Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified building contractor, having been issued license number CB C011621 as an individual contractor. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, having responsibility and authority to license building contractors and to regulate their licensure status and their standards of practice pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Sometime in December, 1979, the Respondent, doing business as Economy Steel Buildings, Inc., entered into a contract with Digital Machine and Tool Company to construct a steel building for that firm. The Respondent subsequently commenced the construction on land owned by Digital Machine and Tool Company and obtained a permit from Seminole County on December 6, 1979, authorizing the installation of a septic tank. On the face of the permit appeared language containing the specification that the "stub-out" or pipe exiting the septic tank be installed 12 inches above the original grade level. The Respondent observed that language on the face of the building permit and knew and understood its import, as his own testimony reveals. The Respondent subsequently subcontracted the installation of the septic tank to a company known as Al's Septic Tanks, which installed the tank and drain field during the early part of February, 1980. On February 10, 1980, an inspector for the Seminole County Health Department, Don Gross, inspected the septic tank installation and informed the subcontractor and the Respondent that it was not in conformance with Section 10D-6.25(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that the subcontractor had not followed the instructions on the face of the building permit (12 inches above grade level), which were designed to satisfy that Administrative Code section. Sometime between February 10, 1980, and the end of April, 1980, the Respondent received a "Notice of Violation" from the Seminole County Health Department regarding the alleged improper installation of the septic tank. The Respondent admitted that sometime soon after installation of the septic tank he became aware that it did not pass the Seminole County Health Department inspection. The Respondent maintained that he made three attempts to contact the Health Department regarding the Notice of Violation during the month of April, 1980, but he introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show what efforts, if any, he made to correct the installation of the septic tank. There were ongoing disputes between Digital Machine and Tool Company, its representative, Galon Lyell, and the Respondent during this period, and on May 21, 1980, the Respondent was told to stay off the premises and perform no further construction on the site. There arose at about this time a civil dispute between the Respondent and Digital Machine and Tool Company which is outside the scope of this proceeding. In any event, the Respondent did not correct the installation of the septic tank and there is no question that the septic tank was not installed with the "stub-out" pipe 12 inches above the original grade level. Digital Machine and Tool Company later obtained a corrected installation of the septic tank so that it would be "stubbed-out 12 inches above original grade" from a different subcontractor, at its own additional expense, in the amount of $855. From the period of December, 1979, through the completion of the building for Digital Machine and Tool Company, the Respondent was performing contracting under the name of Economy Steel Buildings, Inc. The Respondent admitted that he was fully aware, as of November 19, 1979, that he could not properly perform contracting work under the name, Economy Steel Buildings, Inc., without properly qualifying that company. After a Notice of Violation (Respondent's Exhibit 6) was issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board through Investigator Hunter, the Respondent was aware that contracting under an unqualified company name was improper. After that Notice of Violation, the Respondent made some attempts to separate his personal contracting business from that of his material supply company, Economy Steel Buildings, Inc. The Respondent, however, accepted payment for contracting and materials from his client, Digital Machine and Tool Company, for the subject project in the name of Economy Steel Buildings, Inc. The Respondent also paid Myron Roseland, a subcontractor, from Economy Steel Buildings, Inc.'s account for work attributable to the Digital Machine and Tool project. Finally, Petitioner's Exhibit 5 establishes that the Respondent attempted to discharge personal liability as a contractor, which attached to him through the Digital Machine and Tool Company project and other projects, by declaring bankruptcy pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Act as Economy Steel Buildings, Inc., since in that petition he listed numerous subcontractors, including Myron Roseland, who performed work on the Digital Machine and Tool Company job, as creditors of that corporation to be discharged. In summary, during the period of December, 1979, through the completion of the building for Digital Machine and Tool Company, the Respondent was performing contracting work as Economy Steel Buildings, Inc. During that time period, Economy Steel Buildings, Inc., was not properly qualified or registered with the Construction Industry Licensing Board by the Respondent, who was the owner and sole stockholder of Economy Steel Buildings, Inc.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Petitioner finding the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts III and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000. The administrative fine should be suspended in part, provided the Respondent provides proof within sixty (60) days from the date thereof that he has made restitution to Digital Machine and Tool Company for the $855 it had to expend to obtain correction of the improper septic tank installation, as well as restitution of monies owed to Mr. Myron Roseland attributable to the Digital Machine and Tool Company project, in which event the Respondent's fine should be reduced to $250. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 10th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James R. Lavigne, Esquire 1971 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Larry C. Garner, should be fined $500 for misstating the size of a septic tank and drain field.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Larry C. Garner, is the licensed septic tank contractor who owns and operates A. Carver Septic Tank. (The Citation for Violation erroneously referred to the company as “E. Carver Septic Tank,” but the error was corrected without objection at final hearing. There was no evidence to support Respondent’s suggestion that the Department may have taken disciplinary action against him because it erroneously thought Respondent was another licensee.) On December 6, 2001, an employee of Respondent pumped out a septic tank and measured a drain field located at 847 Matthews Road, Maxville, Florida. The resident there wanted to enlarge her residence and needed Respondent's services in order to obtain Department approval of the existing septic tank system for the enlarged residence. After services were provided, Respondent's office gave the resident a receipt stating that Respondent's company had pumped out a 900 gallon septic tank and that the drain field measured 360 square feet. (Respondent's office actually dealt with the resident's adult daughter.) Respondent's office staff also prepared Form 4015 (a Department form entitled “Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Existing System and System Repair Evaluation”) and gave it to the resident for use in getting approval of the system for the enlarged residence. The form stated that the septic tank was 900 gallons and that the drain field was 360 square feet. When the resident applied for approval of her septic tank system for her enlarged residence, the Department inspected the system and found that the septic tank actually was 750 gallons and the drain field actually was only approximately 110 square feet. The Department issued the Citation for Violation based on the magnitude of the discrepancy. Respondent denied that he personally had any contemporaneous knowledge of the services provided by his employee or the receipt of Form 4015 prepared by his office, and there was no evidence that he did. Respondent personally investigated after issuance of the Citation for Violation. At final hearing, Respondent questioned whether the Form 4015 actually stated that the septic tank was 900 gallons. From the handwriting on the form itself, it appears possible that the number could read 700, not 900. But based on the written receipt, which either was prepared contemporaneously with the Form 4015 or was the basis for preparation of the Form 4015 by Respondent's office staff, the greater weight of the evidence was that the Form 4015 stated and was intended to state 900 gallons as the size of the septic tank. As further support for this finding, Respondent himself testified to a conversation he had with his employee during which the employee explained that he sized the septic tank at 700 gallons based on its apparent depth and Respondent admonished him that the employee knew better--i.e., knew it was necessary to measure height, width, and depth to accurately measure the size of a septic tank. Respondent also attempted to explain how his employee may have made a forgivable error in measuring the drain field. According to the Form 4015, the employee measured the drain field as a rectangular bed, 12 feet by 30 feet. Actually, the drain field consists of two trenches (one 26 feet long and the other 29 feet long), which the Department's inspector measured as being two feet wide. Respondent testified that the drain field began at a distribution box and was approximately ten feet wide within a few feet of the distribution box. Respondent testified that it would be easy to incorrectly assume that the approximate ten-foot width continued as a bed for the entire length of the drain field, as his employee apparently did. However, the greater weight of the evidence was that the employee's error was not reasonable; to the contrary, to determine the configuration and size of a drain field, it is necessary to probe the ground at more than just one distance close to the distribution box. When Respondent himself went to the site to investigate the allegations against him, he probed both near the distribution box and further away southeast of the distribution box. He testified that he found solid rock ten feet in width near the distribution box; to the southeast, his probing revealed a trench which Respondent measured at between three and a half and four feet in width. Based on those measurements, Respondent assumed two trenches approximately 30 feet long and four feet in width each, for a total of approximately 240 square feet. It is difficult to reconcile Respondent’s testimony as to the width of the southeast trench with the testimony of the Department's inspector. The Department's inspector probed approximately ten feet and 20 feet from the septic tank and found two-foot wide trenches in four different places. The Department's inspector also testified without contradiction in response to Respondent's questions on cross-examination that backhoes used at the time this drain field was installed in 1973 generally had two-foot wide excavation buckets. Based on the greater care taken by the Department's inspector in measuring the drain field, and the kind of backhoe in general use in 1973, it is found that the Department's inspector's measurements were more accurate. Even if Respondent's measurements were accurate, and the Department inspector's were inaccurate, the measurements recorded on the receipt and on Form 4015 still would have been seriously overstated. While not seriously disputing the inaccuracy of the Form 4015 submitted in this case, Respondent stated "anyone can make a mistake" and that the Department should have asked Respondent to re-check the measurements instead of issuing a citation, especially in view of Respondent's disciplinary record in 29 years in the business in Clay County. (Respondent testified that his only "issues in Tallahassee" were one incident--not fully explained--involving a cow on someone's property and another when he had someone take a re- certification examination for him at a time when his mother was ill. The Department did not controvert this testimony. As already mentioned, there was no evidence to support Respondent's initial suggestion that the Department may have taken disciplinary action against him because it erroneously thought he was another licensee.) But the Department's witness testified that issuance of the citation was appropriate and consistent with agency policy because of the magnitude of the discrepancies on the Form 4015. Respondent testified that the employee involved in this case was his stepson, who has worked for Respondent for 14 years, since he was 11 years old, seven to eight years as a full-time employee. Respondent also testified that