11-005643 Window Mitchell vs. North Florida Sales Company/Budweiser
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, May 4, 2012.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner failed to prove an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes, for discrimination on the basis of handicap.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8WINDOW MITCHELL , )

11)

12Petitioner, )

14)

15vs. ) Case No. 11 - 5643

22)

23NORTH FLORIDA SALES )

27COMPANY/BUDWEISER , )

29)

30Respondent. )

32)

33R ECOMMENDED ORDER

36On March 27 , 201 2 , a duly - noticed hearing was held in

49Jacksonville , Florida, before F. Scott Boyd, an Administrative

57Law Judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings.

66APPEARANCES

67For Petitioner: Window Mitchell , pro se

73Apartment 245

752150 Emerson Road

78Jacksonville , Florida 3 2207

82For Respondent: Amy Reisinger Harrison Turci, Esquire

89Ford and Harrison, LLP

93Suite 710

95225 Water Street

98Jacksonville, Florida 3 2202

102STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

106The issue is w hether the Respondent committed an unla wful

117employment practice under s ection 760.10, Florida Statutes , by

126discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of handicap or

135disability, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy .

145PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

147On Ju ly 7, 2011 , Petitioner filed a complaint with the

158Florida Human Relations Commission (Commission) , alleging that

165North Florida Sales Company, Inc. , had discriminated against h im

175based upon h is handicap or disability . On October 18, 2011 , the

188Commission issued a Notice of Determination of No Cause, and on

199October 31 , 2011 , Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief. On

209November 3 , 2011 , the matter was referred to the Division of

220Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law

228judge.

229The case was noticed for hearing on January 12, 2012 , in

240Jacksonville , Florida . After some discovery delays , the hearing

249was re - scheduled for March 27, 2012. Petitioner testified and

260offered no exhibits. Respondent presented the testimony of one

269witness and offered 11 exhibits. Respondent ' s Exhibits R - 1

281through R - 9 a nd Exhibit R - 11 were admitted. Respondent ' s

296Exhibit R - 10 , a copy of Petitioner ' s Facebook page, was found to

311be not relevant and was not admitted.

318The one - volume Transcript of the proceedings was filed with

329the Division on April 11, 2012 .

336FINDINGS OF FACT

3391. North Florida Sales Company (North Florida), the

347Respondent in this case, is a beer and ale wholesaler that does

359business in Florida and employs over 15 people .

3682 . Window Mitchell , Petitioner in this case, began working

378at North Florida as a custodian in the maintenance department on

389June 22, 2009. His normal schedule at North Florida was Monday

400through Friday.

4023 . Near the time he was hired, Petitioner received a copy

414of Respondent ' s " Employee Information Handbook. " The handbook

423advised Petitioner of North Florida ' s " open door " policy that

434permitted employees to take any complaints or problems directly

443to the Human Resources Manager, the General Manager, or the

453President. It further advised employees that it was North

462Florida policy to treat all employees equally wit hout regard to

473race, color, religion, sex, age, marital status, disability, or

482national origin. It stated that any violation of North

491Florida ' s equal opportunity policies must be reported

500immediately to the Human Resources Manager or General Manager

509witho ut delay.

5124 . The employee handbook also advised Petitioner of North

522Florida ' s policies on attendance . It required employees to give

534advance notice of any absence or lateness , and noted that

544employees who fail to maintain an acceptable attendance record

553w ould be subject to disciplinary action.

5605 . On September 10, 2009, Petitioner received a n Employee

571Warning Report noting that Petitioner had missed six days of

581work during his 90 - day probationary period. The report s tated

593that this amount of absenteeis m was considered excessive and

603that immediate improvement was expected. It was signed by

612Petitioner and Petitioner ' s supervisor.

6186 . On November 10, 2009, Petitioner received another

627Employee Warning Report. It stated that Petitioner ' s attendance

637continu ed to be a problem and that it was creating a burden on

651the maintenance department. It stated that further incidents of

660absenteeism, or arriving late or leaving early , would result in

670termination. It was signed by Petitioner , Petitioner ' s

679supervisor, and Margaret Lombardi, Human Resources Manager.

