20-002667 Lorenzo Bradshaw vs. City Of Tampa Parks And Recreation Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, September 9, 2020.

Summary: Petitioner declined to testify regarding the alleged discriminatory acts; he failed to meet his burden of proof. Recommendation: Dismiss the Petition.

section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2019) 1 ; an d , if so, what remedy should be

imposed.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On or about May 1, 2019, Petitioner, Lorenzo Bradshaw (Mr. Bradshaw) ,

filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination (Complaint) with the

Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) al leging

discrimination based on his race, color , or in retaliation for engaging in some

protected activity. Specifically, Mr. Bradshaw alleged the following acts were

discriminatory:

Claimant, an African American Male, began his

employment with Respondent on 0 5/31 /2001 and

held the position of Automotive Equipment

Operator I. Claimant was subjected to disparate treatment, different terms and conditions of

employment and was held to a different standard because of his Race, Color and was retaliated

against f or opposing the unlawful discrimination he

was subjected to. Claimant has been employed with

Respondent for 17 years and has made several

attempts to advance his career with Respondent.

Claimant has been denied these advancements due to his race, color and appearance (dreadlocks). In

07/2018 he attempted to apply for an opening with

Respondent, that position was Service Supervisor

II. Claimant met the qualifications set forth by

Respondent and believes he is fully qualified for the

position. However, he was not selected for the

positions nor has he been selected for any of 15

positions that were available and was only ever

interviewed for two of the positions he applied for.

Claimants has filed 3 internal grievances in regard

to not being considered or promo ted with

Respondent, and every single one was

“ investigated ” and returned as denied. Claimant

has been retaliated against by three individuals

Julio Barrera (Team Supervisor), Mike Fernandez

1 All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 201 9 versions unless otherwise noted.

(Site Coordinator), and Marlon Hall (Site

Supervisor). Julio hara ssed Claimant and wore a

shirt that said, “ I own you. ” Claimant has filed a

grievance against Julio. Mike almost ran over Claimant prior to almost running him over Mike was giving Claimant a menacing stare. Claimant has also filed a grievance against Mike who has

retaliated and bullied him, creating a hostile work environment. Lastly, Marlon rode pass Claimant bobbing his head with both his middle fingers in the air directed at claimant. There were two other witnesses who saw this. All three are known to be a

part of a “ clique ” of supervisors who participate in

harassing, antagonizing and have created a hostile work environment. No remedial action has been taken by Respondent, despite the many grievances filed by Claimant in fact their behavior has gotten

pr ogressively worse, especially after Claimant

submitted his grievances to Respondent. The

events outlined above have caused Claimant a great deal of emotional and physical stress. Every

day he is anxious prior ‘ to going to work as well as

after. This has ca used him to have trouble sleeping

and has negatively impacted his personal

relationships with his former fiancé ’ and children.

Both of his children live with him, but he has had

to end his relationship with their mother. To

combat this, Claimant has made a n appointment

with a Specialist to help him deal with these issues that he is experiencing at work. Physically, he has been diagnosed with medical condition caused by

the City of Tampa. He is taking medications that

he has not had to previously to deal wit h. Claimant

has taken the steps that he felt were necessary to try and resolve the issues with the City of Tampa

and has gotten nowhere. Overall, this has

negatively impacted Claimant ’ s entire life.

The Commission conducted an investigation of Mr. Bradsha w’s

allegations. On May 13, 2020, the Commission issued a written

determination that there was no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful

employment practice occurred. The Commission’s determination provided in

relevant part:

The Florida Commission on Huma n Relations

(Commission) has completed its investigation of

this matter. The Office of General Counsel has completed its review of the investigation and finds that it is unlikely that unlawful discrimination occurred in this matter.

On the basis of the re port from the Commission ’ s

Office of Employment Investigations and recommendation from the Commission ’ s Office of

General Counsel, pursuant to the authority

delegated to me as Executive Director of the

Florida Commission on Human Relations, I have determin ed that no reasonable cause exists to

believe that an unlawful practice occurred.

Michelle Wilson

Executive Director

Mr. Bradshaw timely filed a Petition for Relief (Petition) with the

Commission citing a “Discriminatory Em ployment Practice.” In response to

specific questions within the Petition, Mr. Bradshaw attached a one - page

typed response as follows

2 :

(4. WHEN AND HOW DID PETITIONER

RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE COMMISSION ’ S

DETERMINATION :)

#4. I received the notice of the Commission ’ s

Decision on Saturda y May 16, 2020.