he recently fired his stepson, but the reasons for firing him were not directly related to his conduct in this case. Respondent also testified that he felt compelled to insist on a hearing although he knew the Form 4015 was inaccurate because he perceived the Department to be acting in this case as if it had "absolute power" over him. He apparently viewed his request for a hearing as a necessary challenge to government's assertion of "absolute power" over him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding Respondent guilty as charged and imposing a fine in the amount of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ______________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 24th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. John O. Agwunobi, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 John D. Lacko, Esquire Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Larry C. Garner 13950 Normandy Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32221
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Respondent should be fined for violating provisions of Chapters 381, 386 and 489, Florida Statutes, governing septic tank installation and licensure.
Findings Of Fact On August 3, 1989, and again in March, 1992, Respondent was hired by Janet Thompson to perform septic tank work on her septic tank system located at her home at 3168 Pins Lane, Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County, Florida. Her system was backing up into her house. Ms. Thompson contacted Mr. Burkett through his advertisement for Working Man Septic Tank in the Southern Bell Yellow Pages. Mr. Burkett recommended that a new drainline or finger be added to her septic system. Mr. Burkett did put in a new finger. However, the new finger was incorrectly installed, in that the drainline exceeded the maximum allowable width and did not have the minimum depth of aggregate in violation of the Rules of the Department regarding the installation of drainlines for septic tank systems. Mr. Burkett's work seemed to solve Ms. Thompson's backup problem. However, a few months later her septic tank system began backing up again. Ms. Thompson again called Mr. Burkett to come and fix the problem. Mr. Burkett recommended another drainline in an "L" shaped configuration. Mr. Burkett installed the new finger. However, he again installed the line incorrectly and violated the Department's Rules, in that the drainline exceeded the maximum allowable width and did not have the minimum depth of aggregate. Ms. Thompson's septic tank problem was corrected for a few months and then began backing up once more. Ms. Thompson called another contractor who finally solved the problem by properly installing an extensive drainline system by building the low area of the drainfield and utilizing three truckloads of aggregate. In May, 1990, William Davenport hired Respondent to do some preventive installation of a new drainfield to the septic tank system located at his home at 6220 East Bay Boulevard, Gulf Breeze, Santa Rosa County, Florida. Mr. Burkett only performed part of the work for which he was hired. The work Respondent did perform was incorrect and violated the Department's Rules regarding the installation of drainfields and lines for septic tank systems. Specifically, the work performed by Respondent was incorrect in that the drainfield exceeded the maximum allowable width, no barrier of building paper or other suitable material was installed to protect the infiltration bed and the aggregate did not meet the minimum depth required. Rules 10D-6.056(4)(a), (d) and (e), Florida Administrative Code. Finally, throughout the time period of the repair work on the Thompson and Davenport properties Respondent was not registered or licensed by the Department to perform such services and was advertising to provide such services under the name "Working Man Septic Tank Co." in the Southern Bell Yellow Pages. Both the lack of a registration and the advertisement of an unlicensed business violate the Rules of the Department. Rule 10D-6.075(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that the Department impose on Respondent a fine of $2,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 1994.
The Issue The issues in this case are: Whether Mr. Decker had an improperly maintained septic system on his property. Whether Mr. Decker illegally repaired his on-site sewage treatment and disposal system. Whether the Department of Health properly issued a citation to Mr. Decker for violation of Sections 381.0065(4) and 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 25, 1997, an employee of the Department of Health, Volusia County Health Department, David Stark, inspected Mr. Decker's property known as Bulow Creek Farm. Mr. Decker provides low-cost rental housing on this property which utilizes an onsite well to provide drinking water. Mr. Stark observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage near the building identified as Apartment Building C, which houses seven (7) apartments. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. On May 28, 1997, Mr. Stark returned to Mr. Decker's property with another Volusia County Health Department employee, Ed Williams. They both observed a wet area in the ground with the smell of sewage in the vicinity of the septic tank serving Apartment Building C. Mr. Stark identified this area as a sewage leak. Mr. Stark issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Mr. Decker which stated the raw sewage leak was a sanitary nuisance and provided that Mr. Decker should have his drainfield repaired in accordance with the repair permit Mr. Decker had previously obtained from the Department. The NOV stated the repair should be completed no later than June 11, 1997. A repair permit is valid for a period of eighteen (18) months. Mr. Decker's permit expired on April 20, 1997. Repairs must be inspected by the Department as they are made. On June 13, 1997, Mr. Stark mailed Mr. Decker a letter reiterating the need for repair of his septic system and enclosed a Notice of Intended Action giving Mr. Decker a deadline of June 20, 1997 to make the needed repairs. Mr. Stark received a letter dated June 29, 1997, from Mr. Decker, informing him that Mr. Decker, himself, had repaired the drainfield for Apartment Building C. The letter described the new tank and drainfield which Mr. Decker had installed, and Mr. Decker stated his repair was a "cheaper version of what you wanted me to do in the first place." Mr. Decker had not sought the required inspections for the repairs which he had made to the septic system, and the repairs were not inspected and approved by the Department. The Department cited Mr. Decker for having an improperly built or maintained septic system, and for failing to repair the system in accordance with the terms of the permit. The citation levied a $500 civil fine for Mr. Decker's violation.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department issue a final order affirming the civil penalty against Mr. Decker and requiring Mr. Decker to repair his septic system according to permit. If Mr. Decker fails to effect the repairs, the Department should initiate action to abate this public health hazard. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of March, 1998.
