The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Chipola is a college located in Marianna, Florida, and offers two-year and four-year degrees. In August 2005, Ms. Tucker contacted personnel at Chipola inquiring about a faculty position. She sent an e-mail to Karan Davis (Ms. Davis), Chipola’s associate vice president of Human Resources and included a brief résumé. No positions were available at that time. On or about May 18, 2006, Ms. Tucker submitted an application for employment at Chipola as an adjunct instructor. An adjunct instructor position is a temporary position on an as- needed basis to instruct a specific course. Health benefits are not provided for adjunct instructors. The employment application which Ms. Tucker submitted requested that applicants complete a section on educational employment and a section on non-educational employment. In each section, the application provided space for the listing of three present or former employers. The application stated, “If you wish to further describe your work experience, please attach a resume to this application.” Ms. Tucker did not attach a résumé to the application. In the section for educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment as a substitute teacher for two school districts and one private school. In the section for non- educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment in 2006 at Florida State University, employment from 1979 to 1988 with the United States Postal Service, and a position as a legal secretary from 1975 to 1977. The application asked, “Have you ever been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position?” to which Ms. Tucker replied, “No.” The application contains an applicant certification, which states: I am aware that any omissions, falsifications, misstatement or misrepresentations may disqualify me for employment consideration, and if I am hired, may be grounds for termination at a later date. Ms. Tucker signed the applicant’s certification. Wendy Pippen (Ms. Pippen) is employed by Chipola as the human resources coordinator. She is responsible for coordination of the daily activities and tasks in the Human Resources Department, including review of employment applications and résumés. She did not receive a résumé from Ms. Tucker at any point during the hiring process. Ms. Tucker was interviewed for the position as adjunct instructor. During a conversation with Ms. Pippen following Ms. Tucker’s interview, Ms. Tucker mentioned that she had worked at the University of South Florida. Ms. Pippen did not recall seeing the University of South Florida listed as an employer on Ms. Tucker’s application. She checked Ms. Tucker’s application and confirmed that the University of South Florida was not listed on the application. Ms. Pippen immediately advised her supervisor, Ms. Davis, of the omission. Ms. Tucker told Ms. Pippen that she had omitted her employment with the University of South Florida because an employment agency had advised her to do so due to the potential for a negative reference. Ms. Tucker vehemently testified at the final hearing that the reason she did not list employment with the University of South Florida was that she was terminated for medical reasons, and it was “no one’s business.” However, she also testified that the University of South Florida gave “bad references.” She had told others that she was concerned that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference. It was her opinion that the University of South Florida was not ethical in giving references on former employees. Having judged the demeanor of the witnesses, Ms. Pippen’s testimony is credited that Ms. Tucker told her the reason that she did not put the University of South Florida on her application was that she felt the University of South Florida would not give her a good reference. Upon being informed by Ms. Pippen that Ms. Tucker had worked at the University of South Florida, Ms. Davis contacted the University of South Florida to check Ms. Tucker’s past employment. Ms. Davis was advised that Ms. Tucker had been employed by the University of South Florida and that she had been terminated for medical reasons. Ms. Davis did not inquire why Ms. Tucker was terminated. That information was volunteered by personnel at the University of South Florida. Ms. Davis did not ask for an explanation of the medical reasons, and no explanation was volunteered. Ms. Davis did not inquire whether Ms. Tucker had a disability, and no one from the University of South Florida told Ms. Davis that Ms. Tucker had a disability. The decision was made not to hire Ms. Tucker as an adjunct instructor because she had failed to include the University of South Florida on her application and had stated in her application that she had not been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position. Ms. Davis perceived that the omission of the University of South Florida from the application and the failure to indicate that she had been discharged from previous employment amounted to falsification of the application, which was a reason for disqualification from employment as clearly stated in the application form. Ms. Tucker contends that Ms. Davis was aware that she had been employed by the University of South Florida because she had included the employment on the résumé that she sent to Ms. Davis in 2005. Ms. Davis did not recall seeing the résumé and given that there was a lapse of seven months from the time that Ms. Tucker sent her résumé in 2005 until she submitted an application in May 2006 without a résumé, it is reasonable that Ms. Davis would not recall seeing the résumé or was not aware that Ms. Tucker had listed the University of South Florida on a résumé. After Ms. Tucker was advised that she would not be hired as an adjunct instructor, she wrote Dr. Spires at Chipola, stating that she had not put the University of South Florida on her employment application because she had been advised by an employment agency to omit the University of South Florida because it had a long history of illegal employment practices. Ms. Tucker does not contend that she has a particular disability which served as the basis for Chipola’s failing to hire her, and she did not inform staff at Chipola that she has a disability or identify any medical condition she has. Her claim is that she was not hired because of a history of medical problems. The evidence overwhelmingly established that Ms. Tucker was not hired because she had made misrepresentations on her application and not because of any history of medical problems. It is clear that Ms. Tucker did not include the University of South Florida on her application and did not inform Chipola that she had been discharged because she was afraid that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entering finding that Chipola College did not discriminate against Ms. Tucker and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 2nd day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination based on marital status and recognizing Petitioner has elected to bring a