04-001451 Alexander Tabak vs. Office Depot Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, October 1, 2004.

Summary: Petitioner claimed discrimination on the basis of age, religion, disability, and retaliation. Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. Recommend that petition be dismissed.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALEXANDER TABAK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 04 - 1451

)

OFFICE DEPOT, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hear ing was held in this case

on July 1, 2004, in Fort Myers, Florida, before Fred L. Buckine,

a duly - assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Alexander Tabak, pro se

214 S outhwest 46th Terrace

Cape Coral, Florida 33914

For Respondent: Joanne B. Lambert, Esquire

Jackson Lewis LLP

390 North Orange Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32801

STATEME NT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful

employment practice when it terminated Petitioner's employment

on July 20, 2001.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 19, 2002, Petitioner, Alexander Tabak, filed a

Charge of Discrimination ag ainst Respondent, Office Depot, with

the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). Upon

completion of its investigation, the Commission issued a Notice

of Determination: No Cause (Notice) and a Determination: No

Cause on March 12, 2004. Petitio ner was advised that he may

request an administrative hearing by filing a petition for

relief within 35 days of the date of the Notice and that failure

to request an administrative hearing within 35 days of the date

of the Notice would result in dismissal of the administrative

claim under Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760,

Florida Statutes, pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief on April 19, 2004.

On April 22, 2004, the Commission referred this matt er to

the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of an

Administrative Law Judge to conduct all necessary proceedings

required under the law and to submit recommended findings to the

Commission.

On April 26, 2004, the Initial Order was sen t to Petitioner

and Respondent. On May 17 and 19, 2004, respectively, Counsel

for Respondent filed a Notice of Appearance and Notice of

Unilateral Compliance with Initial Order.

On May 19, 2004, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss,

alleging that Petiti oner was noticed on March 12, 2004, of his

right to file his Petition for Relief within 35 days of the

Notice and that Petitioner filed with the Commission on

April 19, 2004, three days after the deadline imposed by

Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.

On May 24, 2004, a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the final

hearing for July 1, 2004, and an Order of Pre - hearing

Instructions were entered.

At the final hearing on July 1, 2004, Petitioner testified

on his own behalf and offered one exhibit (P - 1) that was

accepte d into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of

five witnesses: Jeff Parry, Jaime Salazar, Vailoa Tavai, Glenn

Michalak, and Richard York, employees of Respondent.

Respondent's 17 exhibits (R - A through R - Q) were accepted in

evidence.

The parties were afforded an opportunity to address

preliminary matters prior to taking sworn testimony.

Respondent's counsel raised two matters: (1) Respondent's

Motion to Dismiss for Petitioner's failure to timely file his

Petition for Relief with the Commission a nd (2) Petitioner's

failure to respond to discovery demands. Both issues were taken

under advisement, and a ruling was reserved until after

presentation of the evidence.

On July 14, 2004, a one - volume Transcript was filed, and,

on July 30, 2004, Responde nt filed a Proposed Recommended Order.

Petitioner did not file a post - hearing submittal.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying,

exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations and arguments of

the parties, and evidentiary rulings made, the following

relevant and material facts are objectively determined:

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File Petition for Relief

1. This case arises out of a Charge of Discrimination

(Charge) filed by Petitioner (Mr. Tabak) with the C ommission on

July 19, 2002.

2. Mr. Tabak alleged in the Charge that Respondent (Office

Depot) discriminated against him based on his religion (Jewish),

disability, and age (54 years) and retaliated against him for

complaining of the same when it terminate d his employment on

July 20, 2001. Office Depot denied the allegations in the

Charge and contends that it does not discriminate on the basis

of religion, disability, age or any other factor.

3. On March 12, 2004, a no cause determination was issued

by th e Commission after its investigation of the allegations in

the Charge. The determination states that "there is no

reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice

has occurred."

4. The no cause determination and the Notice were mailed

to Mr. Tabak on March 12, 2004. The Notice informed Mr. Tabak

of his right to request an administrative hearing by filing a

petition for relief within 35 days of the date of the Notice

( i.e. April 16, 2004), and it further informed Petitioner that

his claim would be dismissed if it was not timely filed.

5. The Commission received Mr. Tabak's Petition for Relief

(Petition) on April 19, 2004, 38 days after the date of the no

cause determination and Notice of March 12, 2004.

6. Mr. Tabak gave no reason for the failure to timely file

his Petition, other than "he put it in the mail and the postal

services should have delivered it."

Failure to Respond to Discovery

7. Mr. Tabak acknowledged receiving Office Depot's First

Request for Production of Documents and Fir st Set of

Interrogatories.

