The Issue Whether or not on or about the 21st day of November, 1975, on the Respondent's licensed premises, located at 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, to wit: Phyllis Jacobs Whidden, did engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with another person while dancing in a topless state for a patron; did rub her vagina and buttocks against the leg of the male patron, in violation of Section 798.02, thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations found in the amended Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Climax, located 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, was licensed under License No. 26-780, Series 4-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On November 21, 1975, one Phyllis Jacobs Whidden, was dancing as an employee of the licensee within the licensed premises. At that time and place, Whidden approached a male patron and rubbed her pubic area and buttocks on the one of the legs of that male patron.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Climax, license no. 26-780 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th 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 Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Harry Katz, Jr., Esquire 337 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether just cause exists for the proposed disciplinary action against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Keven Renken (Respondent) was employed under a professional services contract as a teacher at the Pinellas County Center for the Arts Program (PCCA) at Gibbs High School. On February 11, 1994, the Respondent arrived at about 7:30 a.m. to teach a first period acting class. Prior to the start of classes, another PCCA teacher approached the Respondent and requested permission to bring his class to the Respondent's to view a videotape made by one of the Respondent's students. Although the Respondent apparently was unaware of thee videotape or its content, he consented to permit the other class to view the film in his classroom. After the last bell and before the class began, a student, Marshall Bross, approached the Respondent and requested permission to play a videotape to the class. The student told the Respondent it was an anti-drinking tape. The Respondent granted the student's request. The Respondent did not preview the tape. On February 11, 1994, the Respondent's first period acting class contained not more than five students, each about 15- 16 years old. Many students were absent, apparently because they had participated in a performance on the previous evening. The Respondent asserts that he had intended for students to rehearse script lines during class but was not able to do so because of the low number of students present. During the time that Bross was cueing the tape in the machine, the television set was turned away from the Respondent's view. When the tape was ready for viewing, Bross turned the machine towards the classroom seats. At the time the tape began to be played to the class, the Respondent was present in the room. The television was visible from the Respondent's desk, where he sat doing paperwork. The volume on the television was audible in the classroom. The Respondent asserts that he did not hear the tape because he was concentrating on paperwork. The videotape shows an intoxicated male PCCA student (victim) being physically and verbally abused by other male students. The tape, about 23 minutes long, was produced by Bross on February 10, 1994. About five minutes into the tape, the other teacher and his students joined the Respondent's class to view the tape. The tape was rewound to the beginning of the relevant segments and the viewing began again. The tape shows the victim, intoxicated to the point of being unresponsive, lying in a puddle of (what appears to be presumably his own) vomit. He is dragged across a floor and out a door, where he is rolled off an elevated porch onto the ground. As the victim regains consciousness, he is repeatedly doused with buckets of water, with flour and with what is identified as urine from a cup. At one point, he stands barefooted on the wet concrete porch next to the electrical connection to the house. He is sprayed with water from a garden hose. During much of the victim's conscious moments, he shouts and screams at his tormentors to stop the abuse. Later on the tape, the victim, again unconscious, is shown lying in a filled bathtub as the other students put what appears to be shaving cream and cosmetics on him. Finally, the boys perch on the edge of the bathtub, the camera shot showing the victim lying between the legs of each boy, as each attempts, and some succeed, to urinate into the tub and on the unconscious victim. During the tape, the scenes are loudly narrated by Bross. The verbal abuse of the victim is clearly audible. The dialogue is often harsh and profane. It was possible for the Respondent to see and hear the television from his location. At some point during the showing of the tape, the Respondent left the room to copy some documents. The students remained in the supervision of the other teacher who was watching the tape. The Respondent was in the room for approximately ten minutes of the 23 minute video. The Respondent viewed portions of the tape. Although he claims he was unaware of what he was seeing, the Respondent saw the trail of green vomit across the floor where the student had been dragged. The Respondent saw the victim being hosed off. The Respondent saw the scenes where the boys stood on the edge of the bathtub. The Respondent saw the view of the victim lying between the legs of the boys as each attempted to urinate on the victim. Although he did not know the student's name, the Respondent saw enough of the tape to recognize the victim as a student at PCCA. The Respondent was sufficiently aware of the video's content to comment towards the end of the tape that it was "sad" and to inquire of Bross as to the victim's condition. The entire videotape was shown to the first period students present in the classroom. The Respondent heard students commenting about the film while it was being played. Subsequent to the showing in first period, the tape remained in the possession of the student who made and showed the video. At the break between first and second periods, the victim became aware that the tape had been shown and went to the Respondent's classroom. As he entered the classroom, no teachers were present and the tape was being played again. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent entered the classroom and asked the victim how he was feeling. Humiliated and embarrassed, the victim left the classroom. There is no credible evidence that the victim of the abuse consented to the abuse or to the taping of the activity. There is no credible evidence that the victim consented to the playing of the tape for other students inside or outside of the classroom. There is no evidence that the victim was aware of the images continued on the tape. Shortly after the victim left the room, a guidance counselor became aware of the situation and went to the classroom, where the tape was still being played. No teachers were present. The counselor saw enough of the tape to become aware of its contents and instructed the students to stop the tape and take it to his office. Just before the start of second period, the Respondent reentered the classroom and saw the tape still playing, at which point he instructed the student responsible to turn the tape off. Prior to the start of second period, the Respondent made no effort to stop the playing of the tape or to confiscate it from the students. By letter of March 17, 1994, the Respondent was notified that the superintendent would recommend to the school board that he be suspended without pay from a period of ten days. The grounds for the suspension are identified as follows; ...on February 11, 1994, during your first period class you allowed a student to show a tape unpreviewed by you to your class and another teacher and his class. The video contained denigrating and humiliating scenes of several students physically abusing the inebriated student. While viewing the tape yourself, you allowed your students to continue viewing it and failed to confiscate the tape. Your actions constitute just cause for this suspension pursuant to Section 231.36(6)(a), Florida Statutes. This matter was made aware to the public through an article in the April 8, 1994 issue of the St. Petersburg Times. At the beginning of the 1993-94 school year, the Respondent received a copy of Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida. At a meeting with Gibbs/PCCA faculty, the principal of the school reviewed the document. The Respondent was present at the meeting. According to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida, a teacher "shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning or to health or safety" and "shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." According to both the principal of Gibbs/PCCA and the superintendent of the Pinellas County School System, the Respondent's failure to monitor or stop the playing of the videotape, or to confiscate the tape from the students, is sufficiently serious so as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County School Board enter a Final Order terminating the employment of Keven Renken. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2010 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 26. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are set forth in unnumbered paragraphs. The paragraphs in section II, "Proposed Statement of the Facts" have been consecutively numbered for purposes of these ruling. The proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Reference to pornographic material on tape is rejected, irrelevant. It was not viewed by the students. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The Respondent was in the room for a significant portion of the tape, as set forth in the findings. The evidence does not establish, as the proposed finding suggests, that the Respondent left the room immediately after the other teacher arrived. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The Respondent was in the room for a significant portion of the tape, as set forth in the findings. He viewed and heard enough of the tape to remark that it was "sad" and to recognize the student being abused. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The cited testimony related to the timing of the entry of the victim into the classroom is not credible. Rejected, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. The cited testimony related to the timing of the entry of the guidance counselor into the classroom is not credible. DOAH CASE NO. 94-2010 COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent School Board of Pinellas County P. O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Keith B. Martin, Esquire Pinellas County School Board P.O. Box 2942 Largo, Florida 34649 Marguerite Robinson, Esquire Kelly & McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue The issue presented herein, summarily stated, is whether or not the Respondent has allowed, fostered, condoned and/or negligently overlooked the trafficking in illegal narcotics and controlled substances on or about its licensed premises and has failed to exercise due diligence in supervising its employees and managing its licensed premises so as to curtail or prevent the illegal trafficking of illegal narcotics at its licensed premises.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, posthearing memoranda and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact. Del Sol Enterprises, Inc., is a corporate entity which holds alcoholic beverage license number 39-2182, series 2-COP, and does business as THE PARADISE INN, located at 3513 North 22 Street, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. John Gatto, Jr. is the President and sole corporate stockholder of Del Sol Enterprises, Inc., the Respondent corporation. On several dates during the period July 26 through approximately August 26, 1983, Officer Keith Hamilton of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Petitioner herein) and Tampa Police Department Officers, Chester L. Copeland, Corporal Vincent Rodriguez and Officer Frank L. Swope, conducted several surveillance and/or investigations of the licensed premises. Specifically, on July 26, 1983, Officer Keith Hamilton, a beverage officer employed by the Petitioner since approximately December, 1980, who is trained in the enforcement of beverage and tobacco laws, entered the licensed premises for the purpose of ensuring that the beverage and tobacco laws were being enforced. Officer Hamilton observed two black males seated in the southeast corner of the bar smoking a marijuana cigarette. Officer Hamilton observed the fact that the cigarette being smoked by the two black male patrons was not cylindrical but was, rather, irregular in shape. Officer Hamilton also noted the smell of the burning substance and the manner in which it was inhaled. At no time did any employee of Respondent make an effort to stop the above- referred behavior by the two black male patrons which was observed by Officer Hamilton. The following day, July 27, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises. He engaged the off-duty barmaid, Vickie Jean Washington, in conversation. During the conversation, barmaid Washington was approached by an unknown black female who inquired if she (Washington) possessed any marijuana for sale. Officer Hamilton thereafter asked Washington if she could obtain some marijuana for him, giving her ten dollars in U.S. currency for the purchase of same. Washington exited the premises and, upon returning, informed Officer Hamilton that there was no marijuana worth purchasing. Later that evening, Washington asked Officer Hamilton if he desired some cocaine. Officer Hamilton gave Washington twenty dollars in U.S. currency and Washington produced two foil packs containing a substance later analyzed and identified by the FDLE crime laboratory as cocaine. The cocaine purchased by Officer Hamilton was maintained in his custody and control until it was turned over to beverage officer John T. Allen. Officer Allen maintained custody of the substance until it was placed into the evidence vault at the FDLE crime laboratory in Tampa, Florida. Officer Allen is responsible for the transportation of all evidence from the Petitioner to the FDLE crime laboratory for analysis. During the transportation of evidence in his custody, Officer Allen ensures that all evidence in his custody is properly marked and sealed and FDLE crime laboratory technicians who are responsible for logging and transferring submissions to analysts for analysis, ensure that all submissions received follow the FDLE crime laboratory policies and procedures for the receipt of submissions for analysis. Additionally, FDLE chemists who receive submissions for analysis will not perform an analysis upon a submission which is in any manner a departure from the FDLE crime lab's policies and procedures. (Testimony of FDLE crime laboratory technicians Myrtis Smith and Priscilla Miller, and FDLE crime lab analyst Anthony Ziberna) On July 28, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Hamilton again met with off-duty barmaid Washington and observed Washington ingest the contents of two foil packages while standing at the bar (in the licensed premises) in open view. Officer Hamilton observed barmaid Washington break the substance of the foil packs upon the bar into small grains, lick the empty foil pack, and discard it on the floor. She proceeded to ingest the powder into her nose in a snorting manner. While on the premises that date, Officer Hamilton also purchased a small clear packet containing suspected marijuana from off-duty barmaid Washington. Officer Hamilton purchased the packet, which later was identified as marijuana by the FDLE crime laboratory, for ten dollars in U.S. currency. During the negotiation for the purchase of the marijuana, Officer Hamilton inquired of Washington if she was afraid to "do" the cocaine by the door and she responded that it was "okay." During the above transactions with off-duty barmaid Washington and her ingestion of the suspected cocaine, no one in the position of authority on the licensed premises attempted to stop either activity. After exiting the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton maintained complete custody and control of the suspected marijuana until such time as he turned it over to Officer Allen who properly marked the substance, maintained complete custody and control of it until it was turned over to the FDLE crime laboratory for analysis. On July 29, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises. Upon entering the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton spoke with a black female who related that she was one of the managers of the licensed premises. While engaged in conversation with this black female, Officer Hamilton observed another black male snorting a "line" of suspected cocaine on the bar. Upon pointing this out to the female manager, no action was taken on her part to stop said activity. While on the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton was also approached by a black male who sold him a foil pack containing a substance, later identified as cocaine upon analysis by the FDLE crime laboratory, in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. The substance was properly maintained under the custody and control of either Officers Hamilton, Allen, or analysts at the FDLE crime laboratory. On August 1, 1983, Officer Hamilton was again in the licensed premises. While there, Officer Hamilton observed several patrons smoking marijuana in the licensed premises. Hamilton inquired of the manager whether or not he had some marijuana and was advised that no one had any on this occasion. Officer Hamilton then departed the licensed premises. On August 2, 1983, Officer Hamilton again was on the licensed premises. While on the licensed premises, Officer Hamilton observed several patrons in the bar either smoking suspected marijuana or "doing" cocaine on the bar counter. On or about August 3, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises and observed several persons engaged in the sale and use of suspected marijuana without any attempt to control such activity on Respondent's part. On or about August 5, 1983, Officer Hamilton again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity and observed approximately five or more transactions involving suspected marijuana and/or cocaine buys. While on the premises, Officer Hamilton purchased a package of suspected marijuana from a black male in exchange for five dollars in U.S. currency. Officer Hamilton left the bar with the suspected marijuana and maintained custody and control thereof until it was received by Officer Allen for marking and identification. Officer Allen thereafter proceeded to the FDLE crime lab where he submitted the substance for analysis. On August 15, 1983, Officer Hamilton again visited the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While there, he observed barmaid Washington and several patrons smoking what he suspected to be marijuana. While that activity was ongoing, no one on Respondent's behalf attempted to stop such activity. On August 17, 1983, Officer Chester L. Copeland of the Tampa Police Department, Street Anti-Crime Section, entered the licensed premises as part of the same undercover operation. While there, Officer Copeland was approached by an unknown black male who asked Copeland if he desired to buy some cocaine. At this time, Officer Copeland purchased a foil packet of cocaine for the price of five dollars in U.S. currency. While on the licensed premises, Officer Copeland also observed the same individual make several drug sales in an open and unobstructed manner. Officer Copeland also observed several patrons in the bar smoking what he believed to be marijuana cigarettes. Officer Copeland has received training and is experienced in the detection and identification of controlled substances and their usage. Barmaid Washington, who was on the premises at the time, made no attempt to stop the above-referred activity observed by Officer Copeland. Upon leaving the licensed premises, Officer Copeland returned to the Tampa Police Department and administered a valtox chemical test upon the suspected cocaine purchased while at the licensed premises and the results thereof were positive for the presence of the controlled substance cocaine. Officer Hamilton also entered the licensed premises on August 23, 24 and 25, 1983. While on the premises on August 23, 1983, Officer Hamilton observed on-duty barmaid Washington smoke marijuana and snort what he suspected to be cocaine from the top of the east bar. While there, Hamilton approached an unidentified black male patron and asked if he could purchase some cocaine. This inquiry resulted in a sale of suspected cocaine in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. Upon leaving the premises, Officer Hamilton maintained custody and control of the suspected