The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner on the basis of her disability.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner, Joan Vassar, was an individual participant in a tenant-based voucher arrangement under the Section 8 Housing Program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and administered by the Tallahassee Housing Authority (THA). Petitioner was a resident of The Lakes at San Marcos (The Lakes), an apartment complex located at 4768 Woodville Highway in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent, CMP CHP San Marcos Ltd. (San Marcos), is the owner of The Lakes, which is managed by a company known as HSI. Petitioner has been diagnosed with fibromyalgia and has suffered multiple strokes. Petitioner is disabled for purposes of the Fair Housing Act. Beginning in August 2009, Petitioner rented apartment 1533 at The Lakes, a one-bedroom apartment on the third floor of building 15. Petitioner’s rent was paid directly to San Marcos by THA pursuant to Petitioner’s one-bedroom housing choice voucher. Petitioner had difficulty climbing the stairs to her third-floor apartment and often took breaks at each landing to rest. There was no elevator at The Lakes as an alternative means of accessing the third floor of building 15. By all accounts, Petitioner’s tenancy at The Lakes was peaceful and without incident. In 2011, Valarie Gosier-Coleman became the assistant manager of The Lakes. Petitioner described Ms. Gosier-Coleman as compassionate toward her. Ms. Gosier-Coleman occasionally disposed of Petitioner’s garbage for her and retrieved Petitioner’s mail. In May 2014, Petitioner reported to Ms. Gosier-Coleman that her health had declined, that she would need a live-in caregiver, and that she wished to move to a two-bedroom, first-floor apartment. On June 4, 2014, in response to Petitioner’s request, Respondent informed Petitioner in writing that two two-bedroom, first-floor apartments--1311 and 1413--would become available beginning August 1, 2014. Apartment 1413 was located in the building next to Petitioner’s existing apartment, and Petitioner indicated she would accept that apartment. HSI requires all occupants of an apartment to complete an application and be approved to rent. Petitioner brought her would-be caregiver to The Lakes to apply for apartment 1413. However, the caregiver was reticent to complete the financial information section of the application. Although she took the incomplete application with her when she left the office, the caregiver never submitted a completed application for the apartment. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner was offered apartment 1116, a one-bedroom first-floor apartment. On July 16, 2014, Petitioner rejected that apartment, sight unseen, as “too far in the back of the complex.” On July 31, 2014, Petitioner renewed her lease for apartment 1533. At that time, she wrote to management, “I do not want a (2) bedroom apt. any place except where I specified for personal reasons. I have been here for 5 years and am very secure and familiar with my neighbors in my building . . . . Plus, my family lives in this same building on the first floor.”1/ No other first-floor apartments became available at The Lakes between August and October 2014. Shortly after renewing her lease, Petitioner informed HSI that she desired to leave The Lakes. Petitioner requested to break her lease, which Respondent allowed. Respondent refunded Petitioner’s deposit in full.
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 Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 22nd day of December, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondents, Donna and Randy Morrison, managers of Hillside Mobile Home Park, discriminated against Petitioners, Linda Parah and Andrew Loveland, Sr., by failing to make reasonable accommodation for Petitioners' service animal necessary to afford equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rental premises in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Sections through 760.37, Florida Statutes (2004).1
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses' demeanor and manner while testifying, character of the testimony, internal consistency, and recall ability; documentary materials received in evidence; stipulations by the parties; and evidentiary rulings during the proceedings, the following relevant and material facts are found: On June 24, 2004, Andrew Loveland, Sr., made application for tenancy at Hillside Mobile Home Park, Inc. (Hillside), 39515 Bamboo Lane, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542, when he completed and signed Respondents' "Application for Tenancy" form. The prospective tenants listed were Andrew Loveland, Sr., and Linda Parah. Ms. Parah did not sign the application. As of June 24, 2005, Petitioners listed their then-current address as 5824 23rd Street, Lot 1, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542. The application for tenancy form listed Ms. Parah as one of the persons to reside in the rental dwelling and, as such, was a "person associated with the intended renter," Mr. Loveland. The tenancy application signed by Mr. Loveland contained the following acknowledgement: [U]nder penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and the facts alleged are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of the Prospectus and Rules and Regulations of Hillside Mobile Home Park, Inc. Mr. Loveland, though present at the proceeding, chose not to challenge his written acknowledgment of receiving a copy of the Prospectus and the Rules and Regulations of Hillside, and the undersigned accordingly finds that Mr. Loveland received a copy of the Prospectus and the Rules and Regulations of Hillside on June 24, 2004, and was fully informed of his duties and obligations as a tenant of Hillside therein contained. On June 24, 2004, neither Mr. Loveland nor Ms. Parah informed or advised management of any medical disability(s) suffered, requiring companionship (living in the trailer) of a dog (comfort or service). Petitioners did not, at that time, request Respondents to make any reasonable accommodations for any mental and/or physical disability(s) that required the presence of their service dog in the rented premises. No copy of management's park prospectus or rules was offered in evidence, and, accordingly, a finding of receipt thereof is made, but no findings herein are based on the specific content therein. On or after June 24, 2004, Petitioners and their dog occupied the leased premises 6528 Pecan Drive, Hillside Mobile Home Park, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542. The credible evidence of record convincingly demonstrated management had knowledge that Petitioners and several other park tenants owned dogs. Tenants, often times together, walked their dogs about the trailer park in sight of management and other residents. Based upon the above, it is concluded that management was or should have been aware that other tenants, including Petitioners, had dogs in the trailer park. On October 21, 2004, management, by and through its attorney, by certified mail, made demand upon Petitioners