Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Julius McKinnon. He was employed by Respondent for more than 13 years. At the time of his dismissal from employment with Respondent's airport police department, Petitioner held the rank of lieutenant and supervised the five man force. Petitioner is black. On December 5, 1989, Petitioner was called to the office of Coy Thomason, Respondent's airport manager. Petitioner was informed of his rights and questioned regarding allegations of a white female employee of a restaurant at the airport that Petitioner had made sexual overtures to her, inclusive of nonconsenual touching of her body. The alleged battery by Petitioner was reported by the restaurant employee, Ruby Darlene Howard, to other airport law enforcement officials of the airport as having occurred late in the evening after the close of business on November 25, 1989. Following the conference with Thomason, Petitioner was placed, effective December 9, 1989, on an indefinite suspension with pay, subject to later possible termination of employment. Petitioner's employment was terminated on March 9, 1990, pursuant to a March 5, 1990 letter of termination to Petitioner signed by Thomason. The primary basis for termination of Petitioner's employment, as established by Thomason's testimony at the final hearing, was the airport manager's belief that Petitioner had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with regard to the female coffee shop employee and had assaulted the employee. Thomason's testimony further establishes that Petitioner had been previously counselled or disciplined on various occasions for work related matters, including a three day suspension for failure to report to work and a reprimand for inappropriate comments to a female police officer. Thomason's testimony was credible, candid and direct. That testimony establishes that Thomason did not terminate Petitioner's employment on the basis of the employee's race. Two white male police officers presently employed by Respondent's airport authority also have disciplinary histories. Arthur Badger resigned in 1988 when faced with possible disciplinary action at that time for drunken driving. Badger was rehired 20 months later following alcohol abuse counselling and assurances to Respondent that he had recovered from his alcoholism problems. Another of Respondent's white police officers with the airport authority is Terry Masters. Masters, employed by Respondent's airport authority for more than five years, was suspended by Respondent for 28 days following an off-duty incident where Masters was alleged to have publicly urinated in front of a female at the airport while in an intoxicated state. Although allegations against Masters were denied by him, he nevertheless was suspended by Respondent. Following Petitioner's termination, Respondent has employed no black police officers at the airport terminal due to the absence of pending applications from qualified individuals.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0477 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1. Adopted in substance as to first sentence, remainder rejected as subordinate to hearing officer's findings and on the basis of relevancy. 2.-4. Rejected as unnecessary to result. 5.-7. Adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. Adopted as to the first sentence. The second sentence is rejected on the basis of relevancy. First sentence adopted and supplemented. Remainder rejected on basis of relevancy. Rejected, relevancy. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner consisted of a three page letter containing 17 unnumbered paragraphs. Those paragraphs have been numbered chronologically 1-17 and are addressed as follows: 1. Rejected, procedural, argumentative, legal conclusion. 2.-3. Adopted in substance, not verbatim. Adopted in substance as to first 2 sentences. Remainder rejected as opinion testimony relating to credibility of a person whose reputation was not in issue due to the failure of either Respondent or Petitioner to call this person to the witness stand. Adopted in substance as to first sentence, remainder rejected for same reason as set forth regarding proposed finding #4. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Indeed, Petitioner could well have called these adverse witnesses to the stand in order to demonstrate their lack of credibility and any racial prejudice on the part of the airport manager for believing them. Petitioner chose not to follow such a course of action. Rejected, again Petitioner seeks to impeach the testimony of a non- testifying witness. The import of this proposed finding is rejected on the basis of Petitioner's lack of credibility. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, argumentative, hearsay. 12.-13. Rejected, relevance. Rejected, credibility. Rejected, argumentative, cumulative, unsupported by weight of the evidence. 16.-17. Rejected, relevance and argumentative. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Julius McKinnon 218 Ajax Drive Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 Robert L. Norton, Esq. 121 Majorca Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken, if any.
