Recommended Order — 26-002065

STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JORGE CASTELLANOS,
Petitioner,
vs.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PROPERTY
APPRAISER,
Respondent.
/
Case No. 26-2065
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearing was conducted by
Zoom conference on September 9, 2026, before Administrative Law Judge
June C. McKinney of the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”).
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: 	Jason S. Remer, Esquire
Remer, Georges-Pierre & Hoogerwoerd, PLLC
2745 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
For Respondent: 	Leona Nicole McFarlane, Esquire
Miami-Dade County Attorney’s Office
Stephen P. Clark Center
111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810
Miami, Florida 33128
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser (“CPA” or
“Respondent”) engaged in an unlawful discriminatory employment practice
on the basis of disability and retaliation; and, if so, what affirmative relief
and damages should be awarded to Petitioner Jorge Castellanos (“Petitioner”
or “Castellanos”).

2
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On October 8, 2025, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the
Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR” or “Commission”), the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and the Miami-
Dade County Commission on Human Rights, alleging disability
discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation that culminated
in his December 6, 2024, separation.
Following an investigation, the Commission issued its Notice of
Determination: No Reasonable Cause on April 6, 2026.
On April 7, 2026, Petitioner timely initiated an administrative proceeding
by filing a Petition for Relief (“Petition”) and requested a formal hearing.
On April 21, 2026, the Petition was transferred to DOAH and assigned to
the undersigned to conduct the formal hearing.
On May 18, 2026, the case was scheduled for hearing on July 16, 2026.
After a continuance for good cause, the matter proceeded as scheduled on
September 9, 2026.
At the final hearing on September 9, 2026, Petitioner testified on his own
behalf and called his former supervisor, Mildred Suarez (“Suarez”).
Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 10, and 11 were admitted into
evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Christine Garcia, Manager
in the Miami-Dade County Human Rights and Fair Employment Practices
Department, and Suarez. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 7 were admitted
into evidence.

3
The final hearing was recorded by a court reporter, but no transcript was
ordered or filed with DOAH. Respondent timely submitted a Proposed
Recommended Order, which was duly considered in preparation of this
Recommended Order. Petitioner did not file a post-hearing submittal.
Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are the versions in effect
at the time of the alleged violations.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Employment Relationship and Workplace Setting
1. Castellanos commenced employment with CPA on October 19, 1998,
working as a Real Estate Evaluator 1.
2. From 2019 through December 2024, Castellanos was assigned to the
condominium division, where his assigned workstation was an office cubicle.
His core responsibilities centered on checking real estate values, reviewing
annual sales data, and calculating property assessments.
3. Suarez served as Petitioner’s direct supervisor throughout 2023 and
2024. Carmel Narcisse (“Narcisse”) served as the division manager.
4. Prior to January 1, 2025, CPA personnel were governed by Miami-Dade
County personnel policies, rules, and administrative orders, after which CPA
became an independent office.
Petitioner’s History of Physical Ailments and Medical Incidents
5. Over his tenure, Castellanos sustained multiple physical injuries and
acute medical incidents: on or about June 24, 2019, Petitioner suffered an
initial injury that resulted in a massive tear to his right rotator cuff; in 2021,
Petitioner suffered a broken leg, returning to work on crutches while
experiencing physical discomfort navigating his cubicle workstation; in 2022,
Petitioner fell on his front porch, injuring his left rotator cuff, back, and
tailbone; and, on or about July 5, 2023, Petitioner was involved in a motor
vehicle accident that aggravated his back.

4
6. Due to physical discomfort and intermittent sleepless nights,
Castellanos was prescribed various pain medications, including Percocet,
Oxycodone, and high-dose Tylenol (650 mg). Castellanos testified at hearing
that these medications caused him to feel drowsy at times.
7. Although Castellanos introduced medical notes and testified to an
extensive timeline of ailments and pain, no credible medical or vocational
evidence was adduced demonstrating that any of these physical impairments
permanently or substantially limited him in performing a major life activity.
Neither his medical records nor his testimony established that his injuries
caused anything beyond temporary limitations and episodic discomfort.
8. Moreover, throughout the proceedings, Petitioner insisted that, despite
these intermittent physical challenges, he remained fully capable of
executing all essential functions of his job as a Real Estate Evaluator 1.
9. Suarez also testified credibly that she never observed Castellanos
unable to perform his substantive job functions while present at work.
The CPA Attendance Policy and Pre-Existing History of Absenteeism
10. CPA maintains a formal, binding Work Hours and Leave Policy. The
policy mandates that an employee must personally notify their immediate
supervisor prior to the commencement of their designated work shift,
whenever reporting absent, unless physically incapacitated. Unscheduled
absences not reported prior to the start of the shift are classified as
unauthorized absences.
11. Furthermore, standard annual leave requests must be submitted at
least three business days in advance, medical verification may be demanded
for sick leave, and chronic tardiness and unexcused absenteeism subject the
employee to progressive discipline up to dismissal.
12. Petitioner had a long-documented pattern of chronic attendance and
leave-reporting noncompliance that well predated his recent injuries. On
May 11, 2018, Respondent issued Petitioner a Disciplinary Action Report
(“DAR”) for failing to appear for a scheduled valuation hearing,

