Findings Of Fact The petitions herein were filed by Petitioner with PERC on June 16, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibits 1 and 2). The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on September 17, 1975, by Notice dated August 26, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). The Intervenor filed a petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission on June 26, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 6). The Intervenor's petition was dismissed by the Chairman of PERC on August 6, 1975. The Motion to Intervene was filed with PERC on September 8, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 8). The School Board of Broward County is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, TR, vol. I, pp. 13, 14). The Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR, vol. I, pp. 14, 15). The Intervenor is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR, vol. I, pp. 14, 15). There is no contract bar to holding an election in this case. (Stipulation, TR, vol I, p. 15). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5). Intervenor offered approximately 88 signed statements into evidence at the hearing as Intervenor's Exhibit 5. The statements express the signers' desire to resign from membership in the Petitioner. The statements were not accompanied by any testimony or other evidence with respect to their authenticity, and they were not, therefore, received in evidence. No additional evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC respecting Petitioner's showing of interest. PERC has previously determined that the Intervenor is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 7). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. In order to make a proper showing of interest in support of its Motion to Intervene, Intervenor offered authorization cards which had previously been forwarded to PERC in Case No. 8H-RC-754-2177, and which were not found by PERC to be stale and untimely. Intervenor offered additional authorization cards at the hearing, which cards have been forwarded to PERC by the undersigned. At the time of the hearing no administrative determination had been made by PERC with respect to the Intervenor's showing of interest. No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut such an administrative determination in the event that one is made. The Broward Educational Secretaries Association is an employee organization which is seeking to represent a unit of clerical personnel employed by the Public Employer. Petitioner and Intervenor are not seeking to represent the same employees which the Broward Educational Secretaries Association is seeking to represent except that the Intervenor wishes to include employees in the Purchasing and Warehousing Departments in the unit in this case. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 675; the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, Local Union 719; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 728; and the Air Conditioning Local 725, are building trades unions which are seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer who perform building trades labor. At the time that the hearing was held none of these organizations had filed any petition with PERC seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer, and no motions to intervene were made at the hearing. The organizations had joined to form a new organization, the Broward County Public Employees Maintenance Committee. This new organization had registered with PERC, and is actively seeking to represent employees of the Public Employer. The new organization had not filed any petition with PERC, and made no motion to intervene at the hearing. The Petitioner, the Intervenor, and the Public Employer agree that the appropriate collective bargaining unit would include the following employees: Bus Drivers, Bus Driver Aides, Substitute Bus Drivers and Aides, Mail Service Employees, Garage Employees, Assistant Head Custodians, and Head Custodians, Warehousemen and Maintenance Men, except that there is a disagreement as to whether tradesmen should be included. The parties agree that the following employees should be excluded: all instructional personnel, and confidential and managerial employees. The functions of the School Board of Broward County are divided both functionally and geographically. The School Board of Broward County serves as the legislative body of the Broward County School System. The superintendent is the Chief Executive Officer. The central school board office is divided into four primary departments: Instructional Services, headed by a Program Superintendent for Instruction and a Program Director; Business Services, headed by a Program Director; Operational Services, headed by a Program Director, and Personnel Services, headed by a Director. Many school board functions are administered on a decentralized basis in four geographic areas. Each of the schools within the Broward County system fall within one of the areas. The principal of each school is charged with the responsibility for administering both instructional and non-instructional functions at the school. Each geographic area performs support functions for the schools. Four departments have been established in each area to perform the support functions. These departments are headed by a Curriculum Analyst, a Business Analyst, a Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations, and a Supervisor of Transportation. Employees involved in this case are employed in the Central Operational Services Department, in the purchasing and warehousing office of the Central Business Services Department, in the area Maintenance and Operations and Transportation Departments, and at the individual schools. There are five departments within Operational Services. The School Facilities Department is headed by a Director. This department is responsible for planning the construction of new schools or additions to already existing schools. Personnel in the department serve as a liaison between educational personnel and the school board architects. Once a project is approved by the School Board and the State, and has been contracted, the School Facilities Department supervises construction. The Minor Capital Outlay Department is headed by a Coordinator. The Coordinator prepares