Skip to Main Content. Please Contact Us if there is anything we can do to improve the Accessibility of this site.
  • Search:

Right menu

Left menu


Home / Complaints / Final Orders / Final Orders 2010 / FCHR Order No. 10-062

FCHR Order No. 10-062

Date of Release: 08/10/2010

STATE OF FLORIDA

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS

ALFRED S. BROWN

EEOC Case No. NONE

Petitioner

 

v.

FCHR Case No. 2009-02059

   

SSA SECURITY, INC.

DOAH Case No. 10-0065

   

Respondent

FCHR Order No. 10-062

   

FINAL ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR

RELIEF FROM AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE

Preliminary Matters

Petitioner Alfred S. Brown filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes (2007), alleging that Respondent SSA Security, Inc., committed an unlawful employment practice on the bases of Petitioner’s age (DOB: 11-26-32) and disability, and on the basis of retaliation, by terminating Petitioner from employment.

The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on November 18, 2009, the Executive Director issued his determination finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, and the case was transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal proceeding.

An evidentiary hearing was held by video teleconference at sites in Fort Lauderdale and Tallahassee, Florida, on March 8, 2010, before Administrative Law Judge Patricia M. Hart.

Judge Hart issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated May 27, 2010.

The Commission panel designated below considered the record of this matter and determined the action to be taken on the Recommended Order.

Findings of Fact

We find the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact to be supported by competent substantial evidence.

We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact.

FCHR Order No. 10-062

Page 2

Conclusions of Law

We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter.

We note that the Administrative Law Judge concluded that to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination Petitioner must show “that (1) he was at least 40 years old; (2) he suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) he was replaced by someone substantially younger.” Recommended Order, ¶ 45.

We disagree with the content of elements (1) and (4) of this test as set out by the Administrative Law Judge.

With regard to element (1), Commission panels have concluded that one of the elements for establishing a prima facie case of age discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 is a showing that individuals similarly-situated to Petitioner of a “different” age were treated more favorably, and Commission panels have noted that the age “40” has no significance in the interpretation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. See, e.g., Downs v. Shear Express, Inc., FCHR Order No. 06-036 (May 24, 2006), and cases and analysis set out therein; see also, Boles v. Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office, FCHR Order No. 08-013 (February 8, 2008), and cases and analysis set out therein.

Consequently, we yet again note that the age “40” has no significance in the interpretation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Accord, e.g., Cox v. Gulf Breeze Resorts Realty, Inc., FCHR Order No. 09-037 (April 13, 2009), Toms v. Marion County School Board, FCHR Order No. 07-060 (November 7, 2007), and Stewart v. Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, d/b/a Pasco County Library System, FCHR Order No. 07-050 (September 25, 2007).

With regard to element (4), while we agree that such a showing could be an element of a prima facie case, we note that Commission panels have long concluded that the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 and its predecessor law, the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, prohibited age discrimination in employment on the basis of any age “birth to death.” See Green v. ATC/VANCOM Management, Inc., 20 F.A.L.R. 314 (1997), and Simms v. Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., 8 F.A.L.R. 3588 (FCHR 1986). A Commission panel has indicated that one of the elements in determining a prima facie case of age discrimination is that Petitioner is treated differently than similarly situated individuals of a “different” age, as opposed to a “younger” age. See Musgrove v. Gator Human Services, c/o Tiger Success Center, et al., 22 F.A.L.R. 355, at 356 (FCHR 1999); accord Lombardi v. Dade County Circuit Court, FCHR Order No. 10-013 (February 16, 2010), Deschambault v. Town of Eatonville, FCHR Order No. 09-039 (May 12, 2009), and Boles, supra. Cf., City of Hollywood, Florida v. Hogan, et al., 986 So. 2d 634 (4th DCA 2008).

We modify accordingly the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law regarding the test for the establishment of a prima facie case of age discrimination.

FCHR Order No. 10-062

Page 3

The errors in the test used by the Administrative Law Judge to establish whether a prima facie case of age discrimination existed are harmless, given the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner established a prima facie case. Recommended Order, ¶ 46.

In modifying these conclusions of law of the Administrative Law Judge, we conclude: (1) that the conclusions of law being modified are conclusions of law over

which the Commission has substantive jurisdiction, namely conclusions of law stating what must be demonstrated to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992; (2) that the reason the modifications are being

made by the Commission is that the conclusions of law as stated run contrary to previous Commission decisions on the issue; and (3) that in making these modifications the conclusions of law being substituted are as or more reasonable than the conclusions of law which have been rejected. See, Section 120.57(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2007).

With these corrections / comments, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law.

Exceptions

Neither of the parties filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order.

Dismissal

The Petition for Relief and Complaint of Discrimination are DISMISSED with prejudice.

The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August , 2010.

FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS:

Commissioner Gilbert M. Singer, Panel Chairperson;

Commissioner Gayle Cannon; and

Commissioner Michael G. Keller

Filed this 10th day of August , 2010,

in Tallahassee, Florida.

FCHR Order No. 10-062

Page 4

________________________________

Violet Crawford, Clerk

Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 488-7082

Copies furnished to:

Alfred S. Brown

c/o Kenneth E. Trent, Esq.

Kenneth Eric Trent, P.A.

831 East Oakland Park Boulevard

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334

SSA Security, Inc.

c/o Merry E. Lindberg, Esq.

c/o Christin M. Russell, Esq.

Christine D. Hanley & Associates, P.A.

1000 Southern Boulevard, Second Floor

West Palm Beach, FL 33405

Patricia M. Hart, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH

James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this 10th day of August , 2010.

By: _____________________________

Clerk of the Commission

Florida Commission on Human Relations