DISCRIMINATION AT
THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS

QUESTION: DOES THE FCHR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ITS OWN COMMISSIONERS?

ANSWER: YES

Data
FCHR Commissioner Impanelments

#	Commissioner	Panels Available	Times Impaneled	Usage Rate	Disparity	Votes Cast	Payout
1	Monica Cepero	↑ 23 ↓	0	0.00%	-2,727	0	$0
2	Libby Farmer		8	34.78%	751	69	$400
3	Mario Garza		10	43.48%	1,621	69	$500
4	Dawn Hanson		1	4.35%	-2,292	10	$50
5	Larry Hart		13	56.52%	2,925	100	$650
6	Darrick McGhee		16	69.57%	4,229	132	$800
7	Kenyetta Moye		5	21.74%	-553	50	$250
8	Vivian Myrtetus		1	4.35%	-2,292	10	$50
9	Pamela Payne		0	0.00%	-2,727	0	$0
10	Jay Pichard		10	43.48%	1,621	78	$500
11	Angela Primiano		8	34.78%	751	58	$400

Logically Speaking:

If the FCHR did not engage in self-discrimination, you would expect the graph (from above) to have columns of equal height. However, as we can see, there are large disparities in their heights.

Meaning: there is a logical inference that the FCHR is not selecting its commissioners evenly.

Statistically Speaking^*:

If the FCHR did not engage in self-discrimination, you would expect:

a) the usage rates (from the above table) to be roughly 27.27% (3/11^ths);
b) the times impaneled column to be filled with 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s, and 8s;
c) to never see a commissioner impaneled more than 14 times ('never' ≈ 0.003% chance); and
d) a less-than 1% chance of a Commissioner having zero impanelments^**.

However, as we can see:

1) there are large disparities in usage rates (ie, 0.00% vs 69.57%);

2) there are only three commissioners in the 'expected range' (Ms. Kenyetta Moye, Ms. Angela Primiano, and Ms. Libby Farmer);

3) there is a commissioner with 16 impanelments (Mr. Darrick McGhee, Sr.); and

4) there are two commissioners with zero impanelments (Ms. Monica Cepero, Ms. Pamela Payne).

* This data comes from public record (and between the dates of 12/26/2020 and 2/28/2023). This 113-week period reflects the full amount of time in which the recent cast of commissioners have been together.

Also, TBD used a Binomial Distribution to analyze these statistics.
Note: these parameters <27.27% likelihood, 23 trials> yield a µ of 6.27 appearances and a σ of 2.14. These same parameters produce a 75.99% chance that a commissioner would have between 4-and-8 appearances (and a 98.38% chance that a commissioner would have between 2-and-11 appearances). Yet, as we can see, six commissioners fell outside this 2-to-11 appearance range (Cepero, Hanson, Hart, McGhee, Myrtetus, Payne).

So, diving even deeper into this same statistic shows that there is a 1-in-50,000,000,000 chance that these selections happened naturally (1-in-50 billion).

** there is a 0.066% chance that a commissioner would have 0 impanelments after 23 quorums; yet, it happened twice (see "4)" from above).

So, going even deeper into the same statistic reveals that there was just a 0.000043% chance that two commissioners would have zero impanelments (each) (1-in-2 million).

Meaning: there is a statistical inference that the FCHR is discriminating against its commissioners.

OBVIOUS QUESTION #1: WHY IS THERE SUCH A DISPARITY?

In November 2022, TBD asked the FCHR why there was such a disparity in the times it impaneled its own commissioners. However - despite having ample time to respond (3⁺ months) - the Commission has remained silent. In other words, the FCHR hasn't given any reason for why there is such a disparity in the way it impanels commissioners for case disposition voting. Pursuant to the McDonnell-Douglas analysis (ie, the nationwide legal framework that the FCHR is required to perform when determining the discrimination of other entities), the FCHR has failed to rebut the statistical/logical inferences of its discrimination. This failure-to-rebut renders them guilty of discrimination.



Answer: there is no legitimate reason for the disparity. The FCHR simply discriminates against its own commissioners. A discrimination that impacts the fairness of Floridians' civil rights litigation.

OBVIOUS QUESTION #2: WHY WOULD THE FCHR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ITSELF?

TBD has a theory, but - out of respect for leaving such accusations in the proper domain - TBD will not mention it here.

At least not yet.

TBD would just ask you to keep a close eye on the FCHR. Perhaps, by:
• attending their publicly-held meetings;
• reading their annual reports;
• analyzing their results;
• and more.

It's also worth taking a look at state government; and evaluating its sincerity about combatting discrimination.

Well, regardless of where you direct your eyes, the statistics from above show that the FCHR has a bias. And it expresses that bias in how it rules over the public.



Answer: please stay tuned.

OBVIOUS QUESTION #3: WHAT CAN I DO ABOUT THIS?

Option #1:
You can avoid the FCHR altogether (and use the EEOC instead).
Crucial Note: This will not be feasible for every situation.
■ due to timing/jurisdictional issues.
■ Please contact a civil rights attorney (detailed, free, no ads, no strings attached)

Option #2:
You can ask the FCHR to select its panels at random (and - perhaps - even publicize/record its method).

In fact, here's a free tool that'll do just that.

Option #3:
You can ask the FCHR to obey the law (ie, §760.05 FS - the "commission shall promote and encourage fair treatment")

Option #4:
You might be able to argue this fact (of FCHR self-discrimination) when you file your Exceptions to DOAH's Recommended Order (perhaps, you can argue that the proceeding did not 'comport with the essential requirements of law' (ie, the FCHR's self-discrimination has violated your 14th Amendment Rights (Due Process, Equal Protection)))

Option #5:
You might be able to argue this fact (of FCHR self-discrimination) in your Appeal of the FCHR's Final Order (please refer to Option #4 from above)

Option #6:
You might be able to argue this fact (of FCHR self-discrimination) in your Federal Lawsuit (perhaps, after receiving your EEOC RTS letter - or - upon filing suit under 42 USC §1981) (please refer to Option #4 from above)

Option #7:
You could probably sue the FCHR for carrying out a Pattern & Practice that violates your constitutional rights (1st Amendment - {Access-to-Courts}, 7th Amendment - {Trial-by-Jury}, 14th Amendment - {Due Process, Equal Protection}, etc.

ADDITIONAL CONTEXT (IE, 'WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THIS ALL ABOUT (IN THE FIRST PLACE)?')

FCHR Commissioners vote on what will happen to complaints of discrimination (employment, housing, public accommodations, whistleblower). Their decisions impact whether litigants:
(a) get a full & fair administrative hearing;
(b) get access to the courts (ie, trial-by-jury, etc.);
(c) will need to pursue an appeal; and
(d) so on.

Right now, there are 11 such commissioners.^* At any given time, only three of those commissioners get selected to vote (ie, get impaneled).^** This selection process happens behind closed doors. The voting, though, happens in public; and enters public record. TBD has collected that public data, tabulated it, and performed this analysis.



Answer: this analysis is about the fairness in which the FCHR handles discrimination complaints (which Floridians file).



* by statute (ie §760.03(1) FS), there can only be a maximum of 12 commissioners.
**There have been instances, though, in which the FCHR failed to field an entire 3-commissioner panel (thereby violating state law - see §760.03(5) FS).

...POINTS & THINGS...

add a comment

comment

thank you, come again!
TBD 1.037

Submit a Quiz Question

That Will Test Another User's Page-Specific Knowledge

Quiz Question #1:+20
Quiz Question #2:+20
Quiz Question #3:+20
Quiz Question #4:+20
Quiz Question #5:+20
Quiz Question #6:+20
Quiz Question #7:+20
Quiz Question #8:+20
Quiz Question #9:+20
Quiz Question #10:+20
Submit Quiz