Findings Of Fact On February 21, 1975, H. R. Hall was working as an undercover detective for the Jacksonville Vice Squad. During the evening of that date Detective Hall entered the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store, sat in a booth and ordered a beer. Sarah Lynn Swain, LuAnn Marie Docker and Lee Ann Remm, on the evening of February 21, 1975, were dressed as topless dancers and performed as topless dancers in the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store. The three foregoing persons were agents, servants or employees of the Respondent. While seated in a booth Detective Hall observed Sarah Lynn Swain dancing topless between the legs of a male customer, who was fondling her buttocks while she placed her breast in the customer's mouth. Also while seated in the booth, Detective Hall observed LuAnn Marie Dockery dancing topless for a male customer and allowing the customer to fondle her buttocks. While in the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store on February 21, 1975, Lee Ann Remm performed a topless dance for Detective Hall and while so dancing straddled his leg and undulated back and forth. Further, she attempted to place her breast in Detective Hall's mouth. Detective Hall paid her $2.00 to dance for him, but did not discuss with her, nor request the privilege of touching her. The Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26-1334,4-COP and the licensed premises are the Silver Dollar Bar and Package Store.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the factual stipulations of the parties, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent and the Mermaid Bar Respondent, whose sole corporate officer and shareholder is Robert Simone, holds alcoholic beverage license number 60-00429, Series 4-COP issued by the Department. The licensed premises is the Mermaid Bar (hereinafter referred to as the "Mermaid"), a bar located in Palm Beach County that, like a handful of others in the County, offers adult entertainment featuring female dancers wearing little or no clothing. Operation and Management of the Mermaid James Galbraith manages the Mermaid pursuant to a verbal agreement that he has with Simone. Simone nonetheless plays an active role in the day-to-day operation of the bar and pays regular visits to the establishment, usually in the daytime during the morning hours, to check on things. Among the managerial responsibilities that Simone has delegated to Galbraith is authority over personnel matters, including the hiring, disciplining and firing of the barmaids and dancers who work at the bar. Galbraith exercised such authority when, with input from Simone, he drafted the following written "[r]ules for conduct of dancers" (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"): Anyone dancing on stage [is] not allowed to show any pubic area. Anyone doing so will be dismissed. Anyone dancing on floor must wear cover up at all times. All girls are to work a minimum of 4 days. No girls are to solicit for anything (drinks, etc.). No girls are to take phone numbers or give out phone numbers. Private dances are $5.00 or $10.00 contribution. 2/ No bumping or grinding, no letting customers grab breast or pubic area. No touching of customers. You will be called down one time. If you have to be called down twice, you will be dismissed. If you have a problem with a customer, stop dancing and get a bouncer. Do not try to handle it yourself. Each dancer receives a copy of the Rules upon being hired. In addition, a copy is posted in the dancers' dressing room. When he is present at the bar, Galbraith is responsible for monitoring the activities taking place on the premises and maintaining order. He relies on the barmaids to assist him in keeping an eye on the dancers. Prior Disciplinary Action In November of 1992, the Department's predecessor, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (hereinafter referred to as "DBR"), served on Respondent a Notice to Show Cause that contained the following allegations: On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: LESSIE MAE STRANGE AKA LESSIE MAE COLLIGAN, while on your licensed premises, did unlawfully commit or engage in lewdness by dancing in a topless state for Special Agent Sgt. HOOPER, rubbing her breasts across the Agent's face and body and forcefully rubbing her crotch area against the Agent's groin, simulating sexual intercourse, in exchange for U.S. Currency, contrary to Section 796.07(3)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29., F.S. On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: DEBRAH BACON, while on your licensed premises, did unlawfully commit or engage in lewdness by dancing in a topless state for Special Agent Sgt. HOOPER, rubbing her breasts across the Agent's face and body and forcefully rubbing her crotch area against the Agent's groin, simulating sexual intercourse, in exchange for U.S. Currency, contrary to Section 796.07(3)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29., F.S. On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: DEBBIE ANN SEIWELL, while on your licensed premises, did unlawfully commit or engage in lewdness by dancing in a topless state for Special Agent STOOPS and Sgt. HOOPER, rubbing her breasts across the Agent's face and body and forcefully rubbing her crotch area against the Agent's groin, simulating sexual intercourse, in exchange for U.S. Currency, contrary to Section 796.07(3)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29., F.S. On or about August 20, 1992, you, MERMAID BAR, INC., a vendor licensed under the beverage laws of the State of Florida, through you, your agents, servants, employees or entertainers, to wit: BARBARA GENE PORTER, the Manager/Person in Charge, did maintain a place for lewdness, by allowing female dancers to rub their exposed breasts across the faces and bodies of Special Agents STOOPS and Sgt. HOOPER and by allowing the female dancers to forcefully rub their buttocks and crotch areas into the groin areas of Special Agents STOOPS and Sgt. HOOPER, simulating sexual intercourse, a violation of Section 796.07(2)(a), F.S., within Section 561.29, F.S. These activities in which the dancers allegedly engaged with Stoops and Hooper are commonly referred to, in adult entertainment establishments, as "lap dances." On May 28, 1993, Simone signed a consent agreement acknowledging the violations alleged in the Notice to Show Cause and agreeing to pay a fine of $2,000.00 to settle the matter. DBR accepted and signed the agreement on July 6, 1993. The April 7, 1993, Undercover Operation On April 7, 1993, the Department conducted an undercover operation at the Mermaid in which Special Agent Johnnie Wilson participated. While Wilson was at the bar, he observed from his vantage point a female dancer whose stage name was "Kellie," as well as five or six other female dancers, in exchange for money, perform "lap dances" with patrons of the establishment. 3/ Galbraith and a barmaid were on the premises at the time and neither took any action to try to stop "Kellie" and the other dancers from "lap dancing." No arrests were made as a result of this April 7, 1993, undercover operation. The May 6, 1993, Undercover Operation Special Agent Stoops went to the Mermaid the afternoon of May 6, 1993, as part a follow-up undercover operation conducted by the Department. After he had been there for approximately 15 to 20 minutes, he was approached by one of the dancers working at the establishment that afternoon, Lucia Maria Campos. Campos asked Stoops if he wanted a "lap dance." Stoops responded in the affirmative. Campos thereupon removed her top (but not her bottoms) and proceeded to "lap dance" with a fully clothed Stoops. During the "lap dance," Campos rubbed her breasts against Stoops' chest and grinded her groin and buttocks in the area of his crotch in a provocative manner. Stoops paid Campos for the "lap dance." Stoops observed Campos "lap dance" with another patron during his visit to the Mermaid that afternoon. Although Campos performed her "lap dances" openly, in plain view, neither the barmaid on duty nor anyone else on the premises expressed any disapproval of Campos' actions. The May 12, 1993, Undercover Operation On May 12, 1993, at around 10:00 or 11:00 p.m., three detectives from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office working undercover, Jeffrey Andrews, Kevin O'Brien and Ted Smith, entered the Mermaid. The purpose of their visit was to determine if any of the dancers working at the establishment were engaging in lewd behavior. After entering the Mermaid, Andrews and O'Brien sat down next to each other at a table in front of the stage on which the dancers performed. Smith took a seat near the bar. While Andrews was seated at the table, Kerren Flores, a dancer who was working at the Mermaid that evening, came up to him and asked him if he wanted a "lap dance" for $10.00. Flores was wearing a bikini top and G-string bottom. After Andrews accepted her offer, she took off her top. Standing approximately two feet in front of Andrews, she began fondling her breasts with her hands and manipulating, and then licking, her nipples. Next, she leaned over and rubbed her bare breasts against the lower portion of Andrews' face. She then turned around, sat down on Andrews' lap and started to simulate sexual intercourse by grinding her buttocks into his groin area. The "lap dance" lasted the length of one song that was being played by the DJ over the bar's sound system. After it was over, Andrews' paid Flores the $10.00 she had requested for the "dance." Another dancer working at the Mermaid that evening was Laura Chapman. While performing on stage, she removed all of her clothing, fondled and licked her bare breasts and suggestively stroked her vaginal area. After finishing her performance on stage and putting back on her bikini top and G-string bottom, Chapman approached Andrews and inquired if he was interested in a "lap dance." Andrews said he was and, at Chapman's request, the two moved to a different table. Chapman then proceeded to remove her bikini top and performed a "lap dance" with Andrews which was virtually identical to the one Flores had performed with him earlier that evening. Andrews paid Chapman the $10.00 she had asked for to perform the "lap dance." Andrews' colleague, O'Brien, was also propositioned during the undercover operation that evening by one of the bar's dancers. Maija Liisa Cardinaux was the dancer who propositioned him. She was also helping serve drinks that evening. Cardinaux walked up to O'Brien and asked him if he wanted to order a drink. At the same time, she inquired if he wanted a "lap dance." O'Brien expressed an interest in the latter. Cardinaux led O'Brien to another area of the bar and had him sit down on a bar stool. After O'Brien was seated, Cardinaux placed her hands on his shoulders and told him to relax. Cardinaux, who was wearing a bikini top and bottom, then took off her top and started to fondle her breasts and lick her nipples while standing in front of O'Brien. Next, she put her arms around O'Brien and pulled his head into her breasts. She then let go of O'Brien, turned around, sat down on his lap and began to vigorously rub her buttocks and groin area against his crotch. These bumping and grinding movements simulating sexual intercourse lasted approximately one to one and a half minutes. Two other dancers working at the Mermaid that evening during the undercover operation, Angela Ratliffe King and Lisa Berling, gave sexually suggestive performances that were patently offensive, that lacked any serious artistic value and that the average person, applying contemporary community 4/ standards, would find, taken as a whole, appealed to prurient interests. King was initially dressed in a black bra and panties. During the first song that she danced to on stage, she took off her top and started to fondle her breasts. She thereupon turned her back to the audience, slapped and rubbed her buttocks, and began to fondle and stroke her vaginal area. During the second song, she removed her panties and exposed her vaginal area to the audience. She then turned around and, with her back to the audience and her legs a little more than shoulder width apart, bent over, put her arms between her legs and started to pull her buttocks apart, further exposing her vaginal area to the audience. Still bent over with her back to the audience, she began to stroke her vaginal area with her fingers as if she was masturbating. Lisa Berling gave a similar performance, except that, unlike King, she was completely nude throughout her performance and, although she started out on the stage, she concluded her performance on the counter of the bar, within an arm's length of where one of the undercover detectives, Ted Smith, was seated, along with other patrons. Galbraith's wife, Ann Galbraith, was tending bar at the time of Berling's performance and she commented to Smith about the performance upon its conclusion. From her vantage point, Ms. Galbraith was able to see most of the public area of the establishment. Her husband was in the back of the establishment near the DJ booth during most of the approximately one and a half hours that Detectives Andrews, O'Brien and Smith were in the Mermaid. At no time during the detectives' undercover operation did Galbraith, his wife, or anyone else that had been hired to work at the Mermaid do anything to discourage or stop the frequent "lap dancing" or the performances of King and Berling, notwithstanding that these activities were in violation of the Rules that Galbraith had given to each dancer and posted in the dancers' dressing room. Arrests were made as a result of the detectives' May 12, 1993, undercover operation. The action taken by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in the instant case is no different than what it has done in similar cases involving other adult entertainment establishments where there is "lap dancing" or similar activity taking place. Respondent's Liability Although Simone may not have been present on the premises during either the April 7, 1993, May 6, 1993, or May 12, 1993, undercover operations, given the persistent and repeated instances of "lap dancing" and other flagrant acts of indecency engaged in by the dancers working at the Mermaid, the inference is made that Simone either fostered, condoned, or negligently overlooked these acts.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department enter a final order finding Respondent liable for the violations alleged in the amended Administrative Action and penalizing Respondent therefor by revoking its alcoholic beverage license, license number 60-00429, Series 4-COP. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of January, 1994. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 1994.
The Issue Should Respondent's Law Enforcement Certificate be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: Respondent was certified by the Commission on June 10, 1977, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 41580. The Administrative Complaint alleges that: (a) On or between January 1, 1973, and December 31, 1974, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Deborah Brice, a child under sixteen years of age, by fondling her breasts and kissing her neck; (b) On or between January l, 1976, and December 31, 1979, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Dorothy Spickard, a child under sixteen years of age, by putting her on his lap and tickling her near her vaginal area; (c) On or between January 1, 1976, and December 31, 1979, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Dawn Whitehead, a child under sixteen years of age, by digitally penetrating her vagina areas and placing her hands on his penis; and (d) On or between June 1, 1969, and December 31, 1971, Respondent did unlawfully handle, fondle, or make an assault in a lewd, lascivious, or indecent manner upon Susan Kleine, a child under sixteen years of age, by kissing her on the neck, French-kissing her, and forcing her on a bed and getting on top of her, simulating sexual intercourse. Debra Brice, Dorothy A. Spickard, Dawn Allison Steward (f/n/a Dawn Allison Whitehead), and Susan Kleine testified that Respondent touched them inappropriately during the middle 1970's while they were under the age of 18 years. Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, and Susan Kleine were around the age of 14 to 15 years at the time the inappropriate touching was alleged to have occurred. Dawn Steward was around the age of 8 to 9 years at the time the inappropriate touching was alleged to have occurred. Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, and Dawn Steward are nieces of Respondent's ex-wife, Carol, who was married to Respondent during the time that the alleged incidents were supposed to have occurred. Susan Kleine is a sister of Respondent's ex-wife, Carol. Respondent and Carol were married in 1966, and were divorced sometime around 1978-79. It was not until the latter part of 1993, approximately 20 years later, that Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine told anyone of this alleged inappropriate touching. Sometime around the latter part of 1993, Carol discussed this inappropriate touching with Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine. Sometime around the latter part of 1993, this alleged inappropriate touching was discussed in the presence of Debra Brice or Dorothy Spickard or Dawn Steward or Susan Kleine during therapy sessions involving Carol's and Respondent's child. While Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine appeared to be relatively clear on the facts concerning the alleged inappropriate touching, they were not clear on all the facts surrounding the alleged incidents. There was no evidence presented to corroborate the testimony of Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, or Susan Kleine. Respondent denies any inappropriate touching of Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine. Respondent admits tickling and wrestling with Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine in a playful manner but denies touching any of them in an inappropriate manner, specifically in an inappropriate sexual manner. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent touched Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine in an inappropriate manner, sexually or otherwise, notwithstanding the testimony of Debra Brice, Dorothy Spickard, Dawn Steward, and Susan Kleine to the contrary which I find lacks credibility due to the reasons set forth in Findings of Fact 5 through 9.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas M. Lindsey 21367 Anderson Road Brooksville, Florida 34601 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on her sex and by retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2008). As a Florida non-profit corporation, all of Respondent's activities are governed by its bylaws. Petitioner, a white female, has worked for Respondent off and on during the last five years. Most recently, Petitioner began working for Respondent on January 18, 2008, as a part-time food preparation (prep) worker and a part-time waitress in Respondent's restaurant. Petitioner accepted the job because she had recently left a full-time position with another employer due to the distance of that job from her house. As a prep worker, Petitioner earned a set hourly wage. Petitioner's responsibilities included assisting the chef in preparing meals and cleaning up the kitchen. The chef, Tony Mongone, directed Petitioner's kitchen work but he was not her supervisor. As a waitress, Petitioner earned $3.35 per hour plus tips. On Tuesdays and Fridays, Petitioner earned an average of $100 in tips per shift. Petitioner worked between five and six hours on Tuesday evenings and between five and eight hours on Friday evenings when Respondent served sit-down dinners to its members. On these occasions, Respondent's kitchen served an average of 200 dinners in a two-hour period of time. Petitioner also worked when Respondent catered for banquets and other special occasions. Petitioner worked a total of 41.66 hours in January 2008; 81.5 hours in February 2008; 45.13 hours in March 2008; and 71.17 hours in April 2008. She worked 10.32 hours for the first week in May 2008. Over the course of her 15.4 week term of employment, Petitioner averaged 16.23 hours per week. Although it varied according to the event, there were five to eight other servers or waitresses (all females) working along with Petitioner on any given night. There always were eight-to-10 workers in and around the kitchen, including the servers, the chef, one pizza maker, and the kitchen prep person. At all times relevant here, Linda Ferguson was the club manager and Petitioner's direct supervisor. Ms. Ferguson was responsible for day-to-day management of all club activities with the authority to enforce all club policies. Ms. Ferguson also was in charge of all aspects of hiring and terminating employees and managing volunteer