STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STEVE J. LONGARIELLO, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-5316
) THE SCHOOL BOARD OF DADE ) COUNTY, FLORIDA, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Joyous D. Parrish, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on April 17 and 18, 1996, in Broward County, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Steve J. Longariello, pro se
9999 Summerbreeze Drive, Number 422
Sunrise, Florida 33322
For Respondent: Heidi N. Shulman, Esquire
School Board of Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner as alleged in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint filed in August, 1993.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This case began when the Petitioner, Steven J. Longariello, filed an EEOC complaint against the Respondent, the Dade County School Board (Board). This complaint alleged, in pertinent part, that the Board had failed to schedule an interview for employment with the Petitioner, and that it had thereby discriminated against him on the basis of sex and marital status. The allegations regarding sex discrimination are pending in a related federal suit. This case, DOAH case no. 95-5316, addresses only the marital status claims raised by the complaint.
An amended complaint, filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings in accordance with the order of the Hearing Officer, set forth the following
requests for relief: monetary damages for back pay and full benefits; punitive damages; and costs and fees for representing himself. Each of these claims is addressed below.
At the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and offered the testimony of the following witnesses: Octavio J. Visiedo, superintendent of the Dade County Schools; Dr. Terence Garner, an assistant superintendent responsible for the Board's personnel office and staffing for the Dade County Public School system; Gerrard Graniero, director for student advocacy in the Board's division of equal educational opportunity and advocacy; and Magaly Abrahante, executive director of the division of equal educational opportunity and advocacy.
The Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Garner; Mr. Graniero; Ms.
Abrahante; Lucille Pereira, former executive director of the division of equal educational opportunity and advocacy; and Giselda Feild, director of data management within the office of educational accountability.
The transcript of the proceeding was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 10, 1996. Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are included in the appendix at the conclusion of this order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material to this case, Respondent was a School Board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within the Dade County school district. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the employment of appropriate staff for the Dade County schools.
Geographically, the Respondent's district covers a span of approximately seventy-eight miles.
Petitioner is an unmarried 41 year old male citizen of the United States of America.
In August of 1992, Petitioner applied for a teaching position with the Office of Personnel Staffing (the personnel office) in the Dade County school system. The personnel office is responsible for staffing instructional staff: teachers and teacher's aides.
The personnel office receives approximately fifty thousand applications annually from individuals seeking employment with the Respondent. Many of the applications are for employment as teachers for the Dade County school system.
The personnel office hires approximately three to four thousand people a year. Of that number, approximately two thousand people are hired as teachers.
The operational procedures of the personnel office regarding the application and hiring process for teachers are set forth in the instructions for completing the teacher application package. The instructions are in the front of the application package.
Completion of the teacher application process requires that all applicants submit a completed application package, including the submission of all official transcripts.
An applicant's official transcripts are always required; all teacher applicants must submit these documents to the personnel office.
In this case, Petitioner signed the application package attesting to the fact that he received the package in its entirety. Petitioner was familiar with all of the contents of the application package, including the instructions to the application package. Before submitting his application package to the personnel office, petitioner knew or should have known that official transcripts were a required portion of the application package.
Petitioner failed to provide the personnel office with his official transcripts when he submitted his application package.
Official transcripts are required to avoid the submission of transcripts that reflect altered and/or forged grades and subject areas. Additionally, the submission of official transcripts facilitates the analysis of the applicant's individual subject performances, possible secondary areas of certification, and additional experiences, subjects or classes that may enhance or decrease the written assessment of the applicant. Examination of an official transcript is the only reliable available means of receiving the information.
The personnel office does not seek an applicant's official transcripts, nor does the office have the authority to request such documents from the Florida Department of Education. Official transcripts are confidential documents and once submitted to the State such documents will be released only to the applicant once the applicant's file has expired.
Additionally, the Board does not have the capability, nor is it required, to confirm or cross reference the existence of an applicant's official transcript with another agency for purposes of assessing the applicant's qualifications.
All applicants seeking employment as a teacher with the Board must meet the application criteria established by the personnel office. All of the requirements for completing an application package are chronicled in the instructions to the application package.
Once an application is received, the personnel office has a standard procedure of immediately reviewing an application to verify that it is complete.
In this case, Petitioner's application was deemed incomplete because it lacked Petitioner's official transcripts. Based on the preceding, Petitioner's application was not processed. Because the application was not completed, Petitioner was not eligible for employment.
