11-001616 Serena Velaquez vs. Lone Palm Golf Club, Llc, D/B/A Publix Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, June 30, 2011.

Summary: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof and did not appear for hearing.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SERENA VELAQUEZ , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 11 - 1616

)

LONE PALM GOLF CLUB, LLC, d/b/a )

PUBLIX , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Purs uant to notice, on June 14, 2011, a final hearing was

conducted in this case before J. D. Parrish, a designated

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearin gs (DOAH), in Lakeland, Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: W. John Gadd, Esq uire

The Law Office of W. John Gadd

2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250

Clearwater, Florida 33762

For Respondent: Glenn Michael Rissman, Esquire

Stearns , Weaver , Miller , Weissler ,

Alhadeff & Sitterman, PA

200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2100

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 31, 2011, the Florida Commission on Human

Relations (FCHR) transmitted to the Divisi on of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH) , a Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner,

Serena Velaquez (Petitioner). The petition alleged that

Respondent, Lone Palm Golf Club, a/k/a Publix (Respondent) , had

violated provisions of Florida law related to unlawful

employment practices. The case was scheduled for formal hearing

for June 14 and 15, 2011, and notice of the hearing was provided

to all parties.

At the notice time and place for the hearing, counsel for

Petitioner appeared , but Petitioner did not. Aft er waiting

approximately 30 minutes for Petitioner to appear or to contact

D OAH to explain the delay in appearing, the hearing record was

closed. PetitionerÓs counsel announced that he did not have any

other witnesses to testify in the matter.

A transcr ipt will not be filed in this cause. No

documentary evidence was offered into evidence and no witnesses

appeared to testify in this cause.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On or about September 25, 2010, Petitioner filed a

Charge of Discrimination against Respondent with the FCHR.

2. Pursuant to the FCHR's procedure, an investigation of

the matter was completed , that resulted in a Notice of

Determination: No Cause. Essentially, the FCHR found that based

upon the allegations raised by Petitioner there was no

reason able cause to believe an unlawful employment practice

occurred.

3. Thereafter, Petitioner elected to file a Petition for

Relief to challenge the determination , and to seek relief

against Respondent for the alleged violation. The FCHR

forwarded the matte r to DOAH for formal proceedings.

4. DOAH issued a Notice of Hearing on April 15, 2011, that

was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. It is

presumed , the parties received notice of the hearing date, time,

and location. In fact, counsel for both parties did appear.

5. Prior to the hearing, the parties engaged in discovery

and Petitioner participated in a deposition on or about May 24,

2011. It is undisputed that Petitioner knew or should have

known of the hearing date, time, and place.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

6. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties to and the

subject matter of these proceedings. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Fla. Stat. (2010).

7. Under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the act) ,

it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee or to

retaliate against an employee on the basis of gender. More

specifically, s ection 760.10, Florida Statutes (2010) provides,

in part:

(1) It is an unlawful employment

practice for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail or refuse

to h ire any individual, or otherwise to

discriminate against any individual with

respect to compensation, terms, conditions,

or privileges of employment, because of such

individualÓs race, color, religion, sex,

national origin, age, handicap, or marital

status .

8. In this matter, Petitioner bears the initial burden of

proof to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by a

preponderance of the evidence. Generally, once a complainant

establishes membership in a protected class and proof that he or

she wa s treated differently than others not in the class, the

burden of proof shifts requiring the offending party to

articulate a nondiscriminatory motive or objective for the

alleged discriminatory conduct. If, however, the complainant

(in this case , Petition er) fails to establish a prima facie case

of discrimination, the matter ends. See , e.g. , Nat Ó l Indus . ,

Inc. v. Comm Ó n on Human Rel . , 527 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA

1988).

9. Here , Petitioner presented no evidence. In light of

the Petitioner's failure to present evidence, she has failed to

me et her initial burden of proof.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

Relations enter a f inal o rder dismissing Petitioner' s claim of

discrimination.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June , 2011 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. D. PARRISH

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalac hee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 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 June , 2011 .

COPIES FURNISHED :

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Flor ida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

W. John Gadd, Esquire

The Law Offices of W. John Gadd

2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250

Clearwater, Florida 33762

Glenn Michael Rissman, Esquire

Stearn s , Weaver , Miller , Weissler ,

Alhadeff & Sitterman, PA

200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2100

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Larry Kranert, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee , Florida 32301

NO TICE 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 agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.