Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION vs DAVID L. BROWN, 01-004587PL (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Dec. 03, 2001 Number: 01-004587PL Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2025
# 1
RICHARD W. COONEY vs. DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, 84-000183 (1984)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-000183 Latest Update: Feb. 04, 1985

Findings Of Fact The hearing officer's findings of fact are hereby approved and adopted. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the the hearing officer's findings of fact. Petitioner takes his vacation between school board meetings or by asking the school board to be excused from attending said meetings. No leave time is actually used for such absences. (Petitioner's Exhibit O) Prior to 1979 the Division had not determined Cooney was an employee being paid from a regular salaries account who was eligible for FRS membership. His actual position and employment status was not questioned until 1980. Following an extensive review of Cooney's position, which had not changed since 1965, the Division determined Cooney was not eligible for FRS membership because he was not filling a regularly, established position. The 1979 rule changes defined "regularly established position", but did not redefine employee.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division enter a final order declaring Richard W. Cooney eligible for membership in the Florida Retirement System both before and after July 1, 1979. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of September, 1984.

Florida Laws (8) 1.021.04112.313120.57121.021121.05114.336.01
# 2
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION vs BRIAN PITTS, TREASURER, JUSTICE-2-JESUS, 10-009927 (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:St. Petersburg, Florida Oct. 27, 2010 Number: 10-009927 Latest Update: Jan. 03, 2011

Findings Of Fact Based upon the foregoing and in consideration of Pitts' failure to timely respond to Requests for Admissions, the following Findings of Fact are made in this matter: On or about December 12, 2007, J2J filed a form entitled, "Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Political Committees and Electioneering Communication Organizations" with the Florida Division of Elections (the "Division"). The form designated Pitts as the chairman and treasurer of J2J. The Division then sent Pitts a letter dated December 14, 2007, providing directions concerning the filing of a Committee Campaign Treasurer's Report ("Report") by J2J in accordance with the campaign financing requirements set forth in chapter 106, Florida Statutes (2007). Pitts received the letter from the Division. By letter dated April 13, 2009, the Division notified Pitts that J2J had failed to file the Report which had been due on April 10, 2009. Pitts received the letter from the Division concerning the overdue Report. The Division sent a follow-up letter to Pitts dated April 27, 2009, concerning the delinquent Report. Pitts received the letter from the Division. As of the date of its Motion for Summary Final Order, the Division had not received the Report from Pitts. J2J is in violation of the campaign financing requirements for political committees in Florida. The Division deems Pitts' failure to file the Report for J2J to be a willful violation of the Florida campaign financing laws.

Florida Laws (6) 106.021106.07106.25106.265120.57120.68
# 3
CRUM RESOURCES vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 06-004096 (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Oct. 17, 2006 Number: 06-004096 Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2007
Florida Laws (3) 120.569120.57440.13
# 4
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs QUENTIN PETERSON, 19-002366PL (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Bradenton, Florida May 07, 2019 Number: 19-002366PL Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2019

The Issue Whether Respondent, a middle school teacher, violated section 1012.795(1)(d) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-10.081(2)(a)1., (2)(a)5., (2)(a)8., (2)(c)1., (2)(c)8., and (2)(c)9., as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint (AAC); and, if so, the appropriate penalty.

Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent holds Florida Educator Certificate number 1299379, covering the area of music. The certificate is valid through June 30, 2020. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a Music Teacher at LMS in the Manatee County School District. The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting misconduct allegations against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Background On April 28, 2017, Respondent submitted a resignation letter to MCSD, and later that same day rescinded this resignation letter. Based on a prior investigation, on May 17, 2017, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the LMS principal for poor judgement and poor classroom management. MCSD Office of Professional Standards started another investigation of Respondent in May 2017. In June 2017, PPD served a subpoena on Respondent, and seized his electronic devices. On August 4, 2017, Respondent was temporarily reassigned to MCSD transportation office. On August 17, 2017, MCSD placed Respondent on paid administrative leave. In August 2017, Investigator Nelson completed an investigation report that went to MCSD senior administrators, including the superintendent and its legal counsel. A practice of MCSD is that once an investigation is opened involving a union member, that union member is represented by a union paid counsel. MCSD communicates solely through the employee’s counsel. At the time, Respondent was a union member, and was represented by counsel during the pertinent MCSD’s investigations. On August 30, 2017, Respondent was not present when his counsel met with Investigator Nelson and MCSD general counsel. They advised Respondent’s counsel of the evidence found regarding Respondent, and that MCSD was going to move forward with the termination of Respondent’s employment. Respondent’s counsel was informed that Respondent could resign his teaching position in lieu of termination. Respondent submitted a letter of resignation to the Manatee County School Board (Board), dated September 1, 2017, providing for his resignation to become effective on September 12, 2017. Further, this letter provided that Respondent would not seek “reemployment” with MCSD. The Board was scheduled to meet on September 12, 2017, and would have considered any termination requests. Once Respondent resigned, MCSD did not have any further jurisdiction over Respondent. Dr. Breslin served as an assistant principal at SCSD’s Booker High School (Booker) when Respondent applied for a position there shortly after he resigned from MCSD. She was on the committee that interviewed the various candidates, including Respondent, and decided to hire Respondent. Respondent was hired by SCSD and taught at Booker. During his probationary period, Respondent was released from his SCSD employment. Material Allegations The material allegations upon which the charged violations are predicated are, in their entirety, as follows: During the 2016-2017 school year, Respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship with K.A., a sixteen year old female student, as evidenced by a picture of Respondent and K.A. kissing. On or about September 5, 2017, in the midst of a district investigation into inappropriate relationships between Respondent and female students, Respondent resigned in lieu of termination from his teaching position with the district, to be effective September 12, 2017. On or about September 22, 2017, Respondent submitted an application for a teaching position with Sarasota County Public Schools. Respondent fraudulently answered 'no' to the following questions: Have you ever: failed to fulfill a teaching or administrative contract? had any disciplinary action taken against you by any Board of Education? been removed or dismissed from any position? resigned in lieu of termination? On the last page of Respondent’s SCSD application, he certified that his answers were true and to the best of his knowledge. Pictures In June 2017, pursuant to a search warrant, the PPD seized Respondent’s laptop computer and two cell phones, and sent them to FDLE for analysis. FDLE Analyst Carson was assigned to retrieve any pictures and/or text messages from Respondent’s devices. FDLE Analyst Carson issued the results via a report to the PPD. The FDLE report was not admitted into evidence. Mr. Oyler (and other PPD officers) reviewed the FDLE report, including the pictures4/ taken from Respondent’s devices, and found no evidence of an inappropriate relationship as alleged by a female LMS student. However, Mr. Oyler observed pictures of Respondent with another young (female) person. Mr. Oyler contacted LMS Resource Officer Moore to determine the identity of this other young female. Officer Moore, a 17-year employee of PPD, has been a resource officer assigned and stationed at LMS since 2013. In early 2016, Respondent was investigated for “some allegations,” and Officer Moore had a conversation with Respondent about his interactions with female students. Officer Moore advised Respondent to: So you just protect yourself. Make sure you’re keeping the door [to his classroom] open if you can between classes with view so the other [band/orchestra] teacher has observation. Don’t be alone with students, especially female students. Make sure you’re protecting yourself and making smart choices about it. Officer Moore knows N.A., the mother of K.A.5/ During the 2016-2017 school year, Officer Moore and N.A. both worked at LMS. Officer Moore would see K.A., a MCSD student, when she came to LMS to wait for her mother. Additionally, Officer Moore socialized with the A. family at various parties, including K.A.’s graduation from high school in May 