An applicant may call for an appointment for an interview after the applicant has submitted a completed application package and the applicant's file is processed. If the applicant's file is not completed and processed, the applicant cannot be scheduled or considered for an interview.
The personnel office did not interview Petitioner because his application was incomplete and unprocessed.
The only reason Petitioner was not interviewed was because his application was incomplete. No other factor influenced this matter.
The Petitioner's marital status did not impact the decision to deem his employment application incomplete.
The Board does not take issue with employing single men. Other than Petitioner's complaint, the Board has not received a charge of marital status discrimination in the last ten years.
Staff from the personnel office spoke with Petitioner regarding his incomplete application package. The personnel office offered to assist Petitioner.
Petitioner was advised that if he furnished the personnel office with his original set of official transcripts, that Dr. Garner would personally copy his originals, attest to their authenticity, return the originals to Petitioner, and proceed with Petitioner's interview (presuming the transcripts were as Petitioner represented).
Petitioner never submitted the official transcripts for review and copying. Additionally, Petitioner did not seek a certified copy of his records from the Florida Department of Education. Only at the hearing was Petitioner willing to allow his set of the official transcripts to be reviewed.
A statement of eligibility or certification from the Florida Department of Education does not make an applicant automatically qualified for, and entitled to, a teaching position with the Board.
Completion of the teacher application package also includes the submission of a completed W-4 tax form.
The information solicited on a W-4 form is not considered or even reviewed by the personnel office when they assess an applicant's credentials and overall qualifications for employment.
The personnel office does not use a W-4 form to screen applicants by marital status.
Additionally, the personnel office requests the tax information, along with other information, before the actual date of hire, in order to avoid operational delays. Past experiences have demonstrated that it is inefficient and impractical to have a newly hired employee mail the W-4 form to the wage and salary office after the individual's actual date of hire.
The personnel office processes the paperwork but does not hire teacher applicants. The office is a clearing house that gets applicants ready for hire. The actual hiring of an applicant occurs at a school.
The application procedures and all of its requirements have been in effect for approximately thirteen years. The application procedures and all of its requirements are essential in order to facilitate the procedure of hiring the most qualified personnel, regardless of their marital status. It is also essential in order to expedite the process for providing newly hired employees with immediate compensation and benefits.
Administrative procedures, regulations, directives and guidelines are permissible methods of implementing School Board policies.
The Board received notification from the EEOC that Petitioner had filed a charge of sex and marital discrimination against the School Board.
On May 23, 1995, the EEOC issued a letter of determination as to the merits of Petitioner's allegations of sex and marital status discrimination, finding, in pertinent part, that
Examination of the evidence of record shows that (Petitioner) was not considered for any position because he failed to submit all the material required with the application.
Evidence further shows that all applicants must submit the required material to be con- sidered for vacancies. The (Petitioner) was unable to provide and the Commission's inves- tigation did not disclose any evidence which would show Respondent considered the (Petitioner's) sex or marital status when reaching its decision.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that:
It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
To discharge or fail or refuse to hire an individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compen sation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of... marital status.
To limit, segregate, or classify... applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any indivi- dual of employment opportunities...because of such individual's ...marital status.
School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.01, provides, in pertinent part, that: The School Board of Dade County, Florida ad-
heres to a policy of non-discrimination in
employment and strives affirmatively to pro- vide equal opportunity for all as required by state and federal law. The Board attempts to identify and overcome real or potential arti- ficial barriers to employment...for its staff and applicants.
Petitioner has the burden of proving a prima facie case of marital status discrimination. Petitioner must demonstrate that but for his marital status, the complained of action would not have taken place. National Industries Inc. v. Commission of Human Relations, 527 So.2d 894, 896 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
In order for Petitioner to maintain his burden, Petitioner must prove the following: 1) that Petitioner is a member of a protected class; 2) that Petitioner applied for and was qualified for a position or job for which Respondent was seeking applicants; 3) that despite his qualifications, Petitioner was not hired; and 4) that he was not hired because of his marital status.
