The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, for fees and costs he incurred as a result of his participation in the administrative proceeding the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (Department) initiated by filing an Administrative Complaint against him in DBPR Case No. 93050359 (DOAH Case No. 93-6638)?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: From October of 1992 through October of 1993, the Broward County Metropolitan Organized Crime Intelligence Unit (MOCIU) conducted an undercover investigation at the Pompano Park Harness Track (Pompano). The investigation began as a result of information received by the police concerning alleged race-fixing activities at the track. James Gabriel, a City of Fort Lauderdale police officer, and William Piroth, a City of Pompano Beach police officer, were among the law enforcement personnel who participated in the investigation. During the course of the investigation, Gabriel assumed the role of a horse owner interested in fixing races at the track. Piroth served as Gabriel's backup. In furtherance of the undercover operation, Gabriel purchased a race horse (trotter) by the name of Yankee Roughneck and retained the services of William Palmer (one of the targets of the investigation) to train and drive the horse. At all times material to the instant case, Witmer was a veterinarian who treated race horses and who held an occupational license issued by the Department. On November 11, 1992, Gabriel met with Witmer at Pompano. Others may have been present, including Palmer, Gracie Lane (an associate of Palmer) and Herman Berger (a horse owner and another target of the investigation). During their meeting, Gabriel explained to Witmer that Yankee Roughneck was experiencing respiratory problems. He then asked Witmer, "How do we get this stuff out of the horse, or how do we get the horse to cough this stuff out?" Witmer suggested treatment with clenbuterol. He gave Gabriel the name of a person from whom Gabriel could purchase the drug, Robert Harris, a blacksmith working at the South Florida Trotting Center, Inc., in Lake Worth, Florida, and provided Gabriel with directions to Harris' place of employment. On November 19, 1992, Piroth and Detective John Mauro went to the South Florida Trotting Center, Inc., where Mauro purchased two bottles of clenbuterol from Harris. Clenbuterol is a bronchodilator with mucolytic properties. It helps both sick and healthy animals to breathe better. Notwithstanding its therapeutic uses (including the treatment of horses with upper respiratory problems), it is not approved for use in the United States. (It is approved for use, however, in Canada and Europe.) If clenbuterol is administered in a therapeutic concentration to a race horse 24 hours before a race, by the time of the race it will no longer have any effect on the horse. On April 2, 1993, Gabriel was at Pompano, outside one of the stable areas, when he approached Witmer, who was in his car about to drive off, and engaged in the following conversation:04 GABRIEL: Doc, you got two seconds? I just have to ask you something. Remember that horse Yankee Roughneck you were treating over there by Palmer's stable? Do you remember that horse? He had a breathing problem? WITMER: Yeah, yeah that's a long time ago. 04 The conversation was recorded on tape and the tape was played at the evidentiary hearing in this case. GABRIEL: Yeah we had talked about, you know, the . . . clenbuterol? WITMER: Oh, yes, I knew I remembered him. There was a blacksmith up there. Did you ever find him? GABRIEL: No. When I do find some, how do I give it to the horse? I don't want to ask these guys to do it. You know what I mean? How do you administer the - - - WITMER: You get a - - - GABRIEL: There is a spray and there is a powder, right? WITMER: There is an injectable, injectable. If you can get the injectable, because of the nature of the damn stuff, nobody wants to get caught with it. GABRIEL: Right, right. WITMER: If you get a bottle, what I'll do, you bring it to me, if you want me to, I'll download it into the syringe and I'll keep the syringe, you take the bottle back. GABRIEL: Okay. WITMER: And I can administer this to your horse. GABRIEL: Okay. Now we don't need to do it until he is sick though, right? WITMER: Oh, no, no. You don't do anything until he needs it. GABRIEL: Right no. Because this horse had pneumonia when it was born and - - - Berger was approximately 15 to 25 feet from where Gabriel and Witmer were conversing. Following his conversation with Witmer, Gabriel told Berger what had been said during the conversation. The information obtained as a result of the MOCIU's investigation at Pompano was provided to the Department. On October 19, 1993, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint and Emergency Order of Suspension against Witmer.05 The Administrative Complaint alleged the following: On or about September 30, 1991, JOHN R. WITMER, (WITMER) applied for and received a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, number 1130043-1046, as a Veterinarian, and at all times material to the allegations in this complaint, held said license. On November 11, 1992, WITMER met with one Herman Berger, a horse owner, and an undercover police officer (hereinafter "the undercover officer"), and discussed the purchase and use of the drug Clenbutoral. WITMER then provided Berger and the undercover officer with a source for the purchase of the drug. Clenbutoral is a bronchodilator used to improve the performance of race horses, is not approved for use in the United States, and is an illegal substance as provided for in Section 499.03, Florida Statutes. On April 2, 1993, WITMER met with Berger and the undercover officer and discussed how Clenbutoral can be used. WITMER told them 05 The Administrative Complaint and Emergency Order of Suspension were contained in one document. that upon purchasing the drug, he (WITMER) would down-load it into a syringe, keep it in his truck and administer it to the horse. WITMER further cautioned Berger and the undercover officer to be careful with the Clenbutoral since it was an illegal substance. COUNT ONE The Petitioner hereby realleges numbered paragraphs 1 through 4 and incorporates the same in this Count One. On November 11, 1992, WITMER met with Herman Berger, a horse owner, and discussed the purchase and use of the drug Clenbutoral. Witmer then provided Berger and the undercover officer with a source for the purchase of the drug. By conspiring or conniving with said persons in a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing, or by committing such an act on his own account, WITMER violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 7ER92-2(18), currently Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-1.002(18). COUNT TWO The Petitioner hereby realleges numbered paragraphs 1 through 4 and incorporates the same in this Count Two. On April 2, 1993, WITMER met with Berger and the undercover officer, and discussed how Clebutoral can be used. WITMER told them that upon purchasing the drug, he (WITMER) would down-load it into a syringe, keep it in his truck and administer it to the horse. WITMER further cautioned Berger and the undercover officer to be careful with the Clenbutoral since it was an illegal substance. By conspiring or conniving with said persons in a corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing, or by committing such an act on his own account, WITMER violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 7ER92-2(18), currently Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-1.002(18). COUNT THREE The Petitioner hereby realleges numbered paragraphs 1 through 4 and incorporates the same in this Count Three. On April 2, 1993, Witmer met with Berger and the undercover officer, and discussed how Clenbutoral can be used. WITMER told them that upon purchasing the drug, he (WITMER) would down-load it into a syringe, keep it in his truck and administer it to the horse. WITMER further cautioned Berger and the undercover officer to be careful with the Clenbutoral since it was an illegal substance. By conspiring to affect the outcome of a horserace through the administration of medication or drugs, WITMER violated Section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes. Witmer requested an administrative hearing on the Administrative Complaint. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and docketed as DOAH Case No. 93-6638. Witmer appealed the Emergency Order of Suspension to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. On February 2, 1994, the Fourth District rendered a decision quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension. In its opinion, the Fourth District stated, among other things, the following: Petitioner points to two defects in the conspiracy allegations. First, he argues that the complaint/order fails to specifically allege that he ever offered to administer Clenbutoral to a race horse for the purpose of affecting the outcome of a race. The Department charges that the offer to administer the drug violated section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-1.002(18). Both require that the allegedly prohibited behavior involve racing or a race animal. Section 550.235(2) requires that the conspiracy be directed toward affecting the outcome of a race and that the attempted administration of medication be to a race animal: "Any person who attempts to affect the outcome of a horserace or dograce through administration of medication or drugs to a race animal as prohibited by law; who administers any medication or drugs prohibited by law to a race animal for the purpose of affecting the outcome of a horserace or dograce; or who conspires to administer or to attempt to administer such medication or drugs is guilty of a felony of the third degree. " (Emphasis supplied.) Administrative rule 61D-1.002(18) provides that the alleged fraudulent acts be committed in relation to racing: "No person shall conspire with any other person for the commission of, or connive with any other person in any corrupt or fraudulent practice in relation to racing or jai alai nor shall he commit such an act on his own account." (Emphasis supplied.) The complaint/order alleges only that the petitioner conspired with "Herman Berger, a horse owner" to obtain and administer Clenbutoral to "the horse." Nowhere is Mr. Berger identified as a "race horse owner" or alleged to be involved in any way with horse racing. And nowhere is the horse in question identified in any manner or alleged to be a "race horse." The failure to allege an essential element of a violation renders the complaint and emergency order facially insufficient. . . . Although the petitioner has not raised this as a defect, there is an additional problem with the Department's allegation that Clenbutoral is an unlawful substance. The order states that Clenbutoral is not approved in the United States and that it is an illegal substance under 1992 Fla.Law ch. 69 (reenacted as section 499.03, Florida Statutes (1993)). However, this section does not make any substance illegal; it simply prohibits unauthorized persons from possessing or delivering certain categories of drugs (including new drugs which are not in general use and experimental drugs) without a valid prescription. The section specifically exempts licensed practitioners and permit holders from its provisions. Ch. 92-69, Laws of Fla. (reenacted as section 499.003, Florida Statutes (1993)). Nowhere in the complaint/order has the Department alleged that the petitioner lacks the necessary license and/or permit that would allow him to lawfully dispense or administer Clenbutoral. The petitioner also argues that the complaint/order fails to allege any agreement between the petitioner and Mr. Berger to commit the violation. The Department argues that it has alleged that the petitioner "offered" to administer an illegal drug and that this allegation is sufficient to put petitioner on notice that he is charged with conspiracy. Agreement is a necessary element of the crime of conspiracy, which is defined as an express or implied agreement of two or more persons to engage in a criminal or unlawful act. . . Because the Department has not alleged agreement, at most the complaint/order charges solicitation, which is defined as the enticement or encouragement of another to commit a crime even if the other has no intention to follow through. . . But neither section 550.235 nor rule 61D-1.002(18) prohibits the act of soliciting a crime or violation, only the commission of the substantive offense and/or conspiracy to commit the offense. . . . Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 631 So.2d 338, 341-42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In a subsequent decision (rendered on October 25, 1995), in an appeal taken by Witmer of a final order of the Division of Administrative Hearings denying his challenge to certain Department rules, including Rule 61D-1.002(18), Florida Administrative Code, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that Rule 61D-1.002(18), "because of its vagueness, . . . [wa]s an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 662 So.2d 1299, 1302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). On May 31, 1996, the Department issued an Amended Administrative Complaint against Witmer, which it filed in DOAH Case No. 93-6638 after receiving leave to do so. In its motion requesting leave to file said Amended Administrative Complaint, the Department asserted the following: The original Administrative Complaint filed in this cause alleged three (3) counts. Two of those counts were effectively dismissed by the Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in the case of Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 662 So.2d 1299 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), also referred to as Witmer II. The third [and only remaining viable count], conspiring to affect the outcome of a horserace through the administration of medication or drugs, was roundly criticized by the appeals court because of its failure to include an allegation of an "agreement." Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 631 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), also referred to as Witmer I. The [Department] believes that it has remedied the defects in the original conspiracy count by substituting an Amended Administrative Complaint (incorporating the conspiracy count only) for the original complaint filed in this cause. . . . The Department's Amended Administrative Complaint contained the following allegations: On November 11, 1992, Witmer met with Herman Berger, a horse owner, William Palmer, an owner and driver, Gracie Lane, Palmer's groom, and undercover officer James Gabriel at Pompano Park Harness Track in Broward County, Florida, and did at that time discuss, in relation to racing, the use of "Clenbuterol" on the racehorse "Yankee Roughneck." "Clenbuterol" is a bronchodilator used to improve performance of racehorses and is an illegal drug not approved for use in the United States. On November 11, 1992, in the same discussion, Witmer provided a "source" for the drug, (Harris), a blacksmith at the Trotting Center, who sells the drug and gave directions to the Trotting Center. Further, Witmer provided the name of Dave Hackwell, and said to mention him (Hackwell) as the person who said they could get some "stuff" from Harris. On April 2, 1993, Witmer met with James Gabriel in the presence of Herman Berger at Pompano Park Harness Track at which time he was reminded of the earlier discussion concerning the use of "Clenbuterol" on the racehorse "Yankee Roughneck." Witmer agreed that if "Clenbuterol" was brought to him, he would download it into a syringe, keep the syringe and administer "it" to the racehorse. Section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, states: "Any person who attempts to [a]ffect the outcome of a horserace or dograce through the administration of medication or drugs; or who conspires to administer or attempt to administer such medication or drugs is guilty of a felony of the third degree.["] Count I The Petitioner hereby realleges numbered paragraphs 1 through 6. Beginning on November 11, 1992 and continuing through April 2, 1993, Witmer did conspire and agree with Herman Berger and/or William Palmer to provide a source for the purchase of "Clenbuterol," an illegal drug, and in furtherance of the conspiracy did agree to download the drug into a syringe and administer it to a horse participating in a race meeting at Pompano Park Harness Track for the purpose of affecting the outcome of a horserace. By conspiring to bring the drug, "Clenbuterol" onto the grounds of Pompano Park Harness Track, to administer it to a horse participating in a race meeting for the purpose of affecting the outcome of a horserace, Witmer violated Section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes. On July 31, 1996, the Department filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in DOAH Case No. 93-6638. On that same day, the undersigned issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File in that case.
