HomeAboutContact |
iconMusic

How the FCHR Corrupts Itself

Background: The FCHR - a state agency responsible for investigating discrimination (in Florida) - has a corrupt background (eg, ⚠ Bribery, ⚠ Discrimination, ⚠ Obstruction)
Problem: You’re unsure of how the FCHR corrupts itself
Solution: You inform yourself by reading through this [well-cited] explanation

I | Definitions

Malfeasance
The doing of an illegal and unlawful act; wrongdoing, especially a violation of the public trust by a public official.
Misconduct
corrupt misbehavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties of the office or while acting under color of the office; includes any act or omission in breach of a duty of public concern by one who has accepted public office.
Obstruction
The impeding of those who seek justice in a court, or of those who have duties or powers of administering justice therein; includes attempting to influence, intimidate or impede any juror, witness or officer in any court regarding the discharge of his duty.
Unconstitutional
conflicting with some provision of the Constitution. A statute found to be unconstitutional is considered void or as if it had never been, and consequently all rights, contracts or duties that depend on it are void. Similarly, no one can be punished for having refused obedience to the law once it is found to be unconstitutional.

II | The FCHR's Legislated Purpose

§760.01(2) FS §760.03(1) FS
(1) There is hereby created the Florida Commission on Human Relations, comprised of 12 members appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation by the Senate...


III | The FCHR's Ulterior Motive

Even though statute/theory compels the FCHR to secure justice for civil rights plaintiffs, the agency - in practice - is motivated for a conflicting reason (ie, to secure savings for defendants).

Quite simply, the FCHR aims to save civil rights defendants 'millions of dollars'. The agency has said so [itself] on many occasions...

2019 Annual Report | $16,774,230 in Savings (to Defendants)
...the Commission has helped Florida stakeholders avoid over $16 million in litigation expenses. For FY 2018-19, the Return on Investment (ROI) is 214%.
2018 Annual Report | $19,106,044 in Savings (to Defendants)
...the Commission has helped Florida stakeholders avoid over $19 million in litigation expenses. For FY 2017-18, the Return on Investment (ROI) is 304%.
2017 Annual Report | $11,983,530 in Savings (to Defendants)
...the Commission has helped Florida stakeholders avoid over $12 million in litigation expenses. For FY 2016-17, the Return on Investment (ROI) is 145%.
...so forth & so on.

These savings, importantly, come at the expense of civil rights plaintiffs. A reality which the FCHR reveals with its own calculations:
T = N • (µc – µm)
Where:
T=Total Costs Avoided
N=Number of mediated resolutions
µc=Average court-awarded damage
µm=Average FCHR mediated settlement
Example (2019):
16,744,230 = 110 • (165,144 – 12,651)
Moreover, the list of “stakeholders”1 (which the FCHR references) does not include plaintiffs. Instead, it includes – but is not limited to:
  1. defendants (eg, Florida Blue, Pichard Holdings - Remedy Inteligence Staffing); and – pertinently –
  2. FCHR Commissioners (eg, Mr. Jay Pichard).

IV | The FCHR's Corruption (in Action)

Summary

The FCHR corrupts itself by aiming to cover for defendants (ie, the very same entities whom the FCHR’s [statutorily] required to investigate/reprimand). In order to cover up the defendants’ [alleged] discrimination, the FCHR commands its staff to obstruct/defeat cases. Obstructions/obliterations that feature: This mode of corruption was revealed in a recent legal dispute. A dispute that pitted its former agency head (Michelle Wilson) against its current agency head (Cheyanne Costilla)...

