The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on October 29, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Hispanic woman who was employed by Respondent from December 1997 until her termination on October 2, 2002. She worked in Alachua County Animal Services (Animal Services) as an animal control officer. Animal Services control officers are supervised by the Animal Services field supervisor who reports to the director of Animal Services. Petitioner received a bachelor's degree in 1983 in agriculture with a concentration in animal production and agricultural management courses, has experience in animal nutritional research, and has one published paper in that field.2/ Prior to working for the Alachua County, Petitioner managed a small pest control business. By the time she applied for the supervisory position, she had obtained Florida Animal Control Association (FACA) Level I, euthanasia, and chemical immobilization certifications. An animal control officer is responsible for enforcing state laws and county ordinances regarding small animals. Animal control officers impound animals at-large, issue warnings and citations, handle citizen complaints, and investigate animal bites and cruelty to animals. Petitioner served as interim Animal Services supervisor for a little over one month in June 2000. When the position of Animal Services field supervisor became vacant in December 2001, Petitioner applied for the job. Penny Lefkowitz, a newly hired Animal Services officer, also applied for the job. At that time, Ms. Lefkowitz had seven years of animal control experience in Arizona as lead officer. In that capacity, she was a sworn officer with firearm authority, a field training officer, and handled over 1,000 calls per year in that position. She held National Animal Control Association (NACA) Level I and II certifications. She was euthanasia- certified and had 25 years' experience breeding dogs and horses. Ms. Lefkowitz has a high school diploma. Ms. Lefkowitz was placed in the interim field supervisor position for a period of approximately three months, during which time she received supervisory pay. The record is not clear whether there was a separate application process for the permanent position following the appointment of the interim supervisor position. In any event, Respondent hired Bill Burris as Animal Services supervisor in March 2002. At the time he applied, Mr. Burris had nine years of animal control experience in Arkansas, where he was the animal control officer and shelter assistant. He held a high school G.E.D. Additionally, he held NACA Level I, II, and III certifications. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination regarding failure to promote only references Ms. Lefkowitz's appointment to the interim director position, "[i]n December 2001, a newly hired officer, white female with less experience was hired as interim supervisor." It does not reference Mr. Burris as being hired in the director position. Her Petition for Relief alleges, "[t]hose less qualified individuals were hired and promoted in violation of county/company policy." Thus, it is not clear that Respondent hiring Mr. Burris for the permanent position is properly within the scope of this case. Nonetheless, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding Mr. Burris' qualifications is addressed herein. Mr. Burris held the position of field operation supervisor from March 2002 until his resignation in September 2003. Based upon the evidence in the record, at the time the decision was made to place Ms. Lefkowitz in the temporary supervisory position, she and Petitioner met the qualifications for the job. Ms. Lefkowitz had significantly more supervisory and field experience than Petitioner. At the time he was placed in the job, Mr. Burris met the qualifications for the job and had significantly more supervisory experience than Petitioner. Petitioner held a college degree, which neither Ms. Lefkowitz or Mr. Burris had. However, according to Mr. Burris, a college degree was not a minimum requirement of the job, but two years' animal control or animal shelter experience were required. There is nothing in the record to contradict his testimony in this regard. When Mr. Burris became field supervisor, he held a staff meeting and told the animal control officers he supervised that he would start fresh as far as performance and discipline issues. He handed them an empty folder and informed them that he would only consider their past performance if he saw a pattern that caused him to look at past personnel records. Mr. Burris called staff meetings to discuss policies that were not up-to-date or in need of updating. Prior to the staff meeting, Mr. Burris sent a memorandum to the animal control officers informing them that there would be a staff meeting. Officers were expected to attend and were excused only if they were on an emergency call. If an officer was absent from a meeting, Mr. Burris would promptly notify them in memorandum format as to what happened at the meeting. When changes were made in policies or procedures, Mr. Burris would put a copy of the policy changes in every officer's box. Each officer had his or her box where they would receive their mail. Each officer was expected to check that box daily. The boxes were accessible to everyone so that when there was a confidential document, such as payroll information, that document was placed in an envelope and then put in the officer's box. Petitioner's mid-year performance review was due in April 2002, approximately six weeks after Mr. Burris became the supervisor. Petitioner received an overall rating of "exceeded expectation." There are five categories of performance ratings, and "exceeded expectation" is the second highest category. That rating was consistent with ratings Petitioner received from previous supervisors. On April 24, 2002, Mr. Burris held a staff meeting to discuss a new policy regarding issuance of warnings and citations. The new policy required officers to give animal owners in violation of vaccination or licensing requirements 15 days to come into compliance. Previous to this, some officers had given animal owners 30 days to come into compliance. Under extenuating circumstances and upon seeing reasonable attempts to achieve compliance, the officer could extend an owner's deadline by 15 more days. Testimony is conflicting as to whether Petitioner attended this meeting. Petitioner insists she was not at this meeting. Mr. Burris insists that she was and that this issue was discussed in great detail. In any event, Mr. Burris put the new policy in writing a few days after the April 24, 2002, meeting, and the new written policy was given to all the officers. The weight of the evidence establishes that even if Petitioner did not attend the April 24, 2002, meeting, she would have been notified of the policy change shortly thereafter. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner issued a warning to a dog owner, which allowed the dog owner 30 days to achieve compliance with licensing and vaccinations for 24 dogs. According to Petitioner, she considered 30 days to be ample time for the owner to come into compliance. Petitioner maintains that at the time she issued this warning, she was not aware of the change in policy from 30 to 15 days. She acknowledges that Mr. Burris later explained the change in policy to her. It is clear that Mr. Burris informed Petitioner of this policy change and directed her to follow these procedures. In June or July 2002, Mr. Burris designed a policy and procedure manual incorporating all policies and procedures. A manual was issued for each truck used by the animal control officers. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Burris issued a memorandum entitled, "Bite Priority," to the animal control officers. Following a staff meeting where this memorandum was given to the officers, an informal discussion took place around the dispatch area. During this informal discussion, Petitioner questioned Mr. Burris as to whether he had ever read a document called the rabies compendium. Mr. Burris described Petitioner as speaking in a disrespectful, challenging tone. Ms. Lefkowitz witnessed the exchange and described it as disrespectful and condescending.3/ This statement made in front of other officers was inappropriate. The "Bite Priority" memorandum reads, in pertinent part, as follows: All Bites will be priority. Stand-by officers will be required to respond if the bite is after hours during their on-call shift. Bites will not be passed on to the next day. Shifts are 10 hour shifts, not 9 1/2 hours, if you end up working over you are compensated. Officers will not pass calls off to the stand-by person. Priority calls will be taken by Officers during their regular shift. The remainder of the memorandum dealt with off-premise bites. In early August 2002, Mr. Burris decided to "work the roads on a Saturday to take up some of the slack" because the animal control officers were overworked. Late one afternoon, Mr. Burris attempted to reach Petitioner on the radio, but was unable to do so. He asked the dispatcher to contact Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledges that she was contacted by the dispatcher and received Mr. Burris' request to fill up the truck she was driving and to leave the keys and the fuel card on Mr. Burris' desk. Petitioner had already filled up the truck that day in the late morning. She did not fill up the truck again at the end of the day, but described the truck as being seven-eighths full at the end of her shift, after making ten to 12 calls after stopping for fuel. Petitioner believed her actions complied with Mr. Burris' instructions. Mr. Burris described finding the truck the next morning as half-full of gas. Mr. Burris concluded that Petitioner did not follow his instructions. Mr. Burris' conclusion in this regard was not unreasonable. The truck incident gave rise to Mr. Burris' first written warning about her conduct. On August 5, 2002, Mr. Burris issued a memorandum to Petitioner for "failure to follow verbal instruction." The memorandum noted a safety concern in that he was not able to reach Petitioner by radio and his concern that she did not follow his directive. On August 6, 2002, Mr. Burris called Petitioner into his office to discuss the written memorandum. Mr. Burris described Petitioner's behavior when he handed her the memorandum to be disrespectful. As a result, Mr. Burris went to the director's office to explain the circumstances surrounding this incident. This resulted in a meeting in the director's office at which the director, Mr. Burris, and Petitioner were present. Petitioner acknowledges that she made the statement, "I guess one out of a hundred is unacceptable" during this meeting, and that she said it using a sarcastic tone. Later on August 6, 2002, Mr. Burris issued Petitioner another in-house written warning, the subject of which was "improper conduct" about her conduct in the director's office, which read in part: I informed Dr. Caligiuri of Blanca's discourtesy and or improper conduct. I had Blanca meet with me in Dr. Caligiuri's office to discuss her comment and the way in which it was stated. During our conversation in Dr. Caligiuri's office Blanca used mild sarcasm, expressing, "I guess one time out of a hundred is unacceptable" as we discussed the importance of responding to her radio. At this time, I do not want to write this up as a group I #19 Discourtesy to another employee or a Group II #7 Improper conduct which would effect the employees relationship with co-workers. However, if this behavior continues I will be left with no alternative. I know Blanca is capable of doing her job in a professional manner. I only want this as a written documentation of what occurred on this day, to prevent future occurrences of this same behavior. Petitioner refused to sign the August 6, 2002, memorandum. On August 13, 2002, Animal Services received a call about a dog bite at a residence. Animal control officer Jay Butts was dispatched on the call. When he arrived, he saw two or three dogs inside the home, and he could not determine which dog was involved in the reported bite. The owner of the dog was not at home. He left without leaving a written warning because, "I did not have the correct owner or dog, so I didn't know which dog or which owner to leave a written warning to. . . So I wanted to come back and find out which dog actually was involved in the bite." The following morning, Mr. Butts received information from the Health Department regarding the dog's owner and learned that the dog was not currently vaccinated or licensed. Mr. Butts returned to the residence where the bite occurred. He posted a notice to the dog's owner. Apparently the owner was still not home because he posted a warning which included the following necessary corrective action: "Your dog must be placed into quarantine by 5:00 pm on 8-14-02 at our shelter or a licensed vet. If you do not have this done today your animal will be impounded and you will receive a citation of $200.00 per day." The warning required the owner to correct the violation by 5:00 p.m. that day. Officer Butts proceeded to handle other calls until his shift was over. He did not make contact with the dog's owner before his shift ended. His shift ended before 5:00 p.m. The dog's owner called Animal Services after 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 2002. Petitioner took the call. After speaking to the dog's owner, she called a veterinarian and learned that the dog's vaccination had expired by a few months. She did not pick up the dog. She gave the following reason: Yeah, it happened on property. The dog was confined to his property. We had contacted the owner. And basically even though the vaccination had expired, even a one-year vaccination is good for three years. This is a known fact of any vaccine, any rabies vaccine manufactured in the United States, a one-year vaccine has an efficacy of three years. So I take all that matter into consideration when I have