98-002539
Mack Williams vs.
Shands At Alachua General Hospital And Santa Fe Health Care
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, January 8, 1999.
Recommended Order on Friday, January 8, 1999.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8MACK WILLIAMS, )
11)
12Petitioner, )
14)
15vs. ) Case No. 98-2539
20)
21SHANDS AT ALACHUA GENERAL )
26HOSPITAL/SANTA FE HEALTH CARE, )
31)
32Respondent. )
34__________________________________)
35RECOMMENDED ORDER
37Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing on
48September 28, 1998, in Gainesville, Florida, before Ella Jane P.
58Davis, a duly assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division
68of Administrative Hearings.
71APPEARANCES
72For Petitioner: Jesse W. Jones, As Qualified Representative
80The Dutton Building, Suite 203
8520 West University Avenue
89Gainesville, Florida 32601
92For Respondent: Jennifer M. Monrose, Esquire
98Alley and Alley/Ford
101and Harrison LLP
104Post Office Box 1427
108Tampa, Florida 33601
111STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
115Is Shands at Alachua General Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care
124guilty of a discriminatory employment practice against
131Petitioner?
132PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
134On May 29, 1998, the Florida Commission on Human Relations
144(FCHR) transmitted a May 29, 1998, "Notice of Transmittal," an
154April 22, 1998, "Determination of No Cause," an October 25, 1993,
"165Charge of Discrimination" by Petitioner against "Mid-American
172Food Services of Florida," and a May 22, 1998, "Petition for
183Relief" by Petitioner against "Shands at Alachua General
191Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care," to the Division of Administrative
200Hearings (DOAH).
202On June 26, 1998, the undersigned mailed a Notice of
212Hearing, scheduling the disputed fact hearing before DOAH for
221September 28, 1998.
224On or about August 12, 1998, Shands at Alachua General
234Hospital filed a Motion to Dismiss, based upon grounds that it
245was a successor in interest but not a successor of liability for
257Petitioner's charge. No timely response was filed by Petitioner.
266An order was entered September 17, 1998, notifying the
275parties that the only efficient way to determine the Motion to
286Dismiss was an "in person" hearing during which the parties and
297the undersigned might simultaneously view the same documents and
306during which testimony on the issues raised in the motion might
317be heard and that the motion would be considered at the
328commencement of the scheduled formal hearing on the merits.
337On September 24, 1998, FCHR's General Counse l forwarded to
347DOAH Petitioner's "Charge of Discrimination" dated February 16,
3551996, which she represented should have accompanied Petitioner's
363May 22, 1998, "Petition for Relief" and FCHR's "Notice of
373Transmittal" dated May 29, 1998. I have taken official
382recognition of this letter and attachment.
388Prior to commencing the motion hearing, Jesse W. Jones was
398examined on the record and accepted as Petitioner's Qualified
407Representative for purposes of this case only.
414Therefore, all procedural aspects of the case(s) were
422considered, various stipulations were entered into by the
430parties, and oral rulings were made. Because these procedural
439aspects affect jurisdiction of this case and the merits of one or
451more of Petitioner's sequential Charges of Discrimination, and
459because no transcript was provided, these matters will be covered
469in the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
479Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Turner Johnson,
487Jr., Turner Johnson, Sr., and Naomi Hall. Petitioner testified
496on his own behalf and had nineteen exhibits admitted.
505Respondent presented the oral testimony of Constance Schott.
513Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order was filed
519October 26, 1998. Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order was
527filed November 4, 1998. By agreement of the parties, both
537submittals have been considered in the preparation of this
546Recommended Order.
548FINDINGS OF FACT
5511. Petitioner is a black male. His birth date is March 1,
5631933. At various times, he has filed three Charges of
573Discrimination with FCHR.
5762. The entity named in the May 22, 1998, Petition for
587Relief is "Shands at Alachua General Hospital/Santa Fe Health
596Care." "Shands at Alachua General Hospital" is the only entity
606which timely received FCHR's May 29, 1998, Notice of Transmittal.
616It also is the only entity which has appeared in this proceeding
628as a potential Respondent or for formal hearing herein.
6373. It was stipulated that in 1992, Petitioner filed a
647Charge of Discrimination with FCHR. Neither party hereto has a
657copy of that charge. To the best of Petitioner's recollection,
667his 1992 Charge of Discrimination was made against "Alachua
676General Hospital" for refusing to hire him and no charge was made
688at that time against "Shands at Alachua General Hospital."