Petitioner has failed to present competent, substantial evidence at the final hearing in this cause to establish all of the threshold requirements necessary for presenting a prima facie case of marital status discrimination. The unrefuted evidence reveals that Petitioner did not submit documentation that all teacher applicants were required to submit. Therefore, Petitioner did not satisfy the criteria established by the School Board for all similarly situated applicants. As a result, despite his certifications from New York and his credentials from the Florida Department of Education, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he did not receive an interview because of his marital status. Moreover, Petitioner has not shown that he was qualified for the job he was seeking. The evidence established that the Board did not interview Petitioner because Petitioner failed to submit a completed application package. Petitioner's arguments are conclusory in nature and fundamentally insufficient to establish a connection between Petitioner's marital status and the Respondent's actions. Based on the preceding, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent, conduct or treatment by Respondent.
The School Board has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for requiring the submission of official transcripts with a teacher's application package. Official transcripts provide information that assists the assessment of an applicant. The School Board does not have the capability, nor is it required, to confirm or cross reference the substance of an applicant's official transcript with another agency such as the Florida Department of Education.
The business requirements offered by the School Board in support of its actions were reasonable and do not constitute a pretext for discrimination. The procedures and actions taken in this case are the standard operating procedures of the personnel office for all similarly situated applicants. Such procedures do not create an artificial barrier to employment. The Board provided Petitioner with an alternative to submitting his only set of official transcripts due to Petitioner's extenuating circumstances.
Finally, the requirement of submitting a W-4 form as one of the documents included in the application package is reasonable and within the discretion of the School Board. Petitioner has presented nothing to demonstrate that the School Board solicits W-4 information in order to ascertain an applicant's marital status for illegitimate purposes or that it is inappropriate to collect W-4 information prior to the date of actual employment.
A pro se Petitioner is not entitled to an award of fees for representing himself. As a result, Petitioner's request for attorney's fees is rejected.
Similarly, Petitioner's request for punitive damages is also rejected. Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes, provides that "...the state and its agencies and subdivisions shall not be liable for punitive damages."
Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED:
That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint against the Dade County School Board.
DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1996.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-5316
Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner:
None submitted.
Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent:
1. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 50, and 54 are hereby accepted and adopted by reference.
Paragraph 5 is accurate but irrelevant to the resolution of the issue of this case.
Paragraphs 19 and 20 are accurate but unnecessary to the resolution of the issue of this case.
Paragraphs 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 36, 38, and 44 are accepted.
All other paragraphs not listed above are irrelevant.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Heidi N. Shulman, Esquire
School Board of Dade County, Florida School Board Administration Building 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
Steve J. Longariello
9999 Summerbreeze Drive, Number 422
Sunrise, Florida 33322
Sharon Moultry, Clerk
Florida Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Building Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Dana Baird, General Counsel
Florida Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Building Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
================================================================= PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT RECOMMENDED ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STEVE J. LONGARIELLO
Petitioner, Pro Se
DOAH NO. 95-5316
DADE CO. SCHOOL BOARD
Respondent.
/
PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CORRECT RECOMMENDED ORDER BY HEARING OFFICER PARRISH
Pursuant to F.A.C. Rules 60 Q-2.016, & 2.032, Petitioner, Pro Se, Steve J. Longariello moves the Hearing Officer to correct the June 11, 1996 Recommended Order by Hearing Officer Parrish in the above mentioned matter on the following grounds:
The Notice of Hearing for this case indicates the issues to be "whether Respondent has committed an unfair employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner" whereas the June 11/96 Recommended Order states the issues as "Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner as alleged in an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint filed in Aug. of 1993."
The differences in issues are important because it was brought out at the hearing theat Respondent holds teacher applicants to difference standards than Administrative Applicants, in that teacher applicants must submit an "official transcript" whereas Administrative Applicamts are required to submit copies of the transcript. This is a clear unfair employment practice that is the base of an elaborate scheme to discriminate against certain classes protected under the law.
Petitioner filed complaints with both F. Commission on Human Relations & the EEOC, both in Jyly/Aug. 93. In Feb/96. the State Complaint was amended. The Federal & State cases should be kept separate because marital status is not a protected class under Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
PERTAINING TO FINDINGS OF FACT -THE RECORD & TRANSCRIPT ALSO INDICATE:
Only tacher appliants are required to submit "official transcripts". Administrative Applicants can submit copies of the transcript. (Res. admits in transcript) (See Petit Motion for Rec. Sum Final Order-fioled 2/20/96- @3-G. H,I, & Ex. 8).
Petitioner did submit copies of his Transcript. (See Amended Complaint- filed 2/24/96/ @ 6).
The instructions to the Application Packet does not at all indicate that official transcripts must be submitted before an interview can be scheduled. In fact, submitting the official transcript, and the interview are both part of the application process as indicate in the instructions. Futhermore, the instructions fail to define what constitutes a "completed" or "processed" file (See petit. Req. for Admissions (Dec. 14/95) & Res. Answers & Objections both @ 8) (Also see Petitioner's Exhibit 10).
Respondent did not inform Petitioner, in writing, or otherwise, the his file was incomplete (See Amended Complaint @ 10).
Respondent was unable to produce a copy of the document they claimed to have sent Petitioner to inform him that his file was incomplete (See Transcript).
Pursuant to Section 231.171, Fl. Statutes, an Official Statement of Eligibility for Certification deems the applicant "qualified" to teach in the educational area indicated on the statement.
A W-4 Form is not an appropriate form for an applicant to complete because it is an employee withholding form, and at the time of application, an applicant is not an employee (see Petitioner Exhibit Nine).
The Hearing Officer (Rigot) agreed to take Official Recognition of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.01, pursuant to F.A.C. Rule 60Q-2.020 (See Ap. 16/96 Order by Rigot). Although the Rule is cited in the Recommended Order, what is important about the rule is not. That is, at the time Petitioner applied to Respondent, the School Board Rule (discrimination policy) did not
include marital status. During the course of the EECO investigation, the Rule was changed to include marital status (See Petitioner's Exhibit Four) (See Req. for Admissions-Mar. 11/96 and Resp. Answers & Obj. to 2nd Req. for Admissions both @ 7).
Petitioner did establish a prima facie case of marital status discrimination because.
he is a single male and therefore he belongs to a class protected by Fl. Statutes Ch. 760.10(1)(a) (See Amended Complaint @ 1).
he was Qualified (See Petitioner's Ex. One @ 1-10) (See also Petitioner's Exh. One @ 4-6 and review Section 231.17 of Fl. Statutes).
he applied to Respondent for a teaching position (See Amended Complaint @5) (Respondent also admits).
he was not interviewed or hired (Recommended Order @19).
Respondent continues to have a need for teachers with qualifications similar to Petitioner's (See Recommended Order @ 6) (Also see Transcript).
Respondent had immediate knowledge of Petitioner's marital status because W-4 Form was included in the application packet (See Petitioner's Exhibit Nine.
Petitioner offered to hand deliver his official transcripts at the time of the interview and permit respondent to copy them (Amended Complaint @ 11).
As the hearing transcript indicates, the Fl. Civil Rights Act of 1992 is not anywhere acknowledged as being adhered to in any of the Respondent's Non-Discrimination Policies.
EEOC findings have no bearing on this case. It has already been established that a cause of action founded on a Federal Statute is not the same cause of action as one founded on a state statute, even where both statutes apply to the same transaction or occurence (20 Fla, L. Weekly, D-1894).
Wherefore Petitioner respectfully requests that the ORDER be corrected to reflect the above changes and that the cause be reevaluated based on the changes, together with such other, further or different relief as to this court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted,
DATED: June 26, 1996
Sunrise, Florida Steve J. Longariello
To: 1) Attorney Shulman Petitioner, Pro Se
2) Hearing Officer 999 Summerbreeze Drive Parrish No. 422
Sunrise, Florida 33322
(954) 748-6340
I hereby certify that on June 26, 1996. I mailed from the U.S. Post Office a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Correct Recommended Order by Hearing Officer Parrish to:
Attorney Heidi N. Shulman School Board of Dade Co. Fl. 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33132
STEVE J. LONGARIELLO
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 28, 1998 | (From H. Shulman-Pereira) Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Relief From Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 25, 1997 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (Appellant`s amended Motion filed to Supplement the record and to correct error is hereby denied) filed. |
| Jul. 30, 1997 | (Petitioner) Amended Motion to Supplement the Record and to Correct Error/Omission filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1997 | Appellee`s Designation to the Clerk of Florida Commission on Human Relations (2 copies) filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1997 | Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1996 | (Petitioner) Subpoena In A Civil Case (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 24, 1996 | Letter to DOAH from Steve Longariello (RE: request for docket sheets) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 28, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion to Strike Or Deny Petitioner`s Motion to Correct Recommended Order By Hearing Officer Parrish filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1996 | Respondent`s Reply to Petitioner`s Exceptions filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion to Correct Recommended Order by Hearing Officer Parrish filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1996 | Petitioner`s Written Exceptions to Recommended Order By Hearing Officer Parrish; Cover Letter filed. |