Findings Of Fact Rebecca K. Seip's epilepsy was diagnosed, in August of 1989. Dilantin was prescribed. The following January she began working for respondent as a disc jockey at the "country radio station in Destin" (T.12) respondent once operated, but has since supposedly sold. In the course of a job interview, Ms. Seip had told Daniel "Skip" Davis, then the station's program director, "I don't know that this will make any difference to you in hiring me . . . but I have a seizure disorder." T.11. She "explained . . . that was one of the reasons [she] needed a day job." Id. Because Dr. Mack D. Jones, who diagnosed her condition, had told her "how detrimental it was to work a night shift and have your body off," (T.10) she gladly accepted respondent's offer to work from ten o'clock mornings to five o'clock afternoons (ten to three on the air), and gave up the job she had on a night shift at another station. Three months after she began working for respondent, she became eligible for health insurance, under company policy. When the company's insurance agent reportedly declined to include her on a group policy, she was informed "that Pat Cobb, who was the [respondent's] business manager, asked him to please try to find some kind of coverage we could get." T.28. After working days for respondent for approximately six months, Ms. Seip was directed to report at five o'clock afternoons, and work till midnight (six to midnight on the air) Monday through Friday; her "shift on Sunday was noon to six." T.33. Before the schedule change took effect, she protested to Perry L. "Gabby" Bruce, who had become the radio station's general manager, replacing Edna Smith, who continued in respondent's employ as its "finance officer." Dr. Jones had directed her not to work night shifts, since the "seizure risk is increased." T.11. In response to an oral report of her medical condition, Mr. Bruce asked if she had anything from a doctor that would corroborate her account. Declining to rescind the schedule change, he said, "Well, you know, there is really nothing I can do. . . . Don't worry if you have a seizure. . . . It is not going to affect your job." T.15. On July 23, 1990, Ms. Seip procured a handwritten note Dr. Jones apparently wrote on one of his prescription forms: Please don't have Ms. Seip work nite shift. This will increase her seizure risk. She needs normal nights sleep. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Ms. Seip left the note in Mr. Davis' basket or "in box." By this time, she had begun night shifts. At least twice respondent required her to work day shifts that began six hours after she had finished night shifts. Interspersed among her routine night shifts were other day shift assignments, when illness or other cause made the disc jockeys regularly assigned unavailable. Not only her sleep patterns but also her eating habits suffered. She lost 20 pounds while working night shifts for respondent. After the scheduling change in mid-July, she had occasional seizures even when she worked days. Some of these seizures amounted to no more than the "shakes" and nausea. All of her "more severe" (T.39) seizures occurred after the scheduling change, however. Other people at the radio station, including Penny Austin, the receptionist, Pat Cobb, the business manager, Mr. Davis, Ms. Smith and Steve Williams, a disc jockey, saw the daytime episodes. When she had a seizure during a day shift (after the change to night shifts), fellow employees laid her on the couch in Mr. Bruce's office, and told him what had happened when he returned from lunch. One night, alone at the radio station, she telephoned her sister for help (reaching her after twice misdialing). With difficulty Debra Ann Seip elicited the program director's telephone number; and called him. By the time the person Mr. Davis dispatched reached the station, she found Rebecca incapacitated. The music had stopped. Scott Brown, the disc jockey who ordinarily relieved her at midnight eventually took over. Repeated requests to return to a day shift having been refused or ignored, Ms. Seip filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in October of 1990. When he learned of this, Mr. Davis told her she "had opened up a whole can of worms, and if [she] wanted a gun fight that [she] had one." T.40. In the spring of 1991, while Ms. Seip was home recovering from an automobile accident, she received a "letter from Gabby Bruce, telling [her] she needed to come in and talk to Skip about the new schedule change " T.41 At the time, she had been away from work approximately two weeks. When she spoke to Mr. Davis, he told her that respondent was "going to be using a satellite system that would" (T.44) eliminate the need for disc jockeys between six o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning, and that she no longer had a job. Mr. Davis told her they planned to use satellite programming at night beginning in two weeks. Ms. Seip understood that respondent planned eventually to eliminate "all the weekend positions as well." T.51. As it turned out, respondent's "satellite programming didn't go on until the following January full time" (T.44) and disc jockeys were needed at night, at least through the end of 1991. Respondent first "split the shift up between [three] part timers [two of whom had less seniority than Ms. Seip] . . . [then a]fter a month or two . . . put somebody back in [what had been her] position." T.46. Ms. Seip's replacement was a woman, one of three new hires in the five months following her departure. Ms. Seip was unable to find work in her field at the radio stations to which she applied in the vicinity. News of her having sought relief from the FCHR spread. Eventually Ms. Seip moved to Nashville, Tennessee, and found work there. Lost wages on account of her termination, offset by earnings from odd jobs before she found work that paid as much as or more than she earned working for respondent amounted to $14,000.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR deny the petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Mark Evan Frederick, Esquire P.O. Box 385 Destin, FL 32540 Perry L. Bruce General Manager Gulfcoast Broadcasting, Inc. P.O. Box 817 Destin, FL 32541 Rebecca K. Seip 1205 B. Holly Street Nashville, FL 37206
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Imperial Embassy Condominium Four, Inc. ("Imperial"), discriminated against Petitioner, Barbara Porter ("Porter"), on the basis of her purported disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Barbara Porter in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 17th day of February, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent established that this case meets the criteria for the revocation of Petitioner’s Class I, Class II, and III captive wildlife permits, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-5.004 and Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Oltz is the owner of Pangaea Productions, which she operates along with a related not-for-profit corporate entity, Wild Animal World. The businesses provide wildlife shows and exhibits, and care for the animals. Oltz became a volunteer at Pangaea in 1996, then an investor when she became partners with Grant Kemmerer after buying the interest of his previous partner, Thomas Batchelor, in November 1997. Oltz was first licensed, as she remembered, in 1999. Oltz is now and has been since 2001, the sole owner of Pangaea Productions. Respondent Commission is the state agency that issued Oltz licenses and/or permits, including a Class I license, pursuant to which she exhibited a leopard; a Class II license that authorized her to exhibit, among others, monkeys, servals, and cougars (also referred to as panthers); and a Class III license to exhibit animals that include a scorpion, an alligator, an albino Burmese python, a parrot, a porcupine, a fox, and an anteater. The categories of wildlife are established based on how dangerous each group is in Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-6.002 (1). Respondent Commission seeks to revoke Oltz's licenses to possess, exhibit, and sell captive wildlife in all classes due to incidents that occurred in the years listed below under circumstances that will be described in more detail in the findings of fact that follow: 2006 Class II cougar attack on four-year old Aisha Elgazzar when Oltz was the animal handler; 2006 Escape of a Class II serval cat during a show that Oltz was conducting; 2001 Class I leopard attack on seven-year old Matthew Tully when Oltz was the exhibitor in charge of the leopard; 1999 Escape of a Class II serval cat from Oltz's home when she had no permit or required precautions. 