Findings Of Fact Wedgewood is the holder of Division of Beverage license number 62-1626, 4-COP SRX, which authorized Wedgewood to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises at retail only. Wedgewood is advertised as a resort with private villas, hotel rooms, two restaurants and a disco with live entertainment. An ad published on page 81 of Cruise Magazine, Volume 3, No. 4, however, makes no reference to any of the facilities except the appearance of an entertainment group known as The Village People. On the other hand, an ad in the November 19, 1977, issue of Florida Alive gives equal emphasis to hotel facilities, restaurant facilities and disco facilities. Wedgewood has promulgated and distributed a flyer advertising daily happy hour with special prices for alcoholic beverages. That same flyer advertises the sale of sandwiches and emphasizes that dining facilities are available nightly. Wedgewood has produced two menus. One appears to be a lunch menu which contains a soup, fifteen different sandwiches, three salads, five hot entrees, french fries, six desserts and beverages without reference to alcoholic beverages. Wedgewood has also produced a dinner menu containing appetizers, soups, five seafood entrees, five beef entrees, and two fowl entrees, with soup, salad and an assortment of desserts. The only reference to alcoholic beverages contained in the menu suggests that one's favorite after dinner drink is available. Wedgewood has two restaurants with complete facilities for serving and preparing for the requisite number of full course meals. For the period, June 15, 1977, through January 30, 1978, Wedgewood shows gross revenues of $162,685.00, composed of $22,991.00 for food sales and $139,694.00 for alcoholic beverage sales. These figures indicate that Wedgewood has derived approximately 14 percent of its total revenue from food services. One of the criteria contained in Rule 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, used in determining whether or not the holder of a restaurant license is a bona fide restaurant is: The restaurant must derive at least 51 percent of its gross revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The 51 percent shall be determined by taking the average monthly gross revenue of the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages over a period of any calendar year. DABT urges that the gross receipts evidence of the approximate seven month period should be used in making a determination that the licensee is not a bona fide restaurant. However, DABT is arguing against its own regulations. Unless the revenues are analyzed over a calendar year as provided in the Rule, the percentage of revenue from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages may not properly be used as a criterion. Accordingly, the evidence as to the revenues will not be considered in the determination of the instant case. Wedgewood has advertised and held out to the public to be a place where meals are prepared and served, as evidenced by its comprehensive menus. The evidence shows that space is provided with adequate kitchen and dining room equipment and that there are employed sufficient numbers and kinds of employees for preparing, cooking and serving meals for guests. While Wedgewood obviously engages in the sale of alcoholic beverages, there is insufficient evidence to establish that such sale is subordinate to the sale of food. Equal advertising space is given to both functions and accordingly, it is found, as a matter of fact, that the principal business of the restaurant is to cater to and serve full course bona fide meals to the general public and the primary operation of the restaurant is for the preparation and cooking and serving of meals and not for the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The Issue Whether petitioner qualifies for a II-C Club alcoholic beverage license, which is issued to Nonprofit organizations or clubs devoted to promoting community, municipal, or county development or any phase of community, municipal or county development.
Findings Of Fact Code I is a nonprofit Florida corporation located at 3420-31 West Broward Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In February, 1982, it applied for a II-C or Club alcoholic beverage license pursuant to Section 561.20(7)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1981) and Rule 7A-3.19, Florida Administrative Code. On August 3, 1982, DABT denied its application, asserting that it was not qualified for licensing under tie statute and rule. Code I was incorporated as a Florida nonprofit corporation in 1962. Ms. Bessie Walton and her former husband formed the corporation to raise funds to build a home for the elderly. With funds subsequently generated by the corporation, Tropical Home for Senior Citizens was constructed and continues to be operated in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. In 1974, the corporation became inactive. According to several members of Code I, the goals and purposes of the Club are to support and make contributions to benevolent causes. This testimony, however, is based upon representations made to them by others concerning the goals and purposes of the Club. (Testimony of Troutman, Reddick) In the past, Code I has donated funds to numerous organizations or allowed them to use its facilities--without charge. These organizations, included Broward County Youth Football, Greater Bethel AME Church, Tropical Home for Senior Citizens, North Fork Elementary School, and Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity (for scholarships). It has also sponsored foster families. Code I has charged, however, some organizations $175 for the use of its facilities. (Testimony of Troutman) The articles of Incorporation of Code I state that the objectives of the organization are to provide a meeting place for recreational purposes of its members, to provide aid and comfort for its members in case of sickness or death, and to assist in any other matters pertaining to the highest orders of American Citizenship. For carrying out these purposes, the corporation is authorized to buy, hold and sell real and personal property, to invest funds, and to construct and operate social club houses. (P-1) Neither the articles nor the bylaws of the corporation explicitly, or by reasonable inference, dedicate it to promoting community, municipal, or county development. (P-1, P-4) According to its treasurer, its main purpose is to provide a facility where the public can enjoy an evening on the town in a conducive club atmosphere. Membership is open to the general public. An alcoholic beverage license would enable the Club to earn additional funds for its operations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Code I's application for a II-C Club alcoholic beverage license be DENIED, without prejudice to its right to reapply after amendment of its charter and bylaws. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 25th day of February, 1983.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon a Notice to Show Cause filed by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, against Henry Rodriguez, trading as Hickory House, 38 Sunshine Mall, Clearwater, Florida. This Notice to Show Cause was filed against the license, No. 62-1602, Series 2-COP, which the Respondent had been granted by the Petitioner. This license was in effect on or about April 10, 1978, at a time the Respondent was accused of failing to disclose the name and address of a person connected directly or indirectly with the business, namely, William Vasios, and this failure to disclose was allegedly contrary to Section 561.17, Florida Statutes. That provision reads: "561.17 License application; approved person.-- Any person, before engaging in the business of manufacturing, bottling, distributing, selling, or in any way dealing in alcoholic beverages, shall file, with the district supervisor of the district of the division in which the place of business for which a license, is sought is located, a sworn application in duplicate on forms provided to the district supervisor by the division. Prior to any application being approved, the division may require the applicant to file a set of fingerprints on regular United States Department of Justice forms for himself and for any person or persons interested directly or indirectly with the applicant in the business for which the license is being sought, when so required by the division. If the applicant or any person interested with the applicant either directly or indirectly in the business is not qualified, the application shall be denied by the division. All applications for alcoholic beverage licenses for consumption on the premises shall be accompanied by a certificate of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services or the county health department that the place of business where in the business is to be conducted meets all of the sanitary requirements of the state." The facts in this case reveal that on April 10, 1978, when a routine inspection was made of the licensed premises by an employee of the Petitioner, one William Vasios was found to be in charge of the premises. Vasios reported that in July, 1977, he had loaned the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez, an amount of $14,000.00 to keep the Hickory House business open and Vasios had taken over the operation of the business to protect his interest in the loan. Some of the indicia of Vasios' interest in the business are shown by the fact that the sales tax permit for operating the business was issued in both Rodriguez' and Vasios' names, as demenstrated through the Petitioner's opposite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. Certain cancelled checks drawn on the business, as shown by Petitioner's Exhibits 3 through 5 admitted into evidence, were written by William Vasios and not the Respondent. These checks pertained to the operation of the business. Certain recap slips and ledger entries indicated that Vasios was controlling the business. The only indication that Rodriguez is still involved in the operation of the licensed premises is shown by his comments to the effect that he makes periodic checks of the business a couple of times a week. Henry Rodriguez had not disclosed the interest which William Vasios had in the license even though this requirement was stated in law through Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, and in our system of jurisprudence the Respondent is presumed to know the requirements of law. Additionally, when the Respondent applied for the license, he completed a form which indicated that he was disclosing any interest which other persons would have in the licensed premises; and even though this form was filled out at a time prior to Vasios' involvement with the business, common sense would have dictated that the Respondent apprise the Petitioner of any future interest which a third party might have in the licensed premises. The license was last renewed for the period October 1, 1977, through September 30, 1978. There has been no further effort on the part of the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez, to renew the license and, by his remarks in the course of the hearing, he has indicated that he has no future desire to renew the license. The license is nonetheless still in effect and subject to the penalties provided for through the Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. The license is deemed to be a viable license, based upon an examination of the provisions of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes, which states: "561.27 Renewing license.- A licensee under the Beverage Law shall be entitled to a renewal of his annual license from year to year, as a matter of course, on or before September 30 by presenting the license for the previous year or satisfactory evidence of its loss or destruction to the division and by paying the annual license tax and giving any bond required of such licensee under the Beverage Law. A license may be renewed subsequent to September 30 of each year only upon making to the division a delinquent application for approval, accompanied by an affidavit stating that no sales of alcoholic beverages have been made subsequent to September 30, and upon payment of a penalty of $5 for each month or fraction of a month of delinquency, or upon payment of a penalty of 5 percent of the license fee, whichever amount is the greater. All licenses not renewed within 60 days of September 30 will be canceled by the division unless such license is involved in litigation; however, the division may allow a licensee to renew the license subsequent to the 60day period after good and sufficient cause for the delinquency has been