04-000328 Greg Chapman vs. Mv Transportation, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 30, 2004.

Summary: Petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination during the hearing.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GREG CHAPMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 04 - 0328

)

MV TRANSPORTATION, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Daniel Manry conducted the

administrative hearing of this case on March 25, 2004, in Haines

City, Florida, on behalf of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: No Appearance

For Respondent: Laura I. K orson, Esquire

John Baird & Associates

360 Campus Lane, Suite 201

Fairfield, California 94533 - 1400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against

Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of

Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 6, 2004, the Florida Commission on Human

Relations (the Commission) notified Petitioner that the

Commission had determined there was no re asonable cause to

believe an unlawful employment practice had occurred.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief on January 26, 2004, and

the Commission referred the matter to DOAH to conduct an

administrative hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner did not

ap pear and did not present any testimony.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. No findings are made in this case. Petitioner did not

appear and did not submit any evidence to support findings of

fact.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

2. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and th e subject

matter of this proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

(2003). The parties received adequate notice of the

administrative hearing.

3. There is no direct evidence of discrimination in this

case. In the absence of such evidence, discri mination must be

shown by circumstantial evidence.

4. The burden of proof in discrimination cases involving

circumstantial evidence is set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp.

v. Green , 4ll U.S. 792, 802 - 03 (1973). Federal discrimination

law may be used fo r guidance in evaluating the merits of claims

arising under Chapter 760. Tourville v. Securex, Inc. , 769

So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Greene v. Seminole Electric

Co - op. Inc. , 701 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Brand v.

Florida Power Corp. , 633 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

5. Petitioner has the initial burden of establishing by a

preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of unlawful

discrimination. Failure to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination ends the inquiry. See Ratliff v. State , 666

So. 2d 1008, 1012 n.6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), aff'd , 679 So. 2d

1183 (1996) ( citing Arnold v. Burger Queen Systems , 509 So. 2d

958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMEND ED that the Commission enter a final order finding

that Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against

Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DANIEL MANRY

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 30th day of March, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Greg Chapman

2727 Frontage Road

Davenport, Florida 33837

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Laura I. Korson, Esquire

John Baird & Associates

360 Campus Lane, Suite 201

Fairfield, California 94533 - 1400

Cecil Howard, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suit e 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

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 ag ency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.