14-001916 Zhijian Yang vs. Tradestation Technologies, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, December 31, 2015.

Summary: Petitioner failed to demonstrate Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice on the basis of national origin, age, and disability or retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Civil Rights Act.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ZHIJIAN YANG,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 1916

TRADESTATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This case came before Administrative Law Judge June C.

McKinney of the Division of Administrative Hearings for final

hearing on June 22 and 23 , 2015, with the hearing ' s conclusion

on August 19 and 20 , 2015 , in Tallahassee , Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Zhijian Yang , pro se

1701 - 50 Stephanie Street

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T1B3

For Respondent: Steven M. Greenbaum , Esquire

TradeStation Technologies, Inc.

8050 Southwest 10th Street, Suite 2000

Plantation, Florida 33301

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issue s in this case are w hether Respondent engaged in

an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis

of national origin, age, and disability, and whether Responde nt

retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Civil Rights

Act ; and, if so, what remedy should be imposed .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner Zhijian Yang ( " Yang " or " Petitioner " ) filed a

discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human

R elations ( " FCHR " ) alleging that Respondent Trade Station

Technologies , Inc. ( " Trade Station " or " Respondent " ) ,

discriminated against Petitioner and retaliated against him .

The FCHR investigated the case and issued a Notice of

Determination of No Reasonable C ause on March 20 , 2014, which

notified the parties that there was " no reasonable cause to

believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred. "

Thereafter, Petitioner elected to contest the decision and

pursue administrative remedies by filing a Petition for Relief

with the FCHR on or about April 14 , 2014.

The FCHR transmitted the Petition for Relief to the

Division of Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) on April 24, 2014,

and the matter was reassigned twice before the undersigned was

assigned to hear the case. The undersigned scheduled and heard

the matter on June 22 and 23, 2015. The case was continued and

completed on August 19 and 20 , 2015.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner testified on his on

behalf and presented the testimony of four witnesses: A ndrea

Maizes ( " Maizes " ) , h uman r esource d irector of Respondent ' s

parent company TradeStatiton Group, Inc.( " TGI " ); Salomon Sredni,

TGI CEO ; Quoc Tran ( " Tran " ) , data base administrator ( " DBA " )

manager; and Guillermo Garces ( " Garces " ) , v ice p resident of

Appli cation Development. Petitioner ' s Exhibits 1 through 14

were received into evidence. Respondent present ed testimony

from Maizes, Tran, and Garces. Respondent ' s Exhibits 1

th r ough 11 were received into evidence.

The proceedings were recorded and transcri bed. On July 17 ,

2015, the Transcripts of June 22 and June 23 were filed at DOAH ,

and the Transcripts for August 19 and 20 were filed on

October 7 , 2015.

Both parties timely filed p roposed r ecommended o rders, on

November 6, 2015, which the undersigned co nsidered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order. Petitioner filed a

Motion for Extension of Proposed Recommended Order, which

Respondent opposed . The undersigned denied the m otion by Order

dated November 12, 2015 . Since the record closed at the fi nal

hearing, n o additional pleadings filed after November 6, 2015,

w ere considered in preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. TradeStation is a Florida company located in

Plantation, Florida , that provides technology services to its

af filiates, TradeStation Securities, Inc. ( " TSI " ) , and IBFX,

Inc . ( " IBFX " ) , as well as trading analysis software

subscriptions to customers.

2. TradeStation screened candidate s to fill a senior level

DBA position . Yang ' s resume stood out because of his pre vious

DBA experience with an other financial services firm , experience

in other 24/7 on - call environment s similar to the one at

TradeStation , years of experience, and certifications . Yang was

interviewed by telephone and given a video online test to

determ ine his proficiency. After wards , TradeStation chose to

interview Yang in person , and he was flown from his home in

Toronto, Canada , to Plantation , Florida , for the interview.