civil action in federal court which is a court of competent jurisdiction to resolve all other claims against this Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 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 10th day of January, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan D. Fishbane, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive Naples, Florida 33490 Steve J. Longariello, pro se 9999 Summerbreeze Drive Apartment 422 Sunrise, Florida 33322 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a janitor with Respondent because of his handicap, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lee, was hired by Respondent in August 1994 as a custodial worker at the Tallahassee Mall in Tallahassee, Florida. As a janitor Petitioner's duties included bending, stooping, and lifting. He was assigned to zone 3 in the Mall. Up until 1996, when Petitioner was injured, Petitioner received good evaluations on his job performance. Indeed Petitioner was very proud of the quality of his work and took special care to do his job well. Sometime prior to May 20, 1996, Petitioner, while at work and in the scope of his employment, stepped on a set of stairs which were not properly attached to a stage in the Tallahassee Mall. The steps slipped causing Petitioner's feet to come out from under him. Petitioner fell flat on his back. As a consequence Petitioner suffered a permanent back injury for which he received workers' compensation. The injury impairs his ability to work and therefore is a handicap. Around May 20, 1996, Petitioner was released by his doctor and was given orders for light duty with no bending, stooping, or heavy lifting. Petitioner gave these orders to his supervisor, Mr. Navin, when he returned to work on May 20, 1996. Respondent had light duty work available which Petitioner was qualified to perform. However, Respondent did not assign Petitioner to light duty work, but changed his work area from zone 3 to zone 1. Zone 1 is located at the front entrance to the mall and requires more work to maintain. Petitioner attempted to perform his duties but could only work for 3 1/2 hours before being overcome by pain from his injury. Petitioner could not work the next four working days because of the aggravation of his injury. On May 28, 1996, after returning to work, Petitioner was again given full duty work. Petitioner attempted to perform his custodial duties for about 2 weeks. However, the pain from his injury was so severe he again requested light duty work. Petitioner's supervisor asked Petitioner to bring him another notice from his doctor. Petitioner's doctor faxed the supervisor a second notice and Petitioner was placed on light duty work. Once Petitioner was placed on light duty work, the mall manager, Mr. Renninger, followed Petitioner around the mall watching him all the time while he worked. On July 8, 1996, prior to the mall opening for business, Petitioner was helping one of the mall store owners with a problem. Such aid was part of Petitioner's job. The mall manager walked up to Petitioner and began to yell at him in a very rude and disrespectful manner. The manager would not listen to Petitioner's explanation of the event. The manager gave Petitioner a written disciplinary notice for his aid to the mall store owner. The manager continued to follow Petitioner around the mall while he worked. Sometime around August 15, 1996, the mall manager advised the mall's employees that they should take their respective vacations prior to October. Petitioner thought it would be a good time for him to take the 4-day vacation time he had accumulated during his employment with the mall. He could use the time to allow his back to heal more. On August 15, 1996, Petitioner requested vacation leave and vacation pay for the period beginning September 3, 1996 and ending September 9, 1996. Initially, the request was denied. Petitioner's supervisor felt he had missed too much work and been late too often. However, Petitioner had only been absent or late in relation to his back injury. Petitioner explained that fact to his supervisor. His supervisor agreed and approved Petitioner's vacation. Petitioner returned to work on August 10, 1996. An argument with the administrative assistant occurred when she refused to recognize that Petitioner was entitled to be paid for his vacation time. She was not going to turn in any time for him so that Petitioner could get paid while on vacation. Getting a paycheck was a serious matter to Petitioner, and Petitioner, understandably, became gruff with the administrative assistant. Petitioner only raised his voice at the administrative assistant. He was not abusive and did not curse at her. In fact, the administrative assistant yelled at Petitioner when he raised the subject of his pay "Now, before you start bitching." Petitioner called the headquarters of Respondent and confirmed he had vacation time and pay accrued. After this incident Petitioner was fired ostensibly for mistreating the administrative assistant. The administrative assistant, who was incorrect, was not terminated. The reason appears to be a pretext. Petitioner's pay was $5.35 per hour and he worked a 40-hour-work-week. After his termination, Petitioner actively sought employment but could not find any until September 1, 1997. At that time he began work for Tallahassee Community College as a custodial worker with light duties at a higher rate of pay. Petitioner's search for work was reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner and awarding Petitioner backpay in the amount of $11,770.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 27th day of October, 2000.
The Issue Whether respondent FGCIA should reinstate petitioner as its director or acting director and give her back pay from August 31, 1978, because FGCIA terminated her employment as of that date on account of her race?
Findings Of Fact Jan Marie Tuveson, became the third person to go to work for the FGCIA, although she is not an Indian herself. In February of 1974, she began doing secretarial work and generally assisting Osley Saunooke and John L. Chaves, at the time the FGCIA's director and assistant director, respectively. With Mr. Saunooke's resignation later the same year and Mr. Chaves' resignation in May of 1975, all of the Council's staff work fell to Ms. Tuveson and a secretary whom she hired after consulting the cochairmen of FGCIA's Board of Directors. CODIRECTOR About four months after Mr. Chaves' departure, Ms. Tuveson assumed one of two newly created program coordinator positions. She was seen as "representing" the Miccosukee Tribe, while the other program coordinator, originally Steve Bowers, was seen as representing the Seminole Tribe. Together the program coordinators were to act as codirectors of the FGCIA. In September or October of 1975, Joe Billie succeeded Steve Bowers as codirector. An extremely likeable person, Joe Billie, a Seminole Indian for whom English is a second language, did not spend much time at FGCIA's Tallahassee headquarters. As a result, Ms. Tuveson had almost full