to make a decision as to what to do with a bite dog. Petitioner told the dog's owner that he had to comply with the written warning given by Mr. Butts. According to Petitioner, she told the dog's owner that he had to quarantine the dog off the property either at the shelter or at a veterinarian clinic. She also informed him that the only person who could reverse that decision was her supervisor. The next morning, August 15, 2002, the dog's owner called Mr. Burris. Mr. Burris spoke to the dog's owner and then questioned Petitioner to get her side of the story. He then instructed Petitioner to pick up the dog. She did not pick up the dog as instructed; another officer picked up the dog later that day. Mr. Burris gave a verbal warning to Officer Butts regarding his handling of the dog-bite incident. Mr. Butts had received previous disciplinary actions, including suspensions, prior to Mr. Burris becoming the field supervisor. However, on August 20, 2002, Mr. Burris initiated a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action (Notice) to Petitioner in which he recommended a three-day suspension without pay. The reasons referenced in the Notice were willful negligence in the performance of assigned duties or negligence which would endanger the employee, other employees, or the public; and refusal to perform assigned duties or to comply with written or verbal instructions of a higher level supervisor. The narrative of the Notice referenced the dog-bite incident and the August 6, 2002, improper conduct memorandum. Mr. Burris explained his decision to give different disciplinary actions to Officer Butts and Petitioner: Q What should she have done with the dog? A She should have impounded it immediately. If the owner refused her, she should have issued him a citation for failure to comply. Q Jay Butts participated in this. We had some testimony about that. Jay Butts participated in this event two days prior and one day prior to Ms. Carbia getting involved. Why wasn't Butts given any suspension on the same matter? A Jay Butts was given the same verbal consultation that Officer Carbia had received. The only thing Jay Butts could have done differently would have perhaps left a posted notice the day of or given a notice to the roommate with generic information. Jay Butts received consultation pertaining to that. He did not receive disciplinary action because he never made any contact with the owner. The officer that made contact with the owner and had the first opportunity to take the dog was Officer Carbia. Q So there is a difference in the seriousness of her offense and Jay Butts' offense? A Absolutely. Q Hers was more serious? A Yes. As a result of the Notice, a grievance hearing took place on August 26, 2002, in the director's office. Wayne Mangum, who at that time was the union steward, Mr. Burris, and Petitioner were there, as well as the director, Dr. Caligiuri. During the meeting, Petitioner explained her position. At some point in the meeting, Dr. Caligiuri made a comment to the effect that 80 years ago women could not vote.4/ Petitioner found that comment to be discriminatory toward women. When asked whether Dr. Caligiuri's demeanor in that meeting was aggressive or not cordial, Mr. Mangum replied that his demeanor was "uncordial." In any event, Dr. Caligiuri's comment was offensive and inappropriate. During the August 26, 2002, meeting, Mr. Burris instructed Petitioner to discontinue striking the word "within" from the form used when giving an animal owner a time frame within which to bring in an animal to be impounded. She had not been instructed regarding that previously. Mr. Burris received a copy of a warning form dated August 28, 2002, on which Petitioner had crossed out the word "within" contrary to his instructions. He took no action at the time since he thought it might have been a "slip of the pen." He then received another warning form dated September 9, 2002, regarding a dog bite which Petitioner had again altered by crossing out the word "within." Petitioner had written on the form that the warning had been posted. Posting is a procedure officers follow when the animal owner cannot be found. The notice is posted on the door of the residence for the owner to find upon returning home. Based upon his telephone call to the dog's owner and the information on the form, Mr. Burris was of the belief that the form had not been posted, and that Petitioner's indication on the form that it had been posted was inaccurate. Mr. Burris met with Petitioner regarding this incident. Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that she spoke to the dog's owner, but was intimidated and confused when questioned by Mr. Burris about whether or not she had spoken to the owner. Petitioner contends that she did not lie to Mr. Burris, that initially the owner did not come to the door but later did come to the door. According to Petitioner, she simply neglected to cross out the word "posted" or ask the owner to sign the form. On September 18, 2002, Mr. Burris signed and provided a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to Petitioner which proposed her termination from employment. The stated reasons for the proposed action were willful negligence in the performance of assigned duties or negligence which would endanger the employee, other employee, or the public; deliberate falsification and or destruction of county records; and refusal to perform assigned duties or to comply with written or verbal instruction of a higher level supervisor. The Notice referenced the August 28, 2002, warning notice with the word "within" crossed out; the September 10, 2002, warning notice with the word "within" crossed out; the written word "posted" on a warning when she had personally spoken to the dog's owner; and the meeting on August 26, 2002, which resulted in her three-day suspension. The Notice concluded: This is the same type of circumstance concerning the same written instruction after meeting with Blanca and her union rep. This time Blanca was untruthful in her statements, even after I gave her three opportunities to tell me that she had personally spoken to the dog owner. By writing "posted" on the notice which indicates the owner was not home, she falsified a county document. Blanca hand delivered the notice to the dog owner and did not impound the dog when she had the opportunity. Petitioner was terminated from her employment with Respondent effective October 2, 2002. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner complained to anyone that she felt she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender or national origin. The only evidence presented regarding her national origin was Petitioner's brief testimony: Q Were there any other Hispanics employed at animal services during the time frame that Mr. Burris was there? A No. Do you feel that your national origin had something to do with the way Mr. Burris treated you? A Certainly just—basically I felt that I was treated differently, yeah.