18-006246 Francis B. Schlein vs. Working America Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, June 21, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent discriminated against her because she was Jewish, or that Respondent's decision not to hire her because of a poor interview was a pretext for discrimination.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FRANC E S B. SCHLEIN,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 6246

WORKING AMERICA,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On March 25, 2019, Administrative Law Judge Hetal Desai of

the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) conducted t he

final hearing in this matter by video teleconference with

locations in Altamonte Springs and Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Frances Schlein , pro se

108 Puelba Lane

Kissimmee, Florida 34743

For Respondent: Kathleen M. Keller, Esquire

Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC

Suite 1000

805 15th Street Northwest

Washington, DC 2 0005

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent, Working America, discriminated against

Petitioner, Frances B. Schlein, based on her religion, race,

and/or nationality (Jewish/Hebrew) when it did not hire her, in

violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act ( FCRA).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 18, 2018, t he Florida Commission on Human

Relations (the Commission ) rendered a ÐDetermination: No

Reasonable CauseÑ against Ms. Schlein, finding there was no

reasonable cause to support her claims that she was not hired by

Working America because of her religion. 1/ Ms. Schlein filed a

Petition for Relief on November 26, 2018, alleging

discrimination by Working America against her based on her

Ðethnic Jewish Hebrew features,Ñ and her surname.

The Commission transmit ted the Petition to DOAH , where it

was assigned to the undersigned and noticed for a final hearing.

After two continuances, the final hearing was held on March 25,

2019.

Petitioner presented her own testimony and one additional

witness: Roberto Ve l a zquez. Respondent offered the testimony

of Angel Darcourt, who also served as its corporate

representative. No exhibits were offered into evidence.

The Transcript was filed with DOAH on January 28, 2019.

Ms. Schlein requested and was granted two extensions, m aking the

proposed recommended orders (PROs) due on May 31, 2019.

Respondent timely filed its PRO, but Ms. Schlein did not.

Instead she filed her PRO, along with a letter explaining

the delay , on June 3, 20 19. The undersigned treats the letter

as a motion to accept the late - filed PRO. On June 18, 2019,

Respondent filed Exceptions to PetitionerÓs Proposed Recommend ed

Order , which the undersigned treats as a response to the motion

to accept PetitionerÓs late - filed PRO . Because RespondentÓs

objection was no t filed in the time allotted by Florida

Administ rative Code Rule 28 - 106.204(1) , the undersigned has

accepted PetitionerÓs PRO , and reviewed all post - hearing

submittals by the parties .

Unless otherwise indicated, a ll statutory and

administrative rule refere nces are to the 2016 version of the

Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code .

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Ms. Schlein applied for the position of canvasser in

July 2016 with Working America. Ms. SchleinÓs religion is

Judaism, but she also considers being Jewish a part of her

national origin and race. 2/

2. Working America is a non - profit organization focusing

on economic issues such as jobs, education, healthcare,

retirement security, and corporate accountability. It is an

ÐemployerÑ as defined by secti on 760.02(7), Florida Statutes

(2016).

3. In July 2016, Angel Darcourt served as a field director

for Working America in Orlando, Florida. As a field director,

Ms. Darcourt had authority to hire employees for Working

America. Working America originally hired Ms. Darcourt for the

canvasser position ÏÏ the same job Petitioner had applied for.

4 . Although not offered as an exhibit, Ms. Darcourt

testified Working America has an equal employment opportunity

(EEO) policy, which Ðis against discrimination.Ñ Wo rking

AmericaÓs EEO policy encourages people of all backgrounds,

including women, Ðpeople of color,Ñ and people who are LGBTQ

(lesbian, gay, bi sexual, transgender, or queer) to apply for

positions. This EEO policy is included in all advertisements.

Job D uties of a Canvasser

5 . Working America is a canvassing organization which

conducts community outreach. In July 2016, Working America was

hiring employees to canvass on behalf of the 2016 Democratic

presidential candidate. This involved going to door - to - door to

engage people in conversations about what issues they were

concerned about in the presidential election, and then sharing

information about the Working AmericaÓs candidate Ó s views on

that issue.

