The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her gender, age, and race as stated in the Petition for Relief, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Petitioner is a 49-year-old, African-American female. Petitioner was hired as a customer service representative at Respondent's Maitland, Florida, location on June 3, 2002. Petitioner received a copy of NuVox’ Employee Handbook, which addressed Respondent's anti-discrimination policies, as well as its policies regarding employee conduct, attendance, paid time off, and termination. Respondent provides voice and data communications services to businesses. On or about August 24, 2009, Petitioner was discharged from her employment with Respondent. Arleen Couvertier was Petitioner's supervisor between January 30, 2009, and May 2009. On February 20, 2009, Petitioner received a verbal warning for violating a policy regarding breaks, when she left for a break during a team meeting. Petitioner was informed that failure to comply with the expectations stated in the warning could result in further disciplinary action up to, and including, immediate termination. On April 8, 2009, Petitioner asked to have May 13, 2009, off as she had been subpoenaed to be in court. Petitioner was advised that she would not have enough paid time off to cover an absence on May 13, 2009, as she had already been approved for a three-day vacation at the end of May into early June, which would put her time off balance at an unacceptable negative 15 hours. Respondent suggested that Petitioner reduce her planned vacation by one day in May so the requested May 13, 2009, time off could be approved. Petitioner was reminded that if she kept her vacation hours, the May 13, 2009, court day would be an unplanned absence, which would result in an unpaid occurrence in accordance with Respondent's policies. Petitioner did not rearrange her vacation schedule and took May 13, 2009, off as an unapproved, unpaid absence, thus, earning an attendance occurrence. On May 11, 2009, Katylyn Weems became Petitioner’s supervisor. In May and June, Petitioner did not meet her performance goals. Petitioner's supervisor reviewed her performance statistics with Petitioner and suggested ways that she could improve. On July 30, 2009, Petitioner received a verbal warning from Ms. Weems, which was witnessed by her former supervisor, Ms. Couvertier, for an attitude problem that was borderline insubordinate, because Petitioner failed to acknowledge or respond to three different managers’ in-person, email, and instant message communications on July 29, 2009. Ms. Couvertier felt that Petitioner’s body language, her failure to answer a question asked from three feet away, and subsequent failure to turn away from her computer to answer the same question asked by Ms. Couvertier directly to Petitioner, was insubordination. On August 6, 2009, Petitioner was placed on a Final Written Warning for poor performance. In addition to her low work quality scores in May (45 percent) and June (54 percent), Petitioner scored equally as low in July (49 percent), compared to her goal of 85 percent through August. Petitioner was informed that she had to show significant performance improvement in 11 specific areas, including, but not limited to, continue to be on time at the start of the shift. Petitioner was told that she was expected to show immediate and sustained improvement in her performance and that failure to comply with the expectations in the final warning could result in further disciplinary action up to, and including, immediate termination. On August 10, 2009, Petitioner asked her supervisor to allow her to take Thursday, August 20, 2009, off from work. Ms. Weems denied her request, explaining that she had previously approved Petitioner’s request to take off Monday, August 24, 2009, and Wednesday, August 26, 2009, which was going to create a negative 13-hour balance and, therefore, she could not approve any greater negative time off balance. On August 20, 2009, Petitioner left a message for Ms. Weems that she would not be in that day because she had an appointment, which was later repeated by email. Petitioner did not appear for work on August 20, 2009. Ms. Weems sent an email to Petitioner informing her that she had earned a third unpaid occurrence for her August 20, 2009, absence without paid time off available, along with information about her two other occurrences. Ms. Weems also informed Petitioner that her day off on August 24, 2009, was no longer approved due to her lack of paid time off. On Friday, August 21, 2009, Petitioner called in to say she would not be in to work. Ms. Weems verbally informed Petitioner on the telephone that because she had taken unapproved time off on August 20 and 21, 2009, the approvals for time off on August 24 and 26, 2009, had both been rescinded and the days off would have to be rescheduled as she had no more available paid time off. Knowing that Petitioner had been subpoenaed to appear in court on August 26, 2009, Ms. Weems suggested that she try to come in on August 21, 2009, even arriving late, so that she would still have a paid time off day available to use on August 26, 2009. Petitioner said, “okay” before she ended the call, but did not come in to work at all on August 21, 2009. On August 24, 2009, Ms. Weems reminded Petitioner that her absence on August 20, 2009, was unapproved and that Petitioner had taken that day off anyway, as well as August 21, 2009. Ms Weems further reminded Petitioner that the August 20 and 21, 2009, absences had caused the approvals for time off on August 24 and 26, 2009, to be rescinded as Petitioner had no paid time off and could not have a further exception. In response, Petitioner emailed Ms. Weems, "I understand[,] but I will not be here on the 26th[.] I will be in court." As a result, on the same day, Petitioner was terminated due to insubordination related to her attendance and poor performance. The "insubordination" is related to Petitioner taking both August 20 and 21, 2009, off when she was told that she could not have August 20, 2009, as paid time off. Respondent presented evidence that credibly supports its assertion that its attendance policy was applied equitably without consideration of race, sex, or age.
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 finding that Respondent, NuVox, did not discriminate against Petitioner, Jacquelyn Brown, and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 15th day of December, 2010.
The Issue The issues presented in this consolidated proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts and violations alleged in the two administrative complaints, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating restaurants in the state. Respondent is licensed as a restaurant, pursuant to license number 5802478, and operates as 459 Chinese Restaurant at 657 North Primrose Drive, Orlando, Florida 32803 (the restaurant). A sanitation and safety specialist (Specialist) for Petitioner inspected the restaurant on October 28 and 29, November 5, and December 1, 2004. The Specialist inspected the restaurant again on April 26 and 27, 2005. On December 1, 2004, Respondent committed three violations of applicable statutes and rules. On April 27, 2005, Respondent committed another violation. Each violation was an uncorrected violation that first occurred in previous inspections. On December 1, 2004, Respondent did not document that an employee at the restaurant had received training in professional hygiene and food-borne disease prevention in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(4)(a). This violation is a critical violation. Petitioner's witness identified a critical violation as a violation that is an immediate danger to the public safety. On December 1, 2004, a grease buildup existed on the kitchen wall near the fryer. Food-debris buildup was also present on the floors in the corner of the kitchen. Neither of these violations is a critical violation. On April 27, 2005, Respondent maintained eggs at a temperature of 64 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than 45 degrees, in violation of Rule 3-5.01.16(B) of the Food Code. This is a critical violation. Several mitigating factors are evidenced in the record. The violations did not result in actual harm. Respondent has no prior discipline. The violations are not continuing or ongoing violations. The only aggravating factor is that two of the violations are critical violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the acts and violations alleged in each Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent's representative to attend the educational program prescribed in Petitioner's PRO, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,300, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date that the agency serves Respondent with a copy of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Quinn 459 Chinese Super Buffet 657 North Primrose Drive Orlando, Florida 32803 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on November 2, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 74-year-old male who was employed by Respondent as Human Resources Director from July 1994 until January 30, 2009. His job was an office job that required him to sit at a desk, attend meetings, and occasionally visit people in other parts of the plant to discuss business. Respondent, Daws Manufacturing Company (Daws), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Daws is a Florida corporation with its principal office in Pensacola, Florida. Daws is a manufacturer that builds aluminum toolboxes for trucks, and other truck accessories. James Nowak is Daws' Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. According to Mr. Nowak, a decision to cut overhead was made in the summer of 2008, as a result of three years of significant economic losses. The decision was made to close the manufacturing component of its Pensacola facility so that the company could survive. To accomplish this, Daws implemented a reduction in force which involved two layoffs in 2008. As Human Resources Director, Petitioner played a significant role in the layoff process. Mr. Nowak described Petitioner's role as "orchestrating" the layoffs, meaning that Petitioner was the person "who managed it, who disseminated the information, and who was at the center point of getting the project completed." Harold Clinton "Clint" Daws is Respondent's President and Chief Executive Officer. While Petitioner and Mr. Nowak played significant roles in the reduction in force process, Mr. Daws was ultimately responsible for deciding which employees were to be laid off. Forty-seven employees were laid off in August 2008. Thirty-one employees were laid off on December 5, 2008. Only six employees remained in the Pensacola plant following the December 2008 layoff. Petitioner was one of the employees slated to be laid off in December 2008. However, Petitioner suffered a heart attack in mid-November 2008 and underwent open heart surgery. This happened prior to the December 2008 layoff. Because of Petitioner's medical situation, Mr. Daws agreed that Petitioner would not be laid off as scheduled in December 2008, but could remain employed through January 2009. Petitioner was the only employee scheduled to be laid off in December 2008 whose termination was deferred. Petitioner returned to work on January 19, 2009, and was scheduled to be laid off January 30, 2009, the last working day of that month. He requested to stay on longer than scheduled, but that request was denied by Mr. Daws. Petitioner remained covered under the company's health insurance through January. From January 19 through his last day of employment, Petitioner spent time cleaning his office and tending to other matters. During January 2009, Petitioner underwent cardiac rehabilitation. He left the office for a couple of hours during the work day to participate in his rehabilitation. This was handled the same as for any employee who had to go to a medical appointment. However, Petitioner did not request any accommodation regarding any disability during this time. Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he never made a complaint of discrimination to Mr. Daws based on his age, gender, or perceived disability. Before leaving on his last day of employment, Petitioner wrote a letter to Workforce Escarosa, a local agency that handles unemployment claims, advising that he was "laid off today due to a reduction in force-job elimination." He again made this assertion to Workforce Escarosa in a February 27, 2009 letter in which he reiterated that he was "laid off due to a reduction in force, job elimination, and I am not to be considered a retiree." Upon termination, Petitioner was offered and accepted insurance under COBRA. The COBRA coverage was later rescinded by the insurance company, not by Daws, apparently because it discovered Petitioner was on Medicare and was not eligible. Mr. Nowak never discussed Petitioner's medical expenses from his heart attack or previous medical problems with the company's insurance agent or the company's president. Following Petitioner's termination from employment, the position of Human Resources Director was eliminated as part of its reduction in force. The remaining duties of the Human Resources Director position were apportioned between Mr. Nowak and Ms. Violeta Gordon, Petitioner's assistant. Daws did not hire anyone to serve as the Human Resources Director. At hearing, Petitioner alleged that he was discriminated against earlier in his employment. Specifically, he asserted that he did not receive a pay raise from 1995 until 2002 and that he was asked in 2006 when he was going to retire. While Mr. Daws testified as to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Petitioner not receiving a pay raise and denied asking Petitioner when he was going to retire or encouraging him to retire, these allegations are untimely as will be more fully addressed in the Conclusions of Law. At the time of his layoff, Petitioner was 72. Petitioner alleged in his Employment Complaint of Discrimination that his assistant, Ms. Gordon, was 65. There is nothing in the record to indicate otherwise and, based upon observations of her while testifying at hearing, 65 is a reasonable approximation of her age.