6867 . There is no evidence that Petitioner ever received any

697further " Employee Warning Reports . "

7028 . On June 3, 2010, Petitioner received an Employee

712Performance Review. In his review, Petitioner was given a

721rat ing of " 3 " out of " 10 " on " dependability. " The comment under

733that heading indicated that Petitioner was " out from work too

743many days. " Petitioner received two other " 3 " s on his

753evaluation and received no evaluation above a " 5 " in any area.

764In the final section, entitled " Objectives for the Next Review

774Period, " the first of two objectives listed was " keep all curbs

785in warehouse painted. " The second was, " try to be at work all

797of the time. "

8009. On July 17, 2010, Petitioner was returning from a

810barbecue with four friends . He testified that he had not been

822drinking. T he car he was driving ran into a pole head - on.

836Petitioner ' s knee and leg hurt and became badly swollen. He had

" 849little chunks of meat " missing from his left elbow and forearm .

861He was seen by a n emergency doctor at Baptist Medical Center

873about 9:45 p.m., released, and given discharge instructions.

88110 . On July 19 or 20 , 2010, Ms. Lombardi received a paper

894entitled Adult Discharge Instructions on a Baptist Health form

903dated July 17, 2010. It indicated that Petitioner had been in

914the vehicle collision and had been treated for abrasions and a

925contusion on his right knee. In the instructions, Petitioner

934was told to take medications as instructed, follow up with the

945doctor in two days, and r eturn to the emergency room for

957worsening symptoms. A box was checked indicating " no work for 2

968days. " Ms. Lombardi interpreted the note as excusing Petitioner

977from work on Sunday and Monday, and therefore expected

986Petitioner to return to work on Tuesday , July 20, 2010.

99611 . When Petitioner did not return to work on Tuesday ,

1007Ms. Lombardi called him. Petitioner said he did not realize

1017that the doctor ' s note had excused him for only two days.

1030Ms. Lombardi told Petitioner that it did, and she told him he

1042needed to come to work that day . Petitioner complained that his

1054arm and leg were still hurting. Petitioner said he would return

1065to work that afternoon , but did not.

107212 . Petitioner did not come to work on Wednesday, July 21,

10842010 . Petitioner left a me ssage for Ms. Lombardi and she called

1097him about 10 a.m. Petitioner told Ms. Lombardi that he had gone

1109to the doctor the day before and had a nother note excusing him

1122from work . Ms. Lombardi asked Petitioner why he had not called

1134her or the supervisor to l et them know. Petitioner stated that

1146he had called the supervisor, but had been unable to reach him

1158and had been asked to call back. Petitioner said he did not

1170call back because he did n o t get out of the doctor ' s office

1186until after 5:00 pm. Ms. Lombardi directed him to have the note

1198sent to her by facsimile transmission (fax) .

120613 . Ms. Lombardi received a form faxed from Baptist Health

1217entitled " Discharge Instruction " about 4:38 p.m. that day , as

1226indicated in her note prepared for Petitioner ' s file. It had a

1239subtitle of " Work R elease Form. " The form stated that

1249Petitioner had been seen again on July 21, 2010 , and that he

1261could return to work on July 25, 2010. The form had date and

1274time blocks indicating " July 21, 2010 " and " 4:31 p.m. "

1283Ms. Lombardi testified that the form from Baptist Health

1292indicated that Petitioner had been seen by a doctor that same

1303day and that " I received it shortly after - Î there was a discharge

1317time on it. "

132014 . On the following day, July 22, 2010, Ms. Lombardi

1331again called Pe titioner . When asked about a n excuse from the

1344doctor whom Petitioner had seen on July 20, 2010, Petitioner

1354replied , " Oh, that was a different doctor." Petitioner said

1363that the excuse from the visit on July 21, 2010, was from the

1376same doctor he saw on Jul y 17, 2010. Ms. Lombardi ' s file note

1391stated that this was " the second time that Mitchell has incurred

1402absences with inconsistency in the facts surrounding that

1410absence. "

141115 . Petitioner gave evasive and inconsistent testimony at

1420hearing about whether the re was ever a third doctor ' s excuse , in

1434addition to the excuses o f July 17, 2010 and J uly 21, 2010 . Any

1450of Petitioner ' s testimony suggesting that there was third excuse

1461was not credible. There were only two doctor ' s excuses .

