Similar Cases - Case Laws -- eLawyers

Find Similar Cases by Filters

You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.

Find 49 similar cases

IN RE: TECO POLK COUNTY PROJECT (PA 92-32) vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 92-004896EPP (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Bartow, Florida Aug. 11, 1992 Number: 92-004896EPP Latest Update: Nov. 30, 1993

The Issue The issue is whether the proposed site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.

Florida Laws (5) 120.57, 403.502, 403.508, 403.5095, 403.519

# 1

HARRY BURGE vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, 87-002805 (1987)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-002805 Latest Update: Dec. 14, 1987

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the petition for relief with prejudice.. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1987, 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 14th day of December, 1987.

Florida Laws (3) 120.57, 760.02, 760.10

# 2

MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 75-000089 (1975)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 75-000089 Latest Update: Apr. 28, 1975

# 3

ARTHUR J. CHRIS-TENSEN vs EARTHLINK SHARED SERVICES, LLC, 16-007489 (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tampa, Florida Dec. 19, 2016 Number: 16-007489 Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2017

The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his gender in violation of section 760.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes.

Findings Of Fact Respondent, EarthLink, is a nationwide telecommunications company that employed more than 15 employees at all times relevant to this matter. EarthLink provided managed network, security, and cloud solutions to individual and multi-location businesses located nationwide, including Florida. EarthLink is an employer as that term is defined by the FCRA, as amended. At all times material to the complaint of discrimination, Petitioner, Mr. Tensen, worked at EarthLink. Mr. Tensen worked at EarthLink from November 2013 until his position was eliminated on March 20, 2015. Mr. Tensen began his employment at EarthLink as a major Channel manager in 2013 and he was then promoted to senior director of partner development in 2014. Mr. Tensen is a male. Mr. Tensen was an employee of EarthLink as that term is defined by the FCRA. Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Mr. Tensen filed a complaint with the Commission alleging EarthLink, through Ms. Turpin, created a hostile work environment and had bias against men; promoted a woman despite his being qualified for the position; and retaliated against him for complaining about the alleged hostile work environment. The Commission issued a no cause determination and Mr. Tensen filed a Petition for Relief, which is the matter before the undersigned. By way of background, Mr. Tensen applied for a position with EarthLink in or around October 2013 based on encouragement of J.R. Cook, who was then leading the EarthLink Channel (“Channel”) organization. At the suggestion of Mr. Cook, Mr. Tensen listed Sherri Turpin as a professional reference. At that time, Ms. Turpin was the vice president of the master agent program, and she ran the Channel in partnership with Mr. Cook. Mr. Cook asked Ms. Turpin to interview Mr. Tensen for a Channel manager position, a junior position in the Channel organization. Mr. Tensen was more than qualified for and perhaps, over-qualified for the position. Ms. Turpin interviewed Mr. Tensen by phone and then, participated in the decision to hire him. EarthLink hired Mr. Tensen as a senior Channel manager for the southeast region, and he reported to James Dunn (southeast regional director). EarthLink Organizational Structure EarthLink had a model for the Channel team that was based on a sell-through model, where the goal is to motivate partners and brokers to sell EarthLink’s products to their customers. The Channel team leverages relationships with consultants or partners, pitching EarthLink’s services to them, and differentiating EarthLink’s services to the consumer. The Channel team is comprised of Channel managers, who report directly to regional directors. Channel managers are tasked with the primary responsibility of working directly with partners to manage sales of EarthLink’s products and services. At the time Mr. Tensen was hired, the regional directors were Mr. Dunn, Randy Landers, and Paul Keefe, all males. They reported to Ms. Turpin who, in turn, reported to Mr. Cook. A separate group of employees, known as partner development directors or PDDs, work with the Channel managers to focus on the largest partners, identified as “master agents.” Master agents have ties to national or regional carriers. The PDDs offer additional support to Channel managers to facilitate sales with partners. The PDDs are in an overlay role, meaning their primary task is to assist the direct contributors (Channel managers and regional directors) in making their quota. In 2013 through 2014, EarthLink experienced difficulties with retaining some accounts after the initial sale, a problem commonly known as “churn.” Mike Toplisek, the then executive vice president and chief revenue officer, decided that EarthLink should create an organization dedicated to the retention of existing customers and he selected Ms. Turpin to develop, implement, and lead the organization. In the new churn organization, Ms. Turpin worked with, among others, Ashley Powell. After Ms. Turpin left the Channel team in January 2014, Mr. Tensen was promoted to a PDD position in the Channel team, reporting directly to Mr. Cook. PDDs have responsibilities for overseeing relationships with three to seven master agents, and they are charged with business development, hosting marketing events, and developing collaboration and alignment between the consultant and Channel managers. In essence, the PDD role is a marketing role in a triangular relationship between the Channel managers, the master agents, and the PDD. In early 2014, Mr. Cook informed Mr. Toplisek of his intention of leaving the Company, prompting a need to find a new Channel chief. Mr. Toplisek interviewed two or three internal candidates, including Petitioner and Ms. Turpin. In the meantime, Mr. Toplisek appointed Ms. Turpin as the interim Channel chief based on Mr. Cook’s recommendation. Ms. Turpin worked in telecommunications her entire career. In fact, Ms. Turpin worked for XO Communications for 17 years before working at EarthLink. At XO, she was responsible for a direct sales course and she ran a Channel as a sales executive. Similar to the Channel at EarthLink, she also worked on a sell-through-model. Ms. Turpin testified that she had approximately seven to eight years of experience working in the Channel when she applied for the Channel chief position. EarthLink’s then CEO recruited Ms. Turpin away from her position to work with Mr. Cook, who was the Channel chief at that time. Ms. Turpin and Mr. Cook created the national master agent program at EarthLink. Ultimately, Mr. Toplisek selected Ms. Turpin based on her prior experience running the Channel with Mr. Cook and Mr. Cook supported Mr. Toplisek’s decision. Mr. Tensen disagreed with the decision to hire Ms. Turpin as Channel chief because he believed that he should have been selected. He believed that he had the necessary qualifications and experience and that Ms. Turpin was lacking in experience as purportedly indicated in Ms. Turpin’s 360 assessment review. Ms. Turpin did have negative comments on her 360 assessment review. However, those comments were a small fraction of the overall assessment. In the 360 assessment review, she was described as an extreme asset to EarthLink with the ability to problem-solve, build relationships, and motivate her team for success. Ms. Turpin’s rating in each category of assessment and overall rating was “fully productive.” Ms. Shmalo (Earthlink’s former human resources partner) testified that Ms. Turpin’s rating was positive. The preponderance of evidence presented at the hearing establishes that Ms. Turpin had the necessary qualifications and experience to be the Channel chief. Mr. Cook and Mr. Toplisek agreed that Ms. Turpin was the best candidate for the position. Mr. Cook believed that Mr. Tensen might be disappointed in not being selected to lead the Channel and he suggested that Mr. Toplisek ensure that Mr. Tensen did not feel slighted and was made to feel important. Accordingly, Mr. Toplisek reached out to Petitioner and invited him to have confidential discussions from time to time so that Mr. Toplisek could get his perspective on the Channel, employee morale, and messaging. Mr. Toplisek credibly testified that he never claimed he was forced to select Ms. Turpin over Mr. Tensen as the Channel chief, nor did he promise that Petitioner would replace Ms. Turpin in the future. The undersigned is not in a position to second-guess EarthLink’s decision to promote Ms. Turpin, who was qualified for the position, to replace Mr. Cook as the Channel chief absent evidence that the decision was based on a discriminatory practice. The fact that Mr. Tensen met the qualification for the position did not give him the exclusive right to being hired for the position. Petitioner failed to establish that the decision to select Ms. Turpin as the Channel chief was based on bias against males or any other discriminatory practice. Ms. Turpin’s Actions In May 2014, shortly after assuming the position of Channel chief, Ms. Turpin initiated a meeting with all her new Channel employees in Dallas, Texas. The two purposes of the meeting were to better understand the Channel organization that Mr. Cook had assembled in Ms. Turpin’s absence and to transition Ms. Turpin’s churn duties to other members of the churn organization. Ms. Turpin allowed some members of the churn team, including Ms. Powell, to sit in on the meetings with the Channel team. Ms. Powell did not have prior experience in Channel sales, but she was interested in learning about it. Ms. Powell testified that Ms. Turpin took her to the meeting to meet the new team and to get an idea about the Channel. Ms. Powell claimed that Ms. Turpin had informed her that she would have a position in the Channel sales team. At the Dallas meeting, Ms. Turpin conducted a review of all of the regions, Channel managers, and master agents. In the meeting, each of the regional directors, including Mr. Dunn, presented on their respective teams and Channel managers. During Mr. Dunn’s presentation, Ms. Turpin raised concerns about one of his Channel managers, Andrew Butts. Ms. Turpin criticized Mr. Butts based on his production, practices, and/or work habits. Mr. Dunn noted that in the year 2013, Mr. Butts received an award for the top five percent performance in the company. Mr. Tensen testified that Mr. Butts was the highest achiever for multiple years. Although Mr. Butts had good past performance, Ms. Turpin was concerned about his performance at that time.2/ Mr. Dunn believed that it was inappropriate to speak about Channel managers in the manner Ms. Turpin used. Mr. Dunn asked Ms. Turpin to refrain from degrading Andrew Butts. Although Mr. Dunn maintained that he raised his concerns in a calm manner, several witnesses, including Ms. Powell and Ms. Bouras, contradicted that assessment. For example, Ms. Powell said that Mr. Dunn was “very emotional” and that he “raised his voice” when he expressed his concerns. Stephanie Bouras recalled that Mr. Dunn’s voice was “[e]levated” and that “[h]e was frustrated and angry.” Ms. Turpin recalled that Mr. Dunn stood up, screamed, and yelled, and that he refused to follow her direction to manage Mr. Butts’ performance. Mr. Dunn conceded that after he challenged Ms. Turpin, “the room got quiet, as quiet as it could get.” Further, Mr. Dunn noted that several people approached him after his comments and counseled him to apologize to Ms. Turpin. Mr. Dunn did not apologize for his actions. Mr. Tensen claimed Ms. Turpin targeted Mr. Butts because he was male. To the contrary, however, Ms. Bouras and Ms. Turpin credibly testified that the discussion about Mr. Butts was not because of his gender. Following Mr. Dunn’s outburst, Ms. Turpin consulted Mark Hopkins, the vice president of human resources, to seek guidance. Based on the guidance from Mr. Hopkins, she ultimately spoke with two prior supervisors who described separate incidents in which Mr. Dunn “exploded” or “lost his cool” at an off-site meeting. Based on the conduct she observed during the Dallas meeting and the events relayed to her by Mr. Dunn’s prior supervisors, Ms. Turpin decided to terminate his employment for insubordination. Mr. Dunn claimed that he was told his position was eliminated and he received a severance package. Ms. Turpin played no role in deciding whether Mr. Dunn should be offered a severance package in exchange for a release. Likewise, Ms. Shmalo had no involvement in Mr. Dunn’s separation and has no knowledge of whether he was offered a package in exchange for a release. According to Ms. Shmalo, generally an employee who is separated for cause, i.e., insubordination, is not eligible for a severance package. However, any individual offered a severance package, even if for business reasons, would be classified as having their position eliminated. Although Petitioner claimed that Ms. Turpin said, “Sometimes you have to throw one of the boys under the bus” after the Dallas meeting, that alleged statement is inconsistent with the statement Petitioner provided in an email to Ms. Turpin and Mr. Toplisek which noted, in part, “Sherri, thank you for creating an environment where we could all have our own breakthrough moments. Best off