The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2004), popularly known as the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Florida Civil Rights Act).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Hispanic female. Petitioner was employed by Respondent in records for almost 15 years prior to July 16, 2004, when she was terminated. Respondent is a municipal corporation located in Miami- Dade County, Florida, and an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Respondent provides a variety of public services generally associated with cities of comparable size, including a full service police department. At all relevant times, Hispanics comprised approximately half of the police department's workforce. Many of these individuals were employed in supervisory capacities. Four Hispanics were supervisors in Petitioner's chain of command. In her position in records, Petitioner was responsible to timely and accurately process official police documents. Such processing included the completion of forms and transmittal documents and timely copying, filing and production of such documents to appropriate individuals and authorities (document processing). Failure to discharge any of the foregoing responsibilities is reasonably deemed by Respondent to be incompetence, and a firing offense(s). In her position in records, Petitioner was also responsible to comply with all directives of supervisors and to cooperate in internal affairs investigations. Cooperation in this context includes providing sworn statements and/or answering questions under oath as may be required by Respondent. Failure to comply with directives and to cooperate in internal affairs investigations are reasonably deemed by Respondent to be insubordination, and firing offenses. On April 29, 2004, a member of the public presented himself to records and requested a copy of an official police record to which he was entitled to access, specifically a traffic ticket. Records could not locate the document because it had not been properly processed by Petitioner, who was responsible for doing so. Having become aware of a problem with this particular document processing, Respondent thereupon took reasonable steps to determine whether this was an isolated error by Petitioner. In so doing, Respondent discovered and documented a high volume of document processing errors with respect to official police records for which Petitioner was responsible. In February 2004, one of Petitioner's supervisors – one who happened to be Hispanic -- issued a written directive (the February directive) to all records employees which required that they disclose, on a weekly basis, any "backlogs" of document processing work. In direct violation of the directive, Petitioner never disclosed existence of her backlog, which was, by April 29, 2004, extremely large. Now on notice of the backlog and deeply concerned about its potential effects on the police department and the public it serves, and pursuant to police department policy, an internal affairs investigation was initiated under the leadership of the same Hispanic supervisor. Over the course of the investigation, Respondent learned that the problem(s) revealed on April 29, 2004, were only the "tip of the iceberg." The internal affairs investigation uncovered “hundreds and hundreds” of additional document processing errors. Virtually all of the errors discovered involved official police records for which Petitioner was responsible. In the course of the internal affairs investigation, Petitioner was directed to give a sworn statement, and refused to do so, which refusal was deemed to constitute insubordination. Petitioner’s errors as documented in the internal investigation demonstrated incompetence. Her failure to comply with the February directive and to provide a sworn statement to internal affairs investigators constituted insubordination. At the conclusion of the internal affairs investigation, Petitioner was terminated for incompetence in the performance of her document processing responsibilities and for insubordination. Petitioner failed to discredit the factual underpinnings of Respondent’s decision to terminate her employment; neither did she establish any discriminatory basis upon which Respondent terminated her employment. Respondent replaced Petitioner with an Hispanic, who remained employed by Respondent through and including the time of the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter its final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 14th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Christina Quintero 4780 Northwest 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33126 David C. Miller, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt Sun Trust International Center, 28th Floor One Southeast Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to his marital status.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a corporation that sells and services blueprint machines and the supplies needed to operate such machines throughout a multi-regional area in the United States. Pamela Turner was the Director of Operations for Respondent. Her office was in the Pensacola, Florida, branch offices of the Respondent. During 2011, Respondent was looking for a person to fill a field technician position covering parts of Florida and Georgia. At the time, the territory that this position serviced ranged from Tallahassee, Florida, south to Perry, Florida, north to Valdosta and Albany, Georgia, and west to Destin, Florida. Importantly, the technician for the above area did not work out of Respondent's Pensacola office, but was remotely located somewhere within the position's service area. Further, parts and inventory were shipped to the remote location used by the field technician. For that reason, it was required that the field technician for the area possess the utmost honesty and trustworthiness. Additionally, it was very important that Petitioner and, specifically, Ms. Turner have a high degree of confidence in any person selected for the field technician position. In November 2011, Petitioner interviewed for the Field Service Technician position with Respondent. Petitioner interviewed with Pamela Turner and Michael Miller, the head of the company. Pamela Turner advised the Petitioner that due to the remote location of the job, it required the utmost in terms of honesty and trustworthiness of the person hired since the employee would be unsupervised most of the time and would possess valuable tools, parts and inventory at the employee's remote location. On his application, Petitioner disclosed the address where he lived as 1654 Eagles Watch Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The address on Petitioner?s application was his mother?s home and was the place where he lived. Petitioner understood that this address also would be considered the address for his office and the address where parts and inventory would be shipped. During Petitioner?s interview, Petitioner was never asked any questions by the interviewers about the status of his marriage. The fact that Petitioner was married came up during casual conversation in relation to the travel required for the job. Additionally, during the course of the interview with Ms. Turner, Petitioner told Ms. Turner that Petitioner?s wife would like for him to get this job because it meant more time at home with her. However, Petitioner did not inform any interviewer that he was separated from his wife because he did not feel that it had anything