Tonisha Timothy v. European Wax Center

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 13, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-1450
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 13, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1450 Lower Tribunal Nos. 24-57977, 24-2730, 15D-24-00492 ________________

Tonisha Timothy, Appellant,

vs.

European Wax Center, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Florida Commission on Human Relations.

Tonisha Timothy, in proper person.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., and Patrick F. Martin and Jessica M. Pagliery, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY, and GOODEN, JJ.

LINDSEY, J. Appellant, Tonisha Timothy, appeals a Final Order Dismissing Petition

entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, adopting the

Recommended Order issued in the above-styled case by an Administrative

Law Judge (“ALJ”). In doing so, the Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings

of fact and conclusions of law. Although Timothy’s exceptions to the

Recommended Order were rejected for failure to comply with the statutory

requirements for specific rulings, the outcome would be no different

regardless of whether there was compliance.

The applicable standard to review an ALJ’s findings of facts is

competent, substantial evidence. See § 120.68(7)(b), Fla. Stat. (2025)

(“The agency’s action depends on any finding of fact that is not supported by

competent, substantial evidence in the record of a hearing conducted

pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57; however, the court shall not substitute

its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on any

disputed finding of fact[.]”); Hernandez v. Guerra, 230 So. 3d 514, 516 (Fla.

3d DCA 2017) (“This Court may not reverse the ALJ’s findings of fact if those

findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence.”); Bagarotti v.

Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 208 So. 3d 1197, 1199 (Fla.

3d DCA 2017) (“An administrative hearing officer’s findings of fact may not

2 be disturbed by a reviewing court if those findings are supported by

competent, substantial evidence.”).

Under this standard, we are powerless to reverse the lower court’s

factual findings simply because Timothy is convinced that we or another

lower court would have decided the case or weighed the evidence differently.

Thus, based on the record before us, we find no reversible error.

Affirmed.