697Apparently, that Charge was lost within FCHR. That Charge has
707never been before the undersigned, and I find as a matter of fact
720and law that it cannot be considered herein. 1
7294. On October 25, 1993, Petitioner filed a second Charge of
740Discrimination with FCHR. This was the Charge transmitted to
749DOAH on May 29, 1998, together with a May 22, 1998, Petition for
762Relief, and which gave rise to the instant proceeding. By this
7731993 Charge, Petitioner had alleged discrimination against
780himself by Mid-American Food Services of Florida. The 1993
789Charge also alleged that the last act of discrimination by Mid-
800American had occurred on February 28, 1991. Petitioner
808stipulated that FCHR never made any determination of "cause" or
"818no cause" against Mid-American because his 1993 Charge was
827settled and he received money damages for Mid-American as a
837result of the settlement. Accordingly, it would appear that the
847October 25, 1993, Charge has never been before the undersigned,
857and I find as a matter of fact and law that it cannot be
871considered herein.
8735. On February 16, 1996, Petitioner filed a third Charge of
884Discrimination against "Santa Fe Health Care" on the basis of
894race. That Charge alleged that the most recent discrimination
903had occurred on August 3, 1995. The parties stipulated this
913February 16, 1996, Charge was the charge which underlay the
923FCHR's April 22, 1998, "Determination of No Cause" and the
933May 22, 1998, "Petition for Relief" which FCHR had transmitted to
944DOAH to initiate the instant proceeding on or about May 29,
9551998. 2 Upon the foregoing stipulation and a September 24, 1998,
966letter of the FCHR General Counsel, declaring that the
975February 16, 1996, Charge of Discrimination should have
983accompanied the FCHR's May 29, 1998, Notice of Transmittal
992(see supra ), I find that this instant proceeding is bounded by
1004these documents.
10066. The May 22, 1998, "Petition for Relief" added the words
"1017age 60" in an attempt to add age discrimination to the previous
1029sole allegation of racial discrimination contained in the
1037February 16, 1996, Charge. It also named a new Respondent,
"1047Shands at Alachua General Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care," in
1056place of "Santa Fe Health Care," which had been the sole employer
1068named by Petitioner in his February 16, 1996, Charge. Apparently
1078the "new" Respondent's name was derived from the April 22, 1998,
"1089Determination No Cause" entered by FCHR. FCHR mailed the
1098April 22, 1998, "Determination No Cause" and the May 22, 1998,
"1109Petition for Relief" to "Shands at Alachua General
1117Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care, 801 Southwest 2nd Avenue,
1125Gainesville, Florida 32602."
11287. After the foregoing pleadings were clarified, Petitioner
1136and Shands at Alachua General Hospital opposed any remand to FCHR
1147for reconciliation of documents or so that FCHR could provide
1157notice to other appropriate legal persons of the pending case.
1167These parties stipulated that they were prepared to proceed to
1177formal hearing on the merits of the issues as framed by the
1189February 16, 1996, Charge, April 22, 1998, Determination of No
1199Cause, and May 22, 1998, Petition for Relief, even if it required
1211a second FCHR notice and another evidentiary hearing as to other
1222entities.
12238. These parties stipulated that on February 16, 1996,
1232after sale of Alachua General Hospital to Shands, Petitioner
1241filed his Charge of Discrimination against "Santa Fe Health
1250Care," not Shands. The first notice received by Shands regarding
1260Petitioner's allegations and Charge of Discrimination was almost
1268a year later on January 23, 1997, when FCHR mailed its Notice of
1281Charge to Shands. So far as can be determined on this record, no
1294other Notice of Charge was sent to any entity.
13039. The parties stipulated that Petitioner never applied for
1312employment with Shands and that he is not alleging herein that he
1324applied for employment with Alachua General Hospital during any
1333period of time when Alachua General Hospital was owned and
1343operated by Shands. 3
134710. The parties stipulated that Shands did not own Alachua
1357General Hospital prior to 1996; that Shands purchased Alachua
1366General Hospital in an asset sale with no stock exchanged in the
1378transaction or merger of the two companies; that after the sale,
1389there was no overlap of officers or directors of the predecessor
1400and successor corporations; and that after the sale, there was no
1411overlay in labor relations functions.
141611. The parties stipulated that four to five years before
1426the purchase of Alachua General Hospital by Shands, Petitioner
1435was employed by Mid-America Food Service, which entity had
1444obtained a contract to provide meals for congregate meal sites
1454and home delivered meal clients -- "Meals On Wheels."
