Whether Respondent, James Michael Rossi, violated section 468.436(2)(b)2., Florida Statutes (2015),1/ as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.The Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to maintain association records or fulfill his duties to the association in good faith.
Whether Respondent, John C. Minder, committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) on November 17, 2014; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner failed to prove the allegations. Recommend dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Corrections (“DOC” or the “Department”), engaged in discriminatory practices against Petitioner, Patrick Quercioli, on the basis of his disability; and, if so, what relief should be granted.Petitioner failed to prove discrimination by his employer.
The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/Agency action substantially justified.
Whether Petitioner’s application to enter into a hearing aid specialist training program should be approved.Petitioner failed to prove that his application to enter into a hearing aid specialist training program should be approved.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated sections 626.611(7), 626.611(9), 626.611(16), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9541(1)(e)1., 626.9927(1), 626.99275(1)(b), and 626.99277(6), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Insurance agent sold viaticals, which were not registered as securities.
Did Respondents violate Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.010(5) and (7) by dumping untreated septage (untreated septic tank waste) onto the ground, instead of transporting it to an approved treatment facility? Did Respondents commit gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct by dumping untreated septage onto the ground in violation of rule 64E-6.022(1)(n)? Did Respondents create a sanitary nuisance, exposing human and animal life to untreated human waste and endangering the public's health and safety by dumping untreated septage onto the ground in violation of rule 64E-6.022(1)(q)? If Respondents committed any of the offenses described above, what penalties should be imposed?Clear and convincing evidence proved Casanova & Busy Bee dumped approximately 3,000 gallons of septage on vacant land in Lee County. In light of previous violations and severity of the offense registration and certifications should be revoked.
Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's license as a life including variable annuity agent (2-14), life agent (2-16), and health agent (2-40), held pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes?Respondent sold unregistered securities, a violation of law.
The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action against Petitioner contrary to Sections 760.10(1)(a) and 760.10(7), Florida Statutes (2006).Petitioner did not prove that Respondent discriminated against her based on her race by failing to promote her, harassing her, unlawfully discharging her or retaliating against her.
The issue is whether the four "unwritten policy statements" challenged by Petitioner are rules that have not been adopted through the formal rulemaking procedures.Challenged agency statements are not rules. Petitioner challenged substantially the same statements in a prior case, and also has the opportunity to challenge the statements in pending enforcement case. The petition is dismissed in a summary final order.