6 . In the Orlando area, Working America was seeking to

reach out and spread information in neighborhoods on the

Democratic candidateÓs views on immigration policy. As

explained by Ms. Darcourt, this was a Ðhot buttonÑ issue in the

2016 presidential campaign given the Republican candidateÓs

promise to buil d a wall to prevent illegal immigration across

the United States - Mexico border.

7 . The job of ÐcanvasserÑ for Working America was to

interact with the public, inform them of a candidateÓs position,

and leave a positive impression of that candidate in hop es to

garner support and a vote in the upcoming election. Canvassers

work without direct supervision . Therefore, the ability to

speak without assistance about political issues in a tactful and

non - offen sive way is a basic qualification f or the position.

8 . In 2016, Working America was also trying to Ðspread the

messageÑ regarding the Democratic presidential candidate, so it

was imperative Working America canvassers use the right talking

points and terminology when discussing the candidateÓs position

on various issues.

The Hiring Process

9 . Applicants for the canvasser position could indicate

interest in working for Working America by clicking on an

electronic link via on - line advertisements. An interested

candidate could enter his or her information , and then would be

contacted by phone by a Working America employee.

Alternatively, an applicant could call or apply to Working

America directly.

10 . Once Working America made telephone contact with the

applicant, it would screen the applicant to ensure he or she was

comfortable going door - to - door, could work the necessary hours,

and was in support of the Democratic presidential candidate.

11 . If the applicant was approved after an initial phone

screen ing , Working America would bring the applicant in f or a

face - to - face interview with a field director.

12 . The field director then interview ed the candidate to

determine if he or she would be good for the canvassing

position. If he or she thought the candidate was acceptable,

the applicant would be offer ed a background check form, before a

second interview.

13 . The second interview consisted of shadow ing a field

man ager, and ultimately participating in door - to - door

canvassing. The field manager would then make a recommendatio n

regarding the candidate to a field director .

14 . The field director would make the ultimate decision to

hire.

The Interview

15 . Ms. Schlein visited the Orlando office of Working

America with two other applicants: Robert Velazquez and Robert

Diaz. It is unclear if any of thes e three individuals had gone

through the initial phone screening before coming to Working

AmericaÓs office.

16 . Regardless, upon arrival to the offi ce, the three were

greeted by Ms. Darcourt and a conversation ensued in both

Spanish and English. Ms. Dar court asked the trio where they

were from. M r. Velazquez indicated he was from Puerto Rico;

Mr. Diaz said he was from Cuba; and Ms. Schlein said she was

from Bronx, New York. Ms. Darcourt then gave all three an

application to fill out, and proceeded to interview them

separately.

17 . Ms. DarcourtÓs interview with Ms. Schlein did not go

well. At some point the discussion turned to immigration

policy. Ms. Darcourt indicated she was half - Cuban and half -

Mexican. Ms. Schlein responded that her family we re also

immigrants, but emphasized the fact that her family immigrated

to the United States legally.

18 . Ms. Schlein went on to use the word ÐillegalsÑ to

describe Mexican immigrants. Specifically, Ms. Schlein stated

she did not like the Republican pres idential candidate, but that

she Ðagreed with him on the illegals.Ñ She also indicated she

understood Cubans needed asylum, but did not understand why

Mexicans could not come here legally.

19 . Ms. Darcourt immediately informed Ms. Schlein that

using th e word ÐillegalsÑ to describe humans was inappropriate.

Either Ms. Darcourt suggested Ms. Schlein do some research on

Mexican immigration, or Ms. Schlein indicated she would do some

research on the issue.

20 . Regardless, both parties had negative reactio ns to the

conversation. Ms. Darcourt found Ms. SchleinÓs use of the word

ÐillegalsÑ personally offensive. In turn, Ms. Schlein felt

anger from Ms. Darcourt during the interview.