Findings Of Fact On May 6, 1986, George Bailey, doing business as Bailey's Septic Tank Service pursuant to a permit to operate a septic tank cleaning service, pumped out and cleaned the septic tank located at 474 Hinton Street, Port Charlotte, Florida, owned by Davina Hall. On May 21, 1986, upon inspection of that septic tank by Warren McDougall and Dale Holcomb on the complaint of the owner, it was determined that the septic tank inspection hatch lid was not properly sealed. There was a hole where the corner of the inspection hatch lid had been broken off and the soil over the tank was not properly replaced and compacted. The only evidence as to whether anyone else did work on that septic tank after Bailey's and before the inspection was the testimony of the inspectors and Bailey about what they were told by others. That evidence is all hearsay and cannot be relied upon to base a finding under these circumstances. Accordingly, it cannot be found that Bailey's left this tank unsealed and damaged. On September 26, 1985, Bailey's serviced the septic tank located at 1043 Webster Avenue, Port Charlotte, Florida, at the request of Robert Keniston acting as agent for the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Caggiano. The house was vacant when the work was done, but Keniston observed the work in progress. On May 27, 1986, an inspection of the septic tank by Warren McDougall and Emmery Wuthrich of the Charlotte County Health Department revealed that the access lid was broken and had not been sealed. David Sandefer, the employee of Bailey's who performed the work, acknowledged that he left the tank with a broken lid and unsealed because Keniston told him to do so and would not pay the $40 to replace the lid. Keniston denies this and says he did not know of the broken lid until the inspection. Having observed the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Keniston's testimony is more reliable and credible in this regard. On June 10, 1986, the Sarasota County Health Department received a complaint that a Chevrolet pump truck, white cab with a red tank, was dumping sewage and had magnetic signs saying it was a pressure cleaning service. The complaint was being investigated by John Madrak that same day when he saw a truck fitting the description parked at the Frosted Mug, a restaurant in Venice, Florida. There were no signs on the truck. Madrak also observed a puddle under the tank caused by a leak from the outlet valve on the tank. Madrak saw work order forms in the cab of the truck saying Bailey's Septic Tank Service. Madrak talked to the driver of the truck, David Sandefer, and was told that the truck was owned by Bailey, but was not being used for septic tank cleaning. Sandefer said it had just been repainted. The driver left the Frosted Mug and Madrak followed at the instruction of his supervisor. After a lengthy chase, the truck stopped at a convenience store and Bailey, Madrak, Venice Police Officer Dodd and Sheriff's Deputy Lowen converged on the scene. Bailey acknowledged ownership of the truck, but indicated that it was being used as a water tank truck in a pressure cleaning business and not as a septic tank pump truck. It had been repainted and had not been used for septic tank service for 4 to 6 weeks prior thereto. Bailey owns two other pump trucks that were being used in the septic tank business. The truck had hoses and shovels consistent with use for pumping septic tanks. The truck had no signs indicating by whom it was being used. The truck was leaking from the outlet valve, but no evidence was presented as to the substance leaking from the truck. No one sampled, touched or smelled the leaking material and no one looked in the tank to see what was inside. At no time did anyone observe the truck in the act of pumping sewage.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order and therein Dismiss the complaint in Case No. 86-2107. Find the Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Case No. 86- 2633. Dismiss the complaint in Case No. 86-2624. Suspend the septic tanking cleaning service permits of George E. Bailey, doing business as Bailey's Septic Tank Service, for a period of one year and impose a fine of $500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 15th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties to this case. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86- 2107 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(2). Proposed findings of fact 4 and 5 are unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed finding of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86-2623 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(5); 3(5); 5(4); 6(4); 7(5); 8(4). Proposed findings of fact 4, 9 and 10 are unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 2 is subordinate to the facts actually found. Specific rulings on proposed finding of fact of Petitioner Case No. 86-2624 Each of the following proposed finding of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(7); 1(7); 3(7); 4(8); 5(8); 6(8); 8(9); 9(10); 10(11); 11(11); 12(12). Proposed findings of fact 13, 14, 15, and 17 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 16 are subordinate to the fact actually found. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2107 Proposed finding of fact 1 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1 and proposed finding of fact 2 is similarly adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found. Proposed finding of fact 8 is unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2623 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(4); 2(4);; 3(4); 4(5). Proposed findings of fact 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are subordinate to the facts actually found. Proposed findings of fact 11 and 12 are unnecessary. Specific rulings on proposed findings of fact of Respondent Case No. 86- 2624 Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance or as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(7); 3(13); 4(12); 6(8); 7(13); 8(13); 10(11); 11(11); 12(11). Proposed findings of fact 2 and 9 are subordinate to the facts found. Proposed finding of fact 5 is rejected as not supported by the credible evidence. Proposed finding of fact 13 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony N. DeLuccia, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 06085 Fort Myers, Florida 33906 Robert B. Bennett, Jr., Esquire 46 N. Washington Boulevard, Suite 13 Sarasota, Florida 33577 William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was discriminated against based upon his age, in the manner addressed by Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the City of Leesburg at times pertinent hereto. He was employed as a waste water operator trainee, commencing employment on or about June 5, 2000. The Respondent is a city government and unit of local government which operates two waste water plants. At times material to this proceeding the Respondent was employed and assigned to the "Canal Street Plant." The Petitioner was required to perform several job functions in his capacity as a waste water operator (trainee). Respondent's Exhibit Nine, in evidence, provides a job description for the Petitioner's employment positions which include the following: Record all flows; constantly survey charts and meter readings; repair leaking waste water pipes; perform building maintenance chores; maintain vigilance over all the department facilities and log or report any unusual situations; take oral and written instructions and carry them out in a quick and responsible manner; load and unload lawn cutting equipment, and cut and trim grass at utility plant sites; make repairs and/or replace parts on plant equipment; and repair leaks and other operations as directed. That job description also required a trainee to have knowledge of the functions and mechanics of pumps and other waste water plant equipment, knowledge of the occupational hazards and safety measures required in plant operations; to have an ability to detect faulty operating characteristics in equipment and to institute remedial action. The trainee is also required to be able to read meters, chart accurately and to adjust procedures to meet plant volume requirements. He must have an ability to understand and follow oral and written instructions. The Respondent's personnel policies and procedures manual (manual), in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Eight, states at Policy No. 600.2(13) that "poor performance" is a violation of policy sufficient to initiate discipline. Poor performance is described in that section as a failure to perform assigned duties according to prescribed dimensions and standards on the individualized performance plan. Policy No. 600.2 provides for progressive discipline ranging from a verbal warning, to a written warning, a one-to-three day suspension, a four-to-five day suspension, or termination. Thus the discipline for violation of that policy is a range of appropriate actions from verbal warning to termination. On or about July 11, 2001, the Petitioner was the subject of a corrective action performance evaluation by his supervisor, Bob Mirabella. Mr. Mirabella, the Respondent's Operations Supervisor, accorded the Petitioner a grade of zero in several categories of work performance. Those are deficiencies indicating the Petitioner's lack of understanding of basic concepts related to his job position, including failure to following instructions, difficulty making simple decisions, difficulty or failure in following standard procedures, and a poor attitude. Overall his evaluation shows a rating of the Petitioner's performance as "unacceptable." That corrective action evaluation also contains a section that the Petitioner and his supervisor must initial, indicating that the Petitioner had reviewed the evaluation and that the performance deficiencies had been communicated to him. Mr. Mirabella advised the Petitioner of corrective measures to take and that any continued failure to meet expectations might result in termination. Mr. Mirabella created a type-written plan of improvement for the Petitioner with remedial activities, objectives, and developmental activities. Under the Respondent's consistent policy, the action plan would have been reviewed in 60 days, September 11, 2001, in order to determine that the Petitioner was meeting those expectations. On August 13, 2001, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failure to perform duties assigned to him on July 23, 25, and August 9, 2001. These were duties that were in accordance with the prescribed dimensions and standards of the individual performance plan for the Petitioner. The written reprimand, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Two, included a description of the Petitioner's failure to perform duties including lawn maintenance, and again cited his argumentative attitude. On August 29, 2001, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension from duties for failure to perform assigned duties according to prescribed dimensions and standards as set forth in the individual performance plan. The disciplinary action form, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit Three, specifically referred to the Petitioner's failure to perform lawn maintenance duties, failure to follow established rules and policies, and failure to take appropriate action to correct a leaking pump. It was also noted that the Petitioner was making coffee and watching television instead of performing assigned duties. Mr. Mirabella created a performance evaluation summary in preparation for the Petitioner's September 11, 2001, 60-day review of the initial, unsatisfactory evaluation of July 11, 2001. The summary showed a continuation of the Petitioner's difficulties and problems both in understanding his job and in dealing with other people in the course of his duties. The summary cited an incident where the Petitioner was abrasive, including swearing, toward other employees. It was Mr. Mirabella's intention to give the Petitioner a written reprimand regarding the swearing incident. However, due to the emergency nature of the events occurring on September 12, 2001, at the waste water plant, the written reprimand was not completed prior to the beginning of the investigation that ultimately led to the Petitioner's termination. The Petitioner made no major progress in correcting any of the problems outlined in the action plan that constituted part of the July 11, 2001, evaluation. On