The Issue Petitioner's complaint and Petition for relief allege that she was discriminated against due to her handicap of multiple sclerosis when she was terminated by Respondents on March 9, 1990. The issue for disposition is whether that violation of Section 760.10, F.S., occurred, and if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Leah Swenson-Davis was employed by Respondent, Orlando Partners, as a national sales manager from August 1989, until her termination on March 9, 1990. As sales manager she searched out new business for the hotel, maintained files and obtained repeat business from corporations and other customers. Her salary was $28,000.00 a year. Louis Evans was director of sales, and her supervisor. He hired Ms. Swenson-Davis to book conventions and also hired Barbara Hydechuk and Beth Darkshani as other sales staff. In his opinion Ms. Swenson-Davis was a "pro"; she generated substantial revenue for the hotel and her sales bookings were "much superior" to the other staff. At one point, the three women were promised new office chairs if they could generate 500 room/nights by Friday of the same week. They made their goal, with Ms. Swenson-Davis bringing in 437 out of the total, and the other women bringing in the remainder. In addition to booking hotel rooms, Ms. Swenson-Davis also was effective in selling other hotel services. She generated business from groups who had previously used the hotel but had not been reworked. Her booking packages were very detailed and thorough and she had few cancellations. In February 1990, Barbara Hydechuk was promoted to director of sales, and she took over the responsibility of national sales. Leah Swenson-Davis was hospitalized in February 1990, for what was originally thought to be a stroke. She was then diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis, a disease affecting functions in the nervous system. Hers is not a severe form of the disease and her physician released her to return to work half-time. At the hearing, no signs of illness were evident; that is, she moved and spoke in a perfectly normal manner. When she returned to work, however, Ms. Swenson-Davis was treated "like a leper". Bill Flynn and Barbara Hydechuk made her feel like she would infect them. She was kept at a physical distance. During her absence, Barbara Hydechuk had been promoted. When Ms. Swenson-Davis asked Bill Flynn why she was not informed of the promotion opportunity, he replied that he had worked with Barbara. The work atmosphere, and employees' attitudes toward Ms. Swenson-Davis were very different after her return to work. On March 9, 1990, the Friday before Ms. Swenson-Davis was to pick up her doctor's release to return to work full-time, she was informed by Barbara Hydechuk that she was "terminated immediately" due to lack of productivity in the sales department. Since her termination, Ms. Swenson-Davis has submitted approximately 300 applications with other hotels, and in other sales and marketing areas. She has been given interviews, but has not been hired as of the date of the hearing, although she is capable of working full-time. She received unemployment compensation from March until September 1990. She has accrued medical expenses in the amount of $12,602.00, in 1992, for herself and her son, which expenses would have been covered by her former employer's benefit package. She was insured through COBRA until December 1990, when the premiums went over $500.00 and she could no longer afford them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order requiring 1) Reinstatement of Petitioner in the same or equivalent position, 2) damages of back pay computed at the rate of $28,000.00 per year from the time of discharge until reinstatement or rejection of an offer of equivalent employment, less payments received for unemployment compensation; 3) damages in the amount of $12,602.00, representing medical benefits lost; and 4) reasonable costs and attorneys fees. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 14th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3920 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2.-3. Adopted in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. 4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-6. Adopted in paragraph 6. 7. Adopted in paragraphs 2, 5, and 7. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Petitioner asked why she was not told of the promotion opportunity. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. 11.-12. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected in part. The complaint in this case relates to wrongful termination, not failure to promote. Moreover, no competent evidence supports a finding that Petitioner would have applied for promotion or was denied promotion on account of her handicap. The other employee was promoted prior to Petitioner's return to work. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Basis for the computation is not apparent. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9, although the $200.00 expense incurred in 2/90 is rejected, as petitioner was still employed at that time. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Rejected as unnecessary, although the recommendation for reinstatement is adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Kirkland Kirkland Management, Inc. 946 North Mills Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802 Percy Bell K. F. International Host, Inc. 1600 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32790 Raymond Rotella Kosto & Rotella, P.A. Post Ofice Box 113 Orlando, Florida 32802 Orlando Partners, Inc. d/b/a Quality Hotel Orlando Airport 3835 McCoy Road Orlando, Florida 32812-4199 Tobe Lev, Esquire Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Betsy Kushner, Claim Representative Cigna Property and Casualty Companies Post Office Box 30389 Tampa, Florida 33630-3389 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
The Issue The issue is whether Jonathan A. Mantay, violated the Florida Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Article II, Section 8, Florida Constitution, and Section 112.320, the Commission is empowered to serve as the guardian of the standards of conduct for the officers and employees of the state. Pursuant to Sections 112.324 and 112.317, the Commission is empowered to conduct investigations and to issue a Final Order and Public Report recommending penalties for violations of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees (Code of Ethics). Respondent Mantay is subject to the Code of Ethics. Mr. Mantay, during times pertinent, was County Manager of Bay County, Florida, and is a reporting individual, as that term is used in the Code of Ethics, and is required to file annual financial disclosures with the Bay County Supervisor of Elections, as provided by Section 112.3145(2)(c). In 2001, Mr. Mantay left his position and moved to metropolitan Portland, Oregon. On or about August 31, 1999, the Bay County Commission was addressing the problem of inmate overcrowding in its county correctional facilities, which were operated by CCA. On or about that time, the county correctional facility exceeded capacity by about 352 inmates. The Bay County Commissioners decided to address the issue. The Bay County Commission directed Mr. Mantay and his staff to study the problem and to recommend courses of action. As a result of the study, two possible courses of action were recommended. One possible course of action was the adoption of the "Lifeline" program operated by CCA in Nashville, Tennessee, which CCA claimed would reduce recidivism by teaching inmates life skills and addressing drug abuse, among other things. CCA's corporate headquarters is located in Nashville. The other possible course of action was to emulate the program operated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, of Maricopa County, Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio's program consists of housing inmates in tents that are sufficiently primitive that inmates, after having had the tenting experience, avoid repeating it either by not committing crimes in Maricopa County, or by committing them elsewhere. In order to evaluate the two courses of action, the Bay County Commission decided that three commissioners and certain staff should travel to the two sites and evaluate the programs. Mr. Mantay, Chief of Emergency Services Majka, Jr., and County Attorney Zimmerman, were among those who were designated to travel to Nashville and Phoenix. Mr. Mantay was not involved in planning the trip. He relied on the County Attorney's Office to coordinate the event. County Attorney Zimmerman called Mr. Wiggins on February 6, 2000, and inquired if CCA would pay for the airline tickets to Nashville. Mr. Zimmerman told Mr. Wiggins, when he asked CCA to pay for the trip, that having CCA pay the airfare, ". . . was the County's preferred way of doing things, and, in fact, that's when he recounted the story of the County taking some trips to New York and maybe some other places." Mr. Wiggins was not authorized by CCA to approve the payment of travel expenses for customers or others. He forwarded County Attorney Zimmerman's request to James Ball, his supervisor. Subsequently, Mr. Wiggins happened upon the CEO of CCA, a Dr. Crants, while walking about the Nashville headquarters of CCA. Dr. Crants directed Mr. Wiggins to fund the trip. Ultimately, as a result of these conversations, CCA paid Trade Winds Travel, Inc., of Panama City, Florida, for the cost of the air travel for the entire Bay County contingent to Nashville, and thence to Phoenix, and back to Panama City. The evidence is not conclusive as to whether it was the intent of CCA to fund the trip beyond Nashville, but they paid for the cost of the airfare for the entire trip. The request for the payment and the request to visit CCA in Nashville was driven by Bay County's needs, not by the needs of CCA. Bay County was one of CCA's most valued customers, however, and CCA was motivated to respond to their request. This was especially true because one of CCA's first contracts to provide correctional services was with Bay County. County Attorney Zimmerman's "marching orders" for many years was that if there was an opportunity to require a third party to pay an expense, then the third party should pay rather than Bay County. That policy is reflected in a variety of Bay County ordinances including the requirement that developers pay for the cost of permitting. The third party payor policy was also reflected in a 1997 trip where Westinghouse was required by the County Commissioners to pay for the commissioners' and County staff's trip to Vancouver, B.C., and Long Island, New York, to evaluate the transfer of the resource recovery facility to another vendor. This was the trip that County Attorney Zimmerman discussed with Mr. Wiggins. This policy was set forth in a letter by County Attorney Zimmerman dated October 30, 1997, which informed the County Commissioners that all expenses in connection with their travel, and with the travel of staff, would be funded by Westinghouse. He further stated that, "[it] is our opinion that the payment of these necessary expenses are not 'gifts,' as that term is defined in State law." Prior to the trip to Nashville, Mr. Mantay had a discussion with County Attorney Zimmerman with regard to whether the fact-finding trip would be "legal." One of the reasons he asked that question was that County Commissioners would be traveling together and he was concerned about "sunshine" issues. County Attorney Zimmerman said that the trip was legal. Mr. Mantay also recognized that this trip, like the trip to New York and British Columbia, was different from attending a seminar alone. Mr. Mantay received his airline ticket when a courier from Trade Winds Travel brought it to him, along with an invoice that he sent to Mr. Zimmerman. On Thursday, February 24, 2000, Messrs. Zimmerman, Majka, and Mantay, traveled with Bay County Commissioners Danny Sparks, Richard Stewart, and Carol Atkinson, and a television reporter, Carmen Coursey, by commercial air, to Nashville, Tennessee. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, they traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, and they returned to Panama City on Tuesday, February 29, 2000. The trip was authorized by the Bay County Commission subsequent to several public discussions concerning the need for an on-site visit to Nashville and Phoenix. There was a legitimate public purpose for the trip. Channel 13 television news reporter, Carmen Coursey accompanied the officials. It is clear that there was nothing about the trip that was accomplished sub rosa. The airfare was paid by CCA directly to Trade Winds Travel, Inc. CCA did not ask for or receive reimbursement from either Bay County or the travelers. The cost of Mr. Mantay's airfare for the entire trip was $1,257. Mr. Mantay did not learn that CCA paid for the airfare until 2003 when he was notified of the ethics investigation. Mr. Mantay at the time of the trip had no reason to contemplate the cost. After learning that CCA paid the tariff, he also learned that the cost of the trip exceeded $100. Upon arrival in Nashville, Mr. Mantay, and the other travelers were greeted by Mr. Wiggins, who transported them to the Downtown Courtyard Marriott Hotel in a van. The cost of the transportation was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. The value was not established. Mr. Mantay did not know who paid for the ground transportation. The travelers ate the evening meal, February 24, 2000, as a group. Someone paid for Mr. Mantay's dinner, but the record does not indicate that CCA paid for it. On Friday, February 25, 2000, Mr. Mantay and the other travelers toured the Davidson County (Tennessee) Correctional Facility from 9:00 a.m. until noon. They ate lunch at the CCA corporate headquarters provided by CCA. That afternoon they met with Mr. Wiggins and other representatives of CCA. They discussed the possibility of CCA providing "Lifeline" and "Chances" programs operated by CCA, to Bay County. That evening, at CCA's expense, Mr. Mantay and the other travelers were transported to a dinner that was paid for by CCA. The cost of the transportation and dinner was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Mantay was not aware of either the cost of the dinner or who paid for it. Mr. Mantay and the other travelers stayed two nights at the Marriott at a cost of $224.24. The cost of the hotel was paid by CCA, and CCA neither asked for nor received reimbursement from Bay County or the travelers. Mr. Mantay learned after checking out from the Marriott, on February 26, 2000, when he attempted to pay a personal telephone bill, that CCA had paid the hotel bill, but there is no evidence of record that he knew the amount, or that it was an amount more than $100. No evidence was adduced proving that Mr. Mantay reasonably believed at that time that it was of a value of more than $100. Mr. Mantay paid cash for his personal telephone call during the check-out process. On Saturday, February 26, 2000, Mr. Mantay and the other travelers departed for Phoenix by air and observed Sheriff Arpaio's program the following Monday morning. They also toured the Phoenix Fire Department. The travelers, with the exception of County Attorney Zimmerman, stayed at the San Carlos Hotel. Mr. Mantay 's hotel bill in Phoenix was paid with a credit card issued to him by Bay County. On Tuesday February 29, 2000, they all returned to Panama City. Bay County originally contracted with CCA to operate their detention facilities on September 3, 1985. This contract had a term of 20 years; however, it was amended on September 16, 1996, to reflect an expiration date of September 24, 1999. Other extensions followed. An amendment dated June 18, 2000, provided that "CCA shall operate the 'Lifeline Program' through September 1, 2001." On May 15, 2001, the contract was extended to September 30, 2006. Mr. Mantay did not derive any person financial benefit as a result of CCA paying the lodging expenses in Nashville or as a result of CCA paying for his airfare. At no time has he attempted to reimburse CCA for the cost of the trip. Mr. Mantay did not receive per diem or any amount in excess of the actual cost of the trip. The entity receiving a benefit from the trip was Bay County. Mr. Mantay had a County credit card in his possession but by County policy he was not allowed to charge meals on it. He did, as noted, use it to pay the hotel bill in Phoenix. His usual practice, when traveling on behalf of the County, is to obtain receipts and file an expense report at the conclusion of the trip. He would thereafter be reimbursed for his travel expenses. He did not file an expense report subsequent to this travel. It is found as a fact that the cost of the airfare to Nashville and back to Panama City and the cost of the hotel in Nashville totaled more than $100 and Mr. Mantay became aware that the cost, when aggregated, was more than $100. Mr. Mantay could not have learned this, however, until more than three years after the trip because that is when he learned that CCA had paid for the airfare. It was not uncommon for Mr. Wiggins and other CCA officials to appear before the Bay County Commissioners on behalf of CCA, or to otherwise interact with representatives of CCA. Brad Wiggins was a lobbyist, as that term is defined in Section 112.3148(1)(b)1., and others interacted with Bay County on behalf of CCA and they were lobbyists also. During times relevant, Bay County did not maintain a lobbyist registration system.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics issue a Final Order and Public Report finding that Jonathan A. Mantay did not violate Section 112.3148(4), Florida Statutes, and dismissing the complaint filed against him. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 17th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire Advocate for the Florida Commission on Ethics Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Albert T. Gimbel, Esquire E. Gary Early, Esquire Messer, Caparello & Self, P.A. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1876 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32319-5709 Philip C. Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32319-5709
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Stipulated Facts: Petitioner submitted its application for DBE certification on or about July 27, 1993. Petitioner and Travel Professionals International Licensing Co., d/b/a Travel Professionals, Inc. (TPI) entered into a franchise agreement on September 28, 1993. Department conducted an on-site review of Petitioner's business on November 4, 1993. Department notified Petitioner of its intent to deny its application for DBE certification by certified mail on December 9, 1993. Petitioner requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on December 15, 1993. One hundred per cent of Petitioner's stock is owned by Jeanne Santo, a "socially and economically disadvantaged individual" as defined in Rule 14- 78.002(1), Florida Administrative Code, and therefore, Petitioner is in compliance with 14-78.005(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code. All securities which constitute ownership by Jeanne Santo are held directly by Jeanne Santo, and therefore Petitioner is in compliance with Rule 14-78.005(7)(d), Florida Administrative Code. The contributions of capital or expertise invested by Jeanne Santo are real and substantial, and therefore Petitioner is in compliance with Rule 14- 78.005(7)(f), Florida Administrative Code. The provisions of Rule 14-78.005(g) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, do not apply to Petitioner. The franchise agreement (Agreement) between Petitioner and TPI contains the following terms and conditions which are not in the agreements between Petitioner and Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC); Petitioner and International Airlines Travel Agent Network (IATAN); and Petitioner and Systems One: a requirement that Petitioner locate its travel office only in "That portion of Pinellas County, Florida lying south of Florida State Highway 694". a requirement that Petitioner pay a quarterly advertising contribution. a requirement that Petitioner attend mandatory managers' meetings. ARC is customary in the travel agency industry. IATAN is customary in the travel agency industry. A leasing agreement for an automated reservation and ticketing system is customary in the travel industry. The Agreement requires that Petitioner be an ARC agent. Facts Not Stipulated The Fral Highway Administration (FHWA) is the federal agency that inisters the DBE program on the national level. The Department is the agency charged with the responsibility of administering the DBE program for the State of Florida. In making its determination of an applicant's eligibility for DBE, the Department considers: (a) Surface Transportation Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17); (b) 49 CFR Part 23; (c) Chapter 339, Florida Statutes, (d) Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code, (e) United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) administrative decisions; and (f) guidelines and training material from the FHWA or USDOT. The USDOT through FHWA provided the Department with a copy of DBE Program Administration Manual (Publication No. FHWA-HI-90-047, April, 1990) which the Department uses as a guideline for USDOT's and FWWA's interpretation of the DBE program. Below are portions of the Agreement which are pertinent to this preceeding: Purposes of this Agreement: We have developed the Travel Professionals International System (hereinafter called "the TPI System) for the operation of retail travel agencies, and we have developed policies, procedures and techniques that are designed to enable such agencies to compete more effectively in the travel market... You have requested our assistance, the use of the TPI Systems, and a franchise from us to operate a retail travel agency using the TPI System.... Franchise: We hereby grant to you and you hereby accept from us a franchise to operate a retail travel agency utilizing the TPI System, only at the following location(s): That portion of Pinellas County, Florida lying south of Florida State Highway 694. We will not establish another franchisee or agency owned by us within the territory described above, or establish other franchises or company owned outlets providing similar products and services under a different trade name or trademark or modify your territory without your written permission, so long as you are not in default under the terms of this Agreement.... You may move the office of the travel agency to a new location in the same general vicinity with our prior written approval, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. You may not operate any additional office or location without our prior written consent, which consent will be given upon inspection and approval of such new premises.... Advertising Contributions: In addition to the service fees set forth above, you will be required to pay an "advertising contribution" in the amount of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY ($150.00) DOLLARS per quarter. We may adjust the advertising contribution annually on October 1, provided that any increase in the advertising contribution will be made only with the affirmative vote of at least fifty percent (50 percent) of the franchisees...The advertising contributions of all franchisees shall be placed in an advertising fund to be managed by us, and shall be used exclusively for advertising. Tradenames, Service Marks, Logos, Trade Secrets, and other Proprietary Matters: d. As you know, you will be given certain information about the Travel Professionals International System, our products and methods of doing business, as well as preferred supplier agreements, training and educational programs, computer operation and computer system arrangements, correspondence, memoranda, operating, sales