welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Cindy Hebenthal Horne
Cindy Hebenthal Horne
Cindy Hebenthal Horne
Visitors: 74
0
Bar #816434(FL)     License for 36 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Cindy Hebenthal Horne? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

14-002798BID  XEROX STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent's intended award of Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) 13/14-01 was contrary to the Department's governing statutes, rules or policies; contrary to the solicitation specifications; and was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.Evidence showed intended ITN award appropriate. Neither statute nor ITN required negotiations to be concluded before intended award posted. Renewal price, unless separately stated, was the proposed contract price.
10-002327  KWASI MALEZI vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 27, 2010
Did Respondent, Department of Revenue (DOR), discharge Petitioner, Kwasi Malezi, because of his sex or in retaliation for him making complaints of discrimination on account of gender and a hostile work environment?Employee on probation didn't prove sex discrim. or retaliation. Ignoring court policies and unauthorized computer use and overtime caused discharge. Female probationary employee with less violations not similarly situated. No hostile work environment.
08-005579  MARY LYNN JONES vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 05, 2008
The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice.Petitioner alleged discriminatory discharge due to disparate treatment on account of race and retaliation for reporting discrimination. Petitioner failed to provide any proof whatsoever of racial discrimination or retaliation.
08-000164BID  LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 08, 2008
This case is a bid protest filed by Petitioner, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings ("LabCorp"), to contest the award of a contract by Respondent, Department of Revenue ("Department"), to Intervenor, Orchid Cellmark, Inc ("Orchid" or sometimes "OCI"). The issues are whether the Orchid bid was responsive to the bid criteria, whether Orchid is a responsible bidder, and whether the Department's award of the bid to Orchid should be deemed clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.The Department`s award of the contract was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
06-002131  JANET CARTWRIGHT vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2006
Whether the Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in her employment based on her gender or race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes?Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on gender or race. Further, her complaint was not timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, and is therefore barred.
05-003667  DELENA R. STRINGFIELD vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 06, 2005
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was dismissed from her employment with Respondent on the basis of racial discrimination.Petitioner, an African-American, failed to prove that her dismissal was based on racial discrimination and not her misuse of the State SunCom system to make 711 personal long-distance calls.
04-001197  BRENDA E. WARREN vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 08, 2004
Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner by subjecting her to discrimination on the basis of her race (Black) or by retaliation.An acrimonious workplace is not necessarily a "hostile workplace." The employer`s investigation of insubordination and disruptive conduct charges against employees is not the type of charge that supports a retaliation claim.
00-001229  DENNIS J. MAGEE vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF STATE GROUP INSURANCE  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 22, 2000
Does the Prescription Drug Services Plan administered by the Division of State Group Insurance provide coverage for the drug Xenical as prescribed to the Petitioner?Coverage of a prescription for Xenical, an anti-obesity drug prescribed for a diabetic, was appropriately denied by the Division of State Group Health Insurance.
02-001719BID  KPMG CONSULTING, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 01, 2002
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Department of Revenue (Department, DOR) acted clearly erroneously, contrary to competition, arbitrarily or capriciously when it evaluated the Petitioner's submittal in response to an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for a child support enforcement automated management system-compliance enforcement (CAMS CE) in which it awarded the Petitioner a score of 140 points out of a possible 230 points and disqualified the Petitioner from further consideration in the invitation to negotiate process.Agency established that flexible standards for evaluation committee`s scoring of ITN proposals were appropriate in ITN initial sage of review, in complex computer system procurement, where evaluators were trained and sophisticated as to Agency`s needs.
02-001721BID  COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE  (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 01, 2002
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the rejection of Petitioner Compaq Computer Corporation's (Compaq) submission in response to an invitation to negotiate #01/02-31 for the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Automated Management Systems (CAMS) case management informational technology system is "clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious." Embodied within that general issue are the considerations of whether the proposal by Compaq was responsive and whether the submittal by Compaq of a "Form 7105," with the absence of the vendor certification purportedly required on the front, or first page of that form, and the signature by the representative of Compaq in a signature area designated for an agency representative is a material irregularity.Petitioner demonstrated that submitting only 2 of 3 required pages of form PUR7105, with vendor certification signature in wrong location, was not a material irregularity and which caused no competitive advantage to Petitioner.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer