hearing transcript to file post- hearing submittals. On February 12, 2020, Ms. Gregory filed a Request for Decision prior to the filing of the transcript. On April 6, 2020, the court reporter filed the Transcript of the final hearing with DOAH. On April16, 2020, New Home Star filed its Proposed Recommended Order. All submissions were duly considered in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Gregory is a self-described "Middle Easterner" who has lived in the United States since she was 15 years old. She did not identify with specificity her national origin, race, or religion.

2. New Home Star is a sales and marketing company based in Chicago, Illinois. New Home Star partners with new home contractors to sell homes and is paid on a commission basis. New Home Star has over 400 employees and operates in 24 states, including Florida.

3. On February 14, 2019, New Home Star offered Ms. Gregory the position of sales assistant. Ms. Gregory accepted the position and started work on February 20, 2019, at the New Home Star office in Fort Myers, Florida. New Home Star shared office space in Fort Myers with one of its clients, Wade Jurney Homes, a new home contractor.

4. Michelle Patrick was employed by New Home Star as a sales manager; she also worked in the Fort Myers office. As a sales manager, Ms. Patrick had more responsibility than Ms. Gregory, but did not supervise her. Ms. Patrick and Ms. Gregory reported directly to Kristi Quick, the director of sales in the Fort Myers office.

5. Ms. Gregory claims that she was subjected to insensitive comments about her race during an employee retreat at a hotel in Sebring, Florida. According to Ms. Gregory, employees were told to write down "truths" and "lies" about themselves on a sheet of paper and to exchange the paper with a

   
   

   co-worker. Ms. Gregory testified that she wrote "I am Mexican" and "I used to be born blond" as her "lies." Ms. Gregory claims that after her "I am a Mexican" lie was revealed, Michelle Patrick referred to Ms. Gregory as "Iranian" and an "Arab". Ms. Gregory claims that she was offended by those terms. But Ms. Gregory should have expected that her "I am Mexican" lie would reasonably provoke discussion about Ms. Gregory's true national origin. Ms. Gregory did not demonstrate that use of the terms Iranian or Arab in this context was objectively offensive, and her testimony that she was offended by the use of these terms was not credible. There was no evidence that Ms. Gregory complained to anyone about this incident until after her employment was terminated by New Home Star.

6. Ms. Gregory also complains about a flag issue. At some point, Michelle Patrick asked Ms. Gregory to place a bucket of American flags outside the office door in the morning and to bring the bucket of flags inside at close of business. Ms. Gregory testified that the slogan "Make America Great Again" was printed on the flagpoles, and that she found the assignment of this task demeaning and outside of her job description.

7. Ms. Gregory presented testimony from Diana Wohnig, an employee of Wade Jurney Homes who worked in the same office with Ms. Gregory, and Ms. Patrick. Ms. Wohnig described the flags as "parade flags that you give a child during a parade," that were placed in a bucket and set outside as a marketing tool. Ms. Wohnig contradicted Ms. Gregory’s testimony that the flagpoles contained the slogan "Make America Great Again." Ms. Wohnig's description of the slogan-free flags is found to be more credible and is accepted over the testimony of Ms. Gregory on this issue.

8. It is unclear when Ms. Gregory was first asked to put the flag-filled bucket back outside every day, but Ms. Gregory did so for about a month. After going along with the request for one month, Ms. Gregory complained to her supervisor, Ms. Quick. According to Ms. Gregory, Ms. Quick immediately addressed the complaint and resolved it by telling Ms. Gregory she was not

   
   

   required to set the flags outside or bring them inside before closing. Ms. Gregory did not do so from that point forward.

9. There is no evidence that Ms. Gregory’s complaint to her supervisor raised the issue of whether the unwanted task was discriminatory based on her national origin, race, or religion, as opposed to simply being an undesirable task that she thought was outside of her job description. There is no evidence that Ms. Gregory complained to anyone of discrimination until after her employment was terminated by New Home Star.

10. Ms. Gregory also complains of an altercation with Ms. Patrick. On March 11, 2019, Ms. Gregory was at her office desk talking to a potential customer on the telephone. Ms. Patrick overheard the conversation and approached Ms. Gregory to show her information on her cellphone that she wanted Ms. Gregory to share with the customer. Ms. Gregory ignored her, and Ms. Patrick started banging her cellphone on Ms. Gregory's desk. The disagreement escalated, and Ms. Patrick pushed Ms. Gregory—who remained seated in her rolling office chair— with considerable force, causing the chair to roll with Ms. Gregory in it across the floor until banging into the wall. At that point, Diana Wohnig and Sue Serra, another Wade Jurney Homes employee, separated Ms. Gregory and Ms. Patrick and attempted to de- escalate the situation.