146312. The parties stipulated that in 1992, approximately one
1472year after obtaining the meal contract, the contract was put out
1483for bid and Alachua General Hospital was the new successful
1493bidder.
149413. The parties stipulated that from 1992 until the
1503present, Petitioner was aware of how to apply for employment with
1514Alachua General Hospital.
151714. The only cognizable pleadings herein assert that in
15261992, Petitioner had applied for positions at Alachua General
1535Hospital on several occasions but was denied employment based on
1545his race and/or age.
154915. The parties stipulated that on April 22, 1998, FCHR
1559determined that there was no reasonable cause to believe that
1569Shands had violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
1580dismissed Petitioner's complaint [sic] of discrimination. (See
1587the April 22, 1998, "Determination No Cause.")
159516. Evidence and testimony at formal hearing support a
1604finding that Petitioner was employed by Mid-America as a
1613chef-manager from approximately 1986 to 1992. From 1991 to 1992,
1623Mid-America had the Meals On Wheels contract.
163017. Evidence and testimony at formal hearing support a
1639finding that after Mid-America lost the Meals On Wheels contract
1649to Alachua General Hospital in 1992, Petitioner continued to work
1659for Mid-America until the original contract expired. During this
1668period, he was approached by Alachua General Hospital personnel
1677who observed his Meals On Wheels procedures and asked him to
1688teach his procedures to their staff.
169418. Evidence and testimony at formal hearing support a
1703finding that during this period, Petitioner was aware that
1712Alachua General Hospital was an entity which provided health
1721care, while Santa Fe Health Care was the hospital's food service
1732arm. There is no clear evidence that Santa Fe Health Care was
1744ever a corporate entity in its own right.
175219. Petitioner conceded that no one from either Alachua
1761General Hospital or Santa Fe Health Care promised Petitioner a
1771job under the new Meals On Wheels contract or otherwise, but Beth
1783Britt, a contact person between Mid-America and Alachua General
1792Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care, insinuated that Petitioner would
1800get a job when the contract changed over and food preparation was
1812done out of a different building.
181820. In anticipation of getting a job with the new contract
1829provider, Petitioner had remained on the job for nine months,
1839holding his staff together. Three black co-workers (two male and
1849one female) testified that they had been made no promises of
1860future employment by Shands, Alachua General Hospital, or Santa
1869Fe Health Care. Naomi Hall (female) testified that she had heard
1880Petitioner say that he had been promised employment. Ms. Hall
1890stayed on because Mid-America had offered her a percentage of the
1901company. She only hoped to be offered a job with the new
1913contract provider, Alachua General Hospital.
191821. At the changeover of the contract, the new contract
1928provider did not offer a job to any witness or to Petitioner.
194022. Immediately after the changeover, Petitioner instructed
1947the new providers' personnel what to do. A secretary told
1957Petitioner that Mr. Hope with Alachua General Hospital would get
1967in touch with him. At that time, Petitioner did not know of any
1980positions open at Alachua General Hospital or Santa Fe Health
1990Care.
199123. Petitioner applied to Miss Van Harrin for jobs at
2001Alachua General Hospital three times: March 4, 1992; April 4,
20111992; and approximately April 25, 1992 or mid-May. Because he
2021had been chef-manager, Petitioner felt he was overqualified for
2030all three jobs for which he applied.
203724. Petitioner thought some females, ages 25-30 were hired
2046by Alachua General Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care during this
2055period in 1992. He did not testify as to their race, and he did
2069not know if they were hired for the same jobs for which he had
2083applied. He only knew that he did not see them on the premises
2096when he applied but did not see them later. Petitioner conceded
2107that Alachua General Hospital hires blacks.
211325. Petitioner was never hired. Petitioner felt he was
2122discriminated against because he had to fill out so many
2132applications; because he was not summoned back to work as a chef-
2144manager; and because he was not hired for other positions when he
2156applied.
215726. Constance Schott has been employed in the Human
2166Resources Department of Alachua General Hospital, since
2173February 1, 1996. The building complex/physical plant has been
2182at 801 Southwest 2nd Avenue, Gainesville, Florida, for twenty
2191years, but it was purchased as an asset by Shands in February
22031996, after a 90-day "due diligence" process, during which the
2213prior owners (apparently a conglomerate nicknamed "Av-Med"), did
2222not disclose to Shands any of Petitioner's Charges of
2231Discrimination.
223227. Respondent has argued, but failed to show, exactly who
2242or what entity owned Alachua General Hospital/Santa Fe Health
2251Care in 1992.
225428. Ms. Schott first became aware of Petitioner's
2262complaints in January 1997, when FCHR notified her of the
2272February 16, 1996, Charge (See Finding of Fact 8). At that time,
2284she informed FCHR that Shands did not own or operate Alachua
2295General Hospital in 1992 and that Santa Fe Health Care was
2306essentially non-existent.
230829. There is no reason to assume, on the basis of this
2320record, that FCHR ever investigated Petitioner's charge of age
2329discrimination, formulated any proposed final agency action on
2337the claim of age discrimination, or notified Av-Med of any
2347charges against it.
2350CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
235330. This case arises as a disputed fact case pursuant to
2364Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, [1997], and is brought
2372pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Nuances of
2380jurisdiction are discussed, infra.
238431. As a matter of fact and law, Petitioner's lost 1992
2395Charge of Discrimination, whoever it named as "employer," is not
2405before me. FCHR still has jurisdiction of that case.
241432. As a matter of fact and law, Petitioner's October 25,
24251993, Charge of Discrimination against Mid-American Food Services
2433of Florida for alleged discriminatory acts up to February 28,
24431991, is not before me, and FCHR should clarify that a settlement
2455has been achieved.
245833. Petitioner and "Shands at Alachua General Hospital"
2466opposed any remand to FCHR for reconciliation of documents or so
2477that FCHR could provide a Notice of Determination and Notice of
2488Transmittal to any other appropriate legal persons in the pending
2498case, and both parties stipulated that they were prepared to
2508proceed to formal hearing on the merits of the issues as framed
2520by the February 16, 1996 Charge, April 22, 1998, Determination of
2531No Cause, and May 22, 1998 Petition for Relief, even if this
2543procedure required new notices by the FCHR and a second
2553evidentiary hearing before DOAH for other legal entities.
256134. This stipulation does not absolve FCHR of noticing the
2571correct employer, whoever it may be. See Henry v. Texas
2581Technological University , 446 F. Supp. 141 (U.S.N.D. of Texas
25901979) It likewise does not empower the undersigned to accomplish
2600what the Petitioner prayed for in his post-hearing proposal,
2609which is to "request FCHR submit a timely investigation upon the
2620rightful violator of Title VII in this action; And to request
2631that the respondent prove that individuals of one sex, national
2641origin, or religion could perform the duties of the positions
2651applied in a safe and efficient manner and that the essence of
2663the business would be undermined by hiring exclusively members of
2673a given class" 4
267735. This cause is limited by the February 16, 1996, Charge
2688of Discrimination against "Santa Fe Health Care" on the sole
2698basis of race, the last alleged discrimination occurring on
2707August 3, 1995. The April 22, 1998, Determination of No Cause
2718naming "Shands at Alachua General Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care"
2727constitutes FCHR's proposed final agency action on the charge of
2737racial discrimination. The portion of the May 22, 1998, Petition
2747for Relief which attempts to add a charge of age discrimination
2758must be struck and cannot be considered. See Luke v. Pic 'N'
2770Save Drug Company, Inc. , Division of Administrative Hearings Case
2779No: 94-0294 (Recommended Order of 8/25/94; Final Order of
278811/30/95); Austin v. Florida Power Corp. , Division of
2796Administrative Hearings Case No: 90-5137 (Recommended Order of
28046/20/91; Final Order of 10/24/91, filed 10/30/91). Therefore,
2812the instant case only concerns the issue of racial
2821discrimination, not age discrimination. 5
282636. Regardless of whom it was posed against, Petitioner's
2835February 16, 1996, Charge of racial discrimination, which alleged
2844that the last act of discrimination occurred on August 3, 1995,
2855presents a statute of limitations problem. At formal hearing,
2864Petitioner did not even attempt to prove any discriminatory act
2874occurring on or about August 3, 1995. All his "evidence" for the
2886racial discrimination Charge filed February 16, 1996, relates
2894back to late April or mid-May, 1992. This time frame would
2905suggest that his February 16, 1996 Charge was not timely filed
2916within 365 days of the last discriminatory act. See Section
2926760.11(1), Florida Statutes. 6 However, be that as it may, the
2937undersigned will treat this problem as a "failure of proof,"
2947rather than an absolute statutory bar.
