95-003990
Jorge V. Jimenex vs.
Walt Disney World Company
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, April 19, 1996.
Recommended Order on Friday, April 19, 1996.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8JORGE V. JIMENEZ, )
12)
13Petitioner, )
15)
16vs. ) CASE NO. 95-3990
21) FCHR NO. 94-9329
25WALT DISNEY WORLD COMPANY, )
30)
31Respondent. )
33_________________________________)
34RECOMMENDED ORDER
36Pursuant to notice, the above-styled matter was heard before the Division
47of Administrative Hearings by its duly-designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M.
57Kilbride, on February 29, 1996, in Orlando, Florida. The following appearances
68were entered:
70APPEARANCES
71For Petitioner: Jorge V. Jimenez, pro se
782716 FDC Grove Road
82Davenport, Florida 33837
85For Respondent: Myrna L. Galligano, Esquire
91Garwood, McKenna & McKenna, P.A.
96731 North Garland Avenue
100Orlando, Florida 32801
103STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
107Whether the Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from
119his employment with the Respondent in the Hospitality Department at the Grand
131Floridian Hotel on or about March 18, 1993 on the basis of his national origin
146(Hispanic-Dominican Republic), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida
154Statutes (Supp. 1992).
157PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
159The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human
170Relations (FCHR) on or about February 4, 1994 charging the Respondent with
182employment discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
192Subsequently, on or about April 5, 1995, a determination was issued by the FCHR.
206The Petitioner timely requested a hearing and filed a Petition for Relief with
219FCHR. This matter was referred by FCHR to the Division of Administrative
231Hearings for formal hearing de novo on August 10, 1995. Following a continuance
244in order to complete discovery, a formal hearing was held.
254At the hearing, the Petitioner appeared pro se and testified in his own
267behalf. Twenty-four (24) exhibits were received in evidence on behalf of the
279Petitioner. The Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses, and 21
290exhibits were received in evidence. A transcript was ordered and received by
302the Hearing Officer on March 18, 1996. The parties were allowed 20 days from
316the filing of the transcript in which to file proposed findings of fact and
330conclusions of law. The Petitioner has not filed proposed findings of fact as
343of the date of this Recommended Order. The Respondent filed a proposed
355recommended order on April 15, 1996. Specific rulings on the proposals are
367contained in the Appendix attached to this Recommended Order.
376Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are
388determined:
389FINDINGS OF FACT
3921 The Respondent is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act of
4051992.
4062 The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent at its Grand Floridian
418Hotel as a valet/greeter/bellman in the Hospitality Department during the
428relevant period of time, including March of 1993.
4363 The Petitioner is of Hispanic origin from the Dominican Republic and is
449a member of a protected class.
4554 In approximately October of 1988, the Petitioner began his employment
466with the Respondent at the Contemporary Hotel as a valet/greeter.
4765 In April of 1989, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for not
489logging in a piece of luggage.
4956 The Petitioner did not grieve the April 1988 written reprimand.
5067 In May of 1989, the Petitioner transferred to the Respondent's Grand
518Floridian Hotel, where he was a valet/greeter/bellman.
5258 In February of 1990, the Petitioner received an oral reprimand for three
538separate incidents of improperly logging luggage.
5449. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the February, 1990 oral
557reprimand.
55810 In August of 1990, the Petitioner again received an oral reprimand,
570this time for mixing up luggage while loading it into vehicles. The luggage had
584to be mailed to each rightful owner at the Respondent's expense and caused an
598inconvenience to the guests.
60211 The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the August 1990 oral
615reprimand.
61612 In December of 1991, the Petitioner mishandled luggage by failing to
628tag all of a guest's bags.
63413 In May of 1992, the Respondent's management discussed with the
645Petitioner his failure to tag a piece of luggage.
65414 In July of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for failing
667to log in a guest's luggage.
67315 The Petitioner's verbal reprimand in July of 1992 was the result of a
687direct complaint by a guest, who was required to search for a piece of his own
703luggage in the Hotel's storage room.
70916 The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the July 1992 verbal
722reprimand.
72317 In September of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for
735approaching a guest to discuss splitting a tip with a bellman, an impermissible
748practice. The Petitioner was not suspended for this incident.
75718 In December of 1992, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for
769failing to follow proper procedures regarding a guest's luggage on two separate
781occasions.
78219 The Petitioner did not grieve the December 1992 written reprimand.
79320 The Respondent decided not to consider the two incidents in December of
806the Petitioner's luggage-mishandling as separate incidents for progressive
814discipline purposes, even though such action was permissible under the
824collective bargaining agreement.