2018. At the hearing, Officer Moore was shown a picture retrieved from Respondent’s devices of two people kissing, specifically Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, page 39 (hereafter referred to as the “kissing photograph”). When shown the kissing photograph, Officer Moore expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying the two persons kissing: Respondent and K.A. Further, Officer Moore identified Respondent and K.A., individually or together, in the remaining pictures of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, pages 40-47. Officer Moore’s testimony is found credible. Investigator Nelson conducted two investigations of Respondent, and met with him five or six times. When shown the pictures retrieved from Respondent’s devices, Investigator Nelson expressed no doubt or hesitation in identifying Respondent in all of the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, including the kissing photograph. Investigator Nelson’s testimony is found credible. Respondent’s counsel, through questioning of Mr. Oyler intimated that K.A. manipulated and uploaded multiple altered images to Respondent’s electronic devices. Mr. Oyler provided that he had heard K.A. “saying that she modified the images,” or that she had “doctored the photos.” K.A. did not testify in this hearing, nor did any other students. However, Mr. Oyler interviewed K.A. during the course of the PPD investigation. Initially K.A. denied having any relationship with Respondent. However, when Mr. Oyler presented K.A. with all the pictures found in Petitioner’s Exhibit 18, her reaction left Mr. Oyler with the impression that K.A. and Respondent had “more of a romantic, physical relationship.” Mr. Oyler’s testimony is found credible. Pastor Mazon was asked the following question: “Do you recognize the male in that photograph [the kissing photograph]?” He answered “Not really, not from that angle . . . no, not really.” He was then asked specifically: “Does that appear to be Mr. Peterson [Respondent] in that photograph?” Pastor Mazon responded: “It would be hard for me to tell from the side view like that. I would have to see it from the front.” And when shown the same kissing photograph in color and asked if the male was Respondent, Pastor Mazon replied: “That’s still a hard call for me. You know, skin tone. But then I see a scar from – on behind the ear, which I never saw, which I never - - that’s kind of hard for me, yeah. . . . I wouldn’t be able to identify him in that fashion.” Pastor Mazon was unable to confirm or deny that Respondent was in the kissing photograph, yet he positively identified Respondent in each remaining picture of Petitioner’s Exhibit 18. Pastor Mazon’s testimony lacks clarity and credibility as he waffled on identifying Respondent in the first picture, but had no hesitation in the remaining pictures. Ms. Bellamy, Respondent’s aunt, testified that she did not recognize the male in the kissing photograph. In the remaining pictures, Ms. Bellamy confirmed Respondent was in the pictures on pages 40 and 42 of Exhibit 18, but was not in the pictures on pages 41 or 43 through 47. Ms. Bellamy did confirm that Respondent was in the picture in Petitioner’s Exhibit 20. As Respondent’s relative, Ms. Bellamy’s testimony appears to be selective and is not found credible. Sarasota County School District Petitioner’s Exhibit 17, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent was under contract with MCSD to serve as an instructional employee for the 2017-2018 school year. Petitioner’s Exhibit 12, Respondent’s resignation letter, which was admitted without objection, provided that Respondent resigned his MCSD position for the 2017-2018 school year, effective September 12, 2017. Further, Respondent agreed to not seek reemployment with MCSD. Dr. Breslin was an assistant principal at Booker in Sarasota, Florida, for the 2017-2018 school year. She served on the committee that interviewed candidates for a teaching position at Booker. Dr. Breslin reviewed and relied upon Respondent’s SCSD application, and interviewed Respondent (with the other committee members) for the Booker teaching position. Further, Dr. Breslin performed the reference checks regarding Respondent’s application. Dr. Breslin was instrumental in the decision to hire Respondent for the position at Booker. Dr. Breslin was never provided a copy of Respondent’s letter of reprimand or his MCSD resignation letter. Further, during SCSD’s interview process, Dr. Breslin was not told that Respondent had been under investigation by MCSD. Dr. Breslin confirmed that by Respondent’s failure to tell her (or the committee) of these (the letter of reprimand, his resignation letter from MCSD, and/or the investigation), Respondent gave a false presentation. Had Dr. Breslin known of any of these, Respondent would not have been brought in for an interview and would not have been hired. Dr. Bowden testified that Respondent was released from his SCSD teaching contract during his probationary period. Typically, SCSD does not provide a reason for an employee’s release. However in this case, Respondent’s employment was terminated based on his arrest. Dr. Bowden also testified that Respondent’s failure to advise SCSD of his resignation from MCSD, his letter of reprimand, and that he was under investigation was tantamount to falsification of his application to work for SCSD. Respondent was represented by competent counsel, during MCSD’s investigation and his ultimate resignation from MCSD.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty on Counts 1, 2, and 5 through 8, and permanently revoking his Educator Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 24th day of October, 2019.