cocaine until it was turned over to Officer Tim Allen. Officer Allen thereafter maintained control of the suspected cocaine until it was submitted to the FDLE crime laboratory for analysis. While on the premises on August 24, 1983, Officer Hamilton again observed off-duty barmaid Washington snort a powdery substance suspected to be cocaine. This activity by Washington as in the presence of a patron and was done on the bar corner in the licensed premises. At no time did anyone on Respondent's behalf attempt to stop said activity. While on the licensed premises on August 25, Officer Hamilton was approached by a black male from whom Officer Hamilton had purchased suspected cocaine on a prior occasion. Pursuant to an inquiry by that patron, Officer Hamilton proceeded to purchase a quantity of suspected cocaine in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. Upon exiting the premises, Officer Hamilton proceeded to the Tampa Police Department where he delivered the suspected cocaine to Officer Tim Allen. After marking and receiving the suspected cocaine from Hamilton, Officer Hamilton submitted it to the FDLE crime lab for analysis. On August 23, 1983, Officer Copeland again entered the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. While there, he purchased a baggie of suspected marijuana from a black female in exchange for ten dollars in U.S. currency. While there, Officer Copeland observed on-duty barmaid Washington snort a white powdery substance suspected to be cocaine in addition to smoking what he recognized as a marijuana cigarette. Upon leaving the premises, Officer Copeland returned to the Tampa Police Department where he ran a valtox chemical test on the suspected marijuana which results were positive for the controlled substance marijuana. The licensed premises is situated in an area of Tampa whereby drugs and other drug-related problems are commonplace. Narcotics and other controlled substances are readily purchased in and around the immediate area where the licensed premises is situated. The FDLE crime laboratory has uniform policies and procedures respecting the acceptance of substances submitted for analysis. Prior to acceptance by the FDLE crime lab, submissions must be properly marked, identified, and sealed. Thereafter, the submission from the agency involved is placed into an evidence locker or vault where it is kept under lock until such time as it is removed for analysis by a lab chemist. Chemists for the FDLE crime lab will not conduct a chemical analysis on a suspected substance where there is any evidence of tampering with the submission or if the submission is not sealed upon receipt by the chemist. Finally, there was no evidence introduced herein that any of the submissions received (6) were in any manner tampered with prior to analysis by the chemists from the FDLE crime laboratory (Testimony of chemist Anthony Ziberna) Of six (6) submissions submitted by the Petitioner to the FDLE crime lab, only those submissions dated August 26 and August 2, 1983 proved not to be controlled substances under the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Jerry Cumbie, a self-employed contractor, has done substantial remodeling work on behalf of the Respondent corporation for many years. On approximately August 5, 2/ Mr. Cumbie started remodeling and other construction of the licensed premises in an effort to prohibit patrons from using the licensed premises for hiding controlled substances. Among the things Mr. Cumbie did was close off a section of the dance area (the north side of the bar) to prevent patrons from going into that area to smoke marijuana; the tying down of the ceiling tiles and erection of new paneling to keep patrons from hiding drugs behind loose walls. Harold Gillespie, the manager of the Paradise Inn, has been employed by the Respondent corporation for approximately 12 years. Mr. Gillespie is approximately five feet five inches tall and weighs approximately 290 pounds. He is the only black male manager at the Paradise Inn during the months June and July of 1983. Mr. Gillespie acknowledged that drugs were a problem in the area and that that problem overflows into the licensed premises. In an effort to curb that overflow, Messrs. Gillespie and Gatto met with representatives of the Tampa Police Department Vice Squad during June or July of 1983 and advised the vice employees of their problems with drugs in the area. Mr. Gillespie recalled that he spoke with a Sergeant Kester and a Captain Stallings of the Tampa Police Department. Mr. Gillespie recalled having apprehended numerous patrons in the licensed premises who were using illegal drugs on the premises. Mr. Gillespie ejects any patron from the licensed premises that refuses to stop the illegal use of controlled substances while on the premises. He has also taken other steps including turning off water in the lavatories to make it difficult for drug users to "setup" in order to conveniently use the drugs. Mr. Gillespie also sought the assistance of police officers from the local precinct and recalls speaking to an Officer Keys and others who work out of the local precinct in the area of the licensed premises. Mr. Gillespie fired Vickie Washington when she was arrested for drugs. Finally, Mr. Gillespie instructed employees to patrol the restrooms and other vacant areas to attempt to curtail patrons from the use of illegal or prohibited drugs in the licensed premises. John Gatto, Jr., the president and owner of the respondent corporate entity since 1965, has owned and operated as many as six (6) liquor establishments at one time. Presently, the Respondent operates four bars and has sold two within the last six months. Del Sol Enterprises has experienced one problem with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco prior to the subject incident. That problem occurred approximately 8 years ago when a janitor sold a bottle of liquor before opening hours. Mr. Gatto also recalls contacting Sergeant Jones of the Tampa Vice Squad and was assured that the vice squad would help to the extent practicable with the drug related problems. Mr. Gatto spent approximately $4,000 for remodeling the licensed premises in an effort to shut it off from patrons in areas which could not be easily supervised. Mr. Gatto acknowledges the existence of the drug problems in the licensed premises and in the area and concedes that more employees would possibly alleviate part of the problem. However, he counters that the establishment was losing money and that he did the best that he could do with the available help under the circumstances. Mr. Gatto employed Vickie Washington on approximately July 17, 1983. Manager Gillespie inquired of her background and got reports that she was "pretty clean." Mr. Gatto was unaware that Vickie Washington used drugs while on the licensed premises. Mr. Gatto recalled having found drugs in the cocktail tables; loose paneling areas of the licensed premises; and in pockets in the billiard tables. Mr. Gatto frequented the Paradise Inn approximately twice per month to check the manner in which the establishment was operating. He had no knowledge of the number of drug transactions that were occurring in the licensed premises and does not condone or otherwise foster the use of drugs in the licensed premises. Finally, Mr. Gatto tied the ceiling tiles down with wire and installed a booth in the entrance area to check who went in and out of the bar.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 39- 2182, series 2-COP, doing business as the Paradise Inn, be suspended for a period of 6 months from the date of the final order entered herein. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 30th day of December, 1983.
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 9th day of January, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises, located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, one Yvonne Claudette Lanier, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one Thomas Royal Ford, while dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her buttocks on his groin area and placing her breasts in his mouth, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S., thereby violating Section 651.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 9th day of January, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant, or employee, one Olivia Diana Austin, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her buttocks on his groin area and allowing him to rub his hands all over her body and fondle her breasts, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 9th day of January, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, one Sharon Brannon Kwasniewski, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her legs on the inside of his legs, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. There was within this Notice to Show Cause a Count No. 5, which was not considered at this hearing due to insufficient notice being given to the Respondent. Further consideration of this count may be made at a future date. Whether or not on or about the 25th day of March, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, one Doris Resnell Edwards, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one Oral Rudolph Richardson, by dancing in a topless manner while allowing him to fondle her breasts and buttocks, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 25th day of March, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, one Doris Resnell Edwards, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior while dancing for a male customer, one Douglas Steven Winterbourne, by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her legs on his groin area and allowing him to fondle her breasts, thighs, and vaginal area, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 25th day of March, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises, located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida the Respondent, his agent, servant or employee, one Rexie Maria Regester, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one Douglas Steven Winterbourne, by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her vaginal area on his legs and allowing him to kiss and fondle her breasts and rub her vaginal area, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S., thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 25th day of March, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises, located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida the Respondent, his agent, servant or employee, one Bridgette Dian Strickland, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one B. W. Hodges of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her legs on the inside of his legs and groin area and sticking her breasts in his face, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Count No. 10 of the amended Notice to Show Cause was dismissed at the commencement of the hearing.