STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEBORAH K. NASH, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) DOAH CASE NO. 87-3609
) DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Following notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on November 23, 1987. The location of the hearing was Jacksonville, Florida. The authority for the conduct of the hearing was Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams served as the Hearing Officer. This recommended order is being entered following the receipt and review of proposed recommended orders offered by counsel for the parties and Respondent's written argument. The suggested fact proposals found within the proposed recommended orders have been utilized in some instances. Otherwise, the fact proposals have been modified or rejected for reasons described in an appendix to the recommended order.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Lewis J. Alfonso, Esquire
37 Camino Gardens Boulevard, Suite 323 Boca Raton, Florida 33432
For Respondent: Suzanne S. Howard, Esquire
Assistant Counsel City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall
Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ISSUES
The issues presented here concern the Petitioner's claim that the Respondent had discriminated against the Petitioner related to terms, conditions or privileges of employment based upon the Petitioner's race, marital status and handicap. See Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent did not concede these allegations and following the consideration of these matters by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Deborah Nash, is a white female who was formerly married to a black male. The issue of that marriage is a biracial son. In 1981 the marriage ended in divorce.
Petitioner has a bachelor's degree in elementary education which she received in 1981. She earned a master's degree in early childhood education in 1983.
While living in Kentucky, Petitioner had teaching experience. During her time in Kentucky she worked in a federally funded child development center. Most of the children in the program were black. The children ranged in age from infants to kindergarten aged children. Petitioner has had other experience in working with minorities in job placement programs.
In August, 1984, Petitioner decided to move to Jacksonville, Florida, and to seek employment as a teacher. At relevant times in this inquiry, Petitioner has held a Florida teaching certificate.
Upon arrival in Jacksonville, Florida, Petitioner was interviewed by John Haevener, Supervisor of Elementary Staffing for the Duval County School Board, Respondent. Mr. Haevener determined to refer Petitioner to Hortense Brewington, principal at Northshore Elementary School, an elementary school within the Duval County School System. Ms. Brewington is a black female. In making this referral, Haevener felt satisfied about the ability which the Petitioner had to cope with the situation at Northshore Elementary. That school is one which has a minority student population of 95 percent black students and
5 percent white students. The faculty in that school is 70 percent white and 30 percent black. Haevener felt that the Petitioner could succeed in that environment because she had had past experience in dealing with the needs of children in the lower socio-economic strata.
In the course of the interview between the Petitioner and Ms. Brewington, Petitioner revealed, upon questioning, the nature of her marital status and whether she had children and, in commenting about her child, told Ms. Brewington that she had a biracial child. This comment was met by Ms. Brewington by a look of surprise.
Petitioner was accepted as an employee with the Duval County School System beginning in August, 1984, for the school year 1984-1985. Her assignment was as a second grade teacher at Northshore Elementary. This assignment was changed to a third grade class and Petitioner maintained that position during the relevant periods under consideration.
Given that this was an initial assignment to the Duval County School System, Petitioner was placed in the Beginning Teachers Program. This arrangement contemplated and the Petitioner was given assistance in the performance of her teaching duties, provided by the Respondent.
Petitioner's class was constituted of 28 students, 26 of whom were minorities, 25 of those children being black.
In the fall of the school year 1984-1985, and in particular around October 1984, petitioner began to have difficulties with the class. There were numerous fights between the children. The children were otherwise uncooperative in the sense of not staying in their seats or "talking back" to the Petitioner. In one instance, a student drew two pictures of naked females, one of which was entitled "Angela" and the other reported to be the Petitioner. These items may be found as Petitioner's exhibits numbered 1 and 2 admitted into evidence. Petitioner took the student who had drawn these pictures to Ms. Brewington to seek assistance in disciplining the student. Ms. Brewington's response was not
effective, in that the child who made the drawings and was taken to Ms. Brewington for discipline was not punished. This circumstance was representative of Ms. Brewington's shortcomings in disciplining the children within her school, to include children in the Petitioner's class. To summarize, Ms. Brewington was inconsistent in her approach to matters of discipline.