| Jun. 11, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 04/17-18/96. |
| May 20, 1996 | Respondent`s School Board`s Proposed Recommended Order; Appendix to Respondent School Board`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| May 17, 1996 | Petitioner`s Notice Pertaining to Proposed Recommended Order (faxed) filed. |
| May 10, 1996 | Transcripts (Volumes I, II, III, tagged) filed. |
| Apr. 17, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Apr. 16, 1996 | Order sent out. (ruling on pending Motions) |
| Apr. 12, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion to Quash Subpoenas (Duces Tecum) and/Or Motion for Protective Order; Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Production of Documents; Respondent`s Motion for Protective Order Or In The Alternative to Quash Subpoena (Duces Tecum) On Octavio J. Vi |
| Apr. 12, 1996 | (Petitioner) Emergency Motion for a Telephonic Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 12, 1996 | Motion to Quash filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Answer to Request for Admission; Motion for Telephonic Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1996 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Second Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1996 | Respondent`s Answers and Objections to Petitioner`s Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1996 | Stipulation of Parties filed. |
| Apr. 10, 1996 | Order sent out. (ruling on pending Motions) |
| Apr. 10, 1996 | Respondent`s Request for Official Recognition filed. |
| Apr. 09, 1996 | Motion for Continuance of Administrative Hearing filed. |
| Apr. 05, 1996 | Respondent`s Witness List for the Hearing Set for April 17, 1996 and April 18, 1996 filed. |
| Apr. 04, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion to Strike Petitioner`s Amended Exhibit List and Witness List filed. |
| Apr. 04, 1996 | Petitioner`s Amended Witness List; Petitioner`s Motion to Amend Witness and Exhibit List; Petitioner`s Amended Witness List; Petitioner`s Amended Exhibit List filed. |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | Order sent out. (rulings on pending Motions) |
| Apr. 01, 1996 | Ltr. to Court Reporter from Hearing Officer`s secretary sent out. (hearing set for April 17-18, 1996) |
| Mar. 26, 1996 | Petitioner`s Notice of Non-Response filed. |
| Mar. 22, 1996 | Respondent`s Answer to Petitioner`s Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses filed. |
| Mar. 21, 1996 | Respondent`s Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend Witness List and Exhibits filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1996 | Respondent`s Notice of Compliance With Order of March 14, 1996 and Notice of Supplemental Authority; Affidavit of Mr. Robert Waldman in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order; Affidavit of Roy Smith filed. |
| Mar. 19, 1996 | Petitioner`s Motion for an Extension of Time to Amend Witness List, Exhibits and to Respond to Respondent`s Cross-Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1996 | Respondent`s Amended Witness List; Respondent`s Amended Exhibit List and Request for Official Recognition filed. |
| Mar. 14, 1996 | Order sent out. (Respondents affidavits to be filed by 3/20/96) |
| Mar. 11, 1996 | (Petitioner) Request for Production of Documents; Request for Admissions w/cover letter filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1996 | Memorandum in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion for A Continuance of Due Date for Affidavits filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance of Due Date for Affidavit(s) That Support The Following: Respondent`s Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order and Respondent`s Cross Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Mar. 08, 1996 | Respondent`s Cross Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | (Petitioner) Amended Complaint filed. |
| Feb. 22, 1996 | Letter to Hearing Officer from Paula A. Habib Re: Reserving courtroom filed. |
| Feb. 20, 1996 | Letter to Hearing Officer from Paul A. Habib Re: Confirming courtroom filed. |
| Feb. 15, 1996 | Order sent out. (Respondent`s Motion for Extension of time is granted) |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time to a Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | Petitioner`s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Respondent`s Motion for Extension of Time to a Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Respondent) Memorandum of Law in Opposition to a Telephonic Hearing on Petitioner`s Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Unavailability filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | Order sent out. (Motion to amend Administrative Complaint is granted) |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time to A Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Respondent) Memorandum of Law In Opposition to A Telephonic Hearing On Petitioner`s Motion for Recommended Summary Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 08, 1996 | Respondent`s Memorandum In Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion to Amend His Complaint filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1996 | (Respondent) Amended Notice of Unavailability filed. |