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations found in the amended Notice to Show Cause the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Out of Sight, located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, was licensed under License No. 26-449, Series 4COP held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On January 9, 1976, at around 3:00 p.m., Yvonne Claudette Lanier was dancing in the subject licensed premises. She was clothed in a two piece bikini type outfit in which the top part of the costume was open in the front. The dancing was specifically directed to the attention of a male customer, Thomas Royal Ford, who was seated against one of the walls. During the course of this particular dance, which took place over the duration of a single song, Ms. Lanier rubbed her buttocks on the area of Mr. Ford's groin and, in the course of the dance, caused her breasts to be placed in the mouth of this patron while leaning over him. Those persons in the bar who appeared to be employees of the bar took no action to stop this incident. On the same date, to wit, January 9, 1976, at around 3:00 p.m., Olivia Diana Austin was dancing in the subject licensed premises. She was clothed in bikini styled bottoms with her breasts exposed. While dancing for a male customer, she rubbed her buttocks on his groin area and allowed a male customer to fondle her with his hands around her hips and waist, thighs, navel and breasts. When Ms. Austin was rubbing her buttocks on the groin area of the male customer, she was doing so by gyrating her buttocks in a circular motion. Again, those persons who appeared to be employees of the licensed premises took no action to stop Ms. Austin from the course of conduct with the unidentified male customer and Ms. Austin took no steps to prevent the male customer from touching her. On the same day, January 9, 1976, at around 3:00 p.m. in the subject licensed premises, Sharon Brannon Kwasniewski was dancing. She was dancing in what was described as a topless state and the bottom part of her costume was a go-go outfit. While dancing, she directed her attention to a white male customer and stood between his legs while he was seated and caused her crotch area to be rubbed against his crotch area during the course of the dance. The patron did not attempt to stop her from this course of conduct and a female bartender in the licensed premises made no attempt to stop this course of conduct. During the course of this dancing, Ms. Kwasniewski also rubbed her legs in a vertical motion in the area of the patron's crotch. The number of customers in the bar on January 9, 1976 at the time the aforementioned conduct took place was moderate. On March 25, 1976 in the above described licensed premises, one Doris Resnell Edwards was dancing. She was dressed in bikini type pants and some form of top. As a part of her dancing, she addressed her attention to a customer, one Oral Rudolph Richardson. While dancing about Mr. Richardson, Ms. Edwards allowed Mr. Richardson to fondle her breasts by rubbing her breasts in his face and allowing him to place her breasts in his mouth. In addition, she allowed Mr. Richardson to fondle her buttocks with his hands, and she made no effort to stop his attention. The same Doris Resnell Edwards danced for a customer names Douglas Steven Winterbourne on March 25, 1976. This dancing took place after a conversation between Winterbourne and Edwards in which she asked Winterbourne if she could dance for him and he agreed, if he did not have to pay for the dance. In the course of the dance, she was in a topless state and while dancing, she stood between his legs and rubbed her legs against his legs and while the dance was proceeding, allowed him to fondle her thighs. One of the other dancers in the licensed premises on March 25, 1976 was Rexie Maria Regester. She danced one tune for Winterbourne after a conversation in which he agreed to pay her to do the dance. Winterbourne said he paid because this was the custom in the licensed premises to pay the dancers. The dance was while Regester was in a topless state and, in the course of the dance, she rubbed her vaginal area on Winterbourne's legs and allowed him to fondle her breasts while rubbing her breasts in his face. Regester was wearing clothing on the bottom half of her body. On March 25, 1976, an officer of the Jacksonville Sheriff's office was in the licensed premises. While in the bar and seated at one of the tables, Officer Hodges was approached by one of the dancers, Bridgette Diane Strickland. She asked him if he would like her to dance for him and indicated that she would charge him $3.00 to dance clothed and $5.00 to allow him to touch her body all over. He indicated that he would pay her $5.00 and paid her that amount of money. She danced for him and rubbed the inside of his legs with her legs and rubbed his groin area with her leg. She also placed her breasts in his face. Officer Hodges did not encourage the conduct of this dancer. During the course of the dances which have been indicated to have occurred on March 25, 1976, there was a female bartender in the licensed premises, and this employee made no attempt to stop any of the aforementioned course of conduct. No other persons attempted to stop the course of conduct described.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Out of Sight, license no. 76-449 be suspended for a period of 30 days. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th 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 Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Harry Katz, Jr., Esquire 337 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Pursuant to section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2015), the issue is whether, in the furnishing of public accommodations, Respondent is guilty of discrimination against Petitioner on the grounds of race, color, and national origin by prohibiting Petitioner from re-entering the business premises of Respondent due to Petitioner's sexual harassment of Respondent's employees.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner moved to the United States nine years ago from Maracaibo, Venezuela. Petitioner is Hispanic, speaks English with a Spanish accent, and is dark-complected. Pepito's Plaza is a small retail complex in Doral, Florida, comprising a gas station/convenience store and three small restaurants. Respondent owns and operates the gas station/convenience store. The business owners, employees, and customers of Pepito's Plaza are nearly entirely Hispanic. Like Petitioner, the business owners are also from Venezuela. For three years, Petitioner has delivered food for a restaurant located near Pepito's Plaza. Petitioner has sometimes purchased items for delivery from the convenience store or the three restaurants. Petitioner's initial contact with employees of the convenience store and restaurants was unremarkable. He impressed a clerk of the convenience store, Ms. Maria Gabriela Villarroel, as a kind and educated gentleman. During one visit to the convenience store, Petitioner noticed that Ms. Villarroel had displayed on the counter a set of her business cards, which announced an Herbalife® business that she operated on the side. Petitioner took a card and, using the personal phone number of Ms. Villarroel shown on the card, later purchased Herbalife® products from her. In February or March 2015, Petitioner used Ms. Villarroel's phone number to text and call her repeatedly to ask her out on a date and make advances. Ms. Villarroel never consented to go on a date with Petitioner, did nothing to encourage this behavior, and stated that she did not welcome his advances, culminating with a complaint in April 2015 that she felt stalked and harassed by Petitioner's obsessive behaviors. Nevertheless, Petitioner persisted in these behaviors. Not only did Petitioner persist in these behaviors with Ms. Villarroel, but, early in the summer of 2015, Petitioner began harassing Amalia Almedia, a female employee of Pepito's Arepas Bar, which was one of the restaurants in the complex. Visiting the restaurant several times daily, Petitioner rarely purchased anything, but instead talked to Amalia Almedia and other female employees. Soon, Petitioner was blowing kisses at Ms. Villarroel and Ms. Almedia, winking at them, and making sexual facial expressions at them. Petitioner loitered by the window of the restaurant, occasionally leaning in to stare at Ms. Almedia's body. Unable to deal with the problem themselves, Ms. Villarroel and Ms. Almedia complained to the manager of Pepito's Plaza, Luis Martinez, who did not immediately talk to Petitioner. However, in late June or early July, Petitioner visited Arepas Bar and offered a plastic shopping bag to Ms. Almedia, who declined the offer. Petitioner then left the bag on the counter and left. Ms. Almedia summoned Mr. Martinez, who inspected the bag and found that it contained two pair of new women's' colored panties. Mr. Martinez noticed that a police officer happened to be at the plaza, so he asked the officer to join Mr. Martinez in approaching Petitioner and ordering him not to return to Pepito's Plaza due to his harassment of female employees. Accompanied by the officer, Mr. Martinez found Petitioner on the plaza premises and told him that he had been harassing the female staff for some time, and he was no longer welcome anywhere at Pepito's Plaza. Petitioner attempts to provide context in two respects: first, he claims that he was the subject of dismissive comments from the female employees of Pepito's Plaza. Because Petitioner does not acknowledge that his coarse, repeated behaviors toward these employees constituted harassment, he is, of course, unable to frame the issue as dismissive comments from the female staff whom he was sexually harassing. There is no evidence that female staff initiated any disrespectful behavior toward him prior to the harassment, nor is there any evidence that the dismissive comments were indicative of anything more than an honest attempt by these beleaguered women to get Petitioner to stop harassing them as they attempted to perform their employment duties within fairly constrained areas that left them continuously vulnerable to Petitioner's stalking of them. Petitioner's second point is that he was entitled to a warning before being barred from Pepito's Plaza. To require a warning from a manager is to discredit the attempts by the female staff themselves to stop the harassment. Petitioner was fully aware that his sexual banter and advances produced feelings of annoyance, repulsion, and even safety concerns. On these facts, the absence of a prior warning from Mr. Martinez no more supports an inference of discrimination than does his order that Petitioner no longer enter the premises of Pepito's Plaza.