to do with his ability to perform the job he was interviewing for. He likewise did not inform any of the interviewers that he was not living with his wife at her home or that he occasionally stayed at his wife's house because they were trying to work things out between them. Petitioner was never asked specifically during the interview who owned the address that was listed on his application. However, Ms. Turner reasonably assumed that it was Petitioner?s and his wife?s home. The Petitioner was hired for the position of field service technician on December 12, 2011. His employment contract ran from December 12, 2011, through December 11, 2012. After Petitioner began his employment, Petitioner shared with a co-employee, Paul Springer, that he was separated from his wife. Paul Springer was a church counselor and suggested that he could help Petitioner and his wife by counseling them. In January 2012, while talking with another employee, Pamela Turner learned that Petitioner was living with his mother and that Petitioner was separated from his wife. This information was of concern to Pamela Turner because she questioned where parts Petitioner utilized in the maintenance and repair of customer photocopying machinery were being shipped. She was concerned because she thought this was Petitioner's and his wife's home only to discover that the home did not belong to Petitioner. Ms. Turner felt that Petitioner should have disclosed the fact that the address on his application was not owned by him and felt that the lack of disclosure was the same as misrepresenting information to her. Further, Ms. Turner, based on her earlier incorrect assumptions about Petitioner's address and living in the marital home, asked Petitioner why he had not told her about the address as it related to the circumstances of Petitioner's marriage. Ms. Turner incorrectly felt that Petitioner had misrepresented the circumstances of his marriage, which called into question the ownership of the address to which parts and inventory were being shipped. As a result, the confidence that Ms. Turner had in Petitioner was undermined. Petitioner explained to Ms. Turner that he and his wife were working on things and he was between his wife?s residence and his mother?s residence, but that he was not telling different stories. Further, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner did not actively misrepresent anything to Respondent. However, Ms. Turner honestly felt that she could no longer trust Petitioner and honestly believed through her worldview that Petitioner had misrepresented himself to her. On January 30, 2012, she advised Petitioner that he was being terminated for misrepresentation. Given Ms. Turner's honest beliefs, Respondent's rationale for terminating Petitioner was not a pretext for discrimination. More importantly, given these honest beliefs, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner's termination was based on Petitioner's separated marital status, but on the lack of trust that Petitioner's supervisor had in him. After the termination, Petitioner made no report of the alleged discrimination pursuant to the Respondent's written Problem Resolution policy and/or Equal Employment Opportunity policy both of which provided a problem and discrimination complaint process within Respondent's company. Petitioner was aware of these policies. However, Petitioner did not utilize these complaint processes because there was no one to escalate the complaint to since his supervisor, Pamela Turner, and the head of the company, Michael Miller, were both involved in the decision to terminate Petitioner. Therefore, Petitioner's lack of use of Respondent's discrimination and problem complaint processes was reasonable under the circumstances. Further, no adverse action has been taken against any employee of Respondent due to that employees? marital status. Thus, there are no similarly situated employees outside Petitioner's protected class to which Petitioner can be compared. Moreover, Petitioner offered no evidence at the hearing on January 16, 2013, that he lost any wages due to the alleged discrimination. Ultimately, however, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was terminated due to his separated marital status. As indicated, Ms. Turner honestly felt she could not trust Petitioner in a position that required her to have the highest confidence in that employee. Therefore, based on these facts, Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner based on his marital status and the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Phillips, Esquire Phillips Law Firm 1413 North Randolph Circle Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Michael John Stebbins, Esquire Michael J. Stebbins, P.L. 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Tiffany Rousseau Cruz, Esquire Marie A. Mattox, P.A. 310 East Bradford Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unfair labor practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race and retaliating against Petitioner, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (2008).
Findings Of Fact On September 28, 2005, Respondent AirTran Airways hired Petitioner, who is Black, as a customer service agent. During her entire term of employment, Petitioner was assigned to Respondent's station in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Between January and June of 2006, Petitioner was issued five attendance warnings. During the same period, Petitioner was issued two written warnings that related to other violations of company policy.2 Nevertheless, on August 6, 2007, Petitioner was promoted to the position of station supervisor. Several months after her promotion, Petitioner was issued a "final warning" and suspended for three days. This occurred after an internal fraud investigation revealed that on several occasions, Petitioner received insufficient funds from customers in connection with round-trip and business class upgrades. Following the "final warning," Petitioner's employment was uneventful until February or March of 2008. At that point, Dan Mellgren, who had been employed with Respondent for approximately eight years, transferred to Fort Lauderdale from Chicago and assumed the position of station manager. Petitioner's claims of racial discrimination and retaliation relate solely to Mr. Mellgren. As explained during the final hearing, a station supervisor, the position held by Petitioner, is subordinate to one or more duty managers. In turn, duty managers report to the station manager, and the station manager reports to the director of the southern region. Mr. Mellgren admits that upon taking over as the Fort Lauderdale station manager, he made the decision that "swipe cards," which were limited in number (four or five) and permitted parking in a preferred lot closer to the terminal, would be distributed based on seniority. In addition, one swipe card was reserved for a supervisor who frequently ran work- related errands. As a result of Mr. Mellgren's change in policy, Petitioner lost her swipe card and was thereafter required to park in the regular employee lot. Although Petitioner claims that the reassignment of swipe cards was racially motivated, there is no credible evidence supporting the allegation. According to Petitioner, Mr. Mellgren committed other discriminatory acts. For example, Petitioner claims that she was not permitted to bring her children to the weekly staff meetings (which took place on her day off), while at least one white employee was