Clint Curtis FWIW: his case against Florida DOT online

[steve2470]

http://tinyurl.com/3onaz

This post may mean absolutely nothing, but it's here FWIW.

"<big snip> Thus, because Curtis did not timely file his
complaint, FCHR lacked jurisdiction over Curtis’ complaint and lacked the authority
to file the petition seeking reinstatement of Curtis. See St. Petersburg Motor Club v.
Cook, 567 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Accordingly, the order of the circuit court granting temporary reinstatement of
Curtis is REVERSED.
KAHN AND BENTON, JJ., CONCUR."

[steve2470]

1. more info from the FDOT vs. Curtis & FCHR case.....

"The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) seeks reversal of a final order which temporarily reinstates Clinton Curtis "to his former contract provision with the Florida Department of Transportation," on the authority of the Florida Whistleblower’s Act, sections 112.3187-112.31895, Florida Statutes (2002). This order was entered following a complaint by Curtis to the Florida Commission on Human
Relations (FCHR) in which he alleged that he had been separated from employment as a result of retaliatory action by DOT. Curtis alleged that DOT took such retaliatory action because he had reported that DOT was overcharged by an independent contractor for whom Curtis was formerly employed. Without reaching the question of whether Curtis’ employment status entitled him to the remedies available under the Whistle-blower’s Act, we hold the matter should not have proceeded to the circuit
court because Curtis’ complaint to FCHR was untimely on its face."

<snip>

[Turn CO Blue]

2. Another point in the affidavit that seems to check out:

would be the whistle-blower complaint filed by both Mavis Georgalis and Clint Curtis

This is a pdf of one court complaint in the District Court of Appeals in Florida, First District

<http://www.1dca.org/opinion/opinions2003/4-10-03/02-3020.pdf>
The Florida Department of Transportation versus Mavis Georgalis
Case 1D-023020

See the bottom paragraph on Page 2 - where it mentions Clint Curtis particated in a whistle-blower complaint with her against FCHR Florida Commission on Human Relations

[steve2470]

3. here is the text...

<snip>

"Section 112.31895(1)(a) provides that a complaint alleging retaliatory action by an employer must be filed no later than 60 days after the retaliatory act. Here, on the face of Curtis’ complaint, the alleged retaliatory action occurred on April 1, 2002, and the complaint was filed on July 10, 2002, more than 100 days after the alleged act.
Further, the date of Curtis’ complaint cannot be related-back to the date a similar complaint was filed by a DOT employee, Mavis Georgalis, because the administrative rule providing for this relation back doctrine, rule 60Y-5.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, is adopted pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, section 760.06(12), Florida
Statutes (2002), and is applicable to proceedings under that act."

<snip>

[Unforgiven]

4. FDOT

is always right, even when it is wrong. Under no circumstances will the state of Florida admit liability for any misdeed, unless it is in it's own favor. As a steward and Local president trust me, I know through painful experience. :(

[T Roosevelt]

5. What dealings have you had with them?

I've worked for them and with contractors to them...

[Unforgiven]

7. Work There

[T Roosevelt]

8. Which district?

I used to work District 5...

[Unforgiven]

9. Seven

[mdb]

6. Here is the pdf file.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/floridastatecases/app/app1_2_2004/02-3463.pdf

[jamboi]

10. Cool. n/t