Home About Contact |
Icon-UpArrow Analysis → Determinations → FL → FCHR ► Summary

Analysis of the FCHR's Investigative Determinations

(as of 8/31/2023)
Analysis Table | FCHR Determinations | Overview
CauseNo CauseOut-of-TimeOtherTotal
Fact: 86% of the time, the FCHR explicitly declares that there is “No Reasonable Cause” to believe that unlawful discrimination took place.

This is crucial, because it impacts whether a litigant will get a trial-by-jury (or even a fair trial at all). In fact, in many instances, the “no reasonable cause” determination forecloses a jury trial altogether (see §760.11(4) FS; see the worksharing agreement (29 CFR 1626.10)).

Fact: 2% of the time, the FCHR fails to even render a determination.

By operation of law (§760.11(8) FS), this has the same effect as a ‘reasonable cause’ determination. Thereby granting a litigant immediate access to the Court system (as opposed to being funneled into DOAH).

Takeaway: The FCHR aims to enter a very high percent of “no reasonable cause” determinations.

Proven by the fact that the state agency brags about saving defendants “millions” of dollars (by avoiding legal fees in federal/state court).

Additional: These numbers can be further analyzed by:

(a) case type;
(b) charge;
(c) demographics (eg, age, dis, etc.).; and
(d) year;


Congratulations! You're now booked up on the frequency distribution of FCHR Investigative Determinations!

As always, please get the justice you deserve.


Pages That You
Might Also Like
How-To: Appeal a Final Order How-To: Write Exceptions to a Final Order
Info: FCHR Bribery Info: FCHR Discrimination Info: Suing for Constitutional Deprivations
Guide: File Suit (Federal) Guide: File Suit (State)
Handbook: File Suit (EEOC) Handbook: PFR (FCHR/DOAH)
Flow Chart: FCHR Investigation
TBD.D: Actual Determinations
add a comment
IconQuiz IconLike IconLike
Icon-Email-WBIcon-Email-WG Icon-Youtube-WBIcon-Youtube-WG Icon-Share-WBIcon-Share-WG