21 . Ms. SchleinÓs conduct at the interview raised concerns

with Ms. Darcour t of how she might act if hired and was working

unsupervised. M s. Darcourt believed this kind of language , or

agreeing with the Republican candidate Ós views on immigration

during canvassing , would be counterproductive to garnering

support for the Democrat ic candidate promoted by Working

America.

22 . Ms. Darcourt was also concerned that Ms. SchleinÓs

language and position on immigration policy would offend some of

the other Working America employees , who were immigrants or

whose families had recently immig rated to the United States .

23 . Ms. DarcourtÓs concerns are validated by Ms. SchleinÓs

demeanor and testimony at the hearing . Although Ms. Schlein may

not have intended to be offensive, Ms. SchleinÓs statements

regarding Mexicans, Ð gay ,Ñ Ðblack,Ñ and ot her minorities lead to

the conclusion , at the very least, that she is unaware these

statements may be perceived as insulting.

24 . Ms. Darcourt made the decision not to give Ms. Schlein

a second interview. At the end of the interview, she informed

Ms. Sc hlein she would call her if she thought she would be a

good fit. Ms. Da rcourt never called Ms. Schlein, even though,

according to Mr. Velazquez, who was hired and began working for

Working America , it was still looking for canvassers.

25 . A few weeks lat er, Ms. Schlein contacted Ms. Darcourt

to let her know she had researched the immigration issue.

Although there is a dispute about the language used by

Ms. Schlein, there is no dispute Ms. Schlein conveyed that she

believed Ms. Darcourt was unqualified t o be in a management

position, and questioned whether Working America employees who

were from other countries or ethnicities had been properly

vetted.

26 . Ms. Schlein admits Ms. Darcourt never asked about her

religion, nor was there any discussion at an y time about the

fact she was Jewish.

27 . As evidence of discrimination, Ms. Schlein claims

Ms. Darcourt gave her Ðdirty looksÑ and Ðthe silent treatment,Ñ

while she was friendly to other employees. Even if true, there

is no evidence Ms. DarcourtÓs con duct was based on the fact

Ms. Schlein is Jewish.

28 . Mr. Velazquez also testified Ms. Darcourt was Ðnot

friendlyÑ toward Ms. Schlein, but was ÐfriendlyÑ toward him and

Mr. Diaz. His testimony, however, was conclusory and

unreliable. He could not provi de any details of specific

conduct and stated his ÐmemoryÓs not too good.Ñ Additionally,

Mr. Velazquez admitted on cross - examination he is in a personal

relationship and lives with Ms. Schlein. More importantly, his

conclusion about Ms. DarcourtÓs feelin gs toward Ms. Schlein was

based on a single interaction he witnessed when they initially

arrived at the Working America office. He was not present

during the interview.

29 . There was also testimony about a n employee known only

as Layla, who was allegedly mistreated by the Working America

management. It is unclear when or what position Layla held at

Working America, but she was described as being Jewish, from a

Muslim country, who spoke Spanish. Ms. Schlein admitted she had

never met this employee and ha d only spoke n with her on the

phone; Mr. VelazquezÓ s knowledge regarding this employee was

entirely secondhand. The undersigned cannot base any finding of

fact based on this testimony as it is anecdotal and entirely

based on hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. 3/

30 . The undersigned find s Working America did not hire

Ms. Schlein based on her poor interview, and not based on the

fact she was Jewish.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

31 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

cause pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 760.11(7),

Florida Statutes. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Y - 4.016 .

32 . The FCRA protects individuals from discrimination in

the workplace. See §§ 760.10 and 760.11, Fla. Stat. S ection

760.10 states, 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, co nditions,

or privileges of employment, because of such

individual Ó s race , color, religion , sex,

pregnancy, national origin , age, handicap,

or marital status. (emphasis added).

33 . Because the FCRA is patterned after Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 , as amended (Title VII), Florida courts

are guided by federal decisions construing Title VII when

con sidering claims under the FCRA. See In re Standard Jury

Instructions in Civil Cases Ï Report No. 16 - 01 , 214 So. 3d 552,

555 (Fla. 2017) (Ð Florida cour ts have endorsed the general rule

that, because the FCRA was patterned after Title VII, the

Florida statute should be given the same construction as the

federal courts give the fe deral act .Ñ ); Carsillo v. City of Lake

Worth , 995 So. 2d 1118, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding FCRA

should be construed the same as Ti tle VII with regard to

pregnancy discrimination protections).

