The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a package delivery company, unlawfully discriminated against an employee on the basis of his disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, after Petitioner, a package-car driver for Respondent, became an insulin-dependent diabetic and could not be medically certified as physically qualified to drive a federally-regulated commercial vehicle.Respondent delivery company did not discriminate against an employee on the basis of his disability after Petitioner, a package-car driver for Respondent, became an insulin-dependent diabetic.

The issues in this case are whether the Florida Real Property and Casualty Joint Underwriting Association (FRPCJUA) failed to comply with applicable requirements and standards of Part I of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, when it utilized a request for proposals (RFP) in autumn 1995 to arrive at its decision in early 1996 to contract with Intervenors, Audubon Insurance Company (Audubon), AIB Holdings, Inc. (AIB), and American International Insurance Company (AIIC), but not with the Petitioner, Bankers Insurance Company (Bankers), for insurance policy servicing work through the year 1999. Specifically, Bankers asserts: (1) that FRPCJUA improperly gave policy servicing work to AIB, which is not a licensed insurance company; that FRPCJUA violated Chapter 287, Florida Statutes, regarding competitive bidding requirements for state agencies; that, regardless whether Chapter 287 is applicable, whether FRPCJUA acted arbitrarily and in bad faith instead of using procedures equivalent to the procedures found in Chapter 287, Florida Statutes; and (4) that FRPCJUA violated the Government in the Sunshine Law, Chapter 286, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, the Department of Insurance (the Department), and the Intervenors oppose Bankers' assertions. After initially seeking maintenance of the status quo or a contract on the same terms as the others, Bankers now seeks money damages from FRPCJUA, including attorney fees and costs.RO: Chap. 287, FS, didn't apply; JUA actions weren't arbitrary or capricious; claims for money damages were estopped and waived; there were no "Sunshine Law" (SL) violations; and there was no jurisdiction to award money damages and attorney fees under SL.

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent was guilty of having pled nolo contendere to a felony involving moral turpitude and failing to notify the Agency of such a plea. Given the mitigating circumstances, a two-year probation was recommended.