17-001336 Thomas C. Hughes vs. Michael's Store, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, October 19, 2017.

Summary: Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he opposed an action that was unlawful under section 760.10.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THOMAS C. HUGHES,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 1336

MICHAEL'S STORE, INC.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this

case on August 14, 2017, in Orlando, Florida, before Garnett W.

Chisenhall, a duly - designated Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Thomas C. Hughes, pro se

921 Cornell Avenue

Clermont, Florida 34711

For Respondent: Nicholas S. Andrews, Esquire

Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

Suite 1900

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Flor ida 33602

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent, Mi chaelÓs Store, Inc.

( ÐMichaelÓ s Ñ), committed an unlawful employment practice against

Petitioner (Ð Mr. HughesÑ) by discharging him.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Mr. Hughes filed a Charge of Discrimination with the

Florida Commission on Human Relations (Ðthe CommissionÑ) on

August 3, 2016, alleg ing the following:

I have been discriminated against on the

basis of retaliation by my former employer.

I began employment with [MichaelÓs] on

4/12/20 13, in Management. An employee of

MichaelÓs filed a complaint with the Human

Resource (HR) department about the Store

Manager. After the investigation into the

employe e Ós claim, the company decided that

the employee would receive the just hours

that she deserved and there would be no

retaliation against her. After the HR

department made this decision, the Store

Manager (Amy Wsol) asked me and other

Managers t hat had direct contact with

the employee to start documenting all

interaction with this e mployee. In

January 2016 , I filed a claim with HR

about the Store Man ager and her actions.

My claim was brushed off and nothing but an

uncomfortable situation with my District

Manager (Dennis Bailey) and I took place.

In the conversation with Dennis he made me

feel that I had done something wrong by

going to HR about this matter. He did not

address any of my claims about the Store

ManagerÓs actions or the treatment of the

employees. He reported to HR that I made

the claim to try to force them to promote

me. T he actions of the Store Manager took a

toll on my mental and physical well - being;

but this was completely overlooked. HR

opened an investigation that resulted in

suspension for a week and eventually

termination on 7/6/2016.

MichaelÓs filed a written re sponse to the Charge of

Discrimination whi ch stated in pertinent part that,

[Mr. Hughes] was an Assistant Manager at

MichaelÓs. As a member of management it is

incumbent upon him to set the right example

for other employees, and to follow Company

procedu res. [Mr. Hughes] violated Company

policies when he released sensitive,

employee information to an associate, he

engaged in intimidating conduct against one

of his co - workers and he lied during an

investigation.

MichaelÓs permits employees to view

their personnel file at any time. Upon

written request, employees may receive a

copy of their personnel file at no charge.

Personnel files do not contain sensitive

information such as HR investigative

notes, other employee statements, medical

information etc. Those documents are

not part of the personnel file and are

kept separately in a manner to protect and

preserve the sensitive information contained

therein. Managers are entrusted with this

sensitive i nformation and should not

abuse that trust, by divulgi ng sensitive

information to others without going through

the proper channels. These channels are put

in place to protect and preserve employee

privacy rights. In this case, an employee

requested and received a copy of her

personnel file. She then asked [Mr. Hughes]

to send her copies of investigative notes

and witness statements, that were not

part of her personnel file. [Mr. Hughes]

sent those documents to the employee.

Significantly, the documents he sent

included other employeesÓ names and

confident ial complaints about the employee

who was requesting those files.

[Mr. Hughes] then intimidated one of

his co - workers into witnessing him take

those actions and signing a statement.

In so do ing, he created an intimidating

work environment. See Exhi bit A . An

investigation into [Mr. Hughes]Ó actions

was launched and [Mr. Hughes] was suspended

with pay, pending the outcome of the entire

investigation. During the investigation,

[Mr. Hughes] lied and repeatedly claimed he

did not send documents that we re not part

of the personnel file. He was asked more

than once, and h e lied each time. We know

[Mr. Hughes] lied because he later admitted

to doing so.

The Commission conducted an investigation and issue d a

Determination on February 1, 2017, conclu ding that there was no

reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice

had occurred:

[Mr. Hughes] filed a charge of

discrimination against [MichaelÓs] alleging

that he was subjected to adverse terms and

conditions of employment, suspende d and

discharged in retaliation for engaging in a

protected activity. The facts and evidence

as set forth in the Investigative Memorandum

do not support [Mr. Hughe sÓ] allegation.

The evidence i n this matter reveals that

[Mr. Hughes] was discharged becaus e he did

not comply with [MichaelÓs] policy regarding

the protection of information in employee

personnel files. [Mr. Hughes] was not

discharged in retaliation for engaging in a

protected acti vity and he did not provide

any credible evidence to prove othe rwise.

Likewise, [Mr. Hughes] did not provide any

credible evidence to prove that he was

subjected to adverse terms and conditions of

employment.

Mr. Hughes responded by filing a Petition for Relief with

the Commission on February 28, 2017.

On Febr uary 28, 2017, the Commission referred this matter

to DOAH for a formal administrative hearing.

On April 11, 2017, the undersigned issued an Order

scheduling the final hearing to occur by video teleconference

at sites in Orlando and Tallahassee, Florida on May 12, 2017.

However, on May 4, 2017, counsel for MichaelÓs filed a ÐMotion

for ContinuanceÑ asserting that his law firm had been retained

by MichaelÓs during the week of May 1, 2017. Counsel for

Respondent also noted that he was scheduled to be out of the

country from May 10, 2014, through May 14, 2017. Accordingly,

counsel for Respondent req uested that the final hearing be

continued by 30 days.

On May 8, 2017, the undersign ed issued an Order granting

the Motion for Continuance , canceling the fi nal hearing, and

requir ing counsel for MichaelÓs to file a statu s report by

May 16, 2017, providing mutual dates of availability in

June of 2017, for the final hearing.

On May 17, 2017, counsel for MichaelÓs filed a Status

Report stating that the partie s were available on June 22, 2017,

for the final hearing. Because the undersigned was unavailable

that day, an ÐOrder Requiring More Dates of AvailabilityÑ was

issued on May 22, 2017, requiring the parties to provide

additional dates of availability in Ju ne and July of 2017.

Following a telephonic status conference on June 9, 2017,

and receipt of an Up dated Status Report on June 15, 2017, the

undersigned issued an Order on June 21, 2017, scheduling the

final hearing to occur on August 14, 2017 , in Orlan do, Florida.

The final hearing was c ommenced as scheduled on August 14,

2017. During the course of the final hearing, the undersigned

accepted documents filed with DOAH on April 24, 2017, as

PetitionerÓs Exhibit 1. The undersigned accepted into eviden ce

d ocuments filed by MichaelÓs on August 9, 2017, as RespondentÓs

Exhibits A through I.

Mr. Hughes testified on his own behalf . MichaelÓs did not

call any witnesses.

The T ranscript from the final hearing was filed with DOAH

on September 18, 2017.

Mr. Hughes filed a letter on September 25, 2017, as his

post - hearing submittal. MichaelÓs did not file a post - hearing

submittal.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. MichaelÓs operates a store in Clermont, Florida.

2. During all time s relevant to the instant case, Amy Wsol

was the manager of the Clermont store. Mr. Hughes was th e

Clermont storeÓs operations manager and subor dinate to Ms. Wsol .

3. Elisa Griffin was a cashier at the Clermont store. In

April of 2015 , 1/ Ms. Griffin notified Michael Ós h uman r esource s

department that Ms. Wsol was not enforcing or not complying with

Michael Ós procedures regarding e - mail captures and o ther cashier

practices. 2/

4. MichaelÓs conducted an investigation during the summer

of 2015 and concluded in August or September of 20 1 5 that no

action would be taken .

5. MichaelÓs notified all employees interviewed during the

course of the investigation that there would be no retaliation

against Ms. Griffin.

6. Nevertheless, i mmediately after the investigationÓs

conclusion, Ms. Wsol mandated that the other managers in

the Clermont store document all of their interactions with

Ms. Griffin and place those documents (Ðthe allegedly

retaliatory documentsÑ) in Ms. GriffinÓs personnel file.

7. Mr. Hughes had the additional task of using an in - store

surveillance system to monitor Ms. Griffin during her shifts.

8. Mr. Hughes felt that Ms. WsolÓs orders regarding the

monitoring of Ms. Griffin were contrary to Michael Ós directive

that Ms. Griffin was to suffer no retaliation because of the

inv estigation.

9. Mr. Hughes also felt that Ms. WsolÓs orders were

immoral and unethical .

10. T he stress associated with complying with those orders

had an adverse effect on Mr. HughesÓ health. Mr. Hughes is an

insulin dependent diabetic, and his blood sugars became

unmanageable. At one point, his endocrinologist adv ised him

that hospitaliz ation may be necessary i f his condition did not

improve.

11. In December of 2015 or January of 2016, Mr. Hughes

applied for an assistant manager position at a stor e that

MichaelÓs was about to open in Orlando, Florida. While the

position in the Orlando store would have been a lateral move for

Mr. Hughes, it appealed to him because the Orlando position

would be salaried , and Mr. Hughes was an hourly employee at the

Clermont store.

12. In January o f 2016, Mr. Hughes reported Ms. WsolÓs

orders regarding the alleged ly retaliator y documents to

Michael Ós H uman R esources D epartment. At this time, he also

made copies of the documents so that he would have evidence that

Ms . Wsol violated the directive that Ms. Griffin was to suffer

no retaliation.

13. Mr. Hughes did not have any authorization from

MichaelÓs to copy the contents of Ms. GriffinÓs personnel file.

14. In February of 2016, Mr. Hughes met at the Clermont

s tore with Dennis Bailey, one of Michael Ós district managers,

regarding Mr. HughesÓ allegations about Ms. Wsol.

15. Mr. Bailey told Mr. Hughes that his allegations were

being investigated.

16. As for his request to be transferred, Mr. Bailey told

Mr. Hu ghes that he would not be forced by a complaint to

transfer Mr. Hughes to a different location. While Mr. Bailey

did not completely rule out the possibility of transfer, he

stated that Mr. Hughes would probably have to accept a demotion

and a loss of bene fits.

17. In March of 2016, Ms. Wsol went on medical leave, and

Mr. Hughes ran the Clermont store until April Skidmore arrived

in April of 2016 to serve as acting store manager.

18. At the end of May 2016, Ms. Griffin asked Mr. Hughes

how she could ob tain a c opy of her personnel file. Mr. Hughes

told her that she could request a copy from Ms. Skidmore or from

Michael Ós H uman R esources D epartment.

19. On June 14, 2016, Mr. Hughes received a call from Leah

Frye, who worked in the H uman R esources D epart ment . Ms. Frye

asked Mr. Hughes if Ms. Griffin had approached him about

obtaining a copy of her personnel file. Mr. Hughes responded

affirmatively and rel ayed that he had instructed Ms. Griffin on

how she could obtain a copy of her personnel file.

20. Mr. Hughes did not tell Ms. Frye that he had made a

copy of the alleged ly retaliatory documents in January of 2016.

21. After Ms. Griffin received a copy of her personnel

file, she stated to Mr. Hughes on June 15 or 16, 2016, that

certain documents wer e missing . Ms. Griffin made that statement

because she had expected to see documentation of compliments

paid to her by customers. Ms. Griffin was also expecting to see

documentation regarding the investigation of Ms . Wsol. However,

none of those documen ts were in her personnel file.

22. Mr. Hughes then examin ed Ms. GriffinÓs personnel file ,

and discovered that the alleged ly retaliatory document s were no t

there .

23. Mr. Hughes then told Ms. Griffin about the missing

documents and stated that he would transmit a copy of them to

her upon receiving a request from her attorney.

24. Mr. Hughes received such a request on June 17, 2016.

25. At that point, Mr. Hughes elected to make a copy of

his own personnel file because he was worried that its contents

would be altered in an effort to retaliate against him.

26. Accordingly, Mr. Hughes asked Mary Pearman, one of the

other assistant managers at the Clermont store, to watch him

copy his personnel file and sign a statement indicating that the

documents h e copied represented its complete contents.

27. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Hughes received a call from Chad

Romoser, the Director of Michael Ós H uman R esources D epartment.

Mr. Romoser asked Mr. Hughes if he had made a copy of his

personnel file and if he had asked a coworker to witness him

doing so .

28. Mr. Hughes responded a ffirmatively and stated

that he copied the contents of his personnel file because

the allegedly retaliatory document s had disappeared from

Ms. GriffinÓs file.

29. Mr. Hughes then ask ed Mr. Romoser why the allegedly

retaliatory documents were not transmitted to Ms. Griffin after

she requested a copy of her personnel file. Mr. Romoser

responded by stating that Michael Ós H uman R esources D ep artment

had no knowledge of the documents.

30 . Mr. Hughes then inquired about the statu s of the

investigation pertaining to his report about the allegedly

retaliatory documents .

31. Mr. Romoser stated tha t after Mr. Bailey had met

with Mr. Hughes in February of 201 6, Mr. Bailey reported that

Mr. Hughes was a Ðwhiny individualÑ attempting to force

MichaelÓs to give him a promotion.

32. On June 29, 2016, MichaelÓ s initiated an investigation

of Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes was suspended with pay and required

to relinquish his keys to the Clermont store .

33. On July 6, 2016, MichaelÓs discharged Mr. Hughes.

34. Mr. Hughes learned through a telephone conversation

with Mr. Romoser that he had been discharged from MichaelÓs for

intimidating Ms. Pearman 3/ and for lying to the H uman R esources

D epartment.

35. Mr. Hughes did not learn until filing his Charge of

Discrimination with the Commission that MichaelÓs also

discharged him for releasing personal and confidential

information.

36. Mr. Hughes was a credible witness. The undersigned

finds that his testimony reflected his best recollection of the

events pertinent to this case.

37. However and as discussed below, even if all of

Mr. HughesÓ testimony were to be accepted as true, Mr. Hughes

has failed to present a prima facie case of retaliation under

the Florida Civil Rights Act .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

38. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the

subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569

and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2015) , 4/ and Florida Administrative

Code Rule 60Y - 4.016(1).

39. The State of Florida, under the legislative scheme

contained in sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes, known as

the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Ðthe FCRAÑ), incorporates

and adopts the legal principles and precedents established in

the fed eral anti - discrimination laws specifically set forth

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq .

40. Section 760.10 prohibits discrimination Ðagainst any

individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditi ons, or

privileges of employment, because of such individualÓs race,

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital

status.Ñ £ 760.10(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

41. Florida courts have determined that federal

discrimination law should be used as guidance when construing

the FCRA. See Valenzuela v. GlobeGround N. Am., LLC , 18 So. 3d

17, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Brand v. Fla. Power Corp. , 633 So. 2d

504, 509 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1994).

42. M r . Hughes has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the e vidence that MichaelÓs committed an

unlawful employment practice. See EEOC v. JoeÓs Stone Crabs,

Inc. , 296 F.3d 1265, 1273 (11 th Cir. 2002)(noting that a

claimant bears the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of

fact that the employer intentionally di scriminated against the

employees); § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

43. Section 760.10(7) provides, in pertinent part that

[i]t is an unlawful employment practice for

an employer, an employment agency, a joint

labor - management committee, or a labor

organizati on to discriminate against any

person because that person has opposed any

practice which is an unlawful employment

practice under this section , or because

that person has made a charge, testified,

assisted, or participated in any manner in

an investigati on, proceeding, or hearing

under this section .

(emphasis added).

44. An employee can establish that he suffered retaliation

under the FCRA by proving that : (1) he engaged in an activity

prote cted by the FCRA; (2) he suffered an adverse employment

actio n; and that (3) there was a causal connection between the

protected activity and the adverse employment action.

Pennington v. City of Huntsville , 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir.

2001); Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp. , 887 So. 2d 372, 379 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2004).

45. Mr. Hughes clearly suffered an adverse employment

action when MichaelÓs discharged him. Therefore, the analysis

turns to whether he opposed a practice that was unlawful under

the FCRA and whether there was a causal connection between any

protected activ ity and the discharge.

46. Mr. Hughes implicitly asserts that Ms. WsolÓs order

regarding the allegedly retaliatory documents was unlawful under

the FCRA and that his report in January of 2016 to MichaelÓs

H uman R esources D epartment was a protected activit y under the

FCRA . However, even if Mr. HughesÓ allegations are accepted as

true, he has failed to satisfy the first element of a

retaliation claim under the FCRA.

47. As noted above, section 760.10(7) prohibits an

employer from discriminating Ð against an y person because

that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful

employment practice under this section .Ñ (emphasis added) .

Section 760. 10(1) (a) , Florida Statutes, prohibits discriminatory

acts based on oneÓs Ðrace, color, religion, sex, pregna ncy,

national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.Ñ

48. In the instant ca se, Ms . Wsol may have violated one

of MichaelÓs policies or directives by ordering the assistant

managers to docum ent their interactions with Ms. Griffith.

However, there is no allegation that Ms. Wsol Ós order was

motivated by any intent to discriminate against Ms. Griffin

based on the latterÓs race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy,

national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

49. As a result, Mr. Hughes has not demon strate d that he

opposed an action that was unlawful under section 760.10.

See Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. , 194 F.3d 252,

262 (1 st Cir. 1999) ( concluding that there was no protected

activity where plaintiff complained of supervisor's treatmen t

but never stated a belief that it violated Title VII or any

other law); Gleason v. Mesirow Fin. , 118 F.3d 1134 , 1147 (7 th

Cir. 1997) (granting summary judgment and finding that general

complaints absent specific allegations of sexual harassment do

not con stitute protected activity); Barber v. CSX Distrib.

Servs. , 68 F.3d 694, 702 (3d Cir. 1995) ( letter to HR complaining

about unfair treatment but not specifically complaining about

discrimination is not protected activity). See also Conrad v.

Bd. of Johnson C nty . CommÓrs , 237 F.Supp.2d 1204, 1243 - 44

(D. Kan. 2002) (granting summary judgment and finding that where

an employee complained regarding employer's accusations of

erratic behavior and fitness for duty evaluation but never

complained of ADA violation or disability discrimination, she

did not engage in protected opposition and cannot have held a

reasonable belief that her complaints were protected by the

ADA).

50. Moreover, there is not eno ugh evidence to find a

causal connection between Mr. HughesÓ repo rt and his discharge

from MichaelÓs .

5 1 . In order to demonstrate a causal connection, a

petitioner must show that Ð the decision - makers were aware of the

protected conduct and that there was a close temporal proximity

between this awareness and the adver se employment action.Ñ

Singh v. Green Thumb Landscaping, Inc. , 390 F.Supp.2d 1129,

1139 - 40 (N.D. Fla. 2005).

5 2 . ÐIf there is a substantial delay between the protected

expression and the adverse action in the absence of other

evidence tending to show cau sation, the complaint of retaliation

fails as a matter of law.Ñ Higdon v. Jackson , 393 F.3d 1211,

122 0 (11 th Cir. 2004).

5 3 . Because approximatel y six months passed between

Mr. HughesÓ report to the H uman R esources D epartment and his

discharge, the und ersigned cannot find that there was a causal

connection between the two events. See Clark C nty . Sch . Dist .

v. Breeden , 532 U.S. 268, 273, 121 S.Ct. 1508, 149 L.Ed.2d

509 (2011)(citing with approval decisions in which a three to

four month period between t he activity and the adverse action

did not show a causal connection).

5 4 . Moreover, there was no testimony from Mr. Hughes that

he experienced any sort of retaliatory conduct during the six

months prior to his discharge.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

Relations issue a final order dismissing Thomas C. HughesÓ

Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. 5/

DONE AND ENTERED this 19 t h day of October, 2017, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

G. W. CHISENHALL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(85 0) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19 th day of October, 2017.

ENDNOTE S

1/ Upon reading the T ranscript from the final hearing, the

undersigne d concluded that t here was confusion among the hearing

participants regarding the year s when certain events occurred.

The undersigned finds that the dates set forth herein are

accurate descriptions of when the events in question occurred.

2/ As the name implies, Ðe - mail capturesÑ occur when a cashier

requests a customerÓs e - mail address.

3/ Mr. Hughes allegedly used coercive tactics to fo rce

Ms. Pearman to witness him copy the contents of h is personnel

file and to sign a statement that the copied documents were

the co mplete contents of that f ile. The undersigned finds

Mr. HughesÓ denial of utilizing coercive tactics t o be credible.

In addition, Mr. H ughes allegedly intimidated Ms. Pearman

during his suspension by contacting her via text message and

asking her to c all him when she had a moment. Mr. Hughes sent

that message in order to inquir e about the status of his time

entries. As found above, Mr. Hug hes had been suspended with

pay during the course of Michael Ós investigation. Mr. Hughes

attempted to contact Ms . Pearman because M s. Skidmore had made

two errors regarding other employeesÓ time records, and those

errors resulted in them not being paid for the time period in

question. Because Mr. Hughes could not afford to go without

pay, he contacted Ms. Pearman i n an attempt to ensure that his

time records were accurate. After a full day passed with

Ms. Pearman not responding to Mr. HughesÓ text, Mr. Hughes

contacted another assistant manager at the Clermont store and

asked her to verify the accuracy of his time records. The

undersigned also finds Mr. HughesÓ denial of this allegation of

intimidation to be credible.

4/ All statutory references will be to the 2015 version of the

Florida Statutes.

5 / The undersignedÓs recommendati on should not be mistaken for

a determination that MichaelÓs w as justified in discharging

Mr. Hughes . While Mr. HughesÓ a llegations do not amount to a

prima facie case of retaliation under the FCRA, Mr. Hughes

alleged that he copied documentation pertaining to Ms. Griffin

in order to substantiate and/or counter a practice (i.e., the

allegedly retaliatory documents) that he considered unethical .

He copied his own personnel file because he feared that

MichaelÓs would retaliate against him.

W hile the undersigned did not have the be nefit of

Ms. PearmanÓs testimony, Mr. Hughes did not appear to be the

type of person who would bully or intimidate a co - worker.

T he limited testimony during the final hearing leaves the

undersigned with doubts as to whether discharge of Mr. Hughes

wa s the appropriate course of action . However, the undersigned

is not in a position to second - guess that decision given the

lack of a prima facia case of retaliation under the FCRA .

See generally Chapman v. Aansp. , 229 F.3d 1012 , 1030 (11 th

Cir. 20 00) (noting that an employerÓs d ecision Ðmay seem to some

to be bad business judgment and to others to be good business

judgment, but federal courts do not sit to second - guess the

business judgment of employers. Stated somewhat differently, a

plaintiff may not establish an employerÓs proffered reason as

pretextual merely by questioning the wisdom of the employerÓs

reason, at least not where . . . the reason is one that might

motivate a reasonable employer.Ñ).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Amy M. Scott, Esquire

Michaels Arts & Crafts

Michaels Stores, Inc.

8000 Bent Branch Drive

Irving, Texas 75063

(eServed)

Catherine Hope Molloy, Esquire

Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

Suite 1900

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33602

(eServed)

Nicholas S. Andrews, Esquire

Greenberg Traurig, P.A.

Suite 1900

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33602

(eServed)

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Thomas C. Hughes

921 Corne ll Avenue

Clermont, Florida 34711

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the rig ht 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.