The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 70-53, Pinellas County Code, by terminating Petitioner's employment allegedly because of her disability; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Admitted Facts Per Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation Sure-Tek is an employer as defined by section 70-51, Pinellas County Code. Ms. Turner was employed by Sure-Tek on January 18, 2010. Her employment was terminated by Sure-Tek on February 22, 2010. Prior to her employment, Ms. Turner was diagnosed with diabetes insipidus. Ms. Turner's diabetes did not prevent her from performing the essential functions of her job, with reasonable accommodations. Lewis "Mitch" Currie is the owner of Sure-Tek, and he was Ms. Turner's direct supervisor. Mr. Currie made the decision to terminate Ms. Turner's employment. Additional Findings of Fact Based on the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses and the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the following additional facts are found. Diabetes Insipidus Ms. Turner developed diabetes insipidus four years ago as a result of brain surgery to remove a tumor on her pituitary gland. She described the condition as a very rare form of diabetes that is a sodium/electrolyte disorder, instead of the more common forms of diabetes that are insulin/blood sugar disorders. She testified that her understanding of her condition is that it is essentially permanent--the underlying cause of her condition will never go away, and she will eventually need brain surgery again. Ms. Turner's condition requires constant monitoring, but instead of measuring blood sugar via blood tests, Ms. Turner's condition involves monitoring and maintaining a balance of hydration, electrolytes, and output (urination), while taking prescription medication to protect against extreme imbalance that could result in her urinating herself to death. The line where the balance should be drawn at any given point is variable and difficult to predict, so the monitoring and adjustment process is a matter of trial and error, to some degree. The balance that Ms. Turner's condition requires is thrown off by temperature extremes, so she cannot work or spend much recreational time outside when it is hot or cold. She can work in an indoor office setting, provided that she takes extra steps to regulate the temperature, such as using space heaters to warm up a cool space. Ms. Turner must also be permitted to have ready access to plenty of drinking water at all times, and she has gotten used to bringing bottled water with her to ensure an appropriate supply. Her condition can cause her to urinate frequently, and so she also must have ready access to a restroom. Ms. Turner also testified that her condition requires her to maintain a strict diet, because many foods and drinks will throw off the balance she must maintain. For example, Ms. Turner must avoid sodium, butter and certain other fats, meats, and other ingredients. Since some of the ingredients she must avoid, such as sodium, are difficult to control and monitor when eating out, she does not often go out to eat in restaurants and no longer goes out to dinner with friends. Ms. Turner has gotten very sick when she has unknowingly ingested too much sodium or when the ingredients she must avoid have secretly been in her food. Ms. Turner has learned the hard way about some of the things she cannot tolerate. For example, she learned that she cannot drink alcohol when, after the onset of her diabetes insipidus, she collapsed after drinking a small amount of alcohol at a party and had to be hospitalized. By sticking to a careful regimen of monitoring and adjustment, by adhering to all of the hydration and dietary restrictions she has learned are necessary from her experience, limiting her social activities (rarely eating out, limiting outdoor activities), controlling the temperature of her settings and ensuring constant access to water and bathrooms, Ms. Turner has been able to deal with her condition. In a lay person's sense, Ms. Turner does not really consider herself to be disabled, although she tends to think in comparative terms, noting that there are persons with severe debilitating conditions that are much worse off than she is. Ms. Turner testified that her diabetes disorder also has impaired her immunity system, making her more prone to sickness. No medical testimony was offered to verify this opinion. Somewhat inconsistently, Ms. Turner later testified that when she got sick with a cold, which evolved into bronchitis, that episode of sickness was unrelated to her diabetes condition. Indeed, Ms. Turner's opinion that her sickness was not related to her diabetes condition was confirmed by her testimony that she has gotten colds that turned into bronchitis every winter for many years, pre-dating the onset of her diabetes insipidus. Employment at Sure-Tek Sure-Tek is in the business of powder coating, which is an anti-corrosive industrial coating applied to metal and other objects. The building in which Sure-Tek carries out its business has two main areas: administrative office space and warehouse space. The powder coating is done in the warehouse part of the building, in a room with two ovens that operate at 400+ degrees. The room with the ovens is very hot, often 120 degrees or more. Ms. Turner was hired as a bookkeeper/receptionist/ office assistant, beginning on January 18, 2010. She was the only administrative/office worker at Sure-Tek. The other approximately 10 employees worked in the warehouse, carrying out the powder-coating business. Mr. Currie, the owner/president, spent about half of his time in his office and the other half in the warehouse. Ms. Turner had an office with a door that she often kept closed because of her sensitivity to hot and cold temperatures; it was easier to regulate the temperature of her office space if the door was closed. Ms. Turner found her office to be very cold, so she kept two space heaters going. She brought her own space heater to use at the office to accommodate her need to modify the temperature of her space. Brandon Bean, another employee at Sure-Tek, did not like having to go into Ms. Turner's office, finding it unpleasantly warm--he described it as quite "toasty." When Ms. Turner was hired, Mr. Bean had been working at Sure-Tek for about five months. Mr. Bean had been in jail before he was hired by Sure-Tek, having served a sentence for a felony conviction related to firearms. During the time that Ms. Turner was an employee at Sure-Tek, Mr. Bean's position was referred to as floor supervisor or warehouse foreman. Mr. Bean testified that he was promoted to general manager one year ago, which would have been a few months after Ms. Turner was fired, while the Pinellas OHR was conducting its investigation of Ms. Turner's discrimination complaint. Ms. Turner was expected to work 40 hours per week, and she testified that she did so, not missing a day of work. No evidence was presented that Ms. Turner did