site I've ever attended!” This email makes no reference to Ms. Turpin making references to throwing “a boy under the bus,” nor does the email make any reference to discrimination, bias, or harassment. Based on the description of Mr. Dunn’s actions at the meeting as related by Ms. Bouras, Ms. Powell, and Ms. Turpin, the preponderance of the evidence supports that Mr. Dunn was terminated for insubordination, rather than his position being eliminated. Mr. Tensen failed to produce evidence to support a finding that Mr. Dunn was terminated because he was male. Following Mr. Dunn’s termination, Ms. Turpin interviewed four candidates to replace him: Petitioner, Ms. Powell, Rob Olson, and an external candidate. Despite Ms. Powell’s claims, Ms. Turpin did not discuss or offer a director position to Ms. Powell before the Dallas meeting or prior to Mr. Dunn’s termination. Ms. Turpin first gave Mr. Tensen the opportunity to replace Mr. Dunn, but he deferred to Ms. Turpin’s judgment about his optimal role. Ms. Turpin ultimately selected Ms. Powell for the role. Shortly after Ms. Turpin became the Channel chief, she further restructured the partner development organization, promoting Mr. Tensen to senior partner development director, with the remaining PDDs reporting directly to him. Petitioner received a raise of more than $20,000 per year in total compensation. Ms. Turpin also advocated for Petitioner to be eligible to receive stock options. Ms. Turpin succeeded in obtaining stock options for Petitioner, an extremely valuable benefit. In arguing for extra money and stock options for Mr. Tensen, Ms. Turpin referred to him as her “right hand guy” and noted he would be vital for the growth of the business and the plans for the Channel. Around the same time, Ms. Turpin received approval to add a new PDD to her team. She selected Michael Brennan for the position, resulting in a promotion and increase in compensation. Ms. Turpin had promoted Mr. Brennan on other occasions and advocated for several increases in compensation during her tenure at EarthLink. In addition to the promotion and raises, during the time Mr. Tensen reported to Ms. Turpin, she provided him with a positive performance review, and she described him as an “amazing employee.” Though she noted some areas where Petitioner could improve, she largely praised his contributions to EarthLink. The review notes a “billed revenue” number of $36,062,382, which was 109.15 percent of the stated goal. The billed revenue number in this review reflected all revenue across all customers in the Channel, regardless of whether Mr. Tensen drove or impacted the sales. The 109-percent figure was largely driven by churn, reflecting that customers were not leaving the EarthLink as rapidly. In addition to Mr. Brennan and Mr. Tensen, Ms. Turpin had a good working relationship with Travis O’Keefe, who consistently met his quotas. There was some evidence offered at hearing that Ms. Turpin had a “girl’s club.” Although Mr. Risse testified there was a “women’s team” in management, he admitted that all of the leaders in the Channel organization, except Ms. Powell and Ms. Turpin, were men. Further, he based his belief in part on Jim Dunn’s termination and the mistaken belief that Ms. Powell was selected to replace Mr. Dunn without consideration of external candidates. In fact, the evidence shows Mr. Dunn was terminated for insubordination and four candidates (two males, including Mr. Tensen, an external candidate, and Ms. Powell) were interviewed for the position. The undersigned notes that Mr. Risse did not make any complaints of discriminatory behavior regarding Ms. Turpin’s actions. Reduction in Force In early 2015, EarthLink had a relatively new CEO who shifted EarthLink’s prior strategy and focused on providing the greatest value to shareholders. Around that time, the teams were also not consistently meeting their quotas. The strategy focused on maximizing profits, which, based on the EarthLink’s core business, necessitated a greater emphasis on cost reduction. Specifically, EarthLink focused on reducing operational expenses. Based on the nature of the business, the biggest operational expense was employees. As such, EarthLink would undergo a reduction-in-force (“RIF”). To satisfy this directive, Mr. Toplisek directed his direct reports, including Ms. Turpin, to reduce cost while keeping revenue flow as high as possible. Upon receiving this directive from Mr. Toplisek, Ms. Turpin considered several options to comply with his directive. Ultimately, Ms. Turpin decided to eliminate Mr. Tensen’s position. Because this was a position (the only such position) she had created, Ms. Turpin believed she could absorb majority of the work being performed by Mr. Tensen without significantly increasing the burden on the rest of the Channel team. Ms. Turpin notified Mr. Toplisek of her decision and explained the basis for her selection. Mr. Toplisek supported her decision. On March 9, 2015, Ms. Turpin (and a human resources representative) notified Mr. Tensen by phone that his position was eliminated. Because Mr. Tensen’s position was eliminated as part of the RIF, he was given a severance package. Ms. Turpin testified that elimination of Mr. Tensen’s position was unrelated to his job performance. Ms. Turpin settled on eliminating Petitioner’s role because she believed it had the least amount of impact on sales, as he was in an overlay role and, moreover, one step removed from the PDDs who worked directly with the Channel managers. After Mr. Tensen’s position was eliminated, Ms. Turpin absorbed his responsibilities. No one replaced Mr. Tensen as the position was never refilled. Although Petitioner was the only employee eliminated in the Channel organization, several other employees were also downsized during the RIF. Ms. Shmalo testified that she notified 21 employees in March 2015 that their positions were being eliminated, including both male and female employees. Moreover, in March 2015, EarthLink eliminated the positions of 40 to 50 employees in Toplisek’s sales organization. The preponderance of the evidence supports that the decision to eliminate Mr. Tensen’s position was based on the directive to reduce operation expenses by a RIF and not related to his gender or retaliation. Use of Profanity/Hostile Work Environment Mr. Tensen asserts that Ms. Turpin terminated him because she had a bias against men and that she would use profanity against and “verbally castrate” men. Several witnesses testified at hearing that Ms. Turpin used profanity. Ms. Turpin admitted that she used profanity but it was not in a derogatory or offensive manner. She also stated that no one complained to her that they were offended by the use of profanity. Mr. Toplisek testified that EarthLink employees (men and women) used profanity. He considered the term “bitch(es)” as an endearing term and it was used by