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Daws Manufacturing Company is not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 January, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner as stated in the Petition for Relief in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Respondent, Atria Windsor Woods, provides retirement and assisted living facilities and employs more than 15 persons. Petitioner, Judith Monteiro, was hired as a housekeeper in 2002 at the age of 57. On or about November 29, 2006, Petitioner was discharged from her employment with Respondent. She was advised that she was discharged for violating company policy regarding entering an apartment while the occupant was absent due to hospitalization. Petitioner testified that she entered an apartment of an absent occupant when she smelled spoiled food, disposed of the spoiled food, and reported the matter to her supervisor. On the following day, a theft of approximately $150.00 was reported from the apartment. Petitioner appears to be the victim of disgruntled relatives of the apartment's occupant who, apparently, complained about the purported theft to Respondent and confusing rules about when to enter an unoccupied apartment and who was authorized to enter an unoccupied apartment. Petitioner presented no direct or circumstantial evidence that her discharge was based on age, sex, or any other right actionable under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act.
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 finding that Respondent, Atria Windsor Woods, did not discriminate against Petitioner, Judith Monteiro, and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 18th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas J. Birchfield, Esquire Fisher and Phillips, LLP 220 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Judith Monteiro 13738 Lavender Avenue Hudson, Florida 34667
Findings Of Fact At some point in late 1984 or early 1985, Respondent, DOT, solicited bids for its Project Number 77030-3510 to be accomplished in Seminole County, Florida. Three bids were submitted. The bid by Petitioner, Macasphalt, was in the amount of $186,367.05. The two other bidders were Martin Paving Company, whose bid was for $196,391.99 and Orlando Paving whose bid was in the amount of $213,054.56. Petitioner's bid was the lowest by approximately $10,000.00. This particular project required the contractors to meet certain goals in the area of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (WBE). The goals for this project were 7% for DBE and 3.05% for WBE. In its bid, Macasphalt showed that it would award 20.14% of the contract to DBE's but only 2.01% of the contract to WBE's. Martin Paving Company, on the other hand, whose bid was approximately $10,000.00 higher, indicated that it would award 19.19% of the contract to DBE's and 3.04% of the contract to WBE's. Orlando Paving, which was the highest bidder, showed 2.4% WBE. As a result of the fact that Petitioner failed to achieve 3% WBE, whereas the second lowest bidder exceeded the 3% WBE goal, Respondent declared Petitioner's bid nonresponsive for failure to meet the WBE goal and recommended award of the contract to the second lowest bidder, Martin Paving, even though Martin's bid was approximately $10,000.00 higher. The goals set by DOT must be met at the time of letting of the contract. If a contractor cannot meet these goals, he must submit satisfactory evidence of his good faith efforts to meet them in order to be considered responsive. In regard to the goals, DOT issues a monthly list of certified DBE/WBE contractors listed by the type of work they are qualified to do and the geographical area in which they operate. According to Mr. LaLonde, Macasphalt routinely sent out letters to a majority of the subcontractors they feel could do the work generally and a follow-up letter is sent monthly to those subcontractors who do the type of work needed in a particular contract. These letters are sent monthly because Macasphalt bids frequently on DOT contracts and bid lettings are done on a monthly basis. This procedure gives, they feel, DBE's and WBE's information on jobs on which the Petitioner is bidding and keeps them informed. In the instant case, to solicit WBE's, on January 9, 1985 Petitioner sent out letters by certified mail to 47 DBE/WBE's requesting bids on several projects including the one in question here and naming areas in which it anticipated issuing subcontracts. Items to be subcontracted on the instant project included. barricades and signs guard rails landscaping painting and striping trucking, and concrete. No solicitation was made of DBE/WBE's for quotes on asphalt work because that is Petitioner's prime business and it is, in the opinion of its officers, not feasible to subcontract work they do themselves. When it became obvious that Petitioner could not achieve the 3.05% WBE goal, Petitioner, pursuant to the terms of the contract documents, submitted a summary of its good faith efforts to achieve the WBE goals with the contract bid. The Petitioner's summary of good faith effort includes a "remarks" sheet on which the following comments exclusively are made: "We have exceeded DBE goal with a total of 20.14%. However, have only attained 2.01% FBE goal. All subcontract items except guardrail were reflected in DBE or FBE quotes received. No DBE or FBE quote was received for guardrail item." In addition, Petitioner submitted a form letter entitled, "Good Faith Efforts" apparently used in numerous contracts, which requires only the insertion of two numbers and two dates and copies of two different letters in blank sent to subcontractors on apparently a routine basis. In addition to the above, Petitioner submitted two copies of DOT's DBE/WBE Directory, one dated September, 1984 and the other dated January, 1985 in which various subcontractors are identified with check marks, the explanation for which is contained in the form letter referenced above. No explanation was made as to why some WBE's were not solicited. Upon receipt of Petitioner's bid with the good faith explanation included, it was submitted to Respondent's Good Faith Efforts Review Committee. This committee deals only with an analysis of the good faith efforts made by bidders. It has been in operation since its creation in August, 1984 and applies the standards established in Rule 14-78, F.A.C. Here, the committee evaluated Petitioner's good faith effort as outlined in the material submitted