to cure noncompliance within seven days (October 28, 2004) or vacate premises for noncompliance with the park prospectus or rules, to wit: You have been driving your golf cart behind and between mobiles. Residents must govern themselves in a manner that does not unreasonably disturb or annoy other residents. We have had several complaints regarding this issue. Please drive and walk on the streets only. (Emphasis added) Ms. Parah acknowledged the golf car incident, explaining that Mr. Loveland occasionally drove his golf cart through the trailer park and not always on the walkways during the evening hours. She insisted, however, that after receipt of the October 21, 2004, notice to cease from management, Mr. Loveland discontinued driving his golf cart behind and between mobile homes during the evenings and nights and, during the day, restricted his cart driving to only the park roadways. By letter dated November 5, 2004, to Mr. Loveland, Respondents issued a "Notice of Termination of Tenancy," for failure to correct the (October 21, 2004, notice of violation-- driving golf cart) within seven days. Accordingly, his tenancy was to be terminated 35 days from the postmarked date of delivery of the notice. On November 11, 2004, S. D. Hostetler, a tenant whom management did not call to testify, allegedly filed the following hand-written complaint letter to management: On 11-3-04 at around 3 am I was awaken by a loud sound. I got up to see what it was and it was an older red golf cart going through the camping section, it must not have a muffler on it, that morning I did complain to the management about some one going around the Park that early in the morning with such a noisey [sic] scooter. I later found out it was Andrew Loveland. The above-written document was not notarized; the author was not made available and subject to cross-examination. This document therefore is unsupported hearsay and insufficient to support and establish the factual content therein to wit: "[O]n 11-3-04 around 3 a.m., Mr. Loveland was driving his golf cart through the camping section and, thus, failed to correct the October 21, 2004, notice of violation--driving golf cart, within 7 days." This complaint did, however, establish the fact that management received a complaint about Mr. Loveland from another tenant after having given him notice to cease and desist. On November 18, 2004, two weeks after the golf cart notice of noncompliance termination, Respondents, by certified mail delivered on November 22, 2004, made demand upon Petitioners to cure noncompliance within seven days or vacate premises for a second noncompliance with the park prospectus or rules, to wit: "(A) You have a dog and dogs are not allowed in the park." The November 22, 2004, copy of the notice to cure noncompliance was received by Mr. Loveland as evidenced by a copy of a U.S. Certified Mail delivery receipt signed by Mr. Loveland. In the December 13, 2004, letter from Attorney Schlichte addressed to Andrew Loveland (only), Re: Notice of Termination of Tenancy (reference November 18, 2004, 1st Notice of Rule Violation; i.e. you have a dog and dogs not allowed), Petitioners were given 30 days to vacate the premises. It is significant and noted that as of December 13, 2004, Ms. Parah had not made a demand or request upon management for "reasonable accommodations for her service animal necessary to afford the Petitioner an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the rental premises," as alleged in the administrative complaint. Ultimate Factual Determinations On February 28, 2005, 76 days after receipt of management's December 13, 2004, first Notice of Rule Violation (no dog allowed) and filing of Eviction Compliant in Pasco County Court,2 Petitioners made their first written request to management for reasonable accommodation under the American Disabilities Act as follows: Dear Sir: I am requesting reasonable accommodation under the American with Disability Act to have rules and regulations of the Park (Hillside) sent to me. On my pet. I have documentation from my physician Joseph Nystrom, M.D. on my service, my comfort dog. And this can be furnished upon request! Rules and Regulations were not clear to fact that Mr. Andrew Loveland, Sr. never had them unless you can show pictures on the grass 10/21/2004. I feel that your violating Mr. Loveland and my civil right under fair housing rules. [sic] Please acknowledge our reasonable accommodation as stated above by Tuesday of next week 3/8/2005. Accordingly, Linda Alan Parah Andrew Alton Loveland, Sr. cc: C.J. Miles Deputy Dir. Fair Housing Continu [sic], Inc., 1-888-264-5619. Having provided a copy of the Prospectus and the Rules and Regulations of Hillside on June 24, 2004, to Mr. Loveland, management's refusal to provide a second copy was a reasonable nondiscriminatory business decision. The offer to provide "documentation from my physician Joseph Nystrom, M.D. on my service, my comfort dog," imposed no obligation upon management to accept such offer. Within the totality of circumstances then present, ignoring Petitioners' offer to provide medical and/or willingness statements regarding their medical, physical, and mental disabilities, requiring the presence of a service/comfort dog by Respondents, is not found to have been discriminatory. On or about May 19, 2005, Pasco County Court entered Final Judgment of Eviction against Andrew Loveland and Unknown Tenant (i.e. Linda Parah). The Pasco County Sheriff's Office, pursuant to Final Judgment of Eviction for Removal of Tenant entered by the Pasco County Court, evicted Petitioners from Respondents' rented premises of Hillside, 39515 Bamboo Lane, Zephyrhills, Florida 33542. Petitioners submitted an abundance of credible evidence relating to their physical and mental health conditions. As to Mr. Loveland, Dr. Nystrom's written and signed notation concluded that Mr. Loveland's condition required: "Motorized wheelchair multi-level spinal stenosis- medically necessary and due to his illness, the presence of his little Dog is medically necessary." The document contained hearsay evidence to which counsel for Respondents did not raise an objection and is, thus, accepted by the undersigned. This document was dated after the date Mr. Loveland received his second notice regarding failure to correct and the filing of the complaint for eviction. As to Ms. Parah, Tracey E. Smithey, M.D., East Pasco Medical Group, reported her medical conclusion stating in part that: "Linda Parah, was seen in my office on 11-20-03, 01-19-04 and today (April 8, 2004). She had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, Depressed type. She is prescribed Paxi, Xanax, and Ambien. She has been referred for psychotherapy also." Dr. Smithey did not include in her written document that Ms. Parah had to have a dog for her condition. Dr. Smithey, as had Dr. Nystrom, signed the document. The document contained hearsay evidence to which counsel for Respondents did not raise an objection and is, thus, accepted by the undersigned. Had Petitioners made their request for reasonable accommodations and presented their medical reports, evidencing their medical conditions and