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, T. E. Watson, was licensed as a veterinarian in Florida under license number VM 0000957, and the Petitioner, Board of Veterinary Medicine, (Board), was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in this state. On February 20, 1986, the Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered an Indictment charging Respondent with six counts of mail fraud. The counts relating to Respondent were part of a thirty- three count Indictment of eight defendants. Only six of the counts pertained to Respondent. After trial by jury, on June 19, 1986, Respondent was found not guilty of two counts of mail fraud but guilty of four. In each of these four counts, Numbers 7, 8, 20, & 21, Respondent was found guilty of mail fraud involving a horse. He was sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment in the Federal Prison Camp at Eglin A.F.B., Florida. The mail fraud engaged in by Respondent involved a scheme by him and others to artificially inflate the book value of certain horses, then have the horses destroyed, and collect insurance in an amount in excess of the actual value of the horse. This activity constitutes misconduct which relates to the practice of veterinary medicine and reflects adversely on the Respondent's ability to practice veterinary medicine. On October 25, 1988, the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Examining Board entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order finding that Respondent had been found guilty of mail fraud as alleged, supra, and revoked his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine license. While incarcerated, on September 26, 1988, Respondent submitted a letter to the Board in which he outlined the facts and circumstances leading up to his involvement in the misconduct alleged. He contends in this letter, as he did at the hearing, that he was merely an honest horse farmer who purchased several animals from the individuals who thereafter killed them in the furtherance of their fraudulent scheme to defraud the insurance company. Respondent further claims that when he confronted these individuals, they threatened him and his family with bodily harm and even acted out a portion of that threat. Respondent claims he had no one to turn to as the insurance company representatives were involved in the scheme and the local law enforcement officials were inadequate. As a result, he went along with the scheme but did not actively participate. In support of his position, he refers to the account statements he attached to the letter he sent to the Board which purport to show that he made no profit on any of the animals involved in the counts of which he was convicted. Since he made no profit, he claims, he can be found guilty of no crime. This documentation is of little probative value, however, since there is no source material to support its accuracy or authenticity. Respondent claimed at hearing that his conviction was based on "perjured, prejudicial, and impeached testimony" and that the newly discovered evidence he has gathered and submitted to Federal officials will prove his innocence. This evidence was not presented at the hearing, however, and in his letter to the Department of Professional Regulation, he admits to knowingly being a party to the fraud. However, he claims, his participation was neither intentional or willing. The jury which heard his evidence was satisfied he was guilty, however, and nothing has been submitted here which would cause that judgement to be questioned. His request for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence was denied, and the Parole Commission has declined to modify his conviction or sentence. Respondent moved his wife and four sons from Florida to Arkansas in 1974 to follow a lifelong dream to be a farmer. It was only after several years that he got into the horse breeding business which resulted in his difficulties. He has been engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine for 30 years. Numerous individuals including clients, civic officials, colleagues, neighbors, and business people who uniformly describe him as an honest, trustworthy and dedicated veterinarian and individual were surprised and dismayed by his involvement in this matter. Respondent undoubtedly has an excellent reputation in both the geographic and professional communities in which he operates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, T. E. Watson's license to practice veterinary medicine in Florida be suspended for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as are specified by the Board of Veterinary Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 8th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura F. Gaffney, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 T. E. Watson, D.V.M. 5004 7th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34203 Linda Biedermann Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes with Social Security number 426-98-6045 and certificate number 06506 with an expiration date of March 31, 1987. On November 20, 1986, at 8:30 a.m. at a road block north of Zolfo Springs, Florida at the intersection of State Highway number 64 and U.S. Highway number 17 in Hardee County, Florida a 1978 Ford pickup truck registered to Edgar T. Coleman, Post Office Box 5, Umatilla, Florida, license number 778 ETK, Vehicle Identification Number F15HKACA8834, driven by Joe Carl Stephens, was found to be transporting seven (7) farm workers. There was no application for certification for either Joe Carl Stephens or Edgar T. Coleman posted in the 1978 Ford pickup truck referred to in paragraph 2 and the truck at that time was not registered with Petitioner under Chapter 450, Florida Statutes. Although Joe Carl Stephens later obtained certification as a farm labor contractor, he was not a certified farm labor contract as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes at the time he was stopped in the road block. At the time Larry Coker, Compliance Officer, prepared the complaint against Joe Carl Stephens, approximately 8:30 a.m., November 20, 1986, there was no evidence filed with Petitioner showing the 1978 Ford pick-up being covered by the liability insurance policy of Respondent or Joe Carl Stephens. Additionally, the Petitioner had no evidence that the truck had been inspected for compliance with the requirements and specifications established in Section 316.620, Florida Statutes and there was no valid inspection sticker displayed on the truck. An inspection of the truck at the road block revealed that: (a) the seats for the passenger in the back of the truck were not secured; (b) the camper top covering the bed of the truck was less than 60 inches above the floor; (c) the tailgate (exit for workers in back) would not close properly and was held closed with a rope and; (d) there was no communication device between the back area of truck and front area of the truck where driver was located. At 1:00 p.m. on November 20, 1986, Edgar T. Coleman arrived at Petitioner's