with the bid and, based on Petitioner's submission, concluded that Petitioner was non-responsive because its good faith efforts, as documented, were insufficient. The committee based its conclusion on the following considerations: Petitioner did not meet the seven day requirement for notice by certified mail. The sample letter indicated "certified mail" but no copies of receipt showing it was sent by certified mail or to whom it was sent by certified mail were included. All potential subcontractors (WBE's) were not contacted. The ability of the contractor to do the work himself "asphalt) will not justify failing to achieve the goal. Whether or not other bidders met the goal. The remarks sheet was inaccurate and inadequate. The explanation about failing to solicit from those subcontractors who did not do business in Seminole County is inconsistent. Some were solicited and some were not. One contractor (Fran) who operates in three categories and who works statewide, was not solicited by the Petitioner in any category. The criteria as set forth in Rule 14-78 are not exclusive or necessarily determinative. There is no specific definition of good faith efforts. The committee is given the latitude to make a judgment measure of the bidder's efforts opposed to the criteria set forth in the rule. Mr. Pitchford, Chairman of the committee, indicated that after the committee had been in operation for a while, the approach taken toward looking at the criteria set forth in the rule was more strictly and severely applied. No notice of this change in approach was set to any bidder, however Petitioner contends that this was misleading and that it submitted them on a previous successful demonstration of good faith efforts. In October, 1984 it submitted a bid on a contract which did not meet the DBE goal. Nonetheless, the evidence of good faith which it submitted at that time was not questioned and Petitioner was awarded the contract. This good faith information was the same kind of information as submitted here which was considered inadequate. No documentation to support any of this was forthcoming, however. Since each case must be taken and considered on its own merits, even if true, this is not necessarily inconsistent. Petitioner readily admits that it did not submit requests for bids to al; DBE/WBE subcontractors in the directory. However, it does claim that for the most part, it submitted solicitations to every WBE listed in the directory that worked in the specialty needed and in the geographical area of the project. Petitioner defends its exclusion of potential subcontractors on the basis that, for example, they had no experience with those subcontractors and were not familiar with them. In most cases, Petitioner left out companies that were not known to it. Mr. LaLonde could not be sure whether Petitioner solicited any potential subcontractor not solicited by Petitioner previously. He is certain, however, that Petitioner did solicit all subcontractors on the list who had been solicited previously. In any event, it is important to the Petitioner to know the subcontractors and how they perform because Petitioner, as the prime contractor, is responsible for the work whether it or its subcontractor accomplishes it. It is for this reason, the lack of familiarity with a subcontractor and its performance, that it did not solicit some WBE's which operate statewide. Petitioner has used many WBE's before and has never failed, it claims, to meet WBE goals prior to this occasion. It has previously failed to meet DBE goals, however, but still was awarded the contract if it was the low bidder. It is apparent, then, that if the above is true, Petitioner's demonstrated good faith efforts were considered satisfactory on those occasions. Based on that experience, Petitioner felt that the procedures used here which it claims had previously been demonstrated to be satisfactory, were again sufficient. It is significant to note that while the fact of the bid submissions reflects a difference of approximately $10,000.00 between Petitioner's bid and that submitted by the next lowest bidder, a computer analysis run on this solicitation reflects a different figure. On the computer analysis, Martin Paving's bid is listed at slightly over $203,000.00 as opposed to the bid face of slightly over $196,000.00. If the $203,000.00 figure is used, the 3.05% goal would not be met. This discrepancy was explained by Mr. Haverty who indicated that the initial figure submitted by the contractor on the bid form is used to assess whether the DBE/WBE goals are met. The issue of good faith effort is raised at a later date. Where, as here, it is determined that the original price is in error and the actual price means that the bidder has failed to meet the goal, if the error is less than 10%, the bid may still be considered responsive.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's bid on State Project Number 77030-3510, in Seminole County, Florida, be rejected as non-responsive for failure to meet the WBE goal. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 20th day of June, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Miller, Esquire Tower Place, Suite 600 3340 Peachtree Road, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30326 Larry D. Scott Staff Attorney Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Paul A. Pappas Secretary Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the license to provide assisted living facility services and operate an assisted living facility of Respondent, Gloria Ann Raulerson, d/b/a Country Sunshine Retirement Home, should be revoked based upon the allegations of an Administrative Complaint entered by Petitioner on or about October 2, 1998.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Agency for Health Care Administration (hereinafter referred to as "AHCA"), is an agency of the State of Florida. AHCA is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, evaluating assisted living facilities in the State of Florida. Part III of Chapter 400, Florida Statutes (1997). Respondent, Gloria Raulerson, d/b/a Country Sunshine Retirement Home, is licensed to operate an assisted living facility. Country Sunshine Retirement Home (hereinafter referred to as the "Country Sunshine"), is located at 6119 Peeples Lane, Jacksonville, Florida. Ms. Raulerson's current license was effective for the period January 25, 1997, through January 24, 1999. No application for renewal of the license has been filed by Ms. Raulerson. AHCA's Initial Survey. On April 21, 1998, AHCA staff conducted an appraisal visit of Country Sunshine (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Survey"). Following the conclusion of the Initial Survey, AHCA issued a survey report (hereinafter referred to as the "Initial Report") in which it concluded that Country Sunshine had committed a number of violations of regulatory standards. A copy of the Initial Report was