Florida Laws (5) 1012.7951012.796120.569120.57120.68 Florida Administrative Code (4) 6A-10.0816A-10.0836B-1.0066B-11.007 DOAH Case (1) 19-2366PL
# 5
GERARD ROBINSON, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs DEENA LOUISE NEWTON, 12-002275PL (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Jun. 28, 2012 Number: 12-002275PL Latest Update: Jan. 11, 2025
# 6
# 9
YVONNE C. COX vs UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, 03-004672 (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Gainesville, Florida Dec. 11, 2003 Number: 03-004672 Latest Update: Nov. 05, 2004

The Issue Whether the Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of handicap.

Findings Of Fact On July 17, 2003, Petitioner filed with the Commission a Charge of Discrimination, in which she complained only that Respondent University of Florida (Respondent or UF) discriminated multiple times by not hiring her on the basis of handicap (dyslexia). The last date of this alleged failure to hire was stated in the Charge as June 8, 2003. The Charge had been typed and signed on July 17, 2003. The Charge contained no allegation that Respondent had terminated Petitioner due to discrimination. On October 27, 2003, the Commission entered its "Determination: No Cause." By its "Notice of Determination: No Cause" of the same date, the Commission notified Petitioner that she had 35 days in which to file her Petition for Relief. The thirty-fifth day after the Determination: No Cause fell on Monday, December 1, 2003. According to the Commission's date stamp, Petitioner filed her Petition with the Commission on December 3, 2003. Petitioner became employed by CCR-Head Start in September 2003. On her job application to CCR-Head Start, she did not list Respondent as a prior employer. The late Petition for Relief alleged, for the first time, that UF had jeopardized Petitioner's education and career opportunities in her job with CCR-Head Start, by character defamation against her and/or due to information that UF had not disclosed. Petitioner explained at hearing that this new allegation was intended to allege that UF had not provided course grades, CLAST results, and other general testing scores, and that UF had not provided a grade point average to Petitioner upon her request. (See Findings of Fact 21, and 23-25.) Again, the Petition contained no allegation that Respondent had terminated Petitioner due to handicap or for any other discriminatory reason. 1/ The late Petition for Relief further newly alleged that Petitioner's current employer, CCR-Head Start, had denied her a high-back chair, computer, desk, and business cards and was seeking ways to terminate her. This allegation against her current employer is totally extra-jurisdictional to these proceedings against Respondent UF. At hearing, Petitioner extended her allegations to include that UF has prevented her being hired for numerous advertised positions inside and outside UF, spread over three counties from 1999 to the date of hearing. At hearing, Petitioner also presented her view that in 1998-1999, while she was employed in UF's Horticultural Services Department, she was "persecuted" or "harassed" by her supervisor, Carolyn Reynolds, and other UF employees, due to cognitive comprehension problems, which she has self-diagnosed by unilateral computer research as "dyslexia." However, in addition to never having told anyone at UF that she is dyslexic, Petitioner testified that she also has never been professionally diagnosed as dyslexic.2/ Petitioner graduated from high school prior to her employment with Respondent and began taking some college courses at Santa Fe Community College. When Petitioner was first hired by Respondent in 1996, she scored 57 on a typing test, well above the passing score of 35. On May 2, 2003, Petitioner achieved an AA degree from Central Florida Community College. Petitioner achieved this degree after she ceased to be employed by Respondent in 1999. Petitioner was first employed with Respondent UF from 1997 to 1998 as a clerk in a medical area. In July 1997, she received a raise in salary. The single performance evaluation in evidence, which occurred during this period of time, shows improvement and rated her as satisfactory. In 1998-1999, Petitioner was employed by Respondent UF in the Horticultural Sciences Department. She held a secretarial position involving preparing, typing, and processing travel request and reimbursement forms, handling room and vehicle reservations, and typing correspondence for several professors. Ms. Reynolds was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Despite graduating from high school and eventually junior college, Petitioner claims to have had "cognitive comprehension problems," especially with sequencing tasks and with mathematics, throughout her whole life. Petitioner also claims that while employed in UF’s Horticultural Services Department, these problems required her to repeatedly ask her supervisor to repeat all instructions and to write out some instructions so that she could refer to them. She also claims she had to ask co-employees to interpret or rewrite her supervisor's instructions and to interpret and/or rewrite the written material her professors gave her to type. (See also Finding of Fact 18.) Petitioner never told anyone associated with UF in 1998-1999 that she was dyslexic or that she had "cognitive comprehension problems," and she had no reason to believe that