Wauchula, Florida office with an inspection certificate and, although undated, there was credible evidence that it was completed on November 20, 1986 after the complaint was filed, and an insurance binder completed at 11:00 a.m. on November 20, 1986 adding Respondent's 1978 Ford truck identified in paragraph 2 above to his existing vehicle liability insurance policy. At 1:00 p.m. on November 20, 1986, Larry Coker filed a Farm Labor Contractor Registration Complaint on Respondent listing violations under Sections 450.33(4)(a),(5) and (9) and 450.35, Florida Statutes. Although there was evidence that Joe Carl Stephens was employed by Respondent and that Respondent paid the fee of $35.00 to Petitioner for Stephens to obtain his farm labor contractor's certificate, there was credible testimony from Respondent that he was not contracting with Stephens as a farm labor contractor as that term is defined in Section 450.28(1), Florida Statutes on November 20, 1986 but was dealing with Stephens as a farm worker and there was no extra compensation being paid to Stephens for driving the truck. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent was contracting with Stephens as a farm labor contractor. There was credible evidence that Respondent at all times material to this proceeding had hired, supervised and transported more than one (1) farm worker and had received compensation for such activities.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner, enter a Final Order assessing an administrative fine of $750.00 against Respondent for violation of the requirements of Section 450.33(4)(a), (5) and (9), Florida Statutes and dismissing the charges of violating Section 450.35, Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Security Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Edgar Coleman Post Office Box 5 Umatilla, Florida Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
Findings Of Fact In years past, the Petitioner, William G. King, was registered by the Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Bureau of Agricultural Programs (DLES), as a farm labor contractor. As a farm labor contractor, King can average earning about $8000 a year more than he could earn in an hourly wage job (at legal minimum wage or close to it.) In good years, he can make substantially more; in bad years, he can incur substantial losses. King's crew size averages 40 laborers but can vary from 3 to 200, depending on circumstances. The season for harvesting Florida citrus runs from about November to June. From June to August, King tries to follow the melon harvest from Florida into North Carolina. If conditions are bad for harvesting melons during parts of the summer, he tries to secure contracts to have his crews pick moths out of trees during these months. In August, he drives a crew in his bus to New York to pick apples. All of these activities, until King is outside Florida, require DLES registration as a farm labor contractor. In the early 1980's, King's farm labor contracting business experienced difficulties. While paying his crew per actual box of citrus picked, King was paid per estimated box based on the weight of the citrus he delivered. During lengthier than normal periods of hard freeze, King paid his crew more than he was paid and suffered substantial losses. In this financial condition, King did not pay unemployment compensation tax. By March 1982, King owed about $14,300, with interest and penalties. During the preceding year, King was able to save $10,000, which he applied to the tax bill in March, 1982. He also signed an agreement to pay $4,310.48 in monthly installments of $540. King paid $745 in March and $540 in either April or May, 1982 (or perhaps both). But, as a result of more financial setbacks in 1984 and 1985, the tax indebtedness increased to approximately $20,000 to $24,000, with interest and penalties. When the DLES refused to renew King's registration in 1985, King approached the DLES local office to attempt to make arrangements for payment of the debt. King offered to have the grower with whom he intended to contract pay the DLES $100 a month on the debt. The DLES agent questioned the viability of the arrangement because the DLES usually requires a 20% down payment, but he did not outright decline King's offer. He said the offer had to be in writing. When King went to the party with whom he intended to contract, the party refused to send $100 per month to the DLES but agreed to send the DLES $1200 once a year and reduce King's compensation by $100 per month. Ultimately, in spring, 1986, the DLES refused the repayment arrangement because the DLES insisted on a down payment of approximately $5000, which King did not have. Since 1986, King has not been able to make a 20% down payment on his tax bill and has not made any payments on the debt. His financial ability to make payments is handicapped by his inability to work as a farm labor contractor in Florida. For a full season or two, King was driving a crew in his bus to New York to pick apples. But in 1987, King was advised that it was illegal even to do this without a Florida registration and that the activity exposed him to a $10,000 fine. Instead, he would have to meet his crew in New York. In response, King applied to renew his Florida registration. Not having made any recent payments on his tax bill, King owes the DLES $32,949.02 in unemployment compensation taxes, interest, penalties and filing fees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the DLES enter a final order: granting the Petitioner's application to renew his farm labor contractor registration, with reservations. issue to the Petitioner a farm labor contractor registration certificate, with the restrictions: that the Petitioner not be permitted to pay, handle or be responsible for payroll; that the Petitioner be required to notity those with whom he contracts--both laborers and growers--of the terms of the restriction on his registration certificate; and that the Petitioner be required to file a quarterly report to the DLES giving the name, address and telephone number of the person responsible for payroll(s), especially unemployment compensation tax, for each laborer in his crew(s) during the preceding quarter. that the Petitioner initially be permitted to make annual $1200 payments on his outstanding unemployment compensation tax bill, with no penalty for making larger payments in accordance with his financial ability. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: William G. King 785 Phillips Way (L.H.) Haines City, Florida 33844 Moses E. Williams, Esquire Office of General Counsel Suite 117 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently a registered farm labor contractor with Social Security Number 248-92-9496 and certificate number 4-92-9496-G87R. On or about February 11, 1986, Respondent acted as a farm labor contractor without a certificate of registration which was in full force and effect, and in her possession. While acting as a farm labor contractor in February, 1986, she failed to display prominently at the site where work was to be performed, and also failed to display on all vehicles she used to transport employees, a written statement in the workers' language showing the rate of compensation she received from the grower, and the rate of compensation she was paying her employees. In connection therewith, Respondent also failed to submit evidence to Petitioner that each vehicle she used to transport employees complied with the requirements of Chapters 316 or 320, Florida Statutes, prior to transporting farmworkers, or in lieu thereof, bore a valid inspection sticker showing the vehicle had passed the inspection in the state in which it was registered. She also failed to submit proof that she had taken out a policy of insurance to insure against liability for damage to persons or property arising out of the operation or ownership of a vehicle she used in February, 1986, to transport workers in connection with her acting as a farm labor contractor. Respondent failed to prominently display a copy of her application for a certificate of registration at the site where work was being performed in February, 1986 and also on all vehicles she used to transport employees. Prior to contracting for the employment of farmworkers, Respondent did not insure that the farm labor contractor displayed to her a current certificate of registration issued by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order assessing an administrative penalty of $2600.00 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2562 Executive Center Circle East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Mary L. White 13 Garvey Lane Frostproof, Florida 33843 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2151
The Issue Whether Respondent should be assessed a civil money penalty of $1,000.00 for alleged violations of Sections 450.33(10), and 316.620(3) and (4)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michelle A. Blount, is a farm labor contractor licensed in Florida. On January 14, 1994, a vehicle transporting members of Respondent's farm labor crew was involved in an accident in St. Lucie County, Florida which resulted in the death of one passenger and serious injury to eight others. Respondent was hired by Willie J. Lampkin to transport, supervise, recruit and provide a crew for harvesting and loading fruit. Elva Ochoa was employed by Respondent to recruit, transport, supervise and provide a crew, in connection with Respondent's contract with Willie J. Lampkin. On January 14, 1994, ten farm workers were being transported to the groves of Lampkin at the direction of Ochoa. The vehicle used to transport the workers was a pickup truck with a cab covering the bed. It did not have secured seating, the tires were worn out and unsafe, and it did not have any means of communication between the passengers and the driver. The vehicle was not approved or insured to transport workers, nor did it have an inspection certificate on record with the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent has violated Sections 450.33 and 316.620, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be fined $1,000.00 and such fine to paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. Should Respondent fail to pay fine, Respondent's license as a farm labor contractor should be suspended until the fine is paid in full. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-7. Respondent did not submit proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Shirley Gooding, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Francisco R. Rivera, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Suite 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Michelle A. Blount 531 North Dollings Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805
Findings Of Fact For more than 20 years, petitioner has worked as a state employee in law enforcement or as a teacher of persons' training for law enforcement work. From November of 1955 until September of 1976, he was employed as a special agent by the Florida Sheriffs' Bureau. From October of 1965 to March of 1972, he taught at Florida State University, first as an instructor in criminology, then as an assistant professor. On March 20, 1972, petitioner began working for respondent, in its Division of Animal Industry, as an agricultural investigator supervisor in the livestock theft program. Six months later petitioner attained career service status in this position, which has position number 0959. Position number 0959 is the only position within the single agency class of agricultural investigator supervisor. During the 1976 legislative session, and even before the session began, at committee hearings conducted in the course of the appropriations process, there was talk of abolishing the livestock theft program, a proposal which respondent's personnel resisted to the extent practicable. Although petitioner's name was never mentioned in these deliberations, on at least one occasion a legislator made specific reference to abolishing the position of agricultural investigator supervisor. After passage of the appropriations bill by the 1976 legislature, the Hon. Jack D. Gordon, Chairman, Senate Committee on Ways and Means, and the Hon. Edmond M. Fortune, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, wrote a letter to the Hon. J. H. Williams, Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of Administration, and the Hon. Ernest Ellison, Auditor General, to which they attached "computerized program component work papers for . . . use in development of the agencies' approved operating budgets for 1976-77." Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. The fourth item on the attachment reads, as follows: REDUCTION IN LIVESTOCK THEFT PROGRAM AGRICULTURAL INVESTIGATOR SPECIALIST; AGRICULTURAL INVESTIGATORS At no time has there been a position within respondent department called "agricultural investigator specialist." Notwithstanding the use of the title "agricultural investigator specialist," the legislature intended to abolish the position of "agricultural investigator supervisor." Mr. C. Douglas Shelby, now assistant director of administration for respondent, was respondent's personnel officer in June of 1976; the Hon. Doyle Conner, head of respondent, had delegated to Mr. Shelby authority to deal with personnel matters generally. When the appropriations bill passed, Mr. Shelby and Jerry Gullo, a training manager for respondent, began work on implementing the legislation. After considering Emergency Rule 22 AER 76-1, which took effect on June 15, 1976, Mr. Gullo drafted a letter to petitioner for Mr. Shelby's signature, dated June 16, 1976, notifying petitioner that his job would no longer exist as of the close of business on June 30, 1976. The letter was mailed on June 16, 1976; petitioner received notice of the letter's arrival on June 17, 1976, but actually saw it and read it for the first time on June 18, 1976. A copy of the letter was admitted in evidence as respondent's exhibit No. 5. In part, the letter advised petitioner that "you have the right to request a demotion to a class in which you previously held permanent status or reassignment in a class in which you held permanent status in lieu of layoff . . ." On receipt of the letter dated June 16, 1976, petitioner drafted a letter requesting reassignment or demotion, but when, on June 21, 1976, Mr. Gullo told petitioner that there would be no possibility of reassignment or demotion under Emergency Rule 22 AER 76-1, because, said Mr. Gullo, petitioner had not attained career service status in any class other than that of agricultural investigator supervisor, petitioner decided there would be no point in submitting the letter he had drafted and did not do so. Also on June 21, 1976, official notice of the abolition of respondents position number 0959 was mailed by respondent to Mr. Kennison. (Respondent's exhibit No. 3) Petitioner had no further discussion with respondent's personnel about the layoff before he left respondent's employ. On June 30, 1976, Lieutenant Governor William, acting as Secretary of Administration, and in response to a letter from Mr. Shelby, which was received in evidence as respondent's exhibit No. 3, approved "[s]tatewide within the Division of Animal Industry," respondent's exhibit No. 4, as the competitive area for purposes of Emergency Rule 22 AER 76-1. Id. On July 1, 1976, petitioner was out of a job, despite the good work he had done in the livestock theft program and his many years of state employment. Petitioner filed a timely appeal with the Career Service Commission. Respondent notified the State Personnel Director of the layoff by letter dated July 12, 1976, which came in evidence as respondent's exhibit No. 2. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY STUCKEY'S OF EASTMAN, GEORGIA v. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 340 So.2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) Respondent submitted no proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs two, three, and five through twelve of petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted, in substance. Paragraph one of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been adopted, in substance, assuming "at all times material hereto" is intended to mean from September 21, 1972, until June 30, 1976, or some portion of that time period. Paragraph four of petitioner's proposed fact findings has been adopted, in substance, except for the reference to respondent's exhibit No. 3, which is a copy of a letter from Mr. Shelby to Mr. Kennison, dated June 21, 1976. Paragraphs thirteen and fourteen of petitioner's proposed fact findings accurately reflect the evidence, but are irrelevant to resolution of the dispute.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's layoff of petitioner be upheld. That petitioner be deemed to have made timely request for demotion or reassignment to a position in a class (other than agricultural investigator supervisor) in which he has held permanent career service status, if any there be. That respondent pay petitioner two weeks' pay at the hourly rate petitioner was earning at the time of the layoff. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay Hendrickson, Esquire 836 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Conley M. Kennison Attn: Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Career Service Commission Department of Administration Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Respondent violated Sections and 585.80, Florida Statutes, by selling or offering to sell animal products that were adulterated, misbranded, or uninspected, and, if so, a determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the business of selling meat products at its location at 4267 Northwest 12th Street, Lauderhill, Florida 33313, and holds Food Permit No. 55402, pursuant to Section 500.12, Florida Statutes. On January 12, 1993, a United States Department of Agriculture Compliance Officer performed an inspection at Respondent's facility. During this inspection, the Compliance Officer examined and placed under detention approximately 327 pounds of uninspected meat product, consisting of the following: two pig carcasses, one cow head, singed cow feet, beef lungs, and goat tripe. None of the products bore any marks of inspection. With the exception of the two pig carcasses, 1/ all of the uninspected meat product was being offered for sale to retail customers. Beef lungs, or "lite," may not be sold as human food under any circumstances in the State of Florida. The goat tripe, or stomachs, were adulterated with ingesta, which is the contents of the stomach at the time the animal is slaughtered. Some of the beef lungs were darkly colored which, in the opinion of the Compliance Officer, was because they were either old or had been left unrefrigerated for some period of time. One of the pig carcasses was unclean and bruised, and was therefore condemned. The other carcass was released to Mr. Richard Gray after it was determined by the Compliance Officer that, despite the lack of proper labeling, the pig carcasses were being held for the personal use of Mr. Gray. On February 12, 1993, a Department Compliance Officer performed a second inspection at Respondent's facility. At this time, the Compliance Officer examined and detained approximately 65 pounds of uninspected meat products, consisting of the following: goat feet (hide on), goat intestines, goat tripe, and beef lungs. None of the products bore marks of inspection, nor were they marked as "Not for Sale." The goat feet and beef lungs were adulterated with ingesta and were generally dirty. The products detained during the February 12, 1993, inspection, were delivered to Respondent's facility on January 19, 1993, as part of the same purchase of meat products as the items found by the USDA Compliance Officer on January 12, 1993. The Florida meat inspection program requires an animal to be inspected both before and after slaughter. Antemortem inspection is necessary to determine the general health of the animal, while postmortem inspection may reveal pathological conditions and diseases. The tissue is also examined for evidence of abscess, parasites, and arthritic conditions, as well as drug residues. These steps must be taken to safeguard the consumer from exposure to contaminated and diseased meat products. By means of the Department's letter dated May 29, 1991, Respondent has previously received a formal notice of warning concerning a separate violation of the same statutory prohibition, namely the sale and offer for sale of adulterated and misbranded cow and goat feet.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Sections 500.04 and 585.80(2), Florida Statutes, by offering for sale uninspected animal products and adulterated animal products on January 12, 1993; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Sections 500.04 and 585.80(2), Florida Statutes, by offering for sale uninspected animal products and adulterated animal products on February 12, 1993; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for each of the two violations mentioned above, for a grand total of $2,000.00 in administrative fines. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 27th day of May 1994.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, a licensed veterinarian, committed a violation of Section 474.214(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary sanctions should be imposed against his license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is William R. Dudley, a licensed veterinarian at all times pertinent to these proceedings, holding license number VM 0000626. Respondent's last known address is 613 Westwood Drive, Milton, Florida 32570. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Section 455, Florida Statutes; and Section 474, Florida Statutes. On or about January 5, 1998, Respondent performed declaw surgery on Aladdin, a Chocolate Point Siamese cat owned by Kim Hawkins. The surgery was performed on a fold-down table attached to the back of Respondent’s pickup truck. The truck was outfitted as an agricultural veterinary vehicle. Respondent administered a mixture of Ketaset and Acepromazine to the cat prior to surgery. No other medication was administered to the animal for purpose of either analgesia or anesthesia. The Ketaset and Acepromazine administered to the cat are both controlled substances. These drugs are not anesthetics and served only to immobilize the cat during the operation. After the surgery, Kim Hawkins took the cat home. The animal’s paws continued to bleed. On January 7, 1998, the cat was examined by another veterinarian, Dr. Yehia Ibrahim, who wanted to know “who had butchered the cat.” In a declaw procedure, the animal is first anesthetized and the cat’s claw and the third phalanx of each toe are removed. Each toe has three phalanxes and a claw. While the procedure performed by Respondent involved only the animal’s front paws, Respondent did not remove all of the third phalanx on several of the animal’s toes, and removed the third and part or all of the second phalanx on the animal’s other toes. Respondent removed part of the digital pad on most, if not all, of the toes on both of the cat’s front claws. As established by the evidence at final hearing, Respondent performed the declaw surgery in a negligent manner. Respondent did not make or retain any medical record of the declaw procedure performed on the Hawkins’ cat. Respondent did not have a premise permit for his house or a mobile clinic. Respondent also did not have a record which related to the storing, labeling, or administering of the controlled substances that he utilized during the declaw procedure on the Hawkins’ cat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing and in accordance with Petitioner's penalty guidelines, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts II, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $1000; and placing Respondent on probation for one year upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by the Board of Veterinary Medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings This 24th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William R. Dudley, Jr., D.V.M. 613 Westwood Drive Milton, Florida 32570 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John Currie, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues are whether (a) respondent, Medardo G. Soto, should have a $1,500 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Sections 450.33(5) and and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989), and (b) whether respondent, Martin G. Soto, should have a $250 civil penalty imposed for allegedly violating Section 450.30, Florida Statutes (1989).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This controversy arose on the morning of January 29, 1990, when Larry Coker, a compliance officer with petitioner, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Labor, Employment, and Training (Division), made an inspection of a citrus harvesting crew working in an orange grove on the Black Bay Citrus and Cattle Company on County Road 763 in DeSoto County, Florida. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether the crew and its supervising contractor were in compliance with state regulations. Upon entering the premises, Coker observed a crew of eighteen workers harvesting fruit in a citrus grove. Respondent, Martin G. Soto (Martin), was operating a high lift at the work site. Coker approached Martin and asked him who was the farm labor contractor for the crew. Martin responded that his brother, Medardo G. Soto (Medardo), who is also a respondent in this cause, was the licensed farm labor contractor but he (Medardo) was in Immokalee. Martin acknowledged that he (Martin) was supervising the crew for his bother and was being paid $50 per day to do so. Division records reflect that Martin is not licensed by the State to perform that activity. Accordingly, it has been established through Martin's admissions and Coker's observations that Martin was acting as a farm labor contractor without a license. Martin was issued a citation that day which he read and signed. At the bottom of the citation Martin acknowledged that the charges contained therein were true. By allowing his brother to supervise a crew without a proper license, Medardo used an unregistered farm labor contractor in contravention of the law. Martin further acknowledged that he had driven the workers to the field that day in Medardo's 1986 Ford van. A search of Division records revealed that the 1986 Ford van did not have the required vehicle inspection or proof of liability insurance on file with Division offices. Agency rules require that evidence of such inspection and insurance be filed with the Division. Accordingly, it is found that Medardo operated a vehicle used to transport workers without furnishing the Division proof of the necessary vehicle inspection and insurance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that respondent Medardo G. Soto has violated Sections 450.33(5) and (9) and 450.35, Florida Statutes (1989) and that respondent Martin G. Soto has violated Subsection 450.30(1), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further recommended that Medardo and Martin Soto be fined $1,500 and $250, respectively, such fines to be paid within thirty days from date of the final order entered by the Division. DONE and ENTERED this 29th of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administraive Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Francisco R. Rivera, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Mr. Medardo G. Soto 1013 North 19th Street Immokalee, FL 33934 Mr. Martin Soto 1013 North 19th Street Immokalee, FL 33934 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Dept. of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S. E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658 Stephen D. Barron, Esquire 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0658