82721 The Respondent's decision not to consider the two December 1992
838incidents separately for progressive discipline purposes was based upon the
848Petitioner's length of service and his good performance in other areas. The
860Petitioner had a good attitude, had good people skills, and had received good
873guest comments during the course of his employment.
88122 In December of 1992, the Petitioner understood that he was in the
894progressive discipline process.
89723 In January of 1993, the Respondent met with the Petitioner and offered
910to remove him from the responsibility of handling luggage by putting him in a
924non-tipped, dispatcher position.
92724 Also, in January of 1993, the Respondent and the Petitioner's union
939representative were working together to preserve the Petitioner's job.
94825 The Petitioner was reminded by his union representative about his
959previous reprimands and that one more incident would cause his termination. The
971Petitioner was told by his union representative that the purpose of moving him
984to a dispatcher position was to get him away from the luggage-handling area.
997The Petitioner was told that if he remained free of similar reprimands for one
1011year, he could return to the tipped position of valet/greeter with no loss of
1025seniority.
102626 After initially refusing the dispatcher position, the Petitioner
1035accepted.
103627 The Petitioner was given the shift that he requested when he was
1049transferred to the dispatcher position.
105428 In February of 1993 while on duty as a dispatcher, the Petitioner
1067received a three-day suspension, without pay, for using poor judgment. He
1078interrupted a valet while the valet was servicing a guest.
108829 The Petitioner did not grieve the February 1993 suspension.
109830 The Petitioner's action as a dispatcher of interrupting a valet was
1110grounds for the valet to grieve such actions to the union.
112131 The suspension in February of 1993 for the Petitioner's poor judgment
1133as a dispatcher was not the basis for his termination.
114332 The Petitioner requested a reclassification back to
1151valet/greeter/bellman position. The Petitioner understood that one more
1159incident of any kind would result in his immediate termination.
116933 The Petitioner requested the change from dispatcher back to
1179valet/greeter/bellman for personal financial reasons; and his union
1187representative also advised him that if one more incident of any kind occurred,
1200he would be terminated.
120434 On March 16, 1993, the Petitioner mishandled luggage. The Petitioner
1215did not properly log in a guest's luggage (a garment bag).
122635. The Petitioner was terminated on March 18, 1993 for poor job
1238performance.
123936 The progressive discipline which the Petitioner received was consistent
1249with the union contract. The contract provides that an employee can be
1261terminated for the next offense following a single written reprimand.
127137 The Petitioner had the opportunity to grieve all of the reprimands he
1284received, and his union representative was aware of the actions taken in
1296connection with the Petitioner's employment.
130138 The Petitioner grieved his termination, and that grievance was denied.
131239 The Petitioner failed to provide evidence of any similarly-situated
1322employee who was not terminated for mishandling luggage on as many occasions as
1335he had.
133740 The Petitioner failed to provide evidence regarding any discrimination
1347against other Hispanic employees, other than his own belief, speculation or
1358conjecture.
135941 The Petitioner understood that the Respondent's management was closely
1369checking into everyone's performance. Management asked all of the employees at
1380the Grand Floridian Hotel to help the Hotel earn a five-star rating.
139242 The Petitioner was never part of the Respondent's management and did
1404not attend manager meetings.
140843 During the course of his employment, the Petitioner was chosen to train
1421other employees because he knew the proper procedures for his
1431valet/bellman/greeter position.
143344 The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for handling luggage received
1444from guests.
144645 The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for logging in and handling
1458bags.
145946 The Petitioner received copies of the Respondent's policies and
1469procedures for a valet/bellman, including luggage handling.
147647. The Petitioner did not report many of the alleged discriminatory
1487actions of his co-workers to management. The Petitioner conceded that on those
1499occasions when he did make reports to management, these alleged actions stopped.
151148. The Petitioner received the overtime and schedules which he requested
1522because of his seniority.
152649. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Orlando,
1536Florida, work site has increased from 1993 to 1996.
154550. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Grand Floridian
1556Hotel has either remained the same or increased from 1992 to 1995.
156851. In January of 1993, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian
1581Hotel's Hospitality Department was 14, of which 11 were Hispanic; and there were
1594four Hispanics in the valet/greeter classification.
160052. In February of 1996, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian
1613Hotel's Hospitality Department (including valets, bellmen, greeters and
1621dispatchers) was 16, of which 12 were Hispanic; and there were four Hispanics in
1635the valet/greeter classification.