3. In Yang ' s in - person interview, he was informed that the

DBA team maintains t he servers at TradeStation to make sure

there are no critical errors , because their customers will be

put out of business if the servers are not working properly and

customers cannot operate their online brokerage services . All

servers have to be maintain ed so clients can always trade , and

their access to trading is never reduced. Tran explained to

Yang that the position he was interviewing for was demanding

because it was the operational side of the business , which

solely support s the databases , and , if there are issues , the

DBAs would have to identify them and make the necessary

correct ions .

4. During the interview, it was also explained to Yang how

demanding a DBA position is and that the position would require

working way beyond a 40 - hour work week ex pectation. It r equires

a 24 hours , seven day s a week , 365 days a year ( " 24/7 " ) on - call

work support, which includes the whole DBA team working on 24/7

rotations responding to calls, idling the system up, performing

maintenance at night, and fully supporti ng the database s. Yang

acknowledged that he understood the requirements of the position

and was willing and able to perform the m.

5. After Yang ' s interview, T radeStation chose Yang for the

position and extended him an offer of employment as a salaried

ex empt at will DBA, which Yang accepted.

6. Yang signed an employment agreement that his employment

was " at will, " which provided either the " employee or employer

to terminate the employment relationship at any time, with or

without cause, for any or no rea son . " E xempt employee s comple te

the amount of work required to finish the job assignment without

overtime pay . Yang also received an employee handbook, which he

acknowledged receipt with his signature on April 30, 2012.

7. TradeStation had to obtain a n H - 1B Visa to bring Yang

to the United States to work from Canada. The H - 1B Visa process

allows a company to fill a position with a non - United States

resident employee if the company can not find a United States

candidate to fill the position. TradeStatio n invested both time

to complete the H - 1B Visa application process and quite a bit of

money in Yang to bring him aboard as an employee. The company

paid to obtain the H - 1B Visa for Yang and also paid Yang ' s

relocation costs from Canada.

8. On April 30, 2 012, Yang began employment with

TradeStation in the Plantation office . Petitioner was a 40 -

year - old Chinese national origin male of Asian descent with

Chinese citizenship. Yang ' s age was on his new hire paperwork.

9. Yang started out the first couple of months of

employment eager to learn. TradeStation trained Yang during the

first three months by having him shadow to learn TradeStation ' s

methods and get up to speed. During that period, Yang was on

every call to get exposed to live issues.

10. TradeS tation ' s DBA team consisted of four members:

Tran, the part Chinese male manager; Robert Nielson ( " Neilson " ),

a Caucasian male from Salt Lake City, Utah; Amanda Johnson

( " Johnson " ), a n African - American female ; and Yang .

11. Soon after Yang started at Tra deStation, Johnson went

on maternity leave. Since Johnson was on maternity leave , she

was removed from the 24/7 schedule , and there was more work for

the rest of the DBA team to complete .

12. Tran divided up the job responsibilities. Nielson ' s

main res ponsibilities were different from Petitioner. Since

Nielson was located in Utah with IBFX, he was assigned to all

the IBFX databases full time. Yang was mainly assigned to the

SQL servers .

13. The work schedule for t he whole DBA team consisted of

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. office hours , unless the DBA had

permission to work from home . After - hours were from 6:00 p.m.

to 9:00 p.m. , when software update s were typically handled , and

9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. , as well as Saturdays and S undays, which

were on - call h ours.

14. Tran started to experience problems with Yang ' s work

when he had worked for TradeStation approximately three months.

Yang ' s overall work performance started to deteriorate. Yang

failed to complete the database mirroring on time , and Yang

would have outbursts raising his voice at Tran . Yang once told

Tran with a raised voice , " you do it yourself. "

15. TradeStation ' s leave policy provides employees paid

leave after being employed with the company six months. Even

though Yang had not accrued an y paid leave, when Yang requested

personal leave , Tran allowed Yang to take leave several times

for personal matters , including traveling to Canada to take his

father to the doctor. Yang worked remotely while in Canada.