Findings Of Fact Jacquelyn Kendrick is the owner of the Club Ecstasy, an adult entertainment club with dancers and strippers, located in Fort Lauderdale. In August 1996 the Club had a contract for security services with Warrior, a security agency. Respondent Manuel Vernerette, as an employee of Warrior, provided security services at the Club. When Warrior's relationship with the Club ended, Kendrick approached Respondent Vernerette with regard to working for the Club. Although Vernerette was currently employed by Navarro during the day, he was able to work at the Club at night. Kendrick also asked him if he knew others who would work at the Club, and he referred several other Navarro employees to Kendrick, who interviewed them. One of the Club's employees would check identification and frisk the Club's customers for weapons outside the front door. The customer could then enter the Club, purchase a "ticket", and then pass through a second door into the "actual" Club portion of the premises. The customer's ticket was collected at the second door. Vernerette's duties were primarily to "collect the tickets" at the second door. He also helped stock the bar and collected money from customers who wanted to use the "VIP rooms". He also had some supervisory responsibilities over some of the Club's employees he had referred to Kendrick. Vernerette only worked inside the Club. On November 23, 1996, two of Petitioner's investigators appeared at the Club to check identification and licenses of any security officers working at the Club. When they arrived, Vernerette was outside with several other Club employees he had referred to Kendrick. Someone other than Vernerette was stationed at the door searching customers. Vernerette appeared to be overseeing the operation. Although all of those employees wore dark clothing, they were not in uniforms. At the request of the investigators, Vernerette produced his Class "D" security officer license and his Class "G" firearm license. At the time Vernerette, who also holds a concealed weapon or firearm license, was wearing a 9 mm. semi-automatic firearm in a gun belt which was covered by his jacket. He was also wearing a badge. He told the investigators how many security officers were working inside the Club and that they could come outside to have their licenses checked. Those persons were summoned. The investigators did not go into the Club that night. In response to the investigator's questions, Vernerette told them that all the security officers were employees of the Club. He specifically used the term "in-house" security. He was cooperative with the investigators. The investigators were told that "Jackie" was the person they needed to speak to regarding the employment status of the security officers but that she was not there. On January 30, 1997, the investigators returned to the Club since they had been unsuccessful in their attempts to contact Jackie. She was there that night. Vernerette was not since he had stopped working at the Club by January 3. Jackie denied that Vernerette and the other security officers were employees. She was unable to produce any documentation regarding her relationship with Vernerette or the other security officers. She had no contract, no payroll records, and no cancelled checks. She advised Petitioner's investigators that she paid Vernerette, sometimes by check and sometimes in cash, and that he then paid the others. After the investigators interviewed her, Kendrick began using deputies from the Broward County Sheriff's Office to provide security services at the Club. In February 1997 Vernerette received his Class "B" license, a security agency license. He visited Kendrick at the Club, gave her a proposal to provide security services at the Club, and gave her his new business card. The business card advertises Armstar Protective Services, lists Vernerette as the President and C.E.O., and includes his Class "B" license number. Vernerette did not conduct the business of a security agency without being so licensed when he worked at the Club. He worked there as an employee of the business and not as an independent contractor. Further, Vernerette did not perform security officer duties at the Club between November 23, 1996, and January 30, 1997.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I, III, and V and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against them. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1998. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Yolanda Fox, Esquire Law Offices of C. Jean-Joseph Mercede Executive Park 1876 North University Drive, Suite 309C Plantation, Florida 33322 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond T. Grady, Jr., held registered specialty contractor license number RX DO32138 issued by petitioner, Department of Profession Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. 