provided to Ms. Raulerson on or about April 19, 1998. During the Initial Survey AHCA found 12 class II violations, approximately 56 class III violations, and two unclassified violations. The exact number of class III violations was not proved. The Administrative Complaint alleges a total of 77 violations. The testimony at hearing was that there were 69 violations. Based upon Exhibit 1, there was a total of 70 violations, 12 of which were class II violations and two of which were unclassified; but the exhibit is missing pages 88 and 89. The violations found by AHCA during the Initial Visit "range from general licensure standards, from things having to do with paperwork; to lack of staff training; to lack of financial stability; to nutrition/dietary standards; to violations with medication standards; violations of resident care standards; violations of housekeeping, maintenance, and physical plant standards; and then resident and staff records." Page 9, lines 6-12, Transcript. The specific nature of the class III violations found during the Initial Survey is reported in the Initial Report, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The specific nature of the class III violations described in Petitioner's Exhibit 1 is hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. AHCA's Moratorium. By letter dated April 22, 1998, AHCA informed Ms. Raulerson that a moratorium was being imposed on the admission of any new residents to Country Sunshine. Ms. Raulerson complied with the moratorium imposed on Country Sunshine. AHCA's Second Survey. AHCA staff returned to Country Sunshine on June 4, 1998, to determine if the violations found during the Initial Survey had been corrected (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Survey"). It was determined during the Second Survey that Country Sunshine had 29 of the same class III violations found during the Initial Survey. Country Sunshine also had 4 repeat class II violations, a repeat of the same 2 unclassified violations found during the Initial Survey, and 2 new class III violations. The violations found by AHCA during the Second Survey were described more particularly in a survey report (hereinafter referred to as the "Second Report"). A copy of the Second Report was provided to Ms. Raulerson on or about June 19, 1998. The cover letter that accompanied the Second Report informed Ms. Raulerson that further administrative action against her license, including revocation of her license, would be considered by AHCA. The specific nature of the class III violations found during the Second Survey are reported in the Second Report, Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The specific nature of the class III violations described in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 are hereby incorporated into this Recommended Order by reference. The evidence proved that the violations affected the health, safety, or welfare of residents of Country Sunshine. The Administrative Complaint. On October 2, 1998, AHCA issued an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Raulerson. The Administrative Complaint alleged that Ms. Raulerson's license should be revoked pursuant to Sections 400.414(2)(b), (e), (h), and (5), Florida Statutes (1997), the law in effect at the time the violations were committed. In particular, AHCA alleged in the Administrative Complaint that Country Sunshine had "committed five or more repeated or recurring or similar Class III violations which were identified by the Agency during the last biennial inspection, monitoring visit or complaint investigation, which, on the aggregate, affect the health, safety or welfare of facility residents." AHCA did not specifically allege in the Administrative Complaint that Ms. Raulerson's license should be revoked or disciplined due to any repeated or recurring class II or unclassified violations. AHCA alleged in the Administrative Complaint there were 34 repeated or recurring violations but actually listed 36 specific repeat or recurring violations. The evidence, however, failed to prove that one of those alleged violations, A-811, was a repeat or recurring violation. Two of the specific violations, A-612 and A-814, are unclassified violations and not class III violations. Finally, four of the violations, A-101, A-705, A- 807, and A-1001, are class II violations and not class III violations. AHCA did not rely in the Administrative Complaint upon the unclassified violations and/or the repeated class II violations, in addition to the repeated class III violations, to support its determination that Country Sunshine had violated Sections 400.414(2)(b) and (h), Florida Statutes (1997).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Agency for Health Care Administration revoking the license of Gloria Ann Raulerson, d/b/a Country Sunshine Retirement Home, to own and operate an assisted living facility in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Gloria Raulerson 6119 Peeple Lane Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1999. Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Michael O. Mathis, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a community association manager. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. E. JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott William Katz 1877 North Congress Avenue Number 10-D West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Karl M. Scheuerman, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on August 27, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who has identified her race as Asian and her national origin as Indian. Petitioner’s age was not established in evidence. However, based upon the attachments to Petitioner’s Petition for Relief, Petitioner was identified as 43 years old, presumably at the time she filed the Complaint of Employment Discrimination. There is nothing in the record to indicate otherwise and, based upon observations of her while testifying at hearing, 43 is a reasonable approximation of her age. Respondent, Leon County School Board (LCSB), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner has applied for numerous job openings with the School Board over a number of years. However, based upon the applicable statute of limitations as explained more fully in the Conclusions of Law, there are five LCSB job postings that are at issue in this proceeding, one of which was never filled. The job positions applied for are as follows: --Job posting 1071-2012, Custodian position at Nims Middle School. --Job Posting 0170-2012, Instructional paraprofessional position at Sealy Elementary School. --Job Posting 011-2012, custodian position at Rickards High School. --Job posting 0201-2012, Assistant Manager for Extended Day Program at J. Michael Conley Elementary School. --Job posting 0215-2012, Receptionist at Leon County High School. This position was not filled. Petitioner is the mother of two children who are