responsibility for the staff work of the FGCIA, after Joe Billie became codirector. During this period, she worked on behalf of and dealt with not only Buffalo Tiger and the Miccosukee Tribe, but also the Seminole Tribe, Mike Tiger, Joe Dan Osceola and other Seminole Indians. According to uncontroverted testimony, she treated the tribes "equally." CETA PROGRAM DIRECTOR Shortly after becoming program coordinator, Ms. Tuveson proposed to FGCIA's Board of Directors that FGCIA apply for funds under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). With Howard Tommie, chairman of the Seminole Tribe and cochairman of the FGCIA, dissenting, the Board approved the suggestion, Ms. Tuveson went forward with preparation of a grant application, and a CETA grant was awarded. Ms. Tuveson established and, as CETA program director, oversaw the program funded by the grant. Mr. Tommie's objection to the proposal was that money which, at least in his view, might otherwise have been routed to the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes exclusively was not being administered by the tribes and was being made available to other American Indians, as well. Later Mike Tiger came to share this view as did Joe Billie, who had originally said a CETA grant would be a good idea. Mr. Tommie also felt that administration of a CETA grant would be "a hectic responsibility," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, p. 42, for FGCIA. JOE BILLIE RESIGNS At a special meeting of the Board of Directors on November 21, 1977, Joe Billie resigned his position with the FGCIA effective November 25, 1977. Expense account irregularities occasioned the resignation, but Howard Tommie resented Mr. Billie's leaving. According to the minutes of the special meeting: The meeting was then directed to the discussion of the appointment of a new Codirector. Howard Tommie ... felt there should not be a designated Codirector for the Miccosukees or the Seminoles. Bob Travis agreed that each Codirector should be obligated to work for both Tribes. Howard Tommie stated the struc- ture should be changed to suit a state agency because of the fact that the Council now works with all Indians in the State of Florida, not just the Tribes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Other board members expressed other views, but the position Joe Billie left vacant was not filled, and a board member "directed the staff to prepare alternative organization structures and job descriptions." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. REORGANIZATION At its December 6, 1977, meeting, the FGCIA Board decided on organizing staff into an executive director, a deputy director, two program coordinators and a "Secretary III/Bookkeeper," Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 4 and 5, but the positions were not filled at that time. Although "on the same level as the Deputy Director," the program coordinators were to report to the deputy director, as well as "to the tribes and [were to] be located at the Tribal headquarters most of the time." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. On the subject of job descriptions, Joe Wilson, who "was present at the [November 25, 1977] meeting for the Department of Community Affairs as a representative of Mr. Robert Guttman instructed the staff . . . to add the Indian preference in order not to discriminate." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Among the policy changes effected at the December 6, 1977, meeting, was addition of a personnel policy in these words: Preferential consideration will be given to federally recognized Native American appli- cants and/or those with experience in Native American programs. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. The Board did not adopt specific job descriptions for the positions decided upon at the December 6, 1977 meeting. ACTING DIRECTOR When the FGCIA Board met on June 23, 1978, it was generally acknowledged that Ms. Tuveson had been FGCIA's acting director for some time. Board member Robert Mitchell, for example, remarked, "Up to the present time you could say that Jan is the real Director, or Executive Director . . . ," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, and another board member thought it might be official: "I think we may have given Jan the title of Director. I don't remember." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. But, after further deliberations by the board, member Robert Travis' motion to "unhire" Jan as Director and place the [executive director's] position vacant and then Jan would apply for the position along with everybody else," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, carried. Later in the same meeting, according to the minutes, Joe Dan Osceola directed the meeting to clarifying whether or not Jan Tuveson would remain as Acting Director for the Council until someone is hired permanently. Ms. Tuveson stated that she would. Joe Dan Osceola made a motion to make Jan Tuveson Acting Director. Cochairman Tiger seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Although she had acted as FGCIA's director for almost two years and was officially named acting director when the board met on June 23, 1978, it was at this same meeting that Ms. Tuveson first began to fear for her continued employment. Several members of the board expressed the view that FGCIA should hire staff, including CETA program staff, who were of American Indian extraction. Ms. Tuveson herself remarked, during the meeting, "I think that is the intention of the personnel committee that any position that is vacated should be filled with a Native American . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Board member Joe Dan Osceola explained his position: So I say with the Indian programs any Indian program which is designed for the Indians in the law states that it should be run as such, meaning Indians should be in that position. The non Indians, no matter what color it is, there is going to be a time when you all are going to have to switch over to another job. . . . So I believe in Indian movement, I mean if we don't who is going to do it. It has to be the Indians who do it. So, I wish Jan was an Indian, really. Because she has done a good job. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. Board member Jo Ann Jones stated, "Any program now in our area should be all Indians." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7. NATIVE AMERICAN DIRECTOR At its next meeting the FGCIA Board of Directors chose Joe Allen Quetone as executive director of the FGCIA, and voted him a starting salary of $20,000 per year. Mr. Quetone, who is a Native American and a member of the Kiowa tribe of Oklahoma, began as executive director on September 1, 1978, a week after his selection. He has held the position since, and nothing in the evidence suggests that he has done anything other than an exemplary job as executive director. Beginning March 17, 1977, he had worked at FGCIA's headquarters in a CETA position for which Ms. Tuveson had recruited him. A 1973 graduate of Florida State University in philosophy, he began, but did not finish, some graduate public administration courses, before starting at FGCIA. He served as a noncommissioned officer in the U.S. Army, was a paid assistant to a student body president while in college, worked at a car wash and a pizza parlor, tended bar, worked at the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a mail clerk; and, for the year and a half or two year period next preceding the move to FGCIA, worked for the Florida Human Relations Commission. INDIAN PREFERENCE The board went forward with the selection on August 25, 1978, despite the suggestions of Cochairman Mike Tiger and board member Robert Travis that the decision be put off. Cochairman Tiger reported Bob Mitchell's request for deferment, and Jim Hutchinson's request for a postponement, which was stated in a letter and related to the board in his absence, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 91, also proved unavailing. A three-member personnel committee had recommended Jan Tuveson, Joe Quetone and Henry A. Williams, Jr., as "highly qualified" to serve as Executive Director. Robert Travis reported on the personnel committee's work to the eight board members present, on August 25, 1978, and described the committee's criteria or "formula" as basically the same thing we've always been talking about; one dealing with the educa- tional background of the person, experience factors, and an Indian preference. Those are the three, or at least the three major things that the committee considered..... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 94. The board first voted to eliminate Mr. Williams from consideration, them voted to promote Joe Quetone to Executive Director. The FGCIA board chose Mr. Quetone over Ms. Tuveson on the basis of their respective racial origins. Other factors may have entered in, as well. Published reports of the possibility of a lawsuit on race discrimination grounds did not endear Ms. Tuveson to certain board members, see, e.g., Petitioner's Exhibit 1, p. 108-111; and Howard Tommie, among others, seemed still to harbor resentment over the establishment of the CETA program. At least one board member feared a schism between the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. Mr. Travis remarked: I think Jan kept the Council together. My preference is I would prefer to vote for her; but, if that vote will cause a split between the S[e]minoles and Miccosukees, and the organizations, the staff she is supposed to help, then my overall concern is for the Indian people. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 144. Mr. Travis was one of six board members who voted for Mr. Quetone. Two members abstained. Joe Dan Osceola explained his position: I'm not against white people, believe me; black, or anybody, even other Indians.... There's Indian programs--there's such a law as Indian Preference Law. There used to be a policy; but it's a law as of 1967.... I know a lot of you don't share my opinion. ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 122. Mr. Osceola may have been referring to an informal legal opinion which John Chaves, himself raised as an American Indian, had given as legal counsel to the FGCIA's CETA program, to the effect that the FGCIA could not lawfully implement an Indian preference. FGCIA had nevertheless adopted such a policy, although, over objection of the Seminole and some other board members, the phrase "and/or those with experience in Native American programs" had been added. (During the federal trial, Mr. Tommie testified that he did not think Ms. Tuveson had such experience. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12, p. 52) At least one other board member adhered to the FGCIA's preference policy in the course of the selection process on August 25, 1978. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 135. Ms. Tuveson testified that jokes about her race that various Seminole members of the FGCIA's board had made from time to time seemed much less amusing in retrospect, after the August 25, 1978 vote. NO OFFER After it was decided that Mr. Quetone would begin work on September 1, the Board began to turn to other matters, when an "Unidentified Female Voice" inquired: Mr. Chairman? Before we start discussing the future business, do you think it's possible we could get some clarification as to Jan's termination date? Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 176. The cochairmen responded and Joe Dan Osceola expressed his views: COCHAIRMAN TIGER: All right. They need that, too; otherwise, we'd have to do something, because--I mean, she's still on the payroll. COCHAIRMAN TOMMIE: I think one takes care of the other. Do you want to go on record as terminating Jan Tuve- son as our director? ... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 176. JOE DAN OSCEOLA: ... You have a certain day that when somebody has come in that you are supposed to move out of their office ... You clean out your table and desk and everything else because another guy is taking your place. I really can't see all this question on this. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 177. After a confusing colloquy, Joe Dan Osceola raised the question whether Ms. Tuveson was "quitting the Council": JO ANN JONES: I know what you're saying. She's going to get the pay for those two weeks. COCHAIRMAN TOMMIE: Yes, if she wants to stay on the payroll for an extra two weeks, then we've just got to make the provisions... Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 180. COCHAIRMAN TIGER: I think we understand where we stand. ... JAN TUVESON: Effective September 1st, I am on two weeks' notice; right? CO-CHAIRMAN TIGER: No. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 181. JOE DAN OSCEOLA: Is she quitting the Council? That's one part I'm not familiar with, if she's quitting. That's one thing I haven't heard from Jan, that she's not going to be (inaudible) for Miccosukee or (inaudible). That's one thing I don't know. JAN TUVESON: (Inaudible) I'm not (inaudible) coordinator right now, Joe, and I'm acting director. JOE DAN OSCEOLA: Yes, that's what I know. JAN TUVESON: And I haven't been offered the position of coordinator, which would be ludicrous in my opinion, anyway, since it would be a backward step for me. But, the point is, I think, on September 1st, am I to be given two weeks' paid notice? Or am I not to be given any notice at all? Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, p. 183. Neither the Board of Directors as a whole nor any individual board member offered Ms. Tuveson employment in any capacity beyond August 31, 1978. EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT A 1972 graduate of the University of Texas, with a major in English, Ms. Tuveson also attended Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. as an undergraduate. After graduation, she worked as assistant manager and advertising director for "Hook'm Horns Night Club" in Austin, Texas. In Tallahassee, she worked as public relations assistant to the Sesquicentennial Committee and then for a department store, also in public relations; at Gayfer's, she had supervisory responsibilities, worked on a budget, and wrote copy for radio, television and newspapers, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, at a salary of $8,000 to $10,000 a year. She began taking graduate courses at Florida State University after she went to work for FGCIA, first in mass communications then in public administration, but did not earn a degree in either field. After she left the employ of the FGCIA, Ms. Tuveson sent out 25 to 30 applications for jobs and had several interviews. In every interview the matter of her losing her job at the FGCIA arose. Receiving no job offers, she applied to law school in October of 1978, and began in January of 1979. She graduated from law school at Western State University in June of 1981, finishing an accelerated program which left little time for gainful employment. She did not work the whole of the year 1982 partly because she was ill and partly because she took time off to study for a bar examination, which she has never succeeded in passing. She was employed in 1983 in the legal department of the Alamo Savings & Loan Association in San Antonio, Texas. In May of 1984 she moved back to Tallahassee and found work at Electronic Communications. During 1977, the last full year Ms. Tuveson worked for FGCIA, she was paid $18,736.23. The following year FGCIA paid her $15,948.70 for the work she did from January 1, 1978 through August 31, 1978, representing an annual rate of $21,264.93. Her 1979 income totalled $1,818.97. In 1980, Ms. Tuveson's income fell almost to nothing. She earned approximately $2,500 in 1981, and about the same in 1982. Her 1983 income was $10,832.38 and she made $11,526.87 in 1984. At the time of the hearing she was still working for Electronic Communications. Petitioner's proposed recommended order and respondent's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommended order were filed on August 12 and 13 1985, respectively. Proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance, to the extent they are supported by the weight of the evidence, except where they are cumulative, subordinate or immaterial.
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Baypoint Hotel Associates operates a hotel at Marriott's Bay Point Resort in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner, Jerry D. Hicks, was employed by Respondent, Baypoint Hotel Associates, for approximately five and one Petitioner worked as a bell captain at Respondent's Panama City Beach, Florida, hotel for approximately two and one termination of his employment with Respondent. The bell captain's job required some heavy lifting. There was no dispute regarding the fact that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act, and that all jurisdictional requirements have been met. Petitioner requested, and was granted, a leave of absence from his job effective December 17, 1991, in order to have back surgery to repair a herniated disc. By electing to take a leave of absence, Petitioner understood that he was not guaranteed his bell captain's job upon his return. In fact, he was not guaranteed any job upon his return, but would be given preference should there be an opening in any employment position for which he was qualified. There was no evidence that Respondent's leave of absence policy was not consistently applied or applied in a discriminatory manner. As a result of his surgery, Petitioner was unable to work from December 17, 1991, until April 9, 1992, when he was released by his doctor to return to work. No medical evidence was presented that Petitioner's "back problem" constituted a handicap or was perceived as a handicap by his employer. During Petitioner's absence from work, his job duties were reassigned to two assistant bell captains. After being released by his doctor to return to work, Petitioner informed Respondent's Human Resources Department, on or about the week of April 13, 1992, that he was ready to return to work, but that he would temporarily not be able to perform all of the duties, namely heavy lifting, of his former job as bell captain because of his surgery. After Petitioner requested to return to his job as a bell captain, Respondent's Director of Human Resources informed Petitioner that his former job was no longer available because Respondent's management had reassigned the bell captain's duties to two assistant bell captains and that Respondent did not plan to refill the job of bell captain under a reorganization of that service area. In lieu of returning Petitioner to his former job as bell captain, Respondent's human resource director informed Petitioner that he could interview for several available jobs at Respondent's hotel, including the jobs of telephone operator/supervisor, front desk clerk or reservation sales agent. Petitioner testified that he was unwilling to consider any job that paid less money than he was paid in his former job as a bell captain. By the time Petitioner informed Respondent's human resource director on April 28, 1992, that he was ready to interview for the reservation job; however, the reservations job had already been filled. Petitioner had waited an inordinate amount of time in advising Respondent of his interest in the reservations job and therefore lost his opportunity to apply. There was no evidence of any discrimination on the part of Respondent.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of October, 1993. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 29th day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1504 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry D. Hicks 1202 Parker Drive Panama City, Florida 32401 Michael D. Giles, Esquire 1410 AmSouth Harbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2602 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F (Suite 240) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Ms. Sharon Moultry Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by retaliating against Petitioner for filing a charge of discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jacques Pierre (Petitioner or Mr. Pierre) is black and his national origin is Haitian. He has worked in the United States for 24 years. On or about January 25, 2006, Mr. Pierre filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) a charge of discrimination against his employer, Respondent, SSA Security, Inc., a/k/a Security Services of America, a California Corporation (Respondent or SSA). SSA, under a subcontract with a federal government contractor, Alutiiq-Mele, provided security services for a federal building in Miami. SSA continued to employ Petitioner as a security guard when it took over the contract from his previous employer, Superior Protection. Contractors and managers changed, in the past, but the security guards stayed the same. On August 10, 2006, and August 15, 2006, first Mr. Pierre, then a representative for SSA signed an agreement to settle the EEOC complaint. With a letter dated August 23, 2006, Mr. Pierre received a settlement