1998 Class II cougar attack on five-year old Holly Moynahan while Oltz was the handler; 1998 Class II cougar attack on eight-year old Victor Parades while another employee of Pangaea Productions was the handler ; and 1998 Class II cougar bite of animal handler Kimberly Royal, another Pangaea employee. The Commission has issued over 5,000 Class I, II and III permits, approximately 300 in Class I, 4,000 in Class III, leaving the remainder of about 700 in Class II. From 2001 through 2005, 32 injuries to members of the public, and 58 to owners or handlers, or a total of 90 injuries were reported to the Commission. Of the 32 injuries to the public, 18 were caused by Class III, 8 by Class II, and 4 by Class I animals (including the 2001 leopard attack on Matthew Tully). Typically, Oltz’s wildlife shows begin with her showing and allowing people, usually children, to touch or pet the Class III animals. There have been no incidents, bites or other injuries from the Class III wildlife. Lieutenant Patrick Reynolds of the Commission implied in his testimony that Oltz had allowed a Class III large yellow python to escape into her neighbor's tree farm. His testimony that he received notice that the python was in the nursery on the border by Oltz's property, that the python had been given by the farmer to a friend by the time Reynolds got there, and given to another person by the time he contacted the farmer's friend is rejected in light of the absence of corroborating evidence, his apparent lack of impartiality in dealings with Oltz, and the animosity that has developed between the two of them over the years. Contradicting Reynolds, Captain John West, also a Commission staff person, testified that he was not aware of any Class III injuries and/or incidents involving Oltz. Before Oltz displayed the Class II cats, she warned her audiences that the next animal would be bigger and stronger, that they would not be allowed to touch it, and that they must remain seated, and stay calm and quiet. On November 18, 2006, Oltz displayed wildlife at a birthday party for a seven-year-old at the home of Francisco Unanue in Coral Gables, Florida. Approximately 40 children attended, many with their parents. Oltz had previously notified the homeowner of the requirement of shade for the animals and a tent had been set up on the edge of a swimming pool, which she also used as a barrier to prevent Oltz and the animals from being approached from behind since this was not a swimming party and no one was swimming. After each animal was taken out and showed to the audience, it was returned to its cage. The cages were stacked on either side of Oltz with the pool behind her. Following the typical sequence for her shows and after her warnings, Oltz took Georgia, a 60-pound cougar in a complete body harness on a leash, out of a cage. While Oltz was talking to and facing the audience, she admitted that she knew the cat was focusing its attention on something behind her but, assuming it was a float in the pool or some other object, she continued to face the audience and talk about the cougar. Four-year-old, Aisha Elgazzar came from behind the cages along the edge of the pool. The cat had been focused on Aisha and attacked her, causing injuries to her eye, cheek and ear that required stitches. Other adults at the party intervened to hit the cougar assist Oltz by pulling the cougar away from the child. Although Oltz testified that she tried to use cages to create barricade behind her and to keep audiences at least ten feet from the animals, based on measurements taken at the Unanues' home during his investigation and the videotape of the wildlife show at the birthday party, which was viewed during the hearing, Lieutenant Reynolds' opinion is credible that there was a twelve inch space between the kennels stacked three high and the pool, and that the some in the audience were as close as four feet in front of the show. Otlz pointed out that the videotape shows Aisha on her father's lap earlier during the show and implied that he should have kept her there. The videotape also shows Aisha and at least one other child on a glider near the other end of the pool during the wildlife show, but Oltz never looked behind her. After the November 2006 attack, Oltz received an order requiring her to suspend showing Class II animals and to surrender the cougar involved for euthanasia so that its brain could be examined to determine whether it had rabies. In an attempt to avoid the possibility of the seizure of Georgia, Oltz kept the cat with her at all times, and argued that testing Georgia approximately two weeks after the incident was pointless since Georgia had been vaccinated against rabies and that rabies shots for the child had to have started within 48 hours of the bite, if in fact infected. According to Oltz, the warrant to seize the cat was prompted by revenge and pressure from the injured child’s father. There was credible evidence that the health department might reasonably have issued the warrant to avoid having the child unnecessarily continue a series of rabies shots. There was also expert testimony that rabies shots developed for dogs and cats have, as far as has been documented, effective in preventing rabies in captive wildlife and the vaccination of captive wildlife is prudent. It is, however, an "off-label" use, meaning officially not approved having not been specifically developed for use on captive wildlife. On October 31, 2006, while Oltz was displaying a serval cat at a south Florida resort, an inflatable Halloween decoration behind her began collapsing and falling towards her. The frightened serval jumped out of her arms, Oltz let go of the leash, and the cat escaped. The cat was captured approximately seven weeks later. As a result of the incident, Oltz was charged and acquitted of a criminal offense for permitting the serval to escape. On December 8, 2001, Oltz was hired to exhibit animals at a Broward County park. She placed a one-year-old, 50 pound leopard in a corner that had shelter and what she believed were adequate barriers on two sides, bushes on one and a fence on the other. The leopard was in a full body harness chained to a post. Although she was the handler responsible for the leopard, Oltz turned her attention to another trainer who was handling a lemur to suggest how he might accommodate the wishes of a photographer to photograph the lemur in a tree. While Oltz was distracted, seven-year-old Matthew Tully came through the bushes and was bitten on his head by the leopard. As part of a plea bargain to settle criminal charges, Oltz surrendered her Class I license to the Broward County Court. While Oltz testified that her Class I license was permanently revoked, the evidence did not indicate that it was ever surrendered to the licensing agency for the state, the Commission, but she is not requesting, in this proceeding, nor and does not seek to possess a Class I license or permit. Although the cat that attacked Matthew was a leopard named China, Oltz reported falsely that it was a serval for fear of having to give up the leopard. She admitted that she tried to persuade her former partner, Kemmerer, who had moved to Pennsylvania, to say that the leopard was with him. Kemmerer reported her attempt to get the animal out of Florida to Reynolds. Oltz's other apparent motivation for making the false report that it was a serval rather than a leopard was that, at the time, she did not have enough property under lease to meet the size requirements for keeping a Class I animal. Oltz pled nolo contendere to making a false report and to other charges stemming from her negligence in the incident. Oltz testified that she booked the engagement that led to Matthew's injuries through an agent whom she had used before and whom she blames for knowing that the particular exhibit he requested was not suitable for an event