or have been students in the Leon County schools. Petitioner has extensive volunteering experience in LCSB schools. In 2008, she received the Volunteer of the Year award for her volunteer work at Sealy Elementary School. She was invited to and attended the Volunteers of the Year Luncheon in 2008. Petitioner also volunteered at Conley Elementary School in 2011. While Petitioner has considerable volunteer experience in Leon County Schools, she has no job/employment experience since coming to the United States in 1998. Petitioner holds a college degree from Utkal University in India. The unofficial transcript states that it is a “Honours Diploma for Bachelor of Arts (Three Year Degree Course).” Respondent uses the PATS (Paperless Applicant Tracking System) system to accept applications for all job openings within the Leon County School District. Based on information inputted into PATS by applicants, a list of qualified individuals is generated for each position. The PATS system does not ask for or identify an applicant’s age, race, national origin, or sex. Vitalis Dennis is the Director of Human Resources for the LCSB. She has general supervision over the PATS system. According to Ms. Dennis, LCSB does not count volunteer work in evaluating work experience. This is a generally applied policy, applied to all applicants, including Petitioner. Hiring decisions are made by each school’s principal. The school principals send recommendations for hiring to the District Human Resources office. Job Posting 1071-2012 Petitioner applied for job posting 1071-2012, a custodial position at Nims Middle School. At that time, Charles Finley was assistant principal at Nims. He was in charge of interviewing and hiring vacant custodial positions. The executive secretary at Nims printed a list of applicants from PATS. He then accessed PATS to check applicants’ educational and work history to identify applicants with previous custodial work experience. Generally, he would interview eight to 12 applicants. The successful candidate for this position was Eloise Hatten. Ms. Hatten was 52 years of age, is African-American, and is female.2/ Ms. Hatten’s application reflects approximately nine years’ of cleaning commercial/institutional experience. Mr. Finnley interviewed Ms. Hatten and testified that the interview went well. He describes Ms. Hatten, who is still employed at Nims, as tied for the best hire he ever made. Job Posting 0170-2012 Petitioner applied for Job Posting 0170-2012, Instructional Paraprofessional at Sealy Elementary. Demetria Clemons is the principal of Sealy Elementary School. Ms. Clemons receives and reviews the PATS list of applicants. She then makes a list of applicants for her secretary to call to set up interviews. When reviewing the list, she looks to see if any applicant is a veteran. Then she looks to see if anyone on the list had previous work experience with her or was recommended by a colleague. The successful applicant was Alisha Saint Cloud. Ms. Saint Cloud was 24 years of age, is African-American, and is female. Ms. Clemons interviewed Ms. Saint Cloud and offered her the job. Ms. Saint Cloud was selected for this position primarily because she held the position as an annual contract employee the previous school year. Annual contract employees often are given notice letters at the end of a school year, as principals do not know at that time whether they will be able to rehire them for the following school year. If staffing allocations allow, the job is then posted. Ms. Saint Cloud was in that situation when Ms. Clemons hired her for this permanent position. Ms. Clemons knew of Petitioner’s volunteer work at Sealy, but the volunteer work was done in individual classrooms, not directly for Ms. Clemons. Job Posting 011-2012 Petitioner applied for Job Posting 011-2012, custodian position at Rickards High School. Clebern Russell Edwards is the assistant principal at Rickards High School. He made the hiring decision for this custodial position for which Petitioner applied. A list of applicants generated from PATS was printed by the principal’s secretary. He looked to see if any applicants were veterans, then whether any were recommended by colleagues. The successful applicant for that position was Jaterrius Robinson. Mr. Robinson was 23 years of age, and is an African-American male. Mr. Robinson had institutional/ Commercial-cleaning experience and was a graduate of Rickards High School. Mr. Edwards believes that it is important to have someone with experience cleaning in an environment similar to a school in such a position. Mr. Edwards took into consideration Mr. Robinson’s work experience, being an alumnus of Rickards, and his outstanding interview when making the decision to hire Mr. Robinson for the job. Job Posting 0201-2012 Petitioner applied for job posting 0201-2012, assistant manager for the Extended Day Program at J. Michael Conley Elementary School. Danielle Dielbeck is the Extended Day Manager at Conley Elementary School. She is responsible for hiring the Extended Day personnel and supervising those employees. Jeremy Rollins was the successful applicant for this position. Mr. Rollins was 23 years of age, and is an African- American male. Ms. Dielbeck reviewed the PATS list of applicants to determine who would be a good fit for the job. She also takes into consideration any recommendations that may come from other schools. Mr. Robinson has work experience as an after-school teacher. Ms. Dielback selected Mr. Robinson because of his experience as an after-school teacher in another program with a large number of students, and because he also had experience as a cashier for a grocery company. Ms. Dielbeck believed his cashier experience demonstrated that he had experience handling money. She determined that this was a benefit because the Extended Day Program is responsible for its own budget. Petitioner’s assertions Petitioner strongly believes that LCSB has systematically discriminated against her by not hiring her. She believes that LCSB is harassing her personally, including an unnamed person parking her car outside the Rath’s home and taking photographs.3/ However, there is no competent evidence to support her subjective belief that the person in the car has anything to do with LCSB. There is no competent evidence in the record that supports any coordinated efforts or conspiracy by LCSB personnel to deny her employment. Each person with the responsibility to make hiring decisions did so independently.