limitations, to include the need of Mr. Loveland for his comfort dog, to Respondents on or before June 24, 2004, or even as late as on or about November 18, 2004, Petitioners would have, arguably, established the requisite basis for finding of a request for reasonable accommodation. There is, however, insufficient evidence of record to support a finding that Petitioners, Mr. Loveland nor Ms. Parah, made a reasonable accommodation request to Respondents for the housing of the comfort dog for Mr. Loveland. The sequence of dated events and documented evidence is an inference that after receiving the notice to vacate for the two alleged rule violation(s), Petitioners did not make a request for reasonable accommodation to management for Mr. Loveland's dog, but rather offered to provide medical support of Mr. Loveland's need for a comfort dog should Respondents request such proof. Respondents were under no duty or obligation to do so and did not make such a request.3 Petitioners failed to establish that either Mr. Loveland or Ms. Parah: (1) made a request for reasonable accommodation based upon the demonstrated disability of Mr. Loveland; (2) the animal in question was a medically required service (comfort dog) animal for Mr. Loveland; (3) the requested accommodation was necessary to permit full enjoyment by Mr. Loveland of the rental premises; and (4) thereafter, management denied their reasonable accommodation request for Mr. Loveland. In short, and based upon the findings of fact herein, Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioners; rather, management terminated Petitioners' tenancy for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, to wit: off-road driving of a golf cart and unapproved dog within the rental unit in violation of park rules and regulations after written notice to correct the noted violations. Management's Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs There is not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate a finding that Petitioner, Mr. Loveland, who did not testify, knew or should have known that his claim and defense presented during this proceeding was not supported by material facts. Likewise, Respondent made no query of Ms. Parah (referred to in the eviction complaint as "unnamed tenant") that elicited statements or acknowledgements from which reasonable inference could be drawn to demonstrate that within the situational circumstances Ms. Parah knew or should have known the claim herein made was not supported by material facts.4
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order: Dismissing Petitioners', Linda Parah and Andrew Loveland's, Petition for Relief; and Denying Respondents' counsel's motion for an award of attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 16th day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., denied Petitioners full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered at its place of public accommodation, in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Parties and Jurisdiction Petitioners are African Americans who reside in the State of Ohio, who visited Orlando, Florida, in June 2011 and stayed at Lake Eve Resort beginning on June 21, 2011. Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., was the owner of Lake Eve Resort, located at 12388 International Drive, Orlando, Florida, at all times relevant hereto. Each Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Commission as follows: Jessica Austin – July 20, 2012 Denise Austin – July 21, 2012 Tracie Austin – January 18, 2013 (Amended Complaint)2/ Bonlydia Jones – July 11, 2012 James Austin – July 31, 2012 Dionne Harrington – August 1, 2012 Esther Hall – January 28, 2013 (Amended Complaint)3/ Boniris McNeal – March 27, 2013 Summer McNeal – March 27, 2013 Derek McNeal – March 27, 2013 In each Complaint, the Petitioner alleges that the most recent date of discrimination is June 22, 2011. On June 21, 2012, Petitioners Esther Hall, Summer McNeal, Boniris McNeal, Derek McNeal, and Dionne Harrington, each filed a Technical Assistance Questionnaire (TAQ) with the Commission. Each TAQ is signed by the named Petitioner, is stamped received by the Commission on June 21, 2012, and contains the specific facts alleged to be an act of discrimination in the provision of public accommodation by Respondent. Allegations of Discrimination On or about May 23, 2011, Petitioner, Boniris McNeal, entered into a Standard Group Contract with Lake Eve Resort (the Resort) to reserve 15 Resort rooms for five nights at a discounted group rate beginning June 21, 2011.4/ The rooms were to accommodate approximately 55 members of her extended family on the occasion of the Boss/Williams/Harris family reunion. Petitioners traveled from Ohio to Orlando via charter bus, arriving at the Resort on the evening of June 21, 2011. Erika Bell, a relative of Petitioners, drove a rental car from Ohio to Orlando. She did not arrive in Orlando until June 22, 2011. Petitioners checked in to the Resort without incident. However, one family member, John Harris, was informed that the three-bedroom suite he had reserved for his family was not available due to a mistake in reservations. He was offered two two-bedroom suites to accommodate his family. Petitioner, Boniris McNeal, dined off-property on the evening of June 21, 2011, to celebrate her wedding anniversary. Petitioner, Bonlydia Jones, left the Resort property shortly after check-in to shop for groceries. Petitioners, Dionne Harrington and Esther Hall, were very tired after the long bus trip and went to bed early on June 21, 2011. Petitioner, Denise Austin, arrived in Orlando with the family on June 21, 2011. On the morning of June 22, 2011, Ms. Jones received a call from Mr. Harris, informing her that the Resort management wanted to speak with them about his room. That morning, Ms. Jones and Mr. Harris met with two members of Resort management, Amanda Simon and Marie Silbe. Mr. Harris was informed that he needed to change rooms to a three-bedroom suite, the accommodation he had reserved, which had become available. Mr. Harris disputed that he had to change rooms and argued that he was told at check-in the prior evening he would not have to move from the two two-bedroom suites he was offered when his preferred three-bedroom suite was not available. After some discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Harris would move his family to an available three-bedroom suite. The Resort provided an employee to assist with the move. Following the meeting with management, Ms. Jones went to the pool, along with Ms. Harrington and other members of the family. After a period of time which was not established at hearing, Mary Hall, one of Ms. Harrington’s relatives, came to the pool and informed Ms. Harrington that the family was being evicted from the Resort. Ms. Harrington left the pool and entered the lobby, where she observed police officers and members of Resort management. She approached a member of management and was informed that she and her family were being evicted from the Resort and must be off the property within an hour. Ms. Harrington left the lobby and returned to her room, where her