the budget for the Department, assigns duties, and coordinates the activities of the Department with maintenance personnel in the areas. When area maintenance personnel have special problems that cannot be handled in the ordinary course of their work day, the area supervisor from Maintenance and Operations will request assistance from Minor Capital Outlay. Five supervisors work under the Coordinator. The Plumbing Supervisor is responsible for seeing that supplies are furnished, determining what jobs need to be performed, assigning personnel to the jobs, and seeing that all jobs are accomplished. The Plumbing Supervisor submits a proposed budget to the Coordinator, coordinates purchases with area supervisors, and serve as the first step in the grievance procedure. The Electrical Supervisor, Custodial Services Supervisor, Portable Classroom Supervisor, and Painting Supervisor have the same duties and responsibilities as the Plumbing Supervisor within their respective realms. Functions performed by the Minor Capital Outlay Department which are not supervised in the `foregoing manner are supervised by foremen or leadmen. These personnel answer directly to the Coordinator. They are responsible for submitting budget information to the Coordinator, serve as the first step in the grievance procedure, and coordinate purchases with area supervisors. The Auxiliary Services Department, which is headed by a Director, covers the garage, transportation, and mailroom. The garage is responsible for maintaining buses and all school board vehicles. The Garage Coordinator is responsible for supervising activities at the garage. A Body and Paint Foreman, a Shop Foreman, and Day and Night Shift Mechanic Foremen answer to the Garage Coordinator. These foremen are working foremen. The Transportation Division is headed by a Coordinator. The Central Transportation office coordinates with transportation offices in each area. Area Transportation Supervisors work out bus routes for the individual schools based upon information submitted by the school principals. The central office coordinates with the area offices to assist in routing of buses. Bus drivers answer to the Area Transportation Supervisors, and to the Principals at the individual schools. The primary function of the Central Transportation Office is to coordinate activities of the Area Transportation offices. The mailroom provides intra-school mail service. The mailroom is headed by a mailroom specialist. The Pupil Accounting and Sight Planning Department is responsible for maintaining demographic records of the county, in order to determine where future schools should be built, and when they should be built. The department coordinates the acquisition of school sites. The department consists of a Director, two secretaries and three clerk typists. The Safety Department was previously a division of the Auxiliary Services Department. It is now a separate department under Operational Services. The Department consists of a Coordinator and two Inspectors. These personnel are certified by the State Department of Education to make health and safety inspections of the school facilities. In the event of an accident, these personnel would make an investigation and report. Such an investigation might result in disciplinary action being taken against other employees. A part of the Safety Inspector's function might be to testify at grievance hearings relating to accidents. These employees would be eligible for membership in the Petitioner, but the Constitution of Petitioner would not permit the employees to file reports that might cause disciplinary action to be taken against another member of the Petitioner. Each area is headed by an Area Superintendent. The Area Superintendent is responsible for both instructional and non-instructional matters within the area. School principals answer to the Area Superintendent. The Supervisor of Maintenance and Operations, and the Supervisor of Transportation for each area also answer to the Area Superintendent. There is no intermediate management in the non-instructional divisions of the areas. Various functional divisions of the Maintenance and Operations Departments may have working foremen which generally direct the activities of the crews. There is, for example, a small mower foreman in each area. Employees in the areas receive the same salaries and benefits, and work the same hours as the employees in the central office. A journeyman electrician assigned to the Maintenance and Operations Department of an area would receive the same employment benefits as a journeyman electrician assigned to the Minor Capital Outlay Department of Operational Services in the central office. School principals are in charge of both instructional and non- instructional matters at the schools. The principal is responsible for hiring and firing the school's custodians and on-site repairmen. The on-site repairmen will coordinate their activities with the area maintenance and operations office, but they will nonetheless answer to the principals. Head custodians provide principals with information respecting monetary needs, but they play no other budget role. Head custodians play no policy or collective bargaining role. Head custodians do serve as the initial step in the grievance procedure. Some of the principals in the school system place strong reliance upon their head custodians; others do not. Some principals assign the head custodians the responsibility of interviewing prospective employees, and such principals rely upon the head custodian's recommendations respecting hiring, firing, promotion, and vacations. Head custodians generally perform the same functions as other custodians, in addition to their supervisory functions. Head custodians will open the school plants, perform maintenance chores, clean floors, and move heavy objects. Some head custodians are given virtually no supervisory role respecting other custodians. Some of the schools employ student custodians. Student custodians answer to the Head Custodian and to the Principal. They work on a part-time, irregular basis during the school year. Regular custodians work on a full-time regular schedule, twelve months per year. Student custodians are paid less than regular custodians. The Purchasing and Warehousing Department is located within Business Services. The Director of Purchasing and Warehousing answers to the Program Director of Business Services. The Purchasing and Warehousing Department is divided into a Purchasing Division, a Property and Inventory Control Division, and a Warehouse Division. The Purchasing Division is headed by a supervisor who answers to the Director of Purchasing and Warehousing. The Purchasing Division is responsible generally for purchasing all supplies for the school system. Supplies are sent to the warehouse and are delivered from the warehouse to the schools. There are twenty-one employees in the Purchasing Division. Fifteen are Clerks or Clerk Typists. These employees generally type invoices and do filing. There are four Buyers in the Division. These employees process requisitions, process bids, and write bid specifications. The Buyers will consult with maintenance and instructional supervisors respecting supplies. The Purchasing Division is in constant contact with the warehouse, although the division is located approximately five miles from the warehouse. Three Purchasing Clerks work at the warehouse. These employees sit at desks and do not wear warehouse uniforms. Many persons in the Purchasing Division have been members of the Broward Educational Secretaries Association for some time, and wish to be represented in collective bargaining by that organization. Other employees of the Purchasing Division have been members of the Intervenor. The Public Employer employs numerous employees who perform work generally classified as in the building trades. Trade unions affiliated with the AFL-CIO have a long-standing agreement among themselves that they will not seek to represent members of another affiliated union's trade. The trade unions commonly refer to members of their trade as within their "jurisdiction". Neither the Petitioner, the Intervenor, nor the Public Employer are parties to that agreement. Tradesmen employed by the Public Employer do perform non-trade work. All tradesmen will drive trucks. The crane operator is often not engaged in that activity and will perform other maintenance work. Plumbers are occasionally called upon to dig ditches. Approximately 90 percent of the tradesmen's work is in their trade. The School Board has participated in an apprenticeship program which is managed in part by the trades unions. Through this program an employee of the School Board can become a journeyman. The program is not mandatory, and employees can become journeymen without participating in it. No evidence was offered at the hearing showing any direct conflict between tradesmen and other employees of the Public Employer. ENTERED this 12 day of March, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this order closing file is entitled to Judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950, and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IHEREBY CERTIFY that this Order Closing File was filed in the official records of the Department of Management Services and copies were furnished to: Larry D. Scott, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950; Jane M. Letwin, Esquire, 5426 SW 25" Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, and Judge Eleanor Hunter, Division of Administrative Hearings, the DeSoto eae See Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, this | a day of Queusk 2009. . 7 ae Debbie Shoup Clerk Department of Management Services (850) 487-1082 2 of 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS KAREN GARCIA Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 08-3729 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. / . PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION Petitioner, KAREN GARCIA, through undersigned Counsel, hereby files this Petitioner’s Notice of Withdrawal of her Petition without prejudice. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on JuLY 21%, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified in the attached service list via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF and via e-mail to Larry D. Scott, Esq., Asst. Gen’l Counsel, DMS, Division of Retirement, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, FL 32399- 0950. By: s/Jane Letwin, Esq, FLA.BAR NO. 990329 Law Office of Jane M. Letwin Attorney for Plaintiffs 5426 SW 25" Avenue, Fort Lauderdale FL 33312 Tel: 954 297 4057; Fax: 954 301 8401 EXHIBIT wan Filed July 21, 2009 8:00 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. SERVICE LIST Marylin Batista-McNamara, Esq. Office of the School Board Attorney 600 SE Third Avenue, 1!" Floor Fort Lauderdale Fi 33301
Findings Of Fact The matters of fact being stipulated to by the parties are as follows: The City of Panama City has enacted a "local option" ordinance pursuant to Section 447.603, Florida Statutes. The City Ordinance No. 933 created the Panama City Public Employees Relations Commission ("PC-PERC") to exercise jurisdiction over labor relations matters arising between public employers and public employees of the City of Panama City in lieu of the State Public Employees Relations Commission ("PERC"). This ordinance was approved by the State of Florida Public Employees Relations Commission pursuant to Section 447.603, Florida Statutes following an order of the First District Court of Appeal in City of Panama City v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 364 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) directing PERC to do so. On June 6, 1979 PERC issued an order to PC-PERC pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-23.01(2), the subject of this proceeding. The order relies on language in the Rule in question, which provides that "upon failure of the local commission . . . to timely submit such modifications, the commission shall revoke approval of the local commission and shall assume jurisdiction over all matters in dispute pending before the local commission". Thus, whereas the order is directed to the local commission, the penalty for failure to comply with the order is revocation of approval of the City's local option ordinance itself. Ordinance No. 933 gives the PC-PERC the sole power to adopt rules. Section 1.004(1) provides that the Commission "shall adopt, promulgate, amend or rescind such rules and regulations as it deems necessary and administratively feasible to carry out the provisions of this ordinance " Ordinance No. 933 further