06-000733 Alma W. Jester vs. Haverty`s Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, July 17, 2006.

Summary: Petitioner`s condition of employment was not affected because her employer berated her. Her petition cannot be actionable under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was suspended because of a violation of company policy.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ALMA W. JESTER , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06 - 0733

)

HAVERTY'S , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for formal hearin g before Harry L.

Hooper, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings, on May 16 and 17, 2006, in Shalimar,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: John W. Wesley, Esquire

Wesley, McGrail and Wesley

88 Northeast Eglin Parkway

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548

For Respondent: W. Douglas Hall, Esquire

Carlton Fields, P.A.

Post Office Drawer 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0190

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful

employment practice.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner A lma Jester (Ms. Jester) filed an Employment

C omplaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human

Relations (Commission) on July 11, 2005. The Complaint alleged

that Responde nt Haverty's (Haverty's) discriminated against her

based on her gender and further, alleged retaliation for having

made a report to her supervisor that she had been discriminated

against. The "Haverty's" against whom she made the allegations

is in fact Ha verty's Furniture, Inc.

The Commission ' s Office of Employment Investigations

conducted an investigation into the allegation s . The

investigator recommended "that a determination of reasonable

cause be issued on the Charge [ sic ] of Discrimination based on

sex (female) and retaliation." The Office of the General

Counsel, upon review, recommended that a determination of no

cause issue. The Executive Director of the Commission directed

that a "Notice of Determination: No Cause" be entered . T hat

was done on January 26, 2006.

On February 23, 2006, Ms. Jester filed a Petition for

Relief. She did not mention the retaliation claim in the

Petition and for purposes of this Recommended Order, it is

determined , after a close reading of her Petition, that she

inten ded to go forward only with allegations of gender

discrimination based on disparate treatment . The re were two

examples of gender discrim ination alleged in the Petition for

Relief . One was an allegation that she was singled out at a

sales meeting and humi liated. The other allegation was that she

was suspended for three days because a group of employees that

she referred to as the "Good Old Boys Club , " railroaded her

customer and stole a sale from her.

The Petition and allied papers were transmitted to th e

Division of Administrative Hearings and filed February 28, 2006.

The hearing was set for May 3 and 4, 2006. Thereafter,

Ms. Jester filed a Supplemental Response to Initial Order

requesting new hearing dates. In response, the hearing was set

for May 1 6 and 17 in Shalimar, Florida, and was heard as

scheduled.

Prior to the hearing , Haverty's filed a motion in l imine

seeking to exclude any testimony that Ms. Jester might attempt

to adduce relating to a sexually hostile work environment, on

the ground it had neither been alleged in the Complaint nor

considered as part of the Commission's investigation and

determination. The motion was granted with the exception that

testimony indicating a hostile work environment could be

elicited to the extent that it s upported Ms. Jester's claim of

disparate treatment based on her gender.

At the hearing, Ms. Jester testified and presented the

testimony of nine other witnesses . She offered four exhibits

into evidence and they were admitted. Respondent presented the

tes timony of one witness and offered five exhibits into evidence

and they were admitted .

A three - volume Transcript was filed on June 14, 2006 .

After the hearing, Petitioner and Respondent filed their

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on July 5,

2006 . Subsequently, on July 11, 2006, Haverty's filed

Respondent's Motion to Strike or Respond to Plaintiff's Proposed

Recommended Order, which alleged certain factual errors in

Ms. Jester's Proposed Recommended Order. It is not necessary to

rule on the m otion because the Administrative Law Judge has

based his F indings of F act on the Transcript and the documents

admitted.

References to statutes are to Florida Statutes (2005)

unless otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Haverty's is a corporation t hat employs many more than

15 employees in many stores. Haverty's sells furniture. The

store in which the allegations of this complaint arose is

located at 1175 Eglin Parkway in Shalimar, Florida. Unless

noted elsewhere, when Haverty's is mentioned , the reference is

to the Shalimar store.

