11-006179 Maria Hernandez, Ph.D vs. Palm Beach Atlantic University Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, February 4, 2013.

Summary: Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against her on the basis of marital status. Recommend dismissal of discrimination complaint.

Case No. 11-6179

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARIA HERNANDEZ, PH.D., RECOMMENDED ORDER )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

PALM BEACH ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case

by live presentation on October 16 and 17, 2012, in West Palm

Beach, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, an Administrative Law

Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Stuart Silverman, Esquire

Stuart Silverman, P.A.

Post Office Box 812315

Boca Raton, Florida 33481

For Respondent: Peter L. Sampo, Esquire

Lisa Ann McGlynn, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

121 Majorca Avenue, Third Floor

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed

an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner

on the basis of marital status in violation of the Florida Civil

Rights Act of 1992, as amended.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Maria Hernandez, Ph.D., filed an employment discrimination

complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR)

against the Palm Beach Atlantic University (University) on the

basis of marital status. The FCHR determined that no reasonable

cause existed to believe that an unlawful employment practice had

occurred and issued a "Determination: No Cause" and a "Notice of

Determination: No Cause" on October 27, 2011. Dr. Hernandez

filed timely a Petition for Relief. On December 5, 2011, the

FCHR referred this matter to the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

At hearing, Dr. Hernandez testified on her own behalf and

entered four exhibits (Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 1 through

4) into evidence. The University presented the testimony of six

witnesses and entered five exhibits (Respondent's Exhibits

numbered 5, 6, 11, 12, and 14) into evidence.

A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the request of

the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set

for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript.

The Transcript, consisting of two volumes, was filed on

November 5, 2012. The parties requested and were granted

additional time to file post-hearing submissions. The University

filed timely its post-hearing submission. Dr. Hernandez's post-

hearing submission was filed untimely (one-day late), to which

the University did not object having been provided an opportunity

to do so. Dr. Hernandez's post-hearing submission is accepted as

filed. The parties post-hearing submissions were considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In June 2008, Dr. Hernandez was hired at the University

as a faculty member of the School of Pharmacy in the position as

a professor. She had a one-year employment agreement, with no

presumption of renewal and a starting salary of $97,000.00.

2. At all times material hereto, Dr. Hernandez was

divorced. Dr. Hernandez had been divorced from her husband since

1995.

3. The University was aware that Dr. Hernandez was divorced

when she was hired. She had been recruited by the University's

then Dean of the School of Pharmacy, Dan Brown, who, at that

time, was also divorced.

4. Marital status is not a factor in hiring an employee by

the University. Dr. Hernandez's marital status was not a

consideration or a factor in her hiring.

5. By February 15th of each year, faculty members are

notified whether their employment contract will be renewed for

the following year. If a faculty member is not notified by

February 15th that their contract will not be renewed, the

faculty member's contract is automatically renewed for another

year.

6. Dr. Hernandez's contract was renewed for the 2009-2010

academic year.

Spring 2010

7. Dean Brown was one of Dr. Hernandez's supervisors.

8. For all the professors in the School of Pharmacy, Dean

Brown prepared and distributed a list of all of their current

work load ratios. The goal for all Pharmacy professors was a

ratio of 0.8.

9. Dr. Hernandez's work load ratio was 0.68, which was

below the goal. She failed to meet the goal of the work load

ratio for all Pharmacy professors.

10. Dr. Hernandez refused to accept the work load ratio as

a reliable tool of performance and considered it as irrelevant to

her. She did not express or exhibit an interest in improving her

work load ratio.

11. Also, Dean Brown prepared and distributed a comparative

analysis of student surveys of all the Pharmacy professors.

Students were requested to score the performance of all the

Pharmacy professors in 12 different areas.

12. Based on the student surveys of faculty performance,

Dr. Hernandez was the second lowest ranked Pharmacy professor.