and marketing manuals, and other confidential information. You recognize and acknowledge that this information is a valuable, special and unique asset belonging to us and constitutes our trade secrets which you agree to keep secret and not to disclose, during the operation of this Agreement, or after its termination or expiration, to any person or entity for any reason or purpose whatsoever.... Relationship of Parties: During the term of this Agreement, and any renewal term, you will be an independent contractor, and you will have no authority, expressed or implied, to bind us or to act as our agent, legal representative, or joint venturer. At our option, you will be required to describe yourself on all business forms, invoices, orders, stationery, and the like, as an independent licensee of Travel Professionals International, and to submit all such items to us for our written approval...The operation of your business shall be determined by your own judgment and discretion, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement and our policies and procedures, as they may be adopted or revised from time to time. We will not regulate the hiring or firing of your employees, the parties from whom you may accept business, the working conditions of your employees, or the terms of your contracts with your customers, except as may be necessary to protect the Travel Professionals International System. Service To Be Provided By Us: We will provide the following services to you pursuant to this Agreement: (b) We will prescribe certain standards of operation designed to enhance your profitability, which we shall expect you to follow. * * * (e) We may make recommendations to you regarding accounting and recordkeeping systems. * * * We will provide you with a policy manual, operations manual, preferred supplier manual, marketing manual, and an employee handbook which may be updated periodically. We will provide you with marketing, sales and promotional aids to include currently available professionally produced television spots, a series of high quality radio jingles, and from time to time, printed and other promotional material for use in your local area. We will operate an ongoing training program for you and your personnel. This program will include seminars, conferences, familiarization trips, and printed materials, such as bulletins and manuals, relating to marketing, management, and accounting procedures, and the like, and developments with the travel industry... * * * (l) We will provide, at no charge, up to five (5) person days of management expertise and sales effort effective on the first date of contract signing.... Your Obligation: During the term of this Agreement, and any renewal term, you will obligated to pay promptly to us any fees that are due hereunder, to maintain and keep such records and reports as we may prescribe, and to provide us with copies of such records and reports. You will be required to allow us to make inspection of your business and premises at any reasonable time, and to allow us to examine your books, tax returns and records during normal working hours. We reserve the right to establish a uniform accounting system to keep your books and records in conformity with such system. Your business shall be conducted in conformity with the provisions of this Agreement, with such policies and procedures as we may publish from time to time, and all state, federal and local laws and regulations.... You will be required to cause your chief operating officer or manager to attend our next available training program and to cause each of the franchise employees and principals (as shown on Schedule A attached hereto) to attend the required training courses set forth in our published policies and procedures. At present, mandatory training programs we provide include "New Owners Orientation", "New Manager Orientation", and the periodic "Managers Meetings". Although we are not obligated to do so, we offer, and plan to offer in the future, periodic (at least three times per year), Managers Meetings. Attendance at Managers Meetings, when offered, is mandatory. In the event you fail to send a representative to any Managers Meetings, then you shall pay to us the registration fee for that meeting, notwithstanding your lack of attendance at such meeting. Although paragraph 8 does require Petitioner to pay a fixed sum to TPI for advertising, it does not restrict the qualifying owner's exercise of control over the day-to-day decisions concerning advertising. In fact, TPI, under paragraph 11(i) of the Agreement, agrees to furnish certain materials to assist Petitioner in advertising on the local level. It is clear throughout the Agreement that the operation of the business is to be determined by the qualifying owner's own judgment and discretion subject to the provisions of the Agreement and TPI's policies and procedures which may be adopted or revised from time to time. Paragraph 4 , Terms of the Franchise, provides for the termination of the Agreement prior to its expiration date. It is clear from the qualifying owner's testimony ("Because nobody tells me what to do."), that she would terminate the Agreement rather than to allow TPI to exercise the day-to-day control of the business. There is no question that the qualifying owner has the authority to take such action under Paragraph 4 of the Agreement, if in no other manner, than by defaulting under Paragraph 4(4). This gives the qualifying owner the final authority as to who exercises the day-to-day control of the business. It is clear from the testimony of TPI's Vice-President of Franchise Sales and Development that TPI does not consider those provisions of the Agreement that appear to place restrictions on the qualifying owner's discretion as to the day- to-day control of the business as being mandatory, notwithstanding the language of the provisions to the contrary. Likewise, it is clear that TPI will not involve itself in the hiring, supervision or firing of employees because of the liability it would place upon TPI, notwithstanding any provision in the Agreement. The parties to the Agreement are experienced business people, who have expertise in the travel agency industry and franchising. The parties to the Agreement have clear and mutual understandings and interpretation of the meanings of the terms of the Agreement . Their understandings and interpretations are that the Agreement does not restrict the qualifying owner's exercise of the day-to-day control of the business. The parties' interpretation of the Agreement is a possible and permissible interpretation. TPI has some 60 franchisees within 22 states, with 17 franchisees in the State of Florida. There are several other franchisors that franchise travel agencies throughout the United States, including the State of Florida. The purpose of franchise agreements in the travel business in general, and this Agreement in particular, is to enable the small, independent travel agency to compete more effectively in the travel market. The growing trend in the travel agency industry is to belong to a franchise. The Agreement is a typical franchise agreement and customary in the travel industry.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for certification as a Disabled Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this day 9th of January, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 9th day of January, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0568 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner has listed the stipulated facts separately as paragraphs 1 through 14. These stipulated facts have been adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 14, respectively. Proposed findings of fact 1, 2, 3 and 4-5 adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 23, 24, 26 and 21, consecutively. Proposed findings of fact 6 through 9 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed finding of fact 10 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 20 through 22. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. The Department has listed the stipulated facts separately as paragraphs 1 through 14. These stipulated facts have been adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 14, respectively. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 2 are adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 19. Proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 20 through 22. Proposed findings of fact 4, 5 and 6 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 15, 16 and 17, respectively. Proposed finding of 7 is rejected as being neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed findings of fact 8 and 9 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 18. Proposed findings of fact 10, 11 and 12 are considered conclusions of law or legal argument and for that reason are rejected as Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 13 and 14 are rejected as not being supported by the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Oscar Blasingame, Esquire Blasingame, Forisz, Smiljanich, P.A. Post Office Box 1259 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Dorothy S,. Johnson, Esquire Mary J. Dorman, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee Florida 32399-0458 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Hunter Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Introduction On February 26, 1988 respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), through its District IX office, advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) in the Florida Administrative Weekly inviting qualified and interested organizations and vendors to submit proposals for the designation of an Area Agency on Aging in District IX. The designation would run from May 2, 1988 through the end of the calendar year but the successful vendor could be expected to be redesignated in subsequent years. According to the advertisement: Proposals will be received by District IX until 12:00 p.m., EST, March 24, 1988, for the designation of an Area Agency on Aging authorized under Title III of the Older Americans Act as amended, within the jurisdictional areas of Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee and Palm Beach Counties. * * * Contract awards will be based on approximately 75 percent federal funds, 11 percent general revenue and 14 percent local matching funds. * * * Written inquiries concerning the Request for Proposals will be received until 4:00 p.m., EST, March 11, 1988. A Bidders Conference, to review the proposed format and contract award process, will be held on March 4, 1988. * * * Under this proposal, HRS intended to award the contract to the best qualified firm since price proposals were not being submitted. To this extent, the proceeding differs from the typical state project where the contract is ordinarily awarded to the lowest and most responsive bidder. In response to the above RFP, petitioner, Banyan Area Agency on Aging, Inc. (Banyan), timely submitted its proposal. As it turned out, Banyan was the only organization that filed a bid. After being reviewed by a seven person evaluation committee, the proposal was given a score of 480 out of a possible 1525 and a recommendation that it be rejected. This recommendation was later adopted by the District Administrator. This decision was conveyed to petitioner by letter dated April 4, 1988. That prompted a request for hearing by petitioner to challenge the preliminary agency action. As grounds for contesting the action, petitioner contended the agency was arbitrary and capricious in rejecting its proposal. If its preliminary action is sustained, HRS intends to seek authority from the Department of General Services to negotiate a noncompetitive bid. Under this process, HRS desires to designate, after a screening process, one person from each of the five counties to serve on the board of a corporation to be established to run the program. Thus, HRS does not intend to readvertise the RFP and seek