08-004911 Albert L. Prevatt, Sr. vs. County Of Volusia
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, August 3, 2009.


View Dockets  
Summary: Recommend that the Petition for Relief be denied in its entirety.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8ALBERT L. PREVATT, SR., )

13)

14Petitioner, )

16)

17vs. ) Case No. 08-4911

22)

23COUNTY OF VOLUSIA, )

27)

28Respondent. )

30)

31RECOMMENDED ORDER

33Upon proper notice this cause came on for formal hearing

43before P. Michael Ruff, a duly-designated Administrative Law

51Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on April 22,

612009, in Deland, Florida. The appearances were as follows:

70APPEARANCES

71For Petitioner: Clifford J. Geismar, Esquire

77Law Offices of Clifford J. Geismar, P.A.

84Crealde Executive Center

872431 Aloma Avenue, Suite 150

92Winter Park, Florida 32792

96For Respondent: Nancye R. Jones, Esquire

102County of Volusia

105123 West Indiana Avenue

109Deland, Florida 32720

112STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

116The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether

126the Petitioner was terminated from employment with the

134Respondent because of his race. The Petitioner alleges that the

144Respondent discriminated against him by engaging in disparate

152treatment and retaliation, in violation of Section 760.10,

160Florida Statutes (2007).

163PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

165This cause arose on March 26, 2008, when the Petitioner

175filed a complaint with the Florida Commission On Human Relations

185(Commission) in which he alleged that the Respondent had

194unfairly disciplined and suspended him because of his race

203(white) and then retaliated against him, for objecting to his

213treatment, by terminating his employment. A determination of no

222cause was issued by the Commission on or about September 18,

2332008.

234The Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from the alleged

244unlawful employment practice on September 26, 2008 and filed an

254amended petition on October 20, 2008. The matter was referred

264to the Division of Administrative Hearings and the undersigned

273Administrative Law Judge to conduct a formal proceeding and

282submit a Recommended Order to the Commission.

289The formal hearing was duly noticed and held on April 22,

3002009. The Petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss before the

310hearing, alleging that the Respondent had not stated a prima

320facie case for relief. The motion was denied without prejudice

330at the outset of the formal hearing.

337The cause came on for hearing and the Petitioner presented

347the testimony of five witnesses and had five exhibits admitted

357into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of one

366witness and had four exhibits admitted into evidence. The

375Respondent advanced a motion in the nature of a motion for

386directed verdict or for dismissal at the conclusion of the

396Petitioner's case. The motion was taken under advisement and

405the remainder of the hearing was conducted and concluded.

414Upon conclusion of the hearing a transcript of the

423proceeding was ordered and filed with the Division on May 14,

4342009, the parties agreed to an extended time schedule for

444submission of proposed recommended orders, which were timely

452submitted. The proposed recommended orders have been considered

460in the rendition of this Recommended Order.

467FINDING OF FACT

4701. The Petitioner, Albert L. Prevatt, Sr., was employed

479with the Respondent, the Volusia County Department of

487Corrections (Department), as a Certified Correctional Officer.

494In July 2007, inmate Ronald Williams filed a complaint against

504the Petitioner, alleging that he had made a racial slur or

515comment directed toward Williams. A number of other inmates

524purportedly were present in the cell block at the time of the

536alleged racial comment and completed written witness statements

544as to what they had heard or observed.

5522. Cindy Clifford was the Director of the Department of

562Corrections and ordered an Internal Affairs investigation

569concerning the matter. Investigator Captain Ken Modzelewski was

577assigned to conduct the investigation into the inmate's

585allegation. The Petitioner was notified of the investigation

593and notified to appear for an interview to address the matter.

604The Petitioner was given notice of the Correctional Officers'

613Bill of Rights with his initial notice of the internal

623investigation.

6243. The Petitioner failed to attend the interview and

633failed to notify the Internal Affairs Unit or any of his

644supervisors that he would not appear for the interview. In

654fact, the Petitioner had suffered a dental emergency while at

664work on the day of the interview, which his supervisor was aware

676of. The Petitioner admitted however that he did not inform his

687supervisor of his scheduled Internal Affairs interview that day.

696The Petitioner also did not contact the Internal Affairs Unit

706after the fact to explain his failure to appear.

7154. The Petitioner went on vacation until August 12, 2007,

725and was unavailable for an interview. This tolled the statutory

73545 day requirement for an Internal Affairs investigation to be

745completed. Upon his return, a second interview was scheduled

754for August 23, 2007. This was to be the Petitioner's

764opportunity to address the inmate's racial comment allegations.

772He was notified in writing of the date and time and again did

785not appear for the interview at the scheduled time.

7945. After the Petitioner failed to appear for the second

804interview scheduled, Captain Modzelewski drafted a memorandum to

812Director Clifford, dated August 23, 2007. In that memorandum he

822requested that the Internal Affairs investigation be

829re-assigned due to the Petitioner's two acts of insubordination

838in failing to appear at the scheduled interviews. Captain

847Modzelewski noted in the memorandum that the actions by the

857Petitioner constituted sustained acts of insubordination, was a

865pattern of behavior he had exhibited in a previous Internal

875Affairs investigation and subjected the Petitioner to

882disciplinary action up to and including termination.

8896. The investigation was re-assigned to Captain Nikki

897Dofflemyer, who is an officer with the Internal Affairs Unit of

908the Department. She interviewed the Petitioner on September 4,

9172007. The Petitioner at that time admitted saying to inmate

927Williams, "You can grab a rope and call the Pope." The

938Petitioner also provided a note to Captain Dofflemyer from

947inmate Anthony Pletcher which purported to clear him of

956Williams' allegations concerning the purported racial slur or

964comment.

9657. The Petitioner asked Captain Dofflemyer to interview

973Pletcher. Captain Dofflemyer interviewed Pletcher, who was then

981no longer in custody. At the interview on September 5, 2007,

992she obtained the name of another inmate, Shawn Jones, who

1002purportedly was contacted by the Petitioner to write a letter

1012exonerating the Petitioner. Pletcher told Captain Dofflemyer

1019that the Petitioner had, in fact, made the racial comment, but

1030had asked Pletcher to write the exculpatory note. Pletcher

1039stated that the note was untrue but that the Petitioner asked

1050him to write it because the Petitioner was in trouble.

10608. Captain Dofflemyer interviewed inmate Jones on

1067September 6, 2007, while Jones was still in custody. According

1077to Jones the Petitioner entered the unit where Jones was housed

1088on September 11, 2007, in the "Branch Jail." This was not the

1100Petitioner's normal duty station. The Petitioner was off-duty

1108at the time. Although off-duty, the Petitioner was in uniform

1118and he had the inmate removed from his cell so the Petitioner

1130could speak with him. The conversation with the inmate was

1140interrupted by the Lieutenant in charge of the Branch Jail, who

1151removed the Petitioner from the premises.

11579. The Petitioner was advised that he was not to go to the

1170Branch Jail where inmate Jones was housed, until the

1179investigation was complete. That was not the Petitioner's work

1188assignment area anyway and so this action did not preclude him

1199from doing his job as a corrections officer.

120710. An interview with the Petitioner was scheduled by

1216Captain Dofflemyer, for the Petitioner to explain his actions of

1226September 11, 2007. The Petitioner was given a written notice

1236and directed to appear for the interview, but failed to do so.

124811. The Petitioner filed a grievance with Director

1256Clifford, in which he alleged he was being subjected to a

1267hostile work environment by being escorted out of the

1276correctional facility and directed not to return, pending the

1285outcome of the investigation. Director Clifford responded to

1293the grievance and determined that the directive to the

1302Petitioner to refrain from entering the Branch Jail during the

1312investigation was appropriate and did not constitute the

1320imposition of a hostile work environment.

132612. The Internal Affairs investigation was concluded and a

1335final report to Director Clifford was made on October 10, 2007.

1346The investigation sustained charges of: three counts of

1354insubordination, tampering with a witness, use of violent,

1362profane, provocative or offensive language, perjury in an

1370official proceeding, and/or knowingly giving false statements to

1378supervisors or other officers. Because the violations were

1386sustained, according to the Internal Affairs investigation Final

1394Report, Director Clifford issued a Notice of Intent to Terminate

1404the Petitioner. The notice provided him three days to respond

1414to all charges, pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of Volusia

1425County and the Volusia County Merit Rules and Regulations. The

1435Petitioner did not provide any additional evidence or

1443information to cause the Director to change her decision that

1453termination was an appropriate disciplinary action for the

1461violations of policies and laws that had been sustained as a

1472result of the investigation. The Petitioner was given a Notice

1482of Dismissal, dated November 12, 2007, which again set forth the

1493basis for the action.

149713. Based upon the conclusion that criminal laws had been

1507violated, after consultation with the State Attorney's office,

1515Captain Modzelewski submitted a complaint affidavit for review

1523and possible criminal charges to the State Attorney. Ultimately

1532the State Attorney's office elected not to pursue the charges.

154214. The Petitioner exercised his right to an

1550Administrative Review of the termination, and also filed a

1559Petition for Writ of Certiori with the Circuit Court, which was

1570denied. He then pursued this formal proceeding.

157715. Subsequent to the Petitioner's termination, in March

15852008, a letter was received by the Respondent from the Florida

1596Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), notifying the Department

1604that the Petitioner had made certain allegations against the

1613Department of Corrections. There is no evidence to show the

1623Petitioner made any complaints against the Department to the

1632FDLE, or any other agency, prior to his termination or that the

1644Respondent was ever aware of any such complaints.

1652CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

165516. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1662jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

1673proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2008).

168117. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007), prohibits

1688discrimination against any person with respect to compensation,

1696terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of that

1705person's race or gender. Florida courts have determined that

1714Federal case law applies to claims arising under the Florida

1724Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760 Florida Statutes; therefore, the

1733United States Supreme Court's instructive decision regarding

1740burden of proof set forth in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green ,

1750411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2nd 668 (1973), applies

1764to employment discrimination claims arising under the above-

1772cited section. See Florida Department of Community Affairs v.

1781Bryant , 586 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

179018. Under the McDonnell-Douglas proof analysis, the

1797Petitioner has the burden of establishing a prima facie case of

1808unlawful discrimination. The standard of proof is by

1816preponderance of the evidence. In order to do that the

1826Petitioner must establish that the Respondent acted with a

1835discriminatory motive. That can be established either by direct

1844or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent. Direct

1851evidence of discriminatory intent is usually established through

1859comments made by employers or supervisors that show

1867discriminatory motive and are related to the employment decision

1876at issue, both causally and temporally. Carter v. City of

1886Miami , 807 F.2d 578 (11th Cir. 1989). No evidence was presented

1897by the Petitioner of any discriminatory remarks or comments made

1907by Director Clifford, the person ultimately responsible for the

1916termination decision nor by any other supervisory personnel.

192419. In order to prove intentional discrimination, the

1932Petitioner must establish that the Respondent intentionally

1939discriminated against him by terminating him because of his

1948race. There is no basis in the law for a court or

1960Administrative Law Judge to question or second-guess a decision

1969to terminate a Petitioner, unless there is evidence of

1978discriminatory intent underlying that termination. As stated in

1986the case of Chapman v. A.Iansport , 229 F.3d 1012, 1031 (11th

1997Cir. 2000):

1999Federal courts do not sit as a super-

2007personnel department that reexamines an

2012entity's business decisions . . . No matter

2020how mistaken the firm's managers, the (Civil

2027Rights Act) does not interfere. Rather our

2034inquiry is limited to whether the employer

2041gave an honest explanation of its behavior

2048(citations omitted).

2050An "employer may fire an employee for a

2058good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on

2067erroneous facts, or for no reason at all as

2076long as its action is not for a

2084discriminatory reason." NIX v. WLCY

2089Radio/Rahall Communications , 738 F.2d 1181,

20941187 (11th Cir. 1984).

2098The Racial Discrimination Claim

210220. The Petitioner maintains that he was terminated

2110because of racial discrimination, asserting that the Respondent

2118engaged in disparate treatment and retaliation. In order to

2127establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination based on

2137disparate treatment, the Petitioner must show: (a) that he

2146belongs to a protected class; (b) that he was subjected to an

2158adverse employment action; (c) that he was qualified for his

2168position; and (d) that the Respondent treated similarly-situated

2176employees outside the protected class more favorably. See

2184Holifield v. Reno , 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir. 1997).

219421. If a prima facie case is established, the burden then

2205shifts to the Respondent, as the employer, to rebut this

2215preliminary showing by producing evidence that the adverse

2223action was taken for some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason.

2231If the employer rebuts the prima facie case, the burden then

2242shifts back to the Petitioner to show, by a preponderance of the

2254evidence, that the Respondent's stated reasons for its adverse

2263employment decision were pretextual See Texas Department of

2271Community Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 101 S. Ct. 1089, 67

2283L. Ed. 2nd 207 (1981).

228822. Even if the trier of fact determines that the reasons

2299put forward by the Respondent justifying its employment action

2308taken are untrue, the ultimate burden of persuasion still

2317remains with the Petitioner to prove the ultimate question of

2327whether the Respondent intentionally discriminated against the

2334Petitioner, as to one or more of the statutorily recognized

2344types of discrimination. Simply disbelieving the employer's

2351version of events or reasons is not enough; the fact-finder must

2362also believe the explanation by the Petitioner of intentional

2371discrimination. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks , 509 U.S.

2381502, 522 (1993).

238423. In cases involving alleged racial bias and the

2393application of discipline for violation of work rules, the

2402Petitioner, who must be a member of the protected class, must

2413demonstrate: (1) That he did not violate the work rule, or (2)

2425that he engaged in misconduct similar to that of a person

2436outside of the protected class and that the disciplinary

2445measures enforced against him were more severe than those

2454enforced against other persons, outside the protected class, who

2463engaged in similar conduct. McCalister v. Hillsborough County

2471Sheriff , 211 F. Appx. 883 (11th Cir. 2006), Jones v. Gerwens ,

2482874 F.2d 1534, 1540 (11th Cir. 1989). A petitioner is

2492similarly-situated to another employee only if "the quantity and

2501quality of the comparator's misconduct (are) nearly identical. .

2510. " Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Fla. , 447 F.3d 1319, 1323

2520(11th Circuit 2006); citing Maniccia v. Brown , 171 F.3d 1364,

25301368 (11th Cir. 1999).

253424. Petitioner has established that he is a member of a

2545protected group, a white male. He also established that he was

2556subjected to an adverse employment action because he was

2565terminated from his job. He presented no evidence, however,

2574that his race played a part in his termination. There is no

2586persuasive evidence to show that any similarly-situated employee

2594outside his protected class, who engaged in nearly identical

2603conduct, was treated more favorably by the Respondent with

2612respect to disciplinary action.

261625. The Petitioner presented evidence that he asserts

2624established that his termination was the result of disparate

2633treatment. The evidence offered showed that there were two

2642instances when an African-American employee of the Department

2650violated a rule or policy and was subjected to a lesser

2661punishment. In one case, the employee committed one act of

2671insubordination and nothing more, and received a written

2679reprimand. This is not comparable to the Petitioner's multiple

2688acts of insubordination, as well as numerous other sustained

2697serious violations.

269926. In the second situation, an African-American employee

2707admitted to failing to properly document rounds made while on

2717duty and received a penalty less than that received by the

2728Petitioner. Here again, the misconduct committed by the

2736African-American officer was not "nearly identical" to that of

2745the Petitioner.

274727. The Petitioner also presented evidence that three

2755Hispanic officers were accused of sexual battery by an inmate.

2765All allegations against these officers, however, were determined

2773to be unfounded or unsubstantiated after an Internal Affairs

2782investigation. Thus no disciplinary action was taken against

2790them. Clearly, this case is not comparable to the Petitioner's

2800for purposes of a disparate treatment claim. In other words,

2810those three officers were found not to have committed the

2820violative conduct at all, so they could not be similarly-

2830situated to the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner has failed to

2840establish this element, he has not established a prima facie

2850case of employment discrimination.

285428. Assuming arguendo that a prima facie case had been

2864made, the Respondent presented evidence of legitimate, non-

2872discriminatory reasons for terminating the Petitioner. The un-

2880rebutted evidence presented by the Respondent established that

2888the Petitioner was terminated for multiple violations of

2896Department policies and Volusia County rules and regulations.

290429. The Petitioner contends that he was not afforded the

2914opportunity of a "valid" investigation and that the Corrections

2923Officers Bill of Rights was violated. The Petitioner claims

2932that had the investigation been performed differently, a

2940different conclusion might have been reached.

294630. The Respondent initiated its investigation based on a

2955written complaint from an inmate, not an uncommon occurrence in

2965a correctional setting. From the inception of the

2973investigation, however, the Petitioner's own actions determined

2980the outcome. He repeatedly failed to appear, or provide an

2990explanation for failing to appear, for his interviews, which

2999were being conducted in an attempt to get his "version of the

3011events in question." He went on vacation during the

3020investigation, precluding the investigation from being timely

3027completed. When he was finally interviewed, he provided the

3036names of a witness and former inmate who he claimed would

3047exonerate him, only to have that witness further implicate the

3057Petitioner when the witness was interviewed. He then contacted

3066a witness, an inmate, while in uniform off-duty, in a place

3077where he had no right to be. This created an appearance of an

3090attempt to tamper with or influence the testimony of the

3100witness.

310131. The Respondent offered legitimate, non-discriminatory

3107reasons for the actions involved in the investigation. The

3116Petitioner's claims that this demonstrates discrimination

3122against him are no more than subjective beliefs by the

3132Petitioner. The preponderant evidence indicates that the

3139Respondent did not commit an unlawful employment practice.

3147The Retaliation Claim

315032. The Petitioner contends he was retaliated against for

3159either filing a grievance alleging a hostile work environment or

3169for submitting a complaint to the FDLE regarding the Department

3179of Corrections, on January 16, 2008.

318533. In order to establish a prima facie case for

3195retaliation, a petitioner or plaintiff must show that he engaged

3205in a statutorily protected activity, that an adverse employment

3214action occurred, and that the adverse action was causally-

3223related to the petitioner or plaintiff's protected activities.

3231See Little v. United Technologies , 103 F.3d 956, 959 (11th Cir.

32421997) and Wentz v. Maryland Casualty Company , 869 F.2d 1153,

32521155, (8th Cir. 1989).

325634. By the time the Petitioner filed a grievance claiming

3266that his banishment from one of the facilities of the Department

3277created a hostile work environment, he had already committed all

3287the acts of misconduct which were the basis for his termination.

3298He presented no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that he was

3308terminated for filing a grievance.

331335. Concerning the purported complaint to FDLE, the

3321unrefuted evidence was that the Petitioner's letter to FDLE was

3331dated January 16, 2008, and that the department of Corrections

3341was not notified of it until March of 2008. The Petitioner was

3353terminated in November 2007, well before the Petitioner had

3362contacted FDLE, by his own admission. Notwithstanding this time

3371and notice issue, there was no evidence that the action taken

3382was in retaliation for any complaint made by the Petitioner.

339236. The Petitioner thus did not establish a causal link

3402between any claimed protected activity and the adverse

3410employment action taken against him. He has not proven any

3420claim here, because he cannot establish a connection between any

3430protected activity and his termination. He did not prove that

3440the county's reason for termination was pretextual.

344737. Even assuming a prima facie case of retaliation could

3457be made, the burden shifts to the Respondent to produce a

3468legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment

3475decision. E.E.O.C. v. Reichhold Chems., Inc. , 988 F.2d 1564

3484(11th Cir., 1993) and U.H.L. v. Zalk Josephs Fabricators, Inc. ,

3494121 F.3d 1133, 1136, (7th Cir. 1997). Even if the Petitioner

3505had established a prima facie case of retaliation, the

3514Respondent came forward with a legitimate, non-discriminatory

3521reason for the Petitioner's termination. As previously stated,

3529the Petitioner was terminated for multiple, serious violations

3537of the Department's rules and policies. The preponderant

3545evidence shows that the Respondent believed the violations,

3553which it knew were sustained by the results of the Internal

3564Affairs investigation, and thus determined that they justified

3572termination. These are legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons

3578for the Petitioner's termination.

358238. Once this burden of going forward with a legitimate

3592non-discriminatory reason was met, it became incumbent upon the

3601Petitioner to prove that the proffered reason was a pretext for

3612what actually amounted to discrimination based on retaliation.

3620Even if a causal link between the protected activity and the

3631adverse employment action was established, this simply enabled

3639the Petitioner to overcome the initial hurdle of having to make

3650a prima facie case of retaliation. It did not relieve him of

3662the burden of overcoming the legitimate reason articulated by

3671the Respondent, which he failed to do. See Simmons v. Camden

3682County Board of Education , 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985)

369339. In summary, the Petitioner has not proven intentional

3702discrimination. The Petitioner has not established that the

3710termination of employment was based on any discriminatory intent

3719based upon the Petitioner's race, nor based upon any intent to

3730effect retaliation against the Petitioner. Rather, it was

3738because of the legitimate determination made by the Respondent

3747that the Petitioner had violated the work rules and policies

3757mentioned above, and that such was an appropriate cause for

3767termination. Whether or not that view of the results of the

3778investigation was true, there was absolutely no proof that the

3788reason the termination of employment was effected was in any way

3799related to discrimination based on race, or based upon

3808retaliation, for the reasons found and concluded above.

3816RECOMMENDATION

3817Having considered the foregoing findings of fact,

3824conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and

3834demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the

3845parties, it is, therefore,

3849RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida

3859Commission on Human Relations denying the Amended Petition for

3868Relief in its entirety.

3872DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2009, in

3882Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

3886S

3887P. MICHAEL RUFF

3890Administrative Law Judge

3893Division of Administrative Hearings

3897The DeSoto Building

39001230 Apalachee Parkway

3903Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

3906(850) 488-9675

3908Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

3912www.doah.state.fl.us

3913Filed with the Clerk of the

3919Division of Administrative Hearings

3923this 3rd day of August, 2009.

3929COPIES FURNISHED :

3932Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

3936Florida Commission on Human Relations

39412009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

3946Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3949Larry Kranert, General Counsel

3953Florida Commission on Human Relations

39582009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

3963Tallahassee, Florida 32301

3966Nancye R. Jones, Esquire

3970County of Volusia

3973123 West Indiana Avenue

3977Deland, Florida 32720

3980Clifford J. Geismar, Esquire

3984Law Offices of Clifford J. Geismar, P.A.

3991Crealde Executive Center

39942431 Aloma Avenue, Suite 150

3999Winter Park, Florida 32792

4003NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4009All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

401915 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

4030to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4041will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 10/28/2009
Proceedings: Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2009
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/05/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 08/03/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held April 22, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 05/14/2009
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volumes I&II) filed.
Date: 04/22/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: Motion for Summary Final Order/Motion to Dismiss filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2009
Proceedings: Motion in Limine to Exclude Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2009
Proceedings: Order (Motion for Continuance is denied).
Date: 04/15/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2009
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Motion for Protective Order Filed by Florida Commission on Human Relations filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/15/2009
Proceedings: Response in Opposition to Motion to Quash Filed by Respondent and Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2009
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for April 22, 2009; 10:00 a.m.; Deland, FL; amended as to date).
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2009
Proceedings: Motion to Quash Subpoena Ad Testificandum Motion for Protective Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2009
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 22, 2009; 10:00 a.m.; Deland, FL; amended as to court reporter status).
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2009
Proceedings: Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2009
Proceedings: Motion to Quash filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2009
Proceedings: Order Allowing Testimony by Telephone.
PDF:
Date: 04/01/2009
Proceedings: Complainant`s Exhibit List (exhibits not availabe for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/01/2009
Proceedings: Complainant`s Witness Listfiled.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2009
Proceedings: Motion for Complainant`s Witness to Appear Telephonically at Hearing Scheduled for April 22, 2009 at 10:00 A.M. filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/09/2009
Proceedings: Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for April 22, 2009; 10:00 a.m.; Deland, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2009
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Ruff from N. Jones regarding availabilty for the hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/26/2009
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by January 30, 2009).
PDF:
Date: 01/26/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (of C. Geismar) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2009
Proceedings: Amended Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2009
Proceedings: Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2009
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2009
Proceedings: Respondent`s Objection to Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2009
Proceedings: Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2009
Proceedings: Subpoena for Production of Evidence filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/20/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by C. Geismar) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/07/2009
Proceedings: Affidavit (Proof of Service) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2009
Proceedings: Affidavit (Proof of Service) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/15/2008
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Dismiss.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2008
Proceedings: Agency`s court reporter confirmation letter filed with the Judge.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 27, 2009; 11:00 a.m.; Deland, FL).
PDF:
Date: 10/20/2008
Proceedings: Amended Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/20/2008
Proceedings: Response to Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/17/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by N. Jones).
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2008
Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion to Dismiss Petition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/14/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by N. Jones).
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2008
Proceedings: Motion to Set Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2008
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2008
Proceedings: Employment Complaint of Discrimination fled.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Determination: No Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2008
Proceedings: Determination: No Cause filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2008
Proceedings: Petition for Relief filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/01/2008
Proceedings: Transmittal of Petition filed by the Agency.

Case Information

Judge:
P. MICHAEL RUFF
Date Filed:
10/01/2008
Date Assignment:
10/02/2008
Last Docket Entry:
10/28/2009
Location:
Deland, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):