34 . The burden of proof in an administrative proceeding is

on Ms. Schlein as the complainant. See Dep Ó t of Banking & Fin.,

Div. of Se c. & Investor Prot. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d

932, 935 (Fla. 1996) ( Ð The general rule is that a party asserting

the affirmative of an issue has the burden of presenting evidence

as to that issue. Ñ ). To show a violation of the FCRA,

Ms. Schlein m ust establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, a

prima facie case of discrimination . See St. Louis v. Fla. Int Ó l

Univ. , 60 So. 3d 455, 458 - 59 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

35 . ÐPreponderance of the evidenceÑ is the Ð greater

weight Ñ of the evidence, or eviden ce that Ðmore likely than notÑ

tends to prove the fact at issue. This means that if the

undersigned found the parties presented equally competent

substantial evidence, Ms. Schlein would not have proved her

claims by the Ðg r eater weightÑ of the evidence, a nd would not

prevail. See Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla.

2000) . In an FCRA case, the petitioner may meet this burden by

presenting direct evidence of discrimination, or circumstantial

evidence that creates an inference of discrimination. See Tseng

v. Fla. A&M Univ. , 380 Fed. App'x 908, 909 (11th Cir. 2010).

3 6 . Direct evidence is evidence that, if believed, would

prove the existence of discriminatory intent behind an

employment decision without any inference or presumption.

Denney v. C ity of Albany , 247 F.3d 1172, 1182 (11th Cir. 2001) .

Courts have held that ÐÒ only the most blatant remarks, whose

intent could be nothing other than to discriminate . . . Ó will

constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Ñ Damon v. Fleming

Supermarkets of Fla., Inc. , 196 F.3d 1354, 1358 - 59 (11th Cir.

1999) (citations omitted).

37 . Here, none of Ms. DarcourtÓs behavior described by

Ms. Schlein or Mr. Velazquez rises to the level of direct

evidence of discrimination. In addition, Ms. Schlein asserts i n

her PRO that Working AmericaÓs commitment to diversity in its

policies , while failing to specifically mention Jewish people as

a protected class , constitutes evidence of discrimination. The

existence of an EEO policy, or encouraging diversity in the

wor kplace , cannot be said to be discrimination. See Nagy v.

Taylor Cty. Sch. Dist. , 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165154, at *21

(M.D. Ga. Oct. 5, 2017) (Ðthe Court does not find un -

constitutional or discriminatory a hiring procedure that

requires a committee to Òre flect the communityÓ and be Òcomposed

of differing genders, races, [and] ages,Ó because this does not

o n e - sidedly benefit a particular g roup.Ñ).

38 . Alternatively, Ms. Schlein can establish her case

through circumstantial proof following the framework set forth

in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 - 04, 93 S.

Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) . In this case, the framework

involves a three - step process. First, Ms. Schlein must establish

a prim a facie case of discrimination based on her reli gion, race,

and/or nationality; i f Ms. Schlein does so, a presumption of

disc rimination arises against Respondent . If Ms. Schlein

completes step one, Respondent has the burden to present a

legitimate, non - discriminatory reason for its employment actions;

if Respondent can put forth such a reason, Ms. SchleinÓs

presumption of discrimination evaporates. Finally, if Respondent

can complete the second step, Ms. Schlein has the burden of

proving the reason established by Respondent was a pretext for

discrimina tion. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , 411 U.S. at 802; Scholz

v. RDV Sports, Inc. , 710 So. 2d 618, 624 ( Fla. 5th DCA 1998)

( evaluating race discrimination claim under FCRA ).