mother, Ms. Hall was sleeping. Ms. Harrington informed Ms. Hall that the family was being evicted from the Resort and instructed Ms. Hall to pack her belongings. Ms. Jones’ cousin, Denise Strickland, came to the pool and informed her that the family was being evicted from the Resort. Ms. Jones entered the lobby where she was approached by a member of management, who introduced herself as the general manager and informed her that the family was being evicted. Ms. Jones requested a reason, but was informed by a police officer that the owners did not have to give a reason. In the lobby, Ms. Jones observed that an African- American male was stopped by police and asked whether he was with the Boss/Williams/Harris reunion. He was not a family member. Ms. Jones observed that no Caucasian guests were approached in the lobby by management or the police. Ms. Austin was on a trolley to lunch off-property on June 22, 2011, when she received a call from her cousin, Ms. Strickland. Ms. Strickland informed Ms. Austin that the family was being evicted from the Resort and she needed to return to pack her things. Ms. Austin returned to the property, where she was escorted to her room by a security guard and asked to pack her belongings. Ms. McNeal was en route to rent a car and buy groceries on June 22, 2011, when she received a call from Ms. Strickland informing her that the family was being evicted and that she needed to return to the Resort to pack her belongings. Upon her arrival at the Resort, Ms. McNeal entered the lobby. There, she was approached by Resort staff, asked whether she was with the Boss/Williams/Harris reunion, and informed that the Resort could not honor the reservations and the family was being evicted. Ms. McNeal observed that Caucasian guests entering the lobby were not approached by either the police or Resort management. Ms. McNeal was escorted to her room by both a police officer and a member of management and instructed to be out of the room within 30 minutes. Ms. McNeal inquired why they were being evicted, but was told by a police officer that the Resort was not required to give a reason. Erika Bell received a call from her mother, Ms. Austin, while en route to the Resort on June 22, 2011. Ms. Austin informed Ms. Bell that the family was being evicted from the Resort and asked her to call the Resort and cancel her reservation. Respondent gave no reason for evicting Petitioners from the property. Respondent refunded Petitioners’ money.
Recommendation 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: Finding that Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., committed an act of public accommodation discrimination in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2011), against Petitioners Jessica Austin, Denise Austin, Tracie Austin, James Austin, Bonlydia Jones, Esther Hall, Boniris McNeal, Derek McNeal, Summer McNeal, and Dionne Harrington; and Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 28th day of May, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race, sex or religion.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates the Valu-Lodge Motel located at 4810 West Highway 98, Panama City Beach, Florida. The motel offers rooms for rent to the public and is a "transient public lodging establishment" within the meaning of Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a white male. His national origin is American. Although Petitioner’s complaint and petition indicate that Petitioner espouses to be a member of the Church of Christ, there was no evidence presented at the hearing regarding Petitioner’s religion. On September 9, 2004, Petitioner rented a motel room from Respondent at its Panama City Beach motel. The rental term was week to week. At some point, Respondent felt Petitioner had become disruptive to the operation of the hotel and to its guests. On November 25, 2005, Respondent informed Petitioner that it would no longer rent a room to Petitioner and hand-delivered a Notice of Termination of Lease to Petitioner. The Notice stated that Petitioner must vacate the premises by December 1, 2005. Petitioner refused to vacate the motel premises. On December 9, 2005, Respondent hand-delivered a Fifteen Day Notice for Possession of Premises to Petitioner. The Notice indicated that no further rent would be accepted. Petitioner again refused to vacate the premises. Petitioner also did not pay any further rent to Respondent. Respondent filed an eviction proceeding against Petitioner. The first and second eviction proceedings appear to have been dismissed for procedural reasons. However, the third eviction proceeding was successful. During that proceeding, Petitioner had the opportunity to defend against eviction based on the claims of discrimination raised in this matter. However, on June 22, 2007, after hearing, Respondent received a final judgment, awarding the Intown Companies, Inc., $19,213.18 in unpaid rent, plus interest. Respondent also received a Final Judgment of Eviction awarding the Company possession of the premises and court costs. A Writ of Possession was issued on June 25, 2007, and Petitioner vacated the premises on June 27, 2008. There was no evidence presented by Petitioner that demonstrated Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in any manner. There was absolutely no evidence of any racial, nationalistic or religious bias on the part of Respondent. Apparently, Petitioner believes that he is entitled to rent a room from Respondent simply because he is a member of the public and desires to rent a room from Respondent. Neither the facts, nor the law supports Petitioner’s misinformed view of the view of the law. Given the utter lack of evidence presented by Petitioner, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
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. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 3rd day of September 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Alan Johnson 20417 Panama City Beach Parkway No. 8 Panama City Beach, Florida 32413 Melton Harrell, Authorized Agent The Intown Companies, Inc. d/b/a Valu Lodge American Motel Management, Inc. 2200 Northlake Parkway S-277 Tucker, Georgia 30084-4023