On two occasions a male student in the class brought a 5" long switchblade knife to class. These two occurrences were separated in time by about five days. Petitioner referred the student to Ms. Brewington for discipline, but she continued to have problems with the child. Ms. Brewington suspended the child after the second incident with the knife.
An additional problem the Petitioner experienced concerned the fact that the children had skills attributable to first graders and were expected to read on a level pertaining to third grade students.
Petitioner, in carrying out her duties, was given some assistance in that a Chapter I teacher worked in the Petitioner's classroom with a small group while other class instruction was going on. This Chapter I instruction involved one or two students at a time.
Nan Ramey, involved with teacher instructional support for the Duval County School System, was part of the in-service cadre in the school year 1984- 1985. Ms. Ramey holds a degree in elementary education and a master's degree in administrative supervision associated with the educational field. Among her duties was providing assistance to beginning teachers, to include Petitioner. From August 30, 1984 through April 1, 1987, Ramey visited Northshore Elementary
38 times and held eight workshops related to assertive discipline, two of which were attended by the Petitioner. Ms. Ramey found that the Petitioner had problems with instructional organization. If the teacher is sufficiently organized, according to Ramey, student disciplinary problems will not prohibit the teacher from performing his or her duties. She made a specific review of the Petitioner's circumstance at the instigation of Ms. Brewington. By Ms. Ramey's observations, the other beginning teachers who had been assigned to the Northshore Elementary School for the school year 1984-1985 did not experience the problems about student discipline to the degree that Petitioner did. Ms. Ramey gave materials to the beginning teachers at the workshops on assertive discipline and all teachers obtained those materials whether or not they attended the workshop meetings. Classroom tips were given to the teachers on dealing with problems with the students. Ramey saw the Petitioner 31 times in the school year in question. When dealing with the teachers in a one-on-one relationship, twenty to thirty minutes were spent by Ramey in each of these sessions.
Petitioner continued to struggle with the problems in her classroom, even after making her best attempts at trying to cope with the situation. During this time, Petitioner talked to Ms. Brewington and Ms. Ramey about her need for assistance. Petitioner was particularly concerned that Ms. Brewington was not doing her part to support the Petitioner in dealing in an effective way with the class disciplinary needs. Petitioner was very distressed about the situation in her classroom and experienced a change in her emotional outlook from normal limits to depression, lack of attention to her housekeeping duties and emotional upheaval to the extent of crying on numerous occasions.
Petitioner had been treated by Dr. Edith Ortega, a primary care physician following her arrival in Jacksonville. Around the first of March, 1985, the Petitioner was suffering from a heart condition which had associated
chest pains, she had shortness of breath and, as she describes it, felt drained of energy. Dr. Ortega referred the Petitioner to Dr. David A. Orea, a practicing psychiatrist, who undertook the treatment of the Petitioner for the period March 5, 1985 through August 19, 1985. In view of her illness, Petitioner applied for an extended leave of absence which Respondent granted.
The extended leave request was for March 4, 1985 through the end of the year. While the Petitioner was on extended leave of absence, she was not paid.
On March 8, 1985, in the company of Luann Bennett, president of the Duval Teachers United, which represents the interests of teachers on contract with the Duval County School Board, Petitioner met with Dr. Larry Paulk. Dr. Paulk at that time was the assistant superintendent for personnel. Their entreaties to Dr. Paulk concerned the classroom situation that the Petitioner was experiencing, especially in describing Ms. Brewington's shortcomings. Dr. Paulk was presented with a letter on that same date which offered written expression to the Petitioner's concerns. A copy of that letter may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. The summarizing position which the Petitioner stated in the correspondence was that she wished to be transferred elsewhere or be given some immediate assistance in her class which would manage the fights which were going on, as reported in the correspondence, averaging about three per day in recent times. The impression which the Petitioner and Ms. Bennett were left with was to the effect that Dr. Paulk would allow the Petitioner to transfer from her assignment if Dr. Orea felt that was necessary to address the Petitioner's medical condition. Succinctly put in writing by Ms. Bennett on the face of the Petitioner's exhibit 4, the March 8, 1985 letter, is the expression that Dr. Paulk said it was "...also possible, if doctor requests, probably can get transfer."