She scored very low in the following areas: "presents material

in concise, organized, easy-to-follow manner" and "is an

effective teacher." Dr. Hernandez refused to accept the student

surveys as a reliable tool of performance and had no interest in

the comparative analysis from the student surveys. Additionally,

she failed to express or exhibit an interest in improving in

those areas in which the students gave her a low ranking.

13. During his supervision of Dr. Hernandez, Dean Brown

received several complaints from faculty members regarding emails

that they had received from her. The faculty members considered

the emails to be "caustic," "obnoxious," and "insulting." As a

result, Dean Brown met with her and advised her to stop sending

antagonistic emails and insulting her fellow faculty members.

14. One week later, Dr. Hernandez sent such an email to a

fellow professor, Mary Ferrill, Ph.D. Dr. Ferrill was married to

Dean Brown. Dr. Hernandez's email insinuated that Dr. Ferrill

received special treatment because she was married to Dean Brown

and asked whether she "sang and danced" for her students. Both

Dean Brown and Dr. Ferrill considered the email to be insulting

and confronted Dr. Hernandez. Dean Brown raised his voice at

Dr. Hernandez when he confronted her because he was very upset in

that he had, only a week earlier, advised her to stop sending

antagonistic and insulting emails to fellow faculty members.

Dean Brown admitted to the University's Human Resources Office

that he was wrong in raising his voice to Dr. Hernandez, and he

apologized to Dr. Hernandez.

15. Because of the confrontation with Dean Brown,

Dr. Hernandez was fearful that her contract would not be renewed.

16. Many of the classes at the School of Pharmacy are team

taught: one course coordinator with several faculty members

teaching segments of the course. Essential to team teaching is

faculty members exhibiting team work.

17. Dr. Hernandez was one of the team members who taught

PHR 2264, Endocrinologic and Musculosketal Pharmacotherapy. The

course coordinator was Professor Dana Brown, Ph.D.

18. Dr. Hernandez repeatedly failed to meet established

deadlines for team members in PHR 2264. Exam questions from team

members for PHR 2264 were to be submitted to Dr. Dana Brown two

weeks before the scheduled exams. Her responsibility was to

carefully review all questions, including how the questions

overlapped with questions submitted by other faculty members.

19. Dr. Hernandez failed to submit timely her exam

questions, forcing Dr. Dana Brown to follow-up with Dr. Hernandez

regarding the questions. Further, Dr. Hernandez would generally

not inform Dr. Dana Brown ahead of time that she would be

submitting her exam questions late. On one occasion,

Dr. Hernandez submitted her exam questions only one day before

the exam.

20. Additionally, exam lectures were to be posted 48 hours

in advance of a class. Dr. Hernandez failed to post her exam

lectures 48 hours before she taught her class and, generally,

posted the exam lectures the night before her class.

21. Students complained to Dr. Dana Brown that

Dr. Hernandez was difficult to understand. Dr. Dana Brown

observed some of Dr. Hernandez's lectures and thought that

Dr. Hernandez failed to answer students' questions.

22. Also, on one occasion, Dr. Dana Brown, responding to an

email that she received from Dr. Hernandez, hit "reply all."

Dr. Hernandez became upset and raised her voice to Dr. Dana Brown

because the response went to persons other than Dr. Hernandez.

23. Dr. Dana Brown spoke to Wagdy Wahba, Ph.D., the then

Interim Associate Dean, of the School of Pharmacy several times

regarding the problems that she was having with Dr. Hernandez.

Summer 2010

24. In the summer 2010, Dean Brown stepped down as Dean of

the School of Pharmacy to focus on teaching. In August 2010,

Dr. Ferrill became the Dean of the School of Pharmacy.

Fall 2010

Faculty Activities Plan and Report

25. The School of Pharmacy uses a performance instrument

for its professors, referred to as a Faculty Activities Plan and

Report (FAPR), which is, basically, an evaluation of a

professor's performance in the previous year and expectations for

the future. A FAPR that shows significant student or faculty

concerns about teaching or collegiality is considered deficient.

26. Dr. Wahba completed the FAPR for all faculty members of

the School of Pharmacy.