147316 . On July 22, 2010, Ms. Lombardi filled out a

" 1484Status/Payroll Change Report " that discharged Petitioner from

1491employment at North Florida. In the " Reason " portion of the

1501form, Ms. Lombardi wrote, " Excessive absenteeism and multiple

1509incidences of inconsist ent facts surrounding his absences. "

151717 . Petitioner was immediately notified by telephone that

1526his employment had been terminated. In th at conversation,

1535Petitioner asked Ms. Lombardi why he was being discharged .

1545Ms. Lombardi told Petitioner that the b asis for his discharge

1556was his poor attendance .

156118 . Petitioner was recovering from the injuries he

1570received in the accident for about a week - and - a - half. After

1585that he was fully recovered .

15911 9. Petitioner ' s substantial interests are affected by

1601Respond ent ' s decision to discharge him. It has been difficult

1613to find work in the depressed economy and Petitioner has

1623financial responsibilities. Petitioner has three children.

1629Petitioner was employed by Wage Solutions, working the warehouse

1638at Liberty Furnit ure, unloading furniture and bringing it to the

1649showroom from March 2011 to August 2011. Petitioner lost that

1659job because that business closed . At the time of hearing

1670Petitioner was not employed.

167420 . Petitioner went to the Florida Commission on Human

1684Relations. He did not complain to them that he had been

1695discriminated against on the basis of a handicap or disability.

1705He just wanted an investigation into his discharge because he

1715believed he had been terminated unfairly. He testified:

1723Doing Î I guess, telling my side of the

1732story to file whatever they wanted me to

1740file. I didn ' t even know it was doing Î

1751about the disability or not. I didn ' t know

1761they signed me up under that. The only

1769thing I thought, they were going to

1776investig ate to see why I got terminated.

1784* * *

1787A nd from there, I guess that Î that ' s it. I

1800knew I had to come to court from there, so I

1811was just really based on that. I knew I had

1821to show up to court for Î I wasn ' t looking

1833for all of this to come dow n to this. The

1844only thing Î I just wanted to know why I got

1855fired, because I Î about my attendance or

1863being absent, but I had excuses for them.

187121 . On October 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for

1882Relief against Respondent claiming an unlawful employment

1889practice , alleging that he was wrongfully fired because of a

1899mishap , which was referred to the Division of Administrative

1908Hearings the same day.

1912C ONCLUSIONS OF LAW

191622 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1924jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties in this

1934case under sections 120.569 , 120.57(1), and 760.11(7), Florida

1942Statutes (2011) .

194523 . This case was filed under t he Florida Civil Rights

1957Act, sections 760.01 Î 760.11 and 509.092 , Florida Statutes

1966(2010). 1/

196824 . Respondent is an employer as that term is defined in

1980s ection 760.02(7) .

198425 . Petitioner has standing to obtain an administrative

1993hearing .

199526 . Section 760.11(1) provides that an aggrieved person

2004may file a complaint with the Commission within 365 days of the

2016alleged violation. Section 760.11(7) provides that an aggrieved

2024person may request an administrative hearing within 35 days

2033following a finding of no reasonable cause by the Commission.

2043Petitioner timely filed his complaint, and following th e

2052Commission ' s initial determination, timely filed his Petition

2061for Relief requesting an administrative hearing.

206727 . Petitioner has the burden of proving by a

2077preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent committed an

2086unlawful employment practice. F la. Dep ' t of Transp. v . J.W.C.

2099Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

210928 . Section 760.10(1)(a) provides that it is an unlawful

2119employment practice for an employer to " discriminate against any

2128individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or

2136privileges of employment, because of such individual ' s race,

2146color, religion, sex, national origin, ag e, handicap, or marital

2156status. " The Florida Civil Rights Act thu s prohibits an

2166employer from discharging an employee based on a handicap,

2175unless the absence of the handicapping condition is necessary

2184based on a bona fide occupational qualification. Davidson v.

2193Iona - Mcgregor Fire Prot. & Rescue Dist. , 674 So. 2d 858, 8 60

2207(Fla. 2nd DCA 1996) .

22122 9. Florida Civil Rights Act provisions prohibiting

2220discrimination on the basis of handicap are construed in

2229conformity with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act

2237(ADA). Greene v. Seminole Elec. Co - op., Inc. , 701 So. 2d 646,

2250647 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) ; Brand v. Florida Power Corp. , 633

2261So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) .

226930 . Discriminat ion can be established through direct or

2279circumstantial evidence . U .S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Gov ' nrs v.

2292Aikens , 460 U.S. 711, 714 (1983) .