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed on January 28, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert E. Meale 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 27th day of October, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Carlos E. Burgos Pepito's Plaza 10701 Northwest 58th Street Doral, Florida 33178 (eServed) Benjamin Korn, Esquire The Law Offices of Benjamin Korn, PLLC 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 51-332 Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 11th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, one Myra Kathryn Watkins, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one Patrick Francis Murphy, by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her pubic area on his and allowing him to kiss her breasts, in violation of s 798.02, F.S., thereby violating s 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 11th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant or employee, one LaMae Simpson, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one William Wehrmann, by dancing in a topless manner while allowing him to place U.S. currency into her g-string and fondle her legs, in violation of s 798.02, F.S., thereby violating 56l.59, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 11th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent its agent, servant or employee, one Ellen Marie Collins, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and Lascivious behavior with Vice Officer H. R. Hall by dancing in a topless manner while rubbing her pubic region and buttocks on his lap and attempting to place her breasts into his mouth, in violation of s 798.02, F.S. thereby violating s 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations found in the Notice to Show Cause, the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Climax, located 5916 Phillips Highway, Jacksonville, Florida, was licensed under License No. 26- 780, Series 4-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On June 11, 1976, one Myra Kathryn Watkins was working as a dancer for the licensee in the subject licensed premises. One of the customers for whom she was dancing was Patrick Francis Murphy. Murphy paid her $10.00 to dance the duration of five records for him. During the course of these dances, on more than one occasion, Murphy kissed the bare breasts of Watkins and she allowed this to occur. On June 17, 1976, one LaMae Simpson was working as a dancer for the licensee in the subject licensed premises. She was dancing topless and wearing a g-string. One of the patrons for whom she danced was William Wehrmann. While standing in the vicinity of where Wehrmann was located, she allowed Wehrmann to fondle her legs with his hands and, at some point in time, held her g-string costume away from her body to allow him to place some form of currency into the area of the g-string with his hand. On June 11, 1976, Officer H. R. Hall of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office entered the subject licensed premises. While seated at a table in the premises, he was approached by one of the dancers working there, Elaine Marie Collins. Collins asked if Hall would like her to dance for him. Hall agreed to do this and paid $2.00 for the dance. Collins danced topless for Hall and on four or five occasions during the course of the dance, tried to place her breasts in Hall's mouth. She also rubbed her buttocks over his groin area. During the course of the activities described above, as entered into by the named dancers, no attempts were made by the employees within the licensed premises to stop this activity.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, trading as Climax be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th 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 Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Harry Katz, Jr., Esquire 337 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to suspend, revoke, and/or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license. The primary grounds for the proposed disciplinary action are that the licensee has permitted patrons on the licensed premises to sell cocaine on numerous occasions in violation of various statutory provisions. The specific allegations are set forth in a Notice To Show Cause dated February 27, 1989. An Emergency Order Of Suspension was served on the Respondent on February 27, 1989. The Respondent requested an emergency hearing, which was conducted on March 7, 1989. Both parties offered evidence at the hearing. Following the hearing the parties requested and were allowed until March 17, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner filed a timely proposed recommended order. The Respondent has not filed any post-hearing documents. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Ocean Drive Hotel Corporation, d/b/a/ Ocean Haven Restaurant, is the holder of Alcoholic Beverage License Number 23-3568, Series 2-COP, for a licensed premises known as Ocean Haven Restaurant, which is located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. The licensed premises are located in a neighborhood which is somewhat less than wholesome; a neighborhood in which there is a substantial amount of illegal drug related activity. It is a neighborhood in which it is not uncommon for police officers to observe people who have been previously arrested for drug violations. The Respondent corporation owns the licensed premises, as well as the hotel premises of which the licensed premises are a part. The Respondent corporation is owned by Mr. Heriberto Velasco. Mr. Velasco is the president of the Respondent corporation and he is the manager of both the hotel and the restaurant businesses. Mr. Velasco lives in the hotel with his wife, his mother, and one of his sons. Mr. Velasco takes most of his meals in the restaurant which comprises the licensed premises, and usually visits the licensed premises at least three times a day for that purpose. There is no evidence that he regularly spends any other time supervising activities in the restaurant. There are four employees in the restaurant that comprises the licensed premises. Two of those employees are Gloria E. Berlioz and Antonia Rodriguez de Alcina. The latter is also known by the name of Nora. Ms. Berlioz and Ms. Alcina have both been employees on the licensed premises for a year or two. Ms. Alcina is employed as a waitress. Ms. Berlioz is employed as a cook. During the course of an undercover investigation during the months of January and February of 1989, the following transactions involving controlled substances took place within the licensed premises: On January 10, 1989, a patron known as Loraine sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 18, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 19, 1989, an unknown white Latin male patron sold cocaine to a patron named Tommy. On January 25, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On January 26, 1989, an unknown Latin male patron sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 6, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 7, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet in two separate transactions. On February 10, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also sold cocaine to Investigator Lerra. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet, in two separate transactions. On February 17, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero also delivered cocaine to an unknown white male patron. On February 22, 1989, a patron named Roberto Cantero again sold cocaine to Investigator Huguet. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in the preceding paragraph, the people involved in the transactions discussed the subject of drug transactions in normal conversational tones of voice. During the majority of those conversations, either Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have heard the conversations. During some of the conversations, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter, within two or three feet from the conversations. During the course of the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, the drugs involved in the transactions were openly displayed on the table top or on the counter top in front of the participants to the transactions. In each of the transactions involving purchases by Investigator Huguet, the investigator attempted to be obvious about what he was doing by holding the drugs in front of his face to inspect them before putting the drugs in his pocket. During the vast majority of those transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing close enough to have observed the transactions. During some of the transactions, Ms. Berlioz or Ms. Alcina was standing immediately on the other side of the lunch counter within two or three feet from the drug transactions. One of the drug transactions took place while Mr. Heriberto Velasco was standing several feet away. All of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place within the licensed premises during business hours when employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees ever called the police or asked any of the parties to the drug transactions to leave the licensed premises. Mr. Heriberto Velasco was aware that the licensed premises are located in a neighborhood in which there is a high level of illegal drug activity. Nevertheless, he did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the licensed premises other than to tell the employees to let him know if they saw any drug activity. Mr. Heriberto Velasco has never asked the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco for assistance or suggestions with respect to preventing or eliminating drug activity on the licensed premises, even though the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco advises all licensees of the availability of such assistance. Mr. Heriberto Velasco did not have actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He is opposed to drug trafficking and he has not knowingly permitted sales of drugs in his hotel or on the licensed premises. He has instructed his employees in the hotel and in the restaurant to call him if they observe any drug related activity so that he can throw out anyone involved in such activity. He has thrown people out of the hotel when he suspected they were involved in drug related activities. The employees in the licensed premises never told him about any drug related activity on the premises. Mr. Velasco never observed any activity on the licensed premises that he thought was drug related activity. Mr. Velasco does not know what crack cocaine looks like. Mr. Eric Velasco is the 20-year-old son of Mr. Heriberto Velasco. The son lives at the hotel with his parents and helps with the management of the hotel and restaurant to the extent he can between going to college and working at another near-by job. Mr. Eric Velasco has never observed any activity in the licensed premises that appeared to him to be drug related activity. He does not know what crack cocaine looks like. In brief summary, the vast majority of the drug transactions described in Paragraph 5, above, took place in plain view within the licensed premises. The open exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations about drug transactions demonstrate a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The subject drug transactions were sufficiently open that they would have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order in this case revoking the Respondent's alcoholic beverage license number 23-3568, series 2-COP, for the premises located at 155 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach, Dade County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 19th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1096 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 3: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Further, some details proposed in this paragraph are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted in substance, with many subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 20: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 21: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Katherine A. Emrich, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Gino P. Negretti, Esquire 44 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Leonard Ivey, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether or not on or about the 17th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant and employee, one Sandra Rhea Alexander, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with a male customer, one John Dewey Currington, by dancing in a topless manner, rubbing her pubic region on his, fondling her buttocks and allowing him to kiss her breasts, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 17th day of June, 1976, on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant and employee, one Cathy Anderson Hanes, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with two unidentified white male customers by dancing in a topless manner, rubbing her pubic region on theirs, having her buttocks fondled, her breasts kissed and playing with the penis of one of the customers in violation of Section 798.02, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about the 17th day of June, 1976 on the Respondent's licensed premises located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, the Respondent, its agent, servant and employee, one Bobbi Jean Webb, did unlawfully engage in open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior with Beverage Officer B. W. Rowe by dancing in a topless manner, rubbing her buttocks in lap, and rubbing his pubic region with her hands, in violation of Section 798.02, F.S. thereby violating Section 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations found in the amended Notice to Show Cause the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Out of Sight, located at 1080 Cassat Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, was licensed under License No. 26-449, Series 4-COP held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. On June 17, 1976, a dancer in the licensed premises, one Sandra Rhea Alexander, danced for a customer, John Dewey Currington. She did the dance by approaching Currington, who was seated, and spread his legs apart and stood between his legs and moved her body up and down simulating intercourse. She was dressed without any top clothing; however, she was clothed on the lower part of her body and the patron was clothed. In the course of this dance, the pubic regions of the dancer and the patron were touching and the patron was fondling the buttocks of Ms. Alexander. Neither of these individuals attempted to stop the conduct of the other. On June 17, 1976, in the licensed premises, one Cathy Anderson Hanes was dancing. In the course of her dancing, she danced separately for two unidentified white male customers. Before commencing to dance, she took the top off which she was wearing and danced for the duration of two or three songs for the first male customer. Ms. Hanes then moved over to the location of the second male customer and performed with her top off. In the course of the dance she spread the legs of the customer who was seated against the wall and stood between his legs making an up and down motion while placing her pubic area against that of the male customer. On June 17, 1976, Officer B. W. Rowe of the Division of Beverage, State of Florida, entered the subject licensed premises. Officer Rowe took a seat and was approached by a dancer known as Bobbi Jean Webb. She removed the top part of her costume and while in the topless state, danced for Officer Rowe and in the course of the dance, rubbed her buttocks in his lap by placing her buttocks on his legs while Officer Rowe was seated. This occurred three times during the course of the dance. At the dancer's request, Officer Rowe had paid her $3.00 for the dance. While the above described activities were transpiring, there was a barmaid in the licensed premises as an employee. Neither the barmaid nor any other persons tried to stop the course of conduct which has been described heretofore.
Recommendation It is recommended that the license of the Respondent, G and B of Jacksonville, Inc., trading as Out of Sight, license no. 76-449 be suspended for a period of 60 days to run concurrently with the sentences in Division of Administrative Hearings' Case nos. 76-1987 and 76-1984. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th 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 Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Harry Katz, Jr., Esquire 337 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
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
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice pursuant to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based upon her sex (gender). Specifically, whether Petitioner was sexually harassed in the work place and/or unlawfully terminated for refusing sexual favors.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation engaged in the utility construction business. Respondent employs approximately 150 people for a variety of tasks. At all times material, Respondent's president, Bill Beers (male), had at least a partial ownership interest in the company. He currently "owns" the company. Petitioner is female. Petitioner was initially employed with Respondent as an accounting assistant on July 22, 1998. Petitioner had earned a high school diploma and an accounting certificate from Lake Technical Center. She has completed approximately one year of junior college. Jerry Schinderle (male), Respondent's Vice-President of Finance and its Comptroller, made the decision to hire Petitioner. He was in charge of Respondent's accounting department in which Petitioner was employed. Bill Beers did not participate in, or have input for, the decision to hire Petitioner. Mr. Schinderle promoted Petitioner to an accounts payable position on or about August 21, 1998, when another female employee was either terminated or quit. With her promotion, Petitioner received a raise in pay. In her new position, Petitioner's duties were to handle accounts payable, job costing reports, and job tracking. From Petitioner's date of hire until approximately October 1999, Mr. Schinderle was Petitioner's sole immediate supervisor. At all times during this period there were a total of four employees in the accounting department, including Petitioner, Mr. Schinderle, and two female employees. From approximately October 1998 to October-November 1999, Petitioner and Bill Beers engaged in a consensual and intimately sexual romantic relationship. While they were dating in 1998 and 1999, Petitioner gave Mr. Beers a kiss in the morning in his office on the ground floor of the employer's building, before she reported to work in her second floor office. However, it is undisputed that Petitioner and Mr. Beers never had sexual relations at the office. During the period from October 1998 to October-November 1999, their sexual activities occurred only after the work day was over or during their mutual lunch hours in Petitioner's home, in Mr. Beers' home, or in a car. In 1999, Deborah Goodnight (female) was hired from outside the company as Mr. Schinderle's Assistant Comptroller. As such, Ms. Goodnight became Petitioner's immediate superior, and Mr. Schinderle remained in a supervisory capacity over the entire accounting department, which continued to be made up of four employees, counting himself, Ms. Goodnight, Petitioner, and one other female employee. Petitioner complained herein that Mr. Beers promised her the promotion and that she should have been promoted instead of Respondent's hiring Ms. Goodnight from outside the company. Mr. Beers testified that he had refused Petitioner's request to intervene on her behalf with Mr. Schinderle about the promotion. Mr. Schinderle confirmed that Ms. Goodnight was hired solely by himself. Ms. Goodnight had a four-year bachelor's degree in accounting and had been comptroller of another company previously. Ms. Goodnight's qualifications for the position for which she was hired clearly exceeded those of Petitioner. Thereafter, until Petitioner was laid off by Respondent on June 1, 2001, there continued to never be more than a total of four employees in the accounting department: Mr. Schinderle, Deborah Goodnight, Petitioner, and one other female employee. Most of Respondent's employees became aware that Petitioner and Mr. Beers were dating when Mr. Beers escorted Petitioner to a company Christmas party (year unspecified). Petitioner