27. Dr. Wahba was Dr. Hernandez's immediate supervisor. He

completed her FAPR. In October 2010, Dr. Hernandez received her

FAPR from him and met with him to discuss it.

28. In the "Dean's Comments" section for the FAPR,

Dr. Wahba included the following issues that he determined that

Dr. Hernandez needed to address:

[a.] Not showing up for scheduled class in

February 2010, and not sending the recorded

lecture to the students until 21 days later.

[b.] How to improve relationship,

communication & cooperation with other

faculty & coordinators within the team-taught

courses.

[c.] How to avoid reactive responses to

concerns expressed by colleagues &

administration, verbally and via e-mail[.]

[d.] Currently not posting lectures on e-

college in a timely fashion according to

school policy[.]

[e.] Currently not submitting exam questions

to coordinators in a timely fashion[.]

[f.] Showing up late or not at all to

scheduled review sessions and committee

meetings[.]

Dr. Wahba and Dr. Hernandez discussed his comments.

29. Additionally, Dr. Wahba noted in the Dean's Comments

section that, of great concern, was how Dr. Hernandez was going

to address the negative comments from students in her student

surveys. The students' comments mainly revolved around

Dr. Hernandez's disorganized lecture presentations and her

difficulty in explaining material clearly.

30. During the meeting in October 2010 with Dr. Wahba on

the FAPR, Dr. Hernandez showed no willingness to improve in the

areas that he had determined deficient. Further, she took the

position that she had no deficiencies in her performance and

demanded proof from him of her deficiencies.

31. After the October 2010 meeting, Dr. Wahba met with

Dr. Hernandez a second time to discuss her FAPR. She continued

to resist his efforts to address the areas determined by him to

be deficient.

32. After the meetings, the next step in the FAPR process

was for Dr. Hernandez to respond to Dr. Wahba's comments with a

written plan of action and to sign the FAPR. She failed to do

so. She was the only faculty member of the School of Pharmacy

who did not complete the FAPR process. Dr. Hernandez blames

Dr. Wahba for her not completing the FAPR process, taking the

position that his responsibility was to "pursue" her to complete

the FAPR process.

December 13, 2010 Meeting

33. As Dean of the School of Pharmacy, one of Dr. Ferrill's

responsibilities was to review the FAPRs of the School of

Pharmacy's faculty.

34. In the fall of 2010, three faculty members had

deficient FAPRs: Dr. Hernandez; Luna Bennett, Ph.D.; and

Devon Sherwood, Ph.D. Dr. Ferrill met with each of them to

discuss their deficient FAPR.

35. Before meeting with Dr. Hernandez, Dr. Ferrill met with

Dr. Wahba and discussed Dr. Hernandez's FAPR. Dr. Wahba advised

Dr. Ferrill that he had reached an impasse with her in that she

had never responded to his comments in the FAPR.

36. On December 13, 2010, Dr. Ferrill met with

Dr. Hernandez to discuss her FAPR and her plans to improve on the

deficiencies. Others who attended this meeting included

Dr. Wahba and Keysha Bryant, Ph.D., a professor in the School of

Pharmacy.

37. During the meeting, Drs. Ferrill and Wahba discussed

areas in which Dr. Hernandez's performance was good. Further,

they discussed the areas of deficiency and informed her that she

needed a plan of action to improve in those areas. Additionally,

Dr. Ferrill advised Dr. Hernandez that she was at risk of non-

renewal of her contract unless she made strides to improve on her

areas of deficiency.

38. During the meeting, Dr. Hernandez was not receptive to

the discussion regarding her deficiencies. She indicated, among

other things, that nothing was wrong with her teaching skills and

that she saw no reason to change what she was doing.

Additionally, when queried about her plan of action to address

the negative comments in the FAPR, she became emotional and

raised her voice.