Case Parameters

State/Territory:Florida
United States of America
Plaintiff:Michelle Wilson
(Former Executive Director of the FCHR)
Defendant #1:Cheyanne Costilla
(Current Executive Director of the FCHR)
Defendant #2:Florida Commission on Human Relations, The
(a Statewide Agency of Florida)
Defendant #3:Division of Risk Management, The
(a Statewide Agency of Florida)
Case Type:Whistleblower Complaint
Authorities: • Florida’s Whistleblower Act | §112.3187-§112.31895 FS;
• Florida Constitution (Art. I §9, Art. I §21, Art. I §22, Art. II §3)
• United States Constitution (1st + 14th Amendments)
Tribunals: • Florida Office of the Inspector General, The
• Florida Commission on Human Relations, The
Leon County Court (ie, Florida’s 2nd Judicial Circuit Court)
Florida’ First District Court of Appeal
Case Numbers: 1FCHR2021-28179 21DCA1D21-3417 3Leon County2023-CA-1569 41DCA1D24-0476
Charges:Retaliation
Adverse Events:Termination
Hostile Work Environment

Pertinent Background

1. The FCHR is a statewide agency that investigates discrimination (eg, employment discrimination, housing discrimination, etc.). It also investigates complaints of Whistleblower Retaliation.

2. The FCHR – in its statutory form – is comprised of [a maximum of] 12 commissioners. These commissioners are actual people; who’ve been appointed by the governor. These people, however, don’t actually perform the investigations. Instead, they oversee the agency.

3. The FCHR – in its practical form – is comprised of dozens of employees. Employees, notably, who are neither: (i) elected; nor (ii) appointed. Of course, these employees work under the direction of their agency head. Their agency head (ie, the Executive Director) is [the only person] hired by the commissioners

4. So – as a quick recap – Florida’s governor appoints FCHR commissioners, and these FCHR commissioners hire the FCHR Executive Director.

Operation

5. The director (with the use of his/her staff):
a. performs the investigations; and

b. makes determinations (among other things)
6. These FCHR Determinations (eg, “cause” vs “no cause”) impact the substantial rights of everyday Americans/Floridians. Determinations which [effectively] dictate whether-or-not a person can enter/turn-to the courts (compare with the 1st Amendment; compare with the 14th Amendment).

7. In turn, the Commissioners:
a. vote on the director’s suggestions; and

b. evaluate the executive director (among other things).
These votes, of course, further impact the [already-impacted] substantial rights of everyday Americans/Floridians.

Operators

8. Throughout the FCHR’s 50+ year existence, it has had numerous executive directors. One such director was Ms. Michelle Wilson; another such director was/is Ms. Cheyanne Costilla.

9. The statewide agency has also had numerous commissioners. The most notorious of whom (at least for this block of corruption) is Mr. Jay Pichard. Mr. Pichard, notably, has:
a. commissioned the agency for a number of years (ie; since 2015);

b. made a number of decisions/votes (ie, 236+ votes); and

c. engaged with the executive directors in a number of ways.

Details

10. According to the legal action, Mr. Pichard engaged with Director Wilson in an unlawful way.

11. On July 3, 2020, Commissioner Pichard tried to corrupt Director Wilson. Thereby asking her to cover-up illegalities [of civil rights defendants] for the sake of ‘saving businesses’:
“On 07/03/20, Jay Pichard specifically asked Ms. Wilson for “flexibility” to “save businesses.” By this he meant dismissing employment discrimination charges at intake, without investigation, issuing a “no causefinding so charging parties could not go to court.”
Director Wilson, however, refused Commissioner Pichard’s unlawful inducements:
“Ms. Wilson declined [Commissioner Pichard’s corruptions], reiterating to Pichard and the board that the commission’s job, by law, was to investigate claims as a neutral fact finding agency and not to favor either party to a complaint.”
Yet, Commissioner Pichard persisted [with his corruptions]:
“Pichard repeatedly asked the same question hoping to get a different response from the General Counsel. To our knowledge, he never did.”
12. On August 18, 2020, Commissioner Pichard continued his quest to corrupt FCHR investigations. He did so, importantly, by commanding jurisdictional impediments (via “no cause” determinations):
“Mr. Pichard steered the discussion [towards] meeting the 180-day compliance deadline for completing investigations of employment discrimination claims. As he had made clear throughout his tenure, he wanted the 180-day deadline met consistently by issuing “no-cause” determinations on charges at intake, rather than after investigation.”
Once again, Director Wilson refused Commissioner Pichard’s corruptions:
“She pointed out that FCHR is bound by the Florida Statutes and the rules of the Florida Administrative Code to perform a fair and neutral investigation, not just go through the motions or dismiss cases at the very outset. She made it clear to the panel that she would not direct the staff to close an investigation prematurely just for the sake of meeting a 180-day standard.