personnel. Ms. Ferguson was in the restaurant on most Friday evenings. When Ms. Ferguson was not scheduled to work, the assistant manager, Carolyn Weeks, was on duty. On Petitioner’s first night as the kitchen prep worker, Chef Mongone was drinking from a pitcher of beer. Early in the evening, Chef Mongone made comments about her breasts, telling her they were nice and asking whether they were real. Later that evening, when the staff was cleaning the kitchen, Chef Mongone walked up behind Petitioner and touched her backside. Petitioner immediately turned on Chef Mongone, telling him assertively, "Don't ever do that again! How would you like it if someone did that to your wife?" Chef Mongone just stood there as Petitioner turned and walked away. Petitioner immediately informed Ms. Ferguson about the incident. Ms. Ferguson inquired whether Petitioner wanted her "to take care of it." Petitioner responded that she felt she "had already done so." Ms. Ferguson spoke to Chef Mongone about his drinking on the job and his inappropriate conduct. Chef Mongone responded in an insubordinate way, denying all allegations of improper conduct. Ms. Ferguson also spoke to Mike Mercante, Respondent's President at that time. Ms. Ferguson complained to Mr. Mercante about Chef Mongone's drinking and offensive conduct. In the following weeks, Chef Mongone sometimes raised his voice at Petitioner and she back at him. On days that Petitioner worked as a waitress, Chef Mongone held up Petitioner's food orders, causing delays in service that resulted in reduced tips for Petitioner. The delays in releasing Petitioner's food orders usually occurred after Petitioner and Chef Mongone exchanged angry words. On or about February 11, 2008, Petitioner was working as a waitress. When she placed her first food order, Chef Mongone began yelling at her for not putting her name and table number on the ticket. When Petitioner reached to retrieve the ticket, Chef Mongone told her not to touch it. At that point, Petitioner started yelling at Chef Mongone. Petitioner admits her response was not nice and describes herself as having "lost it." When Petitioner returned to the kitchen to get her next order, she overheard Chef Mongone telling the kitchen staff that she was stupid because she could not remember to put her name on a ticket. Once again Petitioner's temper got the best of her. Petitioner called Chef Mongone a drunk, triggering another argument with Chef Mongone. Despite the hard feelings between Chef Mongone and Petitioner, Chef Mongone made additional inappropriate remarks to Petitioner. On one occasion, Chef Mongone observed Petitioner wiping her hand on the seat of her pants. Chef Mongone then stated that he "would like to do that, too." On or about February 15, 2008, Petitioner was scheduled to work first as a prep worker and later as a waitress. While she was in the kitchen, she shared a bag of Valentine candy with the staff. When only one piece of candy was left, Petitioner asked Chef Mongone if he wanted it. Chef Mongone replied that he did not want the candy. However, when Petitioner put the candy in her mouth, Chef Mongone made some comment about the way Petitioner sucked the candy. Chef Mongone immediately stated that he did not mean for his comment to come out like it did. Nevertheless, Petitioner was offended and responded in a negative way. Sometime after February 15, 2008, Petitioner wrote a letter to the members of Respondent's Executive Board. The letter details Petitioner conflict with Chef Mongone. Petitioner gave the letter to Ms. Ferguson, who gave it to Mr. Mercante. February 15, 2008, was Petitioner's last day as a kitchen prep worker. From that time forward, Ms. Ferguson scheduled Petitioner to work only as a waitress in order to reduce the time Petitioner would have to spend in the kitchen. On February 20, 2008, Respondent's Executive Board had a meeting. At the meeting, the board members discussed Petitioner's letter. Chef Mongone attended the meeting and denied all allegations. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Executive Board directed one of its members to draft a letter of reprimand for Chef Mongone. In an internal memorandum dated February 22, 2008, Respondent's Executive Board advised Chef Mongone that he had been warned about his rule infractions and general behavior for the past recent months. According to the memorandum, Chef Mongone would receive no further warnings and any future infractions of club rules or Florida law would result in disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination of employment. Respondent does not have a written policy prohibiting sexual harassment. It does have a rule against drinking on duty. On or about May 6, 2008, Petitioner once again became upset at work because the kitchen was crowded and Chef Mongone yelled at her. Petitioner called her husband to complain that Chef Mongone had cursed at her, saying, "Bitch, get the f--- out of the kitchen.” Petitioner also alleged that Chef Mongone was holding up her food orders. When Petitioner's husband arrived at the restaurant, he met Petitioner, Chef Mongone, Ms. Weeks (Assistant Manager), and Lou Barletta (Respondent's Vice President) in the restaurant's parking lot. Petitioner's husband told Chef Mongone that Petitioner would show him respect if Chef Mongone demonstrated respect for Petitioner. The discussion in the parking lot was civil and ended with Chef Mongone and Petitioner's husband shaking hands. After the meeting, Chef Mongone made it clear that he could no longer work with Petitioner and that one of them had to go. Petitioner did not want to go back into the kitchen after the meeting. Ms. Weeks suggested that Petitioner go home until everything cooled down. Petitioner agreed and left the premises. Petitioner was scheduled to work the following Saturday. Before Petitioner reported to work, Ms. Ferguson talked to Mr. Mercante. After that conversation, Ms. Ferguson told Petitioner that she should not come back to work until Ms. Ferguson could replace Chef Mongone. Ms. Ferguson was actively looking for a new chef. After locating a replacement for Chef Mongone, Mr. Mercante would not approve the termination of Chef Mongone's employment. At the end of June 2008, Respondent did not renew Ms. Ferguson's contract. Ms. Weeks replaced Ms. Ferguson as Respondent's General Manager. Due to financial difficulties, Respondent did not hire an assistant manager when Ms. Weeks became the General Manager. Respondent also eliminated all table-busing positions, using volunteers to clear the tables. Respondent has not called anyone back to work after laying them off. Like Ms. Ferguson, Ms. Weeks had problems with Chef Mongone. She eventually hired a new chef and fired Chef Mongone due to his alcohol consumption at work. Petitioner initially drew unemployment compensation from Respondent's place of business. Except for a couple of days of work, Petitioner has been unemployed since May 6, 2008. She is still drawing unemployment compensation from her most recent employer. Petitioner acknowledges that the economy is the reason she has been unable to obtain a job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 25th day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Mary Nelson Morgan, Esquire Cole, Stone, Stoudemire, and Morgan P.A. 201 North Hogan Street Suite 200 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Ruth Ira Holmes, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation, for the sum of $40.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Sergeant R. A. Boyd, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about August 22, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc. , a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation for the sum of $40.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Officer B. A. Watts, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 6, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation for the sum of $50.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Officer C. E. Lloyd, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 6, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, on its above-described licensed premises, by its agent, servant, or employee, or entertainer, one, Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully beg or solicit a patron, customer, or visitor, Beverage Officer C. E. Lloyd to purchase a beverage, to-wit; "CHERRY DELIGHT", for such employee, servant, agent or entertainer, in violation of Section 562.131, Florida Statutes. (The charging document, i.e., Notice to Show Cause, originally contained other allegations found in its Counts 1 and 5; however, those counts were withdrawn by the Petitioner in the course of the hearing and are therefore removed from consideration through this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact The Respondent in this cause is Beach Park Motel, Inc. , a closely held corporation. This corporation is a holder of Beverage License No. 15-002265, Series 4-COP, to trade as Beach Park Motel at a business premises located at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Coco Beach, Florida. This license is held with Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which organization has responsibility for the licensure and regulation of those several business entities within the State that sell alcoholic beverages. This case is here presented for consideration on the basis of a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint which contains six counts, Counts 1 and 5 having been withdrawn. The details of the remaining counts are as set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. On August 9, 1978, Officers Richard Boyd and Bethel Watts, Jr., of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida, for purposes of investigating alleged prostitution activities at the licensed premises. They entered the premises and took a seat at the bar around 9:30 p.m. While seated there, they observed Ruth Ira Holmes performing as an entertainer in the bar by dancing. This person, Holmes, was also referred to by a stage name, "Nina". Holmes then left the stage and approached Officer Boyd, who was sitting in a separate location from Officer Watts. This contact between Holmes and Boyd occurred thirty or forty minutes after the officers had arrived at the licensed premises. There ensued a discussion between Boyd and Holmes on the subject of purchasing marijuana. (The allegation concerning the Respondent's participation in this alleged possession and