not work the hours she was expected to work each day and week of her employment (with the exception of leaving sick two hours early on the last Friday of her employment, discussed below). She rarely took lunch. She was expected to be available during business hours to answer the phones and was expected to take a portable phone with her when she stepped away from her desk, even when she went to the bathroom. When she went to the bathroom with a portable phone, she was expected to answer the phone, even then, if a call came in. At her interview, Ms. Turner told Mr. Currie that she had substantial bookkeeping experience and knew how to use QuickBooks software. No credible evidence was presented to prove that her representations were not true. When Ms. Turner began working for Sure-Tek, she received no training or orientation from someone who knew the office systems, protocols, or electronic files. Mr. Currie told Ms. Turner verbally what her duties were and how things were done, but he did not actually train her. For him, it was good enough that she said she knew QuickBooks. Besides, as he admitted at the hearing, he really did not know the computer systems himself; he "doesn't use the computer much." Ms. Turner discovered that there were two QuickBook systems, which were password-protected. Ms. Turner said that it took two days for her to track down the passwords. Then, she had quite the time sorting out the accounts set up in the two different systems--she described the state of the computer accounting as "a mess" when she started. She asked Mr. Currie if she could merge the two systems, and he told her to go ahead. At the hearing, Mr. Currie acknowledged that there were two QuickBook systems, an older version and a new 2010 version. He testified that his only office help after getting the updated QuickBooks software consisted of a series of three different temporary employees sent over by a "temp" agency. He said that these temporary employees were awful; nonetheless, he tasked them with setting up the new system with information brought over from the old system. It should come as no surprise, then, that Ms. Turner found many problems and errors, such as entries of very recent information in the old system that should have been in the new system. Ms. Turner testified that she discovered quite a few late and unpaid bills when she started. She would bring these items to Mr. Currie's attention, and he would tell her whether the bills could be paid or not. Mr. Currie's permission was required before Ms. Turner could pay any bills, and sometimes Mr. Currie would refuse to authorize payment for bills that were due or past due. Mr. Currie confirmed this at hearing; he testified that he "absolutely" had to refuse permission to pay bills at times, because there was not always enough money to pay all of the bills. At other times, he would tell Ms. Turner to just pay part of a bill that was due. Mr. Currie testified that for the first two weeks of Ms. Turner's employment at Sure-Tek, she seemed to be on track and was trying very hard. Ms. Turner noted that Mr. Currie praised her work during those first two weeks, and he did not deny this. However, according to Mr. Currie, after about two weeks, Ms. Turner's performance went "downhill." Mr. Currie did not present any credible evidence to prove this demarcation point. However, the evidence did establish that the two-week point was significant for a different reason. Mr. Currie had lunch with Ms. Turner after her first two weeks. In their lunchtime conversation, Mr. Currie told Ms. Turner that his wife suffered from a thyroid problem, which he said sometimes made her off-balance. Ms. Turner responded by telling Mr. Currie that she had diabetes insipidus. Mr. Currie had no apparent immediate reaction to this disclosure. However, at some point thereafter, Mr. Currie told Ms. Turner that he never would have hired her if he had known she had diabetes.1/ When Ms. Turner had a cold throughout the week of February 15, 2010, the two had an awkward encounter on Friday afternoon, February 19, 2010. As Ms. Turner described it, by mid-afternoon on Friday, after sticking it out at work all week while not feeling well, she asked Mr. Currie if she could go home two hours early, because she had finished her Friday task of getting the information in to the payroll service and thought it would be all right if she left for the day. Mr. Currie got very angry and said that her diabetes was always making her sick. She tried to tell him that she had a cold and was on antibiotics (to stop the apparent evolution of her cold to bronchitis), and it was unrelated to her diabetes. But Mr. Currie just waved his hands and yelled at her to "just go!" She thought he meant that she should go home as she had asked, although she knew he was not happy about it. So she left. Mr. Currie told a very different version of Friday, February 19, 2010. Mr. Currie denied making any statements about Ms. Turner's diabetes, then or ever. Mr. Currie also denied having any conversation with Ms. Turner that afternoon about whether Ms. Turner could go home two hours early because she had a cold. However, Mr. Currie testified that he noticed that Ms. Turner was sub-par that day. As Mr. Currie put it, that day Ms. Turner "seemed a little sicker than she appeared to be normally." Mr. Currie then testified that Mr. Bean was looking for Ms. Turner in the middle of the afternoon that Friday, February 19, 2010. He asked Mr. Currie where she was, and Mr. Currie said he did not know. Then, according to Mr. Currie, after they spent about 45 minutes looking for Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie decided that Ms. Turner must have quit, leaving without telling anyone, never to return. At that point, Mr. Currie instructed Mr. Bean to place an ad on Craigslist for a replacement for Ms. Turner. Mr. Currie's version of the events on Friday, February 19, 2010, is not credible, particularly when coupled with Mr. Currie's inconsistent version of the events on Monday, February 22, 2010; Ms. Turner's version is accepted as the more credible account of events. On Monday, February 22, 2010, Ms. Turner went to work that morning, only to find a number of telephone messages from applicants for the Craigslist ad and resumes submitted by individuals requesting an interview for the bookkeeper position. By mid-morning, Mr. Currie called Ms. Turner into his office. According to Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie said that it was not working out with her diabetes. When Ms. Turner tried again to tell him that her two-hour break Friday afternoon was because of a cold, and not diabetes, Mr. Currie then added that that was not the only reason he was letting her go--that she had bankrupted his company.2/ Then, according to Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie asked her to stay to train her replacement, which she refused to do. Mr. Currie does not deny that he told Ms. Turner she was terminated, but he denies any reference to