( 5. THE FOLLOWING IS A CONCISE

STATEMENT OF THE ULTIMATE FACTS

ALLEGED, INCLUDING THE SPECIFIC FACTS PETITIONER CONTENDS WARRANT

REVERSAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE

COMMISSION ’ S DETERMINATION:)

2 For ease of reference, the specific questions are within each parenthetical before the

response.

#5. The documents provided outlines [sic] my

cla ims that I have been subjected to discrimination

due to my race and physical appearance. The City

of Tampa has repeatedly denied me the opportunity

to advance my career by denying me positions that I am qualified for due to the fact that I am a Black and t he fact that members of the hiring committee

do not like how my hairstyle [sic] . Those who were

hired in these positions instead of me did not meet the qualifications as outlined by the job description and qualifications created and prov ided by The City

of Tampa. Additionally, I have experienced

harassment by fellow employees and members of management in response to my numerous complaints to The City of Tampa Human Resources Department. Further, I have experienced

retaliation and bullying by members of

manag ement which has led to a hostile work

environment that The City of Tampa has failed to

rectify. I am seeking a reversal and/or modification of the of the [sic] Commission ’ s Determinations due

to the incomplete or rushed determination by the newly appointed investigator. After receiving notice

that the investigation was nearing or passed the

one hundred and eighty day (180) investigation period, I [r] eceived a letter and notification that I

was receiving a new investigator due to the untimely death of the pr evious investigator. Due to

these unfortunate events, I submitted the Election of Rights Form giving permission to continue the investigation, in hopes to give the new investigator

enough time to investigate my claim. This was on

January 10, 2020. It is ve ry concerning that my

case was closed after about three (3) months, none

of my witnesses, whose contact numbers I was

asked to provide twice, were ever contacted or

interviewed. I only spoke to my new investigator once. I am requesting a full investigation or a

reversal of decision made.

(6. RESPONDENT HAS VIOLATED THE

FOLLOWING FLORIDA STATUTE (Check One):

ũ Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as

Amended, or

ũ Florida Fair Housing Act, as Amended

THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXPLANATION OF

HOW THE ALLEGED FACTS RELATE TO THE SPECIFIC FLORIDA STATUTE:)

#6. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196 4 The

City of Tampa has violated my employee rights

according to as it relates to disparate treatment by

my employer. For the reasons outlined in my original complaint filed on May 1, 2019; my EEOC

Response Letter, and the above condensed

statement.

Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 Section 760.07

Remed ies for Unlawful Discrimination and Florida

in which The City of Tampa and their hiring

representatives discriminated against me during their hiring practices during my numerous attempts to interview for positions that I am well

qu alified for in exchange for those who were not as

qualified.

Civil Rights Act of 1992 Section 760.10 (a) in

which I was refused advancement or movement

into open positions within The City of Tampa based on my race and physical appearance.

( 7. PETITIONER SEEKS THE FOLLOWING

RELIEF:)

I am seeking either a proper and thorough re -

investigation of my claims or an administrative

hearing per my rights outlined in the Civil Rights

Act.

On June 11, 2020, the Commission referred the petition to DOAH, and the

undersigned was assigned to conduct the requested he aring. DOAH issued an

Initial Order to the parties on June 11, 2020, seeking specific information in

order to set the appropriate hearing date, time , and manner.

On June 22, 2020, after the parties fail ed to timely respond to the Initial

Order, the undersigned issued the Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference

(Notice) and Order of Pre - Hearing Instructions (Order), scheduling the

hearing for July 14, 2020. As a result of the on - going Covid - 19 health

pa ndemic, a Procedural Order was issued on June 25, 2020. The Notice and

Order were served on all parties at their address of record on file with DOAH.

On June 30, 2020, Respondent’s Motion for Continuance of Hearing and to

Change the Site of the hearing w as filed. Following a telephonic conference,

the July 14, 2020 , hearing was canceled, and shortl y thereafter the hearing

was re scheduled to August 19, 2020 , at 9:00 a.m., via video teleconference

from the DOAH offices in Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida, and Zoom

Conference technology.

On August 10, 2020, Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Petition or Compel

Deposition and for Sanctions (motion) was filed. A telephonic motion hearing

was held on August 13, 2020. On August 14, 2020, an Order denying the motion to dismiss and granting the motion to compel was issued. On

August 19, 2020, that part of the motion regarding sanctions was denied.