11. A call was placed to the Fort Myers police department,3 but

    Ms. Gregory and Ms. Patrick left for the day before a police officer arrived at the office. A police officer later interviewed Ms. Gregory by telephone.4 There

    
    

    3 Ms. Gregory denies that she called the police but was not able to identify who else placed the call. According to Dianna Wohnig—a witness called by Ms. Gregory—Ms. Gregory threatened to call the police and Ms. Wohnig advised her not to, because she did not believe the incident warranted it. Ms. Wohnig’s credible testimony supports an inference that

    Ms. Gregory was the one who called the police.

    
    

    4 According to the police report offered by Ms. Gregory—and admitted without objection— Ms. Gregory told the police officer that Ms. Patrick made racial slurs and spat in her face before pushing her against the wall. These allegations were not repeated by Ms. Gregory during her testimony in this proceeding. Although the police report was admitted, the

    
    

    is no evidence that Ms. Patrick, or anyone else, was arrested or charged in connection with this incident.

12. New Home Star promptly investigated the altercation between

    Ms. Gregory and Ms. Patrick. Ms. Gregory was told by New Home Star that she should work remotely (i.e. from home) until the investigation was completed. Ms. Gregory was compensated for working from home.

13. New Home Star found that Ms. Patrick's conduct on March 11, 2019, was unacceptable, and her employment with New Home Star was terminated on March 12, 2019. Ms. Gregory was ultimately found to be "not at fault," and no disciplinary action was taken against her in connection with the March 11, 2019, altercation with Ms. Patrick.

14. Ms. Gregory was cleared to return to work at the Fort Myers office, but admitted that she did not feel safe working there after the altercation with Ms. Patrick. Because she no longer felt safe working in the Fort Myers office, Ms. Gregory was reassigned to the New Home Star office in Cape Coral, a neighboring city in the same county, effective March 20, 2019. As in Fort Myers, the New Home Star Cape Coral office was shared with Wade Jurney Homes.

15. Almost immediately after Ms. Gregory began working in the Cape Coral office, New Home Star received complaints about Ms. Gregory from the Wade Jurney Home employees in that office. In response to the complaints, on March 21, 2019, Ms. Gregory was counseled to not use words such as "cookie-cutter" or "cheap" when referring to the new homes built by Wade Jurney Homes. She was also counseled to rely on New Home Star resources for answers to her questions about the office printer, scanner, and office supplies because repeated questions to Wade Jurney Homes' employees about such matters disrupted their work. She was also counseled that she should make progress reviewing New Home Star training videos (referred to as the

    
    

    statements contained therein are hearsay, or predicated on hearsay, and have not been relied upon here. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.213(3).

    
    

    "New Home Connect" training program) because the information in the videos would answer a lot of the questions she had as a new employee.

16. The counseling did not resolve the problems, and complaints from Wade Jurney Homes employees continued. On March 23, 2019, Ms. Gregory's employment with New Home Star was terminated. The grounds for termination included: multiple complaints from Wade Jurney Homes employees, both before and after the counseling session on March 21, 2019; leaving the Cape Coral office early (4:30 p.m.) while complaining about her reassignment to Cape Coral and her rate of pay; referring to new homes built by Wade Jurney Homes as "cookie-cutter" or "cheap"; and making inadequate progress in reviewing New Home Connect training videos (i.e. completing only six out of 268 training videos).

17. Ms. Gregory denied that she used the terms "cookie-cutter" or "cheap," but did not deny her lack of progress with the New Home Connect training program or the other grounds for termination. Ms. Gregory failed to prove that the stated reasons for her termination were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

18. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this cause pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 760.11(7), Florida Statutes. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Y- 4.016.

19. Ms. Gregory initiated this proceeding, alleging that New Home Star discriminated against her based on her race, national origin, and religion, and retaliated against her in violation of the FCRA.

20. The FCRA prohibits discrimination in the workplace. See §§ 760.10 and 760.11, Fla. Stat. Section 760.10(1)(a) states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

    
    

    To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

    
    

21. The FCRA also prohibits discrimination by retaliating against an employee for engaging in a protected activity. Section 760.10(7) provides in relevant part:

    It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an employment agency, a joint labor- management committee, or a labor organization to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section.

    
    

22. When, as in this case, the Commission determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the FCRA has occurred, section 760.11(7) permits the complaining party to request an administrative hearing before DOAH. Following an administrative hearing, if the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) finds that a discriminatory act has occurred, the ALJ "shall issue an appropriate recommended order to the commission prohibiting the practice and recommending affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including back pay." § 760.11(7), Fla. Stat.