like a company family picnic. She testified that the agent used her as a last minute substitute for petting zoo that canceled. Nevertheless, Oltz made a conscious decision to proceed with the exhibit even after she personally saw that it was inappropriate for the venue. She testified that it was her plan to compensate for the danger by limiting the time the animals were out of their cages. In October 1999, a serval cat named Foster escaped from Oltz’s home and was recovered after a couple of hours. She blames the escape on a visitor to her home who left the door open. Although Oltz testified that Kemmerer, who held all the licenses at that time, was living with her, she conceded that Kemmerer had a separate address-of-record, and that the escape was from her address-of-record. Oltz had not obtained, until after the incident, a personal pet license to keep Foster in her home rather than at the ranch area where the wildlife animals were allowed to be kept under the licenses. Only after the escape did she obtain the required license, and comply with the requirement to have a separate room for the serval with bars on the window, and a door with an automatic locking mechanism. In March 1998, Kimberly Royal, a handler who had worked for Pangaea Productions for four years, was bitten by Shasta, a cougar, and her finger was severed and surgically reattached. Oltz believes that the handler was at fault and should not have stuck her finger into the cage to scratch the cat and that handlers are not expected to have the same protections as members of the public. Commission witnesses agree that a higher duty of care is owed to the general public than to handlers and other employees, although they too should be protected from the negligence of others and incidents affecting employees must also be reported. There is no evidence that Oltz or Pangaea were responsible for Royal's injury. In May 1998, Randal Wilson, a handler for Pangaea Productions, with the consent of her then co-owner, Kemmerer, according to Oltz, allowed public contact with the same cougar that had bitten Royal, Shasta. The cougar bit Victor Parades, an eight-year-old, who with his parents was allowed to enter a barricade to take a picture standing behind the cat. Victor darted in front of the cougar towards his two or three-year-old sister, who had been barred because of her young age from the photo shoot, when he saw her climbing over the barricade. The cougar attacked Victor, biting into his thigh requiring emergency room stitching to close the wound. Wilson was also bitten on the hand trying to stop the cat. According to Reynolds, Kemmerer said he was out-of-town and denied that he made the decision to use Shasta around children after she had previously bitten a handler. Reynolds believed Kemmerer, not Oltz, who testified that she would have preferred to have Wilson use Scuffy, a cat that was more appropriate for use around children. She did not indicate that she made her preference known at the time, and in fact said that she was still learning the business, that Kemmerer was in charge and, therefore, that he is to blame. The Commission subsequently changed its rules so that photo shoots with dangerous animals are allowed only with contracted professionals, not with members of the general public. On December 23, 1998, Oltz was the handler at a wildlife show for a birthday party for a young child when five- year-old Holly Moynahan was attacked by the cougar, Chase. Oltz testified that Holly's mother dropped her off at the party and that she, Oltz, did know that her mother was not present. Holly, she testified in deposition, was unaccounted for when everyone sat down. Holly came from behind the kennels, between the kennels and some bushes. The cat, reportedly, jumped on Holly's back and its teeth sliced open her scalp from her head to the base of her neck. Subsequent criminal charges were resolved in a settlement agreement. For a probationary period of one year, Oltz was required to use a portable fence as a barrier between wild cats and the public. The judge required that the barrier be approved by Lieutenant Reynolds. There was a dispute between Oltz and Reynolds over the adequacy of the barriers she proposed to use. Reynolds testified that the barriers that he did not approve were a free- standing portable dog kennel approximately 30 inches tall and one made out of white PVC pipe with plastic ties. Ultimately, he approved one made with metal panels equipped with stanchions, that he believes was made to comply with his requirements, at the direction of Kemmerer not Oltz. Oltz testified that Reynolds deliberately held up approval of a barrier. The approved barrier was used for the year during which there were no injuries, then discontinued. Reynolds said the use of the barrier was to be continued, based on a policy set by Kemmerer before he left Pangaea, but that Oltz changed the policy. Oltz said the requirement was applicable only during the probationary period and that barriers give a false sense of security, as she said was later shown in a subsequent incident involving injuries to Victor Parades. Oltz testified that it is preferable to have a second trainer to watch what is happening behind the main trainer, but she only made that preference optional for her clients, offering lower prices if only one rather than two handlers attended a show. In 2007, for example, she testified that only 30 shows were booked at the higher cost for two trainers. In the same incident in 1998, Oltz was charged by the USDA of mishandling the lemur for agreeing to place the lemur in a tree. According to Oltz, the lemur was not mishandled and she only entered a consent agreement with the USDA to avoid a personal fine of up to $65,000 and another fine against Pangaea for up to $50,000. Instead, she entered into the agreement and paid a $5,000 fine. Oltz testified that Pangaea Productions had an audience of 191,632 people at public and private events in 1997, with no incidents of bites or escapes. In 1998, it had an audience of 41,417 at private shows and 186,150 at public shows or exhibitions, or a total of 227,567 people. That was the same year that Oltz says the handler was injured at her own fault and that the Victor Parades' injuries by the same cat that injured Royal, were Kemmerer's fault. It is also the year that Oltz was sentenced to probation, after being the sole handler when a cougar injured five-year old Holly. Inexplicably, Oltz testified that she was not licensed until, she believed, 1999. In 1999, when the serval cat, Foster, escaped from Oltz’s home for only a couple of hours due to what Oltz claimed was a visitor's negligence, 38,872 private attendees and 175,200 public attendees, or a total of 214,072 people saw Pangaea Productions shows and exhibits, with no injuries. In 2000, total attendance was 205,000 with no injuries to the public. That was during the time that Oltz was required to use a court- ordered barricade. In 2001, when Oltz took complete control of the business, 209,462 people attended shows and exhibits, and the leopard attacked Matthew Tully while she was the exhibitor in charge of the leopard. During 2002, one park discontinued the use of Pangaea Productions shows and exhibits due to the negative press related to Matthews's injuries. In 2002, the total number of people who attended shows and exhibits was 64,738, with no incidents of bites or escapes. In 2003, 47,197 people attended shows and exhibits, with no adverse incidents. In 2004, 44,995 people attended exhibits or shows with no attacks or bites. In 2005, 48,848 people attended the shows and exhibits with no injuries. In 2006, the total number of people attending shows or exhibits was 53,526, when Oltz handled the cougar that attacked Aisha Elgazzar, and the serval escaped on Halloween. After the cougar attack in November 2006, Oltz has continued to do shows with only Class III animals. As of the date of the hearing in 2007, she had conducted 312 shows with a total attendance of approximately 20,000, with no bites, injuries, or escapes. Over the years, Oltz has had an audiences of 1,307,326 people with four injuries to the public, or three one millionths of a percent of attendees injured. Oltz currently owns a spot nose guenon monkey, a vervet monkey, three serval cats, and two panthers, or a total of seven Class II animals; and 39 mammals, alligators, and snakes that are Class III wildlife. Oltz earns a