competitive proposals a second time. The Contract The contract in question is funded principally through federal grant dollars under the federal Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended. The monies, commonly known as Title III funds, are used to provide programs for senior citizens. Respondent is the State agency charged with the responsibility of administering the program funds. To receive federal funds, HRS was required to prepare a state plan and submit it to the U.S. Commissioner on Aging for his approval. A part of that plan calls for HRS, or District IX in this case, to designate an area agency on aging (AAA) to plan and administer a comprehensive and coordinated system of services for the aging in the five county area of Palm Beach, Okeechobee, Indian River, Martin and S. Lucie Counties. Among other things, the local AAA must develop an area plan for supportive services, senior centers and nutrition services in the five county area. The AAA will receive $300,000 to cover administrative costs in administering the program and will be in charge of dispensing several million dollars annually in grant dollars for aging programs. District IX had previously designated Gulfstream Area Agency on Aging (Gulfstream) as its AAA. However, due to a combination of faulty management, lack of supervision and other factors, Gulfstream was designated as AAA in May, 1987. Since then, HRS has received several waivers from the Commissioner on Aging but now faces a mandate to designate a District IX AAA by October 1, 1988 or lose its federal funding. To avoid a recurrence of the Gulfstream problem, the HRS District IX contract manager, and several other district personnel, prepared a comprehensive RFP to be issued in conjunction with the selection of a new AAA designee. After a draft was assembled at the local level, the RFP was forwarded to HRS' Tallahassee office where further refinements were made. The final product has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 9 and respondent's exhibit 11. According to the District IX contract manager, the RFP is the "state of the art" in terms of what an AAA ought to be. The RFP is a voluminous document, weighing some 6 1/2 pounds according to Banyan, and requires a great deal of information and detail regarding the AAA organization, procedures, and program plans and goals to satisfy the federal act. The RFP was given to interested organizations, including Banyan, around March 1, 1988. This gave vendors approximately three and one-half weeks to prepare and submit a proposal. Only Banyan was interested in being the designee and thus was the only bidder on the job. Its proposal contained 135 pages. Evaluation Process HRS created a seven person evaluation committee to review the proposals. The committee included five HRS employees and two non-HRS members. All members were given Banyan's proposal prior to the selection date. On March 28, 1988 the committee met and each member independently evaluated Banyan's proposal. Although a top score of 1525 was theoretically possible, Banyan received an average overall score from each There of 480, or a rating of approximately thirty-one and one half percent. After the scores were tallied, Banyan was given one hour to orally explain its proposal before the full committee. At the conclusion of the presentation, the committee voted unanimously to reject the proposal. The reasons for rejecting Banyan's proposal are set forth in respondent's exhibit 2. The three primary deficiencies, as broadly stated, were the "proposal did not develop ideas fully enough to demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs and conditions of the District IX 60+ population," the proposal "did not demonstrate a clear understanding of the role and responsibility of area agency on aging nor was there evidence of administrative capability,' and (c) the proposal "did not offer assurance that current board members fully understood their position as the governing board." At hearing, several members of the committee amplified on the above three shortcomings and pointed out specific deficiencies in Banyan's proposal which led them to reject the proposal. For example, the proposal failed to focus on areas outside of Palm Beach County, did not contain a proposed budget, lacked minority representation, failed to fully identify goals and objectives, did not include a detailed description of the fair hearing process and the make- up and procedure of the advisory council and omitted the corporation's bylaws. Given these deficiencies, and others, HRS was justified in rejecting the bid. Petitioner's Case Petitioner contends that three and one-half weeks was too short a time to prepare a responsible proposal to the RFP. In this regard, HRS acknowledged it was a lengthy RFP, but it considered the time adequate for a qualified and experienced organization, particularly since much of the RFP was reference material. Banyan also pointed out that its board of directors was made up of highly qualified people with impressive work experience. While this is true, as evidenced by testimony at hearing, none were experienced in managing a federally funded program of this magnitude. Banyan further stated that, after the proposal was filed, it could have corrected or expanded on many of its abbreviated responses. However, once the proposal was filed, such changes were impermissible. Finally, Banyan conceded that while many of its responses were brief and nonspecific, this was because Banyan intended to rely upon HRS for technical assistance to implement the programs. However, the RFP called for specific, detailed responses so that HRS could properly evaluate the proposal. Allegations of Bias or Impropriety There is no evidence that the committee acted unfairly or improperly during the evaluation process or that any eber was personally biased towards Banyan. There is also no evidence that HRS rejected the bid so that it could "control" the management of the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the protest filed by petitioner be DENIED and that a Final Order be entered confirming the rejection of petitioner's proposal. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Colman B. Stein 100 Worth Avenue Apartment 416 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Laurel D. Hopper, Esquire 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 R. S. Power, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jo Nees, is a 52 year old caucasian woman who appears to be her age. Ms. Nees first moved to Destin, Florida in or about April, 1982, and upon arrival in the area, submitted an application for employment to the Delchamps store which was accepted, but about which she never heard anything from store personnel. Ms. Nees lives in the Destin East Mobile Home Park with Mr. Emerson, a gentleman with whom she has shared the mobile home for several years. In January or February, 1985, Ms. Nees went to the Delchamps store in Destin, where, she alleges, she spoke with the store manager, Mr. Owens, and asked him for an application for employment. At this point, according to Ms. Nees, he refused, indicating he preferred people younger than Petitioner. She concluded from their discussion that he felt that due to the large number of customers during the crowded summer tourist season, she would not be able to keep up and used the term, she contends, "older people." As a result she became quite upset with Mr. Owens and after this colloquy, she paid for her groceries and left. Ms. Nees contends that the conversation referenced above was overheard by the assistant manager, Mr. Few, and the cashier, Kathy Richardson. Though the cashier did not say anything at the time, she was present at the check-out counter where the conversation took place and must have heard it. The assistant manager, Mr. Few, in Ms. Nees' recollection, tried to smooth things over and calm her down. At approximately 4:30 a.m. in November, 1985, just before Thanksgiving, Ms. Nees was again in the Delchamps store. Mr. Few, she contends, came up to her and spoke to her by name. However, as she was checking out a few moments later, and he was manning the cash register, he advised her that if she filed any sort of complaint against the company, he would not know her. Ms. Nees continued to patronize the Delchamps store after the conversations with Mr. Owens because it is the only major supermarket in the area and she prefers to use it because of the quality of the product and the price. At no time has she been offered an application for employment by the store, nor has she been offered employment. As of the hearing, Ms. Nees had a job at a convenience and package store in Destin where she has worked since May, 1985. At the time she applied for a position with Delchamps she had been unemployed since December, 1984, when she left her prior job as manager of a local motel because of poor wages. In May, 1985, she was earning $4.20 an hour on a 40-hour week. Though complaining about the fact that she was not offered employment or even given an application in January, 1985, Petitioner is nonetheless satisfied that at that time, no employment was available at the Delchamps store. She contends, however, that they could have accepted her application and hired her even though she was not needed so that she would be available later on when the busy season came. At the time of the application, the period was one of low employment in the area. Ms. Nees has also filed a discrimination complaint against the neighboring Eckerd's Drug Store for failure to hire her, also on the basis of age. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she had applied to Delchamps only once, yet on cross examination it appears she applied once and requested an application a second time. The EEOC form 5 filed in April, 1985, reflects that she applied three times for a position at Delchamps. Ms. Nees explains that the information contained on the form 5, though it bears her signature, was given over the telephone to the clerk at the Commission office and that she only applied once and requested an application form a second time. Inasmuch as Ms. Nees' testimony indicates that she applied in January or February, it is quite possible that in recounting the story over the telephone, the clerk misunderstood her comment and put down that she applied in both January and February, 1985, and that Ms. Nees failed to catch the mistake when she signed the form. This is, however, de minimus. What is more significant is the fact that none of the other parties involved identified by Ms. Nees, have any recollection of the situation being as she describes it. According to Mr. Owens, Ms. Nees at no time ever asked for an application, nor did he ever make to her the comments that she attributes to him. When he saw her at the investigation conducted by CHR, he recalled having seen her previously as a customer in the store, but at no time did she ever discuss employment with him, either alone or in the presence of Mr. Emerson, who, she claims, was a witness to the entire situation. Delchamps' policy is to accept an application form from anyone who asks for it and keep it on file. When employees are needed, people from the filed applications are called and interviewed, and selections are made. It is not company policy to take on as full-time employees, people who have not worked within the company before. Instead, people are hired on a part- time basis and then promoted to full-time positions from part- time status when openings occur. During the winter months, Mr. Owens has a staff of between 70 and 75 people. During the tourist season, that figure increases up to 120. Mr. Few, present at the discussion with Mr. Owens, does not recall any meeting between Nees and Owens and denies age discrimination. He agrees he saw her at the delicatessen counter early one morning as she alleges and greeted her. She seemed to be complaining to the counter clerk about Delchamps employment policy. When she got to the check-out counter he was