...

She also asserted that demanding an employee to close a case prematurely was unfair to both parties and that it could be detrimental to the agency's core value of providing fair and impartial investigations as well as exposing FCHR to consequences for unlawful conduct. She said the answer is to provide the resources FCHR needs to meet the 180-day deadline or change the law. Otherwise, FCHR will have to go on taking longer in some cases. It is not an option to just break the law.”
Commissioner Pichard, however, persisted with his unlawful inducements. Thereby upping the ante; by seeking Director Wilson’s termination:
“Mr. Pichard, as was his custom, demanded that FCHR finish the investigations in 180 days and dismiss some without investigation. Derrick McGhee supported that view. A “no-confidence” vote immediately followed:”
13. On October 15, 2020, the FCHR fired Director Wilson:
“[Director] Wilson was fired as Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations on October 15, 2020, after 17 years’ tenure with the agency.”
“The vote that fired Ms. Wilson on October 15, 2020, was over [the 180-day obstruction].”
14. By October 23, 2020 (ie, 8 days later), the FCHR had already hired Cheyanne Costilla (“Director Costilla”) to be its new [interim]1 agency head (ie, Executive Director)2
a. see Gartner v AIP, 202043 TBD.N 002
15. On December 14, 2020, Director Wilson filed her Whistleblower Complaint. Thereby charging the FCHR with terminating employees (ie, her) who refuse unlawful inducements. Unlawful inducements which – in this case – involved abandoning investigations [at the behest/benefit of violative defendants]:
“I believe that I have been discriminated against in violation of the Public Whistle-blower’s Act, §§1123187-112.31895, Florida Statutes for the following reasons:

The public whistleblower statute has three elements:
(1) protected conduct,
(2) adverse action; and
(3) a connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action.

...

As stated above, the main adverse action was being fired in retaliation for refusal to violate the law on case investigations.”
16. One such violative defendant was Commissioner Pichard [himself]:
Mr. Pichard was antagonistic because his business had been the target of charges of discrimination to FCHR that he thought should have been processed differently...

Mr. Pichard, smarting from the charges against his small company, felt aggrieved that Ms. Wilson would not violate the statute to the extent of dismissing certain “frivolous” charges without the appropriate administrative review. Ms. Wilson explained that procedural changes would require the legislature amending the statute and, following that, the agency amending the pertinent sections of the Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Pichard was unforgiving on this point and continued thereafter to seek replacement of Ms. Wilson.”
“9. There came a point at which members of the Commission itself, which was, collectively, Plaintiffs boss, began demanding that Plaintiff perform illegal acts.

10. For example, and without limitation, members of the Commission, including one who had more than a score of discrimination charges against his business, began demanding that Plaintiff issue “no-cause” determinations against employment discrimination claims that had not yet been investigated."
“Commission members, including one, Jay Pichard, who was himself the Respondent in a number of discrimination charges involving a company he owned, directed Ms. Wilson to dismiss such charges at the outset without investigation.”
17. One such ‘abandoned investigation’ was [indeed] Director Wilson’s [own] Whistleblower Complaint. A complaint which the FCHR:
a. oversaw (ie, seized jurisdiction over);

b. refused to relinquish (ie, refused to disengage from its conflict-of-interest); and

c. closed without an investigation (¶18 infra)
18. On October 1, 2021 (ie, 291 days later), the FCHR dismissed Director Wilson’s Whistleblower Complaint. A dismissal, notably, that was spurred on by a refusal-to-investigate:
“The Commission previously notified you that the information contained within your complaint was insufficient for the Commission to begin its investigation. Pursuant to Rule 60Y-5.001(7), Florida Administrative Code, you were provided an opportunity to address the insufficiencies within 60 days, Considering all information received, the Commission does not have authority to investigate, and the complaint will be dismissed.”
That dismissal, importantly, eliminated Director Wilson’s ability/right to litigate her whistleblower complaint in court (compare with the 1st Amendment; compare with the 14th Amendment).