39 . Although these burdens of production shift back and

forth, th e ultimate burden of p ersuasion that Working America

intentionally discriminated against her remains at all times with

Ms. Schlein . See EEOC v. Joe's Stone Crabs, Inc. , 296 F.3d 1265,

1273 (11th Cir. 2002); Byrd v. RT Foods, Inc. , 948 So. 2d 921,

927 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ( notin g under FCRA t he ultimate burden of

proving intentional discrimination remains with the plaintiff at

all times ) .

40 . Petitioner correctly argues that this is not a

religious accommodation case. Rather, based on the assertions

in her Petition for Relief a nd at the hearing, her claim is that

Working America failed to hire her because she is Jewish.

41. To demonstrate a prima facie case in the failure - to -

hire context, Ms. Schlein must establish: (1) she is a member

of a protected class; (2) who applied a nd was qualified for the

position; (3) despite her qualifications, she was not selected;

and (4) either the position was filled by a person outside the

protected class , or the position remained open and the employer

continued to seek applicants. Shannon v . AMTRAK , 2019 U.S. App.

LEXIS 14775, at *22 - 23 (11th Cir. May 20, 2019).

42 . Ms. Schlein established three of the four elements of

a prima facie case. Regarding the first prong, Working America

admits Petitioner belonged to a protected class based on he r

Jewish religion. (Resp. PRO, ¶ 34). There also is no dispute

that Working America declined to hire Ms. Sch lein for the

canvasser position, and t hus, the third element is satisfied.

As to the fourth element, Ms. Schlein established through the

testimon y of Mr. Velazquez that Working America continued to

seek applicants for the canvasser position after she was

rejected.

43 . Ms. Schlein, however, has not established the second

prong ÏÏ that she was qualified for the position. Based on her

interview, Wor king America had valid reason s to believe

Ms. Schlein lacked the tact and self - awareness necessary for

speaking to the public about immigration issues. Moreover, it

had no confidence she could leav e a positive impression of the

candidateÓs views, especia lly on the subject of immigration.

Therefore, she has failed to c arry her burden of establishing a

prima facie case for a Ð failure to hire Ñ discrimination claim .

44 . Even if she had met her burden of establishing a prima

facie case of discrimination unde r the McDonnell Douglas burden -

shifting framework, Working America had a legitimate non -

discriminatory reason to not offer her a position of canvasser:

a poor interview.

45 . Interview performance qualifies as a legally

sufficient, legitimate, nondiscrim inatory reason not to hire a

candidate if the hiring employer articulates a clear and

reasonably specific factual basis on which it based its opinion.

See Babb v. SecÓy, DepÓt of Vets . Aff. , 743 F . AppÓ x 280, 290 ,

n.4 (11th Cir. 2018) (finding decision to not promote plaintiff ,

where she had offered inadequate answers to technical questions

and made disparaging remarks about coworkers in her interview ,

was not motivated by retaliatory animus where decision was based

on plaintiffÓs interview performance). 4/ This is particularly

true where, as in this case, the job involves public interaction

and the applicantÓs demeanor and responses at the interview are

inappropriate. See Saweress v. Ivey , 354 F. Supp. 3d 1288, 1299

(M.D. Fla. 2019) (Ð Defendant Ó s proffere d reasons for failing to

hire Plaintiff ÏÏ poor communication and interpersonal skills

displayed during his [deputy sheriff] interview ÏÏ satisfy

Defendant Ó s burden of articulating a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory basis for the decision.Ñ); McCoy v. People

Care , Inc. , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134966, at *17 - 18 (S.D.N.Y.

Sep. 20, 2013) ( finding applicant was not suitable for

employment as a home health aide after employer observed her

disruptive behavior and inability or unwillingness to follow

directions in applica tion process). A ny reasonable employer

would have been justifiably concerned about hiring an employee

who behaved as Ms. Schlein did at her interview, or who made

statements similar to the type made by Ms. Schlein at the

hearing regarding minorities and i mmigrants.

46 . Given that Working America established it had a

legitimate, non discriminatory reason not to hire Ms. Schlein,

the burden shifts back to her to demonstrate by competent

evidence Working AmericaÓs reason not to hire her was Ða

pretext.Ñ Mc Donnell Douglas , 411 U.S. at 805. A ÐpretextÑ is a

reason giv en in justification for conduct that is not the real

reason . Id. Ms. Schlein could do this by offering competent

evidence that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated

Working America, or indirectly by showing that the explan ation

is Ðunworthy of credence.Ñ Id. at 804 - 05.

