Findings Of Fact Respondent, Avenel Cesaire, holds commercial driving school instructor's certificate number 6027. Respondent, Avenel Cesaire d/b/a Cesaire's Driving School, holds commercial driving school license 2256. Respondent's chauffeur license number C260-000-53-363-459 is currently under suspension. Each license was issued by the Department. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a driving instructor and engaged in the business of instructing persons in the safe operation of motor vehicles so they might be licensed by the State of Florida. During October and November 1984, former driver license examiner Mary Louise Smith (Smith), at the insistence and request of Respondent, issued driver licenses to Respondent's students without them having passed the required written or oral examination. Ms. Smith and Respondent were intimate. Ms. Smith first met Respondent at her place of employment: the Department's driver license examination station at 3095 Northwest 79th Street, Miami, Florida (the station). The parties began dating in June 1984 and continued to date until late November 1984, when she was discharged from her employment. During the course of their relationship, Respondent gave Ms. Smith $50-100, as frequently as twice a week. Prior to his students reporting to the station for testing, Respondent provided Ms. Smith with the names, and identification, of those students who needed "assistance." Ms. Smith issued or caused to be issued, driver licenses to such students without examination or, if examined, without regard to their failure to pass the examination. By aiding or assisting persons in obtaining driver's licenses without having first demonstrated their knowledge of the skills mandated by Section 322.12, Florida Statutes, and Rule 15A-1.12, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent caused to be licensed persons not deemed competent to operate motor vehicles upon the roads of the State of Florida. Such acts constituted a clear and serious danger to the public health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order permanently revoking Respondent's commercial driving school license number 2256 and commercial driving instructor's certificate card number 6027. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 9th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne H. Printy, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric William Hendon, Esquire 8011 Northwest 22nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Leonard R. Mellon, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of a Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice along with an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by Linzie F. Bogan an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, copies of which are attached and incorporated by reference in this order. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this aia day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this Be ay of November, 2013. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Kicense Administrator Filed November 26, 2013 3:54 PM Division of Administrative Hearings NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies furnished: Richard N. Sox, Esquire Bass Sox Mercer, P.A. 2822 Remington Green Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Randall L. Oyler, Esqurie Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg, LLP 200 West Madison Street, Suite 3900 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Linzie F. Bogan Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator acy. ae
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Sections 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Beard Equipment Company, Inc., sells and maintains heavy equipment in Panama City, Florida. The Petitioner, Robert G. Harrison began employment with the Respondent in Panama City, Florida, in September, 1988. The Petitioner was employed as a janitor. Petitioner's duties included running numerous and varied errands which required driving of a motor vehicle. In April of 1989, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication for what he indicated was a bipolar disorder. However, at the hearing, Petitioner produced no expert testimony to establish that he was mentally handicapped or had bipolar disorder. At that time, Respondent became aware that Petitioner had a medical problem. Later, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication on two more occasions in 1989, and twice in 1992. On each occasion the Respondent accommodated Petitioner by making arrangements to hire temporary employees or readjust other employees' duties so that they could perform Petitioner's duties while he was hospitalized. In early 1992, the Respondent's liability insurance company conducted a random audit of employee driving records. The Respondent was notified by its insurance company that no coverage would be provided for any accident where the employee/driver had a DUI conviction. This random audit prompted Respondent to conduct a complete company- wide internal audit of driving records of all employees. The driving record audit resulted in some transfers for those employees for whom driving was an essential part of their job duties, but whose driving records would prohibit them from being covered under Respondent's liability policy. Employees who could not fulfill the duties of a non-driving position were terminated. Respondent could not afford to allow employees to drive who could not be insured by Respondent's liability carrier. The in-house driving record audit revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction on his record. Respondent had no other non-driving positions for which the Petitioner was qualified. Respondent was therefore forced to discharge the Petitioner since he could no longer fulfill the duties of his employment. Petitioner was discharged in November of 1992. When Petitioner was terminated, Petitioner was advised by Mark Veal, his supervisor, that the driving record audit had revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction, and because he would not be covered under the company insurance policy, they had no alternative but to discharge him. Within a day or so, Petitioner's wife called and requested his discharge letter in writing. Veal prepared the letter, indicating that due to Petitioner's medical history, his operating a