229931 . Di rect evidence of discrimination is evidence that, if

2310believed, establishes the existence of discriminatory intent

2317behind an employment decision without inference or presumption.

2325Wilson v. B/E Aero., Inc. , 376 F.3d 1079, 1086 (11th Cir. 2004) .

233832 . There was no direct evidence to suggest that

2348Responde nt regarded Petitioner as handicapped. Respondent

2355indicated that the basis for termination of employment was

2364absenteeism and untruthful statements about reasons for his

2372absences. Petitioner did not identif y any specific comments or

2382incidents which c ould be considered unambiguous examples of

2391discrimination, and did not argue that this was a direct -

2402evidence case .

240533 . Petitioner sought to prove discrimination through

2413circumstantial evidence. In some disability 2/ cases , in which

2422the employer admits that challenged action was based in whole or

2433in part o n the employee ' s disability, the issue is whether the

2447employee is qualified despite disability, or what accommodations

2455are reasonably available. Here, however, Respondent maintains

2462that it did not consider Petitioner to be disabled, and that any

2474disability played no part in its decision - making process. In

2485making an inquiry into an employer ' s motivation , it is

2496appropriate to use the analysis established by the Supreme Court

2506for race and gender discrimination cases arising under Title

2515VII , as set forth i n McDonnell - Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S.

2529792 (1973 ) , later refined in St. Mary ' s Honor Center v. Hicks ,

2543509 U.S. 502 (1993) . Barth v. Gelb , 2 F.3d 1180, 1185 ( D.C.

2557Cir. 1993); Brand v. Florida Power Corp. , 633 So. 2d 504 (Fla.

25691 st DCA 1994).

257334 . Under McDonnell - Douglas , Petitioner has the burden of

2584establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie

2594case of unlawful discrimination. If a prima facie case is

2604established, Respondent has the burde n of articulat ing some

2614legitimate, non - discriminatory reason for the action taken

2623against Petitioner. It is a burden of production, not

2632persuasion. If a non - discriminatory reason is offered by

2642Respondent, the burden then shifts back to Petitioner to

2651demo nstrate that the offered reason is merely a pretext for

2662discrimination.

266335 . To establish a prima facie case of discrimination

2673under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he has a

2685disability; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he was

2696subj ect ed to unlawful discrimination as the result of his

2707disability. St. John ' s C ou n ty Sch . Dist . v. O ' Brien , 973 So. 2d

2727535 (Fla. 5 th DCA 2007).

273336 . The Florida Civil Rights Act does not define the term

" 2745handicap, " but the Fair Housing Act, immediately following it

2754in the Civil Rights Title of the Florida Statutes , does.

2764Section 760.22(7) provides that the term " handicap " means a

2773person has a physical or mental impairment which " substantially

2782limits one or more maj or life activities , " or he or she has a

2796record of having, or is regarded as having, such physical or

2807mental impairment; or a person has a developmental disability as

2817defined in s ection 393.063 . This Fair Housing Act definition

2828has been applied in employment discrimination cases. Greene v.

2837Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc. , 701 So. 2d 646, 648 (Fla. 5th DCA

28491997)(applying F air Housing Act ' s definition of " handicapped " to

2860find that FCRA protect s persons with perceived disabilities).

2869This definition is also consistent with the definition of

2878disability in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gordon v.

2887E.L. Hamm & Assocs., Inc. , 100 F.3d 907, 911 (11th Cir. 1996).

289937 . Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment

2907Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreting the ADA state that

2915major life activities include " caring for oneself, performing

2923manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking,

2930standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking,

2936breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking,

2941communicating, interacting with others, and working . " 29 C.F.R.

2950§ 1630.2(i); Reed v. Heil Co. , 206 F.3d 1055, 1061 (11th Cir.

29622000 ).

296438 . While an impairment need not necessarily last for more

2975than six months to be considered " substantially limiting, " t he

2985duration of an impairment is one factor that is relevant in

2996determining whether the impairment sub stantially limits a major

3005life activity. Impairments that last for only a short period of

3016time are typically not covered, although they may be if they are

3028sufficiently severe. Lewis v. Fla. Default Law Group, P.L. ,

30372011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105238 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2011) .