sale of marijuana has been withdrawn.) Holmes then went around the service bar and picked up her purse from behind the bar. Boyd and Holmes then left the interior of the licensed premises. Once outside Holmes produced two envelopes with a substance which appeared to be marijuana and the officer also observed in her purse a larger bag which had a substance of similar appearance. Boyd asked how much the contents of the larger bag would cost and gave her $25.00, purchasing those contents. The witness then returned the small envelopes to her purse. Boyd asked Holmes what she was doing after work and she replied, "Are you asking for a 'date'?" Boyd responded, "Yes" and Holmes stated, "You mean 'that'?" and thrust her body at him. Boyd asked her what it was going to cost and she replied that for $40.00 she would do anything he wanted. He accepted her offer and she gave him the key to Room 224, which was a key to the motel part of the Respondent's establishment. Holmes checked to make sure that no one was observing them and they proceeded to the motel room. When they reached the room, he gave her two twenty dollar bills. She placed the money in her purse and took off her clothing with the exception of a "G" string and stated to him, "Let's get started." Boyd moved-toward the door of the motel room, after which he produced his law enforcement officer's identification badge and officers of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department took Holmes into custody. Howard Warren, President of the Respondent corporation, was seen at the licensed premises that night. Later, in connection with an investigation of her activities, a statement was given to Officers Boyd and Watts by Ruth Ira Holmes in which she indicated to the officers that she had been employed in the licensed premises known as the "Booby Trap" to work as a dancer and Howard Warren, then President of the Respondent corporation, had hired her. Her rate of pay was $2.50 per hour. She further stated that she had been employed for about seven months and was paid at the end of each week by check from Howard Warren. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence is a series of checks written by Howard Warren and made payable to Ruth Ira Holmes beginning on July 7, 1978, with the last check being drawn on September 1, 1978, and one of the checks being drawn on August 1, 1978. The observation of Holmes' dancing on the licensed premises on the night in question, the statement that she was an employee paid by Howard Warren and the series of checks drawn by Howard Warren to Ruth Holmes, also known as Ruth Ira Holmes, are sufficient to show that Ruth Ira Holmes was employed as a dancer by the Respondent to work at the licensed premises in such capacity on August 9, 1978. This determination is further borne out by the Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 5 admitted into evidence which are copies of the payroll accounts of the Respondent showing that Ruth Holmes was an employee and by part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6, which is a motel registration card showing Ruth Holmes to be registered in the same room, 224, spoken to before and shows her occupation to be dancer. Officer Watts returned to the licensed premises on August 22, 1978, and again operating in an undercover capacity. While seated at the bar, he was approached by Diana Baumbach, also known as 'Misty'. Baumbach asked Watts if he were having a good time and he told her that things were rather slow and that he had been led to understand that the "Booby Trap" was a place where the action was. Baumbach responded by telling Watts that she could provide him some action for $40.00, either a "blow job"/fellatio or "screw"/intercourse. During this conversation Baumbach indicated that she worked in the licensed premises. She also stated in the course of the conversation that when a certain girl who was dancing had finished her performance it would be Baumbach's turn. Baumbach was wearing a long sleeved jacket and bikini panties and after this initial discussion with Watts went to the dance area and performed for the crowd. Baumbach returned to the location of the officer and stated she was ready to go. They walked through the rear of the bar and she took him to Room 206 in the motel part of the Respondent's complex. They entered Room 206 and Baumbach stated that she wanted her $40.00 and Watts gave her two twenty dollar bills. Baumbach took off her coat and Watts stated that he wanted to check to see if anyone was outside. He opened the door and allowed an officer of the Cocoa Beach Police Department to enter the room and Baumbach was arrested. On September 6, 1978, Officer C. E. Lloyd of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity to investigate alleged prostitution at that location. He entered the licensed premises and took a seat at the bar in the area of the dance floor. After being seated, he was approached by Diana Baumbach, who asked him if she could sit down. She inquired if Lloyd would buy her a drink and he complied with that request and bought the drink. She then asked Lloyd if he "messed around" and his answer was, "Sometimes." She stated that she would give him a "blow job"/fellatio for $30.00 or "all the way"/intercourse for $50.00. She then stated that she could not go right away because the master of ceremonies was going to call her up to dance. She danced two times in front of the audience. The dancing she did was a topless routine. She returned to Lloyd's location and asked if he knew his way around and stated that he should go up to Room 216 and that she would follow up. When he arrived at Room 216 in that part of the Respondent's establishment, Baumbach was already there. They went inside the room and Baumbach again advised Lloyd that the price was $50.00. She took her clothes off and he took off his shoes and then went to the door, at which point he advised Baumbach that she was being arrested and she was arrested. Lloyd later spoke with Howard Warren about the solicitation for prostitution that had occurred on the part of Baumbach as a follow up to his investigation and the arrest of Baumbach. Baumbach, on the occasions of August 22, 1978, and September 6, 1978, at which points she solicited Officers Watts and Lloyd, respectively, for the purposes of committing prostitution, was an employee, agent and entertainer of the Respondent in the sense of the dance performances she gave for the benefit of the patrons in the licensed premises. This determination of employment is supported by the testimony of Carol Sue Warren, daughter of Howard Warren and manager of the "Booby Trap" during August and September, 1978, who testified that Baumbach was an employee of the Respondent at time which corresponds to August 22, 1978, and September 6, 1978. Moreover, the rendezvous between Ruth Ira Holmes and Officer Boyd on August 9, 1978; the rendezvous between Diana Alice Baumbach and Officer Watts on August 22, 1978, and the rendezvous between Diana Alice Baumbach and Officer Lloyd which occurred on September 6, 1978; all these meetings for purposes of committing prostitution in the motel which is a part of the Respondent's establishment located at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida, were types of activities known by the officials of the Respondent to be taking place. This knowledge on the part of the officials of the Respondent covered the period of August 9, 1978, through September 6, 1978, and pertained not only to the solicitation to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation and the occurrence of such prostitution, lewdness and assignation on the part of Ruth Ira Holmes and Diana Alice Baumbach but also pertained to such activities by other employees or dancers who worked in the licensed premises during this period of time. This knowledge on the part of the Respondent's officials, and in particular its president, Howard Warren, was not part of a pattern of conduct which actively condoned activities of prostitution by the employees and/or dancers who worked at the licensed premises, in fact the owners had a stated policy of not allowing prostitution or soliciting drinks or activities involved with drugs on the part of their female employees or others who might be dancing in the licensed premises and the Respondent's representatives had fired certain of the female employees in the past when they had been discovered committing acts of prostitution. Nonetheless, the Respondent in the person of Howard Warren stated that he did not wish prostitution in the licensed premises but didn't feel he could really effectively stop it and went further by rehiring Ruth Ira Holmes as an employee of the Respondent after she had been discovered committing acts of prostitution. Holmes, after returning as an employee, then continued her activities as a prostitute. Diana Alice Baumbach had also been employed by the Respondent and had been fired several times during the course of her employment, one of those firings occurring after her arrest for the prostitution incident involving Officer Watts that occurred on August 22, 1978. She was then rehired and was an employee of the Respondent on September 6, 1978, when she committed a further act of soliciting for prostitution which occurred with Officer Lloyd. Baumbach was also represented by Howard Warren as attorney following an arrest. Both Holmes and Baumbach were allowed to remain as tenants in the Respondent's motel, the same motel where the prostitution had occurred, and were allowed to do so following their arrests in August of 1978, for prostitution offenses.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts found herein, the Conclusions of Law reached and those matters offered in mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, Beach Park Motel, Inc. d/b/a Beach Park Motel, be REVOKED. 4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the facts stipulated to by the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Prior to her employment with the respondent, petitioner had work experience in waitressing, bookkeeping, operating a wine and beer bar and operating a grocery store. At all times relevant to this proceeding, petitioner was married and had three children. Respondent Jax Liquors, Inc. (Jax) owns and operates a retail liquor business which is' divided into package store operations and lounge operations. Though its lounges are generally located adjacent to a package store, each is a separate entity having its' own management structure. There are 35 package stores employing 198 males and 199 females, and 11 lounges with 135 employees, 87 percent of which are female. While sales figures for the package stores range from $1.5 to $4 million per year, the lounges' sales figures are approximately $50,000 per year. Because of the greater volume of inventory, customers, employees and paper work, promotion of employees to the management level in the package stores takes a longer period of time. Employees in the lounges can move up from the position of cocktail waitress to assistant manager or manager in a short period of time because of the less demanding nature of the work. The employee turnover rate in the lounges is eight times higher than that of the package stores. Lounge employees tend to be younger and less settled and career-oriented than package store employees. On or about February 22, 1982, petitioner was hired by Jax as a cocktail waitress at the Jax Lounge on the Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee. She was trained as a cocktail waitress for approximately two weeks, and when the assistant manager was promoted to manager, petitioner began training as an assistant manager. During her months at the Apalachee Parkway lounge, petitioner was a good worker with no complaints or problems. On or about March 24, 1982, petitioner was transferred to the Jax lounge on Thomasville Road in Tallahassee to serve as an assistant manager. On July 9, 1982, she was promoted to the position of manager at that lounge. One coworker, a cocktail waitress, described petitioner as a strict, but good manager with no scheduling, customer or staff complaints. Another coworker, who became the assistant manager when petitioner was promoted to manager, described petitioner as a hard worker but overbearing and bossy, with some scheduling problems and frequent tardiness. A similar description of petitioner was provided by the former manager of the Thomasville Road lounge. A frequent customer at the lounge described petitioner as competent and congenial with customers, and an energetic worker. Petitioner replenished the lounge supplies from the adjoining package store. The manager of the package store felt that she did not have a good understanding of the inventory and supplies she needed at the lounge. On or about July 20, 1982, approximately two weeks after petitioner was promoted to the position of lounge manager, John Chern was promoted to the position of Tallahassee District Supervisor thereby becoming petitioner's direct supervisor. At about that same period of time, the Tallahassee lounges were not operating at a high enough profit and the District Manager instructed Chern to make certain changes in operation. Among the changes were the addition of personnel bartenders and cocktail waitresses, so as to provide better service to the lounge patrons. Mr. Chern told his supervisor, the District Manager, that he had run into problems with petitioner and had experienced difficulty in obtaining cooperation from her in implementing the new schedule. Mr. Chern had also heard complaints about petitioner from other employees of both the lounge and the adjoining package store regarding scheduling and her treatment of her employees'. He felt that her general overall performance as a lounge manager was "weak." Petitioner admits that she felt and told Mr. Chern that she knew it would be difficult to work with him and that she knew if he became her supervisor, she would be fired. Petitioner felt that Mr. Chern was overly strict, and resented the fact that he would call her at home during her off- hours to discuss lounge business. John Chern has been employed with Jax Liquors since 1971, having started as a stock clerk. On August 9, 1982, Mr. Chern discharged petitioner from her employment with Jax Liquors. In explaining the reason for her discharge, Mr. Chern made reference to "outside obligations, your husband and family..." or "family and other obligations." On the following day, Mr. Chern filled out a form explaining the reason for petitioner's discharge as "not right person to run lounge, poor attitude with customers, did not take supervision or work with employees." There were no written reprimands in petitioner's personnel file. While it is the policy of respondent to issue written reprimands for nonmanagerial employees, more is expected from an employee at the managerial level and written reprimands are not required. After petitioner's termination, the assistant manager, a married female, was promoted to the position of lounge manager. Petitioner presented raw data or "head counts" derived from the personnel files of respondent in an attempt to demonstrate that sex and/or marital status had an effect upon the likelihood of involuntary discharge. However, the chosen categories of persons (i.e., males -- without disclosure of their marital status, women with children -- without disclosure of their marital status) were not well-defined and were overlapping. In addition, no statistical analysis was applied and there is thus no statistical significance to these head counts or raw data. No inference can be raised from this data that either gender or marital status was a causative factor in any involuntary termination. Applicants for employment at Jax Liquors are required to list their marital status, number of children, ages of children and who will care for the children. The purpose of these questions is to put the applicant on notice that the hours of employment are often unusual and are subject to sudden change. Lounge employees are also required to sign a form stating their agreement to be reassigned to any lounge and to work any position assigned at the rate of pay for that position. Respondent occasionally requires lounge employees to work at different lounges in different positions when the volume of business anticipated requires additional staffing. Lounge employees are generally able to make more money with a greater volume of customers.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed by Angela Portera against Jax Liquors, Inc. be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of July, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer 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 12th day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia Daire 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas W. Abruzzo, with Donald L. Tucker, P.A. Suite 804 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Suzanne Oltman Clerk of the Commission Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent, its agent, or employee did knowingly promote, permit a lewd, obscene or indecent show contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Mary Ann Palek, did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Caroline Ann Ruegg did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Theresa Ann Caldwell did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Veleta Rose Shorter did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Nancy Lee Henry did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Joyce Gail Waechter did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Arbrenda D. Thomas did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011, F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Mary Hildegrade Szczebak did participate/perform in a lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee, or servant Gladys Amol did participate/perform in lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee or servant Ann M. Hall did participate/perform in lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee, or servant Emma Lou Weagraff did participate/perform in lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S. Whether or not on or about October 15, 1976, the Respondent's agent, employee, or servant Peggy Janet Scroggins did participate/perform in lewd, obscene, or indecent show or act contrary to Section 847.011(4), F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the proceedings Paul Vogelbacher was the holder of license no. 58-695, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This license was held to do business as the Gaslite, located at 2201 S. Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. On one occasion in late September, 1976, dancers within the licensed premises were observed sitting astride male customers' laps with the customers' legs together and the dancers' legs spread apart. While seated in this posture the dancers were making bumping and grinding motions on the customers' laps, while the customers fondled the breasts of the dancers. One customer handed a beer bottle to one of the dancers who rubbed the bottle on her pubic area. The licensee, Paul Vogelbacher, entered the premises around 10:30 P.M. on that evening, and was present while the aforementioned activity by the dancers was taking place. Vogelbacher also looked around the area where the dancing was taking place. Vogelbacher then left the premises, after staying 15 or 20 minutes. The customers, dancers, and Vogelbacher had been observed in this incident by Deputy John C. Swanson, Orange County Sheriff's Office. Deputy Swanson and Deputy Wood of the same law enforcement agency, returned to the licensed premises on Saturday afternoon, about a week after the first occasion. On this visit, dancers were observed seated on the male patrons' laps as before, and these girls were allowing the customers to fondle their breasts. The licensee Paul Vogelbacher was not in attendance at that time. Deputy Swanson, other members of the Orange County Sheriff's Office and members of the State of Florida, Division of Beverage returned to the licensed premises on October 15, 1976. Officer Swanson entered the licensed premises between 9:15 and 9:30 P.M. and was in the premises from that time until 11:00 P.M., at which time a raid of the licensed premises was made and a number of arrests affected. Dancers in the licensed premises to wit: Mary Ann Palek, Caroline Ann Ruegg, Theresa Ann Caldwell, Veleta Rose Shorter, Nancy Lee Henry, Joyce Gail Waechter, Arbrenda D. Thomas, Mary Hildegrade Szczebak, Gladys Amol, Ann M. Hall, Emma Lou Weagraff, and Peggy Janet Schoggins were seen seated on individual male customer's laps rubbing the area of their crotch against the crotch of the customers. In addition, Theresa Ann Caldwell, while dancing on the stage allowed one male patron to pull down her g-string and put his nose up her rectum. The dancer Nancy Lee Henry spoke to officers Swanson and Wood and told them, "the dancing is against the law, but a gentleman is at the door to lookout, we're not supposed to sit astride the customers". One patron was also seen fondling the breasts of the dancer, Arbrenda D. Thomas. Mary Hildegrade Szczebak allowed three or four customers to touch and fondle her breasts. Finally, Gladys Amol allowed three or four customers to fondle her breasts. All the activities immediately mentioned occurred on October 15, 1976, the night of the raid and arrests. All these activities were occurring while a bartender was on duty in the licensed premises; however, Paul Vogelbacher was not in attendance. Vogelbacher had never instructed any of the girls to dance in the manner shown on October 15, 1976, and two and possibly more of the dancers indicated that Vogelbacher had told them on at least one occasion not to dance in the aforementioned manner. Prior to the time of the raid on October 15, 1976, Vogelbacher would come to the licensed premises for 1/2 hour to 2-1/2 hours, but not everyday. Since that time Vogelbacher has come to the bar at least once a work day and stayed 30 minutes up to an entire day, which is a 14 hour day in the licensed premises. Two weeks prior to the hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Swanson returned to the bar and observed the same form of activity by the dancers in the licensed premises, meaning bumps and grinds while seated on the laps of the male patrons.