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Francesca Thomas, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, SMA Behavioral Health, Inc., based on her alleged handicap/disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, section 760.01, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a Family Intensive Therapeutic Team (FITT) counselor for Respondent. She provides substance abuse and mental health counseling with the goal of reuniting her clients with their children. Petitioner has worked for Respondent for 15 years, and was described by one of her supervisors as “professional.” During the course of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner has received multiple promotions, presumably indicative of the quality of her work for Respondent. FITT counselors are responsible for providing counseling services to 10 to 12 clients that are referred by child welfare. The program is designed for FITT counselors to see their clients at the clients’ homes or out in the community. Respondent provides a laptop and cell phone for each FITT counselor for use in the field. FITT counselors rely upon electronic medical records and use their laptops to communicate with clients and manage their caseloads. Occasionally there are some hard copy documents used by the FITT counselors, but Respondent has policies and procedures in place to manage the security of these documents. Hard copy documents are required to be secured in locked bags or in the trunks of the FITT counselor’s cars. All of the progress notes that FITT counselors prepare are paperless. Additionally, the discharge notes, communications, and child welfare records are paperless. Over the course of a case, the majority of the documents are paperless. FITT counselors only have to come into the office if they have meetings with their supervisor or have documents in hard copy format. If they so choose, they can work on their case notes and communicate with clients from the office. They can also connect to the internet, work on their case notes, and communicate with clients remotely. In all, 70 to 80 percent of Petitioner’s work is performed outside of the office. Some of the FITT counselors perform the majority of their work at home. This is accomplished via their company issued laptop and WiFi delivered through their phone. Respondent has a Virtual Private Network (VPN) system that allows FITT counselors to work remotely and securely from their homes. Petitioner’s position was designed so she would not be tethered to a desk. As noted, she has the ability to connect to WiFi through a WiFi hotspot that is available on the phones issued by Respondent, which essentially allows her to work from anywhere. Prior to February 2018, the FITT counselor’s offices were located in the Cantley Center, in Daytona Beach, Florida. The work stations provided to the counselors at this location were very small offices (approximately 8 ft. by 8 ft.) with doors, as opposed to work cubicles. Some FITT counselors shared offices with other counselors, while some counselors, including Petitioner, had their own offices. The workspace was described by one counselor as a “cave” since it was located in the lower level of the building, there were no windows, and the small offices had low ceilings. For reasons not reflected in this record, sometime in early 2018 the decision was made to relocate Respondent’s operations to a new location. On or around February 27, 2018, Petitioner went to Respondent’s new offices to examine where she would be working. Petitioner’s department was one of the first to move into the new building. At the new location, the FITT counselors were to be assigned to cubicles, rather than offices. Although Petitioner’s previous office was very small, when Petitioner saw her new work space she shouted loudly “I can’t do this. I can’t do this,” and began suffering a panic attack. When Petitioner then requested that she be assigned to a different cubicle, based upon her seniority, her supervisor informed her that all the work spaces were already assigned by the Program Management and Facilities departments. In November 2017, Petitioner informed Respondent that she occasionally suffers from panic attacks. However, it was not until March 1, 2018, that Petitioner told her supervisors that she was claustrophobic. Her supervisors told her that they were unaware of her being claustrophobic and did not recall her ever saying that she was claustrophobic. Petitioner received a Performance Notice due to her exchange with her supervisors on February 27, 2018. As a consequence of this Performance Notice, Petitioner was placed on 90 days probation. On March 14, 2018, Petitioner asked to schedule a meeting with her supervisor to discuss her Performance Notice. She did not ask about a reasonable accommodation in her March 14th email to her supervisor, BranShonda Levine. On March 19, 2018, Petitioner again exchanged emails with Ms. Levine regarding a meeting to discuss her Performance Notice. On that same date, Petitioner also exchanged emails with Jennifer Stephenson, senior director of Outpatient Services, that were related to her Performance Notice. Ms. Stephenson understood Petitioner’s email to only be focused on appealing the issuance of the Performance Notice that Petitioner received. In the e-mail exchange, Petitioner indicated she wanted to meet with Ms. Stephenson and Deborah Loyd, Respondent’s vice president of Human Resources, to discuss her Performance Notice. Ms. Stephenson scheduled a meeting with Ms. Loyd in response to Petitioner’s March 19th email regarding her Performance Notice. Petitioner submitted a rebuttal to her Performance Notice on March 20, 2018, stating that she did not feel that the issuance of the Performance Notice was warranted. At a meeting on March 20 or 21, 2018, Petitioner expressed for the first time that she may need a reasonable accommodation. At this meeting, Ms. Stephenson learned for the first time that Petitioner claimed she has claustrophobia. Likewise, Ms. Stephenson did not know Petitioner was seeking a reasonable accommodation until this meeting. In a follow-up email dated March 21, 2018, Ms. Stephenson recommended Petitioner work with Respondent’s Human Resources Department regarding her claustrophobia and panic attacks. Ms. Stephenson acknowledged that if they were documented conditions, Respondent would make a reasonable accommodation for Petitioner. As of March 30, 2018, Petitioner remained focused on the two disciplinary actions1/ she had received in early 2018, and her request to have those reviewed and removed from her personnel file. As of this date, Petitioner was working in her assigned cubicle, and made no mention of having any issue working in the cubicle. Respondent has adopted Policy HR102, titled “Accommodation of Individuals with Disabilities or with Communications Barriers.” Consistent with this policy, if an employee needs an accommodation, they must participate in the interactive process with Respondent, including filling out and submitting the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodation Questionnaire. The employee and their physician are required to document the disability and accommodation request. Respondent then reviews the completed interactive process paperwork and schedules a meeting to discuss the same with the employee. This is to determine the accommodation that is being requested and if Respondent is able to provide the requested accommodation, or whether other alternatives could be provided. Petitioner submitted her reasonable accommodation paperwork to Respondent on April 25, 2018. Petitioner’s reasonable accommodation paperwork stated that she did not have an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. However, Petitioner did state that her impairment “limits patient breathing, talking, thinking.” During the interactive process, Petitioner requested a more open space to avoid panic attacks that might occur due to claustrophobia. On May 14, 2018, Petitioner submitted a letter solely focused on the Performance Notice relating to her exchange with her supervisors on February 27, 2018. No mention was