30483 9. Petitioner failed to prove that he had an " actual "

3059disability under the Florida Civil Rights Act. While he

3068testified that he was in pain, he failed to offer any evidence

3080that impairment resulting from the accident " substantially

3087lim ited " the performance of any major life activity . Even if

3099Petitioner had testified as to a range of activities he could no

3111longer perform, the evidence was clear that at most Petitioner

3121would have been limited for only a few days . Given the lack of

3135evide nce of any substantial limitation and the undisputed short

3145term nature of the injuries, Petitioner did not demonstrate that

3155he was " substantially limited " in performing any major life

3164activities within the meaning of the statutes . Lewis v. Fla.

3175Default La w Group, P.L. , 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105238 (M.D. Fla.

3187Sept. 15, 2011). See also Richio v. Miami - Dade County , 163

3199F. Supp. 2d 1352, 1361 - 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2001 ).

321040 . As noted earlier, the statutory definition s of

3220disability also may encompass individuals without an " actual "

3228disability. While there was no evidence in this case that

3238Petitioner " had a record " of having an impairment or suffered

3248from a developmental disability , the possib i lity that Respondent

3258migh t have regarded Petitioner as having an impairment should be

3269considered . 3 / See Davidson v. Iona - McGregor Fire Prot. & Rescue

3283Dist. , 674 So. 2d 858, 860 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1996) .

329441 . However, t here was no evidence that anyone, including

3305Petitioner and Respond ent , was under the impression that

3314Petitioner was disabled as a result of the accident. The

3324d octor ' s note originally provided to Respondent had indicated

3335that Petitioner was excused from work for only two days, and it

3347was in fact the belief of Respondent that Petitioner was fully

3358able to return to his duties after that time which prompted the

3370telephone call to him on Tuesday asking why he was not at work .

338442 . Moreover, i mpairments that are transitory and minor

3394are not sufficient to support a claim of " being regarded as

3405having such an impairment . " The ADA was amended in 2008 4/ to

3418define this phrase as follows:

3423(3) Regarded as having such an impairment

3430For purposes of paragraph (1)(C):

3435(A) An individual meets the requirement of

" 3442being regarded as having such an

3448impairment " if the individual establishes

3453that he or she has been subjected to an

3462action prohibited under this chapter because

3468of an actual or perceived physical or mental

3476impairment whether or not the impairment

3482limit s or is perceived to limit a major life

3492activity.

3493(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to

3500impairments that are transitory and minor. A

3507transitory impairment is an impairment with

3513an actual or expected duration of 6 months

3521or less .

352442 U.S.C. § 12102(3) . Thus, injuries with an actual or expected

3536duration of six months or less cannot be the basis of a

" 3548regarded as " claim of disability discrimination . See White v.

3558Interstate Dist. , 438 Fed. Appx. 415 (6th Cir. Tenn. 2011)(leg

3568fracture with limitations la sting for a month or two was

" 3579transitory " under ADA and petitioner could therefore not

3587establish a " regarded as disabled " claim ).

359443. Neither was there any evidence of the third prong

3604necessary to prove a prima facie case of discrimination. There

3614was s imply no testimony or other evidence to suggest that

3625Respondent was subject ed to unlawful discrimination on the basis

3635of a real or perceived disability.

36414 4 . Petitioner therefore failed to demonstrate a prima

3651facie case of discrimination on the basis of h andicap or

3662disability .

36644 5 . Even had Petitioner been able to establish a prima

3676facie case of discrimination, Respondent articulated a

3683legitimate , non - discriminatory reason for terminating

3690Petitioner . Respondent met that burden of production with the

3700testimony of M s. Lombardi that Petitioner was terminated because

3710of his excessive absent ee ism and because Petitioner

3719misrepresented that he had already received a doctor ' s excuse

3730for missing work on Tuesda y and Wednesday, when actually he had

3742not yet received it.

37464 6 . Petitioner offered no evidence to suggest that

3756Respondent ' s reason for terminating Petitioner w as simply a

3767pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Young v. Gen . Food

3777Corp. , 840 F.2d 825, 830 (11th Cir. 1988)( " Once a legitimate,

3788nondiscriminatory reason for dismissal is put forth by the

3797employer, the burden returns to the plaintiff to prove by

3807significant probative evidence that the proffered reason is a

3816pretext for discrimination. " ) .