or about September 12, 2001, it was determined that there was a near overflow of sewage at the Canal Street Plant. Scott Moss, the employee who worked on the morning shift on September 13, 2001, discovered the problem and took corrective action immediately. Mr. Mirabella learned of the problem and reported it to the Respondent's Director of Environmental Services, Susanna Littell. Upon learning of the potential overflow occurrence, Ms. Littell began an investigation to determine when the overflow problem occurred. She gathered plant flow information and took measurements of the tanks. Employing engineering calculations, based upon the flow rates at the plant, Ms. Littell was able to determine that the problem had occurred on the Petitioner's shift. The Petitioner was the only employee on duty at the time the problem occurred. Ms. Littell consulted two outside engineers (non-city employees) to review her calculations. Those engineers found that her calculations were accurate. According to Ms. Littell, the waste water employees on duty at the plant should have observed the valve positions or otherwise noticed a problem in the plant that needed remediation. This was a regular part of their assigned duties, including the Petitioner. Mr. Mirabella determined a number of valves had been changed, which had caused the "aereation bay" to begin to fill with waste water. The aereation bay almost overflowed, which would have caused a serious environmental hazard and damage. It would have caused irreparable harm to the credibility of the waste water department, and could have engendered a minimum of $10,000.00 dollars in fines imposed by the Department of Environmental Protection. The importance of preventing these types of situations has been emphasized to employees who worked at the waste water plant, including the Petitioner. Because of the Petitioner's failure to notice the obvious serious problem occurring at the plant on his shift, and his failure to take corrective action, he was cited for negligence in performing his assigned duties in violation of the Respondent's policy. The employee who worked as his counter- part on the shift immediately after the Petitioner's, Elmer Wagner, was also cited for negligence in performing his duties because of his failure to notice the problem and to take corrective action. Mr. Wagner at the time in question was 67 years of age. The information obtained during Ms. Littell's investigation was forwarded to Ms. Jakki Cunningham-Perry, the Respondent's Director of Human Resources, in order for her to determine the appropriate disciplinary action to take. Ms. Cunningham-Perry performed an investigation of the September 12, 2001, incident. She spoke to several individuals, including, but not limited to, Mr. Mirabella, Ms. Littell, Jim Richards, who was one of the engineers consulted by Ms. Littell, as well as the Petitioner. She thereafter deliberated and prepared a written memorandum setting forth her investigative findings. Ms. Cunningham-Perry concluded that the closing of the valves occurred during the Petitioner's shift. She also concluded that Mr. Wagner should have noticed the change in the pump flow and valves during his shift. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Wagner were cited for failure to perform assigned duties in violation of city policy 600.0(13), as a result of the investigation performed by Ms. Cummingham-Perry. She reviewed the personnel history of both the Petitioner and Mr. Wagner in order to determine the appropriate levels of discipline. The Petitioner's prior history included the special corrective action evaluation of July 11, 2001, indicating unacceptable performance; the August 13, 2001, written reprimand for violation of policy 600.2(13); and the suspension for violation of that same policy. In light of the past performance of the Petitioner, as well as the September 12, 2001, incident, Ms. Cunningham-Perry recommended that he be terminated. On November 30, 2001, the Petitioner was terminated from his employment with the Respondent. The Petitioner's last day on the payroll with the Respondent was December 6, 2001. Mr. Wagner is older than the Petitioner and has had an exemplary performance record with the Respondent City. He never had any disciplinary problems on his record for 15 years of his employment with the Respondent. Because of his theretofore spotless employment disciplinary record, he was given a written reprimand as a result of his negligent performance of job duties on September 12, 2001. No evidence was adduced indicating that the Respondent treated any employees over the age of 40, including the Petitioner, any differently than employees under the age of 40. During the relevant time period the Respondent had approximately 22 employees in the waste water department. Fifteen of those 22 employees were over the age of 40. The Petitioner actually produced no evidence in his case establishing his date of birth or age. There is no evidence that the Petitioner's age was considered or was a factor in his termination decision. The decision to terminate him was based solely on his failure to perform assigned duties and his prior performance record. Moreover, the Petitioner adduced no evidence to show that he was replaced or otherwise lost his position to a younger individual. The individual who became a waste water trainee after the Petitioner's termination was Scott Moss. Mr. Moss is currently employed as Waste Water Operator with the Respondent. There is no doubt that Mr. Moss is a significantly younger individual, purported to have been in his late 20's when the incident in question occurred. The Petitioner, however, produced no evidence regarding Mr. Moss' date of birth or his age in relationship to the Petitioner's. He also produced no evidence to show that he was actually replaced by Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss had been hired on or about January 29, 2001, nearly one year prior to the date of the Petitioner's termination. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Moss were working at the Canal Street Plant in similar capacities and duties, at the time the Petitioner was terminated. Mr. Moss, therefore, just continued to work there and ultimately was elevated, through his adequate performance, to the position of Waste Water Operator. It was not established that he was hired simply to replace the Petitioner when the Petitioner was terminated. Further, the Petitioner did not adduce sufficient, persuasive evidence to show that he was actually qualified to perform the job. His prior performance had been unacceptable since at least July 11, 2001, and likely before that time. The Petitioner repeatedly failed to comprehend and perform assigned duties of a Waste Water Operator Trainee on multiple occasions. This was despite efforts by the Respondent to help the Petitioner correct his deficiencies. Accordingly, it has not been established that the Petitioner was "qualified" for the position of Waste Water Operator Trainee.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael George 25131 Southeast 167th Place Umatilla, Florida 32784 Steven W. Johnson, Esquire McLin & Burnsed, P.A. Post Office Box 491357 Leesburg, Florida 34749-1357 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