295337. Under the facts as found, Petitioner never sought
2962employment from Shands at Alachua General Hospital. He sought it
2972from Alachua General Hospital and/or Santa Fe Health Care.
2981Certainly, Shands never had a fair opportunity for any defense,
2991because it was not notified of any charge against it or its
3003predecessors in interest until three to six years after any
3013allegations were made. 7 Indeed, due to repeated FCHR "snafus,"
3023DOAH would not even have had jurisdiction of Shands, but for both
3035parties voluntarily offering to try this case on the merits after
3046its procedural history was unraveled in the course of the hearing
3057on the motion to dismiss. However, upon that stipulation, I
3067conclude that I have jurisdiction to resolve the issues between
3077Petitioner and Shands at Alachua General Hospital. Likewise, to
3086the degree that Shands at Alachua General Hospital may have any
3097succession in interest or liability for Alachua General Hospital
3106or Santa Fe Health Care as the food service arm of the old
3119Alachua General Hospital, those issues also may be addressed
3128here. However, this conclusion does not absolve FCHR of
3137determining and noticing Av-Med or any other remnants of Alachua
3147General Hospital or Santa Fe Health Care, if it finds they exist.
3159See Henry v. Texas Technological University , supra .
316738. Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof. In
3178order to prove a prima facie case of racial discrimination,
3188Petitioner must prove that (1) he is a member of a protected
3200class; (2) he was qualified for and applied for employment with
3211Respondent; (3) he was rejected; (4) a member of a non-protected
3222class was hired for the position for which he applied.
323239. Petitioner established that in 1992 he was a member of
3243a protected group -- black. In that year, he applied for jobs
3255for which he was qualified. He did not know if others were hired
3268for those same jobs, but he did know that blacks were regularly
3280hired by Alachua General Hospital/Santa Fe Health Care.
3288Petitioner failed to prove a prima facie case of discrimination
3298on the basis of race.
3303RECOMMENDATION
3304Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law,
3314it is
3316RECOMMENDED:
33171. That the Florida Commission on Human Relations make a
3327diligent search to determine if it has ever received a 1992
3338Charge of Discrimination from Petitioner and advise him and any
3348named employer(s) of its status.
33532. That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a
3363Final Order which recognizes Petitioner's stipulation herein that
3371he has settled his October 25, 1993, Charge of Discrimination
3381against Mid-American Foods and dismisses that charge.
33883. That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a
3398second Final Order that dismisses Petitioner's May 22, 1998,
3407Petition for Relief against Shands at Alachua General Hospital,
3416and bars any claims or charges Petitioner has alleged against
3426Shands at Alachua General Hospital before August 3, 1995 (the
3436last alleged date of discrimination); and that in the same Final
3447Order, the Commission determine whether any prior employer
3455remnants (be they Alachua General Hospital, Santa Fe Health Care,
3465or Av-Med), should be investigated or given an opportunity to be
3476heard with regard to any charges or claims arising out of
3487Petitioner's February 16, 1996, Charge of Discrimination.
3494DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 1999, in
3504Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
3508___________________________________
3509ELLA JANE P. DAVIS
3513Administrative Law Judge
3516Division of Administrative Hearings
3520The DeSoto Building
35231230 Apalachee Parkway
3526Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
3529(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
3533Fax Filing (850) 921-6847
3537www.doah.state.fl.us
3538Filed with the Clerk of the
3544Division of Administrative Hearings
3548this 8th day of January, 1999.
3554ENDNOTES
35551 / It is noted that Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order
3565claims for the first time, and contrary to certain oral
3575stipulations, that the February 16, 1996, Charge of
3583Discrimination was merely a means of trying to get FCHR to
3594activate or resurrect the 1992 Charge. The evidence shows
3603Petitioner did repeatedly ask FCHR to act on the 1992 Charge.
36142 / See endnote 1
36193 / See endnote 1
36244 / This language seems to track case law permitting the
3635exclusive hiring of co-religionists or minorities, but the post-
3644hearing submittal is the first time Petitioner even mentioned
3653national origin or religion. Certainly, no evidence was
3661presented on these issues.
36655 / Assuming, arguendo that discrimination as to age could be
3676considered, Petitioner could not prevail because he failed to
3685prove a prima facie case of age discrimination, in that he did
3697not prove that any younger person was hired for the same
3708position(s) for which he had applied.