permitted to do so. In contrast, Mr. Mellgren testified that all employees, including Petitioner, were authorized to bring well-behaved children to a staff meeting if said meeting occurred on the employee's day off. Mr. Mellgren further testified that at no time did he prevent Petitioner from bringing her children to a staff meeting. The undersigned accepts Mr. Mellgren's testimony as credible with respect to this issue. As an additional allegation of discriminatory conduct, Petitioner claims that Mr. Mellgren required her, on one occasion, to work eight hours without a lunch break. While Mr. Mellgren did not deny that this occurred, he explained that in the airline industry, customer service agents and supervisors will occasionally miss lunch breaks during peak hours. Any such missed lunch break is recorded in an "exception log," which enables the employee to obtain additional compensation. The undersigned accepts Mr. Mellgren's explanation concerning the incident and concludes that any deprivation of a lunch break was due solely to busy conditions at the airport. Petitioner further alleges that shortly after Mr. Mellgren's transfer to Fort Lauderdale, Mr. Mellgren forged her name on a security badge sign-out form. Mr. Mellgren testified, credibly, that this did not occur. Pursuant to AirTran Airways policy, which is outlined in the "AirTran Crew Member Handbook," an employee who is experiencing harassment based upon race or other protected classification is directed to handle the situation by first confronting the harasser politely. If the harassment continues, or if the aggrieved employee believes that a confrontation could result in harm, the employee should contact a supervisor or manager. If the complaint involves the employee's supervisor or manager, the employee is directed to take the complaint to the next level of management or to the human resources department. Petitioner admits that she did not report her issues with Mr. Mellgren to AirTran's human resources department or to a level of management superior to Mr. Mellgren. Petitioner did, however, report at least some of her problems with Mr. Mellgren to Everton Harris, a duty manager whom Petitioner trusted.3 There is no evidence that Mr. Harris communicated Petitioner's concerns to the human resources department, a superior, or anyone else. It is undisputed that on March 27, 2008, Petitioner arrived at the Fort Lauderdale station after attending training in Atlanta. Petitioner noticed that one of the gates was busy, so she decided to assist two AirTran customer service agents (Eduardo Baez and Donna Heghinian) who were working the counter. Shortly thereafter, in violation of AirTran policy, a revenue passenger (i.e., a paying customer) was bumped from a flight to accommodate a non-revenue flight attendant employed with Spirit Airlines. In the following days, AirTran's Internal Audit and Fraud Department investigated the incident to determine the identity of the employee responsible for replacing the revenue customer with the non-revenue flight attendant. During the investigation, statements were obtained from Mr. Baez and Ms. Heghinian, both of whom implicated Petitioner as the responsible party. Petitioner also provided a statement in which she vehemently denied responsibility. The findings of the investigation were subsequently provided to Ms. Kellye Terrell, an Employee Relations Manager with AirTran. Ms. Terrell is African-American. After reviewing the findings, Ms. Terrell determined that Petitioner should be separated from her employment with AirTran due to two violations of company policy.4 Ms. Terrell drafted a termination letter, which was provided to Petitioner on April 7, 2008. Although the termination letter was actually signed by Mr. Mellgren, it should be noted that Mr. Mellgren did not participate in the decision to terminate Petitioner. In addition, Mr. Harris, the only person to whom Petitioner communicated any of her complaints regarding Mr. Mellgren, did not participate in Petitioner's termination. At the time of Petitioner's termination, neither Ms. Terrell, nor any other decision-maker was aware of any complaints made by Petitioner to Mr. Harris concerning Mr. Mellgren. The undersigned finds that Respondent's decision to terminate Petitioner was based upon a good faith belief that Petitioner violated company policy by bumping a revenue passenger, as well as Petitioner's previous disciplinary history. Petitioner offered unrebutted testimony that her position was filled by a Caucasian female.5 The undersigned determines, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence in this case is insufficient to establish that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race. The undersigned also finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Respondent retaliated against Petitioner.
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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Edward T. Bauer 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 18th day of August, 2010.
Recommendation In view of my finding that the Petitioner has engaged in a pattern of careless conduct, I recommend that the Board issue a written reprimand to her for having engaged in the conduct as found herein. in all other respects I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint with leave to file an amended administrative complaint alleging post-licensure misconduct only, within twenty days of the order of dismissal. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire P. O. Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert Dempsey, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On or about July 12, 1993, Petitioner filed a complaint, including attachments, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) alleging that Respondent had discriminated against him on the basis of sex/gender (male) and marital status (single) in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act. In his complaint, Petitioner states in pertinent part: I am writing to file a FORMAL SEX/MARTIAL STATUS DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT against: 7) Lighthouse Academy at 3701 NE 22nd Avenue, Lighthouse Point, FL 33064. * * * 6) Lighthouse Point Academy - Many times throughout the year I contacted +/or applied for positions at this private school for special education children. Because of their lack of acknowledgement, I question whether or not their hiring practices are discrim- inating. On August 9, 1993, Petitioner filed the same complaint with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) but alleging that the discrimination was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII). On May 23, 1995, the EEOC issued its determination that Respondent had not considered Petitioner's gender or marital status and that no violation of Title VII had been committed. Furthermore, the EEOC notified Petitioner in its determination that he had 90 days in which to file a civil suit in federal district court and that the suit was his exclusive remedy. On or about August 5, 1995, Petitioner requested a formal hearing from the FCHR which had not issued a determination on the complaint filed with it. Petitioner requested a hearing on his claim of discrimination based on gender/sex (male) and marital status (single). On August 14, 1995, Petitioner filed suit in federal district court alleging that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. On April 30, 1996, the federal district court issued a final judgment in Respondent's favor, resulting from cross-motions for summary final judgment. 1/ The court determined that, based upon the motions, the record, and the status of the case, and viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Petitioner, Petitioner had failed to raise a genuine issue of fact that he was intentionally discriminated against by Respondent on the basis of sex. In the instant case, at no time material hereto did Respondent make inquiry as to Petitioner's marital status. In the case at hand, at no time material hereto did Petitioner inform Respondent as to his marital status. In the instant case, at no time material hereto did Respondent have any knowledge of Petitioner's marital status.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition of Steve J. Longariello be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 June, 1996.