8. Mr. Tabak acknowledged that he did not answer

Respondent's discovery requests.

9. Office Depot did not file a motion to compel or any

other pleading to have Mr. Tabak's refusal to comply with

discovery addressed by the under signed prior to the hearing, and

the noncompliance issues are now moot.

Claim of Discrimination

10. Mr. Tabak was hired by Office Depot on November 25,

1994, as a delivery driver at the satellite facility located in

Fort Myers, Florida. Delivery driver s would report to the

warehouse each morning to be assigned a "route" and/or

"delivery" by the "lead" driver. The lead driver was an

employee promoted from among the drivers. Drivers with the most

experience and knowledge of the "delivery aspect" of the

business, who had demonstrated an ability to manage other

drivers and interviewed well as a potential leader, as

determined by management, was promoted to lead driver positions.

During Mr. Tabak's employment with Office Depot, a male and

female were promo ted to lead driver positions.

11. At the time of hire, all of Respondent's employees, to

include Mr. Tabak, were provided with a copy of Office Depot's

employee handbook.

12. Office Depot's employee handbook includes policies

regarding equal employment o pportunity, prohibition of unlawful

harassment, and appropriate workplace conduct. The policies

prohibit discrimination or harassment of employees on the basis

of several factors, including religion, age, disability, sexual

orientation, race, and national origin and require employees to

treat one another with respect. The handbook provided the

accepted method for employees to file their objections to all

proposed disciplinary actions taken against them by management,

at the time they were notified of adve rse action impacting their

employment status.

13. On October 13, 1997, some 35 months after he was

hired, Mr. Tabak applied for a lead driver position that was

advertised. Mr. Tabak was interviewed, selected, and promoted

to the lead driver position with an increase in pay and

responsibilities. The overall responsibility of the lead driver

was to ensure each day (1) that all vehicles were operative,

(2) that drivers were present and assigned delivery routes, and

(3) that drivers were scheduled to fill i n for drivers who were

on vacation and out sick. When necessary, the lead driver will

drive for a driver who is out sick and no replacement was timely

found. All Office Depot drivers understood that "the daily

delivery of goods was the ultimate objective to be achieved."

14. On or about May 11, 2001, driver Jamie Salazar radioed

Mr. Tabak, his lead driver, informing Mr. Tabak that he ran out

of gas while driving a delivery route. During their

conversation on the office - to - truck radio, another driver,

Da niel Vasquez, overheard Mr. Tabak tell Mr. Salazar, "if you

have a fucking problem, say it to my face," or some vulgar

statement to that effect.

15. Mr. Salazar and Mr. Vasquez reported Mr. Tabak's

vulgar comment to Jeff Parry, the satellite manager. Mr. Parry

discussed Mr. Tabak's inappropriate conduct with his immediate

supervisor, Tom Perrin, the district manager/supervisor.

Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin agreed that Mr. Tabak's comments and

conduct were inappropriate and were a violation of Office

Depot's policy and practice that required "employees to treat

one another with respect."

16. On May 11, 2001, Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin concluded

that Mr. Tabak would receive written counseling for his comment

to Mr. Salazar, with the warning that the next policy infraction

would result in a final written counseling warning and/or

termination. The written counseling becomes a part of the

employee's personnel file. Office Depot's Problem Resolution

policy is included in the employee handbook. Through the

Problem Resolution policy, employees may contest proposed

disciplinary counseling or other adverse actions taken by Office

Depot management. Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form

at the time he was informed by management of the "written

counseling warnin g," but he elected not to complete the form to

contest the written counseling warning he received for his

vulgar comment to Mr. Salazar.

17. On May 11, 2001, Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin gave

Mr. Salazar a final written warning for running out of gas.

This final warning was given because it was the responsibility

of the driver, Mr. Salazar, to ensure that the truck assigned to

him was fully gassed each morning before leaving the facility.

18. On or about July 10, 2001, driver, David Tollison,

reported to Mr . Parry that at the end of his delivery run he

attempted check - in with Mr. Tabak, his lead driver, by giving

his signed clipboard evidencing deliveries made. According to

Mr. Tollison, Mr. Tabak shoved the clipboard back to him and

said "fucking check you rself in."

19. When confronted by management with this second

complaint of using vulgarity to coworkers, Mr. Tabak denied

using the specific word "fucking" but admitted he "may" have

said "hell" or "damn" when he shoved the clipboard at

Mr. Tollison.

20. Again Mr. Parry discussed this incident with

Mr. Perrin, and they agreed that Mr. Tabak's conduct was

inappropriate and violated Office Depot's policies and practices

requiring "employees to treat one another with respect" and that

he should receive a f inal written counseling.

