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 |
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.
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.
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.
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).