98-002539 Mack Williams vs. Shands At Alachua General Hospital And Santa Fe Health Care
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, January 8, 1999.


View Dockets  
Summary: Numerous procedures and jurisdictional disorder resolved. Prima facie case of discrimination not proven. Limits of Petition for Relief explained and the new amendments thereto stuck.

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.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
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.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/1999
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 06/16/1999
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 06/16/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 01/08/1999
Proceedings: Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 09/28/98.
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
 

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (2):