Dr. Paulk, in his recollection of the conversation of March 8, 1987, saw it as being a discussion of the problems experienced by the Petitioner in dealing with her principal, Ms. Brewington, and the associated problem of the Petitioner's health. The conference was concluded with what Dr. Paulk saw as a proposal by Ms. Bennett that hypothetically if the Petitioner's doctor recommended the transfer would the school board allow for that transfer. Dr. Paulk told the Petitioner and Ms. Bennett that he needed a statement from Dr. Orea which would release the Petitioner from her extended absence or leave, because at the time of the interview the Petitioner was on extended leave and it would be necessary for the doctor to establish what conditions would be acceptable to allow the Petitioner to return to work. In that setting, Dr. Paulk recalls telling Ms. Bennett that he would consider a transfer assuming clarification by the treating physician, Dr. Orea. Dr. Paulk recalls that Petitioner and Ms. Bennett said that they would get the letter from Dr. Orea.
Dr. Paulk in his experience is unacquainted with medical transfers such as requested by the Petitioner. This case to his knowledge was a matter of first impression. He is acquainted with medical transfers from one floor of a school to another to accommodate the needs of the teacher.
Dr. Paulk was provided with a note or correspondence from Dr. Orea on March 14, 1985, indicating that it would be acceptable for the Petitioner to return to work on March 18, 1985, if she were granted a transfer from her present position. Dr. Paulk was uncertain what was meant by this correspondence in terms of exactly where the Petitioner should be placed if removed from her present classroom setting. Dr. Paulk discussed this what he considered to be the vague recommendation by Dr. Orea in a conversation with Ms. Bennett.
At Ms. Bennett's suggestion, Dr. Paulk spoke with Dr. Orea on March 18, 1985. Prior to discussing the situation with Dr. Orea on March 18, 1985, Dr. Paulk had talked to Mr. Haevener about the propriety of the Petitioner's assignment to Northshore Elementary. Dr. Paulk was interested in knowing why the Petitioner had been placed at that school. At that time Haevener indicated that Dr. Paulk should know that Petitioner had been divorced from a black male. In this connection, Dr. Paulk says he had no knowledge of the fact that Petitioner and her former husband had a biracial son until a point in time at which the Petitioner had brought her claims of discrimination, and a preliminary hearing was held in front of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which occurred subsequent to the end of the 1984-1985 school year. The school year ended in June, 1985. Petitioner spoke to Haevener some time following his March 8, 1985 meeting with Petitioner and Ms. Bennett.
In conversation with Dr. Orea, Dr. Paulk felt compelled to ask Dr. Orea about the significance, if any, of the Petitioner having been a party to a biracial marriage, given that the Petitioner was a white female in a predominately black school with a black principal. Dr. Paulk was concerned about race relations. Dr. Paulk says that not having been told of the existence of a biracial son before this discussion with Dr. Orea, he has no recollection of telling Dr. Orea anything about the biracial child. Dr. Paulk recalls that Dr. Orea indicated that he had no knowledge of any biracial marriage and that, from Dr. Paulk's recollection, concluded the discussion on that topic. Dr. Paulk felt that Dr. Orea was still vague about where the proper placement might be for the Petitioner other than to say anywhere but Northshore Elementary.
Dr. Orea, in his recollection of the conversation of March 18, 1987 with Dr. Orea, recalled that it was one in which Dr. Orea told Dr. Paulk that he was not at liberty to discuss the therapy sessions with the Petitioner. He nonetheless stated that the Petitioner's situation, from the point of view of Dr. Orea, was one in which the relationship with a black man had no bearing on the stress or depression Petitioner was experiencing. The stress, in Dr. Orea's opinion, was that brought on by working conditions which Petitioner was subjected to. In his affidavit given to the Florida Commission on Human Relations, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 7 admitted into evidence, and which Dr. Orea confirmed in his telephone testimony at the formal hearing, he states that Petitioner's divorce from a black man had no relevance, and it would not matter whether the former husband was black or not. Dr. Orea felt that the troublesome students, regardless of their race, could be a significant source of stress and might through that situation precipitate depression on the part of Petitioner. He did not feel that there was any relationship between the Petitioner's private life and the stress she experienced at Northshore Elementary. His principal concern about the health of this patient was to the effect that she be transferred to another school and to do otherwise would be detrimental to her health. He emphasizes that on March 14, 1985, he had made the recommendation for transfer and had released her to go back to work if transferred. Dr. Orea recalls that Dr. Paulk mentioned the biracial son in the conversation. Dr. Orea states in his affidavit and confirms in his testimony at hearing that he did not believe that the problems the Petitioner experienced were associated with the fact that she had a biracial son or were related in any particular way to the race of her husband, the students in her class, or the principal at the school. Dr. Orea has no specific recollection of whether he discussed Petitioner's marital status with her, although he would normally find this information out in dealing with a patient.
