Charlot v. Cnty. of Miami-Dade Aviation Dep't

Full title: Venis CHARLOT, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIAMI–DADE AVIATION DEPARTMENT…

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Date published: Aug 28, 2013

119 So. 3d 567 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

Opinion

No. 3D12–2158.

2013-08-28

Venis CHARLOT, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIAMI–DADE AVIATION DEPARTMENT, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Mayra L. Kadzinski, Boca Raton, for appellant. R.A. Cuevas, Jr., Miami–Dade County Attorney, and Eric A. Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

An Appeal from the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Mayra L. Kadzinski, Boca Raton, for appellant. R.A. Cuevas, Jr., Miami–Dade County Attorney, and Eric A. Rodriguez, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Before WELLS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Valenzuela v. GlobeGround N. Am., LLC, 18 So.3d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Fla. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So.2d 1205, 1209–10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he ultimate question of the existence of discrimination is a question of fact.... [A]n appellate court's power to alter the lower tribunal's finding in that regard is limited to those findings that are clearly erroneous.... Because discriminatory intent is an issue of fact ... it must be accepted by the reviewing agency unless that finding is not supported by [competent substantial evidence] in the record.”) (citations omitted).