5
misrepresenting his physical whereabouts, falsifying official time and
attendance records, and circumventing supervisory leave notification
channels.
13. On August 18, 2023, Petitioner executed a signed written
acknowledgement confirming receipt of the CPA Work Hours and Leave
Policy.
Attendance (2023 through 2024)
14. In 2023, Castellanos requested an extended medical leave of absence
under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) from July 5, 2023, through
October 3, 2023, for shoulder rotator cuff surgery and rehabilitation.
Petitioner submitted his required documentation at the seventh-floor CPA
administrative intake window, and the agency approved the leave via
electronic correspondence. Petitioner ultimately did not take the leave,
deferring and rescheduling the surgery after his surgeon recommended a
referral to a different specialist for an alternative treatment plan.
15. On or about October 10, 2023, Petitioner requested a floating holiday
without obtaining advance authorization. When he returned to work,
supervisor Suarez denied the retroactive floating holiday request in
accordance with leave guidelines.
16. On November 3, 2023, Petitioner failed to report to work and
transmitted a text message to Suarez’s telephone to report his absence.
Suarez never received the text message transmission. In accordance with
departmental rules requiring direct supervisory contact, the absence was
classified as unauthorized.
17. On February 9, 2024, in response to continuing unauthorized
attendance irregularities, Respondent placed Petitioner on a 60-day
Performance Improvement Plan (“PIP”). The PIP detailed specific attendance
deficiencies, outlined mandatory corrective protocols, and cautioned that a
lack of prompt improvement would precipitate dismissal.

6
18. Around that time, Petitioner testified that he discussed applying for
FMLA leave with Narcisse to protect his job security while he was preparing
for surgery. Acting on that advice, Petitioner submitted another FMLA
packet at the CPA seventh-floor administrative window requesting leave
from approximately August through December 2024. However, the medical
certification was never executed because Petitioner’s physician declined to
sign off on medical leave or authorize the procedure because it was too early
to perform the surgery. No surgery date had been scheduled for 2024.
19. Castellanos never received a CPA approval of his 2024 FMLA leave
request. Consequently, Petitioner remained subject to regular departmental
work hours, and any unapproved time taken off during that timeframe was
designated as unauthorized under the CPA Work Hours and Leave Policy.
20. On or about March 18, 2024, Castellanos experienced a family
emergency when his mother-in-law was hospitalized, intubated, and
subsequently passed away. Castellanos took five days bereavement leave
during March 2024. Although an initial informal approval had been
extended, departmental human resources conducted an audit two weeks later
and concluded that the agency’s bereavement leave policy did not cover the
passing of a mother-in-law. Respondent consequently reclassified those days
as unexcused absences and docked Castellanos’ compensation.
21. On May 17, 2024, Suarez completed the final review of Petitioner’s
PIP, documenting that Castellanos had failed to achieve satisfactory
attendance.
22. On or about June 10 and 11, 2024, Petitioner sought additional
unapproved leave, testifying that he struggled to regain his workplace
routine.
23. On July 3, 2024, Respondent served Petitioner with a formal DAR
citing persistent absenteeism, unexcused tardiness, and repeated violations
of the Work Hours and Leave Policy.

7
24. The DAR strictly cautioned that an immediate failure to conform
would yield severe disciplinary action up to dismissal.
25. On July 5, 2024—two days following receipt of the DAR—Petitioner
was discovered asleep and snoring loudly at his cubicle during duty hours.
26. On August 7, 2024, Assistant Property Appraiser Lazaro Solis
affirmed the July 3, 2024, DAR and suspended Petitioner without pay for ten
working days, effective September 16 through 27, 2024.
27. Petitioner was mandated to return to work from his suspension on
Monday, September 30, 2024. He failed to report for duty and failed to notify
his supervisor, resulting in an unexcused, unauthorized absence.
Absence of Reasonable Accommodation Requests
28. Miami-Dade County maintains an Americans with Disabilities Act
Reasonable Accommodation Countywide Procedures Manual. The formal
procedure requires an employee seeking a workplace accommodation to
complete and submit an ADA Reasonable Accommodation Request Form to
their departmental personnel representative.
29. Castellanos conceded at hearing that he never executed or submitted
an ADA Reasonable Accommodation Request Form during his employment.
Castellanos claimed that he asked for a different work location, but never
requested other office accommodations such as an ergonomic chair, cubicle
modification, or specialized equipment.
30. Beyond requesting intermittent sick and medical leave, Petitioner
never identified, proposed, or requested any workplace modification that
would have enabled him to maintain consistent, predictable attendance.
The Resignation in Lieu of Termination
31. On November 1, 2024, Respondent issued Castellanos a
comprehensive DAR proposing dismissal from CPA employment based on
persistent unexcused absenteeism (seven occurrences), failure to comply
with leave protocols, unauthorized absences following suspension, tardiness

8
(ten occurrences) and sleeping at his workstation during working hours (two
occurrences).
32. On November 26, 2024—nearly four weeks after receiving the
November 1, 2024, DAR proposing his dismissal—Petitioner sent an email to
management asserting that he felt he was being discriminated against and
was contemplating filing a complaint with the Office of Fair Employment
Practices.
33. On December 6, 2024, Property Appraiser Pedro J. Garcia executed an
official memorandum terminating Castellanos’s employment. Castellanos
was explicitly informed that the agency had finalized its decision to end his
employment due to his severe disciplinary and attendance record.
34. Respondent gave Petitioner the option under County Administrative
Order 7-3 to execute a resignation in lieu of termination. CPA initiated the
separation. The record demonstrates that Petitioner’s termination had
already been determined by management, and Petitioner could not have
continued working at the agency regardless of his choice. Facing imminent,
finalized dismissal, Castellanos executed a written resignation in lieu of
termination on December 6, 2024. Because Petitioner was afforded no
realistic alternative to remain employed, his separation was initiated by the
employer and constituted an involuntary termination.
35. Respondent’s decision to terminate Castellanos was founded
exclusively upon his protracted history of unplanned absenteeism,
unauthorized callouts, tardiness, sleeping during work hours, and failure to
correct his attendance following progressive counseling, a PIP, and a ten-day
suspension. No decision-maker referenced Petitioner’s physical ailments as a
basis for discipline, and Petitioner identified no similarly situated employee
outside his protected class with comparable attendance infractions who
received more lenient treatment.

9
Ultimate Findings of Fact
36. Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that the CPA’s decisions
concerning, or actions affecting, him—including his progressive disciplinary
counseling, written reprimands, unpaid suspension, or the employer-initiated
separation finalized on December 6, 2024—were motivated in any way by
disability-based discriminatory animus. There is no competent, persuasive
evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned
could make a finding of unlawful disability or handicap discrimination.
37. Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that Respondent’s actions
subjected him to an unlawful hostile work environment or harassment based
on a disability. The credible evidence demonstrates that the supervisory
interactions, leave administration, and disciplinary measures implemented
were legitimate enforcement actions addressing documented attendance
violations and departmental rules, rather than severe or pervasive hostility
directed at a protected characteristic. Furthermore, there is no competent,
persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the
undersigned could make a finding of unlawful disability-based harassment or
a hostile work environment.
38. Additionally, Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence that CPA
discriminated or retaliated against him because he engaged in protected
activity, asked for reasonable accommodation, or opposed discrimination.
Instead, the evidence shows that Petitioner never requested a reasonable
accommodation for any alleged disability and that the Property Appraiser
disciplined and initiated Petitioner’s separation from employment strictly
because of his ongoing, documented attendance problems and unauthorized
absences. Those disciplinary actions were already well underway long before
Petitioner ever sent an email complaining of discrimination on November 26,
2024. As a result, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record,
direct or circumstantial, to support a finding of unlawful retaliation.

10
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
39. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this
proceeding in accordance with sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and 760.11(7),
Florida Statutes. See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Y-4.016 (providing that
upon a petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice, a hearing
shall be conducted by an administrative law judge).
40. The FCHR protects individuals from discrimination and retaliation in
the workplace. See §§ 760.10 and 760.11, Fla. Stat. Section 760.10 states, in
pertinent part:
(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an
employer:
(a) 	To 	discharge 	or 	fail 	or 	refuse 	to 	hire 	any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual 	with 	respect 	to 	compensation, 	terms,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such 	individual’s 	race, 	color, 	religion, 	sex,
pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital
status.
* 	* 	*
(7) It is an unlawful employment practice for an
employer … 	to 	discriminate against any 	person
because that person has opposed any practice which
is 	an 	unlawful 	employment 	practice 	under 	this
section, or because that person has made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in
an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this
section.
41. Because the FCHR is patterned after federal anti-discrimination laws,
such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Florida courts and administrative
tribunals rely on federal cases construing those acts when analyzing claims
under the FCHR. See Ponce v. City of Naples, 2017 WL 4574649, at *4 (M.D.
Fla. Oct. 13, 2017); Harper v. Blockbuster Ent. Corp., 139 F.3d 1385, 1387

11
(11th Cir. 1998) (finding that claims fail for identical reasons under federal
law and the FCHR); Valenzuela v. GlobeGround N. Am., LLC, 18 So. 3d 17,
21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921, 925 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2007).
42. The burden of proof in an administrative proceeding is on Castellanos
as the complainant. See Dep’t of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Investor Prot.
v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 1996) (“The general rule is
that a party asserting the affirmative of an issue has the burden of
presenting evidence as to that issue.”). To establish an unlawful employment
practice under the FCHR, Petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of
the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination, hostile work environment,
or retaliation. See St. Louis v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 60 So. 3d 455, 458–59 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2011). A “prima facie” case means evidence legally sufficient to establish
a fact or that a violation occurred unless disproved.
43. The “preponderance of the evidence” standard requires the “greater
weight” of the evidence, or proof that “more likely than not” establishes the
contested fact. Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000).
Consequently, if the evidence is in balance or Respondent’s evidence carries
equal or greater weight, Petitioner has not met his burden and cannot
prevail. Id.
44. The Findings of Fact above establish the Property Appraiser executed
a termination order and initiated Castellanos’s separation from employment
on December 6, 2024, leaving Petitioner no choice to remain employed. To
that end, Petitioner’s resignation in lieu of termination was an involuntary
discharge and an adverse employment action.1
1 An employee’s resignation constitutes an actionable discharge where the employer initiates
the separation and makes clear by acts or words that employment cannot continue. See
Thomas v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 116 F.3d 1432, 1437 (11th Cir. 1997).

12
Disability Discrimination
45. The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against a “qualified
individual” on the basis of the individual’s disability. Earl v. Mervyns,
207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000). Disability claims under the FCHR are
governed by the same analytical framework as ADA claims. See Holly v.
Clairson Indus., LLC, 492 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2007).
46. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Petitioner
must show: (a) he is disabled; (b) he is a qualified individual; and (c) he was
subjected to unlawful discrimination because of his disability. Garrison v.
City of Tallahassee, 664 F. App’x 823, 825–26 (11th Cir. 2016). A failure to
provide a reasonable accommodation may also constitute discrimination. Id.
47. Under the first element, Petitioner must establish a substantial
limitation on a major life activity, requiring a complete inability or significant
restriction compared to an average person. See Wimberly v. Sec. Tech. Grp.,
Inc., 866 So. 2d 146, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Transitory injuries,
intermittent pain, and residual impairments following medical treatment do
not constitute statutory disabilities. Id. Although Petitioner documented
injuries between 2019 and 2024—including shoulder tears, a broken leg, and
car accident trauma—he presented no competent evidence demonstrating
that any condition permanently or substantially restricted a major life
activity. Petitioner even affirmed at hearing he could perform all property
evaluation duties, and supervisor Suarez observed no physical inability to
work. Therefore, applying the foregoing principles, Petitioner failed to prove
he has a disability under the FCHR.
48. However, even if Petitioner had an impairment, he was not a
“qualified individual.” A qualified individual is someone who can perform the
essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.
Garrison, 664 F. App’x at 826. An employee who cannot perform the essential
functions, even with accommodation, is not covered under the ADA or FCHR.
Bagwell v. Morgan Cnty. Comm’n, 676 F. App’x 863, 865 (11th Cir. 2017).