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that the Leon County School Board is not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Employment Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 29th day of October, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the stipulation of facts entered into among the parties, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The name and address of the Petitioner is Golden Eagle Engineering Construction, Inc. (Golden Eagle) 1302 Northwest 33rd Street, Pompano Beach, Florida. The name and address of the Respondent is State of Florida, Department of Transportation, 605 Suwannee Street, Haydon Burns Bldg., Tallahassee, Florida. The name and address of the Intervenor is Toppino's, Inc. (Toppino's) Post Office Box 787, Key West, Florida. The Petitioner timely submitted a bid with regard to state project SR-5 (U.S-1), from the North end of State Bridge No. 900001 to Kennedy Drive in Key West, Budget Item No. 6116637, State Job No. 90010-3519 in Monroe County. The Petitioner was the apparent low bidder with a bid in the amount of $386,017.43. The Intervenor timely submitted a bid in regard to the same state road project (State Job No. 90010-3519). The Intervenor was the second low bidder with a bid in the amount of $398,132.10. The bid specifications required that bids submitted by contractors were to include a designation of at least fifteen percent (15 percent) of work to be performed by certified disadvantaged business enterprises (D.B.E.'s). The bid documents provided a separate form entitled "D.B.E./W.B.E. Utilization Form No. 1" on which the designation of work to the chosen D.B.E. was to be listed. The Respondent "certifies" DBE's in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Rule 14-78, Florida Administrative Code. Along with project specifications and other information concerning the proposed job, the Respondent provides hopeful contractors with a D/WBE Directory which lists qualified DBE and WBE businesses. The latest directory prior to the bid opening on the contract at issue here was published by D-O-T in October of 1986. Respondent's Bureau of Minority Programs maintains a current register and will advise any bidder so requesting whether or not a firm qualifies as a DSE or WBE. The invitation to bid provided that the contractor's bid submission must include the following information: The names and addresses of certified DBE and WBE firms that will partici- pate in the contract. Only DBEs and WSEs certified by the Department at the time the bid is submitted may be counted toward DBE and WBE goals. * * * (4) If the DBE or WBE goal is not met sufficient information to demonstrate that the contractor made good faith efforts to meet the goals. The DBE's utilized by the Petitioner to satisfy the requirements of the bid were as follows: (a) Millit $8,972.60 Highway Concrete Corporation $45,330.60 A. Falero Trucking, Inc. $21,500.00 The Petitioner's Bidder's Utilization Form disclosed an apparent 19.5 percent DBE participation. The Petitioner honestly believed that its bid proposal met and exceeded the DBE participation goals specified for the contract. The sealed bids were opened on October 29, 1986. The Respondent, in its initial review of Petitioner's bid, discovered that A. Falero Trucking, Inc., (Falero) was not a certified DBE. On October 31, 1986, Ms. Heather Calligan, majority shareholder of Golden Eagle, wrote Respondent a letter in which she stated that the owners of Falero had assured Golden Eagle that Falero was a certified DBE firm, that they had a current DBE certification letter and that their exclusion from the D/WBE Directory was an oversight on the part of Respondent. Ms. Calligan further advised Respondent that she believed Falero's assertion that the firm was DBE certified because her company is W.B.E. certified and had been omitted from the D/WBE Directory in error in the recent past. Further, Ms. Calligan stated that she had been acquainted with the owners of Falero on a personal and business basis for several years and did not believe that they would mislead her. On November 3, 1986, Ms. Calligan wrote another letter to Respondent wherein she stated that she had contacted Falero concerning their certification and that Falero could not locate their certification letter. Ms. Calligan requested that Golden Eagle be allowed to substitute F.R.E. Construction Company (F.R.E.), a DBE certified company for Falero, should Falero not substantiate its claim of being currently DBE certified. At all times material hereto, Amable Falero and Jose M. Rodriquez owned 100 percent (50 percent each) of the stock of Falero and 70 percent (35 percent each) of the stock of FRE. Falero and FRE, although independent companies, operate from the same business location, have the same management and office staff and use some of the same employees interchangeably. On November 5, 1986, the Respondent received a letter from Mr. Rodriquez, co-owner of Falero. Mr. Rodriquez stated that he personally advised Golden Eagle that Falero was a certified DBE firm and that he had a letter in his files substantiating his claim. Mr. Rodriquez advised Respondent that he had made this representation to Golden Eagle in error. When Respondent discovered that Falero was not a certified DBE, the bid documents were forwarded to its Good Faith Efforts Review Committee for a determination of Petitioner's good faith efforts. The Good Faith Efforts Committee was formed in 1984 and its primary responsibility is to make an objective evaluation of good faith efforts of prime contractors who submit bids to D-O-T. Rule 14-78.03(2)(b)4, F.A.C. lists several factors that the Respondent is required to consider in evaluating a contractor's good faith efforts. (Those factors are enumerated in detail in the Conclusions of law Section herein). The Respondent's practice and procedure is that it will conduct a limited review of the good faith evaluative criteria listed in the Rule even where the contractor has not included a "good faith efforts package" in its bid submission demonstrating good faith efforts. In such cases, the Respondent usually finds the bid non-responsive because of failure to provide documentation of good faith efforts. However, circumstances could exist where the Good Faith Efforts Committee may find good faith in the absence of any good faith efforts documentation specifically submitted by the contractor in its bid proposal. Thus, pursuant to the practice of the Good Faith Efforts Committee, the absence of information demonstrating good faith efforts within the bid proposal does not preclude its evaluation of the contractors' good faith efforts to achieve the goals. The Good Faith Efforts Committee completed a report form entitled "Good Faith Efforts Evaluation" in regard to Petitioner's bid. All of the required statutory criteria was listed on the form. In response to criteria IV ("whether the DBE or WBE goal was met by other bidders") the Respondent entered: "Goal met by other bidder." In response to criteria VII ("whether the contractor elected to sub-contract types of work that match the capabilities of solicited DBE's of WBE's"), the Respondent entered: "Bidder used quotes from three (3) areas." In response to criteria IX ("whether the contractor has on other contracts within the past six (6) months utilized DBE's and WBE's") the Respondent