19. Of course, that dismissal was issued by [replacement/installed] Director Costilla. Thereby fulfilling the dogmatic prophesy that Commissioner Pichard set in motion (¶10 supra).

Conclusion

The FCHR corrupts itself by commanding its staff to [immediately] obstruct/defeat charges of discrimination (the very same charges that it’s legally required to investigate). When its staff refuses to break the law, then the FCHR retaliates against them (the staff). The agency will even go so-far-as-to terminate its own agency head (ie, Director Wilson) [to effectuate its corruptions/subversions].

Plus, as an added twist – when confronted with its [own] illegalities – the FCHR acts as its own judge & jury.

Main Takeaway

Warning: Reader Discretion Advised
The FCHR (via its commissioners + agency heads) seeks to nullify/annihilate/obstruct charges of discrimination. It does so:
a) at the behest/benefit of defendants (ie, the lawbreakers); and

b) to the detriment of plaintiffs (ie, the injured/afflicted).

Recommendations

  1. Stay Vigilant
  2. Understand How the FCHR Legal Process Works
  3. Aim to have a Dual-Filed Complaint (ie, one that is filed within 300-days of the last discrete act of discrimination)
    • this will help you retain access to the courts (albeit, after an arduous process).


Disclosure

On November 22, 2024, TBD contacted the FCHR for its comment/response to this discovery (ie, parts I-IV, above). The state agency, however, did not respond (and still has not responded).

So, if/when the agency responds, TBD will update this page accordingly.
Footnotes
1 On-or-around March 15, 2021 (ie, 5 months later), Director Costilla shed her interim title; thereby becoming the FCHR’s full-fledged agency head.
see Roache v Pasco County, 202112 TBD.N 001
2 note: the ‘hire‘ was actually a promotion for Director Costilla. At the point of ‘hiring’, Ms. Costilla had already been a longtime FCHR employee. Most prominently, she served as the FCHR’s General Counsel; reporting directly to [former] Commissioner Wilson. As general counsel, Ms. Costilla drafted/recommended the Determinations; the Notices of Determination, and the Agency Final Orders. These are the three documents that have [primarily] served as chokeholds on people’s constitutional rights.

† although TBD has attributed these quotes to Director Wilson, they are actually direct quotes from Attorney Rick Johnson. A board-certified attorney whom Director Wilson hired to represent her (throughout this legal dispute). He issued those quotes in front of the government (ie, under the threat of penalty/perjury/etc.).

...POINTS & THINGS...

Congratulations! You're now booked up on the FCHR's Corruption!

Please keep this in mind when you're navigating through your legal action.

Also, keep in mind: Plus - at all times - keep the 7th Amendment of the US Constitution (ie, your right to a trial-by-jury) in mind.

As always: please get the justice that you deserve.

Sincerely,



www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
Shop | TBD Marketplace™
Buy | TBD Marketplace™
Sell | TBD Marketplace™
Pages That You
Might Also Like
Analysis: Commission Decisions Analysis: Commission Voting
FCHR Bribery FCHR's Corporate Stakeholders FCHR Discrimination
Listing: FCHR Commissioners
How-To: Appeal a Final Order How-To: Exceptions to Recommended Order How-To: Sue in Federal Court
Other FCHR Corruption Allegations
♫ Drop the Steal ♫
Records: FCHR Obstructions
add a comment
IconQuiz IconLike
iconFullScreenBgnIticonFullScreenEndIt
Icon-Email-WBIcon-Email-WG Icon-Youtube-WBIcon-Youtube-WG Icon-Share-WBIcon-Share-WG