39. Sometime near the end of the meeting, Dr. Hernandez

expressed that she was emotionally upset, explaining that her ex-

husband was ill and that she was taking care of him. Without

questioning from anyone, she stated voluntarily that her ex-

husband was living with her, indicating that she recognized that

she was sinning in the University's eyes, but not in the eyes of

God.

40. The University has a policy against members of the

University, including faculty and students, having extramarital

sexual relationships. The policy prohibits a member of the

University from having extramarital sexual relationships

regardless of whether the subject person was divorced, single, or

married to someone other than the person with whom the subject

person was having a sexual relationship.

41. Dr. Ferrill believed that Dr. Hernandez was admitting

to violating the University's policy on extramarital sexual

relationships. Dr. Ferrill questioned her further as to whether

she was having an extramarital sexual relationship with her ex-

husband, but Dr. Hernandez refused to answer.

42. Prior to the meeting on December 13, 2010,

Dr. Hernandez had never spoken of her living arrangement or

sexual relations with her ex-husband to Dr. Ferrill.

43. Further, prior to the meeting on December 13, 2010,

Dr. Ferrill was not aware of Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements.

44. Dr. Ferrell believed that she was required to report

any University policy violation or potential violation of which

she was or became aware. As a result, Dr. Ferrill advised

Dr. Hernandez that she (Dr. Ferrell) was required to report the

potential policy violation to her (Dr. Ferrill's) supervisor.

45. After the meeting on December 13, 2010, Dr. Ferrill

reported to Provost Joseph Kloba that Dr. Hernandez had admitted

to violating the University's policy against extramarital

relations. Once Dr. Ferrill made the report to Provost Kloba,

she considered that her duty to report was fulfilled.

Dr. Ferrell spoke to no one else regarding Dr. Hernandez's living

arrangements.

46. Provost Kloba determined that no violation of the

University's policy existed and that no further action was

warranted. Once Provost Kloba made his decision, Dr. Ferrill

considered Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements to be a non-issue.

Dr. Hernandez's Living Arrangements

47. In October 2010, Dr. Hernandez's ex-husband had a

health crisis while visiting family in Georgia. Due to his

health crisis, he suffered, among other things, cognitive

deficits and became totally disabled.

48. In November 2010, Dr. Hernandez moved her ex-husband to

E. J. Healey Rehabilitation Facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.

He remained at the facility until March 2011.

49. The evidence demonstrates that no one at the University

was aware of Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements until the

meeting on December 13, 2010.

Post December 13, 2010 Meeting and Non-Renewal of Contract

50. After the meeting on December 13, 2010, Drs. Ferrill

and Wahba gave Dr. Hernandez an extension to respond to her FAPR.

Three days later, on December 16, 2010, Dr. Hernandez submitted

her response.

51. In her response, Dr. Hernandez indicated that there was

no need to make any significant improvements. Further, she

indicated that she did not understand the issues presented and

would discuss the comments with the University's Human Resources

Office. As to students' critical comments, she indicated that

she did not know what to do with the comments, but would conduct

a research project about it.

52. In January 2011, Dr. Hernandez participated in a group

interview conducted by the School of Pharmacy for the position of

Dean of Faculty. The interviewee was Seena Haines, Ph.D.

Dr. Hernandez asked Dr. Haines questions which appeared to relate

to the spring 2010 incident that Dr. Hernandez had with then Dean

Brown when he confronted Dr. Hernandez about the email she

(Dr. Hernandez) had sent to Dr. Ferrill. Dr. Hernandez's

questions to Dr. Haines were considered by Dr. Ferrill to be

inappropriate for a group interview; by Dr. Dana Brown to be

unprofessional; and by Dr. Wahba to be out of place.

53. Dr. Ferrill recommended to Provost Kloba that

Dr. Hernandez's contract not be renewed for another year.

Dr. Ferrill's recommendation was based upon the deficiency issues

identified in the FAPR regarding Dr. Hernandez's teaching and

collegiality and upon Dr. Hernandez's lack of interest in

improving her deficiencies.

