Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

MONICA SCOPEL vs EVENTS BY PREMIER, 17-000445 (2017)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 17-000445 Visitors: 14
Petitioner: MONICA SCOPEL
Respondent: EVENTS BY PREMIER
Judges: ROBERT L. KILBRIDE
Agency: Florida Commission on Human Relations
Locations: Lauderdale Lakes, Florida
Filed: Jan. 19, 2017
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Thursday, May 4, 2017.

Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2017
Summary: Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner in her Employment Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") on May 3, 2016; and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.Petitioner did not prove that Respondent discriminated against her due to her "marital status" under the FCRA. Respondent had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to terminate her employment.
TempHtml



STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS


MONICA SCOPEL, EEOC Case No. NONE


Petitioner. FCHR Case No.


v. DOAH No. 17-0445


EVENTS BY PREMIER, FCHR Order No. 17-052


Respondent.


FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PETITIO N FOR

RELIE F FROM AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTIC E


Preliminary Matters


Petitioner Monica Scopel filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01 - Florida Statutes

alleging that Respondent Events by Premier committed an unlawful employment practice on the basis of Petitioner's marital status by Petitioner from employment.

The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on December 20, the Executive Director issued a detennination 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 fonnal proceeding.

An evidentiary hearing was held by video teleconference at sites in Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, Florida, on March 9, before Administrative Law Judge Robert L. Kilbride.

Judge Kilbride issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated May 4,

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


Findings of Fact


We find the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact to be supported by competent substantial evidence.

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


Filed July 13, 2017 1:00 PM Division of Administrative Hearings


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


Petitioner filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order, received by the Division of Administrative Hearings and the Commission on or about 5,

The exceptions document contains six numbered paragraphs.

These numbered paragraphs each except to inferences drawn by the Administrative Law Judge from the evidence presented. The six numbered paragraphs except to the following numbered paragraphs of the Recommended Order: 7, 8, 38, 39, 40

and 41.

The Commission has stated, "It is well settled that it is the Administrative Law Judge's function 'to consider all of the evidence presented and reach ultimate conclusions of fact based on competent substantial evidence by resolving conflicts, judging the credibility of witnesses and drawing permissible inferences therefrom. If the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the Administrative Law Judge's role to decide between them.' Beckton v. Department of Children and Family Services,

F.A.L.R. at (FCHR 1998), citing Maggio v. Martin Marietta Aerospace, 9

F.A.L.R. 2168, at 2171 (FCHR 1986)." Barr v. Columbia Regional Medical Center. 22 F.A.L.R. at (FCHR 1999). Accord, Bowles v. Jackson County Hospital Corporation. FCHR Order No. (December 6, 2005), Eaves v.

Central Florida Portfolio. LLC. FCHR Order No. -029 (March and Taylor v. Universal Studios. FCHR Order No. (March 26,

In addition, it has been stated, "The ultimate question of the existence of discrimination is a question of fact." Florida Department of Community Affairs v. Bryant. 586 So. 2d at 1209 (Fla. DCA 1991). Accord. Coley v. Bay County Board of County Commissioners. FCHR Order No. (March

supra, and Taylor, supra.

Petitioner's exceptions are rejected.


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 Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of

Appellate Procedure


DONE AND ORDERED this day , FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON RELATIONS:


Commissioner Rebecca Steele, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Donna and

Commissioner Jay Pichard


this ,

in Tallahassee,


Clerk

Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room Tallahassee, FL 32399


Copies furnished to:


Monica Scopel c/o Robin Kwait 245 NW 40t h Ave.

Delray Beach, FL 33445


Events by Premier

c/o Jesus E. Cuza, Esq. Holland & Knight LLP

Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL

Robert L. Kilbride, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mailue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel


I HEREBY CERTIFY that a the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this day


By:

Clerk of the Commission

Florida Commission on Human Relations


Docket for Case No: 17-000445
Issue Date Proceedings
Jul. 13, 2017 (Petitioner's) Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
Jul. 13, 2017 Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
Jul. 12, 2017 Letter from Jesus E. Cuza regarding letter of support of the Recommended Order filed.
May 05, 2017 Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
May 04, 2017 Recommended Order (hearing held March 9, 2017). CASE CLOSED.
May 04, 2017 Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Apr. 28, 2017 Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Apr. 21, 2017 Notice to Proceed with Filing Recommended Proposed Order filed.
Apr. 18, 2017 Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Apr. 13, 2017 Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
Mar. 13, 2017 Return of Service filed.
Mar. 13, 2017 Return of Service filed.
Mar. 13, 2017 Return of Service filed.
Mar. 13, 2017 Return of Service filed.
Mar. 09, 2017 CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Mar. 09, 2017 Court Reporter Requested filed.
Mar. 08, 2017 Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Mar. 07, 2017 Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Mar. 06, 2017 Letter to Judge Kilbride from Jesus E. Cuza filed.
Mar. 06, 2017 Witness Line Up and Additional Charges filed.
Mar. 01, 2017 Submission of Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing). 
 Confidential document; not available for viewing.
Mar. 01, 2017 Request to Issue Subpoena filed.
Feb. 16, 2017 CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
Feb. 02, 2017 Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for February 16, 2017; 1:00 p.m.).
Feb. 02, 2017 Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Feb. 02, 2017 Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for March 9, 2017; 9:00 a.m.; Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, FL).
Jan. 31, 2017 Exhibit #3 filed (not available for viewing). 
 Confidential document; not available for viewing.
Jan. 27, 2017 Notice of Preference for Hearing filed.
Jan. 20, 2017 Initial Order.
Jan. 19, 2017 Employment Charge of Discrimination filed.
Jan. 19, 2017 Notice of Determination: No Reasonable Cause filed.
Jan. 19, 2017 Determination: No Reasonable Cause filed.
Jan. 19, 2017 Petition for Relief filed.
Jan. 19, 2017 Transmittal of Petition filed by the Agency.

Orders for Case No: 17-000445
Issue Date Document Summary
Jul. 13, 2017 Agency Final Order
May 04, 2017 Recommended Order Petitioner did not prove that Respondent discriminated against her due to her "marital status" under the FCRA. Respondent had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to terminate her employment.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer