18-003949 Lisa J. Funchess vs. Florida Department Of Health-Volusia Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, January 17, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice as a result of Petitioner's supervisor's "negative comments."

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

LISA J. FUNCHESS ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 1 8 - 3949

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH -

VOLUSIA ,

Respondent .

/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a fi nal hearing was held in this case

on November 19, 2018 , by video teleconference at sites in

Tallahassee and Daytona Beach, Florida, before E. Gary Early, a

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For P etitioner: Lisa J . Funchess , pro se

Apartment 706

3900 Yorktowne Boulevard

Port Orange, Florida 32129

For Respondent: Richard V. Blystone, Esquire

Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta

111 North Orange Avenue

Orlando, Florid a 32801

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner demonstrated that she was terminated

from employment by Respondent , Florida Department of Health -

Volusia (Respondent or FDOH - Volusia) , as the result of an

unlawful employment practice based on her identi fication with a

protected class , or as retaliation for PetitionerÓs opposition

to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 27, 201 7 , Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint

of Discrimination with the Florida Comm ission on Human Relations

(Commission) in which she alleged that:

On September 23, 2016, I made a verbal

complaint regarding Dr. Lauren Husband my

former supervisor. During a 1:1 with

Dr. Husband and her supervisor Ms. Boswell ,

I spoke out against negativ e comments and

the tone during our discussion. Since

making the complaint, I have been subjected

to retaliatory actions and different terms

and conditions.

Petitioner did not check a box for the cause of discrimination .

She made no allegation that she was subject to discrimination on

the basis of any protected class.

On June 21, 2018, the Commission issued a ÐD etermination :

No Reasonable C ause , Ñ by which it determined that no reasonable

cause existed to believe that Respondent engaged in an unlawful

employment practice involving Petitioner. Petitioner filed a

Petition for Relief , which was referred to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for disposition, and assigned to the

undersigned. The final hearing was scheduled for October 9,

2018 , by vide o teleconference in Tallahassee and Daytona Beach,

Florida.

On October 4, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Pre - hearing

Stipulation, in which they stipulated to a number of facts.

Those facts are adopted herein, and if not specifically recited ,

then by refe rence.

Due to the approach of Hurricane Michael, S tate office

buildings in the panhandle, including Tallahassee, were

officially closed on October 9, 201 8 . The final hearing was

rescheduled for November 19, 2018 , at the same venues, and

proceeded as sch eduled.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified on her own behalf.

PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 through 8 were received in evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of Patricia Boswell ,

a dministrator of the local Volusi a County Health Department;

Dr. Lorra ine Husband , RespondentÓs d irector of Community

Planning and Assessment; Denise Ayers, RespondentÓs h ealth

n ursing d irector; Susan Skelley, a registered licensed dietician

for Respondent; Ana Soto, Respo ndentÓs public health s ervices

manager; and Sarah McD onald, an administrative a ssistant during

the period in question. RespondentÓs Exhibits 1 through 6,

8 through 10, 12, 14, 15, and 20 were received in evidence.

The hearing was not transcribed. The parties filed their

Proposed Recommended Orders on December 7, 2018 , which have been

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

References to Florida S tatutes are to those in effect at

the time the alleged acts of discrimination occurred, unless

otherwise noted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Responde nt is a provider of health services in Volusia

County, Florida. Among the programs administered by FDOH - Volusia

is the Women, Infants , and Children program (WIC) . WIC is a

federally - funded nutrition program, which provides healthy foods,

nutrition educat ion and counseling, breastfeeding support, and

referrals for health care and community services. A t all times

relevant to this proceeding , F D OH - Volusia operate d WIC health

clinics in Daytona Beach, New Smyrna Beach, Orange City, and

Pi erson .

2 . Petition er began working for F D OH - Volusia in June 2010,

as a n utrition p rogram d irector . In her capacity as n utrition

p rogram d irector, Petitioner was responsible for certain

management activities of WIC .

3 . The State of Florida maintains close supervision of WIC.

FDOH - Volusia is required to provide a n annual Nutrition Plan (the

Plan) to the State. The Plan is a report of WIC operations,

sites, hours of operation, various objectives, local agency plans

for increasing participation, local agency disaster plan , and

staffing. A s n utrition p rogram d irector, Petitioner is

responsible for preparing the Plan, and submitting it for

revisions and/or final approval by FDOH - Volusia Ós a dministrator.

4 . Ms. Boswell became the a dministrator of FDOH - Volusia on

or about April 1, 2016.

5 . Dr. Husband , who is African - American, became

PetitionerÓs direct supervisor beginning in July 2016. As

PetitionerÓs direct supervisor, Dr. Husband provided oversight of

WIC.

6 . In 2016, FDOH - Volusia consolidated its Deland and

Del tona WIC offices into the office in Orange City. Petitioner

was very involved in the move and was, during the period of the

move, reassigned from her primary duties in Daytona Beach to

duties in Orange City. By all accounts, the move went well.

7 . O n September 23, 2016, Ms. Boswell requested that

Petitioner meet with her and Dr. Husband to discuss the draft

Plan provided by Petitioner on September 21, 2016 , and for

Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband to provide comments, suggestions , and

revisions to the Pla n , which was due for submission to the State

of Florida on September 30, 2016. The purpose of the meeting was

to discuss the steps necessary to get the Plan in final form for

submission.

8 . At the onset of the September 23, 2016 , meeting,

Ms. Boswell complimented Petitioner and her staff for getting

DOH - VolusiaÓs new Orange City location Ðup and going . Ñ

Petitioner responded that ÐitÓs good to hear something positive

after so much negative.Ñ The comment was directed at

Dr. Husband, who Petitioner thou ght had been negative towards

various aspects of her job performance. PetitionerÓs comment led

to tensions between Petitioner and Dr. Husband. Both said, at

one time or another during the meeting, words to the effect of

ÐdonÓt speak to me like that.Ñ Ms . Boswell became a little

uncomfortable with the interaction between the two.

9 . During the September 23, 2016 , meeting, a number of

deficiencies in the draft Plan were identified, including

grammatical and syntax errors, discussion that did not align wi th

the corresponding graphs, and a lack of data to support the Plan

conclusions. Dr. Husband gave guidance and feedback on the Plan.

Ms. Boswell indicated that, but for PetitionerÓs comment

regarding Dr. HusbandÓs negativity, the meeting was otherwise

pr ofessional.

10 . At the hearing, Petitioner explained that Dr. Husband

made other negative comments to her at various times, stat ing

that at a meeting with the d irector of n ursing regarding WIC work

schedules, Dr. Husband said ÐweÓre not going to nitpic kÑ; and

that on another occasion during a discussion on the difficulty of

recruiting and retaining staff at base salary, Dr. Husband said

to Petitioner ÐthatÓs the way you designed it.Ñ According to

Petitioner, Dr. Husband made similar comments to other o f her

direct reports.

11 . Dr. Husband testified at the hearing that she thought

-- before and after the September 23, 2016, meeting -- that

Petitioner was insubordinate, disrespectful to employees and

supervisors, and rude.

12 . Petitioner would tak e meeting notes in red ink when she

perceived instances of ÐnegativityÑ and Ðunacceptable behaviorÑ

from her direct supervisor , which she described as her Ðred f lag

s ystem.Ñ

13 . Petitioner argued that since she Ðspoke up and spoke

outÑ during the Septem ber 23, 2016 , meeting, she has been the

subject of retaliation by Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband . She

expressed her belief that Ms. Boswell was upset that Petitioner

criticized Dr. Husband because Dr. Husband was Ms. BoswellÓs

direct report , i.e., that Petit ionerÓs criticism Ðwas a

reflection on her.Ñ

14 . On or about October 5, 2016, Petitioner was informed

that her duty station was being ch anged from Daytona Beach to

New Smyrna Beach. Petitioner testified that she posed four

questions to Dr. Husband as to the reasons for the transfer and

that , in her opinion, Dr. HusbandÓs response s did not justify the

action. Petitioner felt that as the WIC nutrition program

director , she should be in Daytona Beach, the largest

administrative office. Thus, Petitioner could think of no reason

for the move other than retal iation for her criticism of

Dr. Husband.

15 . Ms. Boswell testified credibly that the reason for

PetitionerÓs transfer was that New Smyrna Beach was reopening

WIC services at the office. In light of how well things went

with the opening of the Orange City office, she wanted Petitioner

to go to New Smyrna Beach to make sure that location was up and

running. She testified that the reassignment was not a

punishment, rather, Ðthat was her job Ñ to make su re WIC was

running well. Her testimony is credited.

16 . In addition to the fact that Dr. Boswell had perfectly

legitimate reasons for having Petitioner cover the New Smyrna

Beach office, it is clear that Petitioner suffered no adverse

employment action as a result. Petitioner lives between Daytona

Beach and New Smyrna Beach , and the New Smyrna Beach off ice is no

further from her home than the Daytona Beach office.

PetitionerÓs pay was not changed, her title was not changed, and

her benefits were not c hanged. 1 / More to the point, Petitioner

neither pled nor proved that the change in duty station had

anything to do with discrimination based on race, color,

religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or

marital status; that it was taken bec ause Petitioner opposed any

practice engaged in by FDOH - Volusia based on race, color,

religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or

marital status; or that it was based on Petitioner having made a

charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an

investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding conduct based on

race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age,

handicap, or marital status.

17 . On or about October 18, 2016, Petitioner received a

Documented Counseling and Pe rformance Notification ( Documented

Counseling ) from Dr. Husband. The Documented Counseling included

a number of deficiencies in performance, and several corrective

measures. The deficiencies included: that Petitioner failed to

monitor and spend al located WIC funding during the 2015 - 16 fiscal

year; that the Plan submitted by Petitioner was rejected by the

a dministrator for lack of detail, grammatical errors, and poor

work product , and when the Plan was finally completed it was

discovered that Petiti onerÓs staff performed the majority of the

work; that the WIC participation rate (65 percent ) was

significantly less than the program goal (85 percent ) ; and that

Petitioner failed to support efforts to refer WIC clients to the

d ental h ygienist at the Orang e City location. The Documented

Counseling also reflect ed that Petitioner had been disrespectful

to Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband . Petitioner refused to sign the

Documented C ounseling to acknowledge her receipt. Petitioner

provided excuses for the deficie ncies noted, e.g., she used most

of the allocated WIC funding; the draft Plan was mostly complete,

and she had never before been required to submit a draft nine

days before its final submission date; she was only required to

increase WIC participation by f our percent per year; it was not

in the WIC scope of work to facilitate clients to get dental

services, just to refer them ; she objected to co - l oca tion of the

dental hygienist in the WIC office and , in any event , referrals

were not the responsibility of ma nagement, only staff. None of

PetitionerÓs explanations were convincing. Rather, the testimony

of Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband that the Documented Counseling was

completely performance - based and had nothing to do with the

September 23, 2016, meeting , was compelling and is accepted.

More to the point, Petitioner neither pled nor proved that the

Documented Counseling had anything to do with discrimination

based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin,

age, handicap, or marital status ; that it was taken because

Petitioner opposed any practice engaged in by FDOH - Volusia based

on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age,

handicap, or marital status; or that it was based on Petitioner

having made a charge, testified, assisted , or participated in any

manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding

conduct based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national

origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

18 . On or about December 16, 2016, Petitioner received an

o r al r eprimand. The o ral r eprimand noted that Petitioner

violated prior instruction and FDOH - Volusia written policy

regarding absence from work and reporting such absences to her

supervisor by telephone. The oral reprimand was documented .

Petitioner refus ed to sign the oral reprimand documentation to

acknowledge her receipt. Petitioner acknowledged that prior

notice of absences is important so that FDOH - Volusia could make

sure personnel were available to perform clinical services.

Despite PetitionerÓs pr ior knowledge that she would not be at

work on November 28, 2016 , she d id not call her supervisor,

Dr. Husband, until after 8:00 a.m. on November 28, 2016. She

left an earlier voicemail with a direc t report. The testimony of

Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband t hat the oral reprimand was

completely performance - based and had nothing to do with the

September 23, 2016, meeting , was compelling and is accepted.

More to the point, Petitioner neither pled nor proved that the

oral reprimand had anything to do with discr imination based on

race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age,

handicap, or marital status; that it was taken because Petitioner

opposed any practice engaged in by FDOH - Volusia based on race,

color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origi n, age, handicap,

or marital status; or that it was based on Petitioner having made

a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in

an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding conduct based

on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, n ational origin, age,

handicap, or marital status.

19 . On April 12, 2017, Petitioner was required to

participate in an i nvestigatory i nterview to determine why she

was absent from her duty station on numerous o ccasions between

January 4, 2017 , and April 10 , 2017 . Petitioner testified that

she saw no problem in coming to work late since , if she was no t

scheduled for clinic duties , there was no adverse affect on staff

or the clinic. Petitioner thought the investigatory interview

for her failure to be at wor k during scheduled hours Ðwas a bit

harsh,Ñ and felt that FDOH - Volusia was Ðmonitoring her coming and

going.Ñ She testified that the monitoring of her Ðdaily

schedule, coming and going ,Ñ was related to the September 23,

2016 , meeting.

20 . Petitioner p rovided information on her ÐtardiesÑ to

Ms. Ayers. Ms. Ayers had by then been assigned as PetitionerÓs

supervisor since Petitioner had , in another act of Ðspeaking up

and speaking out,Ñ filed a formal grievance against Dr. Husband

for retaliation. 2 / Ms. Boswell testified convincingly that

Petitioner was not authorized to unilaterally ÐflexÑ her time ;

that an agency cannot be run when employees alter their schedules

without notice ; and that PetitionerÓs excessive absences from her

duty station violated the EmployeesÓ Handbook. The documentation

provided by Petitioner was deemed to be insufficient to justify

her absences, and did not explain why Petitioner failed to get

approval from a supervisor before modifying her work schedule.

Thereafter, o n or about June 22, 2017, Petitioner received a

w ritten r eprimand for the absences . Petitioner refused to sign

the written reprimand to acknowledge her receipt. The testimony

of Ms. Boswell and Ms. Ayers that the written reprimand was

completely performance - based a nd had nothing to do with the

September 23, 2016, meeting , was compelling and is accepted.

More to the point, Petitioner neither pled nor proved that the

written reprimand had anything to do with discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, pregnan cy, national origin, age,

handicap, or marital status; that it was taken because Petitioner

opposed any practice engaged in by FDOH - Volusia based on race,

color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap,

or marital status; or that it was ba sed on Petitioner having made

a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in

an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding conduct based

on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age,

handicap, or marital status.

21 . The June 22, 2017, written reprimand was the last of

the retaliatory actions for the S eptember 23, 2016 , meeting

alleged by Petitioner.

22 . Petitioner has allege d that the October 5, 2016, change

in duty station ; the October 18, 2016, Documented Couns eling ; the

December 16, 2016, o ral r eprimand ; the April 12, 2017 ,

i nvestigatory i nterview ; and the June 22, 2017, w ritten r eprimand

were all unwarranted retaliation for the statement she made

during the September 23, 2016 , meeting , i.e. , that Dr. Husband

h ad been negative toward s her. Petitioner acknowledged that

there was Ðsome truthÑ in the discipline, but lots of Ðfluff.Ñ

To the contrary, the evidence is convincing that, if anything,

FDOH - Volusia was , and remains, exceedingly lenient and

accommodating to Petitioner with regard to the substantiated

discipline meted out.

23 . As set forth previously, Petitioner has not been

terminated or demoted , and has not suffered a pay decrease or a

decrease in benefits. While her duty station was moved from

Daytona Beach to New Smyrna Beach, those locations are

approximately the same distance from PetitionerÓs home, and she

has since been moved back to Daytona Beach for ÐneedÑ related

reasons .

24 . Respondent in this case presented hours of compelling

testimony f rom multiple credible witnesses regarding PetitionerÓs

poor management skills , poor interpersonal skills , poor

leadership skills ; her tense , argumentative , and disrespectful

attitude ; and more. The testimony was, presumably, offered to

demonstrate that FD OH - Volusia had a legitimate, non -

discriminatory basis for the alleged adverse employment actions

taken against Petitioner. The testimony and evidence was

unnecessary.

25 . Not once d uring the course of the hearing did

Petitioner allege or a rgue that the actions taken as described

herein had anything to do with discrimination or retaliation

based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin,

age, handicap, or marital status . Petitioner stated that the

actions taken against her were the result of her having Ðspoken

up and spoken outÑ against negative comments from her supervisor,

Dr. Husband . There was nothing raised i n PetitionerÓs Employment

Complaint of Discrimination, in her Petition for Relief, in her

statement of position in the Joint Pr e - hearing Stipulation , in

the testimony and evidence that she offered at the final hearing ,

or in her Proposed Recommended Order that even intimates that

FDOH - Volusia committed an unlawful employment practice as

established in section 760.10 , Florida Statu tes . As will be

discussed herein, the failure to allege, argue, or prove

discrimination or retaliation based on a protected class or

opposition to an unlawful act constitutes a failure to meet the

most basic jurisdictional element of an unlawful employmen t

practice complaint.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

26 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to s ections 1 20.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (201 8 ).

27 . Section 760.11(1) pr ovides that Ð[a]ny person aggrieved

by a violation of ss. 760.01 - 760.10 may file a complaint with the

[C]ommission within 365 days of the alleged violation.Ñ

Petitioner timely filed her complaint.

28 . Section 760.11(7) provides that upon a determinati on by

the Commission that there is no probable cause to believe that a

violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred,

Ð[t]he aggrieved person may request an administrative hearing

under ss. 120.569 and 120.57, but any such request must be made

within 35 days of the date of determination of reasonable cause. Ñ

Following the CommissionÓs determination of no cause, Petitioner

timely filed her Petition for Relief requesting this hearing.

29 . Chapter 760, Part I, is patterned after Title VII o f

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. When Ða Florida

statute is modeled after a federal law on the same subject, the

Florida statute will take on the same construction as placed on

its federal prototype.Ñ Brand v. Fl a. Power Corp. , 633 So. 2d

504, 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see also Valenzuela v. GlobeGround

N . Am. , LLC , 18 So. 3d 17 (Fla. 3 d DCA 2009); Fla. State Univ. v.

Sondel , 685 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Fla. Dep Ó t of Cmty.

Aff. v. Bryant , 586 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

30 . Peti tioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance

of the evidence that Respondent committed an unlawful employment

practice. See St. Louis v. Fla. Int Ó l Univ. , 60 So. 3d 455 (Fla.

3d DCA 2011); Fla. Dep Ó t of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So.

2d 778 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

31 . With regard to PetitionerÓs claim of discrimination,

s ection 760.10 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 other wise 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 . (emphasis added).

32 . With regard to PetitionerÓs claim of retaliation,

section 760.10(7) provides, in pertinent part:

(7) It is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer . . . to discriminate against

any person because that person has opposed

any practice which is an un lawful employment

practice under this section , or because that

person has made a charge, testified,

assisted, or participated in any manner in an

investigation, proceeding, or hearing under

this section . (emphasis added).

Thus, the alleged retaliation mu st be for a reason that is

subject to protection under the Act, i.e. , race, color, religion,

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

33 . The only basis for PetitionerÓs claim of discrimination

or retaliation is , by her admission, that P etitionerÓs

supervisor , Dr. Husband, made negative comments towards her work

practices and product, and that she Ðspoke up and spoke outÑ

against those negative comments.

34 . That reason, even if true, is insufficient to establish

that Petitioner was sub ject to an unlawful employment practice

based on any protected class, or that she was the subject of

retaliation as a result of her opposition to an unlawful

employment practice as defined in section 760.10.

35 . An action pursuant to the Florida Civil R ights Act may

not be predicated on whether an employment decision is fair or

reasonable, but only on whether it was motivated by unlawful

discriminatory intent. As set forth by the Eleventh Circuit

Court of Appeals, Ð[t]he employer may [discipline] an emp loyee

for a good reason, a bad reason, a reason based on erroneous

facts, or for no reason at all, as long as its action is not for

a discriminatory reason.Ñ Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall CommcÓns ,

738 F.2d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir. 1984). In a proceeding under t he

Civil Rights Act, Ð[w]e are not in the business of adjudging

whether employment decisions are prudent or fair. Instead, our

sole concern is whether unlawful discriminatory animus motivates

a challenged employment decision.Ñ Damon v. Fleming Supermarke ts

of Fla., Inc. , 196 F.3d 1354, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999) . Moreover,

Ð[t]he employerÓs stated legitimate reason . . . does not have to

be a reason that the judge or jurors would act on or approve.Ñ

DepÓt of Corr. v. Chandler , 582 So. 2d 1183, 1187 (Fla. 1st

DCA 1991) .

36 . Based on PetitionerÓs admission that the sole basis for

the alleged retaliatory actions was that she spoke out against

Ms. HusbandÓs negative comments, it is concluded that Petitioner

failed to state a basis for the disciplinary actions i mposed by

FDOH - Volusia that falls within the ambit of the Florida Civil

Rights Act. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be

dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Flor ida Commission on Human Relations

issue a final order dismissing Petitioner , Lisa J. Funchess Ós

Petition for Relief , FCHR No. 201701356 .

DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January , 201 9 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

E. GARY EARLY

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Divis ion of Administrative Hearings

this 17th day of January , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / Petitioner stayed in the New Smyrna office until April 2018 ,

at which time, based on the needs of the WIC program , she

returned to the Daytona Beach office in her same capacity as

director of nutrition s ervices.

2 / The i nspector g eneral found that Dr. Husband engaged in no

violation of FDOH - Volusia policies.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tall ahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Lisa J. Funchess

Apartment 706

3900 Yorktowne Boulevard

Port Orange, Florida 32129

(eServed)

Dee Dee McGee, EO Manager

Department of Health

Office of the General Counsel

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Richard V. Blystone, Esquire

Garganese, Weiss & D'Agresta

111 North Orange Avenue

Orlando, Florida 32801

(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 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 is sue the Final Order in this case.