The Issue The issue presented for consideration concerns the question whether action taken by the Respondent in its efforts to comply with the mandate of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), constitutes a rule or rules which has or have not been duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case is here presented on the Petition of Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., by an action against the Board of Dentistry, an agency of the State of Florida and the Department of Professional Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida, as Respondents. The purpose of this Petition is to have declared invalid certain activities of the Respondents pertaining to their efforts at complying with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), in promoting license revocation or suspension cases against various dentists licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The Petitioner contends that these activities by the Respondents constitute a rule or rules which fail to comply with requirements of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida and thereby regulated by the Respondents. The Petitioner is also the subject of disciplinary action in Case No. 78-1481 before the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and it is the action which was taken against Dr. Sheppard in the course of that prosecution, dealing with the subject of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which the current Petitioner asserts to be an invalid rule or rules. The language of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), states: (5) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency has given reasonable notice by certified mail or actual service to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee has been given an opportunity to show that he has complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. If the agency is unable to obtain service by certified mail or by actual service, constructive service may be made in the same manner as is provided in chapter 49. Having considered the statement found in the above-referenced Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), counsel for Dr. Sheppard in D.O.A.H Case No. 78-1481 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Administrative Complaint on August 31, 1979, alleging that the agency had failed to comply with the provisions. Oral argument on that motion was scheduled for 2:30 o'clock p.m. on September 17, 1979, and was heard at that time; however, prior to the oral argument, the Board of Dentistry on September 14, 1979, filed a docent in the case, which document attempted compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The document was entitled "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and by its terms granted Dr. Sheppard an opportunity to appear before H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Florida State Board of Dentistry, on September 17, 1979, at 10:00 a.m. in Tallahassee, Florida. (A copy of this "Notice of Intended Action Conference" was attached to the Petition in the case sub judice as an exhibit.) The Board of Dentistry had alerted the Hearing Officer to the action it had contemplated by its "Notice of Intended Action Conference." It did so through the Board prosecutor by correspondence of September 14, 1979, a copy of which may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Dr. Sheppard filed an objection to the adequacy of the "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and refused to appear at that conference. After considering the oral arguments of the parties directed to the Motion to Dismiss of August 31, 1978, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, the Honorable Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered her Order dated September 26, 1979. (A copy of that Order has been attached as an exhibit to the current Petition.) In her Order, the Hearing Officer found the "Notice of Intended Action Conference was insufficient, in that the notice did not grant Sheppard sufficient time to prepare for the conference to be held on September 17, 1979, to the extent of demonstrating his compliance with the provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, as contemplated by Sub section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The Hearing officer did feel that Dr. Sheppard had been notified of those allegations for which he was called upon to defend against and she granted the Board of Dentistry thirty (30) days from the date of her Order, September 26, 1978, to allow the accused an opportunity to show that he had complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of his license. There followed the current Petition which was filed on September 28, 1979. That Petition has been the subject of a Motion to Dismiss which challenged the adequacy of the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was responded to and in the course of that response the Petitioner's counsel attached a copy of a "Notice of Informal Conference" to be held on October 23, 1979, at 9:00 a.m., in Tallahassee, Florida. (The location of that conference was subsequently changed to a place more convenient for Dr. Sheppard, specifically, St. Petersburg, Florida, but the amendment was otherwise the same as the original October 23, 1979, notice.) When the Motion to Dismiss and response to the motion were considered, the motion was denied by written Order of the undersigned dated October 22, 1979. That Order found in accordance with the Order of Hearing Officer Strickland, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, referring to the Order dated September 26, 1979; that the efforts of complying with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), made by the Board of Dentistry in its attempted action conference to be held September 17, 1979, were not adequate and the prospective events of an action conference that would have been held on September 17, 1979, were deemed to be moot. Nonetheless, in view of the further action by the Board of Dentistry to conduct an informal conference on October 23, 1979, the present case was allowed to go forward on the basis that the Petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to show how the events leading to the written "Notice of Informal Conference" held on October 23, 1979, the notice itself, and the events at the conference constitute a rule or rules that has or have not been duly promulgated in the manner contemplated by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of this permission, the Petitioner was and is allowed to make the "Notice of Informal Conference" as attached to the response to