anyone else told UF personnel that she was dyslexic.3/ Petitioner perceived her requests for help in the Horticultural Services Department as alerting UF personnel to her "condition." She perceived their compliance with her requests as persecution and/or harassment. Yet, all the specific instances Petitioner described were of Ms. Reynolds and co-workers complying with her requests to repeat oral and written instructions. The co-workers who testified described Petitioner's requests as normal, or at least commonplace, because they understood that no one learns how to do everything at once and everyone sometimes needs help.4/ Petitioner demonstrated no disability in general life activities, such as walking, talking, or seeing. At most, she testified to having difficulty with mathematics and limited or categorical employment activities involving sequencing tasks. Petitioner assumed that her professors, supervisor, and co-workers in the Horticultural Services Department knew that she was dyslexic because the supervisor and co-workers had worked with her and accommodated her requests for help; because the professors let Ms. Reynolds evaluate her; and because of part of a conversation she overheard. (See Findings of Fact 14 and 17-18). Petitioner came upon Ms. Reynolds and a co-employee, Tami Spurling, talking. When Petitioner entered the room, Ms. Reynolds was saying to Ms. Spurling, "Do I have to write everything down for you? Are you ADHA too?" Then Ms. Reynolds and Ms. Spurling stopped talking. Petitioner never confronted either woman about what Ms. Reynolds had meant. Rather, she unilaterally inferred that the women stopped talking because they were talking about her. Petitioner also unilaterally inferred from Ms. Reynolds' comment about ADHA that both women knew or perceived Petitioner as dyslexic, or that Petitioner had some other type of learning disability, or that Petitioner had cognitive comprehension problems, whatever those might be. Petitioner's interpretation of this conversation is speculative and not a reasonable interpretation of the event.5/ Petitioner believes that her professors in the Horticultural Services Department in 1998-1999 discriminated against her on the basis of handicap because they did not give her typing assignments as they did other secretaries and because they allowed Ms. Reynolds to evaluate Petitioner’s job performance instead of evaluating her themselves. At hearing, Petitioner claimed for the first time that she was retaliated against because Ms. Reynolds forced her to resign in May 1999, (see Finding of Fact 19), because of her February 9, 1999, memo to Ms. Reynolds complaining that the professors were not giving her major typing assignments. Petitioner’s memo was admitted in evidence. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that any other secretary got more or better typing assignments than she did; that anyone else in her position was evaluated by the professors instead of by Ms. Reynolds; that the professors ever knew about her memo to Ms. Reynolds; or that Ms. Reynolds ever gave Petitioner a bad or unfair evaluation. Petitioner testified that sometime in 1999, she became depressed from a combination of the work place "harassment," as she perceived it; the loss of her stepfather; and the loss of her pastor. Apparently, she was absent from work for awhile after February 1999. She testified that when she returned to work, she presented Ms. Reynolds with a doctor's excuse for home rest for two weeks, and Ms. Reynolds then berated her for an hour and a half and gave her an ultimatum to quit or be fired. Petitioner stated first that she resigned because of this alleged "ultimatum" and then testified that she resigned because she was depressed and confused from the medicine she was taking. However, Petitioner's doctor's note was not offered in evidence, and her self-serving testimony was not corroborated. Petitioner's May 27, 1999, resignation letter to Ms. Reynolds states that Petitioner's last day would be June 8, 1999, and gives no reason for quitting. It does not bespeak of coercion. Petitioner further testified that Ms. Reynolds prepared a letter for the UF Personnel Office to get permission to rehire Petitioner in less than 100 days, contrary to a UF rule. Petitioner put in evidence a memo from a different supervisor, Lynn Jernigan, showing that UF employed Petitioner on OPS at UF's Department of Physical Therapy until August 5, 1999, and at that time, Petitioner refused Ms. Jernigan’s request to keep Petitioner’s name in the job hiring pool (P-13). Petitioner additionally put in evidence an exhibit that included a letter by Petitioner claiming to have been hired for a full-time job in UF's Physical Therapy Department.6/ Considering all of the foregoing, the undersigned is not persuaded that Petitioner was involuntarily terminated by Ms. Reynolds, effective either May 27, 1999, or June 8, 1999. At most, the evidence shows that after those dates, Petitioner was in an OPS position in a different department of UF, which position was not funded after August 5, 1999. Petitioner did not present credible evidence to show that Ms. Reynolds or any UF employees "blackballed" her from being rehired by UF or by any other employer in three Florida counties between June 8, 1999 (her last day in UF's Horticultural Services Department), and the date of hearing. She was also vague about what position, if any, with UF she was turned down for on the only date (June 8, 2003) listed in her Charge of Discrimination. (Cf.