her diabetes, claiming it was all because of her performance. Mr. Currie did not attempt to reconcile this version in which he admittedly intended to fire Ms. Turner, with his inconsistent description of the previous Friday, when he claimed that the only reason he placed the Craigslist ad was because he believed that Ms. Turner had voluntarily quit, and he had no choice but to start looking for a replacement. In an effort to show that he was thoughtful and accommodating of Ms. Turner's health condition and needs, Mr. Currie testified that a few days before Ms. Turner was fired, she had told him that she would be needing another surgery. His response was that he would hire a temporary employee to cover for her so she could have the time off for her surgery. But this testimony tends to underscore that as of just a few days before Ms. Turner was fired, Mr. Currie gave no signs to Ms. Turner that there were any performance-related issues that would put her job in jeopardy. Twisting back toward the different version of events that suggested there were mounting problems with Ms. Turner's performance, Mr. Currie claimed to have talked with Ms. Turner on several different occasions throughout her employment about her performance problems. As noted above, Ms. Turner testified, credibly, that for the first few weeks, Mr. Currie said she was doing a good job. After that, Ms. Turner acknowledged a single comment by Mr. Currie that she did not know how to run reports right. Ms. Turner also acknowledged that Mr. Bean called one meeting with Mr. Currie and Ms. Turner to complain that Ms. Turner was unfriendly to him and did not respond quickly enough to a request he made for information. Ms. Turner explained her run-in with Mr. Bean, stating that she was on the phone when he walked into her office and started talking to her as if she was not on the phone. She said that he got quite huffy when she asked him to wait a minute while she finished the call. Mr. Currie claimed that after the first few weeks, he started noticing that bills were going unpaid, and he talked to Ms. Turner about it. Ms. Turner's version, as noted above, was that there were overdue bills when she started, and she called them to Mr. Currie's attention; however, as Mr. Currie admitted, he sometimes refused permission to pay those bills and sometimes told her to just pay part of the bills, because he did not have enough money. No credible evidence was presented that Ms. Turner was to blame for bills going unpaid, or only partially paid, during her time of employment. Instead, the evidence showed that before, during, and after Ms. Turner's employment, bills sometimes went unpaid or only partially paid, admittedly, at Mr. Currie's direction. While Mr. Currie denied that it made a difference to him when Ms. Turner told him about her diabetes at that two-week lunch, the more credible evidence is that Mr. Currie's attitude towards Ms. Turner as an employee changed at that two-week mark. The more credible evidence established that Mr. Currie had a knee-jerk reaction upon learning that Ms. Turner had "diabetes" to jump to the conclusion that she had a disability that rendered her substantially and significantly impaired in the major life activity of working. He decided, without any real basis, that she was incapable of working in the one type of job where she thought she would be able to function with the accommodations she herself supplied. The credible evidence establishes that Mr. Currie fired Ms. Turner because of his perception of her disability. Mr. Currie's testimony included the occasional revealing slips that were much more telling than his steadfast (but not credible) denial of any discrimination. As noted, Mr. Currie testified that he found Ms. Turner to be a good employee who was trying very hard for the first two weeks, but that her work slipped and went downhill after the first two weeks. Yet he presented no evidence to prove what he observed that showed such a downhill slip in her performance after two weeks. Instead, the evidence and testimony, considering the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, painted the picture that it was Ms. Turner's disclosure of having diabetes, and that alone, caused Ms. Turner's downhill plummet in Mr. Currie's eyes. That Mr. Currie perceived Petitioner to be disabled and perceived Petitioner's disability to substantially affect her ability to do her job, was evident from Mr. Currie's slip that on her last Friday of work, Petitioner seemed "sub-par," which he characterized as "a little sicker than she appeared to be normally." Thus, Mr. Currie perceived Petitioner as "normally" sick. That perception came despite the unrebutted testimony by Petitioner that she did not miss any work time based on illness or complication from her diabetes until she asked to leave two hours early on Friday, February 19, 2010. Ms. Turner's testimony regarding Mr. Currie's discriminatory comments was corroborated by the testimony of Tanya Rodriguez, who was hired in response to the Craigslist ad to replace Ms. Turner. Ms. Rodriguez did not know Ms. Turner until she met her, when Ms. Turner came in to Sure-Tek to pick up her last paycheck after she had been fired. Ms. Rodriguez provided information to the Pinellas OHR in its investigation of Ms. Turner's complaint when Ms. Rodriguez was still employed by SureTek. Ms. Rodriguez was then fired, allegedly for performance problems.3/ Ms. Rodriguez convincingly testified at the final hearing that when she was interviewed by Mr. Currie to replace Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie asked her, point-blank, whether she had diabetes. He told her that the last person he hired with diabetes was a good for nothing S.O.B; that he never would have hired her if he knew she had diabetes, because she was always sick; and that he would never hire another person with diabetes. Ms. Rodriguez told Mr. Currie that she did not have diabetes, even though she actually was diabetic.4/ After Mr. Currie asked his question about diabetes, he proceeded to ask Ms. Rodriguez whether she had thyroid problems (like his wife, whom he told Ms. Turner was sometimes off-balance as a result). Ms. Rodriguez also confirmed Ms. Turner's testimony that there were deep-seated problems remaining in the dual QuickBook systems. Although Respondent attempted to characterize this testimony as evidence of Ms. Turner's poor performance, Ms. Rodriguez made it very clear that the problems imbedded in the dual systems were from a much longer time span--up to one year--and could not have been the result of errors made in the one month preceding Ms. Rodriguez' employment at Sure-Tek. Instead, Ms. Rodriguez saw signs of efforts to merge the two systems, but noted that there would not have been enough time in one month to completely merge the systems and fix all of the imbedded problems. She testified that she also tried her best to make progress, but she was only at Sure-Tek for a few short weeks. Ms. Rodriguez' testimony was credible