manning, he offered her an application form in the hope it would put an end to the matter. She refused to accept it, however, and left after paying for her purchases. Kathryn Guidas, the cashier at the time of the alleged conversation between Ms. Nees and Mr. Owens, recalls seeing Petitioner in the store numerous times as a customer, but did not hear any conversation between Petitioner and Mr. Owens regarding employment. In fact, she has never seen Petitioner and Mr. Owens together. She has been asked for application forms by customers from time to time. When this happens, she refers them to either the manager or his assistant. Petitioner has not, to the best of her knowledge, ever asked her for an application form. On one occasion, Mr. Emerson mentioned that he had filed an employment discrimination complaint against the company and expected to hear something soon, but made no mention of any discrimination complaint by Petitioner. In her testimony at the prior inquiry, Ms. Nees identified Vicky White as an employee who was present at the conversation she claims to have had with Mr. Owens. Ms. White has worked in the Destin store as a clerk in the bakery and deli for approximately 10 years, but denies having ever seen Petitioner prior to the hearing. Neither does she know Mr. Emerson and she denies she has ever discussed company hiring policy with either Petitioner or Emerson. She has never been present at any conversation between Owens and Nees. In light of the above, it is most likely that Ms. Nees did not ask for an application at all. It would have been unnecessary for Owens to deny her one in light of the policy when, if she was not wanted, she need not have been called in for an interview. Ms. Nees would like to be compensated for the time she was improperly denied employment by Delchamps and would like to be offered a permanent job at the store. She is concerned, however, that if offered a job as a result of a settlement, she would be discharged shortly thereafter: a result that she does not desire. If she is to be hired, she would like to be assured that she can keep the job and not face layoff as retribution for her actions here. In her post hearing submission, she reiterates her desire for a settlement and a job because she is, apparently, no longer working at the convenience store and the Delchamps store is only two blocks from-her residence. Based on all the evidence, considering the inherent probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony, it is obvious that Ms. Nees is anxious to be employed by Delchamps and/or to receive compensation from them. She has, however, scant evidence to establish that she was discriminated against because of her age. She admits that there were no openings at the time of her alleged conversation with Mr. Owens, and that she also filed a discrimination complaint against Eckerd' s, again knowing that no vacancies existed. When Ms. Nees was not hired, it was clearly for undisclosed reasons other than her age and there is no evidence of any discrimination by Respondent
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Jo Nees be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 9 day of May, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 9th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jo Nees Box 89 Destin East Mobile Home Park Destin, Florida 32541 William C. Tidwell, Esquire Post Office Box 123 Mobile, AL 36601 - Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Jose A. Ramirez, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, GCA Service Group, based on his race, color, or national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a former route driver for GCA. Petitioner began working for GCA in June 2012. Generally, GCA contracts with rental car companies, such as Avis, Budget, and Enterprise, to move and transfer vehicles between rental car facilities and locations. In 2015, Petitioner supported the GCA services contract at the Avis rental car facility at the Orlando International Airport. The Avis-Orlando location employed between 60 to 100 route drivers. The majority of these drivers were Hispanic. On August 15, 2015, Petitioner requested 30 days off from work as personal leave. Petitioner submitted the appropriate Time Off Request Form to his immediate supervisor seeking a leave of absence from August 16, 2015, through September 15, 2015. Petitioner recorded that the reason for his leave was a personal/family situation. Thomas Pugh, GCA’s account manager for the Avis contract, authorized Petitioner’s 30-day leave of absence. Mr. Pugh was also responsible for scheduling the route drivers for the Avis-Orlando location. Based on Petitioner’s return date of September 15, 2015, Mr. Pugh scheduled Petitioner for work on September 20 through 22, 2015. Petitioner did not return to work on September 20, 2015. Neither did Petitioner report to GCA on September 21 or 22, 2015. No evidence shows that Petitioner attempted to communicate with GCA, Mr. Pugh, or any of his supervisors between September 15 and September 24, 2015 (the date Petitioner was officially terminated). According to GCA company policy, an employee who is a “no call, no show” for three consecutive shifts is automatically terminated. Consequently, when Petitioner failed to report to work on September 20, 21, and 22, 2015, Mr. Pugh determined that Petitioner should be fired. On September 24, 2015, GCA officially terminated Petitioner’s employment. The GCA employment document notating Petitioner’s termination date records “term because exceeded 30 days.” At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that on September 24, 2015, he called Reina Bermudez, the assistant to the account manager, to request a ten-day extension of his personal leave.2/ Petitioner claimed that during that phone call, Ms. Bermudez authorized him to remain on leave until October 15, 2015. Petitioner finally appeared at the Avis-Orlando work site on October 13, 2015. There, he requested to meet with Mr. Pugh and Jorge Rivera, GCA’s human resources manager. However, neither Mr. Pugh nor Mr. Rivera were available to see Petitioner. Mr. Rivera called Petitioner the following day. Mr. Rivera testified that Petitioner told him that he had not returned to GCA on September 15, 2015, because he had gone to Cuba to handle family personal issues. When Mr. Rivera responded that GCA would not reconsider its decision to terminate him, Petitioner became upset and threatened to file a discrimination lawsuit against GCA. On March 7, 2016, Petitioner did, in fact, initiate a claim alleging discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”). Petitioner asserts that GCA discriminated against him based on his race, color, and national origin. Petitioner is black and Hispanic. He represents that he is from Cuba. Petitioner identifies Mr. Pugh as the individual who discriminated against him. At the final hearing, Petitioner asserted that GCA’s discrimination actually began in May 2015. That month, GCA significantly reduced his work hours. Petitioner complained that GCA (Mr. Pugh) scheduled more work days for drivers with less seniority that him. Petitioner also claimed that GCA (Mr. Pugh) scheduled non-minority drivers for more work assignments than him. Specifically, Petitioner identified a former co-worker named William Genao, who worked more days than Petitioner. In addition to the scheduling disparity, Petitioner charged GCA with wrongfully denying him leave authorized under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Petitioner insisted that GCA should have allowed him to take FMLA leave after September 15, 2015.3/ Petitioner provided the name of Hector Prieto, a white employee, who used FMLA while working for GCA. Petitioner also declared that GCA discouraged him from joining a union. Petitioner stated that GCA issued several memos opposing union membership. In light of this material, Petitioner feared GCA would fire him if he joined the local union. In support of his position, Petitioner identified two non-white co- workers whom Petitioner alleged, GCA fired because they were union delegates. Finally, Petitioner accused GCA of promoting white employees over him. Petitioner identified a co-worker named Samuel Rojas, whom GCA treated differently.4/ Mr. Pugh testified at the final hearing on behalf of GCA. As the GCA account manager for the Avis/Budget account, Mr. Pugh relayed that he is in charge of GCA’s overall operations for the Avis contract at the Orlando International Airport. His responsibilities include scheduling route drivers. Mr. Pugh stated that GCA terminated Petitioner based on “job abandonment.” Petitioner did not return to work after his 30 days for personal leave ended on September 15, 2015. Therefore, GCA fired him. Mr. Pugh personally approved Petitioner’s leave request on August 15, 2015, and authorized Petitioner to take 30 days of personal leave through September 15, 2015. Mr. Pugh stated that GCA company policy allows the location manager to approve personal leave up to 30 days. Mr. Pugh relayed that he did not speak to Petitioner when he submitted his leave request. Petitioner had already left work by the time Mr. Pugh reviewed his Time Off Request Form. Mr. Pugh was under the impression that Petitioner requested leave so that he could travel to Cuba due to a family situation. Regarding Petitioner’s complaint of reduced work hours in May 2015, Mr. Pugh explained that drivers’ schedules are based on customer demand. In May 2015, Avis needed fewer cars moved to and from its airport location. Therefore, the Avis account required less drivers. Consequently, almost every route driver transferring Avis vehicles saw their work days reduced. Mr. Pugh normally tried to schedule drivers to work approximately three days a week. Because of the lower demand in May 2015, Mr. Pugh was forced to cut the drivers’ schedules to only two days a week. Mr. Pugh explained that he schedules drivers based on hire date. All the drivers he scheduled in May 2015 had comparable seniority to Petitioner. Jorje Rivera testified regarding GCA’s decision to terminate Petitioner. Mr. Rivera explained that GCA allows its employees to take up to 30 days of personal leave (not including FMLA). Mr. Rivera confirmed that Mr. Pugh only had authority to approve leave up to 30 days. GCA upper management approval is required if an employee requests more than 30 days leave. Ms. Bermudez testified that she recalled receiving a phone call from Petitioner on or about September 24, 2015. She remembered that Petitioner requested an extension of his leave so that he could assist a sick family member. Ms. Bermudez recounted that she advised Petitioner that she did not have the authority to approve his leave extension. Therefore, she told him that she would forward his request up to the appropriate manager. Thereafter, Ms. Bermudez contacted Jackie Rivera in GCA management to relay Petitioner’s request to extend his time off. Ms. Rivera, however, informed Ms. Bermudez that Petitioner’s leave extension request would not be granted because he had been off the driver schedule for over 28 days. Ms. Bermudez then called Petitioner several times to try and convey the message that GCA did not approve his leave request. However, she could not reach him. Mr. Pugh and Mr. Rivera testified that neither Petitioner’s race nor national origin had any bearing on GCA’s decision to terminate his employment. GCA’s decision was based solely on Petitioner’s failure to return to work following his 30-day leave of absence. In response to the testimony from Mr. Pugh and Mr. Rivera, Petitioner denied that he told them he went to Cuba in September or October 2015. Instead, Petitioner produced evidence that he was sworn in as a United States citizen on November 18, 2015. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that GCA discriminated against Petitioner based on race, color, or national origin. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that GCA discriminated against him in violation of the FCRA.