Whether Dr. Paulk is correct in his recollection that the matter of the biracial son was not discussed with Dr. Orea, or that Dr. Orea, in his
reference to discussing the biracial son is correct, does not matter. For the record, Dr. Paulk is found to have mentioned the biracial son in conversation with Dr. Orea. In either event Dr. Paulk, by those actions taken in discussing the Petitioner's situation with Dr. Orea and other actions which he would take in this matter, were not intended to and did not discriminate against the Petitioner in any fashion related to her race, the race of her former husband or son or related to her marital status. Dr. Paulk was merely expressing an interest in seeing if there was some underlying racial connotation in the Petitioner's reluctance to return to her classroom at Northshore Elementary School, based upon her background and her present circumstance within that school.
In the conversation between Dr. Paulk and Dr. Orea, Dr. Paulk asked Dr. Orea whether the placement should be at a black school or a white school. Dr. Orea had no special placement in mind other than removal from Northshore Elementary or any similar setting.
Dr. Paulk also spoke with Ms. Bennett about whether she felt that the Petitioner's situation was one involving a racial problem, but he does not recall receiving any definitive response from Ms. Bennett.
Dr. Paulk, apparently beyond the conversation with Dr. Orea on March 18, 1987, decided that the main difficulty experienced by the Petitioner had to do with her problems with the principal, Ms. Brewington. Dr. Paulk thought that Petitioner could return to school the following year, and that the replacement of Ms. Brewington with a new principal would solve the problems that the Petitioner had. Dr. Paulk was reluctant to receive the Petitioner back to school in the school year 1984- 1985 because of what he perceived to be the unwillingness of Dr. Orea to give an unconditional release of the patient from treatment.
In her testimony, Ms. Bennett said that she spoke with Dr. Paulk in a conversation in which Dr. Paulk stated that Dr. Orea had led Dr. Paulk to believe that the problem Petitioner was experiencing was racially based, and that therefore, it would not be acceptable to transfer the Petitioner to a new school because Petitioner, through her history with her husband, was having a reaction to black people, children included. Ms. Bennett testified that this was a change in the position that Dr. Paulk had held concerning Petitioner's transfer. Having considered everyone's testimony, it is concluded that Ms. Bennett misapprehended Dr. Paulk's statement that the Petitioner's problem was racially based in describing Dr. Paulk's interpretation of Dr. Orea's remarks. Nonetheless, Dr. Paulk did tell Ms. Bennett, following his conversation with Dr. Orea, that the Petitioner would have to return to her school and might have the possibility of transfer at some later date. Ms. Bennett also identified that Dr. Paulk told her that Petitioner had been married to a black man and had a biracial son. Again, even though the remarks were made by Dr. Paulk, they are not discriminatory.
In conversation with Ms. Bennett, Dr. Paulk stated that the policy of the board was to not allow an arrangement which would accede to an outcome which had racially based motives, reference Petitioner's transfer request.
When the Petitioner discovered that she would not be transferred, her condition reached a level where it was necessary to hospitalize her for her stress in the period March 21, 1985 through April 5, 1985, under the care of Dr. Orea. From that point until August 19, 1985, the Petitioner was seen on an out- patient basis.