Ms. Turpin and others at EarthLink. The term was used for men and women. Ms. Turpin testified that it was an acronym3/ and that she "never referred to a person directly as a bitch." While, this is contradicted by the testimony of Stephanie Bouras, who testified that Ms. Turpin used the term “bitch” as addressed directly to a person, Ms. Bouras noted that the term “bitches” was directed toward men and women, rather than only to men. Ms. Powell also testified that Ms. Turpin called everyone “bitches.” According to Ms. Shmalo, if an employee was uncomfortable with the use of profanity, that individual would be instructed to notify his or her direct supervisor that they felt uncomfortable with the language. Ms. Shmalo also stated that harassment or discrimination is based on conduct involving an individual in a protected class. At all times material to this matter, EarthLink had a policy which prohibits discrimination based on any protected categories, including sex. EarthLink has policies which express its commitment to a workplace free from discrimination. The EarthLink handbook provides, “[w]e respect the individual and our business success depends on employees being able to express their ideas and doing their jobs without fear of harassment or unlawful treatment.” Accordingly, EarthLink requires all employees to be given equal opportunity in “every aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, training, promotions, transfers, compensation, benefits, discipline, terminations, and all other privileges, terms and conditions of employment.” Discrimination or harassment on the basis of gender or any other protected characteristic is prohibited. EarthLink provides employees with detailed instructions for reporting any violation of EarthLink’s equal employment and anti-harassment policies, and retaliation against employees who complain about harassment or discrimination is also prohibited. Mr. Tensen claimed that he complained of Ms. Turpin fostering a hostile work environment in a letter to then CEO, Mr. Eazor. Ms. Shmalo had no knowledge of the letter and thus, was not aware of any complaints regarding Ms. Turpin maintaining a hostile work environment. Ms. Shmalo did receive complaints regarding Ms. Turpin from employees working in the Channel. Ms. Powell and Mr. Brennan complained about Ms. Turpin’s leadership style and communication practices. However, they did not complain of discrimination, harassment, a hostile work environment, or bias in favor of women (also known as the girl’s club). Mr. Tensen spoke to Ms. Shmalo after his position was eliminated, but he did not complain to her that he believed his separation was based on discrimination against him because he was male or due to bias against males. Mr. Tensen’s exit interview questionnaire complained of dissatisfaction with Ms. Turpin’s leadership and management style but did not mention any complaints of discrimination or bias against males. EarthLink's Anti-Harassment Policy provides that an employee who is subject to or a witness of harassment must report it to any manager or member of management. Mr. Tensen never complained that he felt uncomfortable with the use of profanity. He never complained that he felt discriminated against. He also never complained to anyone at EarthLink that he believed there was a bias against men before his position elimination. Moreover, he had confidential meetings with Mr. Toplisek and he never mentioned discrimination or a hostile work environment to him before he was terminated. On March 12, 2015, three days after his position elimination, Mr. Tensen spoke with Mr. Toplisek in a phone conversation. During the call, Mr. Tensen expressed that he believed Ms. Turpin terminated him because he sent an email to Mr. Eazor. Mr. Tensen did not state that be believed he was terminated because he is male, or as a result of discrimination or harassment. Mr. Tensen followed up on the conversation with Mr. Toplisek by email later that same day. Although he was critical of Ms. Turpin, he did not mention that he believed he was terminated based on discrimination, harassment, or because he is male. Mr. Tensen alleged that Ms. Turpin retaliated against him after he sent the letter to Mr. Eazor complaining about Ms. Turpin. Ms. Powell testified that before Mr. Tensen was terminated, Ms. Turpin was aware of the letter Mr. Tensen sent to Mr. Eazor and instructed her not to talk with Mr. Tensen because of that “letter.” Ms. Turpin denies this. Ms. Powell’s testimony, which is largely uncorroborated, is found to be not credible on whether Ms. Turpin knew about the letter before Mr. Tensen was terminated. The evidence supports the finding that Ms. Turpin did not learn of the letter until after Mr. Tensen’s position was eliminated. Mr. Tensen sent two emails regarding Ms. Turpin’s leadership and management style. Mr. Tensen sent the first email to Mr. Eazor on February 2, 2015, where he outlined his concerns about Ms. Turpin, including that she created and sustains a hostile work environment. On March 12, 2015, a second email was sent to Mr. Toplisek (three days after Mr. Tensen was terminated). Similar to the first letter, Mr. Tensen complained about Ms. Turpin and it also mentioned the first letter to Mr. Eazor. On March 12, 2015, Mr. Toplisek forward Mr. Tensen’s second email (mentioning the letter to Mr. Eazor) to Mark Hopkins in human resources. Mr. Hopkins discussed Mr. Tensen’s email with Ms. Turpin. Mr. Hopkins agreed with Mr. Toplisek that he should cease communication with Mr. Tensen. Ms. Turpin and Mr. Toplisek credibly testified that they did not learn of the letter to Mr. Eazor until after Mr. Tensen was terminated. Mr. Tensen failed to provide evidence to demonstrate that he complained of discrimination or a hostile work environment before he was terminated from EarthLink. It is undisputed that Petitioner received a positive performance review for 2014 and exceeded his quota for that year by more than nine percent. He was recognized for his ability to drive results. He was successful in motivating his team to focus on driving sales. He was recognized as very efficient and effective when it came to putting customers first. He was characterized as a key to the success of his department. However, the credible evidence supports that Mr. Tensen’s position being eliminated had nothing to do with his work performance; rather, it was due to the company-wide RIF. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that EarthLink’s elimination of his position was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices or due to gender bias against males. While Petitioner was employed with EarthLink, he never complained about discrimination or a hostile work environment.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s discrimination complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 1st day of June, 2017.

