The Issue Whether Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. owes Petitioner, Florida Farm Management Inc. the sum of $4,846.00 for watermelons shipped by Petitioner and handled by Respondent as Petitioner's agent during the period from May 30, 1989 through July 5, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant fact are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. was a "producer" of agricultural products in the state of Florida as that term is defined in Section 605.15(5), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Debruyn Produce Co. was a licensed "dealer in agricultural products" as that term is defined in Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued license number 596 by the Department, and bonded by Peerless Insurance Company (Peerless) for the sum of $47,000.00, bond number R2-27-13, with an effective date of November 13, 1988 and a termination date of November 13, 1989. At all times material to this proceeding, Debruyn was authorized to do business in the state of Florida. Around the last week of April, 1989, Petitioner and Respondent orally agreed, among other things, for Petitioner to produce certain quantities of Mickey Lee Watermelons and for Respondent to market those watermelons. This oral agreement was reduced to writing, executed by the Respondent and sent to Petitioner to execute. Petitioner, after making certain changes in the agreement and initialing those changes, executed the agreement and returned it to the Respondent. It is not clear if Respondent agreed to the change since they were not initialed by Respondent. However, the parties appeared to operate under this agreement as modified by Petitioner. Under the agreement, Respondent was to advance monies for harvesting and packing, furnish containers and labels for packing and agreed to pay certain chemical bills. Petitioner was to reimburse any monies advanced by the Respondent for (a) harvesting or packing; (b) containers and labels and; (c) chemicals, from the proceeds of the sale of watermelons. Any balance owed Petitioner for watermelons was to be paid within 30 days. Additionally, Respondent was to receive a commission of 8% of net FOB, except 30 cent maximum on sales of less than $6.25 per carton and 40 cents per carton for melons delivered on contract to National Grocers Co. The relationship of the parties was to be that of producer and sales agent. Before entering into the agreement with Respondent, Petitioner had agreed to furnish National Grocers Co. four shipments of melons totalling 8,000 cartons. Respondent agreed to service that agreement. Although Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows a credit of $6,007.13 for chemicals paid for by Respondent, the parties agreed that only $3,684.68 was expended by Respondent for chemicals and that Respondent should receive credit for that amount. The parties agree that Respondent advanced a total of $18,960.00 for harvesting and packing and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. The parties agree that Respondent paid to Petitioner the sum of $12,439.32 and the Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Cartons and pads for packing the melons were shipped on two occasions and the total sum paid by Respondent for those cartons and pads was $17,225.00. The cartons were printed with the logo of Respondent on one side and the logo of Petitioner on the other side. Petitioner agrees that the number of cartons and pads used by him came to $12,463.78 and the Respondent should be given credit for that amount. All cartons and pads in the sum of $17,255.00 were delivered to Petitioner's farm. The amount in dispute for the remainder of the carton is $4,762.22. The Respondent was responsible under the agreement to furnish cartons and pads (containers). Respondent ordered the cartons and pads after determining from Petitioner the number needed. There were two orders for cartons and pads placed and delivered. There was an over supply of cartons and pads delivered to Petitioner. This over supply was the result of a miscommunication between Petitioner and Respondent as to the amount of cartons and pads needed. Petitioner agrees that all of the cartons and pads were delivered to his farm but that he was unable to protect these cartons and pads from the weather. However, Petitioner advised Respondent that the remainder of the carton and pads could be picked up at his farm. Respondent contended that he was denied access to the farm and was unable to pick up the remainder of the cartons and pads and, therefore, they were ruined by exposure to the weather. While there may have been times when Respondent attempted to retrieve the carton and Petitioner was unavailable, there is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent was intentionally denied access to Petitioner's farm to retrieve the cartons. Clearly, the ordering, purchasing and storing of the cartons and pads was a joint effort and both Petitioner and Respondent bear that responsibility. Therefore, the Petitioner is responsible for one-half of the difference between the total cost of the cartons ($17,225.00) and the amount used by Petitioner ($12,462.78) which is $2,381.11 and Respondent should be given credit for this amount. Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger shows that Petitioner shipped melons to Respondent in the amount of $54,715.63, after adjustments for complaints and commission. Respondent's accounts payable ledger shows receiving melons from Petitioner in the amount of $51,483.00, after adjustments for complaints and commission. The difference in the two ledgers in the amount of is accounted for as follows: Invoice No. 210066 - Customer paid $2.00 per carton less on 93 cartons, Petitioner agreed to the reduction. However, Petitioner's account is in error by 9 cents which reduces total amount to $54,715.54. Invoice No. 210067 - Respondent paid for more melons than Petitioner shows were shipped - $39.60. Invoice No. 210068 - difference in calculation of commission $13.32 Invoice No. 2100105 - difference due to Petitioner not agreeing to adjustment in price taken by customer. $2,886.00 Invoice No. 2100239 - difference of $108.04 due to Respondent allowing customer adjustment which Petitioner did not agree to. Invoice No. 2100267 - difference of $210.00 for same reason stated in (e) above. Petitioner should be allowed the difference due to miscalculation of commission in invoice Nos. 210068, 2100134 and 2100160 in the sum of $68.10 since Petitioner's calculation was in accordance with the agreement. There was no dispute as to the condition of melons being as contracted for upon receipt. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the melons shipped under invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 by Petitioner were not of the size and number contracted for by the customer. As to invoice Nos. 2100239 and 2100267, the adjustments were made after the fact without contacting Petitioner. As to invoice No. 2100105, the Petitioner shipped the melons to Russo Farms, Inc., Vineland, N.J., as per Respondent's order who then unloaded the melons and reloaded on Russo's truck and shipped to another buyer. It was this buyer's complaint that resulted in Russo demanding an adjustment. Respondent granted such adjustment without approval of the Petitioner. Although Respondent did contact Petitioner in regard to this complaint, Petitioner would not authorize a federal inspection, which he could have, but instead, requested that Respondent obtain an independent verification of the basis of the complaint. Instead of an independent verification of the complaint, Respondent had Russo evaluate the load as to size of melons and number of boxes. No complaint was made as to condition of the melons. Petitioner would not accept Russo's evaluation because based on the total weight of the melons shipped, as indicated by the freight invoice, Russo's evaluation could not have been correct. The only evidence presented by Respondent as to size and number of melon in regard to invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 was hearsay unsupported by any substantial competent evidence. Petitioner should be allowed the difference in invoice Nos. 2100105, 2100239 and 2100267 for a sum total of $3,204.00. No adjustment should be made for the differences in invoice No. 210067 other than the 9 cent error made by Petitioner because this amount is not used in Petitioner's calculation of the gross amount due for melons shipped. Therefore, the sum total of all melons sold and shipped is $54,715.63 - 0.09 = $54,715.54. The amount due Petitioner is calculated as follows: Sum total of melons shipped with proper adjustments $54,715.54 Subtract from that the following: Chemicals 3,684.68 Advances 18,960.00 Cost of Cartons $12,462.78 + 2,381.11 14,773.89 Payment 12,439.32 Subtotal of Deductions 49,857.89 Difference and amount owed $4,857.65
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. be ordered to pay the Petitioner Florida Farm Management, Inc. the sum of $4,857.65. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent Debruyn Produce Company, Inc. fails to timely pay Petitioner, Florida Farm Management, Inc. as ordered, the Respondent, Peerless Insurance Company be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and that the Department reimburse the Petitioners in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 23rd day of October, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner. 1. Not a finding of fact but the issue in this case. 2.-3. Adopted in findings of fact 2 and 4. Adopted in finding of fact 8. Adopted in finding of fact 4. First sentence adopted in finding of fact 7. The balance is not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Not material but see findings of fact 16-23. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-14. Adopted but modified in findings of fact 21 and 22. 10(A), 10(C)(1), 10(E), and 10(F) adopted in finding of fact 24. 10(C)(2)(3), 10(d) rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. See findings of fact 5, ,7, 9 - 15. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent. 1.-7. Adopted in findings of fact 2, 1, 4, 4, 4, 6, and 7 respectively as modified. Not material. This involved invoice Nos. 210066 and 210067 and adjustment were agreed to be Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's accounts receivable ledger, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. Not material. This involved invoice No. 2100160 and adjustments were granted by Petitioner and is not part of this dispute. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. 12.-13.Adopted in finding of fact 21 as modified. Adopted in finding of fact 5, and 9-15 as clarified. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record but see findings of fact 9-15. Adopted in finding of fact 13 as clarified. Adopted in finding of fact 23 as clarified but see findings of fact 9-22.