and is accepted.5/ Her testimony strongly corroborates Ms. Turner's testimony of Mr. Currie's direct discriminatory statements, including the first words out of his mouth when he fired her--that it was not going to work out, with her diabetes. At hearing, Respondent presented evidence offered in an attempt to demonstrate that Ms. Turner's job performance was not good and was the legitimate reason for her termination. Mr. Currie testified that a Progress Energy bill due on February 18, 2010, went unpaid. Mr. Currie blamed this on Ms. Turner forgetting to pay the bill, but that was not established. Ms. Turner and her successor, Ms. Rodriguez, both testified that as bookkeepers for Respondent, they did not have the authority to pay bills. Instead, they were required to review the bills with Mr. Currie, and each week he would tell them which bills could be paid, which bills should be partially paid, and which bills should be ignored. Mr. Currie corroborated this testimony, admitting that he "absolutely" had to refuse permission to pay bills sometimes. The short billing history Respondent put in evidence for Progress Energy showed, for example, that the month's charges due on June 18, 2009, went unpaid until the following month and that was well before Petitioner began her employment. Regardless of whether the Progress Energy bill due on February 18, 2010, was unpaid because of Ms. Turner's fault or Mr. Currie's instruction, the notification of this unpaid bill was first mailed out to Mr. Currie on Thursday, February 18, 2010. Thus, this could not have been an example of one of the bills allegedly going unpaid that Mr. Currie claimed to have begun noticing after Ms. Turner had been working at Sure-Tek for two weeks. Indeed, there is no evidence that Mr. Currie was even aware of this late notice, mailed on Thursday, by the next afternoon when he had an ad placed for Ms. Turner's replacement or by the following Monday morning, when he fired Ms. Turner. Mr. Currie also testified that Ms. Turner was to blame for an increase in his Progress Energy utility deposit from $800 to $2,500.00, but no evidence was presented to prove that there was an increase in SureTek's required utility deposit at all, or, if so, when any such increase occurred. To the contrary, the Progress Energy statement for February 2010, covering the billing period of January 27, 2010, through February 24, 2010 (very close to the time span of Ms. Turner's employment), shows that the deposit amount already being held for that account at that time was $2,680. Further, the Progress Energy billing history summary shows that the prior month's bill, due on January 21, 2010, had been paid. Thus, the evidence refutes Mr. Currie's suggestion that there was an increase in the deposit requirement because of Ms. Turner's failure to pay the bills. Instead, it appears that if the deposit requirement had been increased, the increase occurred before January 2010, based on billing history that predated Ms. Turner's employment. A similar story was told with respect to the City of Pinellas Park water bills. Mr. Currie blamed Ms. Turner for not paying a bill from January 15, 2010, even though that bill was transmitted online before Ms. Turner was hired. Both before and after Ms. Turner was employed, there was a billing history for the water bills that showed occasional missed payments and occasional partial payments of the total amount due, as well as the imposition of a penalty charge for late payment. The January 15, 2010, bill that was not paid when due on February 10, 2010, resulted in a $34.10 penalty charge, which may have been Ms. Turner's fault. However, given Mr. Currie's admission that he controlled payment of bills and sometimes refused permission to pay bills when due, the evidence is insufficient to show that Ms. Turner was to blame for the bill not being paid while she was employed at Sure-Tek or for the late charge. Mr. Currie also presented evidence regarding PESCO gas bills. A summary of PESCO charges and payments was presented with a January charge highlighted. Next to the January charge was a handwritten note, "DID NOT PAY PESCO BILL." The only problem with this evidence is that the summary is for charges and payments in 2009, not 2010. Thus, whoever did not pay the PESCO bill in January 2009, it could not have been Ms. Turner. Mr. Currie also presented a separate PESCO invoice dated March 4, 2010, which showed that the balance due as of the prior month's bill, February 4, 2010, was $4,609.13. This balance was reduced by a $1,791.73 payment made February 10, 2010, presumably by Ms. Turner during her time of employment. Mr. Currie admitted at the final hearing that PESCO accepted partial payments at that time, and he admitted that he probably instructed Ms. Turner to pay only part of the February bill. It was not shown that there were any billing or payment problems with this account or that Ms. Turner's performance can be faulted at all. Next came the TECO People's Gas bill. On a statement dated February 12, 2010, a "previous balance" of $1,589.88 was carried forward from the prior month's bill. Sometime between the prior statement issued in mid-January 2010, and the February 12, 2010, statement, a partial payment was made and credited in the amount of $497.68, leaving $1,092.20 still due from the January bill. Because the remaining balance was considered "past due" on February 7, 2010, a late payment fee of $16.38 was added to the February statement. Mr. Currie acknowledged that the January 2010 bill was partially paid while Ms. Turner was employed at Sure-Tek. Once again, Mr. Currie admitted that it was "entirely possible" that he was the one who instructed Ms. Turner to pay what Respondent could afford to pay--the partial payment of $497.68--because he did not have the money to pay the entire bill. Mr. Currie's own testimony and the bill itself refute his claim that Ms. Turner overlooked or forgot to pay the January bill. In addition, Mr. Currie's testimony corroborated the testimony of Ms. Turner and Ms. Rodriguez regarding the tight control Mr. Currie kept on which bills were paid or partially paid. This evidence does not establish that Ms. Turner's performance can be faulted for the partial payment of the January TECO People's Gas bill or the late fee charged on the remainder that was not paid when due. TECO People's Gas also sent a "final notice" on February 11, 2010, informing Sure-Tek that it had to pay the remaining past due balance of $1,092.20 right away, or else its service would be terminated on February 19, 2010. A copy of the final notice in evidence has handwriting on it, indicating "pay" in one handwriting style and "paid" in a different handwriting style. Mr. Currie did not testify that his TECO People's Gas service was terminated. Thus, the reasonable inference is that Mr. Currie authorized Ms. Turner to pay the rest of the January balance upon receipt of the final notice, and she did so before February 19, 2010. Mr. Currie's final piece of documentary