shown to the division by the licensee." It was not revealed in the course of the hearing whether the Notice to Show Cause (Administrative Complaint) was filed later than sixty days beyond September 30, 1978, and under the language of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes, the automatic cancellation set out in that provision only applies to licenses which were not renewed sixty days beyond September 30, 1978, and it excepts those licenses which were the subject of litigation or those licenses where the licensee was able to show good and sufficient cause for his delinquency in the payment of the renewal fee. Since the proof failed to demonstrate the effective date of the filing of the Notice of Show Cause, it is presumed for the purposes of this hearing that the Notice to Show Cause was filed prior to the expiration of the sixty-day grace period which follows the September 30, 1978, date. Therefore, the license would have been in litigation and not subject to cancellation by the provisions of Section 561.27, Florida Statutes. This analysis can be supported by the fact that the Respondent was apprised of the Petitioner's concern on the question of the non-disclosure of the name of William Vasios and this knowledge was imparted to the Respondent on April 11, 1978, at a time when the license was still in operation under the payment of fees for the period October 1, 1977, through September 30, 1978. In summary, the Respondent is the holder of a license within the meaning of the law and has violated the provisions of Section 561.17, Florida Statutes, thereby subjecting the Respondent to the penalties found Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts herein, it is recommended that the license, No. 62-1602, Series 2-COP, held by the Respondent, Henry Rodriguez to trade as Hickory House, at the location 38 Sunshine Mall, Clearwater, Florida, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Henry Rodriguez t/a Hickory House 38 Sunshine Mall Clearwater, Florida 33516 Captain R. Caplano Park Trammell Building, Room 705 1313 Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33623
Findings Of Fact On June 6, 1978, Jack Morrissette, as President of Sorel Corporation, Inc., d/b/a Le Spot Restaurant, signed an Application for New Alcoholic Beverage License, a form required by the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. In that Application, Mr. Morrissette swore that no persons were directly or indirectly interested in the business other than he as President, Lise Proulx as Secretary, and Michel Berard as Treasurer. As part of that Application, Personal Questionnaires were executed by all three officers. Mr. Morrissette's questionnaire stated that he, Lise Proulx, and the First National Bank of Greater Miami were investing $10,000 each in the proposed operation. Mrs. Proulx's questionnaire stated that she and Mr. Morrissette were investing $10,000 each in the proposed operation. Mr. Berard's questionnaire stated that he was making no personal investment in the proposed operation. All three questionnaires contained signed affidavits that no other person possessed any interest in the proposed operation, or in the alcoholic beverage license. In conjunction with the Application, a Declaration of Stock Ownership was filed, which Declaration certified that as of June 2, 1978, Morrissette, Proulx, and Berard were the only officers, directors, and stockholders of the Respondent corporation. This form indicated that Mr. Berard possessed a forty percent interest in the stock of the Corporation, although his Personal Questionnaire had certified that he was making no investment in the business. On June 2, 1978, the Board of Directors of Sorel Corporation passed a Corporate Resolution designating Jefferson National Bank at Sunny Isles as the Corporation's bank. That Corporate Resolution indicated that Marcel Salvail was a director of Sorel Corporation and an authorized signature regarding the Corporation's bank account. A copy of a Canadian Bank Draft made payable to Marcel Salvail in the amount of $4,000 was obtained from the Sorel Corporation's account at Jefferson National Bank at Sunny Isles. Melvin M. Lubar, a Certified Public Accountant, met with Marcel Salvail and Jack Morrissette on May 24, 1978, for the purpose of negotiating a lease for the proposed restaurant premises. On August 2, 1978, Mr. Lubar again met with Jack Morrissette, Lise Proulx, and Marcel Salvail regarding bookkeeping aspects of the proposed new business. Mr. Lubar was aware that Mr. Salvail's name would net appear on any records, although he was active in the Corporation for the reason that he understood Mr. Salvail to have some type of problem with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. On January 17, 1979, Mr. Salvail was ordered deported from the United States based upon conviction of crimes involving moral turpitude prior to his entry into the United States. Mr. Salvail's appeal of that Order was dismissed on July 3, 1979. The Application for New Alcoholic Beverage License, the Personal Questionnaires, and the Declaration of Stock Ownership were all filed with the State Beverage Department on September 7, 1978.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: License No. 23-472 issued to Sorel Corporation, Inc., d/b/a Le Spot Restaurant, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. John Harris Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation Post Office Box 015269 Miami, Florida 33101 Le Spot Restaurant 19355 Collins Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33165 Mr. Jack Morrissette 1650 N.E. 150th Street North Miami, Florida 33181 Mr. Charles A. Nuzum Director, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street, Johns Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license, Series 3-PS, No. 39- 01099, for the premises located at 13508 Florida Avenue, Tampa, should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Action filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of outlets for the retail sales of alcoholic beverages, and for the enforcement of the liquor laws of this state. By stipulation of fact, the parties agreed than on or before August 7, 1996, Benjamin Nenno, a male under the age of 18 at the time, became involved in an investigation of Respondent’s retail sales facility in issue by the Division. On the evening of August 7, 