makes the local commission an independent body, providing at Section 1.003(1) that "the Commission in the performance of its duties and powers under this ordinance shall not be subject to the control, supervision or direction by the City Manager or City Commission." The City has no control whatsoever over whether, or to what extent, the Panama City Public Employees Relations Commission complies with PERC's order of June 6, 1979. That order, which is pursuant to Rule 38D-23.01, purports to provide for the revocation of approval of the local commission created by the City's ordinance within ninety (90) days unless PC-PERC complies with it. By request dated August 17, 1979, the Petitioner filed a Request to Take Official Notice of certain orders of the Public Employees Relations Commission and of certain sections of Panama City Ordinance No. 933. Respondent having been noticed of that request and entering no opposition thereto and, further, Respondent having referred in its brief herein to certain of the orders for which official notice was requested (PERC Order dated July 23, 1979, Page 1 of Respondent's brief) the Request to Take Official Notice is granted, and those items 1-11 in that request are admitted into evidence and made a part of the record of this proceeding. By order of the Public Employees Relations Commission dated July 23, 1979, the order of that same Commission dated June 6, 1979, and referred to in paragraph 1(b) above was vacated to allow the City of Panama City to make certain alleged necessary amendments to its local option ordinance and for such amendments to be approved by the Public Employees Relations Commission. By order dated July 19, 1979, the Public Employees Relations Commission notified the City of Panama City that Chapter 447, Park II, Florida Statutes had been substantially amended and that the City's local option ordinance must be amended and submitted to PERC for review and approval within ninety (90) days. The order further noted that "[f]ailure by the City to timely submit modifications for review and approval by the Commission may subject the local option to revocation of approval and jurisdiction." Finally, the order recited Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-23.01(2) as the authority for the foregoing requirement. That is the same rule being challenged in this proceeding.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this order closing file is entitled to Judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950, and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IHEREBY CERTIFY that this Order Closing File was filed in the official records of the Department of Management Services and copies were furnished to: Larry D. Scott, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Management Services, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950; Jane M. Letwin, Esquire, 5426 SW 25% Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, and Judge John G. Van Laningham, Division of Administrative Hearings, the DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060, this | oH day of X gust , 2009. A Shoup Debbie Clerk Department of Management Services (850) 487-1082 2 of 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS BEVERLY HUTTON, Petitioner, Vv. CASE NO. 09-2466 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, Respondent. / PETITIONER’S NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PETITION Petitioner, BEVERLY HUTTON, through undersigned Counsel, hereby files this Petitioner’s Notice of Withdrawal of her Petition without prejudice. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on JuLY 21*, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day on all counsel of record identified in the attached service list via transmission of Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF and via e-mail to Larry D. Scott, Esq., Asst. Gen’! Counsel, DMS, Division of Retirement, 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160, Tallahassee, FL 32399- 0950. By: s/Jane Letwin, Esq, FLA.BAR NO. 990329 Law Office of Jane M. Letwin Attorney for Plaintiffs 5426 SW 25" Avenue, Fort Lauderdale FL 33312 Tel: 954 297 4057; Fax: 954 301 8401 EXHIBIT Filed July 21, 2009 8:00 AM Division of Administrative Hearings. : man SERVICE LIST Marylin Batista-McNamara, Esq. Office of the School Board Attorney 600 SE Third Avenue, 11" Floor Fort Lauderdale Fl 33301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon his race and/or his age, in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004).2/
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent, Metro Corral, operates several family- oriented buffet restaurants in the Orlando area under the name "Golden Corral." Petitioner, Randall Carter, is an African-American male born on December 6, 1958. At the time he filed his charge of discrimination with the Commission on June 15, 1998, Mr. Carter was 39 years old. At the hearing, no evidence was presented to show that age was a factor in the decision not to promote Mr. Carter. Several persons Mr. Carter's age or older were promoted to managerial positions in the Golden Corral restaurant that employed Mr. Carter during the time period at issue. In August 1994, Mr. Carter was hired to work as a cook at one of Metro Corral's Orlando restaurants. Mr. Carter worked as a grill cook and a hot bar cook. Like all kitchen employees, he received cross-training outside his regular work areas, so that he could fill in at other positions when needed. Mr. Carter cross-trained in the bakery and the cold food preparation area. Mr. Carter had no prior experience as a restaurant manager. Though Mr. Carter's charge of discrimination alleged that he was not promoted to "Kitchen Manager," the evidence at hearing established that the position in question was "Assistant Manager." The charge of discrimination alleged that Mr. Carter was passed over in favor of William Thompson, "a much younger Black Male." Metro Corral's assistant managers receive extensive training. A potential assistant manager is first assigned to a certified training restaurant, where he or she works for five weeks and learns to train employees for all positions in the restaurant. Next, the assistant manager trainee is assigned to another restaurant for an additional five weeks of training, including computer operations. Finally, the trainee is sent to Raleigh, North Carolina, for two weeks of classroom training and testing. Mr. Carter alleges that he was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of employees with less seniority. Shelly McCormick, the director of operations for Metro Corral and the person who performed all the hiring, firing, and promotion functions in the Orlando restaurants, testified that Mr. Carter was never considered a candidate for promotion. Mr. McCormick was very familiar with Mr. Carter and his job performance. He considered Mr. Carter to be a "mediocre employee" at best. Mr. Carter did his job and was, by and large, not a disciplinary problem. However, Mr. McCormick noted that Mr. Carter did not keep his work area clean, was not always well groomed, and did not display the leadership qualities or exceptional work ethic that Metro Corral sought in potential managers. In fact, Mr. Carter once confronted a fellow employee because the employee was working too hard and "[making] everyone else look bad." Mr. Carter was also unwilling to travel to other restaurants, a requirement of the management training. Seniority was never a consideration in determining potential managers. Mr. McCormick testified that performance, work ethic, and leadership were the qualities under consideration for potential managers. In April 1998, Mr. McCormick made the decision to promote William Thompson, an African-American employee who exhibited strong leadership qualities and a powerful work ethic. At the time of the promotion, Mr. McCormick did not know whether Mr. Thompson was younger than Mr. Carter. No evidence was presented that the promotion was based on anything other than Mr. McCormick's observation of Mr. Thompson's exceptional job performance. Mr. Carter testified that on June 6, 1998, he overheard two statements that he found offensive. Both statements were allegedly made when a bus full of black people pulled into the restaurant's parking lot. Mr. Carter testified that Keith Pangle, the white general manager, told Mr. Thompson to "drop all the chicken," i.e., cook all the available chicken because a busload of black people had arrived. Mr. Carter also claimed that the lead waitress told someone to cut up all the watermelon, again, because a busload of black people had arrived. Mr. Carter told Mr. Pangle that he found his statement offensive. Mr. Pangle sat down with both Mr. Carter and Mr. Thompson to assure them that he meant nothing offensive. Mr. Pangle apologized and never again said anything on the job that could be construed as racist or otherwise offensive. Mr. Pangle denied having made any reference to the race of the people on the bus. Nonetheless, Mr. McCormick counseled Mr. Pangle against using descriptive terms for customers entering the restaurant. Mr. McCormick testified that Mr. Pangle would have given the order to "drop all the chicken" when a busload of people arrived, regardless of their color. The fryer holds about 20 pieces of chicken and takes about 15 minutes to cook them meaning that in an hour, 80 pieces of chicken can be cooked. If a busload of 100 people comes into the restaurant, the buffet would fall behind if the chicken were not "dropped" immediately. Other hot items that require only two or three minutes to fry do not have to be "dropped" all at once because they can be cooked as quickly as people eat them. Mr. McCormick testified that items such as vegetables, watermelon, and cantaloupe are also time consuming to prepare for the buffet, meaning that "when you see that bus pull up, you've got to get on it." There was no substantial, persuasive evidence to show that the employment decision made by Mr. McCormick was based in whole, or in part, on any intentional discrimination or animus based upon Petitioner's race or age.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 10th day of November, 2004.
The Issue May Petitioner proceed to a hearing on the merits of her charge of employment discrimination or does the untimeliness of her Petition for Relief bar her claim?
Findings Of Fact On March 10, 1997, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission), alleging that Respondent Department of State had discriminated against her because of her race (Black) when it had discharged her on October 1, 1996. The Commission concluded its investigation into the matter, and on January 31, 2000, the Commission issued its "Determination: No Cause." A "Notice of Determination: No Cause" was mailed by the Commission to Petitioner on January 31, 2000. It contained the following statements: Complainant may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 2000.
Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint dated July 7, 2010, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Filed December 23, 2010 11:18 AM Division of Administrative Hearings 2. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000). The administrative fine is due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of this Order. 3. Checks should be made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration.” The check, along with a reference to these case numbers, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Unpaid fines pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. 5. Respondent’s petition for formal administrative proceedings is hereby dismissed. 6. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 7. The above-styled cases are hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this _/4 day of _“Pecewber , 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. terim Secretary Agenty for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Toni H. Burgess, Esq. Andrea M. Lang, Senior Attorney Attorney for Respondent Agency for Health Care 3350 Riverwood Parkway, Suite 1400 | Administration Atlanta, Georgia 30339 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 346C (U. S. Mail) Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting Elizabeth W. McArthur, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administrative Law Judge Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Revenue Management Unit The DeSoto Building 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (Interoffice Mail) (U. S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the ZS day of __ Are fe _, 2010. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