On July 25, 1985, Dr. Orea wrote to Dr. Paulk to further describe his opinion of the Petitioner's health in which he sets forth that the Petitioner has major depression related to stress suffered at work and not related to racial issues. He goes on to indicate that the Petitioner could have been able to work from March 18, 1985 and forward, and that the Petitioner could function in a normal classroom as a teacher as long as it was not at Northshore nor in any other school where there were severe disciplinary problems. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 6 admitted into evidence.
On March 26, 1985, the Respondent wrote to the Petitioner to ascertain the Petitioner's intentions concerning her future affiliation with the school system. This document was received by the Petitioner on May 3, 1985. It outlined three alternatives. She could request to return to her present school, Northshore Elementary School, for the upcoming school year 1985- 1986, she could request an additional year leave of absence, if entitled, or she could resign her position effective June 14, 1985. A copy of this item as executed by the Petitioner may be found as Respondent's exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. Petitioner signed this item on May 9, 1985 and in making an election instead of noting her return to the classroom assignment that she held before, attempted to gain a transfer to a school in the Ortega area for any grades K-5, preferably K,
1 or 2. She also noted her education as holding a master's degree in early childhood. This item was received back by the Respondent on May 13, 1985, in its personnel office. This form may not be used for purposes of requesting voluntary transfer to a different school. A copy of a memorandum concerning voluntary transfer may be found as Respondent's exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. It pertains to the school year 1985-1986 and dates from April 1, 1985 and is addressed to all teachers within the Duval County School System. It points out that the request would be considered upon asking for four schools in order of preference and one of eight geographical zones. It alerts the faculty members to the fact that a Federal Court order mandates the staff ratio of approximately 70 percent white to 30 percent black teachers in each school. It describes the fact that seniority will control in those instances where more than one applicant has satisfied other related criteria. Petitioner was without a great deal of seniority, having just affiliated with the Duval County School System the year before. The arrangement also contemplates the need to be approved by the receiving principal. This process is in accordance with the agreement between the Duval Teachers United and the Duval County School Board. The area described in the unauthorized form which the Petitioner wished to use to transfer is one highly sought after and there is very little likelihood that the Petitioner would have been able to voluntarily transfer into the Ortega area. She says she had sought that area not because of any express appreciation of the high desirability of that area as a teaching environment, but based upon the close proximity of her residence to that area.
The form of transfer which the Petitioner sought was one that has been described by Ms. Bennett as outside the agreement between the teachers' union and the Respondent, that cannot be handled by ordinary means. As described before, the typical transfer for health-related reasons that had been done in the past related to changes in location within the building to accommodate the teachers' needs. Given that the Respondent was not satisfied about exactly what setting would be an acceptable arrangement for the Petitioner from the point of view of the Petitioner's treating physician, Dr. Orea, and given that the Respondent had determined to remove Ms. Brewington as principal at Northshore Elementary and substitute Cynthia Anderson at that school for the school year 1985-1986, no special arrangement was made to accommodate the Petitioner by transfer. The decision to send Petitioner back into that setting was made by
Mr. Haevener and Dr. Paulk, following discussion on two or three occasions.
This decision on placement was further confirmed in a second notice of August 6, 1985, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's exhibit 4, served upon the Petitioner, inviting her to return to Northshore Elementary. Having not heard from the Petitioner, the Respondent sent a notification on August 22, 1985, by certified mail, a copy of which may be found as Respondent's exhibit 8 admitted into evidence, indicating that the Respondent found the Petitioner to have declined the right to an employment contract for the school year 1985-1986.
Facts in the case lead to the conclusion that notwithstanding the format which Petitioner utilized in attempting to locate in a school in the Ortega area, she would not have been entitled to that assignment.
Ms. Ramey and the new principal, Ms. Anderson, point out the fact that Northshore Elementary School was similar to other schools in the Duval County School System. Ms. Anderson in particular points out that the disciplinary problems were about the same at Northshore Elementary, although the facts that more students were there and it was a predominantly black school may have made the circumstance worse. Ms. Anderson, by her testimony, related her attempts at improving the disciplinary situation at Northshore in the school year 1985-1986 and established the success that was achieved in that endeavor. When she arrived at the school, the school had approximately 1,100 students and 65 teachers of which 50 teachers were returning staff members. On balance, her description of the events of the school year 1985-1986 indicate that the Petitioner would have returned to a much better environment as it addressed her primary concern of support within the classroom given by the administration.