1996, Nenno was briefed and searched by agents of the Division and allowed to carry with him only a certain amount of cash and a driver’s license which clearly showed him to be under 21. He was instructed by the agents to indicate he was only 17 if he were to be asked by a store employee and to produce the driver’s license if it were to be requested. Specifically, he was instructed not to make any misrepresentation of fact in order to get the clerk to make a sale to him. Thereafter, Nenno entered the Respondent’s store number 620, located at 13508 Florida Avenue in Tampa and asked to purchase a bottle of Captain Morgan’s Special Rum, an alcoholic beverage which would be unlawful for him to purchase. When he did so, the Respondent’s clerk, identified as Freddy Posey, asked to see Nenno’s identification and Nenno produced the driver’s license which reflected he was under 21. Posey looked at it but made the sale anyway. The sale was witnessed by Special Agent Randall West who confirmed the facts stated above. When Nenno left the premises he met with Special Agents West and Miller who confiscated the beverage. West then entered the store and issued a notice of Violation as well as a vendor check list to Posey which was to be filled out by him and returned to the Division. The investigation continued on August 13, 1996 when Nenno, again under the control of the Division personnel, was again searched and instructed and sent back into the Respondent’s premises by Agents Hamilton and Fisher to again attempt to purchase a bottle of Captain Morgan’s Special Rum. This time Nenno dealt with James Davison, an employee of the Respondent, who asked Nenno to produce a driver’s license. When Nenno did as he was asked, Davison looked at it but nonetheless made the sale even though the license clearly showed Nenno was under 21. This sale was witnessed by Agent Fisher. In this case, however, after having made the sale, Davison came outside the store after Nenno, but after looking around the parking lot, re-entered the store. The Division agents again issued a Notice of Violation and a checklist which was subsequently returned to the Division filled out. On August 20, 1996, the investigation continued with the Division agents this time using Nicole Finch, a female under age 21, who was instructed and briefed as Nenno had been. She, too, was left with only some cash and her driver’s license which reflected her to be under 21. This time, Finch entered the Respondent’s store Number 621 in the company of Agent West and purchased a 200 ml bottle of Bacardi Rum, an unlawful alcoholic beverage for her to buy, from Steven Wilder, the clerk on duty. Before making the sale, Wilder asked to see Finch’s driver’s license, which she showed to him, but after seeing it, he still made the sale. When she left the store, Ms. Finch met Special Agents West and Fischer who subsequently issued a Notice of violation to the Respondent. When questioned by West, Wilder indicated he had received no training nor was he aware of any training program in place regarding sales to underage persons. Special Agent West, who has been an investigator with the Division for more than 18 years, and who has participated in many beverage investigations such as this, entered the Respondent’s store on August 7, 1996 after Nenno had left. He arrested the clerk, Mr. Posey and issued the Notice of Violation. In the course of the transaction, he questioned Posey about how he was trained regarding the sales of alcohol to minors with specific emphasis on whether Respondent has an ongoing training program and whether there were signs or other notices proscribing the sale of alcohol to minors. In response to these questions, Posey indicated he had received verbal training but no formal classroom or video training and had been given no forms to read and sign regarding this. When West looked for signs relating to the practice of checking patrons’ identification or indicating a policy of “no sales to those under 21”, he could find no signs posted or buttons worn by employees to notify prospective patrons of the company’s practice, though the Florida Beverage law does not require buttons to be worn. West made the same observations when he entered the store after the August 20, 1996 purchase by Finch. On this second occasion, in response to West’s questions about the training given by Respondent, Wilder, the clerk involved in that sale, indicated no training programs were in place. At that time, Mr. West could see no changes that had been made in the premises since he was last there on August 7, 1996. Further, West could not find any indication that the Respondent had posted a qualifying birth date for the purchase of alcoholic beverages. In response, Respondent offered into evidence a copy of a sign which, it claims, is posted on the cash register in each store, which refers to the requirement for a person to be 21 years old, (born before the purchase date in 1975) to purchase alcohol. Mr. West, who went behind the cash register to obtain information from the liquor license, did not see a copy of this sign posted in Respondent’s store on either August 7 or August 20, 1996. The Notice of Violations issued by the Division agents were to put the licensee on notice that a violation had occurred so that the employee cannot keep the information from the license holder. Agent Fisher observed the sale to Nenno which took place on August 13, 1996. When he went into the store after the purchase took place, Fisher asked the sales clerk if he had asked to see Nenno’s identification and he had. Fisher also asked the clerk about training offered by Respondent regarding the checking of identification. This employee, who has worked for the company for approximately 16 years, indicated he had seen at least one video which concerned checking identification and admitted he had been required to sign a certificate that he was aware of the rules. Agent Fisher also looked for signs in the store regarding the Respondent’s policy regarding sales to minors but did not see any. When he participated in the operation there on August 20, 1996, he asked the clerk on duty at that time if he had been trained regarding buyers’ identification and was told that since he had been hired by the company in January 1996 he had worked in the warehouse exclusively and had subsequently worked in the store only two days. He