38214 7 . The evidence showed that Petitioner eventually

3830obtained written medical excuses for each day missed following

3839his unfortunate car accident. Under these circumstances, it is

3848understandable that Petitioner, and others, might believe that

3856his termination wa s unjustified. However, Respondent presented

3864a plausible business reason for the decision to terminate

3873Petitioner , based upon Petitioner ' s earlier attendance history

3882and his l ack of candor regarding this most recent absence, and

3894there was no evidence that the true motive was actually

3904discrimination. The decision to terminate Petitioner may have

3912been wrong , or even unfair, but there was no evidence that

3923Respondent ' s decision had anything to do with any actual or

3935perceived disability.

39374 8 . The law is not concerned with whether an employment

3949decision is fair or reasonable, but only with whether it was

3960motivated by unlawful animus. See Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall

3969Commc ' ns , 738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir. 1984) .

3980RECOMMENDATION

3981Upon consideration of the above fi ndings of fact and

3991conclusions of law, it is

3996RECOMMENDED:

3997That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a

4006final order dismissing Petitioner ' s complaint.

4013DONE AND ENTER ED this 4 th day of May , 2012 , in Tallahassee,

4026Leon County, Florida.

4029S

4030F. SCOTT BOYD

4033Administrative Law Judge

4036Division of Administrative Hearings

4040The DeSoto Building

40431230 Apalachee Parkway

4046Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

4051(850) 488 - 9675

4055Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

4061www.doah.state.fl.us

4062Filed w ith the Clerk of the

4069Division of Administrative Hearings

4073this 4 th day of May , 2012.

4080ENDNOTES

40811/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

4090Statutes are to the 2010 version, which was the law in effect

4102when the alleged unlawful employment practice took place.

41102 / The Florida Civil Rights Act uses the term " handicap , " while

4122parallel federal legislation has been amended to substitute the

4131term " disability. " The terms have the same meaning in analysis

4141here. See Smith v. Avat a r Props. , 714 So. 2d 1103, 1105 (Fla.

41555 th DCA 1998).

41593 / The " regarded as " prong was included in the ADA to address

4172situations in which " unfounded concerns, mistaken beliefs,

4179fears, my ths, or prejudice about disabilities " resulted in

4188discrimination. Lewis v. Fla. Default Law Group, P.L. , 2011

4197U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105238 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 15, 2011) (citing a 2008

4209Senate Statement of Managers and the House Judiciary Committee

4218Report).

42194/ AD A Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110 - 32, 122 Stat. 3553

4235(codified at 42 U.S.C. 12102).

4240COPIES FURNISHED:

4242Window Mitchell

4244Apartment 245

42462150 Emerson Road

4249Jacksonville, Florida 32207

4252Amy Reisinger Harrison Turci, Esquire

4257Ford and Harrison LLP

4261Suit e 710

4264225 Water Street

4267Jacksonville, Florida 32202

4270aturci@fordharrison.com

4271Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel

4277Florida Commission on Human Relations

42822009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

4287Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4290kranerl@fchr.state.fl.us

4291Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

4295Florida Commission on Human Relations

43002009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

4305Tallahassee, Florida 32301

4308violet.crawford@fchr.myflorida.com

4309NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4315All parties have the right to submit written exceptions

4324within 15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any

4335exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the

4345agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 07/17/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order Dismissing Petition for Relief from Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held March 27, 2012). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 04/11/2012
Proceedings: Transcript (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 03/27/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Witness and (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Witness and (Proposed) Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/31/2012
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for March 27, 2012; 9:30 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2012
Proceedings: Response to Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Rescheduled Deposition (of W. Mitchell) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/24/2012
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2012
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from W. Mitchell regarding status of case before the Division filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2012
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause.
PDF:
Date: 01/05/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance (parties to advise status by February 6, 2012).
PDF:
Date: 01/04/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Continue the Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2011
Proceedings: Certificate of Service (of Respondent's Motion for Dismissal) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2011
Proceedings: Certificate of Non-Appearance filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice Due to Petitioner's Failure to Appear for his Deposition and Failure to Respond to Written Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/23/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (of W. Mitchell) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance of Court Reporter at Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2011
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 12, 2012; 10:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's First Requests for Production to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2011
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2011
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2011
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2011
Proceedings: Request for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/03/2011
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.

Case Information

Judge:
F. SCOTT BOYD
Date Filed:
11/03/2011
Date Assignment:
11/03/2011
Last Docket Entry:
07/17/2012
Location:
Jacksonville, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):