23. New Home Star is an "employer" within the meaning of the FCRA.

    § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat.

24. The FCRA is patterned after Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Accordingly, Florida courts hold that federal decisions construing Title VII are applicable when considering claims under the FCRA. Harper v. Blockbuster Entm't Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387 (11th Cir. 1998);

    
    

    Valenzuela v. GlobeGround N. Am., LLC, 18 So. 3d 17, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); and Fla. State Univ. v. Sondel, 685 So. 2d 923, 925 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).

    Discrimination Claim

25. Ms. Gregory contends she was subjected to discrimination and ultimately terminated because of her race, national origin, and religion, in violation of the FCRA. Discrimination may be proven by direct, statistical, or circumstantial evidence. Valenzuela, 18 So. 3d at 22. Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, would prove the existence of discriminatory intent behind the employment decision without any inference or presumption. Denney v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, 1182 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997). "[D]irect evidence is composed of 'only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate' on the basis of some impermissible factor." Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 1999).

26. Ms. Gregory did not present any direct evidence of discrimination or any statistical evidence that would suggest any New Home Star employment decision, up to and including Ms. Gregory’s termination was motivated by her race, national origin, or religion. Instead, Ms. Gregory attempted to prove discrimination through circumstantial evidence. For discrimination claims involving circumstantial evidence, Florida courts follow the three-part, burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

27. Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, Ms. Gregory bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination based on her race, national origin, or religion. To establish a prima facie case,

    Ms. Gregory must show that: (1) she belongs to a protected class5; (2) she was

    
    

    5 Ms. Gregory failed to identify her national origin, race, or religion with specificity. She identified herself as a "Middle-Easterner," a classification that many would consider to include multiple races, national origins, and religions. Nevertheless, for purposes of this proceeding, it is assumed that she belongs to a protected class as a "Middle-Easterner."

    
    

    qualified for her position; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (4) her employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of her protected class more favorably than she was treated. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802-04; Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cty., 447 F.3d 1319,

    1323 (11th Cir. 2006).

28. Failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination ends the analysis. If Ms. Gregory establishes a prima facie case, she creates a presumption of discrimination. At that point, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for taking the adverse action. Valenzuela, 18 So. 3d at 22. The reason for the employer's decision should be clear, reasonably specific, and worthy of credence. Dep't of Corr. v. Chandler, 582 So. 2d 1183, 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The employer has the burden of production, not persuasion, to demonstrate to the trier of fact that the decision was non-discriminatory. Id. This burden of production is "exceedingly light." Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1564. The employer only needs to produce evidence of a reason for its decision. It is not required to persuade the trier of fact that its decision was actually motivated by the reason given. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993).

29. If the employer meets its burden, the presumption of discrimination disappears. The burden then shifts back to Ms. Gregory to prove that the employer's proffered reason was not the true reason but merely a "pretext" for discrimination. Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1538 (11th Cir. 1997); Valenzuela, 18 So. 3d at 25.

30. In order to satisfy this final step of the process, Ms. Gregory must show "directly that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated the decision, or indirectly by showing that the proffered reason for the ... decision is not worthy of belief." Chandler, 582 So. 2d at 1186 (citing Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Aff. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-56 (1981)). The proffered explanation is unworthy of belief if Ms. Gregory demonstrates "such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions

    
    

    in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could find them unworthy of credence." Combs, 106 F.3d at 1538; see also Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000). Ms. Gregory must prove that the reasons articulated were false and that discrimination was the real reason for the action. City of Miami v. Hervis,

    65 So. 3d 1110, 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)(citing St. Mary's Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. at 515)("[A] reason cannot be proved to be 'a pretext for

    discrimination' unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination was the real reason.").

31. Applying the burden-shifting framework to the facts here, Ms. Gregory failed to establish a prima facie case that New Home Star discriminated against her by terminating her employment, which is the only adverse employment decision proven.6 Ms. Gregory failed to offer any evidence that New Home Star treated similarly-situated employees outside of her protected class more favorably than she was treated.

32. Because she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, it is unnecessary to discuss burdens related to any alleged pretext. Nevertheless, even if Ms. Gregory had established a prima facie case of discrimination, New Home Star proved that Ms. Gregory was terminated for legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.

    Retaliation Claim

33. Ms. Gregory claims she was moved to the Cape Coral office and terminated in retaliation for engaging in an unspecified activity.

34. Because the McDonnell Douglas analysis also applies in employment retaliation cases, Ms. Gregory has the initial burden of establishing, by a

    
    

    
    

    6 Ms. Gregory’s complaint about being harassed at the employee retreat was not proven. Her complaints about the flag bucket assignment and about being pushed failed to prove an adverse employment action; indeed, her employer immediately addressed and resolved both complaints in her favor. And her claim that being transferred to the Cape Coral office was an adverse employment action was not proven. Instead, she admitted that she did not want to return to the Fort Myers office because she feared for her safety.