1/ According to the official records of petitioner, Grady was first licensed in 1977. He later qualified F & L Contracting, Inc., a contracting company doing business in Palm Bay, Florida, in February, 1982. The 1983 annual report filed by F & L Contracting, Inc., with the Department of State reflected that Grady was secretary-treasurer and resident agent of the corporation while a Fred James Henderson served as president. Grady continued to qualify F & L Contracting, Inc. until February 27, 1984, when he notified petitioner that he was no longer its qualifying agent. Presently, his license is on an inactive status. Fred James Henderson did business under the name of F & L Contracting, Inc., F & L Contractors, Inc. and F & L Construction, Inc. All had the same street address and telephone number and were the same for all practical purposes. Only F & L Contracting, Inc. was qualified by Grady with the State. On or about August 25, 1983, Lyman and Dawn Crowshaw of 356 Holiday Park, Palm Bay Florida, entered into a contract with F & L Contractors, Inc., to have a utility room added to their residence for a price of $5,835. The contract was negotiated by Henderson. When the contract was signed, Henderson gave the Crowshaws his business card which reflected the name "F & L Contracting, Inc.," and had the same telephone number and address as F & L Contractors, Inc. Under the agreement, Lyman Crowshaw gave F & L Contractors, Inc. a check in the amount of $1,945 as the first of three payments for the work. The check was deposited into the bank account of F & L Contracting, Inc., the company which Grady had qualified. Because Henderson held no license from the State, he could not pull job permits in the City of Palm Bay. Therefore, it was necessary for Grady to sign all applications and pick up the permits on behalf of Henderson. In this regard, the city building officials perceived Grady to be the individual who qualified Henderson to do business as a contractor. For this reason, the official notified Grady that no permit could be pulled on the Crowshaw job because of a setback restriction on Crowshaw's property. When Crowshaw learned of this, he immediately requested a refund of his money, but Henderson did not oblige. After the Crowshaws sent a letter to F & L Contracting, Inc. on November 18, 1983 demanding payment, and their attorney did the same on January 4, 1984, Henderson and his wife finally executed a promissory note on January 11, 1984 promising to pay the Crowshaws $500 per month plus 18 percent interest until the $1,945 was repaid. Henderson signed the note individually and as president of F & L Contractors, Inc. Mr. Crowshaw received one $500 payment on January 21, 1984 from Henderson. After he received no other payments, Crowshaw filed a complaint against Grady in an effort to recover his money. That prompted the instant proceeding. The Crowshaws and Grady had never seen each other prior to the final hearing. The Crowshaws did have two telephone conversations with someone who represented himself to be Grady in late 1983 and early 1984, and in those conversations, Grady assured them that he would get Henderson to repay the money owed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and that his license be suspended for one year, unless Grady obtains a signed release from the Crowshaws indicating restitution has been made. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DOANLD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C012556 issued by the State of Florida. Since June 30, 1979, this license was in an inactive status. The Respondent qualified Clark Sales & Service, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On or about March 16, 1983, the Respondent went to the City of Hollywood Building Department to obtain a building permit for fence installation at 2029 Adams Street in the City of Hollywood. In order to obtain such a permit in the City of Hollywood, the contractor or owner must first complete a permit application which must be approved by the Engineering Department for the Hollywood Building Department. Once the completed application is approved, it is submitted to the permit section for the City of Hollywood. In order to pull permits in the City of Hollywood, a contractor must be either certified by the State of Florida, or the holder of a certificate of competency issued by Broward County, in the particular trade category. Either the contractor's state certificate or the county certificate of competency must be presented to the city permit section, which then issues the permit based upon the approved application. The Respondent presented his general contractor's certificate to Barbara Gesino, who is the administrative assistant for the Hollywood Building Department, in order to obtain a certificate of competency so he could pull the building permit for the fence proposed to be erected at 2029 Adams Street in Hollywood. The general contractor's certificate which the Respondent submitted to Barbara Gesino had been altered to reflect Clark Fence, Inc., as the company which the Respondent qualified. The Respondent's certificate had been further altered to reflect June 30, 1983, as the expiration date for the certificate, whereas the Respondent's certificate had expired on June 30, 1979. Further, the Respondent qualified Clark Sales & Service, Inc., only at the time he submitted the altered certificate to Barbara Gesino. At no time did the Respondent qualify Clark Fence, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Clark Fence, Inc., was qualified by Donald Burke, who had been licensed as a specialty fence contractor in the City of Hollywood, but the certificate of competency issued to him by the City of Hollywood was delinquent. Without a valid certificate of competency, Donald