USC (1) 42 U.S.C 2000e Florida Laws (6) 120.569, 120.57, 760.01, 760.02, 760.10, 760.11

# 4

MICHAEL D`ORDINE AND ANN E. HAWKINS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 05-002982 (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Aug. 18, 2005 Number: 05-002982 Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2005

The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying all Petitions and issuing Permit No. 0048923-017-DWC. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of October, 2005.

Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 403.087, 403.973

# 5

LARRY ZEIGLER vs. QUINCY TELEPHONE CO., 84-003601 (1984)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 84-003601 Latest Update: Nov. 15, 1990

Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Larry Zeigler, started working for the Quincy Telephone Company as a lineman in the cable maintenance section in 1976 or 1977. His duties include the installing of telephone cable, both buried and aerial. He worked on the job with Claude Butler, Cleveland Zeigler, and Melton W. (Toby) Bruce. These four men, with several others, made up the entire cable and construction section. Among the men in that section, Butler had the most seniority and as a result did most of the paperwork. The job assignments were banded out to the crews by the supervisor of the section and it was company practice that the senior individual was the one in charge and normally responsible for accomplishing the paperwork. Telephone installation at this Company is primarily divided into two major sections. Cable and construction (C&C) is responsible for the outside installation of cable and telephone lines up to a building. Installation and repair (I&R) is a separate department which deals with inside wiring and the actual connection of the telephone instruments. C&C is and was at the time in question supervised by Bruce Gaston. I&R was not. In early May, 1983, Petitioner was transferred for a period of time to I&R to help out though he was still assigned to C&C. Right after lunch on May 27, 1983, he was directed to go to see Bruce Gaston, his supervisor, who advised him that the company was being forced to lay off a number of employees and that he, petitioner, had been selected as one of those. Petitioner contends that neither Gaston nor any other company official ever gave him a reason for discharge other than the force reduction, but this is not so. He claims, however, Gaston did advise at that time that he was aware of petitioner's previous discrimination complaint and that petitioner should not file one this time. Petitioner was confused over these developments. When he was sent over to I&R to help out, he was told that he was the only one in C&C with the skills needed at I&R. If that were the case, he reasoned, why should he be laid off without warning. In addition, at one point during 1982, Petitioner had asked Gaston for a transfer to I&R but was refused at that time because, according to petitioner, Gaston said he was needed in C&C. Petitioner was one of three individuals from the C&C section who were laid off. The others were Horace Jenkins, who is black, and Toby Bruce, who is white. Several individuals from I&R were also laid off and in the interim since the layoff, at least one new employee has been hired. Petitioner is convinced that he could do the job either in C&C or in I&R which was filled by outside recruitment since he was laid off. When a new parent company took over the operation of the Quincy Telephone Company in early 1983, there was a meeting held for all company employees at which a senior management official advised the employees that no layoffs were anticipated. Petitioner denies having any serious trouble with his employment while working for the company. To be sure, there were some rough spots, however. He had some trouble working with Melvin Locke, a more senior employee. According to Petitioner, Locke was lazy and did not want to work, pushing his work off on the Petitioner. They had words and Petitioner brought the matter up with Mr. Gaston. The following day, Mr. Forshay talked with Petitioner about it and advised him to do whatever Locke directed. Though Petitioner did not consider this to be particularly fair, nonetheless, he did as he was told. According to Gaston, however, Petitioner was assigned to work with Locke for on-the-job training in maintenance. It appeared he was selective as to what orders he would follow, refusing to learn how to do maintenance in those areas that did not interest him. On another occasion, according to Petitioner, when he drove a company vehicle into the work lot, Forshay told him he was driving too fast. In doing so, he says, Forshay cursed him in front of outsiders. On still another occasion, he disagreed with the way Forshay handled one of his absences. In summary of Petitioner's position, he feels that he was discriminated against when discharged because: he was there longer than others who were not discharged; less experienced people were retained instead of him; he had several disputes with Mr. Forshay; and, he filed a prior discrimination complaint which he won and had to be rehired. In May, 1983, Gaston was advised by Mrs. Corbin, the general manager of the company, that there was going to be a reduction in force. He was instructed how to identify those to be retained and those to be discharged. The emphasis was to be placed on selecting the best people for retention - not the worst people for discharge. In other words, supervisors were to examine their people closely with a positive attitude to identify those with the best records and the best potential rather than looking for reasons to discharge those with lesser records or potential. He was advised that of the 9 technicians working for him he would be allowed to retain only 6. Using the criteria given him he selected the 6 he would be able to keep which resulted in Petitioner, Mr. H. Jenkins, and Toby Bruce being identified as those not to be retained. Gaston then discussed his selections with Mr. Forshay who in turn forwarded them to Mrs. Corbin with his concurrence. Mrs. Corbin made the ultimate selection and decision. In going over the personnel records of the people in his section, Gaston made a memo on each one which he subsequently placed in each employee's file. There were several significant factors on the memo about Mr. Zeigler which contributed to his being one of the lowest three rated individuals in the section. These were: He frequently missed work for reasons other than illness. Review of Petitioner's time records kept by Mr. Gaston showed that in 1980. Petitioner was late 6 times and absent 11 times. All absences referred to here are unexcused absences wherein the employee did not call in advance to let anyone know he would not be in. This required a readjustment of the work schedule made up in advance on the expectation of the employee's presence. In 1981, he was late 5 times and absent 4 days. Gaston considered this to be an abuse of time off and Petitioner's absentee and tardy rates were much higher than those of the other employees in the section. Other disciplinary problems: On October 5, 1981, Petitioner requested that his time sheet be falsified (that time taken off as personal time be reported as sick leave). Petitioner did not deny this which, according to the company personnel handbook is grounds for dismissal. Though Gaston recommended this, dismissal action was not taken because it appeared to be an isolated incident. Petitioner broke his arm and took time off to see the doctor with the understanding he would call to report when he would be back to work. He failed to call and could not be reached by phone because his service had been disconnected for nonpayment of the bill even though, as a company employee, he got local service free and a discount on toll service. At this point in time, the company required employees to have a phone so that they could be reached in an emergency. Petitioner knew this. Again, here, Gaston recommended disciplinary action and again none was taken even though this was the second time this had happened. Employee conflict with Mr. Locke referenced above. Petitioner's training scores in courses which, though not required, would be beneficial to him in the performance of his duties, were below standard. He was given the opportunity to take the same material on two separate occasions: once at a company school in Winter Park where his scores were unsatisfactory, and again, from a black instructor in Quincy where, again, his score was unsatisfactory. No other student failed to achieve a satisfactory score. Error rate. The reports for January through May, 1983 and after the force reduction, kept by Gaston on the basis of checks made at random with full knowledge of the employees, reveal that the three employees who were laid off from this section were weak with Petitioner having a very high error rate. After the lay off the remaining people doing the same amount of work as before, made fewer errors than while these three were still employed. Paperwork. From time to time, Petitioner was in charge of details which required the completion of paperwork. His paperwork was unsatisfactory. He would let other people on the job do the paperwork. In making the decision as to who was to be retained and who was to be released, seniority was not the key element. Performance and capability were more important and seniority was important only if it carried with it the experience and competence needed. On the basis of the above factors, Gaston felt, and it is clear that his judgment was accurate, that Petitioner's record, not considering his seniority, reflected limited potential and competence. Mr. Gaston did not want to lay off any employees, black or white, because he felt there was ample work to do to keep the entire work force occupied. The work has not let up since the lay off but has increased. Notwithstanding Petitioner's comments that he was not given a reason for his lay off, Mr. Gaston fully explained to each terminated employee why he was being laid off. Mr. Bruce indicates that Gaston told him that if he had his choice, Bruce would still be working. This is true. A similar comment was made to each of the three men being discharged and it had no racial connotation at all. Gaston did want to keep each employee if he could. Race has never been an issue in the department and he always felt race relations were good. Mr. Gaston discharged Petitioner because he was the weakest employee in the section. He was the employee with the least potential for being able to accomplish all the tasks anticipated after the cutback. There are some minor inconsistencies in the official records as reflected by the employee performance appraisal forms rendered on the Petitioner and the personal work records kept by Gaston in his department. They are such things as tardiness and absences and some of the factors relied upon by Gaston in his analysis of the employee which he testified to at the hearing do not specifically appear on the appraisal forms. Gaston justified not putting them there by contending that he felt that at the time the deficiencies were noted, the appropriate corrective action was taken and the matter would not have been raised again had it not been for the cutback. Use of these factors was appropriate in weighing Petitioner's future use to the company in a comparison against other employees. Mr. Gaston's evaluation of Petitioner appears to have been accurate as other employees with whom he worked, such as Evant Jenkins, indicating that when Petitioner was assigned to him for training for several weeks, Petitioner did well in those areas in which he had an interest, but completely failed to learn anything that did not interest him. Mr. Butler also worked with Petitioner frequently and felt that though Petitioner could do the work, there were times he was difficult to work with and insisted on doing things his own way. Petitioner's uncle, Cleveland Zeigler, knows Petitioner's work and rates him as an acceptable worker. He states, however, that the people hired since the lay off in 1983 are high quality people and the work standards and performance have improved since that time. Toby Bruce feels that both Petitioner and Jenkins were highly qualified, perhaps even more so than he. He also feels that the layoffs were not appropriately done in some case with the wrong people being let go. He feels that he was not treated fairly because he had a house mortgage on which to pay, two cars on which to pay, and a family to support and with that, he was let go without notice with only two weeks severance pay. His obvious bias makes his credibility questionable. Mrs. Corbin made her ultimate decision on who would be retained and who would not on the basis of the entire personnel record of each employee which she reviewed over the several weeks prior to the cutback. She contends she had no choice in implementing the layoffs - that though she fought against them, she was directed by higher headquarters to put them into effect. She is convinced that Petitioner is a good construction man but his performance reports showed that he needs training in maintenance and it is her confirmed opinion that he could not compete with those identified for retention. It was on this basis and not on race that the decision was made to let him go. Race has not been an issue with the company and in fact there is a very active and strong equal opportunity program in effect. Of the 11 people cut from the total work force, 6 were white and 5 were black. Even after the cutback, blacks still accounted for 32 percent of the staff of 65.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner, Larry Zeigler's Petition for Relief be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 29th day of March, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Srygley, Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Blutcher B. Lines, Esquire P.O. Box 5500 Quincy, Florida 32351 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Florida Laws (1) 760.10

# 6

IN RE: TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY AND PROGRESS ENERGY COMPANY`S LAKE AGNES-GIFFORD TRANSMISSION LINE SITING APPLICATION NO. TA07-16 vs *, 07-005691TL (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Kissimmee, Florida Dec. 17, 2007 Number: 07-005691TL Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2009

The Issue The issue for determination is whether either of the proposed transmission line corridors for the proposed Lake Agnes-Gifford 230 kV transmission line comply with the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, and if so, which of those corridors has the least adverse impacts with respect to the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, including cost. If one of the corridors proper for certification is determined to have the least adverse impacts, the issue is whether certification of that corridor should be approved in whole, with modifications or conditions, or denied. See § 403.529(4) and (5), Fla. Stat. If the two corridors are found to be substantially equal in adverse impacts regarding the criteria in Section 403.529(4), Florida Statutes, including costs, the Siting Board shall certify the Joint Applicants' Preferred Corridor. See § 403.529(5)(c), Fla. Stat.

Florida Laws (9) 163.3164, 403.52, 403.521, 403.526, 403.527, 403.5271, 403.529, 403.5365, 403.537 Florida Administrative Code (1) 62-814.450

# 7

TROY AND TRACEY LEE vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 05-002979 (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Aug. 18, 2005 Number: 05-002979 Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2005

The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.

Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 403.087, 403.973

# 8

IN RE: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY LEVEE-MIDWAY 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR CERTIFICATION APPLICATION NO. TA89-0 vs. *, 89-000279TL (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 89-000279TL Latest Update: Mar. 02, 1990

