Home About Contact |
Icon-UpArrow FCHR Obstruction

Uncovering the Method the FCHR Uses to Obstruct Discrimination Cases

Background: The FCHR - a state agency responsible for investigating discrimination (in Florida) - has a track record of obstruction/unconstitutionality
Problem: You’re unsure of how the FCHR goes about obstructing such cases
Solution: You inform yourself by reading through this [well-cited] explanation

I | Definitions

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.
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.
The doing of an illegal and unlawful act; wrongdoing, especially a violation of the public trust by a public official.

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)
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” (which the FCHR references) does not include plaintiffs. Instead, it includes defendants; such as Florida Blue (see page 18 of the 2019 Annual Report) (see this defendant’s statistical profile).

IV | The FCHR's Method of Obstruction (in Action)

The FCHR obstructs discrimination cases by attempting to make them disappear (ie, pretending they were not filed on time – or at all). You can see the FCHR’s method in action by reviewing the communications in Makere v Redacted Company A, et al.1

Factual History

1. On July 31, 2023, the complainant filed his charge of discrimination [C001]. He did so, notably, within 300 days of the last discrete act of discrimination. Thereby securing dual-filed status (ie, under both federal law and state law).

2. On August 3, 2023, the complainant asked the FCHR to confirm that it had received his COD [C012]. That same day (ie, 8/3/23), the FCHR’s investigator confirmed that it had – indeed – received it [C018]. Yet, the agency laid silent for the rest of the month.

3. So, thirty-three days later – on September 5, 2023 – the complainant asked for an update (on his investigation) [C019]. Yet, a week went by and the FCHR never answered (neither did the EEOC).

4. So, eight days after that – on September 13, 2023 – the complainant repeated his request for an update (from the FCHR) [C020]. Yet – once again – the FCHR laid silent (ditto for the EEOC).

5. Therefore, the complainant asked for a third time; doing so on September 19, 2023 [C021]. Yet – as had become the agency’s custom – the FCHR failed to respond. It didn’t even disclose the case number [for his cause of action].

6. On September 28, 2023, the complainant began seeking relief from the FCHR’s dereliction of duty [C022]. At which point, the FCHR finally began doing its job [C023]-[C036]
a. Therein, FCHR staff made a false statement [regarding notifying the complainant]:
“Hi Ms. Dupree,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up on the above case CP is inquiring about. The case is now with the Atlanta District office for processing and we have not responded to CP’s emails as we already informed CP to contact EEOC. Please see the attached email from Florencio.

b. That statement, of course, was false.
i. The FCHR never directed/informed the complainant to contact the EEOC.

ii. In fact, the FCHR went 56 days without producing any communication whatsoever (despite multiple emails/phone-calls).
c. The FCHR acknowledged the falsehood a few hours later:
“Hi Ms. Dupree,

Attached is the last communication. However, Victor did not inform the CP to contact EEOC. He thought he did, but after emailing Florencio and being informed that the Atlanta office would reach out he did not respond to CP anymore.

7. Later that day (ie, 9/28/23), the FCHR finally responded to the complainant. Thereby – and for the first time – it notified him that the FCHR had forwarded his COD to the EEOC [C037]. So, the complainant began seeking updates/confirmations from the EEOC.

8. However – on October 5, 2023 – the complainant relayed [to the FCHR] that the EEOC claimed to have no record of the purported transmission [C038]. Whereby the agency began struggling to corroborate its story. A story which the EEOC-FCHR Liaison (ie, Mr. Frank Hernandez) muddied with a diversion (see [C048], [C053]).
a. Important reminder: at this juncture, the complainant still had no record/confirmation that the EEOC had even received his complaint. In fact, the EEOC explicitly told him that it didn’t have his complaint [C038].
9. On October 16, 2023 – while still awaiting basic case information – the complainant forwarded [to the EEOC] his confirmation receipt [from the FCHR] (see ¶2, above) [C054].

10. Soon thereafter, the EEOC finally gave complainant a case number [C055]. The case number, pertinently, arrived 2.5 months after the complainant filed his COD.
a. Moreover, the EEOC had transferred his case to a different local office.

b. Important note: these agencies transferred the COD to three different offices.
i. From the FCHR to the Miami EEOC Office [C008]
ii. From the Miami EEOC Office to the Atlanta EEOC Office [C010]
iii. From the Atlanta EEOC Office to the Savannah EEOC Office [C055]
11. On that same date (ie, 10/16/23), the EEOC intimated that it was going to use a different charge-filing-date (see [C058] at paragraph 1).
a. So, the complainant spent the next two weeks trying to resolve this crucial obstruction [C059]-[C060].
12. Within that two-week span (ie, on October 25, 2023), the complainant contacted the EEOC Director [C058]. Therein, he asked whether the federal agency was going to [obstructively] dishonor his filing date (7/31/23; ¶1 above).

13. Finally, on November 1, 2023, the EEOC affirmed that the complainant’s COD was filed on time [C061]. However, in that same breath, the federal agency informed the complainant that it had closed his file.
a. It closed his file, importantly, without performing any investigation whatsoever.
14. Afterwards, the complainant asked the EEOC’s director to take punitive action against the FCHR (for the FCHR’s lawlessness) [C062]-[C063].

Ultimate Facts

The FCHR – with help from certain EEOC employees – obstructed a case of employment discrimination. It did so by:
(a) attempting to apply a wrong/late filing date to his COD;
(b) spending 2.5 months passing his COD to different offices;
(c) failing to give/tell him his FCHR case number;
(d) avoiding all of his phone calls/voicemails; and
(e) failing to investigate his COD
As a result, the FCHR’s tactics/obstructions cost the complainant 2.5 months of work; and robbed him of the investigation (which statutory law had ensured him).


1. The FCHR violated its contractual obligation.
a. According to §2E of the 2023 EEOC-FCHR Workshare Agreement, the FCHR was required to notify the complainant [within 10 days] of his dual-filed status. However, it never did (see ¶1-2, above).
2. The FCHR (and the EEOC) failed to provide any legal reason for the transfers it performed
a. It never cited a statute/regulation/custom for the FCHR-to-Miami transfer
b. It never cited a statute/regulation/custom for the Miami-to-Atlanta transfer
c. It never cited a statute/regulation/custom for the Atlanta -to-Savannah transfer
3. The FCHR – with help from certain EEOC employees – attempted to manufacture an issue of timeliness.
a. The issue would have eliminated the complainant’s access to the court (1st Amendment)

Main Takeaways

The FCHR will try to make a COD disappear by [falsely] manufacturing an issue of timeliness. It will do so with lies/delays/deception/etc.

Notice how the FCHR only began doing its job when it was faced with the prospects of losing federal funding (see ¶3-6, above).


On February 12, 2024, TBD contacted the FCHR for its 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.
1 TBD has redacted the actual name of the company. TBD may-or-may-not un-redact it at a future time. Notably, though, TBD has already received consent [from the plaintiff himself] to use the plaintiff’s name.


Congratulations! You're now booked up on the Method that the FCHR uses to Obstruct Discrimination Cases!

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

Also, keep in mind the FCHR's statutory ability to accept bribes.

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

As always: please get the justice you deserve.


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
Icon-Email-WBIcon-Email-WG Icon-Youtube-WBIcon-Youtube-WG Icon-Share-WBIcon-Share-WG