the Motion to Dismiss a part of the Petition and that "Notice of Informal Conference" is hereby made a part of the Petition. In the course of the hearing a number of witnesses were presented and those witnesses included Tom Guilday, a prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry; Liz Cloud, an employee of the State of Florida, Office of the Secretary of State; H. Fred Varn, Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry; Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation; and the Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard. In addition, the Petitioner offered three items of evidence which were admitted. The testimony of attorney Guilday established that as prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry in the action against Dr. Sheppard, he spoke with Charles F. Tunnicliff, Acting General Counsel, Department of Professional Regulation, who instructed Guilday to attempt to comply with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this was in anticipation of the pending Motion to Dismiss to be heard on September 17, 1979. One of the results of that conversation was the letter of September 14, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, addressed to Hearing Officer Strickland and the primary result was that of the September 14, 1979, "Notice of Intended Action Conference." The conference alluded to was to be held at the office of Mr. Varn. Attorney Guilday did not recall whether the contemplated disposition of September 17, 1979, was one which Tunnicliff indicated would be used in all similar cases pending before the Department of Professional Regulation. After Hearing Officer Strickland's Order was entered on September 26, 1979, attorney Deberah Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation instructed Guilday to comply with Hearing Officer Strickland's Order of September 26, 1979, on the subject of the dictates of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this instruction was supported by Memorandum of October 5, 1979, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. There ensued the conference of October 23, 1979, which was held in St. Petersburg, Florida. After the conference, pursuant to the instructions of attorneys Miller and Tunnicliff, Guilday prepared a memorandum on the results of that conference. This memorandum did not carry a recommendation as to the disposition of the case. Throughout this period of time, attorney Guilday was unaware of any general policy within the Department of Professional Regulation or Board of Dentistry which dealt with attempts at compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). None of the discussions which Guilday had with attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation or with other officials of that Department or Board of Dentistry led him to believe that there was any set policy for handling those issues. Guilday did acknowledge that a member of his law firm, one Michael Huey, had been instructed by Staff Attorney Miller on the technique to be utilized in refiling a prosecution against John Parry, D.D.S., wherein the action against Dr. Parry had been dismissed for lack of compliance of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). A copy of that Memorandum dated October 3, 1979, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 and it carries with it an attached form for "Notice of Informal Conference" under the terms of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1970), and that format is similar to the October 23, 1979, "Notice of Informal Conference" in the Sheppard case. Guilday indicated in connection with this Memorandum, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, that to his knowledge no discussion on how to comply with the terms of the memorandum was made and no actual compliance with the memorandum has been taken to his knowledge. It was established through the testimony of Liz Cloud of the Office of the Secretary of State and through other witnesses that no formal rules have been filed with the Secretary of State by either of the Respondents dealing with the subject of compliance with the pie visions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). Testimony offered by Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation, and by H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Board of Dentistry, established that neither the Department nor the Dental Board has formulated final policies on how to deal with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), whether the cases pertain to those such as that of Dr. Sheppard in which the agency, although it has not complied with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, has been granted an opportunity to try to comply or on the occasion where cases are in the investigative stage or the occasion where the cases have been dismissed for noncompliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and are subject to refiling. It is shown through Secretary Wittenberg's testimony that such compliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is still in the formative stages and the Memorandum of October 3, 1979, by Staff Attorney Miller with the format for noticing informal conferences to be held under the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is but one method under consideration at this time. Moreover, Secretary Wittenberg has not spoken with attorney Guilday about the matters of the Sheppard case that are now in dispute or received reports of conversations between Guilday and Staff Attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller on the subject of the pending Sheppard dispute. Finally, Wittenberg has not instructed any of the support officials within the Department of Professional Regulation, to include departmental attorneys, to formulate policy directed to the implementation of the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which action would constitute the final statement by the Department on those matters.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, from Respondents, Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad (Spinrads), and their counsel, related to litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 13-2254.
Findings Of Fact The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 13-2254, including the Preliminary Statement, the Findings of Fact, and the Conclusions of Law contained therein, and the Department of Environmental Protection’s Consolidated Final Order in OGC Case No. 13-0858 are incorporated herein by reference as the facts underlying this Final Order.