Burke could not obtain permits in the City of Hollywood. On March 16, 1983, the Respondent obtained the building permit for erection of the fence at 2029 Adams Street in Hollywood. This permit showed Clark Fence as the contractor and was signed by the Respondent in the space designated for the owner, licensed contractor, or agent. This permit was issued based upon an application signed by Donald Burke, whose certificate of competency was delinquent. After the Respondent obtained this permit, Barbara Gesino asked him to come back to her office so that she could be certain that the paperwork was in order for Clark Fence, Inc., to obtain permits in the City of Hollywood. She prepared two City of Hollywood certificates of competency, one for the Respondent and the other for Donald Burke. The Respondent was instructed to take one of these certificates of competency to Donald Burke, who was to sign it and return it to the City of Hollywood Building Department. The Respondent signed his certificate of competency while he was at the City of Hollywood Building Department. While he was there, Barbara Gesino copied his state certificate and returned it to him. Later, when Barbara Gesino reviewed the photocopy of the Respondent's state certificate, she realized that this certificate had been altered, and filed a complaint with the Petitioner. After the Respondent completed the erection of the fence for which the building permit was obtained, he received a letter from the City of Hollywood Building Department stating that the subject building permit had been cancelled.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number CG C012556 held by the Respondent, Norman C. Clark, be revoked. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 8th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roger D. Haagenson, Esquire Suite 601 Cumberland Building 800 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner was the holder of a Class "D" security officer license (Number D93-12573) issued by the Department. Weiser Security is an agency that offers security services. In December of 1993, Petitioner was employed as a security officer by Weiser Security. He was assigned to service the Shoppes of Oakland Forest (hereinafter referred to as the "Shoppes") account. His supervisor was Leonard Franklin. On December 9, 1993, at approximately 1:00 a.m. or 2:00 a.m., Franklin visited the Shoppes. He wanted to speak with Petitioner. Petitioner was supposed to be on duty at the Shoppes, but he was not at his post and Franklin was unable to find him. Franklin noted on a field supervisor's inspection report Petitioner's unauthorized absence from his post. On December 11, 1993, during another visit to the Shoppes, Franklin discovered Petitioner asleep in his car while on duty. Franklin shined his flashlight in Petitioner's eyes for approximately 15 minutes, but Petitioner did not awaken. Franklin finally roused Petitioner by tapping on Petitioner's car. Franklin made note of the incident in a field supervisor's inspection report. Petitioner was scheduled to work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift at the Shoppes on December 24-25, 1993. Audrey Hawkins, another Weiser Security security officer, 2/ was originally scheduled not to work that shift at the Shoppes. She was called by a supervisor, however, some time after the beginning of the shift and requested to complete the shift because Petitioner had not reported for duty. Hawkins arrived at the Shoppes at around midnight. When she arrived, she noticed a security report that Petitioner had already filled out for the entire shift (11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m.). 3/ The report was on a desk where Weiser Security security officers routinely left their completed security reports for the client to pick up. Petitioner did not report for duty at any time during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and therefore Hawkins remained at the Shoppes for the remainder of the shift. Weiser Security security officers assigned to the Shoppes account in December of 1993 were required to make "key rounds" (which involved "punching" special "security keys" at four different locations on the property) a minimum of once an hour. Petitioner failed to make any such rounds during his shift on December 26, 1993 (from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.). On July 13, 1995, Petitioner filed with the Department an application to renew his Class "D" security officer license. By letter dated August 16, 1995, the Department notified Petitioner of its intention to deny his application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to renew his Class "D" security officer license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of February, 1996. STUART M. LERNER 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 1st day of February, 1996.