check in the amount of $1,257.04, and he was advised to report any future unlawful harassment or discrimination charges by use of a "Harassment Hotline and [to] speak with your local area manager, Barry Hirsch [sic]." Captain Barry Hersch was Mr. Pierre's immediate supervisor. The agreement was approved, in principle, by Kent Jurney, Sr., an SSA corporate officer. The language of the agreement is, in relevant part, as follows: Removal of all Disciplinary Notices in File. Company agrees to remove all writings related to disciplinary actions taken against Employee from Employee's personnel file maintained by the Company. Employee understands that the removal of said documents does not prevent the Company from issuing disciplinary notices and/or taking disciplinary action against Employee as necessary in the future should Employee violate the Company's rules of [sic] policies. * * * 4. Confidentiality Clause. The Employee and the Company agree to the following confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement: (a) The parties represent and agree that they will keep the terms and amount of this agreement completely confidential. The parties will not hereafter disclose any information concerning this agreement to anyone, including but not limited to, any past, present or prospective employee of the Company or any prospective employer of the Employee. On August 25, 2006, the federal government changed the requirements in the contract. No longer would security guards be allowed to take breaks at the start or end of their shifts, but only during the middle. Mr. Pierre was made aware of the change. In violation of the requirement, on September 1, 2006, Mr. Pierre took his break at the end of his shift. The federal government contract also prohibited security guards from being on the work premises more than 30 minutes before or after their shifts. On August 28, 2006, Mr. Pierre returned to his work site and entered the building more than 30 minutes after his shift to retrieve keys and a telephone charger. Mr. Pierre also got into a loud and profane argument with another worker during his unauthorized return to the building. Mr. Pierre admitted he had an incident where he got into an argument with and "fired back" at a supervisor in 1995 or 1996. Beginning on or about July 10, 2006, Petitioner began to request, but initially was denied, leave. Mr. Pierre was feeling threatened and harassed by his supervisors and was suffering physically as a result. On a form dated August 25, 2006, Mr. Pierre said he was requesting leave from September 11 to September 25, with a return date of September 27, 2006. Spaces on the form to indicate whether it was approved or disapproved, and by whom are blank. As the reason for the request, Mr. Pierre indicated "stress related: as a result of retaliation.” This time, Captain Hersch, approved the request and Mr. Pierre went on vacation in September 2006. On September 5, 2006, as instructed by Mr. Jurney, another Miami supervisor, Bill Graham, issued a memorandum to Mr. Pierre requiring him to attend a mandatory meeting "about several important issues and notifying him of his "temporary removal from the schedule until this meeting has taken place." Copies of the memorandum were sent to Mr. Jurney and Captain Hersch. The evidence is insufficient to determine if other security guards who violated the same rules were subjected to the same consequences, or if discipline was uniformly applied. Mr. Pierre requested, either through his supervisor, Captain Hersch, or directly to Mr. Graham, that the attorney who handled his EEOC complaint and settlement agreement be allowed to attend the meeting with him. Mr. Jurney denied the request. Because he never attended a meeting, Mr. Pierre remained "off the schedule." For the remainder of 2006 and in early 2007, he was working part-time only at his second job with the State Department of Corrections. Mr. Pierre's income was reduced from $15 an hour ($17 minus $2 for insurance) for 40-hour weeks with SSA, plus $1,000 every two weeks from Corrections to only his Corrections pay. The evidence is insufficient to determine how long Mr. Pierre was, or if he still has, a lower income and what, if any, efforts he has taken to secure alternate employment to mitigate damages. SSA supposedly notified Mr. Pierre, in a memorandum dated September 22, 2006, that he was suspended without pay for two weeks for his rule violations and his failure to attend the mandatory meeting. The authenticity of the memorandum was questioned, and no witnesses testified to sponsor it or to explain why it was necessary, given the fact that Mr. Pierre was already "off the schedule." On October 3, 2006, Mr. Pierre filed a charge of retaliation with the Florida Commission on Human Relations which, on July 2, 2008, found that reasonable cause existed to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. In the fall of 2006, Mr. Pierre applied for a job with the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department (Miami- Dade). It was his understanding that his background investigation had been successfully completed, but that SSA had not responded to a reference form. Mr. Pierre took the form to SSA. The form, dated October 4, 2006, was completed by Captain Hersch, who responded, in relevant part, as follows: Reason for termination (voluntary/fired)? NON APPLICABLE Describe the applicant's work performance. GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE Describe the applicant's attendance record. GOOD OVERALL Was the applicant ever disciplined for any reason? If YES, please explain. YES CONFIDENTIAL." Is applicant able to work well with others? YES Is applicant trustworthy? YES Describe applicant's work habits? KNOWS HIS JOB, AND DOES IT Is applicant eligible for re-employment? If NO, please explain why. STILL EMPLOYED There is no explanation why Captain Hersch mentioned the confidential agreement, but not the subsequent disciplinary actions that were the focus of concern to Mr. Jurney and Mr. Graham, which could have been disclosed without violating the agreement. Based on the earlier assurances from Miami-Dade, Mr. Pierre, having put "no" when asked about discipline of his job application, believes the contradictory response from SSA caused him not to get the job. He received a letter informing him, but without giving specific reasons, that he was not hired by Miami-Dade. He failed to prove the correctness of his belief. Mr. Pierre testified, but presented no supporting evidence, that he could have earned up to $120,000 a year with Miami-Dade. SSA received notice on the second anniversary of its contract, in October 2006, that the federal government contract would not be renewed. Some time in 2007, most likely in February, at Mr. Pierre's request, he met with Mr. Jurney. It was not until that meeting, Mr. Pierre remembered, that Mr. Jurney had someone remove pre-settlement discipline records from his personnel file. By that time, SSA no longer had a contract with the federal government and was transferring its personnel over to work for