made of Petitioner being unable to work successfully in her assigned cubicle. Respondent attempted to schedule a meeting with Petitioner on May 30, 2018, to discuss her request for a reasonable accommodation. However, on May 31, 2018, Petitioner rescheduled the meeting because she injured her eye. On June 1, 2018, Petitioner rescheduled the meeting again, this time to take place on June 4, 2018. The purpose of the meeting would be to discuss Petitioner’s interactive process paperwork. Prior to the June 4, 2018 meeting, Ms. Loyd met with Ms. Stephenson to review what options would be available to meet Petitioner’s request for an accommodation. The June 4, 2018 meeting was held as scheduled and was attended by Petitioner, Ms. Stephenson, and Ms. Loyd. At the meeting, Ms. Loyd and Ms. Stephenson discussed the accommodation request with Petitioner and advised her of what accommodations Respondent would be able to offer her. Specifically, they informed Petitioner she could work from home or use the conference room in her immediate work area. As to Petitioner’s desire to be reassigned to a different cubicle or an office, Ms. Stephenson and Ms. Loyd explained that the other cubicles were already previously assigned, and that other departments were utilizing the offices in the building. Moreover, the physical offices in the building were not a part of Petitioner’s department. In an e-mail Petitioner sent to Ms. Loyd following their meeting, Petitioner inquired as to whether the wall on the right side, and the front wall of her assigned cubicle, could be taken down. This option was explored by Respondent and it was determined that the walls at issue could not be moved or reconfigured. Petitioner insisted that she should be permitted to use offices in the building instead of being permitted to work from home or in a conference room. Accordingly, Petitioner did not accept either of the accommodations offered by Respondent and ceased engaging in the interactive process with Respondent. Petitioner would not have been subject to increased duties if she chose to work from home. Respondent also examined whether the cubicle walls could be removed. However, it was not feasible to reconfigure or move the cubicle walls. After the meeting, Petitioner emailed Ms. Loyd but did not state that she believed the conference room accommodation, or working from home, would be inappropriate. At hearing, Ms. Stephenson could not recall Petitioner ever speaking with her again about additional accommodation requests. Respondent reasonably determined that the nearby conference room would be an open space for Petitioner to work, thereby reducing the likelihood that Petitioner would suffer from claustrophobia. Petitioner agreed the conference room Respondent offered to her is an open space. As noted previously, it is a common practice for counselors who work in the field to work from home, as well as from other locations. The FITT counselor’s hard copy files are in filing cabinets that are in a separate area away from the cubicles. Therefore, Petitioner would not need to store her files in the conference room. Petitioner worked in the original cubicle she was assigned for seven months. In November 2018, an employee who worked out of a different cubicle left the company and Respondent offered Petitioner a new cubicle. Petitioner accepted the same, and as of the date of the hearing Petitioner continues to be employed by Respondent.2/
Recommendation 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 finding that Petitioner, Francesca Thomas, did not prove that Respondent, SMA Behavioral Health, Inc., committed an unlawful employment practice against her and dismiss her Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 18th day of December, 2019.
The Issue Whether, Respondent, Asurion Services, LLC (“Respondent” or “Asurion”), engaged in unlawful employment practices as alleged by Petitioner, Annemarie Wolny (“Petitioner”), in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), as set forth in section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2020).1 1 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the 2020 version of the Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made. Asurion is a provider of electronic device insurance, warranty and support services for cellular phones, consumer electronics, and home appliances. As part of its services, Asurion provides technological support and repair services for the world’s leading mobile carriers, retail companies, and other businesses, enabling subscribers and customers to fully utilize their digital devices, applications, and equipment. Asurion is an employer as defined by the FCRA. See § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner was employed as a Service Advisor with Asurion’s Service Operations Program beginning on March 27, 2017. Essential job functions of the Service Advisor role include: the ability to utilize active listening skills and troubleshoot resolutions; the use of proper tone in providing information to customers and service providers; and the ability to resolve escalation and complaints, among other things. As a Service Advisor, Petitioner was responsible for working and negotiating with Asurion’s network of service providers to ensure a high level of customer satisfaction in their repair experience. Service Advisors are trained during their first week of employment, and thereafter, can access online training tools at any time during their employment. When hired, Petitioner received an electronic copy of Asurion’s Employee Handbook which contains, inter alia, Asurion’s equal opportunity employment policy prohibiting “discriminat[ion] against applicants or employees on the basis of … physical or mental disability….” The Employee Handbook also outlines Asurion’s Reasonable Accommodation policy, Attendance policy, and Customer Relations and Professional Behavior policy. During her early months of employment with Asurion, Petitioner established a reputation as a quick learner, and was eager to acquire new knowledge and skills, while maintaining a keen sense of awareness to detail. Petitioner was trained in several different departments at Asurion, and was willing to work during the holidays. During the first several months of her employment, Petitioner earned a number of accolades for quality work, including being recognized as employee of the month for December 2017. Field service managers would often recognize Petitioner’s hard work. Due to the quality of her work, Asurion auditors would frequently reach out to Petitioner and compliment her on her work. Sometimes agents from other teams would congratulate Petitioner on her work, since it made their jobs easier. On one occasion, a customer even wrote a letter to Asurion reporting the “impeccable” service they had received from Petitioner. In June of 2017, Petitioner witnessed a colleague being bullied by another colleague. The victim of this incident was crying at her desk, which made Petitioner believe that this treatment needed to be reported to her superiors. Petitioner reported the incident to her supervisor, Marie Alter. A few months later, Petitioner was reassigned