    
    

    preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006).

35. In order to prove a prima facie case of unlawful employment retaliation, Ms. Gregory must establish that: (1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal relationship between the two events. Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001). To establish this causal relationship, Ms. Gregory must prove "that the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer." Univ. of Tex. SW Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 360 (2013). This standard has also been called "but-for causation." Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016).

36. Ms. Gregory was reassigned to the Cape Coral office because she told her employer she did not feel safe working in the Fort Myers office after her alteration with Ms. Patrick. Thus, she failed to prove that her move to the Cape Coral office was an adverse employment action. Ms. Gregory's termination—whether justified or not—is an adverse employment action, so she satisfied the “adverse employment action” element of a prima facie case for retaliation.

37. Ms. Gregory never identified any protected activity that she engaged in that caused New Home Star to retaliate against her by terminating her. She testified about several incidents she now claims to be discriminatory, but never offered any evidence that she had complained to anyone that the incidents were motivated by her race, national origin, or religion before her employment was terminated.

38. Finally, there is no evidence that the decisions to reassign or terminate Ms. Gregory were decisions taken to retaliate against her for any action she took, let alone a protected activity. Ms. Gregory failed to prove the third element of a prima facie case.

    
    

39. Even if Ms. Gregory had established a prima facie case, New Home Star proved that it transferred Ms. Gregory and terminated her for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons and not as a pretext for retaliation. Hostile Work Environment Claim

40. Ms. Gregory claims she was subjected to a hostile work environment at New Home Star. Specifically, she alleges that she was called an "Iranian" and an "Arab" at the employee event in Sebring, that she was required to set up a bucket of American flags containing the slogan "Make America Great Again" each day, and that she was battered by her co-worker, Ms. Patrick, on March 11, 2019.

41. To prevail on her hostile work environment claim, Ms. Gregory must prove that the "workplace [was] permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that [was] sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [Petitioner's] employment and create an abusive working environment." Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Specifically, Petitioner must show: (1) that she belongs to a protected group;

    (2) has been subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment must have been based on a protected characteristic of the employee; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer is responsible for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability. McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370, 1378 (11th Cir. 2008); Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc.,

    277 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2002); Williams v. W.G. Johnson & Son, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139747, at 7-8 (N.D. Fla. 2010).

42. Ms. Gregory failed to satisfy a prima facie case for hostile work environment. First and foremost, she did not prove that she was subjected to severe harassment, which requires her to prove the harassing conduct was subjectively and objectively severe. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-22 (1993). In assessing the objective severity of the harassment, it is

    
    

    necessary to consider, among other factors, "(1) the frequency of the conduct;

    (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interferes with the employee's job performance." Miller, 277 F.3d at 1275.

43. Ms. Gregory's hostile work environment claim fails on all of these tests. The comments at the employee event in Sebring were not offensive given the context. Ms. Gregory placed the subject matter of her national origin at issue by identifying "I am a Mexican" as one of her lies that she knew would be revealed and would likely prompt a discussion about her true national origin or race.

44. The American flags did not contain the slogan "Make America Great Again"—as Ms. Gregory falsely claimed—and she was not required to move the flags after she complained about this task to her supervisor. This is not harassment, severe or otherwise.

45. The altercation between Ms. Gregory and Ms. Patrick does not constitute legally protected harassment, because there was no evidence that Ms. Patrick's actions were motivated by a protected characteristic, such as Ms. Gregory's race, national origin, or religion, as opposed to mere anger by Ms. Patrick because Ms. Gregory was ignoring her. Moreover, Ms. Patrick was not Ms. Gregory's supervisor, she was a co-worker. As such, New Home Star is not responsible for Ms. Patrick's conduct without a showing that it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action. See Breda v. Wolf Camera & Video, 222 F.3d 886, 889 (11th Cir. 2000). In fact, the altercation between Ms. Gregory and Ms. Patrick was promptly investigated and the remedial action was swift; Ms. Patrick was terminated the next day.

46. Petitioner failed to establish that she was subjected to a hostile work environment while employed by New Home Star.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Ms. Gregory's Petition for Relief.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRIAN A. NEWMAN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2020.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)

Ladan Gregory Apartment 218

357 Joel Boulevard

Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 (eServed)

Taylor Holop

New Home Star Florida, LLC 145 West 2nd Street Chicago, Illinois 60126 (eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)

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: 19-006647

Orders for Case No: 19-006647