--Finding of Fact 21 and its Endnotes, discussing other dates and allegations.) Petitioner is credible that she was not hired in numerous positions from August 1999 (when she left Ms. Jernigan's department) until she was hired in September 2003, by CCR-Head Start. However, she did not affirmatively demonstrate that Ms. Reynolds of the UF Horticulture Services Department had hiring authority in any of the other UF departments Petitioner applied-to during this period of time. Petitioner conceded that Ms. Reynolds did not have hiring or firing authority in Ms. Jernigan's department, where Petitioner worked in August 1999. Petitioner did not know who made any of the hiring decisions rejecting her after she left Ms. Jernigan's department in 1999. Petitioner did not know who applied for any of the job openings within UF or with outside employers or who made the interview or hiring decisions for any of the jobs for which she applied. She did not present threshold evidence that she was minimally eligible for any of the jobs for which she applied or any evidence that the persons hired were less qualified than herself or were equally qualified but without a handicap. The possibility that a genuinely handicapped person was hired for each of these positions was not eliminated. The possibility that the jobs she applied for were not awarded to more qualified applicants was not eliminated. Finally, Petitioner did not demonstrate a nexus between any hiring decision of UF or any hiring decision of any other employer in the three-county area and her alleged handicap, and she showed no nexus between other potential UF supervisors or outside employers and her prior relationship with UF or Ms. Reynolds. Petitioner's mere speculations are not probative of discrimination. For purposes of the present case, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on July 17, 2003, alleging that she was last not hired for a job on June 8, 2003. (See Findings of Facts 1-4 and 6, and n. 1.) However, about June 24-25, 2003, Petitioner also signed a "Workforce Innovation Complaint" form of the Commission, alleging against UF "constant surveillance"; on-the-job harassment; not being hired; and sabotage of her home computer line. This form represented that UF's discrimination against her was "June 1999" and the latest discrimination was "estimated at June 24, 2003." When or if her lawyers on that case ever actually filed the Workforce Innovation Complaint with the Commission is not clear.7/ However, the same lawyers seem to have helped Petitioner get her UF employment records. (See Finding of Fact 25.) From the chronology, it is clear that neither Petitioner's separation from UF in 1999 nor any failure to hire her on June 8, 2003, could possibly have been the result of retaliation for her filing either the June 24, 2003, Workforce Innovation Complaint or the July 17, 2003, Charge of Discrimination.8/ Neither is there any credible evidence that Petitioner was not hired at any time thereafter as a result of filing either the Complaint or the Charge. Petitioner testified, again without corroboration, that she had discussed her problems concerning Ms. Reynolds with someone in the UF Personnel Office in 1999, had been persuaded that further action was not necessary, and had elected not to pursue her allegations of discrimination at that time. Given all the evidence, this statement is less than credible, but assuming, arguendo, that the conversation occurred, it would be unreasonable and illogical to suppose UF would interfere with Petitioner’s subsequent attempts at employment for four years in retaliation for her not filing a charge of discrimination in 1999. With regard to Petitioner's late claim that UF withheld papers from her, there is no evidence in this record that Respondent withheld any employment records that impeded Petitioner being hired by anyone, including but not limited to CCR-Head Start. UF employees would have to have been clairvoyant to even guess that Petitioner was applying to CCR- Head Start. (See Finding of Fact 5.) Apparently, in 2002, Petitioner wanted some results of a CLAST test taken at her community college, but graded by UF. Exhibits in evidence show that UF permitted her to challenge these scores in April and August 2002, but the score was not changed. However, Petitioner put on no evidence that any portions of these standardized tests may legally be released to any test-taker. She did not demonstrate any reason that UF would have her college grades, test scores, or grade point average from other institutions. Petitioner testified that sometime in 2002, at the request of her lawyers for the Workforce Innovation Complaint, (see Finding of Fact 21), UF provided her with papers that purported to be her UF employment records but an UF employee removed some papers from the pile before handing the rest to her. Petitioner admitted that she did not know the UF employee and did not know what was in the pile of papers removed. Her only reason for believing UF misused her at that time was her unilateral belief that someone would not remove papers from a pile assembled for her lawyers unless they were hiding something from her. This is not a reasonable interpretation of the event described.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2004.

Florida Laws (2) 120.57760.11
# 10

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