evidence to support his claim of mounting performance problems was a notice from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, dated February 17, 2010 (the Wednesday of Ms. Turner's last week of employment). This notice informed Sure-Tek that its corporate annual report was due and should be filed with the filing fee by May 1, 2010, to avoid a late fee. A second notice dated June 16, 2010, imposed the late fee and notified Sure-Tek that the annual report, filing fee, and late fee had to be submitted by September 17, 2010, to avoid administrative dissolution. Despite the fact that Ms. Turner was fired a few days after the first notice and a late fee could have been avoided if the report and filing fee were submitted at any time in the approximately 70 days remaining after Ms. Turner was fired, Mr. Currie blamed the failure to meet the May 1, 2010, deadline on Ms. Turner. That attempted blame is not warranted and, instead, tends to suggest that Mr. Currie was looking to find things to blame on Ms. Turner after she was fired. Mr. Currie testified that he believed Ms. Turner did not know how to use QuickBooks, and, as a result, did not follow his instructions to enter bills into QuickBooks as soon as they were received. However, Mr. Currie offered no credible, competent evidence of this. Mr. Currie admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding what was or was not entered into QuickBooks by Ms. Turner or how Ms. Turner performed using QuickBooks, and no other evidence was offered to prove Mr. Currie's unsubstantiated claim. Mr. Bean participated in the Pinellas OHR investigation and testified at the final hearing in support of Mr. Currie's position that Ms. Turner was fired because of her performance problems. Mr. Bean testified that Ms. Turner was fired because of a "lack of ability to do the job," and he referred to her not paying bills. Mr. Bean's testimony lacked credibility and probative value. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of unpaid bills, no personal knowledge of Ms. Turner's interaction with vendors, and no personal knowledge of her QuickBooks work. Mr. Bean provided no competent, credible evidence of any problems with Ms. Turner's performance. The only testimony he provided that was based on personal knowledge was that he found her to be "unfriendly" to him. While Ms. Turner was employed at SureTek, Mr. Bean was not her supervisor; at the time, he supervised only the warehouse employees. Mr. Bean testified that he was promoted to general manager in early July 2010 (one year before the final hearing), having "worked [his] way up." This was a few months after Ms. Turner was fired, after Ms. Rodriguez was fired, and after Mr. Bean had provided support to Mr. Currie's position in the Pinellas OHR investigation. The credible evidence fails to support Mr. Currie's suggestion that Ms. Turner was not performing acceptably in her brief tenure and was fired for that legitimate reason. Instead, it appears that Mr. Currie went on an after-the-fact hunt for things he could blame on Ms. Turner that could not reasonably be blamed on her, nor were they shown to be reasons why Mr. Currie made the decision on February 19, 2011, to terminate Ms. Turner and advertise for her replacement. Indeed, Mr. Currie's own testimony shows the inconsistencies in his attempt to develop a legitimate rationale for letting Ms. Turner go. When Mr. Currie was explaining his recollection of the events of February 19, 2011, he testified that after just 45 minutes of looking for Ms. Turner, who he described as looking sub-par and sicker than she normally looked that day, he decided that she must have quit, and he instructed Mr. Bean to place an ad on Craigslist because Ms. Turner had apparently decided to quit. That is quite a bit different than coming to the studied view over a multi-week period of time and following several counseling sessions that Ms. Turner's job performance was unacceptable and that she should be fired for poor performance. Instead, the suggestion was that Mr. Currie would have been happy to keep Ms. Turner--even willing to get a temporary employee to accommodate Ms. Turner's need for another surgery in the future--but she was the one who chose to leave. Mr. Currie never attempted to reconcile these two very clearly different explanations of how Ms. Turner's employment at Sure-Tek ended. These inconsistencies undermine the credibility of his attempt to legitimize her termination. Appropriate Remedy Petitioner testified that she is seeking back pay only, through the date of the final hearing, as damages. Petitioner quantified her back pay damages as 71.5 weeks of unemployment since her termination. She testified that her income at Sure-Tek was $540.00 per week ($13.50 per hour, times 40 hours per week). This evidence was not challenged by Respondent. Therefore, the total amount of back pay damages claimed before offsetting reductions is $38,610.00 Petitioner testified to her substantial efforts to obtain a job after she was fired by Respondent, and her testimony was corroborated by a tremendous amount of electronic mail inquiries and applications she submitted to follow up on job postings on Craigslist and other online job listings. Petitioner was hired shortly after she was let go by Mr. Currie at a company called Clear Tech, Inc. That job did not last long, however, because Ms. Turner was hired to work for the part of the company that was in the business of new pool construction and that part of the business was shut down soon after she started, due to the economic slow-down. Petitioner proved the amount of wages earned at Clear Tech: $1,632.00. In addition, Petitioner proved that she earned an additional $1,612.00 in unemployment compensation after she was fired from Sure-Tek. These two categories reduce the total amount of damages sought to $35,366.00. Petitioner testified that since she stopped working for Clear Tech, she has not earned wages. However, she testified that she has been helping out at Apple Homes, the company owned by her grandfather and father and has worked about ten hours per week. She is not on the payroll, because business is not good enough for her to be paid. However, both her grandfather and father help her out financially, helping to pay her rent and her bills. Although Ms. Turner testified that she plans to eventually pay back her father and grandfather for their financial help, she did not produce any evidence to substantiate that claim, such as an accounting maintained by her to tally the amounts of their assistance so she would know how much to repay them. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that her ten hours per week of work to "help" the company is being compensated by this indirect "help" to assist with her rent and bills. The undersigned finds that Petitioner has mitigated her damages to the extent of having similar work for which she is compensated for ten hours per week. Petitioner testified that she began working at Clear Tech in March 2010 and that she worked there for approximately 30 days. Therefore, the undersigned will assume that Petitioner worked at Clear Tech for the month of March 2010, and, thereafter, she worked at Apple Homes for ten hours a week. That equates to approximately 66 weeks, or 660 hours. In the absence of any other evidence showing how much Petitioner received as indirect compensation, it is reasonable to assume that her compensation would have approximated the hourly rate she earned from Respondent. Therefore, the undersigned will deduct $8,910 from the total back pay damages, representing estimated compensation of the value of her services of ten hours per week at Apple Homes for 66 weeks. The undersigned finds that Petitioner has incurred actual damages due to lost wages from her date of termination by Respondent through the date of the final hearing, reduced/offset by the items described above, of $26,456.00. Petitioner established her reasonable efforts to mitigate her damages, and she, in fact, mitigated her actual damages which have been reduced/offset as described above by a total of $12,154.00. Petitioner has hired an attorney who has represented her at the final hearing, in pre-hearing preparation, and in post-hearing proceedings. Petitioner has also incurred costs in connection with this litigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Respondent, Sure-Tek Powker Coating, Inc., violated section 70-53, Pinellas County Code; Ordering Respondent to pay Petitioner, Rebecca Turner, the sum of $26,456.00 and interest at the prevailing statutory rate; and Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Turner reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees, if the parties are unable to agree to the amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 22nd day of September, 2011.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer would recommend that the agency head enter a final order permitting the voluntary removal of the advertising structure within 30 days of the date of the agency head's final order, and directing employees of the Department of Transportation to remove the structure after the 30-day period without compensation to the owner. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building Tallahassee, FlorIda 32301 James P. Appleman, Esquire 206 Market Street Post Office Box 3115 Marianna, Florida 32446 Charles M. Wynn, Esquire 310 East Jackson Street Post Office Box 793 Marianna, Florida 32446
The Issue Whether Petitioner, MB Doral is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes (2019), and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400; and if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 2018, MB Doral filed a Petition Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-4.020 and Determination Regarding Unadopted Rule, in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX. The undersigned bifurcated the unadopted rule challenge and conducted a final hearing on the existing rule challenge on January 24, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the undersigned entered a final order that concluded that rule 61A-4.020 was a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. MB Doral appealed the final order to the First District Court of Appeal. On April 27, 2020, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Opinion that reversed the Final Order and concluded that rule 61A-4.020 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. MB Doral, LLC, d/b/a Martinibar v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Bev. & Tobacco, 2020 WL 1987120 (Fla. 1st DCA April 27, 2020). On May 22, 2020, MB Doral filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Motion), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the existing rule challenge and subsequent appeal, pursuant to section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400. On June 4, 2020, the Department filed a Notice of Filing Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which included the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Joint Stipulation states that the Department agrees to the entry of a final order assessing the sum of $24,000.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the existing rule challenge and subsequent appeal, which the undersigned bifurcated from the unadopted rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX. The Joint Stipulation further states that the parties agree that the Final Order direct the Department to seek immediate approval for payment within 30 days of the Final Order, and that the undersigned retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Final Order.
Findings Of Fact The following relevant facts are undisputed: The Division is the arm of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation with the duty and responsibility to permit and regulate pari- mutuel wagering facilities throughout the state. §§ 550.002(7) and 550.01215, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a pari-mutuel permittee that owns and operates the Daytona Beach Racing and Card Club in Volusia County, located at 1 Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2020 version, which was in effect when the Petition was filed. 2 Petitioner waived the requirement in section 120.56(1)(c) that the final hearing be conducted within 30 days after assignment of the case. 960 South Williamson Boulevard in Daytona Beach, Florida (“Petitioner’s facility”). Intervenor is a pari-mutuel permittee doing business as St. Johns Greyhound Park in St. Johns County, at a leased facility located at 6322 Racetrack Road, St. Johns, Florida (“Bayard’s facility”), approximately 75 miles north of Petitioner’s facility. On July 8, 2020, Bayard filed with the Division a “Notice of Relocation” of Bayard’s facility to an eight-acre parcel in St. Augustine, Florida, which it is under contract to purchase. Bayard’s Notice of Relocation was filed pursuant to section 550.054(14)(b), Florida Statutes, which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: The holder of a permit converted pursuant to this subsection or any holder of a permit to conduct greyhound racing located in a county in which it is the only permit issued pursuant to this section who operated at a leased facility pursuant to s. 550.475 may move the location for which the permit has been issued to another location within a 30-mile radius of the location fixed in the permit issued in that county, provided the move does not cross the county boundary and such location is approved under the zoning regulations of the county or municipality in which the permit is located, and upon such relocation may use the permit for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering and the operation of a cardroom. On September 11, 2020, the Division issued its Notice regarding Bayard’s relocation. Finding that Bayard had satisfied all the criteria for relocation pursuant to section 550.045(14)(b), the Division approved the relocation of Bayard’s permit to 2493 State Road 207 in St. Augustine, St. Johns County, Florida. On December 2, 2020, Petitioner filed the Petition challenging the Notice as an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.56(4). The Petition alleges, in pertinent part, as follows: 10. As part of the [Notice], the Division included a statement summarizing its application of the § 550.054(14)(b) relocation factors, yet failed to set forth any analysis of the conditions for relocation of greyhound permits set forth in § 550.0555(2). Based on this incomplete analysis of Bayard’s Notice of Relocation, the Division approved Bayard’s request to relocate. 