163853. The Petitioner failed to produce any evidence of an overall plan by
1651the Respondent's management to eliminate minorities, including Hispanics, from
1660employment at the company.
166454. The Respondent allows employees to review their employment records at
1675any time upon request.
167955. The Petitioner presented only his own beliefs, speculation or
1689conjecture as a basis for his claims of national origin discrimination.
1700CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
170356. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the
1713subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto, pursuant to
1724Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Y-4.016(1), Florida
1732Administrative Code.
173457. The State of Florida, under the legislative scheme contained in
1745Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, incorporates and adopts the legal principles and
1756precedents established in the federal anti-discrimination laws, specifically set
1765forth under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 42 USC
1780Section 2000e, et seq. The Florida law prohibiting unlawful employment
1790practices is found in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. This section prohibits
1801discharge or other discrimination against any individual with respect to
1811compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such
1821individual's national origin. (Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.) The
1829FCHR and the Florida courts, interpreting the provisions of the Florida Civil
1841Rights Act of 1992, have determined that federal discrimination law should be
1853used as guidance when construing provisions of the Act. See, Brand v. Florida
1866Power Corp. 633 So.2d 504, 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Florida Department of
1879Community Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Cooper v.
1892Lakeland Regional Medical Center, 16 FALR 567, 574 (FCHR 1993).
190258. The Supreme Court established, and later clarified, the burden of
1913proof in disparate treatment cases in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S.
1926792 (1973) and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248
1939(1981) and again in the recent case of St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509
1954U.S. __, 113 S.Ct. 2742 (1993). The FCHR has adopted this evidentiary model.
1967Kilpatrick v. Howard Johnson Co., 7 FALR 5468, 5475 (FCHR 1985). McDonnell
1979Douglas places upon the Petitioner the initial burden of proving a prima facie
1992case of racial discrimination. See, also, Laroche v. Department of Labor and
2004Employment Security, 13 FALR 4121 (FCHR 1991); Davis v. Humana of Florida, Inc.,
201715 FALR 231 (FCHR 1992).
202259. Judicial authorities have established the burden of proof for
2032establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory treatment. The Petitioner
2042must show that:
2045a. The Petitioner is a member of a
2053protected class;
2055b. The employee is qualified to remain
2062in his position;
2065c. The employee was subject to an adverse
2073employment decision (the Petitioner was terminated);
2079d. The position was filled by a white person
2088or other non-protected employees similarly
2093situated with comparable work performance were
2099not terminated; and
2102e. There must be shown by the evidence that
2111there is a causal connection between a. and c.
2120Canino v. EEOC, 707 F.2d 468, 32 FEP Cases 139
2130(11th Cir. 1983); Smith v. Georgia, 684 F.2d 729,
213929 FEP Cases 1134 (11th Cir. 1982); Lee v. Russell
2149County Board of Education, 684 F.2d 769, 29 FEP
2158Cases 1508 (11th Cir. 1982), appeal after remand,
2166744 F.2d 768, 36 FEP Cases 22 (11th Cir. 1984).
217660 Proving a prima facie case serves to eliminate the most common
2188nondiscriminatory reasons for the Plaintiff's disparate treatment. See,
2196Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 358 and n. 44 (1977). It is not, however, the
2212equivalent of a factual finding of discrimination. It is simply proof of
2224actions taken by the employer from which discriminatory animus is inferred
2235because experience has proved that, in the absence of any other explanation, it
2248is more likely than not that those actions were bottomed on impermissible
2260considerations. The presumption is that more often than not people do not act
2273in a totally arbitrary manner, without any underlying reason, in a business
2285setting. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).
229661 Once a plaintiff has succeeded in proving all the elements necessary to
2309establish a prima facie case, the employer must then articulate some legitimate,
2321nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged employment decision. The employer
2330is required only "to produce admissible evidence which would allow the trier of
2343fact to conclude that the employment decision had not been motivated by
2355discriminatory animus." Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, at
2365257. The employer "need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated
2378by the proffered reasons . . . it is sufficient if the [employer's] evidence
2392raises a genuine issue of fact as to whether it discriminated against the
2405Plaintiff." Id. at 254-255. This burden is characterized as "exceedingly
2415light." Perryman v. Johnson Products Co., Inc., 698 F.2d 1138 (11th Cir. 1983).
242862 Once the employer articulates a legitimate reason for the action taken,
2440the evidentiary burden shifts back to the Petitioner, who must prove that the
2453reason offered by the employer for its decision is not the true reason but is
2468merely a pretext. The employer need not prove that it was actually motivated by
2482the articulated nondiscriminatory reasons or that the replacement was more
2492qualified than the Petitioner. Texas Department of Community Affairs v.