47 . Here, Ms. Schlein has not offered sufficient evidence

that would cast doubt on Working AmericaÓs proffered

nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring , nor has she sho wn that

this reason was not what actually motivated its conduct. See

Taylor v. Roche , 196 Fed. App Óx 799, 802 (11th Cir. 2006)

(finding Air F orceÓs assertion that plaintiffÓ s poor attitude

during his interview was not a pretext for discrimination);

Conner v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc. , 343 Fed. Appx. 537 (11th Cir.

2009) (finding decision not to hire was not a pretext for

discrimination where during the interview candidate indicated he

was not willing to discipline employees, lacked leadership,

decision - making s kills, and technical aptitude and experience

required for the position.).

48 . Rather, much of Ms . SchleinÓs testimony and argument

at the hearing was that she was treated unfairly by Ms. Darcourt,

and should have been allowed to move ahead in the hiring process

after she had educated herself on immigration issues. Even if

the undersigned accepted Ms. Schlein Ós view that Ms. Darcourt

over reacted to the use of ÐillegalsÑ in the interview, there was

no evidence the decision not to hire Ms. Schlein was moti vated

by her religion, race, or nationality. Ð[T] he wisdom of the

decision cannot be second - guessed here. A plaintiff cannot

establish pretext merely by showing he or she was better

qualified than the hired candidate; the plaintiff must show the

hiring d ecision was mad e because of an illegal motive.Ñ Mells ,

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103891, at *17 ( finding plaintiff who

arguably had more experience than other candidates, but ranked

fourth out of five candidates after interview portion of hiring

process, had not shown decision to not hire her was racially

motivated) .

4 9 . Consequently, Ms. Schlein did not meet h er ultimate

burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Working

AmericaÓs actions wer e discriminatory based on her religion,

race, or eth nicity.

50. The undersigned finds Working AmericaÓs actions did

not violate the FCRA.

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 dism issing Frances B. SchleinÓs

Petition for Relief.

DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

HETAL DESAI

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Bu ilding

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

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 21st day of June , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Although the trans mittal letter from the Commission indicated

a Charge of Discrimination was attached, it was not included. A

Technical Assistance Questionnaire for Employment Complaints

against another entity unrelated to Working America was

attached, but not considered.

2/ Ms. Schlein repeatedly asserted at the hearing that Ðit is

very obviousÑ that she is Ða JewÑ because of her features and

her name. The undersigned finds Ms. Schlein is Jewish, not

because of her appearance or her name, but because her testimony

tha t she is Jewish was undisputed.

3 / Pursuant to section 120.57(1)(c), hearsay is admissible in

adminis trative proceedings, but it is not sufficient in itself

to support a finding of fact. Rather, it can only be used to

supplement or explain non - hearsay evi dence.

4/ See also Mells v. Shinseki , 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103891

(M.D. Fla. 2015) (finding no discrimination where decision to

not hire plaintiff was based on her inability to discuss

responsibilities for the promotion adequately at the interview);

Con ner v. Lafarge N . Am. Inc. , 343 F. App Ó x 537, 538 (11th Cir.

2009) (accepting employer's nondiscriminatory reason for not

promoting plaintiff; plaintiff performed poorly in interview for

management position in areas of leadership, decision - making, and

safe ty); Johnson v. City of Mobile, Ala. 321 Fed. App Óx 826,

833, (11th Cir 2009) (finding decision not to hire was not

discriminatory where applicant was tentative and lacked self -

confidence during the interview).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Frances Schlein

108 Puelba Lane

Kissimmee, Florida 34743

(eServed)

Kathleen M. Keller, Esquire

Bredhoff & Kaiser, PLLC

Suite 1000

805 15th Street Northwest

Washington, DC 20005

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(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 issue the Final Order in this case.