54. Provost Kloba, who was also the Chief Academic Officer,

was responsible for making the decision as to whether to renew

Dr. Hernandez's contract. He reviewed, among other things, her

FAPRs, including the student comments and her responses, and

received feedback from Drs. Ferrill, Wahba and Brown (Dean Brown

in spring 2010). Provost Kloba decided to not renew

Dr. Hernandez's contract for another year.

55. Dr. Hernandez's living arrangements were not considered

and were not a factor in Provost Kloba's decision of non-renewal.

56. Regardless with whom Dr. Hernandez was living, Provost

Kloba would not have renewed her contract.

57. By letter dated February 1, 2011, Provost Kloba

informed Dr. Hernandez that her contract would not be renewed for

another year.

58. By letter dated February 4, 2011, Provost Kloba

informed Dr. Hernandez that, effective February 1, 2011, through

June 30, 2011, she was placed on paid administrative leave. She

received all pay and benefits through the expiration of her

annual contract, i.e., June 30, 2011.

Divorced Faculty Members

59. The evidence demonstrates that the University employs

several faculty members who are divorced.

60. The evidence demonstrates that Dr. Brown (Dean Brown)

is divorced.

Comparative Employees

61. The evidence fails to demonstrate any similarly

situated employee who was not divorced and was treated more

favorably than Dr. Hernandez.

62. The evidence fails to demonstrate any employee who was

accused of the same or similar conduct and was treated more

favorably than Dr. Hernandez.

Current Employment

63. Currently, and since January 2012, Dr. Hernandez is a

Professor of Medical Sciences at California North State

University, College of Pharmacy. She is subject to a yearly

appointment. Her yearly salary is $110,000.00.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

64. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the

parties thereto, pursuant to sections 760.11 and 120.569, Florida

Statutes (2012), and subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(2012).

65. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.

§ 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2012).

66. These proceedings are de novo. § 120.57(1)(k), Fla.

Stat. (2012).

67. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009) and (2010),

provides in pertinent part:

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to

hire any individual, or otherwise to

discriminate against any individual with

respect to compensation, terms, conditions,

or privileges of employment, because of such

individual's race, color, religion, sex,

national origin, age, handicap, or marital

status.

(b) To limit, segregate, or classify

employees or applicants for employment in any

way which would deprive or tend to deprive

any individual of employment opportunities,

or adversely affect any individual's status

as an employee, because of such individual's

race, color, religion, sex, national origin,

age, handicap, or marital status.

68. In the instant case, Dr. Hernandez must rely upon

circumstantial evidence to prove discriminatory intent by the

University. For such cases, a three-step burden and order of

presentation of proof have been established for unlawful

employment practices. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

, 411 U.S.

792 (1973); Aramburu v. The Boeing Co. , 112 F.3d 1398, 1403 (10th

Cir. 1997); Combs v. Plantation Patterns , 106 F.3d 1519, 1527-

1528 (11th Cir. 1997).

69. The initial burden is upon Dr. Hernandez to establish a

prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas , 411 U.S.

at 802; Aramburu , 112 F.3d at 1403; Combs , 106 F.3d at 1527-1528.

Dr. Hernandez establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by

showing four factors: (1) that she belongs to a protected group;

(2) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action;

(3) that her employer treated similarly situated employees

outside the protected group differently or more favorably; and

(4) that she was qualified to do the job. McDonnell Douglas ,

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

Aramburu , supra ; Combs , supra . See Kendrick v. Penske Transp.

Servs. , 220 F.3d 1220 (10th Cir. 2000) (similarly situated

employees need not be outside the protected group).

70. Further, as to similarly situated employees,

Dr. Hernandez must show that she and the other employees (the

comparator employees) are "similarly situated in all relevant

respects." Holifield , supra . In making such a determination,

consideration must be given to "whether the employees are

involved in or accused of the same or similar conduct and are

disciplined in different ways." Id.

71. The comparator employees "must be similarly situated in

all material respects, not in all respects." McGuinness v.