Findings Of Fact PROCEDURAL MATTERS 12 PROJECT DESIGN 16 ENGINEERING DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE 17 Design 17 Construction 21 Maintenance 23 SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND SEPARATION FROM EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES 24 THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL CORRIDORS FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 29 DESCRIPTION OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 29 Land Uses 29 Unusual Uses or Restricted Areas - Cemeteries 32 Water Resources 32 Vegetation 33 Wildlife 33 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 34 Land Use Impacts 34 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Cemeteries 41 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 41 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE TCRPC CORRIDORS 43 Water Resources Impacts 43 Vegetation Impacts 44 Wildlife Impacts 45 THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CORRIDOR FROM CORBETT SUBSTATION TO LEVEE SUBSTATION 45 DESCRIPTION OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 45 Land Uses 45 Water Resources 48 Vegetation 49 Wildlife 50 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 51 Land Use Impacts 51 Unique Proposed Uses 52 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 52 Other Consideration - Impacts to Sugar Cane 53 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR 54 Water Resources Impacts 54 Vegetation Impacts 55 Wildlife Impacts 56 DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 57 DESCRIPTION OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 57 Land Uses 57 Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 58 Water Resources 59 Vegetation 59 Wildlife 59 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 59 Land Use Impacts 59 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 60 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 61 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF DUDA CORRIDOR 1/1A 62 Water Resources Impacts 62 Vegetation Impacts 62 Wildlife Impacts 62 DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A FROM MIDWAY SUBSTATION TO CORBETT SUBSTATION 63 DESCRIPTION OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 63 Land Uses 63 Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 64 Water Resources 65 Vegetation 65 Wildlife 65 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 65 Land Use Impacts 65 Impacts on Unique Uses or Restricted Areas - Airports 66 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 67 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF DUDA CORRIDOR 2/2A 67 Water Resources Impacts 67 Vegetation Impacts 67 Wildlife Impacts 68 CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS 68 CONSISTENCY OF THE TCRPC CORRIDOR WITH LOCAL PLANS 68 St. Lucie County 68 Martin County 68 Palm Beach County 69 CONSISTENCY OF THE SFWMD CORRIDOR WITH LOCAL PLANS 69 Palm Beach County 69 Broward County 69 Dade County 70 THE SITE FOR THE CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 71 SYSTEM PLANNING AND ENGINEERING 71 System Planning 71 Engineering 72 DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 73 Land Uses 73 Vegetation 74 Wildlife 74 IMPACTS ON THE PUBLIC OF THE PROPOSED SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 74 Land Use Impacts 74 Landscape Architecture and Visual Impacts 74 Consistency with Local Comprehensive Plans 75 IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SITE FOR CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 75 Vegetation Impacts 75 Wildlife Impacts 75 COSTS FOR THE LEVEE-MIDWAY TRANSMISSION LINE 76 ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS 77 Compliance with EMF Rule 77 Lightning 78 Noise 78 Radio and Television Interference 79 NONPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF AGENCIES 80 Conditions of Certification Agreed to by FPL 80 Supplemental Conditions Agreed to by FPL and SFWMD 83 Conditions of Certification Proposed by SFWMD but Opposed by FPL 85 Conditions of Certification Proposed by GFWFC 87 Local Government Zoning 89 Stipulations for Settlement Entered into by FPL 91

Conclusions Corridors That Remain Certifiable 93 Standing 94 CRITERIA TO EVALUATE CORRIDORS THAT REMAIN CERTIFIABLE 95 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(a), Florida Statutes 96 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(b), Florida Statutes 97 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(c), Florida Statutes 98 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(d), Florida Statutes 100 Compliance with Section 403.529(3)(e), Florida Statutes 101 Impacts on the Public 101 Impacts on the Environment 104 Compliance with Section 403.529(4)(a), Florida Statutes 106 Compliance with Section 403.529(4)(c), Florida Statutes 107 CONSERVATION SUBSTATION 108 RECOMMENDATION 109

