Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner by refusing to hire him for a vacant position because of his age.Criteria for selection which preclude consideration of aged applicants & which are not job related or necessary constitute discrimination.

The issue for determination is whether Respondent, licensed as a registered roofing contractor, committed a violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against his license.Gross negligence and incompetence in performance of a roofing contract is sufficient to subject licensee to payment of an administrative fine

The issues in these consolidated cases are whether the Construction Industry Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent, William C. Lovelace, on charges set out in the Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 91-0390 (DPR Case No. 89-010370) and in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint in Case No. 91-0391 (DPR Case No. 109703). Both the Amended Complaint in Case No. 91-0390 and the Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 91-0391 allege essentially that the Respondent, a certified building contractor and registered roofing contractor, accepted payments under a contract for residential construction (with the Clarks in Case No. 91-0390 and with the Parows in Case No. 91-0391) and did not pay all suppliers and subcontractors on the job, some of whom filed claims of lien against the property. They allege that, in each case, the Respondent was found guilty of misapplying real property improvement funds in violation of Section 713.345(1), Fla. Stat. (1989). Based on the allegations, they charge violations in three counts. In each case, Count I charges a violation of Section 489.129(1)(h), Fla. Stat. (1989), for mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting that causes financial harm to the customer. Count II charges a violation of Section 489.129(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (1989), for being convicted or found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the practice of contracting or the ability to practice contracting. Count III charges a violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Fla. Stat. (1989), for being guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting.Contractor convicted for misapplying funds, financial mismanagement, and fraud or deceit. Penalty guidelines applied: $2000 fine, restitution, probation.

The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.Contractor who disregarded department rules and improperly cut down protected mangroves after stop order issued is misconduct and supports discipline.

Whether or not Respondent abandoned construction projects for which he was engaged, failed to responsibly supervise, direct, manage and control construction activities causing financial losses to his customers and otherwise engaged in fraud, deceit, gross negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting as is more particularly set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein dated August 21, 1990, and, if so, what, if any, administrative penalty is appropriate.Whether Respondent engaged in misconduct in the practice of contracting.

Whether the Respondent committed the following acts on Ellenton Shoney's construction project: Aiding and abetting a person engaged in the unregistered and uncertified practice of contracting. Obtaining a permit for construction in which he took no part. Using his license to illegally associate with an unlicensed contractor.Contractor established legitmate basis for the way relationship with owner was structured in contract. No violation of duties.

Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by committing mismanagement or misconduct in the practice of contracting which causes financial harm to a customer. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by signing false payment statements which resulted in financial loss to the owner or purchaser. Whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by being convicted or found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the practice of contracting. Whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(j), 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, by failing to properly supervise the contracting activities he was responsible for as qualifying agent.Contractor guilty of six counts of mismanagement; misconduct; false statement; egregious conduct warrants revocation.

The issue is whether the Respondent is subject to discipline for permitting his general contractor's license to be used by another person to construct a swimming pool, thereby conspiring with an unlicensed person to avoid statutory licensure requirements, and by failing to oversee the quality of the work performed by that person under Respondent's license.Contractor not liable when an unlicensed person used his number and forged his name to obtain a local building permit

The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license of Edward W. MacAlister (Respondent) based upon violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this case.Contractor's license suspended and fined for mismanagement which resulted in liens against customer's property. Failed to complete job in timely manner.

Whether the Respondent committed the following acts on the five contracting jobs set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint: Gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct. Financial mismanagement or misconduct. Failure to properly supervise contracting activities he was responsible for as qualifying agent. Job abandonment on all five construction projects. Aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor to engage in the contracting business. Engaging in a contracting business under a name not on his license and not qualified with the state.Contractor mismanaged finances under his control on three projects and attempted to deceive building department.