The Issue Whether Respondent Five Brothers Produce Inc. is indebted to Petitioner for agricultural products and, if so, in what amount?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner grows tomatoes on its farm in Dade County. Jack Wishart is in charge of the farm's operations. Five Brothers Produce, Inc., is a dealer in agricultural products. At all times material hereto, Pete Johnson was responsible for buying and selling produce for Five Brothers. He was assisted by Robert Barbare. On Friday, January 19, 1990, Johnson met with Wishart at Petitioner's farm. During their meeting, they discussed the possibility of Five Brothers purchasing all of Petitioner's 6x7 tomatoes. They ultimately entered into a verbal agreement concerning the matter. Under the terms of the agreement, Five Brothers agreed to purchase from Petitioner, and Petitioner agreed to sell to Five Brothers, Petitioner's supply of 6x7 tomatoes, which consisted of 293 packages, for $26.00 a package. At the time, tomatoes were in scarce supply because of the damage that had been done to the South Florida tomato crop by the freeze of the prior month. As a result, the market price for U.S.#1 grade 6x7 tomatoes was $32.00 a package. Wishhart agreed to a lower price for Petitioner's 6x7 tomatoes because they were U.S.#2 grade. The 293 packages of tomatoes were delivered to Five Brothers on the following day, Saturday, January 20, 1990. Johnson had purchased the tomatoes for Five Brothers to resell to a customer in Atlanta, Georgia. Upon inspecting the tomatoes after their arrival at Five Brothers' loading dock in Florida City, Johnson determined that they did not meet the needs of this particular customer because, in Johnson's opinion, they were too ripe to be shipped out of state. Johnson thereupon telephoned Wishart to tell him that the tomatoes were not suitable for his Atlanta customer. Later that same day, January 20, 1990, pursuant to Johnson's instructions, Barbare, Five Brothers' "late night clerk," contacted Wishart and advised him that Five Brothers wanted to return the tomatoes to Petitioner. The gates of Petitioner's farm were closed, and Wishart so informed Barbare. He then asked Barbare to store the tomatoes in Five Brothers' cooler until they could be returned to Petitioner's farm. Barbare agreed to do so. Approximately a day or two later, Barbare again telephoned Wishart. He told Wishart that Five Brothers had found a customer to whom it could sell the tomatoes, which were still in Five Brothers' cooler. Wishart, in response, stated that Petitioner would lower its sale price and "take $20.00," instead of $26.00 as previously agreed, for the tomatoes. 1/ On Monday, January 22, 1990, Five Brothers consummated a deal with Leo Genecco & Sons, Inc., (Genecco) of Rochester, New York, which agreed to purchase the tomatoes from Five Brothers. 2/ The tomatoes were priced "open," that is, the price of the tomatoes was to be established after the sale. Five Brothers ultimately received $3,149.75 ($10.75 a package) for the 293 packages of 6x7 tomatoes it had sold to Genecco. It thereupon sent a check in that amount to Petitioner as payment for these tomatoes. In the transaction at issue in the instant case, Five Brothers was not acting as a broker or agent for Petitioner. It purchased the tomatoes from Petitioner. The sales price was initially $26.00 a package and was later reduced to $20.00 a package. Accordingly, for the 293 packages of tomatoes Petitioner sold Five Brothers, it should have received from Five Bothers $5,860.00, $2,710.25 more than it was paid.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order (1) finding that Five Brothers is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $2,710.25, (2) directing Five Brothers to make payment to Petitioner in the amount of $2,710.25 within 15 days following the issuance of the order, and (3) announcing that, if such payment is not timely made, the Department will seek recovery from the Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., Five Brother's surety. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of March, 1991. 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 18th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Wishart Pine Islands Farms, Inc. Post Office Box 247 Goulds, Florida 33170 Pete Johnson Five Brothers Produce, Inc. Post Office Box 3592 Florida City, Florida 33034 Florida Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. 5700 Southwest 34th Street Gainesville, Florida 32608 Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Jack G. Baker, d/b/a Jack G. Baker, is an individual in the business of selling sod to others and installing sod himself. DeBusk Sod, Inc. (DeBusk) is a corporation in which the majority of the shares are owned by Susan D. Meagher, whose husband, James, is the minority shareholder. DeBusk installs sod in the central Florida area. Just prior to July 1992, DeBusk contacted Baker regarding the purchase of sod. Because of an ongoing drought which was affecting the area DeBusk ordered two truckloads of sod to sample the quality of the product immediately prior to July 5, 1992. DeBusk previously had ordered many thousands of dollars worth of sod from Baker. Baker loaded and transported two truckloads of sod to the Meaghers, who were satisfied with the quality of the sod and purchased an additional 186 pallets which they arranged to pick up in Baker's field. There was not a written contract for the sale of sod; however, all of the parties agree that DeBusk ordered 186 pallets of sod at $17.00 per pallet, f.o.b. (free on board) DeBusk's trucks in Baker's field. DeBusk paid Baker $322.00 on August 25, 1992 and $833.00 on September 22, 1992, in partial payment for the sod. There remained a balance owing of $2,007.00 which was not paid by DeBusk. DeBusk ordered the sod after receiving the sample truckloads. James Meagher drove one of the trucks and was present when the sod was cut and loaded. At that time, James Meagher had the opportunity to inspect the sod being cut and loaded. Meagher accepted delivery of the sod in Baker's field. Conflicting testimony was received at the hearing regarding the nature of the warranty on sod in the course of selling this agricultural product. The most credible evidence is that bahia sod is generally sold with an implied warranty that the product is free of large amounts of weeds or disease, and will take root and grow if properly installed and watered. James Meagher testified, and his testimony was uncontroverted, that the sod in question was properly installed and watered. Jack G. Baker testified regarding bahia sod. Bahia sod is exceptionally hardy and, if properly installed and watered, will survive and take root. The sod provided to DeBusk was cut and delivered at the same time as sod which was cut for Baker's own sodding operation and that of another independent sod company. The sod which Baker cut from this field was installed and survived when watered, and Baker received no complaints from the other sodding contractor regarding the sod which Baker had sold him. James and Susan Meagher contacted Mr. Baker when the sod which they had purchased from Baker began to die and asked Mr. Baker to inspect the sod and stand behind the product. Mr. Baker refused to inspect the product asserting that if the sod was dying, DeBusk had failed to water the product as required. DeBusk refuses to pay for that portions of the sod purchased which died because it failed to conform to the implied warranty. Carl Hiers, a sodding contractor, testified regarding bahia sod. If cut too thin during a severe drought, bahia sod can go into shock and die although it is watered. Mr. Hiers did not see the sod in question, and could not offer an opinion about whether it had failed to thrive because it had been cut too thin. Jack Baker testified regarding cutting sod too thin. If sod is cut thick enough to hold together, it is thick enough to survive the shock of being cut and transplanted. A portion of the sod fell from one of the last loads cut for DeBusk and lay in Baker's field for three days before a neighbor of Baker's picked it up and used it to sod an area over a septic tank where it grew and thrived.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DeBusk Sod have sixty days within which to pay to Jack G. Baker d/b/a Jack G. Baker Sod $2,007.00, and failing in that, Auto Owners Insurance Company be required to pay to Jack G. Baker d/b/a Jack G. Baker Sod $2,007.00 from DeBusk Sod, Inc.'s agricultural bond. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 7th day of May, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Jack G. Baker Jack G. Baker Sod 1415 Bruno Road Clermont, FL 34711 James and Susan Meagher DeBusk Sod, Inc. 7555 East Turner Camp Road Inverness, FL 34453 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture Bureau of Licensure and Bond 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc., failed to pay amounts owing to Petitioner resulting from a verbal contract for four pallets of Bahia sod as set forth in the complaint dated July 20, 2004, and, if so, what amount Petitioner is entitled to recover.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witness and her demeanor while testifying, the documents received into evidence, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following relevant and material findings of fact are determined: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner, C.M. Payne and Son, Inc., was a producer of agricultural products as that term is defined in Subsection 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (2004). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc. (Garrison), was licensed as a dealer in agriculture products as that term is defined in Subsection 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (2004). Respondent was licensed under number 13653, supported by Bond No. 929237754 in the amount of $10,000; written by Respondent, Continental Casualty Company, as Surety (Continental); Inception Date: December 4, 2003; Expiration Date: December 3, 2004; and Execution Date: December 4, 2003. At all times material, Continental is the surety which issued Garrison a surety bond. On January 23, 2004, Petitioner sold 16 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20027, billed Garrison a total of $599.20 for the 16 pallets of sod. On January 26, 2004, Petitioner sold 32 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20033, billed Garrison a total of $1,198.40 for the 32 pallets of sod. On January 27, 2004, Petitioner sold 16 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20039, billed Garrison a total of $599.20 for the 16 pallets of sod. On February 2, 2004, Petitioner sold 16 pallets of Bahia sod to Garrison and, on Invoice 20044, billed Garrison a total of $599.20 for the 16 pallets of sod. The terms of the sale between Petitioner and Garrison were for net payment for products sold within 30 days after the invoice date. Garrison did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the charges alleged in Petitioner's complaint. Garrison is indebted to Petitioner in the amount of $2,996.00 for Bahia sod purchases from Petitioner on January 23, 26, and 27, 2004, and February 2, 2004. Garrison has failed to pay Petitioner for the sod purchases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue its final order requiring that Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc., pay to Petitioner, C. M. Payne and Son, Inc., the amount of $2,996.00 for the purchases of Bahia sod from Petitioner on January 23, 26, and 27, 2004, and February 2, 2004. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent, Garrison Irrigation, Inc., fails to comply with the order directing payment, the Department shall call upon the surety, Continental Casualty Company, to pay over to the Department from funds out of the surety certificate, the amount needed to satisfy the indebtedness. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 22nd day of December, 2004.
Findings Of Fact On September 17, 1987, the Petitioner entered a nolo contendere plea to two felonies: possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. The plea was entered in Case No. 86-342-CF, in the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Florida, and the Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offenses. In the Court's judgment of guilt, it was found to the Court's satisfaction that the Petitioner was not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that RICHARD EPPS should suffer the penalty authorized by law. As a result of the Court's findings, the Petitioner, RICHARD EPPS, was sentenced to three years probation. He was ordered to serve five months in the county jail as a condition of that probation. On January 25, 1988, the Petitioner completed an application for a Florida Farm Labor Contractor Certificate of Registration. The purpose of the application was to obtain a new certificate as he was no longer eligible for a renewal of his prior certificate. On March 16, 1988, the Respondent notified the Petitioner of its intent to refuse to issue the certificate of registration. The reasons given were: 1) The U.S. Department of Labor recommended against it due to the felony convictions. 2) By rule, the Respondent is required to cooperate with any federal agency. 3) Once a certificate is obtained, each contractor must comply with all applicable statutes, rules, and regulations for the protection or benefit of labor. The Petitioner has used marijuana in the past. He has never used it during working hours, and his work crew was unaware that he has ever used marijuana. He has never allowed drugs in the work place and he no longer uses marijuana. The Petitioner has never used cocaine or other illegal drugs, except for the marijuana. The Petitioner's arrest on November 6, 1986, for the possession of cocaine and marijuana was a result of his location in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he went to his marijuana supplier's home to purchase marijuana for his personal use, the house was raided by the Arcadia Police Department. Originally, all of the people within the house where individually charged with possession of all of the drugs stored there. The Petitioner's plea of nolo contendere was a result of a plea bargain agreement. The Petitioner is aware that his former drug activity was criminal in nature, and he has stopped his marijuana use with the help of voluntary counseling, his family, the fact that he is on probation, and the fact that his habit got him into serious trouble. The Petitioner will not endanger the safety of a work crew as a result of his past use of marijuana. There is no evidence that the safety of the work crew was ever endangered as a result of the Petitioner's past habit or that his presence in the fields will be harmful to farm workers. The Petitioner has never engaged in transporting farm workers beyond state lines. His crew leader activities are confined to less than twenty workers and he works for one farmer, Mr. Bobby Williams in Arcadia, Florida.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner proved the elements necessary to demonstrate that she was subject to an unlawful employment practice as a result of Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, maintaining a sexually-hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau (BCFB or Respondent). She worked for the BCFB from December 15, 2006 until January 1, 2012. The BCFB is an organization created to work for and provide support to farmers in Bradford County. The BCFB has its office in Starke, Florida. At all times relevant to this proceeding, James Gaskins was the President of the BCFB Board of Directors. He served in that capacity as an unpaid volunteer. The alleged actions of Mr. Gaskins towards the Petitioner form the basis for her claim of employment discrimination. Section 760.10(1), provides that: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. To limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely affect any individual?s status as an employee, because of such individual?s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. Section 760.02(7) defines "employer" as follows: „Employer? means any person employing 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person. The threshold issue in this proceeding is whether the BCFB had the requisite number of employees to bring it under the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 as Petitioner?s “employer.” If Petitioner fails in her proof of that issue, any discussion of acts that may have constituted sexual harassment or resulted in the creation of a sexually- hostile work environment become superfluous and unnecessary. Facts Regarding the BCFB as an “Employer” At all times relevant to this proceeding, the BCFB had two paid employees. Ms. Griffith was the office manager and bookkeeper. Ms. Linzy was a part-time secretary and receptionist, although she worked full-time when Ms. Griffith was out. Ms. Linzy retired in October, 2012. In addition to the foregoing employees, the BCFB has a five-member board of directors. Although Mr. Gaskins, who was a member of the Board, served as an unpaid volunteer, there was no evidence as to whether the remaining members were paid for their services. For purposes of this Recommended Order, it will be presumed that they were. Based solely on the number of its employees, BCFB is not an “employer” as defined by section 760.10. Therefore, in order to prove the threshold element of her claim for relief, Petitioner must establish that employees of other entities should be imputed to the BCFB due to integrated activities or common control of BCFB?s operations or employees. Petitioner presented evidence of the relationship between the BCFB, the Florida Farm Bureau, and the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company (FFBIC) to establish the requisite integration or common control necessary to impute their employees to the BCFB. Florida Farm Bureau The Florida Farm Bureau has more than 15 employees. The Florida Farm Bureau has a mission similar to that of the BCFB of providing goods, services, and other assistance to farmers, though on a state-wide basis. Each county in Florida has an independent county farm bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has no common corporate identity with the BCFB. The BCFB is incorporated as a legal entity unto itself. The Florida Farm Bureau and the BCFB have no common officers, directors, or employees. The Florida Farm Bureau does not share or comingle bank accounts with the BCFB. The BCFB maintains its own finances, and has a bank account with the Capital City Bank Group. The Florida Farm Bureau has no operational control over the BCFB. The BCFB Board of Directors makes all employment decisions for the BCFB, has exclusive authority to hire and fire employees of the BCFB, and has exclusive control over the pay and the terms and conditions of BCFB employees. Employees of the BCFB are paid by the BCFB, and not by the Florida Farm Bureau. The Florida Farm Bureau has the telephone numbers of all of the county farm bureaus, and can transfer calls received by the Florida Farm Bureau to any of the county farm bureaus. Other than that, as stated by Ms. Linzy, the county farm bureaus “are all on their own.” Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company The Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company is affiliated with the Florida Farm Bureau. The nature and extent of the relationship between those entities was not established. The relationship between those two entities does not affect their relationship, or lack thereof, with the BCFB. Petitioner introduced no evidence as to the FFBIC?s total number of employees. The FFBIC has no common officers or directors with the BCFB, nor do they share or comingle bank accounts. Brent Huber and Travis McAllister are insurance agents authorized to transact business on behalf of the FFBIC. They are self-employed independent contractors. Mr. Huber does business as “Brent Huber, Inc.” Neither Mr. Huber nor Mr. McAllister is an employee of the FFBIC. Mr. Huber is not employed by the BCFB, and does not perform duties on behalf of the BCFB. The evidence suggests that Mr. McAllister?s status, vis-à-vis the BCFB, is the same as that of Mr. Huber. Local FFBIC agents are selected by the FFBIC. Given the close relationship with local farmers/customers, the FFBIC selection of a local agent must be ratified by the county farm bureau in the county in which the agent is to transact business. Once ratified, an FFBIC agent cannot be terminated by the county farm bureaus. Mr. Huber and Mr. McAllister, having been appointed to transact business in Bradford County as agents of the FFBIC, maintain an office at the BCFB office in Starke. There being only four persons in the office, the relationship among them was friendly and informal. Mr. Huber described the group as “tight-knit” and “like a family.” Mr. Huber had no supervisory control over Petitioner or her work schedule. Due to the small size of the BCFB office, and limited number of persons to staff the office, Ms. Griffith?s absences would cause problems for the office as a whole. However, Mr. Huber never evaluated Ms. Griffith?s performance and never disciplined Ms. Griffith. The FFBIC provided sexual harassment, employment discrimination, workers? compensation, and minimum wage informational signs that were placed in the BCFB office break room. Those signs were “shared” between the Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company and the BCFB. Thus, the BCFB did not maintain a separate set of signs. The BCFB office has a single telephone number, and calls are routed internally. If Mr. Huber was out of the office, Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would take messages for him. If Mr. Huber was alone in the office, he would answer the telephone. Petitioner or Ms. Linzy would occasionally make appointments for Mr. Huber, and assist him when clients visited the office. Mr. Huber did not pay Petitioner or Ms. Linzy for those services. At some point, Mr. Huber and Ms. Griffith determined that it would be mutually advantageous if Ms. Griffith were allowed to speak with FFBIC customers about insurance when Mr. Huber was out of the office. To facilitate that arrangement, Ms. Griffith, at Mr. Huber?s suggestion, obtained a license as a customer service representative, which allowed her to sell policies under Mr. Huber?s insurance agent license. The customer service representative license was not a requirement of Ms. Griffith?s position with the BCFB. Ms. Griffith would sell insurance policies only when Mr. Huber was out of the office. Mr. Huber compensated Ms. Griffith for writing insurance policies through “Brent Huber, Inc.” Ms. Griffith continued to be paid as a full-time employee of the BCFB because she thought the BCFB “would be OK with it.”
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations that, based upon Petitioner's failure to meet her burden of proof to establish that Respondent, Bradford County Farm Bureau, is an “employer” as defined in section 760.02(7), the Employment Complaint of Discrimination be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire Allen, Norton and Blue, P.A. Suite 100 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Jamison Jessup 557 Noremac Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pasco County Utilities (County) seeks the issuance of Permit Number DC 51-143059 for construction of a 400,000 gallon per day wastewater treatment plant and spray irrigation disposal system. The County presently has an interim 100,000 gallon per day (gpd) capacity domestic wastewater treatment facility, including a 10 acre spray irrigation field, which is on the 80 acre site proposed for the expanded facility. The site is located in the northcentral portion of Pasco County near McKendree and Tucker Roads. The facility is known as the Pasco Central Subregional Wastewater Treatment Plant (Pasco Center). The site on which the facility is located was purchased by the County in 1987 as part of a plan dividing the geographical area of the county into 17 