DISCRIMINATION AT
THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS
QUESTION: DOES THE FCHR DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ITS OWN COMMISSIONERS?
ANSWER: YES
| Background: | The FCHR is a State Agency responsible for investigating discrimination in the state of Florida |
| Problem: | The FCHR discriminates against itself; thereby undermining Floridians' rights (Due Process, etc.) |
| Solution: | You increase your vigilance against the FCHR (and the state actors who [supposedly] uphold the law) |
| # | 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% (3/11ths);
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?
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?
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?
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)?')
(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...
Please keep this in mind when you're navigating through your legal action.
As always: please get the justice you deserve.
Sincerely,
www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
