welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Luis Santos
Luis Santos
Luis Santos
Visitors: 57
0
Bar #84647(FL)     License for 15 years; Member in Good Standing
Tampa FL

Are you Luis Santos? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-002747  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs DEIRDRE WILLIAMS  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 22, 2019
Whether Respondent’s rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees’ Retirement Fund (the Fund) are required to be forfeited pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2018).1/Forfeiture of retirement benefits is required for Respondent who admitted to committing the specified act of theft.
18-005072  SHARON FORD vs LINCARE, INC.  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 21, 2018
Whether Respondent, Lincare, Inc., is liable to Petitioner, Sharon Ford, for subjecting her to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment.Petitioner's complaint based on sexual harassment was time-barred and, regardless, she failed to establish being subjected to severe and pervasive sexual harassment for which Respondent was liable.
16-006664  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs TONIA BRIGHT  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2016
The issue in this case is whether Respondent’s rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees’ Retirement Fund are required to be forfeited pursuant to article II, section 8(a) of the Florida Constitution and the implementing statute.Resp. convicted of 2 felonies for obtaining information from a protected computer, admittedly committed for personal profit by abusing computer access entrusted to her as a public employee. Forfeiture of pension benefits required.
17-002481  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs MARIO PEREZ  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 24, 2017
The issue in this matter is whether Respondent has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2015).1/Petitioner proved that Respondent must forfeit all rights and benefits to pension benefits pursuant to s. 112.3173(3) by his admission to committing the specified offense of theft from his public employer.
17-002484  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs DWIGHT RIVERA  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 24, 2017
The issue is whether, pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, Respondent has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Plan (Fund).Respondent forfeited retirement benefits with City by admitting he committed a specified act (bribery).
16-006665  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs BEVERLY HARVIN  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2016
Whether Petitioner has forfeited her rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2010).Petitioner failed to prove Respondent admitted to conduct prohibited by section 838.21, Florida Statutes, and therefore forfeiture of Respondent's pension benefits is not warranted.
16-006669  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs PRISCILLA PHILLIPS  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2016
Should Respondent, Priscilla Phillips, forfeit her rights and benefits under the retirement system of the City of Tampa (Tampa) on account of the termination of her employment because she admitted aiding or abetting a “specified offense?”City proved by clear & convincing evidence that employee disclosed confidential information intending to impede an investigation.
16-006668  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs BOBBY E. RICHARDSON  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2016
Whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2009).Petitioner failed to prove a nexus between Respondent's criminal conduct and his public employment, therefore, there should be no forfeiture of Respondent's pension benefits.
16-006666  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs RODNICK BOYD  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2016
Whether Respondent’s pension should be forfeited based on his conviction for petit theft, a violation of the City of Tampa personnel manual.Petitioner proved that Respondent pled nolo contendere to a charge of petit theft, and as directed in section 112.3173, he forfeited his rights and benefits under the General Employees Retirement Fund.
16-006667  CITY OF TAMPA GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND vs ROBERT RAMSHARDT  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2016
The issue in this matter is whether Respondent has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2009).1/Petitioner proved that Respondent must forfeit all rights to pension benefits pursuant to s. 112.3173(3) by his admission to committing the specified offense of theft from his public employer.

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