STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
EMERI PADRON, EEOC Case No. NONE
Petitioner, FCHR Case No. 2013-01412
v. DOAH Case No. 14-0202
INTERAMERICAN BANK, FCHR Order No. 14-019
Respondent.
/
Preliminary Matters
Petitioner Emeri Padron filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes (2012), alleging that Respondent Interamerican Bank committed an unlawful employment practice on the basis of Petitioner’s age (DOB: 1-27-41) by terminating Petitioner for employment.
The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on December 10, 2013, the Executive Director issued a determination finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal proceeding.
An evidentiary hearing was held by video teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, on March 11, 2014, before Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale.
Judge Meale issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated March 31, 2014.
The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the Recommended Order.
Findings of Fact
A transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was not filed with the Commission. In the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, the Recommended Order is the only evidence for the Commission to consider. See National Industries, Inc. v. Commission on Human Relations, et al., 527 So. 2d 894, at 897, 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). Accord, Gantz, et al. v. Zion’s Hope, Inc., d/b/a Holy Land Experience, FCHR Order No. 11-048 (June 6, 2011), Mack v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, FCHR Order No. 11-026 (March
17, 2011), Hall v. Villages of West Oaks HOA, FCHR Order No. 08-007 (January 14, 2008), Beach-Gutierrez v. Bay Medical Center, FCHR Order No. 05-011 (January 19, 2005), and Waaser v. Streit’s Motorsports, FCHR Order No. 04-157 (November 30,
2004).
We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact.
Conclusions of Law
We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter.
We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law.
Exceptions
Neither of the parties filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order.
Dismissal
The Petition for Relief and Complaint of Discrimination are DISMISSED with prejudice.
The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110.
DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of June , 2014. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS:
Commissioner Michael Keller, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Donna Elam; and
Commissioner Rebecca Steele
Filed this 11th day of June , 2014, in Tallahassee, Florida.
/s/ Violet Crawford, Clerk
Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850) 488-7082
Copies furnished to:
Emeri Padron
c/o Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
Law Offices of Eddy O. Marban
1600 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134
Interamerican Bank
c/o Jay J. Lorenzo, Esq. Lorenzo & Rodriguez-Rams 9192 Coral Way, Suite 201
Miami, FL 33165
Robert E. Meale, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this 11th day of June , 2014.
By: /s/ Clerk of the Commission
Florida Commission on Human Relations
Issue Date | Document | Summary |
---|---|---|
Jun. 11, 2014 | Agency Final Order | |
Mar. 31, 2014 | Recommended Order | No showing of age discrimination when employee replaced by younger, more capable employee. |