salary of $35,000 a year, from approximately $200,000 a year in gross receipts to Pangaea Productions. She is a high school graduate, who also took psychology and mathematics classes at a community college. Oltz believes her business will be adversely affected by not having a cougar in the exhibits and shows, but that a serval could be substitute of and that the financial impact also could be mitigated by the use of monkeys, the second most frequently requested animal after the cougar. Oltz also asserted that at least five other competing businesses exhibit captive wildlife, including cougars, the animal most requested for the shows, and that her shows are safer because all of the animals she uses are hand raised and vaccinated for rabies. None of her animals has ever been found to have any diseases. By using the same animals over and over in shows, in contrast to some of her competitors, Oltz asserted that her animals learn the routine and behave better. Oltz’s animals are kept in larger than required cages, designed to resemble their native habitats and are subject to random inspections at least every four months by USDA. The concrete floors of the cages are sterilized weekly. Only after Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma did the Commission find unsafe damaged older wooden cages at Oltz's facility. The Commission has never had issues concerning the sanitation or cleanliness at current Pangaea location In response to Oltz's assertion that the Commission unfairly and arbitrarily targets her and overlooks violations by her competitors, Lieutenant Reynolds testified that she has had a lot more incidents than her competitors. One competitor is Batchelor, the former Pangaea partner from whom Oltz bought her interest, who reportedly had three bites from 1997 or 1998 to 2005. Reynolds investigated Batchelor for a cougar bite around 1997 to 1998, and a lemur bite in 2004, both to the members of the public. Reynolds believes that Batchelor now uses a stage and barricades for his shows but conceded that Batchelor probably does not carry a stage to birthday parties. In 2005, Batchelor was cited for improperly securing a cage after a ringtail lemur escaped and bit a worker at his ranch. Although Reynolds testified that he once "camped out at the State Attorney's Office" trying to get Batchelor prosecuted criminally, the Commission has not taken any action to restrict, suspend or revoke any licenses held by Batchelor. Another competitor is Vanishing Species, operated by Jeffrey and Barbara Harrod, in Broward County. Lieutenant Reynolds initially testified that he has not investigated nor heard of incidents involving that company that resulted in injuries to the public. On cross-examination, Reynolds did remember investigating when a Siberian tiger bit Mr. Harrod himself. Captain West recalled investigating the biting and scratching of a three-year-old, during a photo shoot, by the Harrods' monkey, for which they received a warning in February 2000. Eight months later, a five-year-old child was bitten on the chest while petting a cougar owned by Vanishing Species. A recommendation for non-renewal of the Harrod's license was, according to Captain West, forwarded to the administrative staff in Tallahassee, but their license was, nevertheless, renewed. Otlz testified that Lieutenant Reynolds overlooked violations by the Metro Zoo. Reynolds testified that after a tiger killed a handler at the Zoo, the final finding was that it was "handler error." Metro Zoo has had incidents that Reynolds considers not unusual for large wildlife facilities, including a kangaroo bite, and elephant that threw a handler against a rock resulting in broken collar bones, ribs and bruised spleen, and an orangutan that broke a veterinarian's arm. Despite Oltz's allegations and Reynold's discrepancies and claim of lack of memory, the record supports that conclusion that Oltz has had more incidents than her competitors. Even excluding the handler's bite and the Parades' attack where she was not the handler and blames Kemmerer for selecting the wrong cougar, her situation is distinguishable from that of her competitors. First, the attacks on the Elgazzar, Tully and Moynahan children were serious and resulted from the same negligent failure to pay adequate attention to the surroundings, and to her failure to take reasonable safeguards, including the use of barricades or another person to observe what was happening behind her. Second, Oltz blatantly and deliberately violated the law by identifying a different cat in the most recent attack and by keeping a serval as a pet without the proper permit and precautions. It is also a matter of great concern, if not an aggravating circumstance, that Oltz blames others: (1) when she failed to, at least give her opinion, about the appropriate cat to use; (2) when she did not refuse to display animals in what she knew to be an improper venue with children, (3) when she had not obtained the proper permit or installed the required precautions for keeping a Class II animal in her home, (4) when she suggested that the injuries to a child occurred because her mother dropped her off at a birthday party and that a father was at fault for not keeping his child on his lap throughout her show. Her attitude and priorities, as well as her disregard for the law, will be troublesome for the Commission, especially if Reynolds in the investigator assigned to her area and if she continues to have a captive wildlife permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which revokes Class I and II captive wildlife permits and/or licenses issued to Corrine Oltz and/or to any related business entities. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Alan S. Ross, Esquire Robbins, Tunkey, Ross, Amsel, Raben Waxman & English, P.A. 2250 Southwest 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Ken D. Haddad, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Petitioner remitted to Respondent, pursuant to Chapter 212.05(1), Florida Statutes, the, proper amount of sales tax on the boat "Captain Deebold" which was purchased on November 29, 1976. A related issue, assuming that the proper sales taxes were not remitted by Petitioner, is whether or not a levy of penalty and interest is warranted under the circumstances.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, legal memoranda submitted by the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner purchased the vessel "Captain Deebold" on November 29, 1976, and alleged that the purchase price of the boat was $20,000.00. Accordingly, Petitioner remitted to the Department sales taxes based on the declared value of $20,000.00. Respondent maintained that the subject boat was purchased for the sum of $75,000.00 and has, therefore, issued an assessment against Petitioner for the additional taxes, penalty and interest. By letter dated November 29, 1978, Respondent's Revenue Investigator, Leslie J. Smithling, advised Petitioner that a routine verification concerning his purchase of the subject boat revealed a transaction amount of $75,000.00 upon which the four percent Florida Sales Tax is $3,000.00. Petitioner was further advised therein that his remittance in the amount of $4,202.00 was due no later than December 15, 1979. Taxes, penalties and interest were calculated as follows: Purchase Price $75,000.00 Tax Rate 4% Tax $ 3,000.00 Minus Tax Paid (Based on $20,000.00) $ 800.00 Tax Due $ 2,200.00 Administrative Penalty (Ch. 212.12[2], F.S.) $ 550.00 Fraud Penalty (Ch. 212.12[2], F.S.) $ 1,100.00 Interest: 1% per month from 8/1/77 to 12/1/77 16% Plus $.72 daily thereafter Total Interest Accrued $ 352.00 Total Tax, Penalties & Interest Due $ 4,202.00 In support of its position that the true purchase price of the boat was only $20,000.00, Petitioner points out that the seller of the boat, Frank Deebold, had neglected the boat and had only made repairs that were absolutely necessary to operate the vessel. Thus, when Petitioner purchased the vessel, numerous repairs were made to make it seaworthy including 1) repaired electrical wiring; 2) sealed the deck seams; 3) reconnected the port fuel tank; 4) repaired the clutch in the port engine; 5) repaired leaks in the starboard stern quarter; 6) replaced and rebolted the chines; 7) replaced a section of the keel; 8) rebuilt the main clutch; 9) caulked deck; 10) replaced or repaired the winch on the anchor; 11) reworked and/or repaired the engine