the next contractor, Alutiiq. Mr. Pierre asked to be transferred and Mr. Jurney testified that he contacted someone at Alutiiq and asked for Mr. Pierre to be interviewed, but the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that SSA attempted to transfer Mr. Pierre to Alutiiq, or what the routine procedures were for transferring security guards. When Mr. Pierre found out that the necessary paperwork was never sent from SSA to Alutiiq, he tried unsuccessfully for two or three weeks to contact SSA. It is reasonable to believe that SSA, while not allowing Mr. Pierre to work, would not help him transfer over to the next contractor. Mr. Pierre was not transferred and was not employed by Alutiiq. Mr. Jurney testified unconvincingly that he made non-federal contract job offers to Mr. Pierre and Mr. Pierre found the offers acceptable, “but he didn’t accept them.” It is inconceivable that Mr. Pierre, who has three children to support and a wife who works part-time, would have rejected any legitimate job offer at that time. Mr. Pierre and Mr. Jurney, a former highway patrol trooper and member of an advisory board for the Florida Highway Patrol, discussed Mr. Pierre’s desire to be a trooper. Mr. Jurney offered to assist him but that employment never materialized. As a corporate officer, Mr. Jurney was responsible for overseeing hundreds of contracts involving 1,500 employees. He was senior to Mr. Graham and Captain Hersch. Yet, once he authorized the EEOC settlement, he became directly involved in the decision-making concerning discipline and consequences for Mr. Pierre. There is no evidence that Mr. Pierre had ever come to his attention before he approved the settlement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order directing that Respondent cease the discriminatory employment practice evidenced in this case and awarding Petitioner back pay at the rate of $15.00 an hour for each normal 40-hour work week between September 5, 2006, and the date of the final order, offset by earnings from substitute employment, if any. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 27th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ronald G. Polly, Esquire Hawkins & Parnell, LLP 4000 SunTrust Plaza 303 Peachtree Street, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30308-3243 Jacques Pierre 19601 Northwest 12th Court Miami, Florida 33169 Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141
The Issue Mary Harrison's charge of discrimination dated August 4, 1995, alleges that Jodan, Inc., doing business as Manpower (Jodan), discriminated on the basis of her race and for retaliation by constructively discharging her, giving her verbal and written reprimands and a poor performance rating, by denying her training and by intimidating her. The issues for disposition in this proceeding are whether the alleged discrimination occurred, and if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Jodan, Inc., is a family owned franchise of Manpower Temporary Services. Jodan provides temporary staff to its clients. It has six offices in Central Florida: two in north Orlando; one in south Orlando; and one each in Deland, Daytona, and Melbourne. Dan Gavin, president, is responsible for the day to day operations; John Gavin, his brother, is a co-owner. In March 1994, Margaret Jones was Jodan's district manager for the north Orlando (Maitland) and south Orlando (Sand Lake Road) offices. She recruited and hired Ms. Harrison to work as a service representative in the Maitland office. Shortly before that time John Gavin had asked her to recruit specifically for a minority employee as it would be helpful for the office to have a more diverse staff to serve its clients. Ms. Harrison is an African-American woman. At the time that she was hired by Ms. Jones in March 1994, her substantial work experience was in real estate and property management. Service representatives at Jodan perform the intake process with temporary employees (application, interview and testing); they take orders from clients and place temporary employees with those clients. Jodan provides a detailed training program for its employees, including its service representatives. Upon the commencement of her employment with Jodan, Ms. Harrison began a training program known as Professional Service 1 (PS-1) under the supervision of Margaret Jones. PS-1 is a self study course where the employee learns the policies and procedures of a Manpower franchise through tapes and other training materials. It is the responsibility of the employee to keep track of and complete PS-1. Normally it takes between three and six months for an employee to complete PS-1; however, it can take longer, depending on the employee's office work load at the time. Disgruntled and upset by what she perceived as criticism of her management and hiring decisions, Ms. Jones left the employ of Jodan on or about August 1, 1994. Prior to that time, Ms. Harrison had completed all but three or four minor details in the PS-1 training. Ms. Harrison was satisfied by her training under Ms. Jones and she admits that no one at Jodan attempted to prevent her from completing PS-1. In September 1994, Ms. Harrison reported to Dan Gavin that her PS-1 materials were lost. He was surprised that one of his employees would lose her training materials and he assisted Ms. Harrison in looking for the materials by, among other things, looking in an off-site storage facility for them. Ms. Harrison's materials were never found and she includes the disappearance of her training materials as one of the basis for her charge of discrimination. There is no evidence that anyone took the materials but neither is there any explanation for their disappearance. Normally, when an employee completes PS-1, a checklist is sent to Manpower headquarters in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, indicating the employee has completed the training. On the checklist, the employee is required to record the dates that she completed each aspect of PS-1. Mr. Gavin contacted Manpower headquarters and obtained a new checklist. He also set up a schedule to meet with Ms. Harrison to go over the items on the checklist and verify that all of PS-1 had been completed. At their first meeting, Ms. Harrison assured Mr. Gavin that she had completed all of PS-1. Based on their conversation, he called Manpower headquarters and verbally confirmed that Ms. Harrison had completed PS-1. Manpower records indicate that she officially completed PS-1 as of December 1, 1994. Ms. Harrison's testimony at hearing with regard to whether she actually had an opportunity to finish the training was confused and unclear as she seemed to contend that there were materials that she was supposed to send to the home office, but could not, due to the lapse of time and loss of her training package. After an employee completes PS-1, the next step is to attend PS-2, which is a week-long training seminar at Manpower headquarters in Milwaukee. PS-2 reinforces what is learned in PS-1 and teaches additional marketing skills. Employees are given a list