2. Ms. Jester is a woman who resides in Niceville,

Florida. She obtained a job at Haverty's and began working

there as a sales associate on June 1 6 , 2003. She was hired by

Gary Hodge , who was the store manager. She was a sales

associate during the entire time that she was employed by

Haverty's.

3. A sales associate works on a straight commission and

the commission is not paid until the furniture is delivered. A

sales associate, after the first three months on the job, is

required to sell at least $40,000 in product each month. There

are generally ten to fifteen sales associates on the floor at

any given time. The environment is highly competitive.

4. There is a computer numbering system in place , called

the "u p" system, which is used to determine who may approach a

customer who walks into the store. If a sales associate

initially helps a customer and later the customer is helped by

another sales associate, the commission , if a sale is made , is

split between th e two. During Ms. Jester's time as a sales

associate she grossed about $26,000 per year.

5. Ms. Jester noticed shortly after she began her

employment that there existed at Haverty's a clique of

salespersons, including Michael Herring, Charles McEwen,

B uzz Howard, and " Travis . " Also in this clique was a woman

named " Melanie " and another named " Trudy. " This loosely

affiliated group was sometimes referred to by Ms. Jester and

others, as the "Good Old Boys Club ," even though women were

members of the gro up.

6. Members of "Good Old Boys Club " would say unpleasant

things to her, would make comments about her, and would

sometimes make her feel uncomfortable. Sometimes sexual

comments were made about her, and sometimes sexual comments were

made about other female employees. On occasion, however,

Ms. Jester made sexual comments.

7. The "Good Old Boys Club" falsely accused her of

stealing sales on occasion. Sometimes persons in the alleged

"Good Old Boys Club " would get her so upset that she would have

to leave the floor. Her absence resulted in them making more

sales, and thus, more money.

8 . If a product is sold at a discount, or if a particular

item is given to a person without charge to enhance a sale of

other items , the official listed price must be overridden in the

store computer by using an override code. A sales associate is

not usually provided with the code and if , on a particular

occasion , a sales associate is give n the override code, it is

subsequently changed by management . On one or more o ccasions

Charles McEwen did overrides on his own , and at least twice he

entered codes for Ms. Jester. Buzz Howard used an override code

once.

9 . Managers at the store made exceptions to the override

policy. Lee Keiran , who was a sales associate , was als o a

"keyholder , " and he had at all times, the authority to make

overrides. However, the manager, Mr. Hodge or Michael Herring,

when he was promoted to floor manager, would generally enter

override codes. Obtaining someone to enter an override often

added additional time to completing a sale , and personally

having an override code gave the holder a slight advantage over

a sales associate who did not have one . Ms. Jester was never

provided with her own override code. She believed, incorrectly,

that this w as because of her gender.

10 . S ales meeting s were held at Haverty's every Saturday

morning at 8:30 a. m . All sales associates were required to

attend. At th ese meeting s the manager reiterat ed rules and

inform ed employees about new rules. New merchandis e would be

discussed and products being specially advertised would be

discussed. During the time of Ms. Jester's employment , the

meetings would usually be conducted by Mr. Hodge , the store

manager .

11 . On one occasion , in or near the month of January 200 5,

Mr. Herring conducted the sales meeting . There were twelve or

thirteen sales associates at this meeting. Mr. Herring, after

addressing other subjects, discussed the rules concerning

checking out fabrics. He reiterated the rule that sales persons

must "check out" fabric samples prior to allowing customers to

depart the store with them. "Checking out" fabric requires a

credit card slip signed by the customer.

1 2 . Thereafter, Mr. Herring grasped some fabric and raised

it over his head and said to Ms. J ester, "Alma, come get your

fabrics." Ms. Jester rose from her chair and walked in front of

everyone and took the fabric from his hand. As she walked away

he said, "Unacceptable." This was at the conclusion of the

meeting. Ms. Jester found this to be h umiliating.

13 . Ms. Jester placed the fabrics on her desk and went

straight to Mr. Hodge to complain. She and Mr. Hodge had a

conversation. He inquired as to what she wanted him to do about

it. She said she wanted Mr. Herring to apologize and he said,

"I'll have him talk to you." Ms. Jester informed Mr. H odge that

she was sick and was going home. Mr. Herring never apologized

to her.

14 . During the time Ms. Jester worked at Haverty's no men

were singled out and criticized at sales meetings. During th e

aforesaid time , some of the men have allowed customers to take

fabrics out of the store without being "checked out" and no

evidence was adduced that they were rebuked either privately or

publicly.

15 . Charles McEwen came to work late on more than one

oc casion. On one occasion when he reported late, an odor of

alcohol could be detected on his person. However, he was not

under the influence of alcohol. He was never reprimanded for

being late or smelling of alcohol.

16 . On Sundays sales associates were required to come to

work at 11:30, on e - half - hour before opening, to clean , and

straighten up the store. Employees would enter the building on

Sundays through a side door , which was propped open by a rock.

On one occasion Ms. Jester reported to the buildi ng five minutes

late. The rock had been removed and the door was closed. She

beat on the door and eventually someone opened it.

1 7 . Ms. Jester believed that she was locked out

purposefully , but the evidence indicates only that someone moved

the rock , causing the door to close, which resulted in her

inability to enter the building immediately upon arrival .

1 8 . Male sales associate s " Trent " and Bob Humphries were

often late. Male sales associate " Travis " often left early.

None of these men were discip lined for tardiness or for

departing early.

1 9 . Ms. Jester complained to Mr. Hodge about male sales

associate Michael Herring . She informed him that Michael was a

male chauvinist pig. Mr. Hodge agreed and suggested that she

get over it.

20 . Once Buzz H oward called her a stupid liar on the sales

floor in front of three people. Ms. Jester was upset about

this. She complained to Mr. Hodge. He suggested to her that

Mr. Howard's intent was to get her off the sales floor so she

couldn't compete with the ot her sales associates . He said she

should, "Cowboy up."

2 1 . In April 2005 , a woman named Ashley Bloomfield walked

into the store. Ms. Jester spent an hour and a half showing her

bedroom suites. Ms. Bloomfield eventually indicated that she

was going to c ogitate about the purchase, and departed the

store. Before she left Ms. Jester gave her a business card so

that she could ask for her when she returned . Customers often

spend a lot of time looking at furniture, depart, and

subsequently return. These cus tomers are called, "be - backs."

Sometimes "be - backs" return, and sometimes they don't.

2 2 . A few days after her visit, Ms. Bloomfield called for

Ms. Jester on the telephone. She spoke to sales associate

Bob Humphries who told her that Ms. Jester was not present. On

Wednesday, April 20, 2005, Ms. Bloomfield returned to Haverty's

and was assisted by Buzz Howard. Mr. Howard told her that he

would ring up the sale but would credit the sale to Ms. Jester.

The transaction was completed, but Ms. Jester was n ot given any

credit for the sale.

2 3 . On a Thursday subsequent to Ms. Bloomfield's visit

Ms. Jester entered the side door of the store and observed Buzz

Howard at the office with Ms. Bloomfield. The office is the

place where customers arrange payment fo r purchases. Mr. Howard

informed Ms. Jester that when Ms. Bloomfield walked in the door

she asked for Mr. Humphries, that he, Mr. Howard helped her, and

that he , and Mr. Humphries , were going to split the commission.

Pursuant to policy, Ms. Jester should have gotten half of the

commission and a three - way split is not, she believes, possible.

2 4 . Ms. Jester complained to Mr. Hodge about this.

Mr. Hodge explained that Ms. Bloomfield had called when she was

absent and Mr. Humphries had spoken with her on the telephone.

Mr. Hodge said the commission would be subject to a three - way

split.

2 5 . The next day Ms. Bloomfield called Ms. Jester to

inquire why Mr. Humphries' name was on the sales slip and not

hers. When she learned that Ms. Jester was not going to get

credit for the sale , she asked Ms. Jester what to do .

Ultimately, Ms. Jester told her she should call " management " in

Pensacola and gave her the number for " management. "

Specifically, she referred her to Hunter Wrisley or Zack

Mattson.

2 6 . Ms. B loomfield did call "management" and spoke to Zack

Mattson who in turn called Ms. Jester. Mr. Mattson told

Ms. Jester , "Don't do anything about this. I will get back to

you."

2 7 . Although Ms. Bloomfield testified that Mr. Mattson

intimated that Ms. Jest er would get all of the commission if she

was working solely with Ms. Bloomfield , this did not occur.

When Ms. Bloomfield learned that Ms. Jester did not get all of

the commission, she announced that she would return to the

store, return the merchandise p reviously purchased, and then

would re - purchase it from Ms. Jester.

2 8 . Ms. Jester called Mr. Mattson and left a message on

his voicemail informing him of Ms. Bloomfield's plan of action.

He did not respond to her immediately .

2 9 . Ms. Bloomfield retur ned to the store and the office

manager , "Michelle," with the assistance of Ms. Jester, deleted

the previous sale , and thereafter modified the transaction to

reflect Ms. Jester as the seller. Mr. Mattson determined that

this event ran afoul of his instruc tion to, "Don't do anything

about this. I will get back to you."

30. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hod ge called Ms. Jester to his

office. Mr. Mattson was on the speaker phone. Mr. Mattson

announced that she had deliberately disobeyed a direct order.

3 1 . A fter Mr. Mattson terminated his participation in the

conversation , Ms. Jester told Mr. Hodge that she was too upset

to continue working that day and that she must go home.

Thereafter, she departed the premises.

3 2 . The next day Mr. Hodge directed that Ms . Jester report

to his office and she did as requested. Mr. Hodge, in the

presence of Lee Keiran, required her to sign a disciplinary form

which recited that she had been insubordinate and had discussed

commissions with a customer, an activity which is ag ainst

Haverty's policy. The form further informed that she was

suspended with no pay for three days. She signed the form and

went home.

3 3 . When Ms. Jester returned to work she asked Mr. Hodge

if she could have leave so that she could go on vacation. H e

denied her request.

3 4 . S he submitted a letter of resignation to Mr. Hodge on

May 20, 2005. The letter stated that she had put up with being

mistreated by the "G ood O ld B oys C lub " for the last time.

However, this is not found to be a constructive te rmination.

She gave two weeks notice but Haverty's discharged her on

May 2 2 , 2005 , in accordance with their policy on notice of

termination.

3 5 . Ms. Jester also sent a letter of resignation to a

Mr. Smith of Haverty's corporate office in Atlanta. The

corporate office did not respond.

3 6 . Haverty's employee Charles McEwen once told a customer

named Schneider to ask for Ms. Whalls when she returned on a

Wednesday after a Tuesday visit because he would not be working

on the proposed return date . He aske d Ms. Whalls for her

business card to give to Ms. Schneider so that she would be sure

and remember to ask for Ms. Whalls. There was some minimal

discussion of commission splits at this time. However, this

discussion did not result in any further involvem ent by the

customer in the commission structure.

3 7 . Although evidence was adduced indicating that some of

the sales associates engaged in underhanded methods designed to

deprive their fellow workers of commissions, and that some had

their own override co des, and others had tardiness excused,

there was no evidence that any other sales associate at

Haverty's involved a customer in a dispute over commissions .

3 8 . Although during the time of Ms. Jester's employment no

one other tha n Ms. Jester was rebuked in front of the sales

associates, being rebuked i s not the type of employment practice

that can be an adverse employment action.

3 9 . The facts in this case demonstrate that being a sales

associate at Haverty's is extremely competitive. Because of the

hig hly competitive , straight commission sales environment,

employees engage d in activities designed to subvert the efforts

of their fellow employees to earn commissions. Sales associates

often made crude and inappropriate remarks that were upsetting

to those who were the targets , in an effort to reduce

competition .

40 . Ms. Jester's supervisors tolerated this behavior .

Undoubtedly, a tough environment existed at Haverty's, but this

should not be confused with discrimination. The sometimes

unfortunate and mean employment practices permitted at Haverty's

were not grounded in gender discrimination or some other

prohibited basis. T here is no evidence in the record that any

employee of Haverty's received favorable treatment, or

unfavorable treatment, because o f their gender .

41 . After Ms. Jester's employment at Haverty's came to an

end, she made an unsuccessful attempt to go into business for

herself. For about eight months subsequent to her departure

from Haverty's she was absolutely unemployed.

42. S he rec eived unemployment compensation in the amount

of $257.00 per week for four months after her departure from

Haverty's . Then she went to work for the Shoe Salon for $9.50

per - hour for three weeks. Ms. Jester did not indicate how many

hours per - week she wor ked at the Shoe Salon .

4 3 . Thereafter she found employment with Massey Wholesale

about three months before the hearing , and at the time of the

hearing she was still employed there. Her wages at Massey

Wholesale compare closely to what she was receiving when working

for Haverty's.

4 4 . Massey Wholesale will soon pay for her health

insurance. She paid $387.00 per month for health insurance

pursuant to COBRA for a period of three months subsequent to

leaving Haverty's then secured a policy for which she pays a

premium of $250.00 per month.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 5 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. § § 120.57(1) and 760.01, et seq. , Fla. Stat.

4 6 . Ms. Jester's case is based on her assertion that she

suffered an adverse employment action , in violation of the

Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act), Sections 760.01 -

760.11 and 509.092, because of her gender.

4 7 . The Act, is patterned after Title VII of the Federal

Civ il Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, et seq. Federal case

law interpreting Title VII and similar federal legislat ion is

applicable to cases arising under the Florida Act. See Florida

Department of Community Affairs v. Bryant , 586 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.

1st DCA 1991) and School Board of Leon County v. Weaver , 556 So.

2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

4 8 . In order to prevail, Ms. Jester has the ultimate

burden of proving by the preponderance of the evidence that

Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by

discriminating against her on account of her gender . Florida

Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. , 396 So. 2d

778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) .

4 9 . Petitioner is an “aggrieved person” and Respondent is

an "empl oyer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(10) and (7),

respectively.

50 . Section 760.10(1 ) provides as follows:

§ 760.10. Unlawful employment practices

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail or refu se 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, age, handicap, or marital

status.

* * *

51 . No direct or statistical evidence of gender

discrimination exists in this case. Therefore a finding of

discrimination, if any, must be based on circumstantial

evidence.

52 . The burden and order of proof in gender discrimination

cas es involving circumstantial evidence is set forth in

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 - 03 (1973).

53 . To demonstrate discrimination under McDonnell Douglas

Corp . , Ms. Jester must first establish a prima facie case of

gender discriminat ion. Thereafter, the employer may offer

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its employment action .

If the employer does that, in order to prevail, Ms. Jester must

establish that the employer's articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful

discrimination. Smith v. J. Smith Lanier & Co. , 352 F.3d 1342

(11th Cir. 2000).

54 . To establish a prima facie case of gender

discrimination, under Section 760.10(1)(a) and McDonnell Douglas

Corp. , Ms. Jester must show that (1) she belongs to a protected

class; (2) Haverty's treated similarly situate d employees

outside of h er classification differently; (3) she was qualified

for the position she held; (4) and she suffered an adverse

employment action. Maynard v. Board of Regents of Division of

Universities of the Florida Department of Education , 342 F.3d

1281 (11th Cir. 2003) , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp .

5 5 . Ms. Jester failed to prove a prima facie case with

regard to the fabric sample incident. Although s he belongs to a

protected class and was qualified for the position she held , and

though no men, during the time Ms. Jester was employed at

Haverty's, were publicly reprimanded about being derelict in

checking out fabric samples , Ms. Jester failed to prove that she

suffered an adverse employment action .

5 6 . Being publicly reprimanded or bera ted with regard to

her fai lure to properly check out fabric samples , is not an

action affecting her "compensation, terms, conditions, or

privileges of employment" as contemplated by

Section 760.10(7)(a) , Florida Statutes . Although the Florida

Legislature certainly could have extended the protection of the

Act to all aspects of the employment relationship, it plainly

did not, and instead contemplated relief under the statute's

anti - discrimination clause only to employees injured in the

"terms, conditions, or privileges" of their employment.