21. On July 10, 2001, Mr. Tabak received his final written

counseling for his inappropriate conduct toward Mr. Tollison.

The final warning informed Mr. Tabak that the next infraction of

Office Depot's employee policies would resu lt in termination.

Again, Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form at the time

he was informed by management of the "final written warning,"

but he elected not to complete the form to contest the written

counseling warning he received for his vulgar comment to

Mr. Tollison.

22. On July 18, 2001, Mr. Parry was advised that Mr. Tabak

had made derogatory comments about the sexual orientation of

Lisa Holmes, a lead driver. It was reported that Mr. Tabak, in

the presence of drivers, Dan Mouser and Glenn Michalak, had on

more than one occasion referred to Ms. Holmes as "that gay

bitch."

23. On two or more occasions Mr. Tabak made derogatory

comments about Ms. Holmes in the presence of Vailoa Tavia,

referring to Ms. Holmes as a "bitch" and stating that "s he

should not be working as a driver at Office Depot because she is

a woman."

24. Mr. Tabak, in the presence of Mr. Michalak, continued

his barrage of derogatory comments about Ms. Holmes, referring

to her as a "dike" and stating "we sure don't need any gay leads

[drivers] around here."

25. Mr. Tabak's derogatory comments about his coworkers

were not restricted to just the sexual orientation of

Ms. Holmes. In the presence of Mr. Michalak and on more than

one occasion, Mr. Tabak expressed his opinion re garding his

Mexican and Black American coworkers, to include the statement

"if we could get rid of all the Blacks and Mexicans, this place

would run better," and "we don't need Blacks and Mexicans,

because they are lazy."

26. Mr. Tabak's repeated inapprop riate comments made about

his coworkers in the presence of other coworkers, after two

written warnings, were brought to the attention of Richard York,

Office Depot's Regional Human Resources Manager, located in

Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. York, through his own investigation of

Mr. Tabak's comments regarding the race, national origin, and

sexual orientation of other Office Depot employees confirmed

repeated violations, after warnings, had occurred.

27. On July 20, 2001, Mr. Tabak was terminated for

repeated viol ations of Office Depot's policies concerning equal

employment opportunities and non - harassment. Again, at the time

of his termination for the third and last time, Mr. Tabak was

given a Problem Resolution form to complete to contest his

termination. Mr. T abak did not, however, mention in his Problem

Resolution any claims of religious, age, or disability

discrimination; failure to accommodate; or retaliation. It is

undisputed that Mr. Tabak's termination was the sole and direct

result of his having made th ree or more derogatory statements

about his coworkers in the presence of other coworkers, each

such statement being a separate violation of Office Depot's

policy regarding mandatory respect of each employee for

coworkers.

28. Mr. Parry terminated another employee, Mr. Mouser, for

making derogatory remarks about Mr. Tabak's Jewish religion. He

also terminated Michael Salters and Charles Wrotten for

misconduct. Neither Mr. Mouser, Mr. Salters nor Mr. Wrotten was

Jewish or disabled, and they were all in the ir early to mid 20's

when terminated.

29. Mr. Tabak was terminated solely for his repeated

violations of Office Depot's employee policy consisting

primarily of derogatory remarks and inappropriate conduct toward

his coworkers and for no other reason as he alleged some three

years after his termination.

Religious Accommodation Claim

30. Office Depot does not have nor does it observe any

company - wide, close all stores, religious holidays. The policy

of Office Depot was to accommodate any employee's request ,

should another employee be found to replace the absent employee,

or the day off was one of those listed for all employees. No

day off was given any employee merely because of that employee's

religion or other personal traits and/or desires. Leave and

v acation time was available should an employee plan his schedule

and have eight or more hours leave available for any purpose the

employee deemed appropriate.

31. Mr. Tabak's claim of discrimination, to include

religious discrimination, was filed on July 1 9, 2002, more than

1,000 days after he was required to come in to work on Yom

Kippur in September of 1999. Mr. Tabak's requests for time off

for religious holidays during his employment, beginning in

November of 1994 through September of 1999, with Office Depot

were granted without exception when another driver could and

would be available to cover Mr. Tabak's assigned duties.

32. Mr. Parry was Mr. Tabak's manager in 1999 and 2000

during both Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah.

33. In 1999, Mr . Tabak was called in to work on Yom Kippur

by Mr. Parry after his prior request for that day off had been

granted. On that day, the unexpected absence of two drivers

would have caused undue hardship on the operations of the

facility where Mr. Tabak was e mployed as a lead driver.

Mr. Tabak's suggestion that a driver could be requested from the

Miami location to travel to Ft. Myers for one day's work that he

might celebrate a religious holiday was rejected by Mr. Parry

because had never requested driver a ssistance from Weston/Miami

on the day of a crisis. Mr. Tabak was not called in to work on

Jewish holidays in the year 2000 because no drivers called in

sick.

Religious Discrimination Claim

34. Mr. Tabak's claim of religious discrimination was

based on h is not getting promoted to the Ft. Myers managerial

position in November 1998 for which he also applied. Again, the

religious discrimination claim was not raised in 1998.

35. Mr. Parry's employment with Office Depot began in

1988, when Office Depot acqui red Allstate Office Products, by

whom Mr. Parry was already employed as a driver in Tampa,

Florida.

36. In 1993, Office Depot incorporated the Allstate Office

Products Tampa office system for computer centralized customer

delivery from the warehouses in to the Fort Myers facility.

37. In December 1994, one month after Mr. Tabak was hired,

Mr. Parry was temporarily assigned to the Ft. Myers facility to

set up and implement the computer centralized customer delivery

system and to train its drivers.

38. Tim Edwards, Office Depot's manager, made the decision

to promote Mr. Parry because he felt that Mr. Tabak did not do

well during his interview. Mr. Edwards gave Mr. Tabak an out -

of - cycle pay increase in November 1998 of approximately six

percent.

39. Mr . Parry hired Jordan Silverstein, a Jewish driver,

after Mr. Tabak's termination on July 20, 2001.

40. At the request of Mr. Tabak, and as a part of its

business practice of giving back to the community, Office Depot

made two voluntary donations of $2,5 00 each to Mr. Tabak's

Jewish Temple, once in 2000 and again in 2001.

41. Considering all evidence of record favorable toward

Mr. Tabak regarding religious discrimination, Mr. Tabak failed

to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated

ag ainst him because of his religion when he was not selected for

promotion to the position of manager of the Ft. Meyers facility

in November 1998.

42. Mr. York was 53 years of age in July 2001 when he

participated as a manager in the decision to terminate

Mr. Tabak.

43. Mr. Perrin was in his early 40's when he participated

in the decision to discipline and ultimately terminate

Mr. Tabak.

44. Mr. Michalak was 51 years old in July 2004. During

his employment with Office Depot, Mr. Michalak testified to

ne ver having experienced age discrimination and never having

observed or heard of any age - related discriminatory remarks

toward Mr. Tabak.

45. Mr. Tabak's only evidence of age discrimination was

his allegation that Mr. Michalak made the remark, which

Mr. M ichalak denies, that "an old fart like you is never going

to make manager."

46. Considering all evidence of record favorable toward

Mr. Tabak regarding age discrimination, Mr. Tabak failed to

establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated

ag ainst him because of his age, when he was not selected for

promotion to a manager's position or because of an alleged

statement made by Mr. Michalak.

Disability Discrimination

47. Mr. Tabak based his claim of disability discrimination

on his alleged dimi nished hearing capacity.

48. Mr. Tabak alleged that he suffered with diminished

hearing that was corrected and restored to 100 percent when he

would wear his hearing aid.

49. Mr. Tabak's alleged diminished hearing did not

interfere with or prohibit his p erformance of his job and duties

while employed at Office Depot.

50. Mr. Tabak passed his annual Department of

Transportation hearing tests while he worked under Mr. Parry's

management in the Ft. Myers facility.

51. Mr. Tabak never personally made Mr. Pa rry aware of his

diminished hearing, and, consequently, Mr. Parry was not aware

that Mr. Tabak suffered with a hearing problem that was

corrected with a hearing aid.

52. Mr. Tabak offered no medical evidence in support of

his "diminished" hearing allegati on.

53. Considering all evidence of record favorable toward

Mr. Tabak, he failed to establish a prima facie case that Office

Depot discriminated against him because of his diminished

hearing that was corrected and restored to 100 percent when he

would wea r his hearing aid.

Retaliation

54. At no time during his employment or during his

termination process, including his opportunity to identify and

address his retaliation claim on his Problem Resolution form,

did Mr. Tabak allege that not being selected to a position of

manager and his termination were acts of retaliation. Indeed,

when his termination was first and in the forefront of his

concerns, Mr. Tabak did not complete his Problem Resolution form

to raise a claim of retaliation or to contest his termi nation.

55. Office Depot was first made aware of Mr. Tabak's

claims of alleged religious, age, and disability discrimination;

failure to accommodate; and retaliation on July 19, 2002, one

year after his termination.