to another department. On another occasion (July or August 2017), Supervisor Megan Bass confided in Petitioner her dislike for Petitioner’s African-American colleague, Ebony Shipman. Ms. Bass slandered Ms. Shipman to Petitioner, alleging that Ms. Shipman almost hurt Ms. Bass’s chance for promotion. On October 14, 2017, Petitioner and her four-year-old daughter were the victims of a violent and brutal physical attack. Following the attack, Petitioner began to display signs of mental illness, and as a consequence, began seeing a mental health counselor. This illness was diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”). Approximately three months following the October 2017 incident, Petitioner experienced a second traumatic event, which further compounded her PTSD. In an effort to continue her ability to function at work, Petitioner requested accommodations for her PTSD condition. Specifically, Petitioner requested on different occasions to have additional paid breaks during her shift, to be moved to a team that did not handle customer escalation calls, and to have intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). As a result of this request, Petitioner was approved for three 10 to 15 minute unpaid breaks. In early 2018, Petitioner witnessed harassment and discrimination towards disabled colleagues, and other colleagues. Being subjected to this inappropriate behavior triggered Petitioner’s PTSD, and so she requested a one-on-one meeting with her then-manager, Nestor Lebron, in February of 2018 to discuss her discomfort with her working conditions. At hearing, the work culture at Asurion’s Command Center was described by former and current employees as toxic and unprofessional. In addition, some employees were treated more favorably by supervisors than others. The consistency of their description of the dysfunctional workplace lends credibility to their testimony. In March or April 2018, Petitioner requested to work from home as she was becoming extremely sensitive working in a hostile work environment in which she felt she and her colleagues were being targeted for harassment. Even though Asurion had many work-at-home agents, Petitioner’s request was initially denied. On April 12, 2018, Petitioner met with Lauren Welch from Human Resources to discuss her requested work-at-home position. In this meeting, Petitioner discussed her troubling observations of the activities going on in the Command Center, including the unfair and unequal treatment that Petitioner had observed in that workplace. During this meeting, Petitioner offered to provide Asurion with medical documentation of her PTSD illness to assist with her work-at-home approval. Ms. Welch advised that documentation was not necessary. During the meeting of April 12, 2018, Petitioner made her first of many requests to be transferred to the SST Team, working with the Parts Department. Petitioner had worked on this team previously and had found it to be less stressful. Petitioner was not reassigned to this department, but subsequently learned that other agents, including Beverly Miller, Ray Legliter, and Mary Henderson, were all moved to that department following Petitioner’s request. While Petitioner was not approved for transfer to the Parts Department, her request to work from home was approved, effective April 30, 2018. Petitioner discussed her medical condition with her supervisor, Marie Alter, during a one-on-one meeting on May 11, 2018. During her first month of working from home, Petitioner was falsely accused by Ms. Alter of performing certain unprofessional actions. While Petitioner consistently maintained that she had not acted inappropriately, Ms. Alter did not relent in her accusations. Understandably, these unfounded accusations reinforced Petitioner’s belief that she was being targeted for harassment. On June 15, 2018, Petitioner received a “Final Warning” following her telephonic interaction with an employee of a contracted service center. As Petitioner explained at hearing, “I was mistreated by an employee that was contracted through Defendant. This employee works with Defendant to repair appliances. This woman was being argumentative and refused to provide the answers I needed to perform my work.” In response to the verbal abuse she was receiving, Petitioner disconnected the call. The Final Warning noted that “Your tone overall became curt, short and very defensive.” Petitioner acknowledged that she could have done a better job de-escalating the situation, and requested that she be approved for additional training, including listening in on other escalated calls. In response to Petitioner’s request for some kind of plan to help strengthen her performance in an area she struggled with, an Action Path meeting was created with Supervisor Marie Alter on June 25, 2018, for every Monday. The first meeting was scheduled for July 2, 2018, and in a follow-up email from Ms. Alter, it was explained that the meetings over the next couple of months would focus on improving Petitioner’s communications with providers and customers. However, on July 9, 2018, Petitioner’s Action Path was cancelled, without explanation. Petitioner made ongoing efforts to clearly communicate to Asurion the effects of her PTSD on her mental condition, and the impact that stress had on exacerbating her condition. Although Petitioner had made several requests to listen to a call where an agent successfully de-escalated an escalated client, she was advised Asurion could not locate any. However, in July 2018, quality analysts graded a call in front of the entire Command Center of an African-American woman, Tangia Carter. Ms. Carter received a score of 10 out of 100. No effort was made to hide the identity of the employee being graded. The employee was humiliated and embarrassed as a result. Petitioner reported this incident to her supervisor. In July 2018, another agent disconnected a call with a customer. The agent, Josh Johnson, had the same supervisor as Petitioner at the time Petitioner received her Final Warning for the same offense. However, unlike Petitioner, Mr. Johnson did not receive a Final Warning for disconnecting the call. On August 20, 2018, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Human Resources’ employee Logan Durham advising that the training verbally promised to Petitioner had not been provided. Petitioner also advised Mr. Durham that her request to listen to phone calls of highly escalated customers in an effort to better understand tone and effectively de-escalate customers had not been approved. In a September 11, 2018, Zoom meeting with Tiffany Trevino of Human Resources, Petitioner made another request to listen to highly escalated calls to gain a better understanding of tone and how to de-escalate customers effectively. Petitioner had come prepared to the meeting with concerns to discuss. However, Ms. Trevino would not allow Petitioner to speak, and asked her not to read her notes. After the meeting, Petitioner e- mailed her notes to Ms. Trevino so that it was documented that Asurion had been made aware of her concerns. Seven days following Petitioner’s conversation with Human Resources requesting