Yang also requested time to go to China to handle family

matters. Tran approved the leave without pay , and Yang did not

go.

16. Tran continued to be dissatisfied with Yang ' s work and

determined that his skill set was not meeting expectations. On

August 20, 2012, the accepted testimony s hows Tran and Garces ,

Tran ' s supervisor, met with Yang to discuss his poor work

performance. Tran documented the meeting by taking notes. 1 /

Yang was not performing satisfactorily and needed to improve.

17. During the meeting, Yang was placed on a remed iation

plan to provide him a chance to perform better. Additionally,

Yang ' s workload was temporarily reduced as part of the plan , and

the critical servers were taken from Yang and assigned to

Johnson, who was back from maternity leave. Yang was also told

that he needed to be a team player. Yang ' s outbursts were

addressed , as well as expectations, personal issues, and

failures. The meeting concluded with Yang being placed on a

three - week probation ary period until his performance peer

review.

18. By mi d - September, Yang ' s performance had not improved.

Since Yang was still not living up to Tran ' s expectations, on

September 28, 2015, Tran and Garces met with Yang again for

performance counseling and informed Yang of his continued work

deficiencies. In th e meeting, the supervisors informed Yang of

the following: he was having problems meeting deadlines; unable

to follow through with ownership of issues or resolv ing issues

in a timely manner; lacked respect for authority with

inappropriate outbursts and im proper comments; technical

knowledge not up to par; took multiple extended breaks during

the day; inability to relieve work load from other team members;

and inability to understand the business and grasp key concepts.

Yang was then given two weeks to imp rove.

19. When Yang ' s performance did n o t improve and meet

TradeStation ' s standards, TradeStation terminated Yang for

unsatisfactory job performance on October 9, 2012. Yang

requested to switch to another team upon termination. The other

team did not a ccept his transfer request , and , on or about

October 15, 2012, Human Resources confirmed Yang ' s termination.

20. After TradeStation terminated Yang, Yang ' s DBA

position was not filled. Tran divided up Yang ' s duties among

the DBA team instead of replacin g Yang with a new employee.

21. Yang never complained about discrimination while

working at TradeStation. Y ang filed a discrimination complaint

alleging national origin, age, disability , and retaliation when

he filed his complaint with FCHR.

22. During the final hearing in this cause, the charge of

national origin discrimination was not shown. The record is

de void of any evidence, direct or otherwise, suggesting

Petitioner ' s termination was motivated based on Yang ' s national

origin. Petitioner ' s conclu sory assertions have failed to prove

that Respondent ' s proffered reason for terminating Petitioner,

poor work performance, is a mere pretext for national origin

discrimination. On the contrary, the undersigned credits Tran

and Garces ' s testimony that the poor work performance was the

sole basis for Petitioner ' s termination.

23. Petitioner also contends that he was subjected to

threats , harassment , and inappropriate comments by his manager ,

Tran , such as : " you Chinese weird " ; " one child policy " ; " you

Chin ese only good at cigarettes, the smoke " ; and " do you want to

go back to China . " These assertions were not corroborated by

any other evidence, and Tran denied the allegations. The

testimony of Tran, a part - Chinese male, is accepted as being

more credible on this issue.

24. Petitioner offered no direct evidence in support of

his claim of age discrimination. Yang ' s assertions that

supervisors made comments about him being " old " or needing to be

" younger " are rejected as not being credible. Moreover,

Trad eStation did not replace Petitioner ' s position when he was

terminated. Instead, Yang ' s workload was distributed among

other DBAs . Hence, no evidence was presented that Yang was

terminated so that a younger individual could take his job

position at TradeS tation.

25. Petitioner also contends that he has a disability. At

hearing, the evidence demonstrated Yang had hemorrhoids while

working at TradeStation. The evidence further showed Yang ' s

hemorrhoids were painful and bothersome , but no credible

evidenc e was presented that TradeStation caused the hemorrhoids

or that the hemorrhoids substantially limited any major life

activity.