Findings Of Fact James V. Hodnett, Jr., was registered as a real estate broker in 1974 and has been continually so registered since that time (Exhibit 7). Sea Pines Realty, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation were filed December 13, 1977, and it was authorized to operate as a Florida corporation on December 15, 1977. Respondent, Sea Pines Realty, Inc., applied for registration as a corporate real estate broker on January 14, 1978, with James V. Hodnett, Jr., as president and active firm member. Request for initial certification for corporation was forwarded to the Florida Real Estate Commission on January 20, 1978, and license was issued to Sea Pines Realty, Inc., as a corporate broker effective February 9, 1978 (Exhibit 6). Of those nine witnesses who purchased homes or lots in Sea Pines, only one of these witnesses, William Barnes, purchased a lot (or home) in Sea Pines later than 1977. Mr. Barnes purchased his home in 1979 from the previous owner and neither of Respondents was involved in or had any influence on that transaction. Mr. Miller testified on direct examination that he had searched the public records and learned that Hodnett had owned the land abutting Sea Pines to the north which was sold to Belcher mines, that Belcher mines set off explosives to blast rock in those mines, and that his house was damaged by those explosives. Upon cross-examination, Mr. Miller admitted that he could not say for certain that the property had been sold to Belcher by James Hodnett, Jr., or James Hodnett, Sr., and that it could have been sold by the latter. In addition to Miller, who purchased his property in 1976; Wurst, who purchased in 1971; Morgal, who purchased in 1977; Farrelly, who purchased in 1971; Leggiere, who purchased in 1976; Senderling, who purchased in 1976; Anderson, who purchased in 1969; and Campbell, who purchased in 1971, all testified that they purchased their properties through, and had contact with, Jean Humphries, who was the salesperson for the developer of this property. Representations regarding the plans to build a golf course, to install underground utility lines, and other representations constituting the gravamen of these charges were all made by Ms. Humphries and none of these representations was made by Hodnett.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of discriminating against Petitioner, due to her handicap, in providing a public accommodation, in violation of Section 760.08, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner suffers from a panic disorder for which she requires the assistance of a service animal. Her service animal is a 40-pound German Shepherd mix named "Rocky." Rocky enables Petitioner to overcome certain specific disabilities associated with her condition, but she does not always require Rocky's assistance. In the summer of 2009, Petitioner's mother organized a family vacation in the form of a Caribbean cruise on a vessel operated by Respondent. She selected a cruise departing Port Everglades on August 9, 2009. The group included Petitioner's father, Petitioner's sister, her fiancé, and others. The first port of call for the cruise after departing Fort Lauderdale was Key West, after which the vessel would sail to various ports under the jurisdiction of other countries. On the morning of the departure, Petitioner's then- boyfriend John McCarthy drove her and Rocky from Key Biscayne, where they live in the same condominium building. Mr. McCarthy proved to be a useful witness. He and Petitioner are no longer in a relationship. Mr. McCarthy portrayed the events largely in agreement with Petitioner's version of events, although his reliability is somewhat undermined by the fact that he and Petitioner have discussed many times what exactly took place on that day. However, he displayed a spirited independence from Petitioner, as when he described her decision to file this "lawsuit" as "ridiculous," and, more importantly, admitted that, while in the terminal, he was unsure whether Petitioner wanted to take Rocky with her on the cruise. Much, but not all, of his testimony has been credited. Leaving Key Biscayne that morning, Petitioner did not, in fact, intend to have Rocky accompany her on the cruise. Among other possible reasons, Petitioner's mother had asked her not to bring Rocky, and Petitioner had acceded to her mother's wish. It was Petitioner's intent only for Rocky to see her off. Without incident, Petitioner, Mr. McCarthy, and Rocky left the car at the cruise terminal parking area and made their way into the cruise lobby. The trio entered the lobby amidst swarms of embarking and disembarking passengers. Respondent hosts on its cruises many passengers with disabilities, including some passengers with service animals. Two Carnival managers described Respondent's policies for accommodating disabled passengers. The Guest Access Support manager, Kay Strawderman, explained the process by which persons purchasing cruise tickets are directed to complete a form that provides information about disabilities or special needs. If a passenger is bringing a service animal, Respondent informs the passenger that he or she must contact the U.S. Department of Agriculture for current regulations, by port, governing animals, such as requirements for vaccination records. These regulations are imposed by the countries visited by the vessel and may be enforced even if the animal does not leave the ship. Neither Respondent nor the U.S. government has the authority to permit any deviations from these foreign laws. Using the information provided in the completed forms, the Guest Access Support department compiles a list of special- needs passengers, including