Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on account of his disability.Petitioner failed to prove Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability or sexual harassment. Respondent showed reasonable accommodation and good cause for firing

The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in September 1999.Claimant failed to establish charge of race, gender, and age discrimination; the petition for relief dismissed.

The issue is whether the Department of Revenue (DOR) acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally or dishonestly in the award of contracts for legal services regarding Child Support Enforcement (CSE) proceedings to R. Craig Hemphill, the Intervenor in this consolidated proceeding.Contractual dispute between petitioner and intervenor has no relevance to whether agency acted appropriately regarding bid award.

Whether the Respondent, the Department of Revenue, acted in a fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest manner in deciding to award a contract to the Intervenor, Recognition Equipment Incorporated, based upon the Intervenor's response to Request for Proposal No. 90/91-261?Failed to provide DOR award of Contract to intervenor was not consistant with request for proposal.

By timely formal written protest, duly foreshadowed by notice of intent to protest, petitioner Equity Resources, Inc. invoked the bid dispute procedures prescribed by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1989). In its formal written protest, petitioner asks that respondent Department of Revenue not carry out its stated intention to disqualify petitioner's proposal to lease warehouse space to the Department. The formal written protest does not ask for an award of the lease to petitioner, at this juncture. Instead, petitioner seeks comparative review of its proposal with other, responsive proposals. The parties did not prepare for and agreed at hearing to refrain from litigating the comparative merits of petitioner's proposal and other proposals received in response to request for proposals for lease No. 730:0106. Piecemeal consideration of bid disputes does not serve the purpose of the expedited procedures established by Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1989). But, in light of the parties' limited preparation, the limited scope of the prayer for relief in the formal written protest (and since neither DOR nor the intervenor pleaded that the award would go to intervenor, even if petitioner's proposal were not disqualified), the present proceeding has been limited, in keeping with the parties' request, to the question whether the petitioner's proposal was responsive. When the parties were unable to resolve this question by agreement, the Department of Revenue referred the matter for hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings, in accordance with Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1989). Since the Department of Revenue (DOR) referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings, "the Division has jurisdiction over the formal proceeding." Section 120.57(1)(b)(3), Florida Statutes (1989).Burden on protester whose bid is nonconforming to prove variance is immaterial.

The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Petitioner abandoned his position of employment with the Respondent, Department of Revenue.State employee's failure to return to work within 30 days after suspension was up and after expiration of medical excuse was without justification abandonment.

The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, State Board of Independent Post-Secondary Vocational, Technical, Trade and Business Schools (Petitioner or Board), properly denied issuance of a license to Respondent to operate a school, as defined in Subsections 246.201-246.231, Florida Statutes.Respondent failed to abide by permissible refund policy and should be denied licensure.