Findings Of Fact On October 13, 1988, Petitioner applied for a permit from Respondent for the operation of an onsite sewage disposal system in connection with a commercial project to be constructed on Petitioner's property in Polk County, Florida. Petitioner's application was disapproved that same day. Respondent denied the application because a publicly owned sewer system was available to Petitioner. A sewage line of the City of Lakeland, Florida, exists within a public easement abutting Petitioner's property. That sewage line is about 10 feet from Petitioner's property line. Gravity flow from Petitioner's proposed facility to the sewer line can be maintained. The city's system is under no moratoriums from any governmental body which would prevent the addition of Petitioner to the system. On October 17, 1988, Petitioner applied to Respondent's variance board, in accordance with provisions of Section 381.272(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6.045, Florida Administrative Code. The variance application was considered by the board on November 3, 1988, and a recommendation that the variance be denied resulted. On December 12, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner of the recommended denial of the variance application. The denial letter to Petitioner informed him that variances were granted for the relief or prevention of excessive hardship in those situations where there is a clear showing that the public health would not be impaired and pollution of groundwater or surface water would not result. The letter further stated that recommendation to deny variance was premised on the availability of public sewer to the property. Existence of adequate drainage for the proposed on site disposal system on Petitioner's property is questionable. The water table during the wettest season of the year on the property is only 20 inches from the surface. During other parts of the year, the water table is 38 inches from the ground surface. Two residences are presently situated on Petitioner's property and produce a flow to the present septic tank sewage disposal system of approximately 900 gallons per day. A commercial building also previously existed on the property and supplied a septic tank flow of approximately 700 gallons. The proof at hearing failed to establish whether the commercial building flow coexisted with the present residential flow. Petitioner proposes to construct a "mini mall" consisting of four stores, each with one toilet, on the property. Since public usage of the toilets in the building is not anticipated to be frequent, Petitioner estimates that approximately 600 gallons of sewage flow will be generated on a daily basis. Petitioner's property is presently served by the public water utility of the City of Lakeland. While the property lies outside the corporate city limits, it is bounded on two sides by property within the city limits on which restaurants, served by the city's sewage system, are situated. The city easement containing the sewer line runs along another side of the property which is contiguous to U.S. Highway 98. Under current policy of the City of Lakeland, connection to the city sewage system is permitted only to property located in the city limits. Petitioner must agree to annexation by the city of his property in order to obtain connection to the sewage system. However, the city assesses impact fees in addition to costs of sewage connection and in Petitioner's situation the amount of impact fees anticipated to be levied by the city is approximately $53,000. Petitioner estimates the value of his property when the "mini mall" is completed at $700,000. Estimated cost of construction, without consideration of the city's impact fees, will be $350,000. While Petitioner does not contemplate selling the property after the development is completed, he will be leasing the individual store facilities. The sole objection of Petitioner to denial of his request for a variance recommendation is that he will be forced to resort to joining the city's public sewage system and, by concomitantly accepting the city's annexation of his property, incurring the city's impact fees. It is Petitioner's contention that the impact fees effectively make the city's system unavailable to him. Alternatively, Petitioner also contends that assessment of impact fees by the city will pose a financial hardship on him and increase the per unit rental or lease costs he must charge tenants. Petitioner also contends that his commercial project will cause no adverse public health considerations because sewage flow from his facility to an on site sewage disposal system will be no more and possibly less than that presently flowing from the residences on the property to the existing septic tank system. This testimony is not credited due to the fact that anticipated drainage flow is an estimate by Petitioner with no demonstrated expertise in making such estimates; drainage at the proposed site location is questionable; and Petitioner's application states that the proposed site is located five feet from a public water well. Petitioner asserts that facts of a previous decision of the variance board established policy which requires that the variance he has requested be granted. On May 19, 1988, the variance board recommended a variance be granted to an automobile dealership in Polk County to operate an on site sewage disposal system. Had the variance not been granted, the dealership would have been force to accept annexation to a city adjoining the dealership property in order to have sewage disposal. Such a decision would have resulted in two dealerships from the same company within that city. The applicant in that case would have lost his automobile dealer franchise or have been forced to relocate elsewhere. The automobile dealership property site possessed adequate drainage with a water table 44 inches below the surface during the wettest season of the