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, enter a Final Order and therein dismiss the parties who failed to make and appearance; ratify the partial Summary Recommended Order; and grant certification for the location of the Levee-Midway Transmission Line in TCRPC Corridor 1 and the SFWMD Corridor and for the construction and maintenance of the transmission line within those corridors as proposed in the application and in accordance with the conditions of certification contained in Appendices C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and K, as modified and recommended on pages 98 and 99 herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING, 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 2nd day of March, 1990. * APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER * Appendix to this Recommended Order is available for review in the Division's Clerk's Office. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos Alvarez David L. Powell Richard W. Moore Attorneys at Law Hopping Boyd Green & Sams, P.A. 123 South Calhoun Street (32301) Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Attorneys for Florida Power and Light Company Richard T. Donelan, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road, Room 654 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Attorney for Department of Environmental Regulation James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 Attorney for the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Frances Jauquet John J. Fumero Attorneys at Law South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road (33406) Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 Attorneys for South Florida Water Management District 1 Katherine Funchess Senior Attorney Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Attorney for Department of Community Affairs Roger G. Saberson, Attorney at Law Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council E. Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33444 Attorney for Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Samuel S. Goren, Attorney at Law Josias & Goren, P.A. 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308 Attorney for South Florida Regional Planning Council Fred W. Van Vonno Assistant County Attorney Martin County 2401 S.E. Monterey Road Stuart, FL 34996 Attorney for Martin County Patrick M. Casey Assistant County Attorney Dade County Metro-Dade Center N.W. 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, FL 33128-1993 Attorney for Dade County Krista A. Storey Assistant County Attorney St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue, Annex Fort Pierce, FL 34982 Attorney for St. Lucie County Noel M. Pfeffer, Deputy General Counsel Broward County Governmental Center, Suite 423 115 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for Broward County Robert P. Banks Assistant County Attorney Palm Beach County Governmental Complex, 6th Floor 301 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorney for Palm Beach County Andrea L. Moore Assistant City Attorney City of Coral Springs 9551 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Attorney for City of Coral Springs Richard L. Doody, Attorney at Law Office of City Attorney City of Tamarac 7525 NW 88th Avenue Tamarac, FL 33321-2401 Attorney for City of Tamarac Steven L. Josias, Attorney at Law Josias & Goren, P.A. Centrust Savings Bank 3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Attorneys for Vesta Vestra, Inc. and the City of Parkland Jon M. Henning, City Attorney City of Sunrise 10770 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, FL 33351 Lisa N. Mulhall, Attorney at Law Burke, Bosselman & Weaver One Lincoln Place 1900 Glades Road, Suite 350 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Attorney for Town of Davie Heather Ruda, Attorney at Law Gibson & Adams, P.A. 303 First Street, Suite 400 (33401) Post Office Box 1629 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-1629 Attorney for Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County Scott Shirley, Attorney at Law Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road, Suite C Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Attorney for Coral Ridge Properties William L. Hyde, Attorney at Law Roberts, Baggett, LaFace & Richard 101 East College Avenue (32301) Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Co-counsel for Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. Donald R. Hall, Attorney at Law Gustafson, Stephens, Ferris, Forman & Hill, P.A. 540 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for Silver Lakes Partnership, Hollywood STS Associates, and the William Lyon Company Donna H. Stinson, Attorney at Law Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzgerald & Sheehan, P.A. The Perkins House, Suite 100 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Attorney for Indian Trail Grove, Limited, Irving Cowan, Savin Groves, Kenneth G. Savage, Robert Povey and Harold Wideman, and Sunny Urban Meadows Landowners Association; Indian Trail Scott Mager, Attorney at Law Mager & Gaffney, P.A. The 110 Tower - 12th Floor 110 Southeast 6th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Attorney for the Shennandoah Community Association and Jeff Reisburg Water Control District Stephen Covert, Attorney at Law 631 U.S. Highway One, Suite 200 (33408) Post Office Box 14035 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Attorney for Via Tropical Fruits, Inc.; Ronnie Hattaway; Talquin Corp.; Ralph C. Nash and Mikatum Groves J. A. Jurgens, Attorney at Law Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A. 505 South Flagler Drive Suite 1100 (33401) Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Co-counsel for Via Tropical Fruits, Inc.; Ronnie Hattaway; Talquin Corp.; Ralph C. Nash and Mikatum Groves Timothy J. Manor Margaret H. Schreiber Attorneys at Law Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed, P.A. 215 North Eola Drive (32801) Post Office Box 2809 Oriando, FL 32802-2809 Attorney for The Coca-Cola Company William J. Payne Dale Konigsburg Donna Stinson Attorneys at Law Rinker Materials Corporation 1501 Belvedere Road (33401) Post Office Box 24635 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4635 Attorneys for Rinker Materials Corporation Lawrence N. Ctrtin Samuel J. Morley Attorneys at Law Holland and Knight 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Drawer 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Attorneys for New Hope Sugar Company, Okeelanta Corporation, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Inc., South Bay Growers, Inc. United States Sugar Corporation, S. D. Sugar Corporation, Florida Sugar Cane League Alfred J. Malefatto, Attorney at Law Shapiro & Bregman, P.A. Suite 310, East Tower 777 South Flagler Drive (33401) Post Office Box 20629 West Palm Beach, FL 33416-0629 Attorney for FreBar, Inc.; Sugar Belle Joint Venture and Flor Ag Corporation Mark P. Gagnon Stanley D. Klett, Jr. Attorneys at Law Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan & Hyland, P.A. 4400 PGA Boulevard, Suite 900 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 Attorneys for A. Duda and Sons, Inc. Leigh A. Williams, Attorney at Law Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike, P.A. 1855 S. Kanner Way (34994) Post Office Box 1197 Stuart, FL 34995 Attorney for VBQ, Inc.; Beach Brooks as Trustee and Individually Darrell White, Attorney at Law McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. 600 First Florida Bank Building (32301) Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, FL 32316-2174 Attorney for Allapattah Properties Partnership Michael K. Spotts, Attorney at Law Brennan, Hayskar, Jefferson & Gorman, P.A. 519 South Indian River Drive (34954) Post Office Box 3779 Fort Pierce, FL 34948 Attorney for Reuben Carlton Honorable Bob Martinez Governor, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Tom Gallagher Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Eric Simon, Attorney at Law Borkson, Simon & Noskowitz 1500 N.W. 49th Street, Suite 401 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Attorney for Hollywood Lakes Country Club, Inc. Mary M. Viator, Attorney at Law Caldwell & Pacetti Post Office Box 2775 Palm Beach, FL 33480 Attorney for Indian Trail Water Control District Robert D. Miller, Attorney at Law 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Tower A, Suite 700 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Sugar Belle Joint Venture and Flor-Ag Corporation Joseph M. Norton Transmission Line Siting Coordinator Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Tim Murphy Anita Tallarico Attorneys at Law South Florida Regional Planning Council 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140 Hollywood, FL 33021 Attorneys for South Florida Regional Planning Council Kerri L. Barsh, Attorney at Law 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Attorney for Graham Companies Donald S. Rosenberg, Attorney at Law 2600 AmeriFirst Building One S. E. Third Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Attorney for Black Island Partnership Robert E. Ferris, Trustee 540 Northeast Fourth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Paul H. Amundsen James C. Hauser Attorneys at Law Blank, Hauser & Amundsen 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Attorney for D.L. Scotto & Company; Indian River Citrus League Frank H. Fee, III, Attorney at Law Fee, Bryan & Koblegard, P.A. Post Office Box 1000 Fort Pierce, FL 34954 Attorney for North St. Lucie River Water Control District Thomas E. Gardner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399 David Swafford, Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission Fletcher Building 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0875

Florida Laws (7) 403.521, 403.522, 403.523, 403.527, 403.529, 403.531, 403.537

# 9

JOSEPH ACQUAOTTA AND LISA GABLER vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 05-002980 (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Aug. 18, 2005 Number: 05-002980 Latest Update: Nov. 02, 2005

The Issue The issue is whether Palm Beach County's application for a permit to construct a domestic wastewater collection/transmission system in Palm Beach County should be approved.

Florida Laws (4) 120.569, 120.57, 403.087, 403.973

# 10

Find Similar Cases by Filters

IN RE: TECO POLK COUNTY PROJECT (PA 92-32) vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, 92-004896EPP (1992)

HARRY BURGE vs. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, 87-002805 (1987)

MIAMI-DADE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, 75-000089 (1975)

ARTHUR J. CHRIS-TENSEN vs EARTHLINK SHARED SERVICES, LLC, 16-007489 (2016)

MICHAEL D`ORDINE AND ANN E. HAWKINS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 05-002982 (2005)

LARRY ZEIGLER vs. QUINCY TELEPHONE CO., 84-003601 (1984)

IN RE: TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY AND PROGRESS ENERGY COMPANY`S LAKE AGNES-GIFFORD TRANSMISSION LINE SITING APPLICATION NO. TA07-16 vs *, 07-005691TL (2007)

TROY AND TRACEY LEE vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 05-002979 (2005)

IN RE: FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY LEVEE-MIDWAY 500 KV TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR CERTIFICATION APPLICATION NO. TA89-0 vs. *, 89-000279TL (1989)

JOSEPH ACQUAOTTA AND LISA GABLER vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PALM BEACH COUNTY WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, 05-002980 (2005)

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.