room, including insulation, lighting, lining, painting and hauling. To perform these repairs, Petitioner places the value on materials utilized at approximately $18,000.00. Additionally, Petitioner estimated that the value of his labor involved in making the approximately $25,000.00. The articles of agreement for the purchase of the boat provides in pertinent part as follows: Witnesseth, that if the said party of the second part shall (purchaser) first make the payments and perform the covenants hereinafter mentioned on his part to be made and performed, the said party of the first part (seller) hereby covenants and agrees to convey and assure to the said party of the second part, his heirs, personal represent- atives or assigns, clear of all encumbrances, whatever by a good and sufficient bill of sale the Oil Screw vessel, Captain Deebold, o/n294675, gross tons-36, its equipment, hull, machinery, present insurance policies and business including fifty or more used rods and reels, one 3.5 KW Lister auxiliary generator, used and in need of repair, spare Jabsco water pump (used and in need of repair), spare 24 volt DC alternator, spare 24 volt DC main engine starter, spare stub shaft, three spare propellers (used and in need of repair) and a spare UHF Pierce- Simpson radio transceiver (used and in need of repair) and the said party of the second part hereby covenants and agrees to pay to the said party of the first part the sum of seventy-five thousand and 00/100 ($75,000.00) dollars in the manner following. . . . Nevertheless, Petitioner stressed that inasmuch as the Articles of Agreement provided that the seller only required Petitioner to maintain insurance coverage in the amount of $50,000.00 indicating that the purchase price was something less than $75,000.00 and in fact was no more than $50,000. Pursuant to the Articles of Agreement, the amount insurance coverage required was $50,000.00. Petitioner also declared that included in the $75,000.00 purchase price were other items which included the business (dock space), and reduced prices for miscellaneous supplies and fuel prices. In this regard, an examination of the Articles revealed that these items were provided Petitioner on a cost plus basis and the dock space was leased for an amount based on a rebate of the percentage of ticket sales or charter fees received. Petitioner ultimately sold the boat for 95,000.00. Petitioner initially tried to sell the boat for the sum of $105,000.00 of which $10,000.00 represented the value he (Petitioner) placed on the business. An examination of the accounting records introduced indicated that Petitioner placed the sum of $75,000.00 as the purchase price for the boat. Petitioner thought that his estimation of the labor and materials necessary to properly repair the boat were items that could be used as a setoff to reduce the amount of taxes due. Petitioner testified that he, in no way, intended to defraud the Respondent of taxes properly due and owing. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner remit to the Respondent the proper interest as set forth herein in paragraph 4 of the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner remit to the Respondent an administrative penalty of 5 percent of the aggregate taxes due as set forth herein in Paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law. Petitioner not be held liable for payment of for allegedly filing a "false or fraudulent" return for reasons set forth herein in Paragraph 6 of the Conclusions of Law. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of February 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 27th day of February 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Zion's Hope, Inc., d/b/a Holy Land Experience (hereinafter "HLE"), discriminated against Petitioners, James Gantz and Bette Gantz, by refusing Petitioners entry into HLE due to the Gantzes's disability, i.e., being hard of hearing and requiring the service of hearing ear dogs.
Findings Of Fact Zion's Hope, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation formed in 1989. It is a religious entity with a Section 501(c)3 designation under the U.S. Tax Code as a bona fide charitable organization. HLE is a privately-owned religious theme park operated by Zion's Hope. Religious services are conducted at HLE seven days a week. HLE is located at 4655 Vineland Road, Orlando, Florida. The public, upon payment of an admission fee, is invited into HLE on a daily basis. James and Bette Gantz are an elderly married couple who reside for part of each year in North Port, Florida. Both James and Bette are hard of hearing and have suffered from this affliction for many years. James and Bette each have a certified hearing ear dog which accompanies them almost everywhere they go. The dogs were present at the final hearing. On March 19, 2010, James and Bette accompanied by their service dogs and Bette's sister, Lois Wilcox, decided to visit HLE. Upon arrival, they were told that the HLE parking lot was full, but that additional parking was available across the street. James dropped off Bette, the dogs, and Lois in front of the HLE entrance, then went to park the car across the street. When Bette, Lois, and the dogs approached the ticket window to purchase admission into HLE, they talked to one of the employees about the service dogs to make sure the dogs could accompany them inside. The employee opted to call her superior, Jane Wilcox (no relation to Lois), to make a determination about the dogs. Jane Wilcox testified that she approached Bette and Lois in the lobby area, i.e., an enclosed area akin to a hotel lobby, which housed the ticket windows. Bette and Lois said they were never inside a building at HLE; rather, the discussions that occurred happened outside on the sidewalk area. It seems most likely from the evidence that the conversation commenced inside the lobby and then continued outside. Jane Wilcox did a cursory examination of the dogs and decided they did not appear to be service dogs. She also determined that the dogs appeared to be "frisky" in nature and were not like other service dogs she had seen. It was her practice to make a determination as to whether an animal was a service animal or not by asking reasonable questions. This is the way she handles each of the 100 or so cases a year in which guests show up with animals. Jane Wilcox has not had any formal training from the Commission or other regulatory entity regarding service dogs. She was given on-the-job training by her predecessor and has studied written materials on the subject. Her experience in this area is somewhat extensive during her three and a-half year tenure at HLE. After Jane Wilcox made an initial visual determination that the dogs appeared to be pets, Bette attempted to advise her that the dogs were certified and had certification documents on the capes they were wearing. Bette and James had taken the dogs into numerous other businesses and had been asked many times for proof of the dogs' certification. Thus, they kept the certification documents on the dogs at all times. Jane Wilcox refused to look at the certification documents because she has been provided bogus certification documents on occasion. That being the case, she did not put any stock in documents that were presented to her by guests. Rather, it was her normal practice to ask questions of the owners and to visually examine the animals. Based on the answers and her observation, Jane Wilcox would come to a conclusion about the animal in question. The discussion between Jane Wilcox and Bette became somewhat heated once Jane Wilcox made her initial determination about the dogs. Bette was talking loudly, but she is prone to do that because of her hearing impairment. Jane Wilcox viewed Bette as being very excited and possibly offended by the refusal to admit the dogs into HLE. After a few moments, Jane Wilcox determined that communication with Bette had broken down to the point that further conversation was useless. At that point, she called for security assistance.1/ It appears that the matter could have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction had the conversation not degenerated into a contentious debate between the parties. However, it is impossible to ascertain from the facts submitted whether one party or the other was more responsible for the verbal melee. Therefore, no finding can be made as to that point. The security