of dates during which PS-2 will be offered and, because the training requires them to be away from home for a week, they can schedule it at their convenience. Employees can schedule PS-2 before actually completing PS-1 but must have completed PS-1 before they actually attend PS-2. Ms. Harrison could have attended PS-2 any time after December 1, 1994. In January 1995, Mr. Gavin directed the area manager, Kathy Stanford, to ensure that all eligible employees, including Ms. Harrison, sign up for and attend PS-2. The PS-2 classes fill up quickly and it was a priority for Mr. Gavin to have his employees enroll. On more than one occasion, Ms. Stanford gave Ms. Harrison a list of available classes and the opportunity to attend PS-2. However, Ms. Harrison failed to sign up for PS-2. Jodan evaluates employees' performance and salaries on an annual basis. On January 30, 1995, Ms. Harrison was given her annual evaluation. Although the "Appraisal Period" on her evaluation is listed as March 21, 1994, to September 1994, the uncontradicted evidence was that this was a scrivener's error and the appraisal period was March 21, 1994, (Harrison's date of hire) through December 31, 1994. Her review was performed by Mr. Gavin, who was familiar with her performance, with input from Ms. Harrison's immediate supervisor, Gloria Michael. Ms. Stanford sat in on all evaluations done at that time, including Ms. Harrison's, because she was the new area manager and sitting in on the reviews was one way for her to become familiar with the staff and their performances. Ms. Harrison's overall score on the evaluation was a 2.66 on a scale of 1 to 5. A score of 2 means "Below Expectations" and a score of 3 means "Consistently Meets Expectations." A service representative learns all performance areas covered by the evaluation through PS-1. Although she claims that she was evaluated in areas in which she was not trained, Ms. Harrison did not raise this issue with Mr. Gavin and she did not write in any comments on the evaluation in the space provided for employee comments. Further, the uncontradicted testimony, including that of Margaret Jones, established that Ms. Harrison did receive training in all areas of her job in which she was evaluated. Ms. Harrison did not suffer any job detriment as the result of this evaluation or the unusual circumstances surrounding her PS-1 training. She received a pay increase following the evaluation and was then the highest paid service representative. On March 29, 1995, Ms. Harrison was presented with a memorandum by Ms. Michael that addressed concerns she had with Ms. Harrison's job performance. Specifically, the memorandum addressed the following areas: Failure to be responsive to customer needs; The high number of personal calls Ms. Harrison was receiving at the office; Failure to properly match an employee's skills with a client's needs; Failure to consistently enter and update employee information in the computer system each time she spoke with an employee; Failure to open the office on time in the morning; Failure to set up computer training for applicants when she opened the office in the morning. Neither Mr. Gavin nor Ms. Stanford played any role in the preparation or presentation of this memorandum. Ms. Harrison did not suffer any adverse employment action as the result of the March 29, 1995, memorandum. Ms. Michael followed up the March 29, 1995, memorandum with a memorandum on May 3, 1995, detailing Ms. Harrison's improvement in all of the areas discussed in the March 29, 1995, memorandum. On May 15-16, 1995, Ms. Harrison and Ms. Michael (who is white) failed to provide an important client with prompt and appropriate service. As a result, Ms. Stanford counseled both women and placed them both on 90 days probation. Ms. Harrison does not contend that this action was discriminatory. On July 17, 1995, Ms. Harrison submitted a letter of resignation. In the letter she stated that she enjoyed her position as service representative. She also stated that she felt she had been subjected to discriminatory treatment. Ms. Harrison's resignation and the allegations of discriminatory treatment came as a surprise to Ms. Stanford and Mr. Gavin as Ms. Harrison had never before told them she was unhappy or felt discriminated against. In her letter of resignation, Ms. Harrison offered to meet with Mr. Gavin and Ms. Stanford to discuss her resignation, but during her exit interview she refused to discuss her allegations. Although many of Jodan's temporary employees were minorities, Ms. Harrison was the only African-American service representative. There were, however, other minorities, including Hispanic-Americans. Ms. Harrison presented her case in an articulate organized professional manner. It is clear that she felt the work environment was stressful and uncomfortable. However, she did not prove that she was discriminated against or was the object of hostile or adverse employment actions. The temporary employment agency business is highly competitive. Jodan had several large corporate clients and it had to work hard to meet the needs of those clients, sometimes on short notice. This created pressure on Jordan's regular staff that was experienced by white or non-minority employees as well as Ms. Harrison.
Recommendation Based on the above, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Ms. Harrison's charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary A. Harrison 2356 Carborn Street Orlando, Florida 32839 Kelly T. Blystone, Esquire Moran & Shams, P.A. Post Office Box 472 Orlando, Florida 32802-0472 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, US Growth Investment, Inc., discriminated against Petitioners Jimmy and Gelene Stewart,2 on the basis of race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act (“the Act”), chapter 760, part II, Florida Statutes (2019),3 and, if so, the relief to which Petitioners are entitled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners did not attend the Zoom Conference hearing or provide any direct evidence to support their claim of discrimination. Respondent’s counsel introduced Respondent’s representative. 6 The parties sent email communications to the undersigned’s judicial assistant regarding possible dates for a hearing, but failed to timely file the status report with the requested information. 7 Petitioners requested a 60-day continuance. The length of the actual continuance: 74 days. Further, no attorney entered a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Petitioners. 8 The tenth day after the hearing fell on a weekend; thus, the PROs were to be filed on the next business day, Monday, June 7, 2021.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioners in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Jimmy Stewart Box 700 7862 West Irlo Bronson Highway Kissimmee, Florida 34747 Richard W. Withers, Esquire Ward & Ketchersid, P.A. 1241 Airport Road, Suite H Destin, Florida 32541 Gelene Stewart Box 700 7862 West Irlo Bronson Highway Kissimmee, Florida 34747 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