37146 / See endnote 1
37197 / Shands, which purchased Alachua General Hospital's and
3728presumably, Santa Fe Health Care's assets four years after any
3738failure to hire occurred, has asserted that it should not be held
3750liable for the actions of Alachua General Hospital's prior owner
3760because a complainant may be barred from holding liable and
3770seeking damages against, a successor corporation if the
3778predecessor corporation is fully able to provide relief, Weaver
3787v. Casa Gallardo, Inc. , 922 So. 2d 1515 (11th Cir. 1991), and
3799because a successor corporation may not be held liable for
3809alleged discriminatory acts of its predecessor where, in an asset
3819sale such as here, (a) the successor had no notice of the claim
3832prior to the sale; (b) the predecessor was able to provide relief
3844for the claim; and (c) there has been no continuity of business
3856operations of the predecessor and successor corporations, Wheeler
3864v. Snyder Buick, Inc. , 794 F. 2d 1228, 1236 (7th Cir. 1986).
3876Unfortunately, upon this record, there is no way the undersigned
3886can determine whether any predecessor in interest (the most
3895recent, in 1996, probably being Av-Med) was fully able to provide
3906relief. FCHR's failure to notify has precluded Av-Med's
3914opportunity to participate in this proceeding at any level, and
3924the other predecessor entities apparently no longer exist.
3932Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss could not be granted upon the
3943case law asserted.
3946COPIES FURNISHED:
3948Jesse W. Jones,
3951The Dutton Building, Suite 203
395620 West University Avenue
3960Gainesville, Florida 32601
3963Jennifer M. Monrose, Esquire
3967Alley and Alley/Ford
3970and Harrison LLP
3973Post Office Box 1427
3977Tampa, Florida 33601
3980Mack C. Williams
3983Post Office Box 306
3987Gainesville, Florida 32602
3990Brenda Hyatt, Chief
3993Department of Agriculture
3996and Consumer Services
3999508 Mayo Building
4002Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
4005Sharon Moultry, Clerk
4008Human Relations Commission
4011Building F, Suite 240
4015325 John Knox Road
4019Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
4022NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
4028All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15
4039days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to
4050this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will
4061issue the final order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- Date: 06/18/1999
- Proceedings: First Final Order Dismissing the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice; Second Final Order Dismissing the Petition for relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed.
- Date: 11/04/1998
- Proceedings: Pages 6 and 8 of Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 11/03/1998
- Proceedings: (Petitioner) Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 10/26/1998
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 10/12/1998
- Proceedings: Post-Hearing Order sent out.
- Date: 09/28/1998
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- Date: 09/25/1998
- Proceedings: (D. Baird) Complaint filed.
- Date: 09/17/1998
- Proceedings: Order and Notice sent out. (motion to dismiss to be considered at the commencement of the formal hearing)
- Date: 09/11/1998
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Unilateral Prehearing Statement (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 08/12/1998
- Proceedings: (T. Griffin) Motion to Dismiss Petition Against Respondent (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 07/20/1998
- Proceedings: Order sent out. (ruling on respondent`s motion filed at DOAH on 6/30/98)
- Date: 07/08/1998
- Proceedings: Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories; Respondent`s Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 06/30/1998
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Motion for Leave to File Answer to Petition for Relief; Respondent`s Supplemental Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 06/30/1998
- Proceedings: Order Granting Respondent`s Motion for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Petition for Relief (for judge signature); Respondent`s Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Petition for Relief (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 06/26/1998
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 9/28/98; 12:00 pm; Gainesville)
- Date: 06/26/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to T. Griffin & CC: Parties of Record from Judge Davis (& enclosed CC: letter filed. at DOAH on 6/25/98) filed.
- Date: 06/26/1998
- Proceedings: Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out.
- Date: 06/26/1998
- Proceedings: Order sent out. (re: governing rules in reference to qualified representatives)
- Date: 06/25/1998
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge from J. Jones re: Reply to Initial Order (filed via facsimile) rec`d
- Date: 06/23/1998
- Proceedings: Respondent`s Initial Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
- Date: 06/08/1998
- Proceedings: Initial Order issued.
- Date: 06/03/1998
- Proceedings: Petition For Relief; Transmittal of Petition; Complaint; Notice of Determination: No Cause; Determination: No Cause filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- ELLA JANE P. DAVIS
- Date Filed:
- 06/03/1998
- Date Assignment:
- 06/08/1998
- Last Docket Entry:
- 06/18/1999
- Location:
- Gainesville, Florida
- District:
- Northern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED