Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Seminole Community Action, Inc. (SCA), is a community action agency serving Seminole County, Florida. The organization is a non- profit corporation located at 1101 Pine Avenue, Sanford, Florida and has been in operation since 1966. According to its by-laws, SCA administers the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program in Seminole County. The general purpose of the agency is to plan and mobilize resources to help improve the quality of life for low income families throughout the community. Its primary source of funding has been from the federal and state governments although it does receive a small amount of private funding through contributions. Effective July, 1982 the responsibility for administering the CSBG program was shifted from the federal government to respondent, Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This meant that applications for CSBG funding would thereafter be filed with respondent rather than the United States Department of Health and Human Services. After considerable difficulty in preparing its initial application, SCA filed an application with DCA on January 28, 1983 seeking a $95,435 CSBG grant retroactive to the period December 1, 1982 through September 30, 1983. The contract called for monthly payments to SCA of $9,543.50 and required SCA to serve an estimated 4,075 CSBG eligible low-income clients during the 10-month period. Prior to filing the application, DCA representatives spent two days with SCA officials assisting them in completing the application. At that time, SCA was told that its fiscal records and operations were inadequate, that certain changes would be necessary relative to recording liabilities on its books, that its purchasing procedures must be improved, and that its record- keeping in general was in poor condition. Because of these deficiencies, DCA advised SCA by letter dated February 18, 1983, that seven special conditions pertaining to fiscal accountability would attach to the grant of funds. These conditions are set forth in Attachment A to the contract. In addition, DCA advised SCA by letter dated February 24, 1983 of federal requirements pertaining to the composition of its board of directors. Information concerning SCA's compliance with the board requirements was requested no later than March 17, 1983. A contract was eventually signed by SCA on March 29, 1983 whereby it agreed to adhere to the seven special conditions. DCA representatives made two "monitoring visits" to SCA on May 18-20, 1983 and June 1-3, 1983 to determine if the organization's fiscal operation, board composition and program services were in compliance with state regulations and contract terms. Although SCA was given advance notice of the visits, and told to have appropriate records available to substantiate fiscal reports, client records, compliance with the seven special contract conditions, and other matters, the auditors found a "lack of compliance with the law for the structure of the Board," 1/ "lack of fiscal procedures and adequate controls for fiscal accountability," "no documentation that the agency (was) serving low income persons," and a "questionable effort" to provide services to that class of persons. A more detailed list of deficiencies is found in respondent's exhibit 8 received in evidence. As a result of the above deficiencies, SCA was advised by letter dated June 15, 1983 that "it (was) imperative that corrective measures be promptly undertaken to correct these problems." A deadline for compliance in eight specific areas was set for July 15, 1983, and if it did not do so, SCA was told the contract would be terminated. On July 15, 1983, SCA was notified by letter that its contract was being terminated effective June 30, 1983. Such action was appropriate because SCA failed (a) to comply with board of director structure requirements, (b) to resolve a carry-over debt from a prior year, (c) to justify a $9,544 budget amendment, (d) to resolve $3,700 in disallowed costs, and (e) to "demonstrate a continuing fiscal accountability to the satisfaction of the Department." Petitioner has also participated in the State Weatherization Assistance Program whereby it receives state funds for conservation purposes. These are federal grant monies funded under the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981, and are granted for the purpose of providing information, services and technical assistance concerning weatherization and energy conservation to the low income community. It received $21,432 in grant funds during the fiscal year 1982-83, and was subjected to an audit by a state monitoring team in July, 1983 to insure compliance with program goals. The team found SCA had paid salaries from the grant funds in violation of federal regulations and had constructed a "cooler room" to store surplus food with grant monies in violation of federal law. Then, too, CA's administrative expenses totaled 34.9 percent of total funds which was far in excess of the norm of 5 percent for other agencies. Finally, it spent on the average over $1,300 to weatherize each home when the maximum allowed was only $1,000 per home. Because of these deficiencies, SCA's application for renewal of the program during 1983-84 was properly denied. Petitioner has also made application for CSBG funds for fiscal year 1983-84. Since the time its 1982-83 contract was terminated, SCA has failed to satisfy the concerns which were raised in the letter of July 15, 1983 which terminated the contract. Specifically, its Board of Directors still does not comply with federal or state requirements, and its fiscal irregularities have not been resolved. Until it does so, it is ineligible for grant funds and DCA is justified in refusing to approve SCA's applications. SCA contends all matters raised in the July 15, 1983 termination letter have been satisfactorily resolved. In making this contention it relies primarily upon a letter dated February 15, 1984 from the United States Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to SCA, and the adoption of amended by- laws which comply with federal guidelines pertaining to community action agency board of directors. However, neither the letter nor the amended by-laws satisfy the long-standing deficiencies cited by DCA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the relief requested in Seminole Community Action, Inc.'s petition be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1985.
Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaints dated April 26, 2010 and April 14, 2010, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Filed February 1, 2011 10:43 AM Division of Administrative Hearings 2. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00). The administrative fine is due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of this Order. 3. Checks should be made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration.” The check, along with a reference to these case numbers, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Unpaid fines pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. 5. Respondent's petitions for formal administrative proceedings are hereby dismissed. 6. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 7. The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this _2/ day of acorn ,20!/, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. nterim Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Stacey Meyer Corporate Counsel Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc. 6737 W. Washington Street Suite 2300 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53214 (U.S. Mail) Mary Daley Jacobs Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Agency for Health Care Administration Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Daniel M. Kilbride Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (U.S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the 3f* day of ities: 20//. Richard Shoop, Agency r Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
Findings Of Fact Six signs were described in a violation notice to Respondent Dandy Signs from Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation dated July 7, 1977. The notice stated the signs were alleged to be in violation of Chapter 479 and rules 14-10.04; rule 14-10.03. By stipulation of the parties the charges on the signs listed were dropped except for the following two signs: a sign located one mile west of U.S. 1, State Road 44, Mile Post 28.25 with copy "Bob's Sandpiper Restaurant" and a sign located at Junction 17-92 Deland, U.S. Highway 17 (Section 35 Mile Post .02) with copy "Buddy Sheats". The foregoing signs have no permit and evidence was presented to show that each sign is nearer to a permitted sign than 500 feet. The Respondent admits that neither sign has been permitted and that both signs violate the spacing requirements. Respondent was given time to submit evidence that the signs had at one time been permitted, but no evidence was submitted to this hearing officer although the hearing was held in excess of three months before this order is being entered.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs and invoke penalty under Section 479.18, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1978. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dan Richardson, Owner Dandy Signs 324 Flagler Street New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has standing, and whether the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has authority under Subsection 26.012(2)(c), Section 89.011, and Subsection 760.11(6), Florida Statutes (2009),1 to grant the relief requested in the Petition for Relief.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 26, 2009, Petitioner filed a Public Accommodation Complaint of Discrimination (Complaint) with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). The Complaint alleges, in relevant part, that Respondent discriminated against him for reasons discussed hereinafter. On November 9, 2009, the Commission issued a Determination: Cause (Determination of Cause). The Determination of Cause found there was reasonable cause to believe that a "public accommodation violation has occurred.” The Determination of Cause advised Petitioner that Petitioner had the option of either requesting an administrative hearing before DOAH or filing a civil action in court. In relevant part, the Determination of Cause provided: The Complainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a Petition for Relief within 35 days of the date of this Notice of Determination: Cause or Complainant may file a civil action within one year of the date of this Notice of Determination: Cause. (Emphasis deleted) The Determination of Cause at 1. On December 14, 2009, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission. The Petition for Relief requested an administrative hearing, and the Commission referred the request for hearing to DOAH. When Petitioner filed the Petition for Relief on December 14, 2009, Petitioner was pro se. Petitioner obtained counsel on or about February 16, 2010.3 The one-year period for filing a civil action expires on or about November 9, 2010. Several material facts are undisputed. Petitioner is a male and is an individual with disabilities. Petitioner has recognized impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities, including mobility. Petitioner resides in Ohio. In 2009, Petitioner wanted to travel to Disney World (Disney) in Orlando, Florida, to see Petitioner's son play baseball at a Disney sports complex. Petitioner wanted to bring his own personal mobility device onto Disney property to assist with Petitioner’s mobility handicap. The mobility device is identified in the record as a Segway. Respondent refused to allow Petitioner to bring Petitioner's personal Segway onto Disney property. Respondent does not allow any Segways onto Disney property. Some of the disputed issues of fact are discussed at this juncture to provide context in understanding the dispute between the parties. However, no finding is made concerning these disputed facts, and no finding is required to dispose of the Motion to Dismiss. Respondent alleges facts which, if proven in an evidentiary hearing, may provide legitimate safety reasons for a policy that prohibits Segways from Disney. Respondent argues that its safety concerns have already been evidenced and litigated in Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida.4 The parties dispute whether Respondent made a reasonable accommodation for Petitioner. Petitioner alleges that Respondent would not reserve and guarantee the availability of a stand-up, four-wheel mobility device that Respondent had purportedly developed but not yet deployed at Disney at the time that Petitioner wanted to travel to Disney. Respondent disputes the claim that a four-wheel mobility device was unavailable and not reserved for Petitioner. In addition, Respondent alleges the availability of alternative devices, including wheel chairs, that Respondent claims were adequate for Petitioner’s needs. The Petition for Relief, including the typed addendum (Petition for Relief), seeks specific relief. The original, handwritten version states: I have been emotionally harmed, humiliated, and denied participating in my son’s important event-–Disney must alter its policy to allow Segway use [by] the disabled and pay me reasonable damages and punitive damages of $50,000. Petition for Relief (December 8, 2009). Any doubt concerning the intended meaning of the term “reasonable damages” in the foregoing paragraph is resolved in the typed addendum to the Petition for Relief. The typed addendum states: Disney should pay me reasonable damages for the pain, humiliation, and loss I have suffered of not less than $15,000 and punitive damages of not less than $50,000. . . . Petition for Relief (December 8, 2009). The Petition for Relief requests two types of relief. One type of relief is damages. The other type of relief is an order prohibiting Respondent from barring the use of Segways at Disney (injunctive relief).5 The damages requested in the Petition for Relief are properly defined as non-quantifiable damages. The injunction requested in the Petition for Relief is properly defined as equitable relief.6 The requested equitable relief is not limited to the parties to this proceeding, but, if granted, would reach all persons at Disney who might wish to use Segways. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law, DOAH has no statutory or constitutional authority to grant either type of relief requested in the Petition for Relief. Nor does DOAH have authority to grant relief not requested in the Petition for Relief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief for the reasons stated in this Recommended Order of Dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 2010.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: 1. That the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated May 6, 1992, In the Matter of Judith Rhea Deutsch (now known as Judith Rhea Samberg) be dismissed as the Department was unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged violation took place. The complaining witness failed to appear at hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph D. Mandt, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Michael Samberg, Qualified Representative 4747 West Waters Avenue #3003 Tampa, FL 33614 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil Deputy General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a settlement agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED on this the JPmiay of dylesta, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 1h WYLe. for: izabeth Dudek, Secretar Agency for Health Care Administration 1 Filed September 17, 2013 2:57 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies Furnished to: Christopher Parrella, Qualified Representative The Health Law Offices of Anthony C. Vitale, P.A. 2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1 Miami, Florida 33129 cparrella@vitalehealthlaw.com (Via Electronic Mail) Jeffries H. Duvall, Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Eric W. Miller, Inspector General Agency for Health Care Administration Richard Zenuch, Bureau Chief Medicaid Program Integrity Finance & Accounting HQA (via email) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to the above named addresses by mail or interoffice mail this [> day of Spe far 1013. <7 Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
Findings Of Fact This Hearing Officer has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this hearing. Proper notice was given to all parties and all parties had an opportunity to be present and to be heard. An alleged violation of Chapter 479 was served on the Respondent, National Advertising Company, citing subject -- sign located on Interstate 95, 0.89 miles south of Bowden Road with copy "Valles" thereon by written notice dated September 2, 1976. The original part of the sign was erected within the city limits prior to 1970 and was not permitted by the Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation. The violation which is the subject of this hearing is that the sign has been added to by erecting forty feet of catwalk thereon and installing three lights. The monetary value was increased by approximately $1,084.00. The addition of catwalk and lights to the sign is not routine maintenance as defined in Section 479, Florida Statutes, and a permit was necessary for such additions to signs subsequent to January, 1971.