Findings Of Fact Both parties filed proposed findings of fact. Except as noted below, I have incorporated the substance of these proposed findings into my findings of fact. Rejected DOT Proposed Findings of Fact The following proposed findings are rejected because they are not facts but only recitations of testimony: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 1 - second and third sentence. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 1 - second sentence. proposed finding 2 - first and second sentence. The following proposed findings are irrelevant to the resolution of this case: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 4 and 5 because the proposed rule applies to other agencies than DOT. proposed finding 6 because whether another method of notifying all bidders is more efficient is not the standard to determine validity of the rule. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 3, 5, and 7. Rejected DOAH Proposed Finding of Fact The following proposed finding of fact are rejected because these are more in the nature of legal argument or conclusions of law rather than findings of fact: Proposed finding 5 - sentences 5 and 6. Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentences 1 and 2; third paragraph, sentence 4 and 5; and fourth paragraph Proposed finding 7 - second paragraph; third paragraph; and fourth paragraph, fifth sentence Proposed finding 8 - fourth paragraph; fifth paragraph; and sixth paragraph The follow proposed findings are rejected as being irrelevant to the resolution of the issues presented in this case. Proposed finding 1 - fourth sentence Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentence 5 and 6 Proposed finding 7 - fourth paragraph, sentence 1 through 4 The following proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the record evidence: Proposed finding 6 - fourth paragraph, sentence 4 fifth paragraph, sentence 4 ANALYSIS Standing The first issue that must be addressed is DOT's standing. DOAH asserts that Dot lacks standing to challenge Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. DOT has the burden to establish that it would be substantially affected by the proposed rules should they be adopted by DOAH. Section 120.54(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In order to resolve whether DOT has met its burden, a review of the pertinent decisions on standing is appropriate. 5/ The case cited most often on standing is the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Florida Department of Corrections v. Jerry, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1978). The court held that an inmate who had been confined for committing an assault while in prison lacked standing to challenge an existing rule concerning disciplinary confinement and forfeiture of gain-time. Because the inmate was no longer confined under the rule and had not lost any gain-time when he filed the rule challenge, the court reasoned that the inmate had not suffered an injury in fact at the time of the challenge, end therefore, was not substantially affected by the existing rule. Whether the inmate would be subject to the rule again depended on the likelihood he would commit another infraction. The court deemed this too speculative and subject to conjecture to grant standing. 353 So.2d at 1236. In a later case, the Florida Supreme Court overruled Jerry to the extent it required associations to demonstrate a specific injury to the organization itself rather then to some of its members. Florida Home Builders' Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982). In reaching its decision, the court warned against an overly restrictive application of the concept of standing in the rule challenge cases by noting: "Expansion of public access to activities of governmentally agencies was one of the major legislative purposes of the new Administrative Procedure Act." 412 So.2d at 352-53. Standing to challenge proposed agency rules was addressed in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). There, the court held that all women of child bearing age who received medicaid benefits were not substantially affected by a proposed rule denying medicaid payments for abortions except under limited circumstances. In denying standing to a woman who was not pregnant at the time of the rule challenge, the court specifically rejected the argument that standing to challenge a proposed rule under Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1985), is less restrictive than standing to challenge an existing rule under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1985), by stating: There is no difference between the immediacy and reality necessary to confer standing whether the proceeding is to challenge an existing rule or a proposed rule. 367 So.2d at 1052. In Professional Fire Fighters of Florida v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 396 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court held that a group of paramedics had standing to challenge rules establishing additional requirements for renewal of a paramedical certification. There was no showing on any of the individual paramedics had attempted to comply with the new rules or that anything in the new rules would disqualify them from retaining their certification. In rejecting the hearing officer's ruling that these individuals could not claim an injury because they had not yet applied for certification under the new rules, the court stated: The order below would preclude a challenge by anyone who had not first complied with a rule and suffered injury, no matter how clear the rule's applicability to, or substantial its effect on, the challengers... The APA permits prospective challenges to agency rulemaking and does not require that an affected party comply with the rule at his peril in order to obtain standing to chal- lenge the rule. A party may demonstrate standing by showing that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case as well as by proving injury in fact. 396 So.2d at 1195-96 (citations omitted) see also 4245 Corp., Mother's Lounge Inc. v. Department of Beverage, 345 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The court distinguished Jerry and Alice P. on the grounds that the petitioners in the case before it were immediately subject to the rule which rendered their continued employment as paramedics unlawful without compliance with the rule. The individuals were presently affected by the rule because they worked in the area to be regulated. 396 So.2d at 1196. In Village Park Mobile Home Association v. Department of Business Regulation, 506 So.2d 426, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the court on rehearing emphasized under the test for standing set forth in Fire Fighters that a party may show "that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case, as well as injury in fact." Standing was not found in Village Park for certain mobile home owners to challenge agency approval of the prospectus for a mobile home park because the prospectus only disclosed the method for raising rents and reducing services in the future. It was up to the landlord to implement the prospectus at some unspecified date in the future. 6/ Thus, no standing was found because the alleged injury was contingent upon the future actions of a third party. 506 So.2d at 433-34; see also Boca Raton Mausoleum v. Department of Banking, 511 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case, DOT has not alleged that it has suffered an injury in fact by Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. That is not surprising with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 since it is a new rule that has not been implemented. However, with respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 22I-6.035, dealing with attorney's fees and costs, most of DOT's challenges concern portions of the rule that were not substantially changed in the proposed rule. For example, DOT objects to the provisions requiring an agency to file a response or affidavit and the provisions which allow for a waiver of the right to an evidentiary hearing when one is not affirmatively requested by either party. Rule 22I-6.035 presently contains such provisions. Therefore, the injury in fact test would be applicable. However, DOT has not presented any facts indicating that a prevailing small business party has ever filed a petition seeking costs and attorney's fees from DOT under Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. Consequently, no injury exists. The alternative test for standing is whether the proposed rules would have a "real and immediate effect" upon DOT. With respect to Proposed Rule 22I- 6.035, DOT has not met this test merely by demonstrating that it is a party to pending cases involving small business parties. In order for DOT to be affected by Proposed Rule 22I-6.035, a small business party would first have to prevail against DOT and then file a petition for costs and attorney's fees based upon its belief that DOT was not "substantially justified" in bringing the administrative action. Whether these contingencies, which are controlled by a third party, will occur in the future is open to conjecture and speculation. The type of immediacy envisioned by the court in the Fire Fighters case does not appear to be present with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.035. Therefore, DOT does not have standing to challenge this proposed rule. On the other hand, I conclude that DOT has standing to challenge Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. DOT presently has at least nine pending cases involving administrative complaints. The proposed rule on voluntary dismissals would be immediately applicable to DOT's ability to take a voluntary dismissal on those cases without being contingent upon the acts of a third party. Such a real and immediate effect on pending cases involving DOT is sufficient to provide DOT with the requisite standing. DOT does not have to invoke the rule by seeking a voluntary dismissal in order to have standing to challenge the rule as suggested by DOAH. See Professional Fire Fighters of Florida, 396 So.2d at 1195. Invalidity of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 The Florida Legislature has recently defined what constitutes an invalid exercise of Legislative authority. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 87-385, Section 2, Laws of Florida, provides: (8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legisla- tive authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply: (a ) The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedure set forth in s. 120.54; The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule enlarges, modifies, or con- travenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or The rule is arbitrary or capricious. These standards are similar to those used by the courts in Florida to test the validity of agency rules. See e.g., Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1979); Humana Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In Agrico Chemical Co., the First District Court of Appeal stated: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within that grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its author- ity; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without though or reason or irration- ally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or is despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evi- dence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reason- able person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement that a challenger has the burden of demonstrating agency action to be arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of administrative discretion is a stringent one. 365 So.2d at 763. In this case DOT has the burden to demonstrate that adoption of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 would constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 DOAH is statutorily authorized "to adopt reasonable rules to carry out the provisions of this act [Chapter 120]." Section 120.65(7), Fla. Stat. (1985). Regarding bid protests, an agency is required to forward a protest to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985), whenever there is a disputed issue a material fact. Section 120.53(5)(d)2, Fla. Stat. (1985). Section 120.57(1) sets forth certain procedures for conducting evidentiary hearings and proceedings where the substantial interests of a party are determined. In light of these statutory provisions, DOAH proposes to amend Rule 6.006 by requiring that an agency send a copy of the notice of hearing to all bidders, other than the protesting bidder, and attempt to telephonically notify these bidders of the date, time, and place the hearing. The purpose of this requirement is to give notice of the deadline to file a motion to intervene in the protest proceeding to the successful bidder, as well as all other bidders who had not filed a timely protest. Motions to intervene must be filed within five days prior to start of an evidentiary hearing. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 6.010. DOT persuasively argues that this portion of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 requires an agency to do a useless act because any bidder that has not flied a timely protest is precluded from gaining party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene. I agree. Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985), requires an agency to provide notice of its decision, or intended decision, concerning a bid solicitation. The notice must contain the following statement: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Paragraph (b) of Section 120.53(5), provides: Any person who is affected adversely by the agency decision or intended decision shall file with the agency a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of the agency decision or intended decision and shall file a formal written protest within 10 days after the date he filed the notice of protest. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. These statutory provisions are clear and unequivocal. An unsuccessful bidder must file a protest within the 72 hour limitations period in order to participate in further Chapter 120 proceedings. Xerox Corp. v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, 489 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Capelletti Brothers v. Department of Transportation, 499 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(72 hour deadline applies to protest challenging bid specifications). An adversely affected bidder cannot, and should not be allowed to, gain a back door point of entry to obtain party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene when the bidder has already waived its right to participate in the proceeding. The only substantially effected entity that would be entitled to intervene in a bid protest proceeding is the successful bidder. Therefore, there would be a valid purpose in adopting a rule that required the successful bidder to receive the notice of hearing so that it would be aware of the deadline for filing a motion to intervene. However, as to all other non-protesting bidders, there is no statutory basis for providing the notice of hearing to them in light of what appears to be a clear prohibition against allowing those bidders to obtain party status after failing to file a timely protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). DOAH argues that the need for subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is dramatized by the case of Spillis Candella and Partners, Inc. v. School Board of Dade County, No. 86-3002 Bid. There, the hearing officer determined that the agency never complied with the notice requirements triggering the 72 hour limitations period. Therefore, the protest filed in that case was determined to be timely since the 72 hour time limit had not expired. This single case does not provide justification for requiring agencies to give notice of the evidentiary hearing to all unsuccessful bidders in all bid protest cases. No evidence was adduced indicating that the failure to provide the requisite statutory notice issue raised in the Spillis Candella case had ever occurred in any other bid protest proceeding that had come before a DOAH hearing officer. Even if this had been a recurring problem, subsection (b) of the Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 could have been more closely tailored to remedy issues similar to that raised in Spillis Candella. The rule should have limited an agency's responsibility to provide a notice of hearing to all unsuccessful bidders if the agency had not previously complied with the notice requirements of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985). 7/ In light of the foregoing, I conclude that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is arbitrary because it requires agencies to provide notice of a bid protest hearing to bidders who have waived their right to become parties in the proceeding. The rule also contravenes Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), which contemplates that only timely protestors may participate as parties in a bid proceeding. 8/ Subsection (3) is also invalid because it requires that an agency provide to the hearing officer proof that it has complied with subsection (2). DOT's remaining objections to Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 are without merit. The fact that all agencies involved in bid protests must adopt rules end procedures for the resolution of such protests, and that the Administration Commission shall also adopt model rules on the same subject, does not indicate a legislative intent to preempt DOAH from adopting rules pertaining to the procedures for conducting bid protest hearings. Section 120.53(5)(a) and (f), Fla. Stat. (1955). In addition, Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), does not prohibit non-parties from receiving notice of an evidentiary hearing. Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 DOT advances numerous arguments in support of its contention that subsections (2) and (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. I am persuaded by two of these arguments that DOT's position has merit. First, with respect to subsection (2), the proposed rule provides a hearing officer with the discretion to grant a motion for voluntary dismissal "upon such terms and conditions as the hearing officer deems just and proper." This language fails to provide any guidance to a hearing officer or to the parties in an administrative complaint proceeding as to what conditions a hearing officer could impose for allowing the agency to withdraw its complaint without prejudice. Instead, the rule gives the hearing officer unlimited discretion to impose any condition the hearing officer subjectively believes is "just and proper." These words cannot be construed as words of limitation because it must always be presumed that a hearing officer will rule in a manner that he or she believes is just and proper. Thus the elimination of the "just and proper" language from the rule would not give any more discretion to a hearing officer than is presently granted by the proposed rule. The fact that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(2) provides that a trial court may grant a voluntary dismissal filed after submission of a case to the court "upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper," does not provide a basis for concluding that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is valid. The Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted pursuant to the inherent power of the courts, a power that administrative agencies do not possess. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748, 753-54 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985). Agency rules may not violate the standards set forth in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 57-325, Section 2, Laws of Florida. In this case, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I- runs afoul of paragraph (d) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended, which provides that a rule is invalid if [t]he rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency." Therefore, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is invalid. Subsection (3) of the proposed rule is also invalid but for a different reason. Unlike subsection (2), nothing is left to the parties' imagination as to the consequences an agency will encounter if it files a notice of voluntary dismissal of an administrative complaint containing nonjurisdictional allegations that were previously the subject of a voluntary dismissal. Those nonjurisdictional factual allegations contained in both complaints will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The issue with regard to this rule provision is whether DOAH has the statutory authority to adopt a rule that requires dismissal of an administrative complaint with prejudice under these circumstances. Although no cases are directed on point, two district court of appeal decisions are instructive. In Great American Bank v. Division of Administrative Hearings, 412 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the First District Court of Appeal revised a hearing officer's order imposing sanctions for a party's failure to make discovery and for a witness' failure to give responsive testimony. The court ruled that certain portions of the model rules, which purported to give such authority to a hearing officer, were invalid because they conflicted with the discovery enforcement provisions found in the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.58(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). The Legislature subsequently amended Section 120.58 to specifically grant hearing officers the authority to pose sanctions to effect discovery. Ch. 84-173, Laws of Florida. In Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the Second District Court of Appeal declared Model Rule 28-5.211 invalid to the extent the rule authorized a hearing officer to impose sanctions, including dismissal, to enforce procedural orders. The court rejected the argument that the same general rulemaking authority relied upon by DOAH as authority for Proposed Rule 22I-6.037, Sections 120.53 and 120.65(7), Florida Statutes (1985), authorized the model rule. Rather, any rule that provides a sanction in the form of a penalty must be based upon explicit statutory authority such as that found in Section 120.58(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), or Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). 9/ 472 So.2d at 747-48. Subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 imposes the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. However, in contrast to the specific saction authority granted to hearing officers in Sections 120.58(1)(b) and 120.57(1)(b)5, no provision in Chapter 120 specifically authorizes DOAH to impose a sanction under the circumstances set forth in subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. Therefore, while I find the purpose of adopting subsection (3) of the proposed rule, to ensure failness, is laudable, this portion of the rule is invalid because DOAH does not possess the requisite legislative authority to adopt such a rule. Section 120.52(5)(b), Fla. Stat., as amended by Ch. 87-358, Section 2, Laws of Florida.