year and 84 inches at other times of the year. Anticipated sewage flow estimated at 525 gallons per day for the automobile dealership is similar to the estimate of 600 gallons per day for Petitioner's facility. Impact fees were not a consideration in the case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying approval of the variance requested by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Deno P. Dikeou Liberty National Bank Building Suite 200 502 N. Highway 17-92 Longwood, Florida 32750 Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 4000 West Buffalo Avenue 5th Floor, Room 500 Tampa, Florida 33614 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esq. General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The City is a municipality located in Pinellas County, Florida. Alexander was hired by the City on October 7, 2002, as a Service Worker in the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department. He was a backup sanitation driver, working on residential collection routes. Grover Smith (Smith), the City's Sanitation Supervisor, supervises 17 employees, including Alexander. He is responsible for the daily operations of the collection of solid waste by the City's Sanitation Division. Smith has worked for the City as a sanitation supervisor for five years and was employed in the City's Sanitation Department for 17 years prior to becoming a supervisor. His work experience includes driving a sanitation truck and being a crew leader in the Sanitation Division. As an employee of the City, Alexander was subject to the City's Code of Conduct, which lists different groups of offenses for which City employees may be disciplined. The City's Code of conduct lists the following offense as a Group I offense: Tardiness, as defined as reporting late for work, overextending breaks or meal periods within one year of the first occurrence. Occurrences of tardiness shall only be considered for a year in applying progressive discipline. When determining the proper discipline go back only one year from the most recent occurrence and follow the progression of discipline as indicated. (Guide for determining tardiness: three times in any thirty (30) calendar day period, or six (6) times in any ninety (90) calendar day period or a continuous pattern of tardiness. From May 12, 2003, through June 6, 2003, Alexander was tardy to work four times. On June 10, 2003, Smith issued a verbal warning to Alexander for his tardiness. During November 2003, Alexander was tardy ten times. Smith issued Alexander a written warning on November 26, 2003, for his tardiness. Alexander was warned that any further violations would result in progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination. The City's Code of Conduct provides that "[f]ailure to immediately report an accident or injury in which the employee is involved in while on the job" is a Group II offense for which a City employee may be disciplined. On December 9, 2003, Alexander struck a pine tree in a trailer park while driving a sanitation truck. Alexander did not immediately report the accident. Smith learned of the accident from another employee on December 9, 2003. Smith questioned Alexander the same day about the accident, and Alexander denied hitting the tree. The next day Smith investigated the incident and found evidence that a pine tree in the trailer park had been struck and that there were remnants of the pine tree on the bumper of the right side of the sanitation truck that Alexander had been driving. Smith again questioned Alexander, who continued to deny that he hit the tree. Only after two other employees who had been working with Alexander on the day of the accident admitted that the truck had struck the tree did Alexander admit that he had hit the pine tree. On December 16, 2003, Smith issued Alexander a written warning for failing to immediately report the accident. From February 27, 2004, through March 22, 2004, Alexander was tardy four times. Alexander received a two-day suspension for this offense, which was in accordance with the guidelines of the City's Code of Conduct which provides for a one to three-day suspension for a third Group I offense. The City's Code of Conduct provides that "[n]eglect or carelessness which results in a preventable accident" is a Group I offense for which a City employee may be disciplined. On May 20, 2004, Alexander, while driving a City sanitation truck, made a left turn and failed to swing wide enough, striking a series of mailboxes. The following day Alexander had another accident when he was backing a City sanitation truck down the street in a mobile home park and struck an awning on a mobile home. Both of these accidents occurred on the driver's side of the vehicle and could have been avoided if Alexander had been paying attention. The City's Code of Conduct provides that a City employee may be discharged for a Group IV offense, which includes the following: Chronic offender of the Code of Conduct. (Guide: four (4) violations of any departmental or City rule or regulation in an eighteen (18) month period which results in a Verbal Warning or other disciplinary action (effective upon adoption of the revised Personnel Rules). Smith recommended to Kurt Peters (Peters), the Director of Public Works for the City, that Alexander be suspended for five days. Peters consulted the City's Personnel Director, Bill Cropsey (Cropsey). Cropsey determined that Alexander was a chronic offender and could be discharged. On June 9, 2004, Cropsey sent Alexander a letter advising him that he was in violation of the City's Code of Conduct as a chronic offender of the Code of Conduct and that a pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled for June 14, 2004. Alexander was placed on administrative leave with pay, pending the pre-disciplinary hearing. The pre-disciplinary hearing was held on June 14, 2004, at which time Cropsey and Peters determined that Alexander should be discharged as a chronic offender. By letter dated June 14, 2004, Cropsey advised Alexander that he was terminated from his employment with the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Christopher Alexander's employment with the City. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 5th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher T. Alexander 6324 150th Avenue, North Clearwater, Florida 33760 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman, Heyman & Jardine, P.A. Post Office Box 15309 Clearwater, Florida 33766 Jeff Bronson, Chairman Personnel Review Board City of Safety Harbor 750 Main Street Safety Harbor, Florida 34695