passengers who will be bringing service animals. The Guest Access Support department sends this list to the Guest Logistics department. Assigned to the terminal and in direct contact with passengers, Guest Logistics employees ensure the efficient boarding and exiting of the vessels and movement through the terminal. The Guest Logistics manager, Doris Enamorado, testified that her employees use the special-needs lists to ensure that special-needs passengers and, if applicable, their service animals are directed to special boarding areas, so they can board without any delay. Ms. Strawderman and Ms. Enamorado both considered the question of what they would do if a special-needs passenger failed to fill out and return the forms, but arrived at the terminal seeking to board with her service animal. The question is hypothetical because this has never previously happened, including on the day in question. Ms. Strawderman insisted that, if a special-needs passenger failed to return the forms, Respondent would not deny boarding. Ms. Enamorado added that, if one of her employees encountered a passenger with an animal in the terminal seeking to board, the employee would determine if the animal were a service animal, including how it services the disability, and then examine the vaccination records, without which a service animal may not sail due to the requirements of the laws of foreign countries. Shortly after they entered the terminal, Petitioner, Mr. McCarthy, and Rocky were approached by a Carnival employee named "Alex." Respondent invites the inference that Petitioner spontaneously exploded into anger and hysterics. At the hearing, Petitioner displayed a tendency toward combativeness, but none toward spontaneous anger or hysterics. More likely, Alex, upon encountering Petitioner, Mr. McArthur, and a dog in a crowded terminal, momentarily failed to display the composure and dedication to service of Respondent's managerial employees who testified at the hearing. Mr. McCarthy's testimony is especially useful at this point and is largely credited. Approaching Petitioner, Alex abruptly informed her that Rocky could not proceed. It is likely that Alex assumed that Rocky was a mere pet, as he does not wear a special cape or harness and Petitioner does not bear any obvious indication of a disability. Petitioner replied that Rocky was a service dog, and he was present only to see her off on the cruise. Alex replied that Petitioner did not appear to suffer from a disability. As Mr. McCarthy aptly notes, "the fight was on." Each side called for reinforcements. Petitioner spoke on her cellphone with her sister and mother. Alex summoned his supervisor, who joined the fray. Mr. McCarthy and Rocky wisely stood to the side. By now, Petitioner was crying out of control. In this condition, she could not reliably report on what she said to Respondent's employees or what they said to her. Mr. McCarthy seems to have been unable to hear much of what the parties were saying to each other. Respondent's employees report that their behavior was impeccable. Regardless, there is no reliable evidence that Petitioner ever demanded that Rocky, her service animal, board the vessel with her. Much evidence suggests that Petitioner never intended to take Rocky on the cruise. As far as Petitioner's mother or Mr. McArthur knew, Rocky was staying home. Petitioner herself had failed to pack any food for Rocky, nor did she at any time instruct Mr. McArthur to drive to a nearby store to obtain any. No evidence suggests that Petitioner had brought with her any proof of Rocky's vaccinations, which might be required by the various countries that they were visiting. Once on board, Petitioner did not even demand that Respondent allow Rocky to board in Key West. To convince her daughter to board the vessel, Petitioner's mother said that Rocky could join them in Key West. Even after the vessel had sailed, Petitioner, still agitated, spoke constantly with Mr. McCarthy until the vessel sailed out of cellphone range. She directed him to drive Rocky to Key West to join her on the cruise, but Mr. McCarthy, citing a bad back and the fact that his birthday was the next day, declined to do so, instead taking Rocky to South Beach the following day. Mr. McCarthy's testimony suggested a boyfriend who was unwilling to cater to his girlfriend's capricious decision to make an issue with Rocky, not a boyfriend who was unwilling to help right a wrong that his girlfriend had suffered. At some point prior to arriving in Key West, Petitioner realized that Mr. McCarthy had no intention of driving Rocky to Key West. Rather than disembark in Key West, as she wanted, Petitioner acceded to her mother's exhortations and remained on board, but she was very unhappy for the remainder of the cruise.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's amended petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Marcy I. LaHart, Esquire Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 4804 Southwest 45th Street Gainesville, Florida 32608 Martha deZayas, Esquire Carnival Cruise Lines 3655 Northwest 87 Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Kara S. Nickel, Esquire Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, Florida 33130 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