entered: "No projects in the last six (6) months." In response to all of the other criteria, the Respondent entered: "bidder did not submit any documentation", "no documentations", "did not provide documentation" or simply "none submitted". During the Good Faith Efforts Committee review of the Petitioner's bid, the committee was aware that Falero had been a certified DBE in the past, that the Petitioner's bid included an apparent 19.5 percent DBE participation with Falero and that without Falero the Petitioner achieved over 90 percent of the DBE participation goals. Based on the information which it had, the Good Faith Efforts Committee was apparently satisfied that such information did not establish good faith efforts and recommended that the bid be declared non-responsive based on the Petitioner's failure to include good faith efforts documentation with its bid proposal. On November 12, 1986, the report of the Good Faith Efforts Committee was forwarded to the Technical Awards Committee, and based on that report, the Technical Awards Committee voted unanimously to reject the Petitioner's bid as non-responsive and to recommend awarding the contract to Intervenor. Respondent's Final Review Committee, the Contract Awards Committee then decided to declare Petitioner's bid non- responsive and to award the contract to Intervenor. On November 18, 1986, the Respondent mailed a Notice of Switch in Apparent Low Bidder to all parties indicating that Golden Eagle, the apparent low bidder, had been declared non-responsive due to failure to meet DBE requirements and proposing to award the contract to Intervenor, the second low bidder. GOLDEN EAGLE'S HONEST MISTAKE While compiling its bid, one of Petitioner's employees noted that Falero was not listed in the D/WSE Directory. The Petitioner contacted Falero and was informed by one of Falero's owners that Falero was a certified DBE and had a current certification letter. Ms. Heather Calligan, the Petitioner's majority stock holder, was satisfied in her belief that Falero was a certified DBE for several reasons. First, Ms. Calligan was personally acquainted with the owners and knew them to have been DBE certified by Respondent in the past. In addition, Golden Eagle has been a WBE since 1979 and Ms. Calligan was aware that her company's name had been occasionally left off of the D/WBE Directory during times it was certified and should have been included. Based on those factors, the Petitioner honestly believed that Falero was DBE certified and did not call the Department's Minority Programs office to verify Falero's DBE status nor request that Falero produce its letter of certification. FALERO'S STATUS Falero was certified by the Respondent on April 4, 1983, as a minority business enterprise for a period of one year. On May 14, 1984, the company was re-certified for another one year period. On November 20, 1985, the Respondent received an application for re- certification as a disadvantaged business enterprise from Falero. After an initial review of the application, the Respondent wrote Falero a letter dated December 3, 1985 requesting that the company provide: The current financial statement or a breakdown of current assets and liabilities and, Copies of the registration of all vehicles owned by the company. The policy of the Respondent with regard to incorrect or incomplete information submitted by DBE's is to acknowledge receipt of the information and to advise the DBE as to what information should be submitted. The file is then placed in an "abeyance" status pending receipt of the requested information. In October of 1986, Falero had still not fully responded to the Respondent's letter of December 3, 1985 with the complete information requested. After its initial request for additional information, the Respondent made no further request for additional information from Falero with regard to the November 20, 1985 application for re-certification. Falero finally supplied all of the information requested in the December 3, 1985 letter to Respondent in December 1986 in conjunction with a new application for certification. Thereafter, Falero was certified as a DBE in January 1987. Between May 1985 and January 1987 Falero was not a certified DBE and was not included on any of the D/WBE directories prepared by the Respondent during that period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: The bid of Golden Eagle Contractors, Inc. on State Project No. 90010- 3519 be declared non-responsive; The contract for State Project No. 90010-3519 be awarded to Intervenor; and The protest of Golden Eagle Contractors, Inc. be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0250BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adapted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Addressed in Procedural Background Section. Addressed in Procedural Background Section. Addressed in Procedural Background Section. Addressed in Procedural Background Section. Addressed in Procedural Background Section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 29. Adopted in Finding of Fact 31. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 26 and 27. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 10 and 11. Addressed in Procedural Background Section. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19, 20 and 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9 and 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20 and 21. Adopted in substances in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19 and 20. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substances in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Rejected as a recitation of testimony. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Intervenor Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7, 9 and 24. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 9. Addressed in Conclusions of Law Section. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10, 11 and 14. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25 and 31. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 24 and 31. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 26. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 30. Matters not included therein are rejected as argument and/or subordinate. Addressed in Conclusions of Law Section. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11, 12, 20 and 21. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 21. Rejected as argument. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Matters not contained therein are rejected as argument. Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1170 Jay O. Barber, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John O. Williams, Esquire 1343 E. Tennessee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Kaye N. Henderson Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. J. Spalla, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