Recommendation Notify the Respondent that the subject sign will be removed if such is not removed within 30 days after entry of the final order. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. George E. Hollis National Advertising Company Post Office Box 23208 Tampa, Florida 33623 William Rowland, Esquire Post Office Box 539 Winter Park, Florida F. S. Whitesell, District Sign Coordinator Department of Transportation South Marian Street Lake City, Florida 32055
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement based on their mutual interests. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this filed is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the Al day of Dofober , 2013, in Tallahassee, Florida. IZABETH DUDEK, SECRETARY Agenc¥ for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Filed October 21, 2013 4:09 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Copies furnished to: William M. Blocker II, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration (Inter-office Mail) Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Attn: Segundo Fernandez 2060 Delta Way Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Shutts & Bowen, LLP. Attn: Joseph Goldstein 200 East Broward Boulevard Suite 2100 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Rutledge Ecenia, P.A. Attn: Stephen Ecenia Attn: J. Stephen Menton 119 South Monroe Street Suite 202 Tallahassee, Fl. 32303 Radey Law Firm Attn: Jeffrey Frehn Attn: Donna Blanton 301 S. Bronough Street Suite 200 Tallahassee, FI. 32303 John G. Van Laningham Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregeing document has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail on this they day of , 2013. Richard Shoop, Esq. Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
The Issue Whether subject signs were properly permitted and which subject sign on Hacienda Drive was also unsightly and not permitted.
Findings Of Fact Subject signs were not properly permitted and subject sign on Hacienda Drive was also unsightly.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, BankAtlantic, committed an act of discrimination in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, in relation to its treatment of the Petitioner, Ethel Rials.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to allegations of this case, the Petitioner, Ethel Rials, was an employee of BankAtlantic. The Petitioner worked in the Loan Servicing Department and was responsible for monitoring outstanding loans. She is black. The Loan Servicing Department was comprised of two divisions: standard loans and complex loans. Alice Moore supervised the standard loan division. Barbara Halprin was the Senior Vice President and Manager of the entire Loan Servicing Department. She evaluated the employees and, in August 2000, gave the Petitioner an excellent evaluation. At that time, the Petitioner exceeded the performance expectations of her employer. Subsequently, the Petitioner was promoted to the position of lead complex loan servicing specialist. Again, when the Petitioner was evaluated, her work exceeded the performance expectations of the employer. The Petitioner continued to perform her work responsibilities in an excellent fashion through September 2001. Sometime in 2002 it was announced that Alice Moore intended to retire at the end of the year. Although Ms. Moore did not recommend the Petitioner to assume her role as the supervisor in standard loan servicing, other BankAtlantic employees did. In fact, Ms. Halprin determined the Petitioner to be the most qualified and intended to promote the Petitioner to the Moore position. She advised the Petitioner accordingly. Petitioner acknowledged that she would be interested in the promotion and, until the fall of 2002, Ms. Halprin presumed the promotion would follow as planned. In November 2002, the Petitioner took sick days on November 20-21. She was scheduled for vacation days and was off November 22 and 25. When the Petitioner returned to work November 26, 2002, she alleged she had been the victim of racial discrimination and hostilities. On November 26, 2002, the Petitioner told Ms. Halprin of incidents that she claimed evidenced a hostile work environment. For example, the Petitioner claimed that on one occasion someone had spilled coffee in front of her desk (a large volume) such that the mess made her work area difficult to use. Second, the Petitioner claimed that on one occasion someone had left a note for her with "KKK" written on it. Third, the Petitioner claimed that someone had spit on her desk. And, fourth, the Petitioner claimed that an employee (Ms. Cass) had attempted to publicly humiliate and harass the Petitioner by implying work errors were attributable to the Petitioner. It is undisputed a large quantity of coffee was spilled in front of the Petitioner's desk on one occasion. Who spilled the coffee is unknown. The alleged "KKK" note was not produced or offered into evidence. If written, it is unknown who wrote the "KKK," when it was written, or what it was intended to mean. There is no evidence that anyone spit on the Petitioner's desk. There is no evidence that Ms. Cass intended to humiliate or embarrass the Petitioner when errors were identified. Unknown persons in the Loan Department committed errors that the Loan Servicing Department was required to identify and correct. Although generally found and corrected without issue, Ms. Cass did not like to deal with errors. The Petitioner misapprehended her comments. The comments complained of occurred on one occasion. On November 27, 2002, the Petitioner resigned her position with BankAtlantic and claimed she could not continue in the hostile work environment. The Respondent timely submitted all of the Petitioner's claims to its personnel office for investigation, but the Petitioner terminated employment without waiting for the conclusion of the review.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 2004. Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Angelo M. Filippi, Esquire Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P. A. 200 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1900 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Ethel Rials 3832 Baymeadows Road, No. 211 Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Victoria Bloomenfeld Bankatlantic 1750 East Sunrise Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304