personally told Ms. Goodnight that they were dating. However, no employee who testified was aware of any unprofessional or inappropriate conduct by Mr. Beers with Petitioner in the office at any time while she was employed by Respondent. Sadly, Petitioner's and Mr. Beers' relationship was rocky, and in October or November 1999, Mr. Beers initiated a break-up of their consensual sexual relationship. Petitioner initially claimed that she initiated the break-up but ultimately admitted that she and Mr. Beers mutually agreed to terminate their consensual sexual relationship at that time. Petitioner and Mr. Beers have different views of who pursued whom between November 1999 and February 2000, but both agree that in February 2000, they resumed a sexual relationship outside the office. By each protagonist's account, during a large part of the period from February 2000 to late summer or the autumn of 2000 (see Findings of Fact 16-17), there were periods of good relations and periods of bad relations between the two of them. There were break-ups, one-night stands, and reconciliations at various times. It was, at best or worst, an "on-again-off- again" romance, but there still was no unprofessional or improper conduct observed by anyone at the office. Any sexual liaisons occurred outside the office as previously described. It is undisputed that in July 2000, Mr. Beers left a note on Petitioner's vehicle in which he expressed his desire to terminate their relationship once and for all. Mr. Beers and Petitioner disagree as to whether or not they had sexual relations after July 2000. Petitioner claimed that Mr. Beers importuned her at every possible opportunity, in or out of the office, to have sex with him and had sex with her as late as January 2001. Mr. Beers denied any pursuit of Petitioner and denied any sexual contact with Petitioner after July 2000. Both Petitioner and Mr. Beers have some confusion of dates between what happened at their November 1999 break-up versus their July 2000 breakup, and it is possible to interpret part of Mr. Beers' testimony to the effect that there was a sexual encounter between them as late as November 2000, but upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole, it is found that their sexual relationship ended once and for all in July 2000.. In August 2000, Mr. Beers began dating another woman. In February 2001, he became engaged to her, and she moved into his home. They were married in July 2001. Petitioner claimed to have been harassed by co-workers at Mr. Beers' instigation from the beginning of her employment in 1998 to its end on June 1, 2001. She further alleged that from February 2000 until her termination on June 1, 2001, she strongly felt that she had to comply with Mr. Beers' requests for sexual favors or she would receive some "punishment" in the workplace or lose her job. Likewise, she believed that any advantage she gained in the employment field also was a "gift" from Mr. Beers either to woo her for future sexual favors or to reward her for immediately past sexual favors. Some of Petitioner's allegations in this regard are less than credible simply because she claimed that she was "punished" even while she was engaging in admittedly consensual sex with Mr. Beers from October 1998 to November 1999. Other of her specific allegations of receiving quid pro quo advantages and punishments from Mr. Beers after February 2000, were either not credible on their face or were affirmatively refuted as set out infra. Testimony from other employees and record evidence indicated that Respondent's employment practices were uniform towards all employees, including Petitioner. Petitioner testified that so long as she was engaging in sexual activities with Mr. Beers, she received the benefit of being assigned a company cell phone, but that when she refused to perform sexual favors for Mr. Beers that benefit was taken away. The better evidence shows that soon after they started dating in 1998, Mr. Beers loaned Petitioner a company cell phone, assigned to himself, which he let her use for approximately one week, because she had confided to him that the man that she was living with was abusive and she was afraid of him. Also, when Petitioner or anyone else handled the payroll, that person had the use of a company cell phone. Petitioner was unable to show that at any time during her employment from 1998 to 2001, there was any permanent, or even lengthy, assignment of a company cell phone to her, or that such an assignment was taken away from her. Petitioner testified that so long as she was engaging in sexual activities with Mr. Beers she received the benefit of being assigned a company car for personal use. Petitioner was able to establish only that, occasionally, during their first consensual relationship in 1998-1999, Mr. Beers loaned her the use of his company-issued car and also provided her with his company-issued credit card with which to pay for gassing-up that car for both of them to use. While this may constitute a misuse of the employer's car and card by Mr. Beers, the greater weight of the credible evidence is still contrary to Petitioner's unsupported testimony that a company vehicle was assigned to her and then removed from her custody due to her refusal of sexual favors to Mr. Beers. The testimony of several witnesses on this point was corroborated by a list of vehicles and the names of employees to whom those vehicles had been assigned. Petitioner's name does not appear on this list. The list further supports a finding that the majority of vehicles owned by Respondent employer were trucks and other types of heavy equipment which were assigned to male employees working in the field, as opposed to ordinary vehicles assigned to any office staff, either male or female. Like all Respondent's other employees, Petitioner had access to a company pool vehicle which any employee was allowed to use for company business or for personal use when his or her own vehicle was being repaired or was otherwise out of commission. This vehicle was never individually assigned to any employee. Petitioner claimed that during and after her sexual relationships with Mr. Beers, and continually until her 2001 termination, he directed other employees to purposefully harass her, withhold information or invoice sheets, or create other road blocks to her successfully performing her job duties or completing her assignments at work. Petitioner's testimony is particularly incredible on this point because she specifically contended that several of the instances when other employees harassed her or made her job more difficult took place during the time she admittedly was engaging in a consensual relationship with Mr. Beers in 1998-1999. Also, no other evidence or testimony corroborated Petitioner's analysis in this regard for any time period. No employees were affirmatively shown to have intentionally tried to prevent Petitioner from being able to perform her job duties at any time, including 2000-2001. Moreover, at no time did Petitioner report any harassment by co-workers to Ms. Goodnight or Mr. Schinderle. Petitioner was only occasionally reprimanded for not doing her job well, and she continued to be employed and to receive regular raises throughout her 1998-2001 employment Petitioner contended that Mr. Beers described in lurid detail their sexual activities to other male employees, who then accosted her with suggestive comments. There was no corroboration for this allegation. Although it is probable that rough-and-tumble male employees speculated about the relationship between their boss and Petitioner and it is further probable that they occasionally goaded Petitioner with their speculations, there is no corroboration, whatsoever, that Mr. Beers discussed Petitioner with co-workers or encouraged any bad behavior toward Petitioner by them. The comments, if they occurred, certainly were not shown to be pervasive behavior in the workplace. Petitioner also incredibly claimed that, in general, other employees were instructed not to talk to her both during and after the end of her sexual relationship with Mr. Beers. Other employees testified that they were not aware of any instructions at any time by Mr. Beers or anyone else that they should refuse to speak with Petitioner. Even Petitioner conceded that Ms. Goodnight was reasonably cordial to her at all times. Petitioner specifically claimed that one particular employee, Glen Busby, was instructed by Mr. Beers not to speak to her and was "punished" for speaking with her by having a company vehicle taken away entirely or replaced with an older, poorer quality car. She conjectured that Mr. Busby was also terminated by Respondent as a result of befriending her. Contrariwise, Mr. Busby testified credibly that he was never instructed by Mr. Beers or his supervisors not to speak to Petitioner. Mr. Busby stated that he had left Respondent's employment for approximately a year in order to care for his mother, who was dying. He also related that when he returned to work for Respondent, he was not assigned a vehicle such as he had previously been assigned, because he came back as a project manager, working primarily in the office, as opposed to returning as a construction site employee who needed a heavy duty vehicle on a jobsite. He acknowledged that while he had been in the field, several company vehicles had been assigned to him and that these were frequently replaced with newer, better- conditioned vehicles. Petitioner was unable to show that any professional training element of her employment was dependent on whether she did, or did not, provide sexual favors. The greater weight of the credible testimony, plus records and calendars, demonstrated that Petitioner received the same internal accounting training as other accounting department employees, mostly from Mr. Schinderle on a rotating basis. Mr. Schinderle testified, and Petitioner acknowledged, that she also was provided with specialized accounting programming training by an outside computer company representative. Petitioner described one instance, apparently in late 1998, possibly while the consensual relationship with Mr. Beers was still "on," when she took off from work for approximately two weeks. She passed the first week as a Mayo Clinic outpatient for kidney problems and passed the second week in her home or in hospital emergency rooms, due to postoperative problems. She claimed that during these two weeks, she was unable to have sexual relations with Mr. Beers and refused to have sex with him when he personally delivered her paycheck to her home after the first week. She claimed that he had