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 finding that Respondent, GCA Service Group, did not commit any unlawful employment practice against Petitioner and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 26th day of April, 2017.
Findings Of Fact F.T.W. Corporation was licensed by petitioner to operate the Shalimar Motel and employed Wazir Moosa, a/k/a Mohammed Siddiq at all pertinent times. (Prehearing Stipulation.) The Shalimar Motel) is located at 6300 Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida. (Testimony of Gibalski.) A clerk employed at the Shalimar Motel was once arrested on charges of keeping an improper register. (Testimony of Gibalski.) Respondent employed Gwen Phillips as a bookkeeper on May 28, 1980. (Testimony of Phillips and Gibalski.) She was not then and never has been an officer, director, or shareholder in respondent. (Testimony of Phillips and Gibalski.) Because George Gibalski, respondent's only officer and sole stockholder, was out of town on May 28, 1980, he sent Ms. Phillips in his stead to a meeting with five men employed by petitioner. (Testimony of Phillips and Gibalski.) At the meeting Ms. Phillips signed a stipulation "to resolve . . charges" made in a notice to show cause dated May 5, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The stipulation, which was signed by petitioner's director on June 9, 1980, called for respondent to pay a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500), and provided "Licensee further agrees [i]f additional prostitution arrest are [sic] made on the premises of the Shalimar Motel license number 23- 14946-H shall be subject to a one year suspension." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. After Mr. Gibalski was informed of the terms of the stipulation, he personally authorized payment of five hundred dollars ($500) to petitioner on behalf of respondent F. T. W. Corporation. (Testimony of Gibalski; Prehearing Stipulation.) Neither Mr. Gibalski nor Ms. Phillips has ever met Susan Joy Long, nor has Ms. Long ever been employed by respondent. (Testimony of Gibalski and Phillips.)
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner dismiss the notice to show cause. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1981, 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 2nd day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Karl Goethel, Esquire 2714 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Findings Of Fact The Joanne Gamache is a white, American female, and she owns 51 percent of the stock of Sun World Travel, Inc., (hereafter Sun). She submitted an application for MBE Certification in behalf of Sun to the Department of Management Services, (hereafter DMS). (R.E. 1, p. 24-31) Gillies Gamache, Joanne's husband, owns 49 percent of Sun World Travel. (Tr. 19-20) The major business purpose of this business is the sale of travel. (Tr. 35) Sun is a corporation domiciled in Florida with less than 25 employees, and a net worth of less than $1 million dollars. DMS, through its Certification Officer Morris, reviewed the file, completed an on site visit to Petitioner's business, and Sun's application for MBE Certification was tentatively denied. (Tr. 97-100) Sun was duly notified of DMS's decision, and filed a timely request for formal hearing on the intended agency action. In 1978, Gilles Gamache bought a travel agency in Broward County called Transit Travel using the joint savings of Gilles and Joanne Gamache. (Tr. 11- 12) All of the stock of this travel agency was issued to Gilles Gamache. (Tr. 19) He was both travel agent and the manager of Transit Travel. (Tr. 11) Joanne Gamache also worked in the agency making resevations, delivering tickets and doing the bookkeeping. (Tr. 15-16) Both Gamaches were also employed full time as teachers in the Broward County school system. (Tr. 12-13, 15-16) In 1981, the Gamaches moved to Tallahassee selling both their home and the business in South Florida. (Tr.14) Gilles Gamache opened another travel agency in Tallahassee called Sun World Travel using the proceeds of the sale of Transit Travel and other jointly held property. (Tr. 14 and 31) He was initially the 100 percent owner of the agency. (Tr. 19) Gilles Gamache initially worked in the travel agency full time and Joanne Gamache continued to teach school full time, and deliver tickets and work on business' books. (Tr. 16-19) She occasionally made some reservations. (Tr. 16-19) In 1989, Gilles Gamache transferred 51 percent ownership of Sun to Joanne Gamache. (Tr. 19-20) This shift resulted when Gilles Gamache became involved in additional business ventures, Joanne Gamache had more time to devote to the business because their daughter had entered school, and the transfer reflected the ownership interest which Joanne Gamache had possessed in Sun and its predeccessor, Transit Travel. It is incorrect to state that Joanne Gamache did not pay anything for her share of the business because she would have been entitled to a share of the business equal to her contribution to the joint funds used to purchase Transit Travel and jointly held property from which the money came to start Sun. (Tr. 31) The uncontroverted evidence is that Joanne's contributions to those savings was greater than Gilles' because she had always maintained her full time employment as a teacher. (Tr. 43 and HO's notes p. 6, 14, 27) The bylaws of the corporation provide that no transfer of stock which would dilute the 51 percent ownership of this corporation by minorites shall be permitted. (Tr. 21, Pet. Exh. 2, Article IV, Section 5) Concurrent with the shift in ownership and responsibilities, Sun hired an office manager because of a technical requirement that the manager of such an agency must be a certified reservationist, and Joanne Gamache is not certified. Initially, one of the existing employees, who was certified, was employed as the manager. Thereafter, Cindy Cimbora was hired as the manager; however, she is under the direction and control of Joanne Gamache. Gilles Gamache continues to be employed as a reservationist with Sun, as well has being the sole employee of two other companies which he owns. One of these companies is an importing company and the other involves text books. Gilles Gamache works 20 to 30 hours per week for Sun World Travel and 16 hours in his other businesses. (Tr. 80, 29-30) One of the major purchasing decisions made by Sun in the last five years was the purchase of the current business site. Joanne Gamache suggested the purchase of the building as a business location for Sun, and was the prime mover in its purchase, although both Gamaches participated in the negotiations for the purchase. The Gamaches own the building personally and rent the building to their businesses. The office of Gilles Gamache's companies are also in this building, but separate from those of Sun. None of the travel agency's business is transacted in the area used by his other businesses, and visa versa. (Tr. 76) Joanne Gamahe designed, selected and purchased the business' sign, entrance, and doors. She contracted for the security system for Sun. Rent paid by Sun on the building is less than $20,000 a year. Joanne Gamache earns $32,000 a year as a teacher and $7,000 a year from Sun World Travel. (Tr.46-47) Joanne Gamache goes to the business before and after school to deal with day to day business decisions providing direction to Cimbora in writing, directly, and by telepone. Joanne Gamache does a portion of her bookkeeping work at home at night and on the weekends. (Tr. 49) She estimates that she works 15-20 hours per week for Sun World Travel during the school year. Currently, Cindy Cimbora directs the other agents during business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Tr. 76-94) The Gamaches, as teachers, originally decided to engage in the travel business because its peak busy periods coincide with traditional school breaks. Sun employs Joanne Gamache, Gilles Gamache, Cindy Cimbora, Mary Waltman and John Moseley. Joanne Gamache makes personnel decisions, although most of the current employees were employed prior to the transfer of business ownership, and prepares and signs all payroll checks. She did interview and hire Cindy Cimbora, a white, American female in January 1992, on an employment contract which provides that Cimbora has first right of refusal if the agency is put up for sale. Cindy Cimbora is an experienced travel agent, and certified reservationist. (Tr. 50-51) Gilles Gamache signed the latest contract for the business' reservation computer system; however, Joanne Gamach negotiated the contract, and did not sign in behalf of the business because she was out of town because of an illness in her family. (Tr. 36) Joanne Gamache negotiated and signed the previous contract for reservation computer services. (Pet. Exh. 4 & 5, and Tr. 37) Joanne Gamache currently pays payroll, purchases supplies, handles accounts receivable, deals with the accountant about taxes, and gives direction to Cindy Cimbora on business to pursue. Joanne Gamache controls the finances of the business. Sun has a line of credit with First Florida Bank for which both Gamaches are jointly and severally liable. The business regularly uses credit card accounts for which both Gamaches are jointly and severally liable. Sun is unable to procure credit without the personal guarantee of both Gamaches. Cimbora and Gilles are additional authorized signatories on the business' checking account to facilitate transactions, such as making refunds to customers. Joanne Gamache writes the majority of the checks to suppliers and service providers. The company supplied a list of daily business activities for each owner at the request of the Certification Officer. (R.E. 1, p. 33-36) Gilles Gamache listed the following duties: disseminate information on new travel deals, coordinate ticket deliveries, organize travel literature files, look out for the best insurance values, monitor sales, solicit new business and make travel arrangements for clients. (R.E. 1 p. 34) Joanne Gamache listed her activities as the following: purchase goods and services, sign checks, do payroll, monitor profitability, monitor overhead costs, monitor collection of commissions, monitor stock of documents, issue refunds and process weekly airline report. (R.E. 1 p. 35) All of Joanne Gamache's functions related to management and the setting of policy, not day to day arrangements for travel; however, her duties are essential to the success of the business. In order to establish and maintain a travel agency the Airline Reporting Corporation requires that a travel agent with two years experience must run the business. (Tr. 123) To become a travel agent, a person must take a four hundred hour course covering topics including the opening and closing of a sale, learning airports, the destination of airlines and scheduling. (Tr. 88) There is a separate course requirement for the COVIA reservation system. (Tr. 88) COVIA is a system for making computerized airline reservations. Joanne Gamache has not attended these courses and is not a certified travel agent. (Tr. 75) This is the reason Sun employs Cindy Cimbora. The department's determination was based upon its conclusions regarding control of the business. To determine who has control of a family- owned business the agency looks at the contributions of each family member, the history of involvement with the business of each spouse, who sets policy, the resumes of the owners, the relative involvement of each owner in the business, and the length of time each had been active in the travel business. The agency initially concluded that Gilles Gamache's experience in the business was more extensive than his wife's, and that Joanne Gamache does not control Sun World Travel. (Tr 123-125)
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered granting the Petitioner's request for certification of the minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent's license as a real estate broker in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, thePetitioner, Division of Real Estate, was the state agency responsible for the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida and for the licensing of real estate brokers and salesmen. The Respondent, Michael David McNally was a real estate broker in this state licensed under license number 0502850. In mid-1989, Bruce and Judith Neild, residents of Massachusetts, were interested in buying a home in Port Charlotte, Florida and moving their family to this state. At first they were working with a realtor in Massachusetts but ultimately came into contact with the Respondent who was working with Welcome Center Realty, a Florida agency, at the time. They found a house they liked which had been built by Presidential Homes. At the time they saw it, the house was not completed but the Neilds fell in love with it. It was expected to be completed within 60 days. On July 8, 1989, the Neilds entered into a construction contract with Welcome Center Realty, signed for by the Respondent, for the construction and purchase of the house they liked, for $109,895.00, with closing to take place by September 1, 1989. In furtherance of the contract, the Neilds gave Mr. McNally a $15,000.00 deposit by check dated July 8, 1989 payable to Welcome Center Realty Escrow Account. This check was endorsed by and deposited to the account of Welcome Center Realty but was not placed in the escrow account. The balance of the purchase price was to be paid by additional cash at closing from the Neilds and a mortgage for $60,000.00. Respondent referred the Neilds to Mr. Dolata, the loanofficer at Amerifirst Bank for the mortgage. The application for the loan was made by telephone by the Neilds after they returned to Massachusetts. After their return to Massachusetts, the Neilds received two letters from the Respondent which were both letters of intent from businesses in the Port Charlotte area, Esquire Pools and Physicians Weight Loss Center, indicating the intent to employ Mr. and Mrs. Neild at a stated wage. However, because the Neilds had not spoken with these putative employers and had no indication of any proposed employment, they would not agree to their being used in support of their mortgage application, regardless of Respondent's urging that they do so. In the interim, the Neilds had been told by Mr. McNally that an additional $15,000.00 down on the purchase price would help the approval of their loan and they could move into the house. On the basis of that representation, the Neilds moved their family of four children to Florida over the Labor Day weekend in 1989 prepared to move into their new home. On arrival, however, they found that a certificate of occupancy had not been issued and in addition, the pool was no more than a big hole in the ground. The Neilds moved into a hotel for a week until the certificate was obtained. During that time, they paid an additional $17,000.00 for completion of the pool, window coverings and landscaping, and, on September 11, 1989 finally moved into their house. They stayed there until December, 1989, and after they moved in, did not see the Respondent again. In mid-October, 1989, the Neilds received a phone call from Ms. Stevens, the loan processor at Amerifirst, who was trying to confirm Mr. Neild's employment and asked how long he had worked at Esquire Pools. Mr. Neild was surprised by this since he had never worked for that company and said so. In response, Ms. Stevens stated she had a verification form from the company stating not only that he worked there but how much he made each month. Ms. Stevens indicated she also had a form from Physicians Weight Loss Center indicating Mrs. Neild worked there. At that point neither Neild had worked for either concern although at one point, Mr. McNally discussed with Mr. Neild the possibility of his working for Esquire and offered to put him in contact with the firm. He never did, however. After that phone call, Ms. Stevens sent the Neilds verification of employment forms for them to sign reflecting they worked for the concerns as stated. Again, they refused, indicating they had never worked for either firm. Because of that, the loan for the purchase was not approved by Amerifirst. When the Neilds found out that the loan from Amerifirst had been denied, the discussed applying for a loan at a different lender. It was at this time they discovered that Respondent and Presidential Homes were in a dispute as to who actually owned the house they were buying. Recognizing they would have great difficulty getting any loan if the builder and the agent were both claiming ownership, the Neilds decided they wanted out of the deal and asked Respondent for a return of their depositmoney. At that time, he said he didn't have it - that notwithstanding it had been put in the realtor's account, he had used it for other things. Since that time, the Neilds have received no refund of any money from Respondent nor have they had any contact with him. Because of the situation as it developed, the Neilds made arrangements to move back to Massachusetts and turned the matter over to an attorney for collection. Mr. Harris, an investigator for the Department, was assigned to investigate the complaint in this matter filed by Mr. Neild. As a part of his investigation, he spoke with Mr. McNally at his office at Welcome Center Realty where Respondent admitted having shown the property in question to the Neilds, to having drawn up the contract for sale, and to having received a check from Mrs. Neild as a down payment which he placed into his operating account rather than into the escrow account. Mr. McNally indicates he spoke with Ms. Stevens, the loan processor at Amerifirst, on October 10, 1989 and advised her to credit the Neilds with the down payment, but on October 17, 1989, the day closing was to take place, the Neilds called her and told her they had decided not to close on the sale. When he called them to talk about this, he claims, they told him they had decided to go back to Massachusetts and not live in Florida. At this point he claims he told the Neilds he would not give them their deposit back because the house had been off the market for several months. His suggestion to them was that if they didn't want to live in thehouse, they should buy it anyway and get their money back by reselling it. He overlooks the fact that because of the dispute as to actual ownership of the property between him and the builder, Presidential, he had no clear title to transfer to them. Respondent also admits to having prepared the Letters of Intent which were signed by the putative employers in an effort to assist the Neilds in qualifying for their loan. He denies, however, having submitted the forged Verification of Employment forms to Amerifirst, but Mr. Noll, President of Esquire Pools, and whose signature appears on one of the forms, denies having either signed it or sent it in. At one point he had considered hiring Mr. Neilds and sent the letter offering to do so, but neither hired him or signed the form. There was no evidence presented as to whether the other prospective employer signed the form or not other than hearsay evidence of her denial. That hearsay evidence will not, of itself, support a finding. The initial verification of employment forms sent out by the bank expired before they were returned. As a result, in an effort to expedite the loan, Ms. Stevens sent out additional copies. When that second form was sent out, Mr. Noll called her to state that Mr. Neild had never worked there. A call she made to the Physician's Weight Loss Center, which never responded to the verification form, revealed that Mrs. Neild had never worked there. As a result, Mrs. Stevens does not know who filled out the verification forms but when she compared the signatures on the forms to that of the Respondent on the sales contract, theyappeared to her to have been by the same person. She is not an expert in handwriting analysis, however, and her comparison is not considered of great weight. However, when Mr. Harris spoke with her during his investigation, she advised him that she received them, bearing the purported signatures of the prospective employers, from Respondent. Taken together, the evidence indicates, and it is so found, that Respondent is the individual who affixed the false signatures to the Verification of Employment forms submitted to Amerifirst in support of the Neild's loan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered directing that the Respondent herein, Michael David McNally's license as a real estate broker be suspended for a period of two years, that he pay an administrative fine of $5,000.00, and that he be reprimanded. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida this 2nd day of October, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Division of Real Estate DPR 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Louise Hanaoka, Esquire Wilkins, Frohlich, Jones, Hevia & Russell, P.A. 1777 Tamiami Trail, Suite 501 Port Charlotte, Florida 33948 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the two-count Administrative Complaint, dated April 17, 2007, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (the "Department"), is the state agency charged with enforcing the statutory provisions pertaining to persons holding real estate broker and sales associate's licenses in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, except where specifically noted, Respondent Mathew Johnson was a licensed Florida real estate sales associate, having been issued license number SL3149081. Respondent first obtained his real estate associate's license in 2003 and worked under the license of broker Jacqueline Sanderson in Orlando. When he married and his wife became pregnant, Respondent believed that he needed a more steady income than his commission-based employment with Ms. Sanderson provided. Respondent left Ms. Sanderson's employ on good terms and commenced work as the marketing manager for the downtown YMCA in Orlando. While working at the downtown YMCA, Respondent met a member of the YMCA named Tab L. Bish ("Mr. Bish"), a broker who owns First Source, Inc., an Orlando real estate sales company (sometimes referred to as "FSI Realty"). Respondent became friendly with Mr. Bish, and expressed an interest in getting back into the real estate business. Mr. Bish offered Respondent a job at First Source. Respondent had allowed his sales associate's license to lapse while he was working at the YMCA. Respondent informed Mr. Bish of that fact, and told Mr. Bish that he required a salaried position in order to support his young family. Respondent testified that Mr. Bish was happy to hire him as an office manager, because Mr. Bish wanted Respondent to perform a marketing role for First Source similar to that he had performed for the YMCA. Respondent started working at First Source in May 2005, as a salaried office manager. Mr. Bish agreed that he initially hired Respondent as an office manager, but only on the understanding that Respondent would take the necessary steps to reactivate his sales associate's license and commence selling property as soon as possible. Respondent took the licensing course again. Mr. Bish believed that Respondent was taking too long to obtain his license, and cast about for something Respondent could do during the interim. In order to make profitable use of Respondent's time, Mr. Bish began to deal in referral fees from apartment complexes. Certain complexes in the Orlando area would pay a fee to brokers who referred potential renters to the apartments, provided these potential renters actually signed leases. Among the apartment complexes offering referral fees was the Jefferson at Maitland, which in 2005 offered a referral fee of half the first month's rent. Mr. Bish placed Respondent in charge of connecting potential renters with apartment complexes, showing the apartments, following up to determine whether the potential renters signed leases, and submitting invoices for the referral fees. Mr. Bish did not authorize Respondent to collect the payments. Respondent initiated contact with the Jefferson at Maitland and began sending potential renters there. Respondent would submit invoices to the Jefferson at Maitland, payable to First Source, for each referral that resulted in a lease agreement. Respondent estimated that he submitted between 12 and 15 invoices for referral fees to the Jefferson at Maitland during his employment with First Source. Respondent obtained his license and became an active sales associate under Mr. Bish's broker's license on November 16, 2005. Mr. Bish began a process of weaning Respondent away from his salaried position and into working on a full commission basis. Respondent stopped showing apartments under the referral arrangement and began showing properties for sale. The last lease for which First Source was due a referral fee from the Jefferson at Maitland was dated December 5, 2005. In early February 2006, it occurred to Respondent that he had failed to follow up with the Jefferson at Maitland regarding the last group of potential renters to whom he had shown apartments during October and November 2005. Respondent claimed that he "hadn't had the opportunity" to follow up because of the press of his new duties as a sales associate and the intervening holiday season. However, nothing cited by Respondent explained his failure to make a simple phone call to the Jefferson at Maitland to learn whether First Source was owed any referral fees. Respondent finally made the call to the Jefferson at Maitland on February 9, 2006. He spoke to a woman he identified as Jenny Marrero, an employee whom he knew from prior dealings. Ms. Marrero reviewed Respondent's list and found three persons who had signed leases after Respondent showed them apartments: Mike Tebbutt, who signed a one-year lease on October 26, 2005, for which First Source was owed a referral fee of $532.50; Terry Ford, who signed an eight-month lease on November 14, 2005, for which First Source was owed a referral fee of $492.50; and Juan Sepulveda, who signed an eight-month lease on December 2, 2005, for which First Source was owed a referral fee of $415.00. However, there was a problem caused by Respondent's failure to submit invoices for these referral fees in a timely manner. Respondent testified that Ms. Marrero told him that the Jefferson at Maitland had reduced its referral fee from 50 percent to 20 percent of the first month's rent, effective January 2006.2 Ms. Marrero could not promise that these late invoices would be paid according to the 2005 fee structure. According to Respondent, Ms. Marrero suggested that the Jefferson at Maitland's corporate office would be more likely to pay the full amount owed if Respondent did something to "break up" the invoices, making it appear that they were being submitted by different entities. She also suggested that no invoice for a single payee exceed $1,000, because the corporate office would know that amount exceeded any possible fee under the 2006 fee structure. Ms. Marrero made no assurances that her suggestions would yield the entire amount owed for the 2005 invoices, but Respondent figured the worst that could happen would be a reduction in the billings from 50 percent to 20 percent of the first month's rent. On February 9, 2006, Respondent sent a package to the Jefferson at Maitland, via facsimile transmission. Included in the package were three separate invoices for the referral fees owed on behalf of Messrs. Tebbutt, Ford, and Sepulveda. The invoices for Messrs. Tebbutt and Sepulveda stated that they were from "Matt Johnson, FSI Realty," to the Jefferson at Maitland, and set forth the name of the lessee, the lease term, the amount of the "referral placement fee," and stated that the checks should be made payable to "FSI Realty, 1600 North Orange Avenue, Suite 6, Orlando, Florida 32804." The invoice for Mr. Ford stated that it was from "Matt Johnson" to the Jefferson at Maitland. It, too, set forth the name of the lessee, the lease term, and the amount of the referral fee. However, this invoice stated that the check should be made payable to "Matt Johnson, 5421 Halifax Drive, Orlando, Florida 32812." The Halifax Drive location is Respondent's home address. The package sent by Respondent also included an Internal Revenue Service Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, for Mr. Bish and for Respondent, a copy of Respondent's real estate sales associate license, a copy of Mr. Bish's real estate broker's license, and a copy of First Source, Inc.'s real estate corporation registration. Approximately one month later, in early March 2006, Mr. Bish answered the phone at his office. The caller identifying herself as "Amber" from the Jefferson at Maitland and asked for Respondent, who was on vacation. Mr. Bish asked if he could help. Amber told Mr. Bish that the W-9 form submitted for Respondent had been incorrectly filled out, and that she could not send Respondent a check without the proper information. Mr. Bish told Amber that under no circumstances should she send a check payable to Respondent. He instructed her to make the payment to First Source. Amber said nothing to Mr. Bish about a need to break up the payments or to make sure that a single remittance did not exceed $1,000. Mr. Bish asked Amber to send him copies of the documents that Respondent had submitted to the Jefferson at Maitland. Before those documents arrived, Mr. Bish received a phone call from Respondent, who explained that he submitted the invoice in his own name to ensure that Mr. Bish received the full amount owed by the Jefferson at Maitland. On March 10, 2006, after reviewing the documents he received from the Jefferson at Maitland, Mr. Bish fired Respondent. On March 29, 2006, Mr. Bish filed the complaint that commenced the Department's investigation of this matter.3 At the hearing, Mr. Bish explained that, even if Respondent's story about the need to "break up" the invoices and keep the total below $1,000 were true, the problem could have been easily resolved. Had Mr. Bish known of the situation, he would have instructed the Jefferson at Maitland to make one check payable to him personally as the broker, and a second check payable to First Source, Inc. In any event, there was in fact no problem. By a single check, dated March 15, 2008, First Source received payment from the Jefferson at Maitland in the amount of $1,440, the full sum of the three outstanding invoices from 2005. Respondent testified that he never intended to keep the money from the invoice, and that he would never have submitted it in his own name if not for the conversation with Ms. Marrero. Respondent asserted that if he had received a check, he would have signed it over to Mr. Bish. Respondent and his wife each testified that the family had no great need of $492.50 at the time the invoices were submitted. Respondent's wife is an attorney and was working full time in February 2006, and Respondent was still receiving a salary from First Source. In his capacity as office manager, Respondent had access to the company credit card to purchase supplies. Mr. Bish conducted an internal audit that revealed no suspicious charges. Respondent failed to explain why he did not immediately tell Mr. Bish about the potential fee collection problem as soon as he learned about it from Ms. Marrero, why he instructed the Jefferson at Maitland to send the check to his home address rather than his work address, or why he allowed a month to pass before telling Mr. Bish about the invoices. He denied knowing that Mr. Bish had already learned about the situation from the Jefferson at Maitland's employee. The Department failed to demonstrate that Respondent intended to keep the $492.50 from the invoice made payable to Respondent personally. The facts of the case could lead to the ultimate finding that Respondent was engaged in a scheme to defraud First Source of its referral fee. However, the same facts also may be explained by Respondent's fear that Mr. Bish would learn of his neglect in sending the invoices, and that this neglect could result in a severe reduction of First Source's referral fees. Respondent may have decided to keep quiet about the matter in the hope that the Jefferson at Maitland would ultimately pay the invoices in full, at which time Respondent would explain himself to Mr. Bish with an "all's well that ends well" sigh of relief. Given the testimony at the hearing concerning Respondent's character and reputation for honesty, given that Respondent contemporaneously told the same story to his wife and to Ms. Sanderson that he told to this tribunal, and given that this incident appears anomalous in Respondent's professional dealings, the latter explanation is at least as plausible as the former. Respondent conceded that, as a sales associate, he was not authorized by law to direct the Jefferson at Maitland to make the referral fee check payable to him without the express written authorization of his broker, Mr. Bish. Respondent also conceded that Mr. Bish did not give him written authorization to accept the referral fee payment in his own name. Respondent has not been subject to prior discipline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order: Dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint against Respondent; and Suspending Respondent's sales associate's license for a period of one year for the violation established in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 21st day of September, 2007.