subregional service areas. It is contemplated that each of these areas will eventually be served by a wastewater treatment plant with a capacity of up to nine million gpd. Development representatives, seeking to have new developments served by county treatment plants such as Pasco Center, are required by the County to agree to accept treated reclaimed water for disposal via irrigation on golf courses, road medians, common green areas and similar areas within the developments. Such agreements with developments require that a gallon of reclaimed water be accepted for each gallon transferred to the plant for treatment. Further, the County is actively seeking additional spray irrigation disposal areas for the Pasco Center. A recent contract with an owner of an adjacent 40 acre orange grove will soon make that site available for reclaimed water irrigation. The Pasco Center plant site is located in a rural area. As a result of site design and selection, adverse effects on neighboring properties are minimized. The present plant facility, which will also serve the expanded facility, is located more than three thousand feet from Petitioner's residence, separated by Tucker Road and a 100 foot buffer of pine trees surrounding the perimeter of the entire site. The pine trees have been planted around the facility to provide a visual buffer and to minimize any aerosol drift that may occur on a windy day. Since the aeration process utilized by the facility minimizes any aerosol drift, any resultant aerosol odor after expansion of the facility will likely be minimal to nonexistent. The property is fenced, but accessible to authorized personnel. While the County is exempt from zoning regulations by Section 25.82 of the County Zoning Ordinance, the property upon which Pasco Center is located is zoned for agricultural use and allows public and quasi-public buildings and structures of either county, state or federal governments. The proposed treatment plant is intended to substitute for the present 100,000 gpd plant at Pasco Center. The proposed plant will have a 400,000 gpd advanced secondary wastewater treatment capacity using the extended aeration method. The plant itself will be contained within an 80 foot diameter concrete tank divided into separate aeration, settling, digestion and chlorine contact chambers. Following treatment and filtration, treated reclaimed water will be routed to a clay-lined, 1.2 million gallon capacity holding pond. From the holding pond, spray irrigation will occur. The proposed plant is designed to meet or exceed plant construction standards set forth in Rule Chapter 17-6, Florida Administrative Code. Reasonable assurance has been provided by the County that the proposed plant will not cause pollution in violation of applicable rules of Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation (Department). In order to accommodate the plant's proposed increased plant capacity of 400,000 gpd, the County proposes expansion of the existing 10 acre spray irrigation field. The enlarged field will include two zones where irrigation will occur on alternate days. Irrigation will automatically commence when the treated wastewater fills the holding pond to a preset level. Two agricultural-type sprinkler systems will be activated at these times for irrigation purposes. The entire system will include 40 individual spray heads. The holding pond capacity of 1.2 million gallons will retain three days of treated effluent produced by the plant to meet any contingency that rain or other site conditions may make irrigation temporarily impossible. The proposed spray irrigation area is not located within the 100 year flood plain. A small portion of the property which is within the flood plain will not be used for spray irrigation. The irrigation area is located on a sand ridge and contains good permeable soils which increase the disposal capacity of the site. Depth to groundwater averages between 6 to 18 inches to the surficial aquifer and 30 feet to the Floridan aquifer. An adequate buffer zone has been established between the spray irrigation area and a sinkhole located on the property. Further protections include a surficial monitoring well and Floridan aquifer monitoring well between the sinkhole and the spray site. The irrigation area is very large in comparison to the quantity of effluent proposed for disposal. The proposed 400,000 gpd application rate proposed by the County is a conservative one, and the site, in all likelihood, will be able to utilize more than that amount. Spray irrigation at the proposed rate will not cause surficial runoff or affect the Floridan aquifer. There is no likelihood that the Cypress Creek Wellfield, located 2.5 miles from the Pasco Center location, will be affected by the spray irrigation at the facility. Travel time for groundwater to reach the CypressCreek field drawdown area in the eventuality of a spill of effluent from the treatment plant is estimated at 2800 years. Six shallow wells have been installed at the site by the County for monitoring the surficial aquifer and two deep wells for monitoring the Floridan aquifer. As previously noted, one of each type of well is located between the spray site and the sinkhole. All wells are located both up gradient and down gradient of the property to measure both background levels and to sample the quality of groundwater leaving the site. The ground water monitoring plan is adequate for the protection of surface waters and the Floridan aquifer. The Pasco Center site is an appropriate location for the spray irrigation of 400,000 gpd of reclaimed water. The proposed spray field complies with the requirements of the Department's land application manual. The County has provided the Department with reasonable assurances that the disposal of 400,000 gpd on the site by means of spray irrigation will not cause pollution in violation of rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the petition and issuing permit number DC 51-143054 to the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, 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 31st day of October, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. None Submitted. Respondent County's Proposed Findings: 1.