that she be transferred to a less escalated team, an opportunity opened up in the Command Center. Specifically, on September 18, 2018, there was an opening on the SPT Team. This team is lower in escalations as the customers are rarely contacted, and agents only make recommendations of how to proceed with a claim. Rather than transferring Petitioner to the now-available lower-stress position, Asurion added required qualifications it knew would render Petitioner ineligible for the position. Those requirements were that an agent could not be on any corrective action (Petitioner was on a final written warning); the agent must work “brick and mortar” (Petitioner worked from home); and the agent must be performing well in quality metrics (the only area Petitioner needed improvement on was her quality metrics). The OEM Team, which is another low stress team that communicates primarily via e-mail, was created around the same time. On September 24, 2018, an e-mail was sent from Supervisor Megan Bass advising of the creation of the team, however, Petitioner was not included on the e-mail. In October 2018, Christina Oregon, another agent who had disconnected a customer call (requiring corporate involvement), was promoted to the SPT Team. On November 14, 2018, and again on January 23, 2019, Petitioner made additional requests to Human Resources for permission to listen to highly escalated calls in order to improve her de-escalation skills. In response to these requests, Petitioner was advised by Ms. Trevino that this request could not be considered training. When Petitioner again asked about being transferred to a lower-stress team, Ms. Trevino advised Petitioner that she would have to apply for the position the same way people without a disability would have to. Ms. Trevino made this statement to Petitioner even though she knew Petitioner was ineligible due to the final written warning she had received. In September of 2018, Petitioner sent in a task to be reviewed by the Audit Department. The claim was incorrectly worked by another agent, and had left a senior citizen without a working refrigerator for two weeks. Going against the company's best interest, as well as the customer’s, Supervisor Megan Bass retaliated against Petitioner, advising that the delayed process this agent took was in fact correct. Normally, when something is sent to the Audit Department, the claim is handled from there. It was not protocol to send it back to the agent who sent it in. It was Petitioner’s responsibility to report any issues she observed with workflow, and Ms. Bass’s response to Petitioner’s legitimate concern with customer service served to further harass Petitioner. Petitioner provided numerous examples of being ignored by her supervisors when requesting assistance with customer complaints and workflow concerns. In contrast, her colleagues were receiving immediate assistance from the leadership team in addressing their concerns. For example, on November 22, 2019, a customer Petitioner was working with requested to speak with a supervisor, but Petitioner was advised that none were available to assist. Throughout the duration of this claim, no supervisor called this customer back. Later, Petitioner was reprimanded for not offering the customer a gift card for his inconvenience. When Petitioner expressed her dismay about supervisors not returning calls to customers, she was again met with a reprimand for offering the customer a supervisor callback. Petitioner’s actions were correct, and were consistent with the training she had received on the company’s operating procedures. The hostile working conditions described above resulted in Petitioner experiencing a debilitating panic attack, leaving work early, and visiting a hospital emergency room on November 26, 2019. This panic attack affected Petitioner’s ability to think clearly and function normally. Pursuant to Asurion’s policy, Petitioner reported her absence from work to the AbsenceOne system, from the emergency room. The AbsenceOne system automatically notifies Asurion, including Petitioner’s supervisors, of absences via e-mail. The following morning, with the panic attack continuing, Petitioner was able to collect herself enough to explain what had happened to her supervisor, TJ Mark. In response, Petitioner received a final written warning for not contacting her supervisor immediately upon her absence from work. On April 28, 2020, Petitioner’s first day back from a week-long panic attack episode triggered by Asurion’s hostile work environment, Petitioner was terminated by Respondent for “not showing empathy” on a call. This is the area in which Petitioner had repeatedly requested additional training, or alternatively, reassignment to a lower escalated team which did not require direct customer contact. Petitioner had been belittled by this customer after issuing a denial for physical damage to his ice bucket. Per the service agreement, Asurion does not cover any failure caused by physical damage, intentional or otherwise, a result the customer was not willing to accept. Again, Petitioner’s actions on the call were consistent with her training, and were appropriate. As Petitioner credibly testified at hearing: The customer was clearly argumentative and I kept repeating, have a nice day, as I did not want to argue with him about what I was trained to do. Due to the rationale provided, I felt that I had made the best decision under the circumstances. Honestly, I was going to be retaliated against no matter what route was taken. If I offered a supervisor, I would have been in reprimand for offering a supervisor on a physically damaged ice bucket that did not affect the function of the ice maker. Following her termination, an e-mail was sent out to all employees in the Command Center advising of Petitioner’s termination and reason for termination. As a result of this email, approximately 200 employees were informed of the reason for Petitioner’s termination, which Asurion identified as “gross misconduct.” No other terminated Asurion employees were subjected to this form of public humiliation. The evidence credibly established that Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment, was not provided the reasonable accommodation she requested, and was retaliated against for engaging in protected behavior.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order granting Annemarie Wolny’s Petition for Relief, as follows: Finding that Respondent, Asurion, engaged in a discriminatory employment practice based on Petitioner’s disability; Awarding Petitioner back pay from the date of termination; and Awarding Petitioner reimbursement for mental health services incurred as a result of Asurion’s misconduct. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 28th day of June, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Annemarie Wolny W4598 County Road RR Random Lake, Wisconsin 53072 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Deadrick Thaxton Asurion Suite 300 648 Grassmere Park Nashville, Tennessee 37211 Casey M. Duhart, Esquire Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP Suite 2700 511 Union Street Nashville, Tennessee 37219