| Feb. 06, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion for A Telephonic Hearing Before Feb. 9/96. filed. |
| Feb. 02, 1996 | Respondent`s Memorandum in Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion to Amend His Complaint filed. |
| Feb. 01, 1996 | Order sent out. (re: Discovery rulings) |
| Jan. 31, 1996 | (Petitioner) Motion to Amend Complaint and for A Telephonic Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 29, 1996 | Petiitoner's Memorandum In Opposition to Respondent's Motion to QuashSubpoena Duces Tecum &/Or Motion for A Protective Order; Petitioner's(1) Memorandum of Law In Oppisition to Res. Motion to Amend Res. Responses to Petitioner's Request for Admissions A |
| Jan. 23, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum and/Or Motion for Protective Order; (Respondent) Motion to Amend Respondent`s Responses to Petitioner`s Request for Admissions; Respondent`s Memorandum of Law In Opposition to Petitioner`s Motion to Correc |
| Jan. 22, 1996 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion for A Continuance and Respondent`s Request for Extension of The Validity of the Subpoenas to The Rescheduled Hearing Date; (Respondent) Motion for A Telephonic Hearing, (Respondent) Notice of Unavailability rec |
| Jan. 19, 1996 | Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for April 17-18, 1996; 9:30am; Ft. Lauderdale) |
| Jan. 17, 1996 | Notice of Petitioner`s Updated Witness List and Estimate of Time w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Unavailability filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1996 | (Respondent) Motion for A Telephonic Hearing; Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Motion for A Continuance and Respondent`s Request for Extension of The Validity of The subpoenas to The Rescheduled Hearing Date filed. |
| Jan. 16, 1996 | Petitioner's Motion to Request that Hearing Officer Take Official Recognition of School Board Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.01 (With All Amendments); Petitioner's Motion to Correct Jan 5/96 Order, For Continuance, to CompelDiscovery; Notice of Petitioner's Amended Wit |
| Jan. 16, 1996 | Respondent`s Answer and Objections to Petitioner`s Request for Admissions filed. |
| Jan. 12, 1996 | Respondent`s Amended Witness List filed. |
| Jan. 12, 1996 | Notice of Petitioner`s Updated Witness List and Estimate of Time filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1996 | Respondent`s Answers and Objections to Petitioner`s Request for Admissions filed. |
| Jan. 05, 1996 | Order sent out. (ruling on Motions) |
| Jan. 05, 1996 | (Petitioner) Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant`s Motion for a Protective Order (& Memorandum) w/cover letter filed. |
| Jan. 02, 1996 | (Petitioner) Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant`s Motion for A Protective Order (& Memorandum) filed. |
| Dec. 27, 1995 | Notice of Petitioner`s Witness List and Documents Which Petitioner Intends to Offer as Exhibits During Final Hearing w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1995 | Respondent`s Exhibit List; Respondent`s Witness List filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1995 | (Petitioner) Request for Production of Documents w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1995 | Defendant`s Motion for A Protective Order and Memorandum of Law In Support Thereof filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | (Petitioner) Request for Admissions w/cover letter filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1995 | Letter to LMR from S. Longariello (RE: Request for Subpoenas) filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/23/96; 10:15am; Hollywood) |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | Order sent out. (prehearing instructions) |
| Nov. 16, 1995 | Respondent`s Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Nov. 15, 1995 | Letter to Hearing Officer from Steve J. Longariello Re: Request of Extension Petitioner Info. filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 01, 1995 | Notice; (2) Request for Hearing, Letter Form Dated 8/4/95 & 10/19/95; Formal Discrimination Complaint, Letter Form; Charge Transmittal; Charge of Discrimination; Resume; Supportive Documents filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 23, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 11, 1996 | Recommended Order | Petitioner not hired because application incomplete no basis for discrimination claim. |
LEON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs FORREST A. WATERS, 95-005316 (1995)
DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs. MARLENE RODRIQUEZ, 95-005316 (1995)
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs SUZETTE WYNN WILCOX, 95-005316 (1995)
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD vs MICAH D. HARRELL, 95-005316 (1995)
TOM GALLAGHER, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs ANDREW PETTER, 95-005316 (1995)