26. Yang informed Garces by email that he had an injury,

which is how Yang references his hemorrhoids, and needed to take

time off to get medical treatment. Garces allowed Yang time off

to get medicine and to stay home . The credible evidence shows

Yang continued to work with his hemorrhoids after the leave.

Even assuming that Petitioner had a disability, which he does

not, the contention that a disability formed a basis for an

unlawful employment practice must fail.

27. At hearing, Petitioner also contended that Nielson was

treated differently because Nielson had less work assigned to

him , and Nielson periodically was able to work from home. No

evidence was presented that other members of the DBA team,

similarly - situated employees , were treated more favorably than

Yang. Instead, the credible evidence at hearing also showed

Yang and Nielson ' s job duties were different. Nielso n was the

subject matter ex pert in IB FX, which dealt with foreign

currencies , and he was solely assigned to handle IB FX , as well

as the on - call responsibilities in Utah. However, Yang handled

SQL servers in Plantation. The record also lacks evidence that

Nielson was either having work performance problems or was on

probation like Yang.

an credibly explained on - call hours for DBAs at

TradeStation. On - call hours do not require DBAs to work all the

time. However, if there was a call or problem , the DBA assigned

had to take care of it. If there is not a call , the DBA does

not work. The DBA role is reacti ve like an emergency , and DBAs

would need to be available to deal with unforeseen incidents as

they arise 24/7 to maintain the databases remotely on their

laptops if not in the office. Tran remained on - call as the

manager always. Nielson handled the IBFX on - call assignments ,

and Yang was assigned the SQL on - call assignments while Johnson

was out on maternity leave. DBAs were even on - call when on

va cation.

29. Yang claims that he was forced to work more than the

other DBAs is not credible. Yang ' s schedule was no different

than the other DBAs and all TradeStation DBAs worked hard. All

DBAs were on - call and had to resolve any problem that arose at

whatever hour. TradeStation ' s policy regarding w orking from

home was regarded a privilege and based on approval from a

supervisor. S ince Yang ' s work performance was not up to par ,

and he was still trying to learn the job , Tran ' s denial of

Yang ' s request to work from home during office hours was

reasonable .

30. Finally, the record is de void of any credible evidence

of retaliation. No evidence was demonstrated that Tran

retaliated against Yang , and there is no evidence regarding the

char ge that Petitioner was terminated in retaliation for

engaging in a protected activity. Petitioner presented no

credible proof that he complained to management regarding any

alleged discriminatory practices . Yang never complained to

Human Resources or anyone else at TradeS tation that he believed

he was discriminated against because of his age or national

origin or any other legally - protected basis.

31. Yang also complained at hearing that he is still owed

money and was never paid overtime, holiday, and benefits, which

are issues not germane to this matter .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

32. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

pursuant to s ections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(2015) . 2/

33. The Florida Civi l Rights Act of 1992 ( " FCRA " ) is

codified in s ections 760.01 th rough 760.11 , Florida Statutes .

FCRA prohibits d iscrimination in the workplace.

34. Section 760. 10(1)(a) provides, in pertinent part, as

follows:

To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire

any individual, or otherwise to discriminate

against any individual with respect to

compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment, because of such

individual ' s race, color, religion, sex,

national origin, ag e, handicap, or marital

status.

35. In the instant case, Yang alleged in his E mployment

Complaint of Discrimination , which he filed with FCHR , that he

was discriminated against by Respondent because of his national

origin, age, and disability , as well as he was retaliated

against. The under signed must look at the charge s of

discrimination Petitioner claimed in his Petition for Relief.

36. Discriminatory intent can be established through

direct or circumstantial evidence. Schoenfeld v. Babbitt , 168

F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 1999). Direct evidence of

discrimination is evidence that, if believed, establishes the

existence of discriminatory intent behind an employment decision

without inference or presumption. Maynard v. Bd. of Regents ,

342 F.3d 1281, 1289 (11th Cir. 2003).

37. " Direct evi dence is composed of ' only the most blatant

remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to

discriminate ' on the basis of some impermissible factor. "

Schoenfeld v. Babbitt , supra . Complainants alleging unlawful

discrimination may prove their case usi ng direct evidence of

discriminatory intent. Petitioner presented no direct evidence

of national origin or age discrimination . The allegations of

Chinese - related , as well as old and younger , comments were

rejected by the undersigned and not found to be c redible as

detailed in paragraphs 23 and 24 above .

38. When no direct proof of discrimination exists,

complainants may establish a prima facie case circumstantially

through the burden - shifting test established by the United

State s Supreme Court i n McD onne ll - Douglas Corp . v. Green , 411

U.S. 792, 802 - 05 (1973 )( T he Supreme Court of the United States

established the analysis to be used in cases alleging claims

under Title VII that rely on circumstantial evidence to

establish discrimination. ) .

39. Under McDonn ell - Douglas , Petitioner has the burden of

establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie

case of unlawful discrimination. If a prima facie case is

established, the burden then shifts to the employer to

articulate some legitimate, non - discri minatory reason for the

action taken against Petitioner. It is a burden of production,

not persuasion. If a non - discriminatory reason is offered by

Respondent, the burden of production then shifts back to

Petitioner to demonstrate that the offered reason is merely

pretext for discrimination . " [T ]he factfinder must believe the

plaintiff ' s explanation of intentional discrimination. " St.

Mary ' s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

National Origin Discrimination

40. The record is devoid of any di rect evidence of

national origin discrimination. Accordingly, Petitioner ' s claim

is analyzed pursuant the McDonnell - Douglas burden - shifting

analysis . In order to establish a prima facie case of national

origin discrimination, Petitioner must prove that: (1) he is a

member of a protected class; (2) he was subjected to an adverse

employment action; (3) his employer treated similarly - situated

employees, who were not members of the same protected class,

more favorably ; and (4) he was qualified to do his job .

41. The first two elements for the foregoing test are

satisfied, as Respondent stipulates that Petitioner is a member

of protected class with an Asian national origin and that

Petitioner was subject to an adverse employment action when he

was terminated on October 9, 2012 .

42. Contrary to Respondent ' s position, Petitioner also

meets criteria (4) and is qualified for the position. See

Gre gory v . Daly , 243 F.3d 687, 696 (2d Cir. 2001)(holding that a

plaintiff " need only make the minimal showing that [he]

possesses the basic skills necessary for the performance of

[the] job " to satisfy the requirement that the plaintiff was

qualified).

43. However, Petitioner failed to prove the third element,

that Respondent treated similarly - situated employees not of his

protected class more favorably. In order to make a valid

comparison, Petitioner must show that he and the comparat ors he

identifies are similarly - situated in all relevant respects.

Conner v. Bell Micro products - Future Tech, Inc . , 492 F ed. Appx.

963, 965 ( 11th Cir. 2012). See also Wilson v . B/E Aero., Inc. ,

376 F.3d 1079, 1091 (11th Cir. 2004)(comparator must be nearly

identical to petitioner to prevent courts from second - guessing

reasonable decisions by an employer).

44. Petitioner ' s argument that Nielso n was similarly -

situated to him is rejected. First, Nielson ' s job was different

from Yang ' s in that he had different job duties solely working

for IBFX and that he was located in the Utah office. Hence,

Nielson was not nearly identical and should not be the

comparator. However, even if Nielson was the proper comparator,

t he record fails to demonstrate that Nielson or any DBAs were

treated more favorably. Everyone on the DBA team worked hard ,

had a rigorous schedule, was on - call , and had weird hours.

The refore , Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent

treated similarly - situated employees who were not of Asian

national origin more favorably than he was treated, and ,

therefore, no prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of

national origin ha s been demonstrated .

