11-005643
Window Mitchell vs.
North Florida Sales Company/Budweiser
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, May 4, 2012.
Recommended Order on Friday, May 4, 2012.
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.
- Date
- Proceedings
- 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 cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- Date: 04/11/2012
- Proceedings: Transcript (not available for viewing) filed.
- Date: 03/27/2012
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/31/2012
- Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for March 27, 2012; 9:30 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 01/23/2012
- Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from W. Mitchell regarding status of case before the Division filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/05/2012
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case in Abeyance (parties to advise status by February 6, 2012).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/30/2011
- Proceedings: Certificate of Service (of Respondent's Motion for Dismissal) 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: 11/18/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 12, 2012; 10:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL).
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
-
Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk
Address of Record -
Amy Reisinger Harrison Turci, Esquire
Address of Record -
Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire
Address of Record -
Window Mitchell
Address of Record -
Amy Reisinger Turci, Esquire
Address of Record