5 7 . In Davis v. Town of Lake Park, Fla. , 245 F.3d 1232

(11th Cir. 2001), a minority police officer complained about two

corrective job performance memo randa placed in his personnel

file and two instances where he was t emporarily removed as the

designated officer - in - charge. He asserted that these personnel

actions were racially motivated and sued under the Act as well

as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

58 . The c ourt noted in Davis that memoranda of reprim and

or counseling that amount to no more than a mere scolding,

without any following disciplinary action, do not rise to the

level of adverse employment actions sufficient to satisfy the

requirements of Title VII. Likewise , in Merriweather v. Alabama

Dept . of Pub. Safety , 17 F. Supp. 2d 1260 (M. D. Ala.1998) , the

court held that non - selection for a training course was not an

adverse employment action because the plaintiff did not

demonstrate that his non - selection affected the terms or

conditions of his em ployment.

59 . Moreover, in Allen v. Michigan Dep't of Corr. , 165

F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 1999), the court held that the employment

action must result in a "materially adverse" change in

employment status or in the terms and conditions of his

employment. In the Allen case, the plaintiff's claims that he

received disciplinary actions in the form of counseling

memoranda because of his race, and that his supervisors referred

to him using racial epithets , and monitored him more closely

than they monitored non - bla ck employees , were not found to be

"materially adverse" changes in his employment status or in the

terms or conditions of his employment. (Allen prevailed in his

appeal of an adverse ruling on a summary judgment motion on

other grounds.) See also Burling ton Northern & Sante Fe Railway

Co. v. White , 74 U.S.L.W. 3559 (April 3, 2006).

60 . The second prong of Ms. Jester's complaint rest s on

the suspension she received based on her interactions with

Ms. Bloomfield with regard to her entitlement to a sales

c ommission . In this regard, she failed to satisfy the element

of a prima facie case requiring proof that Haverty's treated

similarly situated employees outside of her classification

differently . No proof was adduced that any employee, in her

classificatio n, or out of it, had gotten a customer entangled in

an internal commission dispute.

61 . Someone outside of her classification, Mr. McEwen, did

have a discussion with a Ms. Schneider , a customer, regarding a

commission split , but there was no evidence tha t anyone other

than Ms. Jester, Ms. Whalls, Ms. Schneider, or Mr. McEwen knew

about this. In any event, to the extent that Ms. Schneider

became aware of the commission structure, it did not de volve

into a disturbance involving management , as was the case with

Ms. Jester's involvement with Ms. Bloomfield.

62 . Ms. Jester's assertion that Mr. McEwen's interaction

with Ms. Schneider somehow made Mr. McEwen a comparator , is not

supported by the facts. There was no evidence that Haverty's

management was aware of McEwen's offense, his failure to abide

by store policies did not result in an embarrassment to

Haverty's, and there was no evidence that Mr. McEwen was

insubordinate.

63 . Even if one assumes arguendo that Ms. Jester proved a

prima facie case, Haverty 's provided nondiscriminatory reasons

for suspending Ms. Jester. Specifically, Ms. Jester ' s actions

with Ms. Bloomfield were violations of store policy and resulted

in embarrassment to Haverty's. More o ver, when Ms. Jester was

told to take no further acti on in the matter, she persisted in

doing so.

64 . Ms. Jester did not establish that the employer's

articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for suspending

her were a pretext to mask unlawful discrimination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the Findin gs of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it

is

RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations

dismiss the Petition of Alma W. Jester.

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of Ju ly , 2006, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

HARRY L. HOOPER

Adminis trative 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 Admin istrative Hearings

this 17th day of Ju ly , 2006 .

COPIES FURNISHED :

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

W. Douglas Hall, Esquire

Carlton Fields, P.A.

Post Off ice Drawer 190

Tallahassee, Florida 32302 - 0190

John W. Wesley, Esquire

Wesley, McGrail and Wesley

88 Northeast Eglin Parkway

Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548

Cecil Howard, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Su ite 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 a gency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.