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 2013 / FCHR Order No. 13-070

FCHR Order No. 13-070

Date of Release: 11/20/2013





EEOC Case No.




FCHR Case No. 2013-00048



DOAH Case No. 13-1507



FCHR Order No. 13-070






Preliminary Matters

Petitioner Dasyam Rajasekhar filed a complaint of discrimination pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01 - 760.11, Florida Statutes (2011), alleging that Respondent Department of Environmental Protection committed an unlawful employment practice on the basis of Petitioner’s National Origin (not specified in compliant) and on the basis of retaliation by terminating Petitioner from employment.

The allegations set forth in the complaint were investigated, and, on March 25, 2013, the Executive Director issued a 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 in St. Augustine, Florida, on June 24 and 25, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge F. Scott Boyd.

Judge Boyd issued a Recommended Order of dismissal, dated September 11, 2013.

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. 13-070

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 adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law.


Petitioner filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order in a document entitled, “Exceptions to Recommended Order (September 11, 2013),” received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about September 26, 2013.

While the document was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings instead of the Commission, the document was timely filed, and the Commission will consider the document even though it was filed in the wrong forum. Accord, generally, Lane v. Terry Laboratories, Inc., FCHR Order No. 08-022 (April 14, 2008), and cases cited therein. See also, Hogg v. Arena Sports Cafe, FCHR Order No. 10-049 (May 25, 2010).

Respondent subsequently filed a document entitled, “Respondent DEP’s Motion to Strike and Alternative Response to Petitioner’s Exceptions to Recommended Order,” received by the Commission on October 7, 2013.

Petitioner’s exceptions document contains exceptions to the following Recommended Order numbered paragraphs or groups of paragraphs: 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24-26, 29, 30, 33, 34-35, 36-37, 38, 39, 40-46, 44-49, 51, 54-56, 57, 58, 59, 60-61, and 62-115.

In our view, these exceptions take issue with facts found (13, 15, 23, 33, 38), facts not found (24-26, 29), inferences drawn from the evidence presented (18, 19, 33), or simply present argument / explanation / comment (6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 29, 30, 34-35, 36-37, 38, 39, 40-46, 44-49, 51, 54-56, 57, 58, 59, 60-61, 62-115).

The Commission has stated, “It is well settled that it is the Administrative Law Judge’s function ‘to consider all of the evidence presented and reach ultimate conclusions of fact based on competent substantial evidence by resolving conflicts, judging the credibility of witnesses and drawing permissible inferences therefrom. If the evidence presented supports two inconsistent findings, it is the Administrative Law Judge’s role to decide between them.’ Beckton v. Department of Children and Family Services, 21 F.A.L.R. 1735, at 1736 (FCHR 1998), citing Maggio v. Martin Marietta Aerospace, 9 F.A.L.R. 2168, at 2171 (FCHR 1986).” Barr v. Columbia Ocala Regional Medical Center, 22 F.A.L.R. 1729, at 1730 (FCHR 1999). Accord, Bowles v. Jackson County Hospital Corporation, FCHR Order No. 05-135 (December 6, 2005) and Eaves v. IMT-LB Central Florida Portfolio, LLC, FCHR Order No. 11-029 (March 17, 2011).

Petitioner’s exceptions are rejected.

FCHR Order No. 13-070

Page 3


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 20th day of November , 2013.


Commissioner Mario M. Valle, Panel Chairperson;

Commissioner Onelia Fajardo-Garcia; and

Commissioner Michell Long

Filed this 20th day of November , 2013,

in Tallahassee, Florida.


Violet Crawford, Clerk

Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, FL 32301

(850) 488-7082

Copies furnished to:

Dasyam Rajasekhar

Carriage House, Room 43

2297 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

Department of Environmental Protection

c/o Francine Ffolkes, Esq.

c/o Kara Gross, Esq.

The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000

FCHR Order No. 13-070

Page 4

F. Scott Boyd, 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 20th day of November , 2013.

By: _______/s/_________________

Clerk of the Commission

Florida Commission on Human Relations