officer who arrived took Bette and Lois to his small security building, where they were joined by James. The security officer said that Jane Wilcox was within her rights to refuse their admission into HLE with the service dogs. He advised them that there was a facility nearby that would care for the dogs while the guests were at HLE. The security officer allegedly told the Gantzes that HLE was a private facility and not subject to federal or state law regarding disabled persons. He also supposedly said that HLE considers dogs like those belonging to the Gantzes as pets, rather than service animals. According to Bette, this "colored" security officer would not listen to her or allow her to talk. A Caucasian guard, however, allegedly told Bette that maybe the dogs should be allowed into HLE, but he was overruled by the first guard. The Gantzes then asked the security officer to call the local (Orlando) police, which he did. When the police officer arrived, he advised the Gantzes that he could not force HLE to admit the dogs, but that he would write up a report. The report written by the police officer indicates that "security officer Santis" called in the request for assistance. It is not clear from the evidence at final hearing which of the two aforementioned security officers was Santis. The incident narrative in the police report simply states: Contact was made with all parties. 'Gantz' were acc[ompanied] by certified service dogs for hearing along with proper documentation. Upon Mngt request to leave, did so without incident. The Gantzes and Lois Wilcox opted not to board the dogs at the nearby facility. Rather, they left HLE and, ultimately, filed a complaint against Zion's Hope with the Commission. HLE does have a policy of admitting service animals inside the attraction. However, as a private religious facility, it does not believe that it has to do so, i.e., it does not believe it is governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of the 100 or so service animals appearing for admission each year, about 70 percent of them are admitted. The others are boarded or the owners opt not to enter HLE. HLE does have a strict policy disallowing pets from admission to the park. Inasmuch as Jane Wilcox found the animals with the Gantzes to be pets, they were denied admission on that basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petitions for Relief filed by James Gantz and Bette Gantz in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 31st day of March, 2011.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Fair Housing Act by refusing to allow her to keep a dog in her condominium as an accommodation.
Findings Of Fact On April 5, 2006, Petitioner purchased a condominium (hereinafter "condo") at Point East Three Condominium Association, Inc. She has resided in Unit N-508 continuously since she purchased the condo. Breziner was provided the Association's Declaration of Condominium and Rules and Regulations, which both prohibited unit owners from keeping pets in their units. Point East is the entity responsible for operating and managing the condo property in which Breziner's unit is located. Breziner signed the association rules when she moved into the condo. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent had a no pets written policy. Section 10.3 of the Declaration states in relevant part: No animals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians or pets of any nature and description shall be raised, bred, or kept in any apartment, the limited common elements or the common elements. Point East's rules that Breziner signed state in relevant part: 6. I understand that there is a restriction on pets and that I may not bring a pet, nor may any guest, visitor or tenant bring a pet into POINT EAST THREE CONDOMINIUM nor acquire one, either temporarily or permanently after occupancy. Petitioner's son gave her an American Cocker Spaniel dog after she moved into the condo. She keeps the dog in her unit. The dog is named Oossa. Breziner took the dog to 10 classes for 10 weeks, and the dog was trained to be obedient, sit, to listen to her, to walk near her, and not to eat food from the street. Oossa received a diploma from the local Pet Smart store for completion of the training. Oossa did not receive any training as an emotional support animal and has not been trained to perform tasks to assist with a disability. However, Petitioner paid $107.00 to Goldstar German Shepherds: All Breed Dog Training & Service Dogs training facility in Nevada to receive a certificate that says Oossa is a service animal. The certificate states: Goldstar dog training is a private entity not affiliated with the Dept. of Justice or any other state or Federal Agency. Goldstar dog training is not empowered to make legal decisions pertaining to your rights. Should you encounter issues pertaining to access for your service animal, use the number above to contact the United States Department of Justice (Disability Rights Section). Breziner is a holocaust survivor and on July 10, 1998, she was robbed, beaten and left to die. The incident caused her to be unconscious for several days and have major surgery. From the assault, she also lost her business. On July 18, 2007, Petitioner by letter requested a meeting with Point East regarding her dog. She indicated that she had a doctor's note for the dog. On July 19, 2007, Breziner requested that Point East allow her to keep her dog as a service dog under Section 413.08, Florida Statutes. On September 6, 2007, Point East sent Petitioner a letter notifying her of a violation of Section 10.3 of the Declaration of Condominium and informed Petitioner that she needed to remove the dog. On September 28, 2008, Petitioner provided Point East with documentation asserting emotional and physical disabilities and a request to keep her dog as a reasonable accommodation. Petitioner wants to keep the dog because Oossa provides companionship and comfort, which makes Petitioner happy. In addition, the dog has motivated Breziner to be more active. Breziner has an emotional bond with her dog. Petitioner saw Dr. Judith Chavin on July 3, 2006, and was given a prescription that stated: "Please allow Ms. Lillian Breziner to have her dog at her home. The dog is beneficial to her health." Dr. Cauvin also wrote a letter on September 27, 2007, that stated that "[i]t would be tragic if Mrs. Breziner were to lose her dog. I believe that her depression would be worse and that would impact on her mental and physical well being." On July 10, 2008, Dr. Vindimir Derenoncount, a family medical doctor, filled out a Medical Certification form for Petitioner. He noted that "I am a Physician temporarily covering the clinic which Mrs. Breziner attends. The following information has been gathered from her chart . . ."suffers from chronic severe depression and anxiety . . . partially deaf in l[eft] ear."1 Derenoncount did not independently diagnose or evaluate Breziner. Marilyn Miller, Breziner's Holocaust Survivor Case Manager, has known Breziner for nine years. She visits Petitioner's home and tracks her status. She works with Breziner because she is a holocaust survivor. Miller testified that she does not diagnose patients because she is a social worker. However, she reviewed Breziner's records and testified that the records indicate that she has anxiety and depression. Breziner takes antidepressant and anxiety medicine daily prescribed by her primary care doctor. Prior to January 12, 2009, Breziner's dosage of Celexa prescription was 20mm. The doctor increased it on January 27, 2009, to 30mm and to 40mm on Febraury 12, 2009. On September 11, 2008, Dr. Jose Rivas did a psychiatric evaluation on Breziner. He referred Petitioner to Richard Walsh at Bayview Center for Mental Health, Inc., for individual counseling regarding her multiple losses. Walsh is a licensed clinical social worker but has no advanced degrees in medicine. He agrees with the multiple diagnoses Breziner received prior to seeing him of post traumatic stress syndrome, anxiety and depression. Breziner's depression and anxiety do not substantially limit any life activities. She goes everywhere and takes Oossa with her to stores and restaurants. Breziner is capable and performs all life activities she chooses. Oassa is Breziner's companion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 29th day of April, 2009.
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.