promised her that she would get her check for the second week, too, but when she refused him, he refused to pay her for the second week that she was unable to work. Actually, Respondent's records show that Respondent had paid Petitioner regular wages for ten days, but she was required to reimburse the employer for the tenth day she was off work that was not covered by saved sick leave or another leave policy. Although Petitioner showed some abuses of company policy regarding breaks and smoking committed by individual employees, the greater weight of the credible evidence is that such company policies were equally applied and enforced among all employees, including Petitioner. Petitioner characterized a bonus she got in February 2000, the first month of the February 2000-July 2000 reconciliation, as a quid-pro-quo reward from Mr. Beers because she had agreed to resume her relationship with him. However, in fact, it was company policy to distribute annual bonuses to everyone in the company in February of each year. The amount paid out by the company depended on the amount authorized by auditors based on the prior year's business profit. Petitioner received an annual bonus each February she worked for Respondent, but the amount varied, according to the company's profit, for Petitioner and for all other employees. In February 2000, all employees received their annual bonuses. Petitioner and two other members of Respondent's office staff, who were not having an affair with the company president, received identical amounts of $2,500.00 annual bonus based on their function within the company. It is undisputed that on January 19, 2001, after their final break-up, Petitioner approached Mr. Beers in his office and indicated that she was having difficulty accepting the end of their relationship. She had apparently anticipated that they would eventually marry, and was struggling with the fact that Mr. Beers was romantically involved with the woman he had begun dating in August 2000. Petitioner asked Mr. Beers to pay her money so that she could go away and find other employment. Petitioner contends that this was a request for Mr. Beers to pay her the bonus that Respondent annually paid its employees each February. Mr. Beers interpreted Petitioner's January 19, 2001, request for money as a demand that he pay her to quit her job and get out of his life. He refused to accept her offered letter of resignation. Petitioner claims that on January 26, 2001, Respondent advertised as vacant her position as "account payable specialist" in the newspaper, but no date appears on the supporting exhibit; Petitioner was not terminated; and no replacement for Petitioner was hired. At all times material, Respondent had a sexual harassment policy in place which required a victim of sexual harassment to report such harassment to his/her supervisor or the company president. Petitioner received a copy of the policy when she was hired in 1998. Petitioner admittedly did not complain to her immediate superior, Ms. Goodnight, at any time. Although Petitioner claimed she reported harassment by Mr. Beers, the company president, to Mr. Schinderle in late 1998, just prior to her first break-up with Mr. Beers, Mr. Schinderle recalls no such report. Although Mr. Schinderle testified that if Petitioner had reported any alleged sexual harassment by the company president he would have brought the complaint to the attention of the company's then-majority stock-holder, Mr. Schinderle is less than credible on that single point. However, Petitioner's "resignation letter" of January 19, 2001, may be considered notification to Mr. Beers and Respondent employer of most of the allegations raised in this case. Sometime in February of 2001, Petitioner received her annual bonus, like any other employee. It was based on the earnings of the company in the year 2000. Every employee on the second floor of Respondent's office got the same amount. On February 23, 2001, Petitioner received a raise from $13.00 to $13.50 per hour for taking on the additional responsibility of adding a new phone system. The appropriate paperwork was filled out for this raise, and witnessed by Mr. Schinderle and Mr. Beers. Given the foregoing, plus Petitioner's admission that she voluntarily took on the additional phone duties in order to get the raise, Petitioner's characterization of the raise as her reward for giving Mr. Beers sexual favors is not credible. Sometime in March 2001, Petitioner showed up at Mr. Beers' home intoxicated. Mr. Beers' fiancée and his son were residing in the home. Petitioner asked to come in, and Mr. Beers asked her to go away and not make a scene because he did not want to have to call the police. One Sunday a few weeks later, Petitioner approached Mr. Beers' fiancée and his mother in WalMart. Petitioner's characterization of this conversation varies, but it is clear that what she said was intended to shock the fiancée and damage Mr. Beers' relationship with fiancée. Petitioner left a message on Mr. Beers' telephone before his mother and fiancée could return home from WalMart. Her message was to the effect, "I just caused you a bunch of problems." Petitioner came to Mr. Beers' office at Respondent's place of business on the following Monday morning and gloated. Mr. Beers angrily ordered her out of his office, but he did not terminate her. Petitioner testified that she believed that Mr. Beers ordered all of Respondent's employees to be tested for drugs on March 19, 2001, in an effort to "catch" her because she had confided to him back on November 25, 2000, that she had smoked "pot" (marijuana) in order to relieve her distress over their deteriorating relationship. At first, Petitioner claimed that she was too frightened to show up for the test. Later, she claimed to have been "escorted" to the drug testing center by two other employees. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that company policy was to do drug testing of every employee when that employee was hired and then drug test selected employees at random intervals, but that the policy had been only loosely followed. Of the employees who testified on the subject, only Mr. Schinderle recalled being drug-tested upon his date of hire in 1993. Ms. Goodnight and others had never been tested. It appears that Bill Padgett, Respondent's head of security, had previously done random drug testing in a very random manner, so all employees who had not previously been tested for drugs, including Ms. Goodnight, Petitioner, and the other female employee in the accounting department, were tested on March 19, 2001. Petitioner rode, as a matter of convenience, in the same car to the drug-testing site with the other two females employed in the accounting department. Petitioner was not singled out at that time. In fact, all employees, even Mr. Padgett and Mr. Beers, were tested. Petitioner passed the drug test and was not laid off in March 2001. Petitioner kept a log of personal notes and summarized them into a diary. This item, which may have been edited and copied over several times, reflects that Petitioner connected every life event, however small, to Mr. Beers. According to Petitioner's notes from March 20, 2001, Petitioner was "an emotional wreck," and she thought that Mr. Beers wanted to "get rid of" her and was "finished with me now." In her accounting post, she had seen a $5,000.00 check Mr. Beers had written on "Monday" and speculated whether or not it was for an engagement ring. Mr. Beers and his fiancée had become formally engaged in February 2001. (See Finding of Fact 17.) Although Petitioner testified that on March 21, 2001, Mr. Beers arranged for her to get additional company medical and/or dental benefits so as to make good a promise to her in return for her sexual favors, several of Respondent's employees testified more credibly that Petitioner was given the same health and other benefits as all other employees in her "Hourly B" class, throughout her employment with Respondent. Moreover, the greater weight of the credible evidence is that all of Respondent's employees were offered an opportunity to sign-up for additional health benefits and that Petitioner had the same opportunity for this benefit as every other employee did, and that she had, in fact, received the benefits for which she signed-up. At the beginning of the second quarter of the year 2001, in approximately April or May, Respondent made the decision that each department would have to cut staff and overhead expenses due to deteriorating business conditions and the cancellation of a lot of expected work. Mr. Beers gave each department head, including Mr. Schinderle, the sole discretion to make the decision as to who would be laid-off, based upon the position the department head believed would be most easily and efficiently eliminated. Mr. Schinderle was department head for the accounting department. He made the decision to lay-off Petitioner effective 6/1/2001. Mr. Schinderle did not receive any input or guidelines from Mr. Beers except to lay-off the one employee he could best do without. Mr. Beers had no discussions with Mr. Schinderle regarding the decision to lay-off Petitioner. Mr. Schinderle testified that he felt Petitioner's position could be the most easily eliminated because the Assistant Comptroller, Deborah Goodnight, was able to perform the functions of her own position and the functions of Petitioner's position. In fact, Ms. Goodnight was capable of doing the work of either Petitioner or the other female employee, but she was not consulted by Mr. Schinderle. On or about June 1, 2001, Petitioner and three other employees were laid-off from their positions with Respondent. Each of the other employees was from a different department and the decision to lay-off each of them had been made by different department heads than Mr. Schinderle. Mr. Schinderle listed Petitioner as eligible for re- hire. Petitioner never called back to Respondent in any attempt to be re-hired after her lay-off. After Petitioner was laid-off, there remained only three (not four) employees in Respondent's accounting department. The accounting department was able to effectively and efficiently function with the reduced three-person staff and did not acquire additional staff for approximately four years, until May 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 22nd day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Vernon Head, Esquire John Vernon Head, P.A. 138 East Central Avenue Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida 34737 Stephen W. Johnson, Esquire Stephanie G. McCullough, Esquire 1000 W. Main Street Leesburg, Florida 34748