Lincoln Hall , 263 F.3d 49, 53 (2d Cir. 2001); Shumway v. United

Parcel Serv., Inc. , 118 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir. 1997). "In other

words, . . . those employees must have a situation sufficiently

similar to plaintiff's to support at least a minimal inference

that the difference of treatment may be attributable to

discrimination." McGuinness , 263 F.3d at 54. Similarly situated

"only requires similar misconduct from the similarly situated

comparator." Anderson v. WBMG-42 , 253 F.3d 561, 565 (11th Cir.

2001). The employees need not have the disciplines administered

by the same supervisor to be similarly situated. Id. An

employee who is discharged subsequent to the complaining employee

can be examined as to whether they are similarly situated.

McGuinness , 263 F.3d at 53.

72. Once Dr. Hernandez establishes a prima facie case, a

presumption of unlawful discrimination is created. McDonnell

Douglas , supra ; Aramburu , supra ; Combs , 106 F.3d at 1528. The

burden shifts then to the University to show a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for its action. McDonnell Douglas ,

supra ; Aramburu , supra ; Combs , supra .

73. If the University carries its burden, Dr. Hernandez

must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the

reason offered by the University is not its true reason, but only

a pretext for discrimination. McDonnell Douglas , 411 U.S. at

804; Aramburu , supra ; Combs , supra.

74. However, at all times, the ultimate burden of

persuasion that the University intentionally discriminated

against her remains with Dr. Hernandez. Texas Dep't of Comty.

Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248 (1981).

75. The first prong of the prima facie standards requires

Dr. Hernandez to demonstrate that she belongs to a protected

class, here, marital status. The "term 'marital status' as used

in section 760.10 . . . means the state of being married, single,

divorced, widowed or separated . . . ." Donato v. Am. Tel. &

Tel. Co. , 767 So. 2d 1146, 1155 (Fla. 2000). The evidence

demonstrates that Dr. Hernandez was divorced and, therefore,

demonstrates that she satisfied the first prong of the test.

76. The second prong of the prima facie standards requires

Dr. Hernandez to demonstrate that she was subjected to an adverse

employment action. The evidence demonstrates that

Dr. Hernandez's annual contract was not renewed and, therefore,

demonstrates that she satisfied the second prong of the test.

77. However, the evidence fails to demonstrate that

Dr. Hernandez satisfied the third prong of the test. She failed

to demonstrate that any other employee was similarly situated.

Consequently, she failed to demonstrate that other employees,

whether inside or outside the protected group, were similarly

situated; or that the University treated similarly situated

employees, whether inside or outside the protected group,

differently or more favorably. Anderson , 253 F.3d at 565;

McGuinness , 263 F.3d at 54; Kendrick , supra ; Holifield , 115 F.3d

at 1562; Shumway , 118 F.3d at 64.

78. Assuming Dr. Hernandez had established a prima facie

case, the University has demonstrated a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for its employment action of not

renewing her annual contract. The University demonstrated that

deficiencies existed in Dr. Hernandez's performance; that the

deficiencies were brought to her attention and discussed with

her; that she was notified that an effort to remedy the

deficiencies was required to be made; that, if she made no effort

to remedy the deficiencies, her annual contract was in jeopardy

of not being renewed; that she made no effort to remedy the

deficiencies; and that the deficiencies were not remedied.

79. Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that the University

had faculty at the School of Pharmacy who were divorced; that the

University was aware that she was divorced when the University

hired her as a faculty member; that her ex-husband living with

her was not a factor in the University's decision not to renew

her annual contract; and that her ex-husband began living with

her only after her annual contract was not renewed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

Relations enter a final order dismissing the discrimination

complaint of Maria Hernandez, Ph.D.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 2013, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

ERROL H. POWELL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 4th day of February, 2013.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Stuart Silverman, Esquire

Stuart Silverman, P.A.

Post Office Box 812315

Boca Raton, Florida 33481

Peter L. Sampo, Esquire

Lisa Ann McGlynn, Esquire

Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A.

121 Majorca Avenue, Third Floor

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.