Case Name: Venis CHARLOT, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE AVIATION DEPARTMENT, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2013-08-28
Citations: 119 So. 3d 567
Docket Number: No. 3D12-2158
Parties: Venis CHARLOT, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE AVIATION DEPARTMENT, Appellee.
Judges: Before WELLS and ROTHENBERG, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 119
Pages: 567–567

Head Matter:
Venis CHARLOT, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE AVIATION DEPARTMENT, Appellee.
No. 3D12-2158.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Aug. 28, 2013.
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.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Valenzuela v. Globe-Ground, 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).