12. Consequently, Petitioner is entitled to request a hearing challenging the Division’s agency statement interpreting the applicability of § 550.054(14)(b), and lack of applicability of § 550.0555(2), in the [Notice] as an unpromulgated rule. 21. When analyzing whether to approve Bayard’s request to relocate [Bayard’s facility], the Division reviewed the factors listed in § 550.054(14)(b), but wholly disregarded the factors listed in § 550.0555(2). In other words, the Division determined, that a request, “pursuant to § 550.054(14)(b)” need not satisfy the requirements of § 550.0555(2), despite the fact that such an interpretation finds no support in the relevant statutes themselves. This interpretation of law represents an “agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets or prescribes law or policy[.]” § 120.52(16), Fla. Stat. Since the Division did not properly adopt this interpretation as a rule, this means it is an invalid unpromulgated rule that cannot support agency action. The crux of Petitioner’s argument is that the Notice reflects an unwritten policy of the Division to apply only the factors in section 550.054(14)(b) to applications to relocate which are filed “pursuant to that section,” and not apply the factors in section 550.0555(2).3 The Notice does not cite, analyze, or otherwise refer to, section 550.0555.
The Issue Whether petitioner owes respondent tax, surcharge, penalties and interest aggregating $55,335.85 on account of the unlawful sale, use, consumption, distribution, manufacture, derivation, production, transportation or storage of cannabis?
Findings Of Fact On October 28, 1989, petitioner was arrested by Florida Department of Law Enforcement agents in a Ramada Inn parking lot on Hartley Road in Jacksonville as he prepared to drive away in a white Chevrolet. The car trunk contained 45 to 72 pounds of cannabis. Not knowing John Abbott was working for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, petitioner had just given Mr. Abbott $47,500 (which belonged to one Barklow) in exchange for the keys to the Chevrolet, with the understanding he would drive elsewhere, unload the marijuana, and return the car. The parties stipulated that the facts respondent asked petitioner to admit were true. They include the following: On January 2, 1990 the respondent served petitioner with a Notice of Assessment and Jeopardy Findings taxing the subject marijuana. Per section 212.0505, Florida Statutes, the estimated retail price of the cannabis contained within the above-mentioned vehicle was $47,500. The assessment in the amount of $55,335.85, with interest continuing to accrue, is mathematically correct.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that respondent's notice of assessment and jeopardy findings be made final. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee R. Rohe, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 William J. Sheppard, Esquire Sheppard & White 215 Washington Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 J. Thomas Herndon, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 William D. Moore, General Counsel Department of Revenue 203 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner Jack Mitchell is a native-born Floridian, now forty-seven years old and is married with one child. He has a degree in sociology from the University of Central Florida and presently works for a nonprofit community organization called Young Blacks in Action. Be has been doing work in the areas of civil rights and social justice for some twenty years, and was formerly an ordained minister and a district executive for the National Boy Scouts of America. He has also worked for Martin Marietta in the area of quality control. On December 24, 1983, petitioner was in Albertson's Food Store doing some last-minute Christmas shopping for his wife. He picked up two bottles of cologne. He claims that, after shopping for a while, he became concerned that he did not have his wallet and that, with the cologne in his hand, he began checking the inside pockets of his coat to look for his wallet. At that point, he was placed under arrest for shoplifting. He further testified that he had no intent to leave the store without paying for the merchandise. Without an attorney, petitioner pled nolo contendere to retail theft. He asserts that he entered this plea in order to avoid the publicity and embarrassment of a trial, since he is considered a public leader in his community. By Judgment and Sentence recorded on January 23, 1984, the Orange County Court adjudged petitioner guilty of retail theft and ordered him to pay a fine of $100.00, and other fees and costs in the amount of $34.00. Petitioner has never before been convicted of a crime. In March of 1984, petitioner applied for licensure as a limited surety agent. The respondent denied his application, citing as grounds therefore Section 648.45(2)(e) and (k) , Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for licensure as a limited surety agent be DENIED, without prejudice to petitioner to reapply for such licensure after the expiration of one (1) year from the date of the Final Order entered in this proceeding. Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 9th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Clark Jennings, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Fla. 32301 Scott Sterling, Esquire 311 N. Rosalind Avenue Orlando, Fla. 32801 Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Fla. 