13
49. Punctuality and predictable attendance are essential functions of
employment, particularly for public agencies. See Jackson v. Veterans
Admin., 22 F.3d 277, 279–80 (11th Cir. 1994). CPA demonstrated that
adherence to regular work hours and leave-reporting rules was an essential
duty. Petitioner’s chronic unexcused absences, unauthorized callouts,
tardiness, sleeping on duty, and inability to report reliably rendered him
unable to perform the essential functions of his role.
50. Petitioner also failed to establish a failure to accommodate. An
employee “bears the burden of identifying an accommodation, and of
demonstrating that the accommodation allows [him] to perform the job’s
essential functions.” Bagwell, 676 F. App’x at 865. An employer’s duty is
triggered only after a specific demand is made. See Gaston v. Bellingrath
Gardens & Home, Inc., 167 F.3d 1361, 1363 (11th Cir. 1999). The employer is
not required to tolerate erratic, unpredictable attendance or excuse past
misconduct as an accommodation. Moreover, medically related absences do
not automatically entitle an employee to accommodation when absences are
unpredictable. See Jackson, 22 F.3d at 279–80.
51. Respondent established countywide procedures requiring employees to
submit an ADA Reasonable Accommodation Request Form. Petitioner
conceded at hearing that he never submitted a request form. However,
Petitioner requested blocks of leave and submitted a FMLA request without
the requisite physician certification, but he never requested any workplace
adjustment enabling him to maintain regular attendance. Because regular
attendance is an essential job function, the FCHR does not require an
employer to eliminate or waive its attendance rules. See Medearis v. CVS
Pharmacy, 646 F. App’x 891, 896 (11th Cir. 2016); Holly, 492 F.3d at 1259.
Therefore, Petitioner’s failure-to-accommodate and disability discrimination
claims fail.

14
Hostile Work Environment
52. To establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment, Petitioner
must show: (a) he belongs to a protected class; (b) he was subjected to
unwelcome harassment; (c) the harassment was based upon a protected trait;
(d) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms and
conditions of employment; and (e) the employer is liable. Jones v. UPS
Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283, 1292 (11th Cir. 2012). It is a bedrock
principle that not all objectionable workplace conduct constitutes unlawful
discrimination. Id. at 1297. Only conduct based on a protected category is
considered, and innocuous or boorish workplace friction untethered to a
protected trait is excluded. Id.
53. Petitioner failed to establish that any conduct by supervisors Suarez
or Narcisse was based on a disability or handicap. Petitioner presented no
evidence that “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation,
ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter conditions
of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Standard supervisory
counseling, attendance oversight, photographic documentation of an
employee sleeping on duty, and enforcing leave rules do not constitute
unlawful disability-based harassment. Hence, Petitioner’s hostile work
environment claim fails.
Retaliation
54. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show:
(a) he engaged in statutorily protected expression or conduct; (b) he suffered
an adverse employment action; and (c) a causal relationship exists between
the two events. See Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1566 (11th Cir. 1997).
Protected conduct requires communication sufficient to inform the employer
that the employee opposes unlawful discrimination. See Murphy v. City of
Aventura, 616 F. Supp. 2d 1267, 1279 (S.D. Fla. 2009).

15
55. If Castellanos establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to
Respondent to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its
action. See Addison v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 683 F. App’x 770, 774 (11th Cir.
2017); Sierminski v. Transouth Fin. Corp., 216 F.3d 945, 950 (11th Cir. 2000).
This burden is light. Holifield, 115 F.3d at 1564. If met, the burden shifts
back to Petitioner to prove the proffered reason is pretextual. See James v.
Total Sols., Inc., 691 F. App’x 572, 574 (11th Cir. 2017); Quigg v. Thomas
Cnty. Sch. Dist., 814 F.3d 1227, 1237 (11th Cir. 2016).
56. Retaliation requires traditional but-for causation: Petitioner must
prove the action would not have occurred absent the retaliatory motive. See
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 360 (2013); Frazier-White
v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016).
57. Petitioner failed to establish a causal connection between any
protected activity and his separation. Petitioner’s first communication
alleging discrimination occurred via email on November 26, 2024. However,
Respondent had already initiated the dismissal process and issued the DAR
proposing termination on November 1, 2024—weeks prior to that email.
Where an employer contemplates an adverse action prior to learning of
protected activity, proceeding along lines previously contemplated is no
evidence of causation. See Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268,
272 (2001).
58. Moreover, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons
for initiating the separation of Petitioner’s employment: persistent unexcused
absenteeism, failure to follow leave procedures, sleeping during working
hours, and an unauthorized absence immediately after a disciplinary
suspension. Castellanos presented no evidence demonstrating these reasons
were pretextual. Consequently, Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie
case of retaliation.

16
Case No. 26-2065
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations
issue a final order dismissing Jorge Castellanos’s Petition.
DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2026, in Tallahassee,
Leon County, Florida.
S
JUNE C. MCKINNEY
Administrative Law Judge
DOAH Tallahassee Office
Division of Administrative Hearings
2001 Drayton Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32311
(850) 488-9675
www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the
Division of Administrative Hearings
this 12th day of October, 2026.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Elizabeth A. Miller, Chief Legal Counsel
(eServed)
Leona Nicole McFarlane, Esquire
(eServed)
Jason S. Remer, Esquire
(eServed)
Cindy T. Harper, Attorney Supervisor
(eServed)
Casey C. Snipes, Agency Clerk
(eServed)
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from
the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended
Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this
case.