had been given no training at all in customer identification before he started working in the store. When Fisher looked behind the counter for some sort of warning sign, he could find none, nor could he find any in the back near the beer cooler. Mr. Davison worked for the Respondent for approximately 16 years prior to his discharge because of the instant sale to a minor. He had worked as manager of store number 620 for about two years before his firing, and his job was to maintain stock and insure the store was properly manned at all times it was open. He employed two other individuals at the liquor outlet to cover the entire week. Only one person was on duty at a time. On the day he made the sale which caused him to be fired, he was the only person on duty. Periodically, he would receive a document from the company containing the company’s policies which he was to read and sign, but nothing more than that, and even they did not come very often. He claims, and it is found, that he was never told he was to train his employees regarding sales of alcohol to minors. He claims that he was never shown a training video even though he signed the document saying he did. He did that because on the one occasion he asked a manager about it, he was told to sign it and not worry about it. Even though each store had a VCR, the entire training process to which Davison was exposed consisted of the reading and signing of this document which was given to him by Mr. Odorosio, the store manager. None of the training reflected on his personnel records as having been given him was, in fact, not given. Davison claims that when he was hired 16 years ago he was not given any training about sales of alcohol to minors and has never been given any since. However, he admits that each store is furnished a chart reflecting the various endorsements to driver’s licenses which are used. He also noted that his store had one sign relating to lawful alcohol sales, given to him by a beverage salesman, which, about two months before the incident, he put on the front of the counter where the customers could see it. He claims that on the evening the agents came to the store, they did not ask to see it. If they had done so, he would have shown it to them. Davison recognized one of the signs placed in evidence as one he has seen in other of Respondent’s stores. He has never seen the other one. As Davison recalls it, Respondent’s policy is to terminate anyone caught selling alcohol to minors. After the incident of August 7, 1996, Mr. Odorosio advised him to be on the lookout because he felt the Division agents would be back. Davison admits having made the sale to the teenager in question. However, he claims, the individual had just had a birthday which Davison mistakenly believed was the 21st. In fact it was the individual’s 17th birthday. He also claims that in the two years he worked at store 620, he always asked potential underage patrons for identification unless he knew the person. He claims he has always refused to sell alcohol and would not knowingly sell alcohol to minors. In fact, on the night he sold to Nenno, August 13, 1996, when he realized he had sold to a minor, he went outside, he claims, to find Nenno and give him back his money. The four-year difference in age belies Davison’s claim of mistake and that claim is rejected. Mr. Wilder, the assistant manager on the grocery store night shift since January 30, 1996, had worked in the liquor store, temporarily, for only a day and a half at the time of the incident. He was filling in until a new clerk could be brought in from another store. When he received his orientation training in January 1996, he was shown a video and exposed to a group class on paperwork, the handbook of rules and regulations, and the sale of alcohol, after which a test was administered. That was the only time he was shown any video or was involved in any personnel meeting relating to alcohol sales. When he went to work at the liquor store, he was given training only on the operation of the cash register. The liquor store registers do not have the capability to punch in the buyer’s date of birth. However, the day he started in the liquor store, Mr. Odorosio told him to always check a purchaser’s identification and never to sell to anyone under the age of 21. This was the day before he sold the rum to Ms. Finch, and he claims this sale was caused by human error. That very day, he claims, he had make “cheat sheets” which showed the lawful dates for the purchase of tobacco and alcohol, and claims he merely read from the wrong sheet. Officials of the Division have made themselves available to work with retailers of alcoholic beverages to bring them up to the sales standards set for a reasonable industry standard as outlined in the Florida Statutes. The information contained on the alcohol compliance instructional guidelines utilized by Respondent on which clerks and cashiers acknowledge their understanding that violation of those policies may result in termination of their employment is not sufficient orientation from an educator’s standpoint. In the opinion of Agent Miller, the minimum acceptable standards call for training of personnel in alcohol control three times a year, as once a year is not enough. Mr. Miller indicates he has discussed the Respondent’s situation with Mr. Heuermann, the Respondent’s vice-president in charge of personnel training, at Heuermann’s behest on approximately four occasions, and explained his concerns over the violations and what Respondent could do to improve its program. The first discussion took place in June 1996, shortly after an arrest of another Respondent employee and two months before the instant arrests. At that time they discussed what could be done to alert personnel and modify registers to require checking of ID. It was reported at that time that some employees were overriding this; however, the company is in the process of converting all their cash registers to those which require the customer’s birth date be inserted. They were put in grocery stores first and not in the liquor stores because the liquor stores use a different system. As funds for conversion become available the registers in the liquor stores will also be converted. Company trainers also discusse training standards for employees and Respondent’s need to insure that the lowest level of employees, who deal with the public, are properly trained. Though Mr. Miller made several suggestions as to what Respondent could do to improve its educational program, neither he nor any other Division agent was asked to participate in the training. According to Mr. Heuermann, Respondent has over 100 grocery stores and 34 liquor stores and employs approximately 10,000 people, only 1,500 to 2,000 of whom are involved in the sale of alcohol. No one under the age of 18 is hired to work in a liquor store. Company trainers check to insure the age of employees as does the main office. By the same token, the company would not hire anyone as a liquor store manager who had been convicted within the prior five years of a violation of the liquor law, of prostitution, drugs or a felony. The company’s application for employment has a space for listing such an offense and the company completes a background check on its applicants. Respondent contends it has a formal training program for alcohol law compliance. The orientation program for all new employees includes a video tape, a work sheet, and instructional guidelines, all dealing with alcohol compliance, to be signed by all new hires. At training, the trainer goes through the employee handbook, which treats alcohol compliance, sexual harassment, AIDS, ADA, etc., and this training is required of all new employees, both managerial and non-managerial, but it is sketchy at best. Until 1995, such training as existed was centralized but then was made the responsibility of the individual store manager. Sometime thereafter, the training was placed under the human resources directorate and it is again centralized whenever possible, as in the metropolitan areas where employees from several stores easily can be brought together for training. The company also has a formal substance abuse policy under which the use of illegal drugs or alcohol at work is prohibited because of its impact on safety and other workers. When Mr. Heuermann was advised by the store manager of the incident involving Mr. Posey he immediately instructed the manager to fire Posey and sent the information concerning the incident to all his managers for use in training in the individual stores. He also instructed the district managers to reinforce alcohol training in the stores because he wanted to insure this training met all requirements. He called Mr. Miller at the Division to see what could be done and implemented everything Miller suggested. When Heuermann learned of the Davison case he again reviewed the facts and determined to fire Davison as well. He met with the senior vice-president of operations for Respondent who directed that no one but management personnel be put in that store and reemphasized the need for training. Heuermann also went to the store and advised the district manager that his job was in jeopardy if another violation occurred. When the third violation thereafter occurred, Mr. Heuermann called Agent Miller, Mr. Odorisio, Mr. Metcalfe and the corporations CEO. At that time, Miller made some suggestions which included a paycheck reminder which Heuermann implemented with a copy being stapled to every one of the 10,000 paychecks issued that month. Mr. Heuermann noted that after the incident involving Mr. Posey, Agent Miller advised him that Division agents would be back. Heuermann passed that information on to the district and store managers and instructed them to advise their employees to be careful. Jacqueline N. Iglesias, Respondent’s district training coordinator since October 1996’ was previously the orientation director. Employee training for the Respondent’s Hillsborough district, as noted previously herein, is done in group sessions involving between 12 and 25 people, on Mondays, Thursdays and Saturdays for three-hour sessions conducted twice a day on those days. The instruction covers safety, alcohol compliance and employee appearance and standards. With regard to the instruction concerning alcohol compliance, a form containing relevant information is used along with a video presentation and a multiple choice examination on the provisions of the alcohol compliance law which is administered while the video is playing. The video shown covers hours of sale, sales to minors, sales to those already intoxicated and how to handle unruly patrons. The course material advises the employee to call management in a questionable situation. It also covers acceptable and altered identification, what to look for and what to do in a case of suspected alteration. Specifically, employees are advised to refuse a sale to anyone whose identification is suspect, and employees are warned of the consequences, including job loss, if strict compliance with the law and the company’s policies are not followed. This training program has been in effect since August, 1996. Before that time, the training was done by the individual managers who, according to Iglesias, covered the same information. Though this program appears thorough at first blush, in reality it is considerably less than comprehensive and appears to have been minimally effective. An example of this can be seen in the history of Mr. Posey. Mr. Posey went through the company’s training program training when he was first hired. Company records reflect that he missed seven of the questions on the checklist test but, nonetheless, was still hired since performance on the test is not used to disqualify prospective employees. He supposedly was thereafter given supplemental on the job training under an experienced cashier at his employment location. Kevin Sosa has been employed as a full time liquor store clerk at Store 619-620 for more than two years. He identified a decal which, for some time, including in August 1996, was stuck to the check-out counter just in front of the register. Sosa also claimed that there is, in addition, a decal on the beer cooler located in the back of the store, in the back hallway and on the wall near the register which refer in some way to the legal age for purchasing alcohol. With regard to these signs, Special Agent Hamilton, who participated in the operation involving Mr. Davison on August 13, 1996, did not observe any signs in the store as were described by Mr. Sosa even he claims he looked for them. However, he admitted he did not go behind the counter to where the cashier stood to see if any signs were posted there, nor did he specifically look near the beer cooler. Mr. Sosa also has seen the alcohol compliance guidelines which he has been required to sign at least two or three times during the term of his employment and which he has seen more frequently when training others. He has also been exposed several times to the training guidelines which accompany the alcohol video. The last time he saw it was during the summer of 1996 after the incidents in question, but on each occasion nothing more was done than to show the video. After Mr. Posey was caught and after another incident at another company store, but before the incident involving Mr. Davison took place, he and Davison often discussed how easy it was to become complaisant and not check identification properly. Both recognized they had to be careful. They were frustrated and somewhat angry with the Division over these arrests because they felt anyone could make a mistake and fail to check identification. The efforts at control and procedures described as being in place at Respondent’s stores were reiterated in the testimony of Mr. Stickles, second assistant manager at Respondent’s store in issue, who indicated that numerous and repeated efforts are made to train employees in the proper compliance with the alcohol laws and to get out appropriate and necessary information. Included within these measures used are the use of the company’s DBX system by which individual managers can electronically communicate with headquarters and other managers to identify problems and suggested solutions; memoranda on pertinent topics sent through the mail; consistent verbal reminders from management to clerks; provision of extra stickers for registers and elsewhere in the stores; reminders on employee paychecks and, after the first incident, a mandatory repeat viewing of the alcohol control video by all employees. Aside from the above, however, Mr. Stickles could point to little in the way of formal training. Mr. Odorisio, the store manager at the facility in question related his practice of insuring that all new employees are sent to the centralized orientation program conducted by the company. He attends periodic manager meeting at least three times a year after which he briefs his clerks on any relevant material he picked up. After the incident involving Mr. Posey he again briefed the remaining clerks, including Davison and Sosa, repeatedly advising them that the Division agents would be back and to be sure to card all suspicious customers Mr. Montoto, Respondent’s district manager over the store in question, indicated his efforts to insure proper alcohol compliance included, in addition to those previously noted, a requirement that all employees have attended the pre-hiring orientation program; conduct of store manager meetings at least two or three times a year; and specific posting of managers in the stores who were trained in how to handle alcohol compliance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $3,000 against Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license number 39-01099, series 3-PS. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Miguel Oxamendi, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Craig E. Behrenfeld. Esquire Barnett, Bolt, Kirk & long 601 Bayshore Boulevard, Suite 700 Tampa, Florida 33606 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Richard Boyd Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondents be found guilty of violating Subsection 561.29(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and that a $100 fine be imposed upon each, said fine to be paid within fifteen days of the final order entered in this cause. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 28th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Frank Piehl 4738 Ocean Street Mayport, Florida 32233 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a special restaurant license (4COP-SRX) can be deemed incomplete for failure to obtain zoning approval from the local government.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a restaurant duly-licensed by the State of Florida to serve food and certain alcoholic beverages. It currently holds a 2COP restaurant license, which allows it to sell beer and wine along with its food products. Petitioner has held the 2COP license since opening in calendar year 2002. Petitioner derives 51 percent of its revenue from the sale of food and nonalcoholic beverages. It is in an area of Orange County which is zoned for commercial property and has the appropriate land use code for a restaurant chain. Petitioner's facility is presently located within 500 feet of a local school. The school was built a year or two after Petitioner began operation of its restaurant. In order for Petitioner to obtain an upgraded license so that it can serve other alcoholic beverages (i.e., liquor) it must submit an application to Respondent. Petitioner duly- submitted such an application on February 5, 2007. The application sought to upgrade Petitioner's license to a 4COP-SRX license. The 4COP license would allow for sale of all alcoholic beverages. Section 5 of the Application addresses zoning for the restaurant. Section 5 includes the following: Are there outside areas which are contiguous to the premises which are to be part of the premises sought to be licensed? [Petitioner answered, Yes.] If this application is for issuance of an alcoholic beverage license where zoning approval is required, the zoning authority must complete "A" and "B". If zoning is not required, the applicant must complete section "B". The location complies with zoning requirements for the sale of alcoholic beverages or wholesale tobacco products pursuant to this application for a Series 4COP SRX license. Signed Title Date Is the location within limits of an "Incorporated City or Town"? Yes No If yes, enter the name of the city or town: Petitioner filled in the address portion of Section 5, but did not have a zoning authority complete Section A, nor did Petitioner complete Section B. Respondent deemed the Application incomplete due to Petitioner's failure to complete Section 5. On July 25, 2007, a Final Warning Notice was sent to Petitioner, allowing Petitioner ten additional days to submit zoning approval for the Application. When no zoning approval was returned within the prescribed period, Respondent issued its Intent to Deny License. Petitioner did make an inquiry to the local zoning authority concerning its application to increase the level of its license. However, by letter dated February 22, 2007, the Orange County Zoning Division notified Petitioner as follows: We have received your request for an increase in series to the alcoholic beverage license at Hooters Lake Underhill, 11425 Underhill Road, Orlando. On February 22, 2007 we conducted a distance check to see if the proposed location satisfied the separation requirements contained in the Orange County Code. The results of our inspection reveal that the proposed location is 407 ft. from Legacy Middle School at 11398 Lake Underhill Road. Since this location cannot satisfy the 1000 ft. separation requirement from the nearest school, this office cannot issue zoning approval for the increase in series.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, denying the application filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 5th day of May, 2008.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Action filed by Petitioner against Respondent on August 7, 2007, and, if so, the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At the times relevant to this proceeding Respondent, Ray’s Market, Inc., d/b/a Ray’s Market was the holder of License No. 16-1362, Series 2 APS. The license authorizes Respondent to sell packaged beer and wine at the licensed premises, which is a convenience store located at 1707 NW 6th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33313 (the licensed premises). At the times relevant to this proceeding Ibrahim Abdul-Kahir (the owner) was the owner of the licensee and the manager of the licensed premises. On July 18, 2007, Petitioner’s undercover investigative team performed a compliance check of the licensed premises while checking other licensed locations to determine whether the various stores were selling alcoholic beverages to under-aged patrons. Petitioner’s investigative team included the IA, Agent Boykin, Agent Gayle, and Special Agent Cobban. The IA acted as Petitioner’s underage operative on July 18, 2007. The IA is a female, born November 22, 1989. As of July 18, 2007, the IA was 17 years of age. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the IA operated under the direct supervision of one or more of Petitioner’s agents. The IA was instructed by Petitioner’s agents to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages from Respondent. She was instructed to enter the licensed premises, retrieve an alcoholic beverage from the cooler, and attempt to purchase the alcoholic beverage. The IA was instructed to answer truthfully if anyone in the store asked her age. Petitioner’s agent gave the IA funds to make the purchase. On July 18, 2007, both Mr. Gayle and Ms. Boykin entered the licensed premises before the IA entered. This procedure provided security for the IA while she was inside the licensed premises and provided corroboration for the events that ensued. Both Mr. Gayle and Ms. Boykin had unobstructed views of the IA’s activities within the licensed premises and were able to hear the conversations described below. At the times relevant to this proceeding, the licensed premises had two cash registers open. Norma Williams, an employee of the licensee, was stationed at one cash register and the owner was stationed at the other. The two cash registers were located within sufficient proximity so that the owner could communicate with Ms. Williams and could observe the events occurring at her register. After Agents Gayle and Boykin were inside the premises the IA entered the licensed premises, walked straight to the cooler, and took out a bottle of Seagram wine cooler. Seagram wine cooler is an alcoholic beverage. The IA then walked to the cash register at which Ms. Williams was stationed and handed the wine cooler to Ms. Williams. At that juncture, the owner asked Ms. Williams whether she had checked the IA’s identification to verify the IA’s age. Ms. Williams responded to the effect that she knew the IA because the IA hangs out with her (Ms. Willliams’) nieces and cousins all the time. Ms. Williams then stated that she knew that the IA was over 18 years of age. The owner responded: “Okay. We’ll let them2 bail you out.” When the owner made that statement, he knew that the IA was about to purchase an alcoholic beverage and he knew that his employee had not verified her age by checking the IA’s identification. The IA paid Ms. Williams for the wine cooler and left the licensed premises. Immediately after she left the premises, the IA dropped the wine cooler, breaking the bottle and spilling the contents on the sidewalk in front of the licensed premises. Upon instructions from Petitioner’s agent, the IA immediately re-entered the licensed premises and told the owner what had happened. The IA asked the owner if she could replace the broken wine cooler. The owner permitted the IA to do so. The IA went to the cooler, retrieved a replacement wine cooler, and left the licensed premises. Respondent’s Exhibit 3 is the replacement wine cooler. The broken wine cooler was discarded. At no time on July 18, 2007, did Ms. Williams, the owner, or anyone else acting on behalf of the licensee ask the IA her age or for identification to verify her age. After the IA obtained the replacement wine cooler and left the licensed premises, Special Agent Cobban entered the licensed premises, identified himself as a special agent, and asked to speak to the owner of the licensed premises. Mr. Abul- Kahir identified himself as the owner of the licensed premises and showed Special Agent Cobban on his store’s security system a re-play of the purchase of the wine by the IA. Mr. Abul-Kahir told Special Agent Cobban that he told Ms. Williams to check the IA’s identification. Mr. Abul-Kahir was present at the formal hearing, but he did not testify. The clear and convincing evidence presented by Petitioner established that Mr. Abul-Kahir did not tell Ms. Williams to check the IA’s identification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of one violation of Subsection 562.11(1)(a) Florida Statutes as alleged in the Administrative Action. It is further recommended that the final order impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 and suspend Respondent’s license for seven consecutive days. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 16th day of June, 2008.