2502Burdine, at 257-8.
250563 In Burdine, the Supreme Court emphasized that the ultimate burden of
2517persuading the trier of fact that the Respondent intentionally discriminated
2527against the Petitioner remains at all times with the Petitioner. Texas
2538Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, at 253. The Court confirmed this
2550principle again in St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S.__, 113 S.Ct. 2742
2564(1993).
256564. In the case sub judice, the Petitioner has established that he is of
2579Hispanic (Dominican Republic) origin and a member of a protected class. The
2591Petitioner made an initial showing that he was qualified to remain in the
2604position. The Petitioner has also established that he was subjected to an
2616adverse employment decision (he was terminated). The Petitioner has failed to
2627demonstrate either that the position was filled by a white person or that other
2641non-protected employees were not terminated for similar work rules violations.
2651Therefore, the Petitioner failed to come forward with sufficient evidence to
2662meet his initial burden of proof on the issue of national origin discrimination
267565. Assuming that the Petitioner met his initial burden, the sequence of
2687presentation of evidence then required the Respondent to come forward and
"2698articulate" valid, nondiscriminatory reasons for the resulting termination of
2707employment decision. The Respondent has done so.
271466. While the Petitioner is a minority who was terminated from his
2726position, he was not performing in his position to the legitimate expectations
2738and requirements of his employer, i.e., he was not qualified to remain in his
2752position. In addition, the Petitioner failed to provide any evidence of other
2764non-protected employees similarly situated with comparable work performances who
2773were not terminated.
277667. The Respondent established by a preponderance of the evidence that
2787despite the Petitioner's congenial and personable manner, the Petitioner had a
2798history of mishandling guest luggage. This can be considered poor job
2809performance. The Petitioner mishandled luggage throughout his employment even
2818though the various incidents of mishandling were eliminated one year from their
2830occurrence, pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between
2841the Respondent and the Petitioner's union.
284768. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, the Respondent placed
2857the Petitioner in the progressive discipline process in approximately July of
28681992. At that time, the Petitioner was given a verbal reprimand for job
2881performance when he failed to log in a guest's luggage during check-in.
2893Contrary to the Petitioner's claims of national origin discrimination by the
2904Respondent, the discipline given to him on this occasion was the result of a
2918direct report by a guest. The guest noted on a card that the Petitioner failed
2933to log in his luggage which resulted in the guest having to retrieve his own
2948luggage from the storage area. Clearly, there was no discrimination by the
2960Respondent because of the Petitioner's national origin when the source of the
2972information was a guest, and the Respondent was simply responding to the
2984complaint with the appropriate discipline allowed under the collective
2993bargaining agreement.
299569. In December of 1992, on two separate occasions, the Petitioner again
3007mishandled luggage. In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, the
3017Respondent could have treated these two incidents separately and terminated the
3028Petitioner. The Respondent decided to consolidate these two incidents of
3038luggage mishandling and issue only one written reprimand, thus, saving the
3049Petitioner from termination. Here again, there is no evidence of discrimination
3060by the Respondent.
306370. Finally, in January of 1993, the Respondent, together with the
3074Petitioner's union representative, met with the Petitioner and proposed a plan
3085to remove the Petitioner from the troublesome area of luggage mishandling and
3097into a dispatcher's position. In this non-tipped dispatcher position, the
3107Petitioner would have an opportunity to clear his record for one year and then
3121return to a tipped position, with no loss in seniority or benefits. This plan
3135was done in deference to the Petitioner's employment record and in another
3147attempt to save him from termination. Respondent's efforts do not evince
3158discrimination.
315971. In his new position as dispatcher, however, the Petitioner again
3170received a written reprimand, this time for interrupting a fellow worker in the
3183performance of his duties.
318772. It was the Petitioner who requested a transfer back to the
3199valet/bellman/greeter position. He had a clear understanding that another
3208incident of any type would result in his immediate termination. Based upon this
3221understanding, the Respondent accommodated the Petitioner's wishes and
3229transferred him back into a tipped position on the exact shift requested by the
3243Petitioner. Once again, there is no evidence of discrimination by the
3254Respondent against the Petitioner based upon his national origin. There is
3265evidence of Respondent's repeated efforts to maintain the Petitioner's
3274employment despite his continued poor job performance.
328173. Notwithstanding the Respondent's efforts, the Petitioner again
3289mishandled luggage shortly after being transferred back to the
3298valet/bellman/greeter position. An investigation clearly showed that the
3306Petitioner failed to log in a hanging bag, which was the fifth piece of a
3321guest's luggage. During the investigation of this incident, the Petitioner
3331acknowledged that this guest may have had a hanging bag.
334174. No evidence was presented to show discrimination against the
3351Petitioner in the Respondent's decision to terminate him. The Respondent's
3361legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating the Petitioner was his
3370poor job performance, specifically, his consistent mishandling of luggage.
337975. In addition, there was no evidence to support the Petitioner's claim
3391of a company-wide plan to terminate minorities, Hispanics in particular, from
3402the Respondent's employ. In addition, the Petitioner failed to produce any
3413evidence of similarly-situated, non-minority individuals who were not terminated
3422after mishandling luggage as many times as the Petitioner.
343176. The Petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that
3443the Respondent's articulated reasons for its actions in March of 1993 were
"3455pretextual".
3457RECOMMENDATION
3458Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
3471RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final
3482Order which denies the Petition for Relief.
3489DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County,
3502Florida.
3503___________________________________
3504DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, Hearing Officer
3509Division of Administrative Hearings
3513The DeSoto Building
35161230 Apalachee Parkway
3519Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
3522(904) 488-9675
3524Filed with the Clerk of the
3530Division of Administrative Hearings
3534this 19th day of April, 1996.
3540APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3990
3547The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with Section
3557120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties.
3568The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact.
3577Proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent:
3585Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-20, 22-31, 33-39, 41-61.
3593Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence:
3603paragraphs 21, 32, 40.
3607COPIES FURNISHED:
3609Mr. Jorge V. Jimenez
36132716 FDC Grove Road
3617Davenport, Florida 33837
3620Myrna L. Galligano, Esquire
3624Garwood, McKenna & McKenna, P.A.
3629731 North Garland Avenue
3633Orlando, Florida 32801
3636Dana C. Baird, General Counsel
3641Florida Commission on
3644Human Relations
3646Building F, Suite 240
3650325 John Knox Road
3654Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
3657Sharon Moultry, Clerk
3660Florida Commission on
3663Human Relations
3665Building F, Suite 240
3669325 John Knox Road
3673Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
3676NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
3682All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the Recommended
3694Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit
3708written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit
3720written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the
3732Final Order in this case concerning their rules on the deadline for filing
3745exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order
3756should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 08/11/1997
- Proceedings: Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief From an Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
- Date: 04/15/1996
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 03/18/1996
- Proceedings: (2 Volumes) Transcript of Proceedings filed.
- Date: 02/28/1996
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 01/02/1996
- Proceedings: Letter. to Court Reporter from Hearing Officer`s secretary; Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/28/96; 9:00am; Orlando)
- Date: 12/28/1995
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 12/26/1995
- Proceedings: Petitioner Response to Respondent Motion for Continuance of Hearing and First Amended Notice of Deposition filed.
- Date: 12/19/1995
- Proceedings: (Respondent) First Amended Notice of Deposition filed.
- Date: 12/19/1995
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed.
- Date: 11/29/1995
- Proceedings: Petitioner Request for Production; Response to Respondent First Request for Production filed.
- Date: 11/13/1995
- Proceedings: (Respondent) Notice of Deposition filed.
- Date: 10/17/1995
- Proceedings: Letter. to Court Reporter from Hearing Officer`s secretary; Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/17/96; 9:00am; Orlando)
- Date: 10/12/1995
- Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Request for a Pretrial Conference w/cover letter filed.
- Date: 10/10/1995
- Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Request for a Pretrial Conference filed.
- Date: 10/10/1995
- Proceedings: Petitioner Request for a Pre-Trial Conference; (Respondent) First Request for Production filed.
- Date: 09/13/1995
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/8/95; 9:00 a.m.; Orlando)
- Date: 08/31/1995
- Proceedings: Letter to Hearing Officer from Connie S. Smith Re: Filing initial order filed.
- Date: 08/31/1995
- Proceedings: Respondent's unilateral Compliance with Initial Order; Answer and Affirmative Defenses; Notice of Appearance filed.
- Date: 08/16/1995
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 08/11/1995
- Proceedings: Transmittal of Petition; Charge of Discrimination; Notice of Determination: No Cause; Determination: No Cause; Petition for Relief; Notice to Respondent of Filing of Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- DANIEL M. KILBRIDE
- Date Filed:
- 08/11/1995
- Date Assignment:
- 08/16/1995
- Last Docket Entry:
- 08/11/1997
- Location:
- Orlando, Florida
- District:
- Middle
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN TOTO