motor vehicle would be too much of a liability. Although the real reason for Petitioner's discharge and the reason given him at the time was the DUI conviction, Veal tried to write the discharge letter in such a way as to minimize any embarrassment for the Petitioner due to his DUI conviction. Therefore, the termination letter does not support the conclusion that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a mental handicap. In fact, there was no substantial evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner based on a mental handicap. The evidence clearly showed Respondent was terminated for his driving record and his lack of qualifications to fill any other non-driving position. Moreover, Petitioner failed to establish that his position was filled by a person not in a protected class or that Respondent is an employer employing more than 15 employees. Given these facts, Petitioner has not established a prima facie case that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discriminated against because of his alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 22nd day of December, 1994.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by Daniel M. Kilbride , an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction based on a Settlement Stipulation entered into between the parties, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly it is FOUND and ORDERED as follows: That Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) per count for a total of four thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($4,250.00). The fine shall be paid in four monthly payments. The first payment of $1,250.00 to be paid on or before April 16, 2010. The second payment of $1,000.00 to be paid on or before May 16, 2010. The third payment of $1,000.00 to be paid on or before June 16, 2010. The fourth Filed March 18, 2010 4:17 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. and final payment of $1,000.00 to be paid on or before July 16, 2010. All payments are to be made by returning a copy of the order with payment to: Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Office of the Hearing Officer Division of Motor Vehicles 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Room A308, MS-61 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 If Respondent pays each installment of the amount specified in paragraph one above within the specified time the Department will impose no further penalties or sanctions against Respondent. However, if Respondent fails to pay any installment as specified in paragraph one, on the day following the due date of the installment, Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license will be automatically suspended and Respondent will cease to do business as a motor vehicle dealer. If, after suspension Respondent pays the past due installment before the due date of the next installment, its motor vehicle dealer license will immediately be reinstated without further penalties or sanctions. However, if Respondent fails to pay the past due installment by the due date of the next installment, the Department will revoke Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license. If the Department suspends or revokes Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license for non-payment as specified in paragraphs two and three said suspension or revocation shall be without recourse to the Respondent and Respondent hereby expressly waives any right to appeal or otherwise contest the suspension and revocation./ / DONE AND ORDERED this / gday of March 2010, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439, MS-60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0600 Filed in the official records of the Division of Motor Vehicles this ay of March 2010. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Rules of Appellate Procedure. CAF:jdc Copies furnished: Gary Konopka Regional Administrator Dealer License Section Riad I. Kantar, President World Shell, Inc. 7161 Augusto Boulevard Seminole, Florida 33777 FALR Post Office Box 385 Gainesville, Florida 32602
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rolando Mirabet, was first licensed as a commercial driving instructor in 1981. His current license will expire February 1, 1983. On March 26, 1982, a cameraman for WTVJ, Channel 4, Miami, while posing as a driver's license applicant at the Central Driver License Office was approached by Respondent. The cameraman/applicant told Respondent he was looking for the answers to the driver's license examination. They entered an automobile, Respondent showed the cameraman/applicant papers which he represented to be test questions from the actual driver's license examination, and the cameraman/applicant told Respondent he needed to take the questions and answers home with him to study. Respondent sold the questionnaire to the cameraman/applicant for twenty-five dollars ($25). Other employees of WTVJ filmed the encounter between Respondent and the cameraman/applicant from inside a surveillance van. The document sold by the Respondent to the WTVJ cameraman/applicant contains fifty-three questions with multiple-choice, alternate answers provided for each question and with one of the alternate answers for each question being marked as the correct answer. The document is in Spanish. Applicants for a driver's license are required, among other things, to pass a written examination concerning rules and regulations for driving in the State of Florida. Petitioner uses four different written examinations for testing applicants. During the hearing, one of Petitioner's witnesses compared the questionnaire sold by the Respondent to the cameraman/applicant and one of the Spanish versions of Petitioner's examination. Although the witness identified five questions as being the same on both documents, he also recognized some of the questions on the document which Respondent sold as being questions from the other versions of Petitioner's Spanish examination. A close review of the actual examination admitted in evidence and the document sold by Respondent reveals, however, that all twenty questions on the actual examination are found verbatim in the document sold by Respondent, and the alternate, multiple-choice answers to each question are also verbatim. Respondent admits giving the questions and answers to driver's license applicants. Respondent denies any knowledge of the rules and regulations enacted by Petitioner. Petitioner publishes a driver's handbook. That handbook contains a number of questions that are general in nature. No answers to those questions are suggested, and a reader needs to understand the entire book in order to answer those questions. Only one sample question with multiple-choice answers is given in order to illustrate to applicants the type of question which the applicant will encounter on the licensing examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered permanently revoking the commercial driving instructor's certificate card of Respondent, Rolando Mirabet. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 27th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Judson M. Chapman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan Goldfarb, Esquire 12th Floor, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Mr. Chester F. Blakemore Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's suspension of Petitioner was in compliance with Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 22 A-10, Florida Administrative Code. Whether the Respondent's suspension of Petitioner should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Louise M. McAdams was an Examiner II employed by Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in Marianna, Florida. By letter dated February 11, 1975, Mrs. McAdams, the Petitioner, was notified that she was being suspended for three work days without pay by the Respondent, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Drivers License, for: Third offense, rude and improper handling of a driver license applicant in willful violation of the Division of Driver Licenses' Disciplinary Policy, Section II, Pages 23-25 Examiner Manual (Appendix "A"). Mrs. McAdams appealed this suspension. Petitioner had previously received two written reprimands from Respondent, one dated April 5, 1975 and one dated April 12, 1975 involving similar charges. The two previous reprimands did not result in the suspension of Petitioner. The Department Respondent has presented documentary evidence that there were numerous complaints as to the work of Petitioner; her absences from the office; and, the handling of the general public. The Respondent Department has proceeded properly under its policy and rules and the rules of the Career Service Commission and under the statutes of the State of Florida. Petitioner McAdams is am attractive personable woman but one who suffers from ill health. The routine pressures of the job of Examiner II and the general job pressure of state employment together with her physical condition is evidently responsible for her inability to satisfy the requirements of the job which is a job that requires a certain amount of job pressure and requires personnel to be at all times pleasant, smiling and courteous as well as consistently prompt in daily attendance. The Hearing Officer further finds: The Respondent has properly followed the rules and regulations and statutes relative to the suspension of employees. That the suspension of Petitioner, Louise McAdams, was proper. That just cause existed for the suspension of Petitioner.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on Petitioner's race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Phillip McTaggart, is a white male who retired after more than 20 years in the United States Air Force (including the reserves), and 18 years with Delta Airlines. Respondent, Pensacola Bay Transportation Company, specializes in the transportation of people with special transportation needs, including the elderly, disabled, and economically disadvantaged. Respondent contracts with the Escambia Area Transit Service, the local coordination board of the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged, to provide these services. Many of Respondent's customers are wheel-chair bound or otherwise need assistance with transportation. Respondent uses both automobiles and specially designed buses for the transportation of wheel-chair bound customers. Petitioner applied for a job with Respondent by filling out an application on January 20, 2009. His application did not specify for which position he was applying. Respondent had hired a white driver just days before Petitioner's application. Respondent hired three African- American drivers after Petitioner applied. Each of the hired drivers stated on their applications that they were applying for driver positions. The last driver hired by Respondent in 2009 was on April 13. All of the drivers hired after Petitioner applied had submitted their application before Petitioner applied. Each of the hired drivers' application reflected previous wages in line with wages paid to other drivers in the Pensacola area. Petitioner's application showed he had earned wages at his previous jobs that significantly exceeded the wages Respondent was paying its drivers. Petitioner testified that he either re-applied or updated his application for a driver position in May 2009, but Respondent has no record of the subsequent application. Petitioner contends, through the use of a vocational expert, that Respondent hires minority candidates for its driver workforce at a rate that far exceeds the demographics of the Pensacola area. Also, a large number of the drivers are minority women, who statistically receive lower wages than white male employees based upon national Department of Labor figures. Petitioner contends that he was discriminated against by being a white male with a history of receiving higher wages than the typical driver employed by Respondent. Some companies refuse to hire individuals they believe are overqualified for the position for which they apply. The reasons for this failure to hire the "overqualified" are that they command higher wages, as well as a general fear they will leave to seek higher-paying employment. Petitioner listed on his application his previous experience in the Air Force as an aircraft mechanic. He listed his previous experience with Delta Airlines as a customer service agent in public relations, baggage, and ticketing. Nowhere did Petitioner hint at previous experience as a driver. Petitioner's updated resume, which he testified he supplied to Respondent with his application failed to make mention of any professional driving experience. He testified at hearing, however, that when he