Recommendation Based upon the violations as established in this cause, it is recommended that the license no. 58-694, held by Paul Vogelbacher with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage, be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Collett, Esquire Russell Crawford, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 127 North Magnolia Avenue 725 Bronough Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 J. Cheney Mason, Esquire 127 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Are the four notices of violation against Respondents valid, and if valid, may the Department of Transportation require that the allegedly offending signs be removed?
Findings Of Fact On or about September 21, 2000, DOT became aware that two trucks bearing written material were parked adjacent to DOT's right-of-way on the west side of Interstate 95 (I-95) in St. Johns County in such a manner that the written material was visible from the main-traveled way of I-95. DOT issued four Notices of Violation against the two trucks. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.823. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4188T. Notice of Violation number 10B TS 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica on September 21, 2000, against a truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207, at milepost 15.849. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4189T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 539 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.015 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4423T. Notice of Violation number 10B BB 2000 540 was issued to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., c/o Gary Edinger, the registered agent for the corporation, on October 10, 2000, against the truck located adjacent to I-95, 2.041 miles north of SR 207. This violation notice became DOAH Case No. 00-4424T. All of the foregoing notices alleged that the trucks are in violation of Chapter 479, Florida Statutes, in that they are unpermitted signs. On October 24, 2000, DOT issued a letter to Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., advising it that the trucks which were issued the above- referenced notices of violation had been moved temporarily out of view and then returned to visibility at each other's previous milepost location. The letter advised that notwithstanding the movement of the trucks within their general location, the trucks remained illegal signs pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes. I-95 is part of the Interstate Highway System. The two trucks are located at times within 660 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of I-95. The trucks can be seen without visual aid by motorists of normal visual acuity traveling on I-95. Admitted Fact Four of the parties' prehearing stipulation was that at the time the notices of violation were issued, the trucks displayed the words "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc." However, their Admitted Fact Five, incorporating photographs, and other photographs in evidence reveal that one truck had the foregoing display without the slashes and one truck juxtaposed the phrases "Great Food" and "Adult Toys," also without the slashes. The trucks were located within 15 feet of the right-of-way fence and were parked on raised mounds of dirt, elevating them above the surrounding terrain. Immediately adjacent to the trucks were light fixtures with halogen lights aimed at the sides of the trucks. If electricity had been available, the lights could have illuminated the vehicles. The trucks were intentionally placed at their locations. As of January 5, 2001, additional verbiage was added to the trucks which states, "Hunt & Fish Camp." As of the March 7, 2001, date of hearing, the trucks still contained this additional verbiage. On both trucks, the letters are all capitalized; the size of the letters and the paint colors used call the viewer's attention to the phrases, "CAFE? EROTICA," "WE DARE TO BARE," "ADULT TOYS," "GREAT FOOD," and "EXIT 94." The abbreviation "INC.," is the phrase smallest in size, located at the very bottom right, relatively inconspicuous, and the words, "hunt & fish camp," follow, vertical to the rest of the verbiage. There are no addresses, telephone numbers, arrows, or other identifying information. Respondent Cafe Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., is a Florida corporation. At all times material, Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., has been a corporation in good standing with the Florida Department of State, which has registered and approved its corporate name pursuant to Section 607.0401, Florida Statutes. Asher G. Sullivan, Jr., a/k/a Jerry Sullivan, is incorporator, President, shareholder, and Director of the corporation, which will hereafter be referred to as "Exit 94, Inc." Exit 94, Inc., owns, insures, and maintains the two trucks which are the subject of this proceeding. Exit 94, Inc., likewise owns the real property on which the trucks are located, which parcel consists of approximately 11 acres situated between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Exit 94, Inc., does not sell food or adult toys. It does not offer dancers for public viewing. The business of Exit 94, Inc., is developing a hunting and fishing camp at the property it owns, the property where its trucks were cited by DOT, between I-95 exits 94 and 95. Respondent Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Café Erotica, is a Florida corporation which holds the license and owns the assets of the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is president, shareholder, and owner of Café Erotica of Florida, Inc., which will hereafter be referred-to as "Café Erotica." The St. Johns Management Company manages the Café Erotica restaurant. Jerry Sullivan also is the President and shareholder of the St. Johns Management Company. The Café Erotica restaurant is a 24-hour per day, full-service restaurant which features dancers clad in bathing suits and which sells adult toys. The Café Erotica restaurant is located at 2620 State Road 207 (SR-207), at the intersection of SR 207 and the exit 94 off-ramps from I-95. The real property owned by Café Erotica is not contiguous to the subject real property owned by Exit 94, Inc. The real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., which is the subject of DOT's notices of violation is approximately seven miles from the Café Erotica restaurant. The Café Erotica restaurant currently advertises on its premises and on a billboard at exit 94 of I-95. In the past, Café Erotica has advertised "we dare to bare," "adult toys," and "exit 94" on other billboards located adjacent to I- 95 in St. Johns County. Café Erotica no longer rents billboards in these locations. The advertisements of Café Erotica currently at exit 94 of I-95 include the words, "private dances," and "great food/adult toys." The advertising is specifically directed at motorists, including truck drivers, on I-95. In addition to the real property where its trucks were cited by DOT, which real property Exit 94, Inc., holds by warranty deed, Exit 94, Inc., leases property at the southeast corner of I-95's exit 93, where SR-206 intersects with I-95. At that location, Exit 94, Inc., displays a 14-foot by 25-foot permanent billboard sign reading "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Great Food/Adult Toys/Exit 94, Inc." (Note juxtaposition of part of the corporate name). Below this billboard, on the same leased property, is a smaller sign stating "Fish Camp" with a telephone number (P-11; TR 66-64, 73- 74, 183-184). Exit 94, Inc., claims to maintain an office and a telephone on this leased property. Mr. Sullivan's primary business is that of renting billboards for advertising purposes, which he owns. He has advertised on leased signs and has knowledge of DOT's sign permit requirements. At one time, Mr. Sullivan intended to place a billboard on the property owned by Exit 94, Inc. He has not done so. Neither Café Erotica nor Exit 94, Inc., has applied to DOT for sign permits for the subject trucks, nor paid any sign permit fees for them. No sign permits have been issued to any entity for the subject trucks. When the Notices of Violation were issued, DOT inspectors did not enter on the real property owned by Exit 94, Inc., or pull any business licenses for the property. They viewed the trucks from I-95. No improvements were visible from I-95. DOT did not undertake any investigation to determine the owner(s) of the subject trucks or subject real property. Café Erotica does not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, and no citizen testified that the trucks had caused him/her to patronize the Café Erotica. DOT witnesses acknowledged that the Notices of Violation issued to Café Erotica were essentially issued in error because DOT did not know the identity of the owner of the subject trucks and real property. Upon discovering that Café Erotica did not own any interest in the subject trucks or real property, DOT made no effort to dismiss the violations against Café Erotica. Jerry Sullivan has decision-making authority for both Respondents as a corporate officer of both corporations. Jerry Sullivan makes management decisions concerning Café Erotica, including whether, and how, to advertise. Jerry Sullivan has directed all activity on the Exit 94, Inc., property. He anticipates creating, maintaining, and charging people for the privilege of using the subject property as a fishing and hunting camp. He also intends to reward employees and clients of his various enterprises with free privileges at the camp. Ninety percent of the time, the subject trucks are parked on the subject property. However, from time to time, the trucks, one of which was burned out and one of which has a "for sale" sign painted on its windshield, are driven off the Exit 94, Inc., property to haul equipment and corn to the subject property, for "truck maintenance," and for incidental uses in connection with Exit 94, Inc., and Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, including Café Erotica. On some of these occasions, the trucks are parked in the parking lot of the Café Erotica restaurant. The trucks are used off the Exit 94, Inc., property only two or three times per month. Except when under repair, they can be driven on the roads and highways. Exit 94, Inc., paid approximately $35,000 for the subject property on or about April 9, 1999, well before the notices of violation. Eight months prior to hearing (approximately three months before the notices of violation), Exit 94, Inc. dug a pond in a naturally low spot and/or a natural basin where Mr. Sullivan believed a pond originally had been on the subject property. A solar panel pump was installed to put water into the excavation because getting electricity run to the property was prohibitively expensive. Inspection of the subject property by DOT personnel only occurred about two-and-one-half weeks before the disputed- fact hearing. At that time, the solar pump used to fill the pond with water was not working well, so that the possibility of fish living in the rather shallow pond was highly unlikely. The pond was not stocked with fish. The property was not stocked with game animals. There was also one very ramshackle deer blind on the property and a permanent metal, utility pole had been erected to support another deer blind. There were no utilities, restrooms, offices, or facilities to clean game on the premises. No fishing equipment was available for purchase. This situation was memorialized by photographs in evidence. The Exit 94, Inc., property has only one entrance which is not directly accessible from a public roadway. To reach Exit 94, Inc.'s, only entrance, a car gets off I-95 at exit 94, where Café Erotica is located, and proceeds to a private dirt road created and owned by Georgia-Pacific timber company, and then drives approximately one mile along that dirt road over the timber company's land. Thousands of acres of scrub pine belonging to the timber company surround Exit 94, Inc.'s property. Entrance to the timber company land is through a fence/gate. The timber company gate is "posted," warning that hunting is not permitted on its land and that violators will be prosecuted. The Exit 94, Inc., property is also "posted," and therefore not open to the general public. There is a "Café Erotica/We Dare to Bare/Adult Toys/Great Food/Exit 94, Inc., Hunt & Fish Camp" sign at its entrance. It cannot be inferred, as urged by DOT, that if a real property owner "posts" its property so the owner may subsequently prosecute trespassers and poachers, the owner also cannot charge a fee to customers, invited guests, or business invitees who hunt or fish on its property with its permission. Travelling as described above, there are approximately nine and one-half miles between exit 94 of I-95 and the Exit 94, Inc., property. There are no signs advertising a "hunt and fish camp" on this stretch of land, but Exit 94, Inc., has its billboard and other sign at Exit 93. (See Finding of Fact 22.) Exit 94, Inc., presented accounts showing it spent over $7,003 maintaining its signs since 1999 and over $12,000 on the subject trucks. Exit 94, Inc., lists addresses and locations other than the subject property as its business address(es) for various purposes. It maintains no office or telephone on the subject property. The only building on the subject property is a very small storage shack, placed there by Exit 94, Inc. The shack is not habitable as overnight lodging. It was designed to hold repair equipment and corn for seeding the pond for waterfowl and seeding the woods for deer. There is no evidence whether this method of luring game from the surrounding area is legal or illegal, but it is certainly feasible, given the location of the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 38.) Russell Market is General Manager for the Café Erotica restaurant. He was directed by Mr. Sullivan to check on Exit 94, Inc.'s, subject property, and he did so once a week and scattered corn for nine months. He saw wild turkeys on the subject property. Bill King is affiliated with Mr. Sullivan's companies. He has not hunted the subject property, but he sighted one of the deer stands. No witness testified to having camped overnight on the subject property. Bill Harry, who is employed by Mr. Sullivan, has hunted the subject property three or four times without success, despite once seeing a deer. Jerry Sullivan killed a deer on the subject property. There is no parking lot on the subject property. Respondents' witnesses testified that the subject trucks are parked on raised mounds of earth because the subject property is swampy. Only several hundred-by-60 feet have been cleared of brush. There is no telephone service to the subject property. If someone dials the telephone number listed for Exit 94, Inc. on its application to be a fish farm (see Finding of Fact 55) which is the same number on its sign at I-95's exit number 93 (see Finding of Fact 22), a recorded message relays the caller to a telephone number for the cell phone Mr. Sullivan carries on his person. No utilities are currently available on the subject property, but the solar pump is in use at the pond. Bill Harry repaired the pond pump a few days after showing DOT personnel around the subject property. (See Finding of Fact 36.) At hearing, he testified that the pond is now filling well with water. When the pond is full, Mr. Sullivan intends to stock it with fish. Exit 94, Inc., holds an occupational license from St. Johns County as a "fish camp." In issuing this license, the County accepted Exit 94, Inc.'s, designation of its business without further inquiry. Exit 94, Inc., has applied for a "fish farm" license from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. Exit 94, Inc., produced invoices sent to clients for hunting and fishing privileges on the subject property, corresponding checks in payment, and tax returns. Patricia Doorbar, bookkeeper for Exit 94, Inc. and all of Mr. Sullivan's other business entities, testified that she had drafted all of the invoices, and had prepared the tax returns. She further testified that she maintained Exit 94, Inc.'s corporate financial books in accord with generally accepted accounting principles. The invoices and payments reflect that other business entities controlled by Mr. Sullivan or his family members were billed and paid for use of the Exit 94, Inc., property. Exit 94, Inc., currently operates at a loss, made up as necessary by Mr. Sullivan. No legitimate reason was demonstrated to pierce the corporate veil of any of Mr. Sullivan's corporations. Approximately two weeks before the disputed-fact hearing, Exit 94, Inc., made improvements to the subject property. These included laying out feed corn on the ground, repairing a deer stand so it could support one or more hunters, and repairing the solar pump. See supra. These improvements were memorialized by photographs in evidence. Respondents asserted that DOT has selectively enforced the sign law against them on the basis of many photographs of trucks bearing written material which were admitted in evidence. The trucks typically carry a business name, address and telephone number. Some carried only a business name. DOT rarely issues notices of violations for trucks. Within the last three-and-one-half years, trucks constituted approximately five such notices out of 3500 sign violation notices of all kinds, not just off-premises signs. The notices to these two Respondents constitute four of the five notices. DOT has promulgated no rules or policies specifying the factors to be considered when evaluating whether an operational truck constitutes an "off-premises sign" worthy of a violation notice. In the normal course of business, DOT inspectors determine whether trucks constitute "on-premises signs" on a case-by-case analysis which weighs content of the sign, usage of the truck, location and length of time the truck is in a single location, and whether the sign content advertises the business at the location where the truck is parked, advertises another business, or advertises anything at all. Inspectors have wide discretion in issuing notices of violation. With respect to the majority of Respondents' photographs presented at hearing, DOT representatives gave reasonable explanations why the truck owners had not been notified of violations, usually because the truck was being operated on the highway, was not parked over-long away from the business premises which it named, or was parked on the property of the business to which it belonged or which it named. In one instance, a contractor's truck was not charged with a violation because it was parked at a construction site which also bore a sign proclaiming that the construction work was being done by that contractor. Sometimes the reason a truck had not been cited was because the truck had not been located. DOT does not research which corporations or persons own or operate trucks painted with business names, and apparently, precision in painting a business name on other operable trucks had no effect on DOT's decision to treat other operable trucks as "on-premises signs" so that no notices of violation were issued against them. Similar photographs of trucks which Mr. Sullivan had sent to DOT were personally evaluated by DOT's Assistant Right- of-Way Manager for Operations, but this measure was only in response to the Respondents' allegations of selective enforcement in the instant case. The Assistant Right-of-Way Manager directed DOT district personnel to take either further investigative or regulatory action as she instructed on a case- by-case basis. One truck for "Smiley's" was subsequently issued a violation notice.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the emergency order of suspension and notice to show cause dated November 25, 1991; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Lunar Guppies, Inc. is the holder of an alcoholic beverage license, number 58-03679, series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Club Space Fish Cafe (Cafe) which is located at 536 West Church Street, Orlando, Florida. All activities described herein took place at the licensed premises. Michael Brown is the president and majority shareholder of Lunar Guppies, Inc. Michael Buchanan is the corporation's vice president and he owns fifteen percent of the shares issued by the entity. At all times material to the allegations of this case, both owners, Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan, were present on the licensed premises. Some time prior to November 18, 1991, Mr. Brown was contacted by an individual known to him only as "Merle." Apparently, Merle represented the band known as "G.G. Allin and the Murder Junkies" (hereinafter referred to as the group or the band) and was responsible for seeking work for the group. After some discussions, the parties reached a verbal agreement whereby the band would play the second set at the Cafe on November 18, 1991. Flyers for the performance billed the event as the group's only Florida show. All arrangements were verbal, and were conducted between Mr. Brown and Merle. Initially, Mr. Brown expected the band to perform at 11:00 p.m. on the designated date; however, after checking in and reviewing the equipment, the group announced that they would return to perform around 11:30 p.m. During the check in meeting with the band, Mr. Brown advised the group that he did not expect them to damage property belonging to the Cafe. Prior to the group's performance Cafe staff had covered speakers with plastic to protect them from moisture. Also, areas of the stage were lined with plastic. According to Mr. Brown, such precautions are standard when rowdy bands are booked for the Cafe. The speakers, which belong to the Cafe, are expensive and sensitive to moisture. Spills from beverages are not uncommon with certain types of bands. Also prior to the group's performance on November 18, 1991, Mr. Brown prepared a written warning which was posted on the Cafe's door. While there is some dispute as to the exact language of the warning, the purpose was to warn Cafe patrons that the performance (by the band) was expected to contain language and subject matter which might be considered offensive or obscene by some. The exact language of the warning is unknown because shortly after the police arrived on the scene someone removed the sign and its current whereabouts is unknown. That the sign existed is not disputed. Upon his arrival back at the Cafe, the lead singer of the band, G.G. Allin a/k/a Kevin Allin (Allin), appeared for the band's microphone check wearing only a hooded jacket, studded dog collar, and shoes. Shortly after the check, removed his jacket to reveal that he was nude but for the dog collar and shoes. Also at that time the drummer for the band appeared and played in the buff as well. Just prior to, and during the first song performed by the band: Allin broke glass and rubbed it into his head causing a flow of blood which continued to stream down his head throughout his performance; he smashed his microphone into his head to further damage the wounds; he constantly grabbed his penis; and he leaped off the stage, knocked a female patron to the floor, and rubbed his face into her groin area simulating oral sex. The female patron kicked Allin and resisted his advances. At the conclusion of the first song, Allin grabbed a male patron and rubbed his penis against the man's head. During the second song, Allin's acts prompted most of the Cafe's patrons to flee the interior of the licensed premises. Most fled after Allin defecated onto the Cafe floor, urinated into his own hand (so he could drink it), followed by his licking the floor (with the feces) and spitting and throwing it at patrons. When Allin returned to the stage, he stuck his finger into his rectum and rubbed the microphone in the anal area as well. During the remainder of the performance (three or four more songs), Allin continued to dance around the Cafe (encumbered only by the microphone cord), continued to fondle his penis, allowed at least one patron to fondle his penis, and poured himself a beer at the bar. At all times described above, Mr. Buchanan observed the performance and did nothing to deter Allin. During the performance there was a sound and/or light technician above the Cafe's main floor who watched the band and, presumably, assisted. The Cafe has flood lights above the main floor area where Allin performed. When the patrons from the Cafe fled into the street outside, officers in a patrolling police car observed the commotion. Two officers, Browning and Arnott, went to the Cafe to investigate. Upon entering the premises, Officer Browning observed Allin on the floor rubbing his head into glass. Obviously, Officer Browning noted that Allin was au naturale. At that point the band's performance ceased. The term "performance" has been used herein loosely to describe what occurred at the Cafe; such "acts" could hardly be described as entertainment. After taking statements from Cafe patrons, the police officers filed criminal charges against Allin in connection with the incidents described above. Incidental to the arrest, Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan voluntarily went to the police station and filed sworn statements regarding the night's activities. While Mr. Buchanan was present behind the bar during the entire performance (approximately twenty-six minutes, six songs) his sworn statement is replete with factual errors regarding what occurred. Additionally, Mr. Brown's sworn police statement incorrectly chronicled the acts which had occurred. Mr. Brown's explanation at the hearing has not been deemed credible nor were his comments regarding the disappearance of the written warning which had been posted on the Cafe's door. At the start of Allin's performance, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Brown should have provided appropriate security for the Cafe patrons. At least one female patron was touched by Allin and demonstrated her displeasure at such conduct. Volunteer security help (which incidently fled with the others) is not sufficient when a band's performance might be considered to be, and anticipated to be, rowdy (as the plastic suggested). Once the band member Allin exhibited inappropriate conduct (as early as the first two songs), the Cafe owners should have taken measures to stop the performance. Given public sensitivity related to exposure to body fluids, the Cafe owners were negligent in not aborting Allin's act once it began, and in not previewing his proposed performance since they were made aware of the potentially objectionable nature of the show (as evidenced by the warning and Mr. Brown's prior conversations with band members and groupies). Even if Mr. Brown and Mr. Buchanan did not know the full extent of Allin's proposed performance, once he exhibited offensive and lewd conduct, they bore a burden to interrupt the act and take precautionary measures to insure the safety of the Cafe patrons. Mr. Brown's explanation that he was fearful for his own safety (and thus excused from action) has not been deemed credible. At the minimum, Mr. Brown or Mr. Buchanan could have sought assistance from 911 (which was not done). Had the police not arrived when they did, no telling how long the Cafe owners would have allowed Allin to reign. Presumably, until the set contracted for was finished. As it was, Mr. Brown paid the band for a partial performance. Subsequent to the Allin performance, the Cafe owners have drafted a written agreement to attempt to avoid any reoccurrence of an unlawful performance. The Cafe did not prior to, or subsequent to, November 18, 1991, allow an unlawful performance such as that which is described herein to be conducted on its licensed premises. The acts which occurred on November 18, 1991, are the sole basis for disciplinary action against this licensee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order suspending Respondent's alcoholic beverage license for a period of ninety (90) days retroactive to the date the emergency order was entered. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-7697 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: The Petitioner footnoted many of its proposed findings of fact. Such footnotes are not accepted as they contain argument, comment, or irrelevant matters. The proposed findings have been addressed without reference to footnotes as follows: Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. With the deletion of the phrase "Once back on the stage" paragraph 6 is accepted. Paragraph 7 is accepted. With regard to paragraph 8 it is unknown if Merle was, in fact, the band's manager; otherwise, the paragraph is accepted. With the deletion of the second sentence which is rejected as hearsay, paragraph 9 is accepted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: NOTE: Respondent's proposed findings of fact begin with the numbered paragraph 4. Paragraphs 4 through 8 are accepted. Paragraph 9 is accepted but is irrelevant. Paragraph 10 is rejected as argument or comment. The weight of the credible evidence suggests that, utilizing ordinary care, the Cafe owners should have made inquiries to assure that the band would not perform lewd acts (they were on notice of the band's potential for offensive behavior). The first sentence of paragraph 11 is accepted; otherwise rejected as argument or comment. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Respondent knew the band's performance might be offensive or obscene and failed to use ordinary care to assure it would not be unlawful. Paragraph 13 is accepted to the extent that it states most patrons fled; however, others remained and the Respondent allowed the performance to continue. COPIES TO: Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Richard W. Scully Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Thomas A. Klein Chief Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Howard S. Marks Graham, Clark, Pohl & Jones 369 North New York Avenue Post Office Drawer 1690 Winter Park, Florida 32790