The start of the final hearing was delayed for approximately 15 to 20

minutes while DOAH staff contacted Mr. Bradshaw , an d confirmed the Zoom

Conference tech nology connection information. Mr. Bradshaw joined the

hearing and it was completed on August 19, 2020.

At the final hearing, the hearing procedures were explained to the parties.

As Mr. Bradshaw was appearing by himsel f, he was offered the opportunity

to provide an opening statemen t and to testify. Mr. Bradshaw declined to

provide an opening statement. After Mr. Bradshaw was administered the

oath to testify on his own behalf, but despite four separate colloquies between

the undersigned and Mr. Bradshaw to provide his testimony, he declined to

do so. Further, Mr. Bradshaw did not offer any exhibits. Respondent’s counsel

provided a brief opening statement. Respondent’s Exhibit 1, Mr. Bradshaw’s deposition, taken on August 17, 2020, was admitted in evidence over

objection.

3

The parties were advised that the proposed recommended orders (PROs)

were to be filed ten days after the transcript was filed. The one - volume

Transcript was filed with DOAH on August 24, 2020. To date, neither party has filed a PRO.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

1. The final hearing was officially convened at 9:18 a.m. on August 19,

2020.

2. Mr. Bradshaw declined to provide any evidence to support his

discrimination allegations as set forth in either the Petition or original

Complaint. 4

3. After Mr. Bradshaw’s fourth refusal to provide his testimony, the

undersigned asked the following: “I am understanding that you are not going to proceed at this time. I should say at this hearing; is that correct, sir?” Mr. Bradsh aw responded: “Yes. At this hearing. Yes, you’re correct.”

4. Respondent’s counsel and a City of Tampa Parks and Recreation

representative appeared via Zoom Conference technology at the final hearing.

3 When the undersigned asked Mr. Bradshaw if he had any objections to the deposition being

admitted int o evidence, his response was: “t hat basically it’s nothing g oing on. There’s no

opening statement, there or closing, and so the deposition shouldn’t have anything to do with

this hearing.” The objection is illogical as the deposition was taken for “the purposes of

discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the Florida

Rules of Civil Procedure.”

4 A fter the undersigned administered the oath, Mr. Bradshaw was asked four different t imes

to provide his testimony. See t r . at : pg . 16, lines 17 through 19; pg. 18, lines 17 through 19;

p g . 19, lines 16 through 20; and pg . 21, line 25 through pg . 22, line 5.

At the start of the hearing, several persons were in t he Zoom Conference

waiting room.

5. After the undersigned determined that Petitioner was not going to

provide any testimony or evidence, the eight persons remaining in the Zoom

Conference waiting room were admitted into the proceeding. Each person was

iden tified as a witness for Respondent. The undersigned confirmed with each

witness that their testimony would not be needed as the hearing had been

completed.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

6 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

parties and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569,

120.57(1), and 760.11(6) and (7), Fla. Stat. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Y -

4.016; and McElrath v. Burley , 707 So. 2d 836, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA

1998)(finding the statute (chapter 760) on its face s atisfies the right to due

process by providing for an administrative hearing followed by judicial appellate review).

7 . Petitioner has the burden of proving a prima facie case of

discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. See Valenzuela v.

GlobeG round N. Am., LLC , 18 So. 3d 17, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); and

§ 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. “ Preponderance of the evidence ” is the “ greater

weight ” of the evidence, or evidence that “ more likely than not ” tends to prove

the fact at issue. This means that if the undersigned found the parties

presented equally competent substantial evidence, Petitioner would not have

proved his claims by the “ greater weight ” of the evidence, and would not

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

2000 ).

8. Mr. Bradshaw declined to provide any evidence to support his

discrimination allegation; thus he failed to meet his burden of proof.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

R ECOMMENDED that the Florid a Commission on Human Relations issue a

final order finding that Petitioner, Lorenzo Bradshaw, did not prove that the

City of Tampa Parks and Recreation committed any unlawful employment

practices, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case in its

entirety.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 9th day of September , 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

L YNNE A. Q UIMBY - P ENNOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Flori da 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 9th day of September , 2020 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Re lations

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Lorenzo Bradshaw

505 Gay Road

Seffner, Florida 33584

Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Esquire

Gray Robinson, P.A.

401 East Jackson Street , Suite 2700

Tampa, Florida 33602

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

4075 Esplanade Way , Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

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.