went to update his application in May 2009, he told Respondent's personnel that he had driving experience from his time serving in the Air Force. Respondent is a unionized company that operates under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Its wages are set by the CBA. Petitioner's vocational expert was not aware of the company's union status when she performed her wage study for the Pensacola area. Respondent inherited many of its employees from a company it acquired in 2001. The company was required to keep these employees at the wages they were already receiving under the CBA. Respondent had never hired a driver with an employment background matching Petitioner's. Tammie Nelms, the human resources manager for Respondent, liked the fact that Petitioner had such a stable work history. She would have called him back had she known he was seeking a driver position. Although Respondent has a box full of driver applications (about 50 applied in 2009 alone), few whites apply for driver positions at Respondent's Pensacola location. The company has three white maintenance workers in the Pensacola location. White drivers more commonly apply at Respondent's Santa Rosa County location. Respondent has a policy of non-discrimination in the hiring of employees.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 1st day of June, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Ryan M. Barnett, Esquire Whibbs & Stone, P.A. 801 West Romana Street, Unit C Pensacola, Florida 32501 Elizabeth Darby Rehm, Esquire The Kullman Firm Post Office Box 1287 Mobile, Alabama 36633 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact For many years Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. (MDI), held the contract for trash removal and processing for Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida (NAS Pensacola). In the summer of 1995, the contract for these services, for a period beginning January 1996, were the subject of a bid solicitation. The apparent winner of the bid was Ohio Disposal Systems, Inc (ODSI). This bid was contested by MDI. Ultimately, ODSI prevailed in the bid contest and was selected to perform the contract. Performance was to begin on January 1, 1996, however, ODSI was not informed that it was to be the contractor until early December 1995. Petitioner was born on July 12, 1922. He is a U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico, and of Hispanic origin. Petitioner first came to be employed by MDI in the summer of 1994. Petitioner worked on the "hill," which is an elevated portion of the trash dump on board NAS Pensacola. It was his job to weld broken equipment. He also operated two kinds of equipment: a Bobcat, which is a small front-end loader, and a backhoe with a dozer blade mounted on the front. Petitioner was paid about $16.00 per hour as a welder. Victor Cantrel, Petitioner's friend, commenced employment with MDI in July 1995. He worked on the "hill" and also drove the Bobcat and the back-hoe. He would utilize this equipment to push trash into a compactor. In trash-handling parlance, he was known as a "hill man." He was not a welder. He worked closely with Petitioner. Mr. Cantrel was born on June 25, 1972, and is Anglo- American. He was paid about $9.00 per hour. The supervisor of Petitioner and Mr. Cantrel, during the latter months of 1995 while they were working for MDI, was Thomas Lucky. The principal of ODSI was Vince Crawford. On or about December 28, 1995, at the end of the workday, Mr. Lucky informed the employees, including Petitioner, Mr. Cantrel, and a number of trash truck drivers, that there was to be a meeting in the company office near the "hill." Present at the meeting in the office, which commenced around 6:30 p.m., was Petitioner, Mr. Cantrel, Mr. Lucky, several truck drivers, Mr. Crawford, and his wife Cathy. Mr. Crawford informed the assembled employees that he was bringing in all new equipment; that because there would be new equipment, the new employees of ODSI would be able to work 40 hours per week; and that due to the requirement to get his company in shape in time to meet the January 1, 1996, deadline, many of the employees of MDI would be offered jobs with ODSI. After revealing these preliminary matters, Mr. Crawford asked a man named Lee what he did at MDI; this man said that he was a truck driver. Mr. Crawford told him that he was hired with the new company. Then he asked Mr. Cantrel what he did; he said he drove the Bobcat. Mr. Crawford said, "Recycle, huh. You are hired." Mr. Cantrel subsequently filed an employment application. However, he knew that after the announcement at the meeting, he was going to work for ODSI. When Mr. Crawford inquired of two more people, they both responded, "truck driver," and Mr. Crawford informed them that they were hired. When he asked Petitioner, Petitioner said, "Welder." Mr. Crawford then said, "We don't need no welders here." This was the first and last encounter Petitioner had with Mr. Crawford. The next day Petitioner arrived at work at the usual time and was informed that he no longer was employed at that facility. On January 2, 1996, Petitioner presented an employment application to the office at ODSI seeking employment as a "Welder and/or Heavy Equip. Opr." He never received a response. No evidence was adduced that at that time there were job openings for a "welder and/or heavy equipment operator." Additionally, according to Petitioner, no one from ODSI informed Petitioner that he was not qualified. No evidence was adduced at the hearing which indicated that Mr. Crawford noticed that Petitioner was 73 years of age, or that he was a Puerto Rican, or that he was of Hispanic origin. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Petitioner was not hired, at the time jobs were available, because Mr. Crawford was bringing in new equipment. New equipment does not require frequent welding and, therefore, Mr. Crawford did not need a welder.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent committed no unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 28th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Committe, Esquire 17 South Palafox Place, Suite 322 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 H. William Wasden, Esquire Pierce, Ledyard, Latta, Wasden & Bowron, P.C. Post Office Box 16046 Mobile, Alabama 36616 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