Age Discrimination

45. To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination

under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( " ADEA " ),

the complainant must show that : (1) he is a member of a

protected age group (i.e., over 40 ); (2) he was qualified for

the job; (3) he was rejected ; and (4) he was replaced by a

younger person. Benson v. Tocco, Inc. , 113 F.3d 1203, 1207

(11th Cir. 1997), citing McDonnell - Douglas , supra ( T he 11th

Circuit has adopted a variation of the McDonnell - Douglas test in

ADEA violation claims.) .

46. Petitioner ' s claim of age discrimination is likewise

unsupported by any direct evidence; as such, the McDonnell -

Douglas framework is applied once again. Even so, t he record is

also de void of any evidence of a ge discrimination in that the

prima facie case is not met because Yang did not lose his

position to a younger person. His DBA position was not filled

or replaced after his termination.

47. Even had Petitioner demonstrated a prima facie case

an d the burde n of production shifted to TradeStation , Respondent

has articulated legitimate, non - discriminatory reasons for

Petitioner ' s dismissal. Respondent demonstrated that Yang ' s

work performance was unsatisfactory even though T radeStation

tried to work with Y ang and provided him the opportunity to

improve with the two performance warnings and a remedial plan

before terminating him after he did n o t improve his work

performance .

48. Accordingly, credible evidence shows that Petitioner

was terminated not because o f age or national origin but,

rather, because of TradeStation ' s reasonable conclusion that

Petitioner ' s work performance was lacking. Petitioner did not

credibly refute the progressive discipline or evidence of poor

work performance that led to his termin ation. Accordingly,

Petitioner ' s discrimination claim s of national origin and age

fail.

Disability

49. Petitioner also alleges that he was subject to

discrimination on account of his disability. As a threshold

issue to substantiate this charge, Petition er must first prove

that he has a disability.

50. An impairment ' s impact must be permanent or long - term.

If an impairment is readily corrected by medication or other

measures such as a diet, it is not an impairment that

substantially limits a major life activity. Vande Zande v.

Wisc. Dep ' t of Admin. , 44 F.3d 538, 544 (7th Cir. 1995). On

this issue, the evidence shows clearly that Petitioner ' s

hemorrhoids were not a physical impairment that substantially

limits a major life activity. Therefore, t he disa bility

complaint must fail.

Retaliation

51. Petitioner also alleged retaliation in his p etition .

Section 760.10(7) provides in relevant part:

(7) It is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer, an employment agency, a

joint labor - management commi ttee, or a labor

organization to discriminate against any

person because that person has opposed any

practice which is an unlawful employment

practice under this section, or because that

person has made a charge, testified,

assisted, or participated in any manner in

an investigation, proceeding, or hearing

under this section.

52. Finally, to establish a prima facie case of

retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he was engaged in

an activity protected by chapter 760; (2) he suffered an adverse

employ ment action by his employer; and (3) there was a causal

connection between the protected activity and the adverse

employment action. See Pennington v. City of Huntsville , 261

F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2001).

53. Petitioner has failed to satisfy the fir st prong of

the test. Yang ' s employment charges of d iscrimination were

never addressed with TradeStation. In fact, his complaints were

only filed with FCHR almost a year after he was discharged.

Hence , there is no evidence whatsoever that Petitioner eng aged

in a protected activity within the meaning of the law, or that

Respondent had any knowledge of such an activity. Accordingly,

the charge of retaliation must fail.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is R ECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the

Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition

for Relief in its entirety.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2015, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

JUNE C. MCKINNEY

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

Divi sion of Administrative Hearings

this 31st day of December, 2015.

ENDNOTES

1 / Resp. Ex. 9.

2/ References to Florida Statutes are to the 2012 version,

unless otherwise indicated.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Steven M. Greenbaum, Esquire

TradeStation Technolo gies, Inc.

8050 Southwest 10th Street, Suite 2000

Plantation, Florida 33301

(eServed)

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Zhijian Yang

1701 - 50 Stephanie St reet

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T1B3

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.