Petitioner served her probationary period and was issued a permanent teaching certificate.
Not being satisfied with the arrangements Respondent made to address her situation, Petitioner elected to leave Jacksonville, Florida, and to go and live with her mother in Boca Raton, Florida. She began teaching kindergarten in Boca Raton, Florida, in September, 1985 and continues as a teacher. She has overcome her stress-related illness.
Given the constraints on the Respondent concerning the teacher placement and the need to honor the conditions of seniority, the faculty ratio between whites and blacks and the expectation that teachers must confront the stress inherent in teaching in schools such as Northshore Elementary, the response which did not allow for a transfer is not discrimination against a handicap, even if emotional stress is considered to be a handicap.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has juris- diction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action under the authority of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
In order for the Petitioner to prevail in this action, the Petitioner must make a prima facie showing that the Respondent has discriminated against her with respect to her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment based upon race, marital status or handicap. See Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and McDonnell Douglas Corp. vs. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Petitioner has not met that burden. The inquiries and attitudes expressed by the Respondent in the person of its employee, Dr. Paulk, and through other employees do not point to any form of
discrimination directed to the Petitioner based upon her race, marital status or handicap. The action taken in making a choice about the Petitioner's right to transfer were consistent with legal requirements within that system and while Dr. Paulk was concerned about Petitioner's attitude pertaining to racial relations between Petitioner and her husband or about her son and with the principal and students at Northshore Elementary, by his actions he was not discriminating against the Petitioner based upon the Petitioner's race or marital status.
It is debatable whether the idea of mental stress in the setting found in this case constitutes a handicap as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. If her mental anguish is perceived as a handicap, the response to that circumstance was appropriate under that circumstance related to transfer rights for employees within that system and cannot be seen as singling the Petitioner out based upon her condition and discriminating against her. Moreover, it is not unexpected to be exposed to stressful conditions in Northshore Elementary School or schools of a similar nature within the Duval County School System and the ability to cope with that condition is the reasonable expectation within that occupation and those persons who are incapable of dealing with that stress may be excluded from holding the position. See Section 760.10(8)(a), Florida Statutes. This does not mean that a teacher will not have some occasions in which extended leave is necessary, as was the case here. Nonetheless, in the long view, the teacher should be expected to deal with the stressful condition in the environment if he or she is to fulfill his or her side of the bargain in that employment arrangement. See also Brevard Sheriff's Department vs. Florida Commission on Human Relations, 429 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
In consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it
is
That a final order be entered which dismisses the Petitioner's claim for
relief against Respondent based upon alleged discrimination due to race, marital status or handicap.
DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 1988.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 87-3609
The following constitutes an explanation for rejecting or modifying proposed facts offered by the parties:
Petitioner's Facts
Paragraphs 1-5 are subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 6 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 7-15 are subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 16 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 17 is subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 18 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
Paragraph 19 and those portions of paragraph 20 except the discussion of the expenses are subordinate to facts found. Discussion of expenses is not relevant in that no finding of discrimination has been made.
Paragraph 21 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 22-25 are subordinate to facts found.
Respondent's Facts
Paragraphs 1-22 are subordinate to facts found.
Paragraph 23 is subordinate to facts found except in the portrayal of Dr. Paulk in his comment to Dr. Orea about the biracial child of the Petitioner, which is contrary to facts found.
Paragraphs 24-39 are subordinate to facts found.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Lewis J. Alfonso, Esquire Suite 323
37 Camino Gardens Boulevard Boca Raton, Florida 33432
Suzanne S. Howard, Esquire Assistant Counsel
City of Jacksonville 1300 City Hall
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Sherry Rice, Clerk
Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240
325 John Knox Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel
Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240
325 John Knox Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240
325 John Knox Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 26, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 25, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 26, 1988 | Recommended Order | Attempt by school teacher to claim discrimination based upon race, marital status or handicap for not allowing her to transfer to new school unavailing |