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for licensure as a yacht and ship salesman should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating yacht and ship brokers and salespersons in Florida. Section 326.003, Florida Statutes (1997). On July 28, 1998, the Division received an application for a yacht and ship salesperson's license from Richard Badolato. Question 13 on the application solicits information of the applicant's criminal history as follows: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, either pled or been found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? NOTE: This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state, or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. Your answer to this question will be checked against local and state records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. After Question 15 of the application, the following statement appears in bold type: "If your answer to question 13, 14, or 15 is Yes, attach your complete signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, name and location of the court in which the proceedings were held or are pending." Mr. Badolato answered Question 13 in the affirmative, and he signed the application, thereby certifying that "the foregoing information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief." Mr. Badolato did not provide the statement of particulars which must be submitted by those answering Question 13 in the affirmative. In a letter dated July 28, 1998, the Division notified Mr. Badolato that his application was incomplete and that he should, among other things, provide a complete written explanation of his criminal history. In response to this letter, Mr. Badolato provided a signed statement in which he stated: "I was arrested and charged with possession of marj. in 1981." Mr. Badolato also provided a telephone number on the statement, indicating that he could be contacted at that number if the Division had any questions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 326.004(15), the Division issued a 90-day temporary license to Mr. Badolato, pending completion of the criminal history analysis that is done on all applicants by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The Division subsequently received a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation which revealed that Mr. Badolato had three drug-related felony convictions, as well as an arrest on June 22, 1977, which resulted in a charge of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. On August 24, 1981, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Brunswick, Georgia, of conspiracy to smuggle marijuana; he was sentenced to ten years in prison and ordered to pay a $30,000 fine. On October 23, 1981, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Miami, Florida, of conspiracy to distribute cocaine; he was sentenced to thirty months in prison, to run consecutively with the ten-year sentence in the Georgia case. On January 31, 1989, Mr. Badolato was convicted in federal district court in Maryland of conspiracy to distribute marijuana; he was sentenced to thirty-six months in prison, to run concurrently with any sentence imposed for a violation of parole. Mr. Badolato was released from prison in 1991 and successfully completed parole in December 1996 with respect to the 1989 conviction. In late 1997, Mr. Badolato received a letter advising him that he might be eligible for clemency. An attorney acting on behalf of Mr. Badolato filed an application for clemency with the Florida Parole Commission. Although Mr. Badolato has never seen this application, he assumes that the file developed during review of the application contains complete information regarding his criminal history.2 When the Division received the Federal Bureau of Investigation report, Peter Butler, head of the Division's general enforcement section, contacted Mr. Badolato by telephone, read to him the statement in the application quoted in paragraph 4 above, and asked him if he wanted to amend his application. Because he could not remember the exact dates of his three felony convictions, Mr. Badolato responded by referring Mr. Butler to the Clemency Board if Mr. Butler wanted to obtain further information about Mr. Badolato's criminal history. Mr. Badolato acknowledged in his testimony that he should have been more thorough in completing his application for licensure, that he was lazy and stupid for not being more forthcoming in the application, and that he did not intend to mislead the Division. He believed that, by answering "Yes" to Question 13 and admitting that he was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana in 1981, he had provided enough information to alert the Division that he had a criminal history. He also assumed that it would be very easy for the Division to obtain complete information about his background merely by running a computer check and by reviewing the information in his clemency application file. From 1991, when he was released from prison, until December 1998, Mr. Badolato was involved in the restaurant business in a managerial capacity, and, as part of his duties, he handled large sums of money. No money in his care was ever found missing, and no adverse employment actions were taken against him during this time. In addition, during the time he was on parole, Mr. Badolato periodically submitted to random drug-testing and never failed a test. The evidence presented by Mr. Badolato is not sufficient to establish that he is of good moral character. He admitted in his answer to Question 13 on the application that he had been convicted of a felony, yet he included in the statement which he filed as part of the application a vague, incomplete, misleading, and inaccurate reference to an arrest and charge of possession of marijuana in 1981.3 Furthermore, Mr. Badolato certified by his signature on the application form that the information he provided was "true and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief," when he was certainly fully aware that he had three separate felony convictions. Mr. Badolato presented evidence of his good employment history subsequent to his release from prison in 1991, his successful termination of probation, and his faithful payments on the $30,000 fine imposed in 1981, all of which tend to show rehabilitation and good moral character. However, Mr. Badolato's failure to include in his application complete and accurate information regarding his criminal history tends to show lack of rehabilitation and lack of good moral character. On balance, Mr. Badolato's failure to disclose in his application his complete criminal history outweighs the evidence he presented to show rehabilitation and good moral character.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes, enter a final order denying Richard Badolato's application for licensure as a yacht and ship salesperson. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 16th day of August, 1999.
The Issue Whether the Respondent is in violation of Section 479.07(1), F.S., and Section 479.07(4), F.S., which require an application for a permit to be made and granted and the fees paid each year. Whether a sign which has been standing without a current permit is eligible for a current permit upon payment of the delinquent fees.
Findings Of Fact The following described signs owned by Respondent had no current permit tags: Highway: US 17 Location: .91 miles south of Section 118S(207) Copy: Whispering Pines Highway: US 17 Location: .1 miles north 207 (Section 118S) Copy: Whispering Pines Highway: US 17 Location: South C/L Satsuma (Section 118S) Copy: Whispering Pines The parties stipulated that the subject signs were owned and erected by the Respondent and that there was no application for or fees paid under the requirements of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, insofar as paying fees and obtaining current permits.