56. Mr. Tabak failed to establish a pr ima facie case that

Office Depot retaliated against him when they terminated his

employment on July 20, 2001.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

57. The Division of Administrative Hearing has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding purs uant to Section 120.569 and Subsections 120.57(1)

and 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (2002).

58. Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2002),

provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an

employer:

To discharge or to fail or refuse to hir e

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, age, handicap, or marital

status.

59. Petitioner alleged in the Charge that Respondent

discriminated against him based on his religion (Jewish),

disability, and age and retaliated against him for complaining

of the same when his employment was terminated on July 20, 2001.

60. The Commis sion and the Florida courts have determined

that federal discrimination law should be used as guidance when

construing provisions of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes

(2002). See Brand v. Florida Power Corp. , 633 So. 2d 504, 509

(Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Florid a Department of Community Affairs v.

Bryant , 586 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

61. The United States Supreme Court established, in

McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct.,

1817; 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), and Texas Department of Com munity

Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248 (1981), the analysis to be used

in cases alleging discrimination under Title VII, which is

persuasive in cases such as that at bar, as reiterated and

refined in the case of St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks ,

509 U.S. 502 (1993).

62. This analysis illustrates that a petitioner has the

burden of establishing, by a preponderance of evidence, a prima

facie case of discrimination. If that prima facie case is

established, the defending respondent must articulate a

legitim ate, non - discriminatory reason for the action taken

against the petitioner. The burden then shifts back to the

petitioner to go forward with evidence to demonstrate that the

offered reason is merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

The Supreme Cour t stated in Hicks , before finding discrimination

in that case, that "the fact finder must believe the plaintiff's

explanation of intentional discrimination." 509 U.S. at 519.

63. In the Hicks case, the Court stressed that even if the

factfinder does no t believe the proffered reason given by the

employer, the burden remains with the petitioner to demonstrate

a discriminatory motive for the adverse employment action taken.

64. In order to establish a prima facie case, Petitioner

must satisfy each prong o f a four - prong test establishing that

before or at the time of termination: (1) he was a member of a

protected group, (2) he was qualified for the position in

question, (3) he was discharged, and (4) he was actually

subjected to an adverse employment deci sion. Failure to satisfy

one prong of the test is fatal to the claim. See Williams v.

Motorola, Inc., 303 F.3d 1284, 1293 (11th Cir. 2002); Canino v.

U.S. E.E.O.C. , 707 F.2d 468 (11th Cir. 1983); and Smith v.

Georgia , 684 F.2d 729 (11th Cir. 1982).

Timel iness of the Petition

65. Subsection 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (2002), and the

Commission require that a petition for relief from a "no cause"

determination by the Commission requesting an administrative

hearing must be filed with the Commission within 35 days of the

date of the "no cause" determination.

66. Florida Administrative Code Rule 28 - 106.104 provides

that a petition for relief is "filed" when it is received by the

office of the Commission during normal business hours.

67. The timeliness of a request for an administrative

hearing is determined based on the date the request is filed,

regardless of when it was mailed or otherwise served by the

requesting party.

68. The doctrine of excusable neglect no longer saves an

untimely request for an admi nistrative hearing. See , e.g. Patz

v. Dept. of Health , 864 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2003); Whiting

v. Dept. of Law Enforcement , 849 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA

2003); Cann v. Dept. Children & Family Services , 813 So. 2d 237

(Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

69. Petitione r introduced no evidence that suggests the

doctrine of equitable tolling described in Machules v.

Department of Administrative , 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988).

Thus, dismissal as untimely filed is required. See

§ 120.569(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004) (untimely petition for

administrative hearing "shall be dismissed"); § 760.11(7), Fla.

Stat. (2002) ("claim will be barred" if request for

administrative hearing is not made within 35 days).

70. The Petition in this cause must be dismissed as

untimely filed in viol ation of Subsections 760.11(7) and

120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2002).

Merits of the Petition

71. Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case and,

therefore, failed to met the first prong of the four - prong test

established by the United States S upreme Court in McDonnell -

Douglas Corporation v. Green and Texas Department of Community

Affairs v. Burdine , and, on that ground, the Petition in this

cause must be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregone, it is RECOMMENDED that the

Commission is sue a final order dismissing with prejudice the

Petition for Relief and the Charge of Discrimination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2004, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

FRED L. BUCKINE

Administrati ve 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 Administra tive Hearings

this 1st day of October, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Alexander Tabak

214 Southwest 46th Terrace

Cape Coral, Flor ida 33914

Joanne B. Lambert, Esquire

Jackson Lewis LLP

390 North Orange Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32801

Cecil Howard, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT T O 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.