-7. Adopted in substance. 8. Adopted by reference. 9.-23. Adopted in substance. 24.-26. Adopted by reference. 27.-29. Unnecessary to result reached. 30. Rejected as a legal conclusion. Textual analysis of 403.412, F.S. indicates applicability of this statutory section as a basis for the award of attorney fees and costs in this proceeding is inappropriate. Respondent Department's Proposed Findings: 1.-13. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa C. Bennett, Esq. Pasco County Attorney's Office 7530 Little Road, Room 203 New Port Richey, FL 34654 Richard Donelan, Jr., Esq. Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Jack Roth P.O. Box 845 San Antonio, FL 33576 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issues presented in these cases are whether a 1987 Settlement Agreement entered into by the parties to this proceeding prohibits the issuance to Pasco County of a general permit for spray irrigation at the Embassy Hills facility on property adjacent to that owned by Marie Cook Matis, and whether discharge of wastewater into ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should be discontinued pending installation of a single media filtration system.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is charged with the regulation and enforcement of state statutes and rules governing construction and operation of wastewater treatment systems. The DEP is the successor agency to the Department of Environmental Regulation. Pasco County (County) is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Pasco County owns and operates a wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system that includes the facilities at issue in this proceeding. Marie Cook Matis (Matis) owns and resides on property located on Denton Avenue adjacent to the treatment facilities at issue in this proceeding. THE SPRAY IRRIGATION ISSUE The parties to this proceeding litigated the issuance of permits for construction and operation of the Embassy Hills and Hudson wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. The County had initially planned construction of 14 water disposal ponds at the Embassy Hills facility. Some of the ponds were located adjacent to property owned by Matis. By written settlement agreement between the parties dated December 18, 1987, the construction permit cases were resolved. As a part of the resolution of the dispute over the construction permits, the County agreed to eliminate the five ponds closest to the Matis property. Paragraph 1(c) of the 1987 settlement agreement provides as follows: The County agrees to reduce the number of ponds constructed at the Embassy disposal site located on Denton Avenue from fourteen (14) to nine (9) ponds by eliminating the five (5) most easterly ponds depicted on the county's construction plans.... By Final Order dated January 21, 1988, the dispute was dismissed and the construction permits were issued in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. In 1991, the County applied for issuance of operating permits for the constructed facilities. In February 1992, the DEP proposed to issue the operation permits. Matis challenged the issuance of the permits. The cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. In 1992, the County made application for construction of the "Northwest Pasco Rapid Rate Infiltration Basins" (RRIBs) some of which were located at the site of the previously deleted eastern ponds at Denton Avenue. Late in 1992, the DEP proposed to issue the permits. Matis again challenged the issuance of the permits. The cases were again referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The pending cases were subsequently consolidated for hearing as DOAH Case no. 92-2488. Formal hearing was held in August 1993. In October 1993, a Recommended Order was entered. One of the issues addressed in the October 1993 Recommended Order was whether the 1987 settlement agreement precluded permitting and construction of the five easterly RRIBs located adjacent to the Matis property. The Hearing Officer concluded that the settlement agreement did not preclude the County from applying for licensure of the RRIBs. The Secretary of DEP rejected the Hearing Officer's conclusion, stating that the settlement agreement had been specifically incorporated into the 1988 Final Order, and that the agreement addressed the issue of ponds located adjacent to the Matis property. The Secretary's December 3, 1993, Final Order stated that the doctrine of res judicata prevented relitigation of the dispute regarding the five easterly ponds, and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel prevented both the County and the DEP from "disclaiming the conditions set forth in the 1987 Settlement Agreement " The Secretary denied the application for construction of the RRIBs "without prejudice to the County to reapply for a construction permit providing alternative plans for relocating the five (5) percolation ponds " The County now seeks to utilize the property upon which the ponds would have been constructed as spray irrigation fields. The County asserts that the settlement agreement is silent as to any use other than percolation ponds, and that the agreement therefore does not prohibit spray irrigation fields. Matis asserts that the spray irrigation fields are prohibited by the terms of the 1987 settlement. The DEP initially declined to issue the general permit on grounds that the permit "may be inconsistent" with the terms of the 1987 settlement agreement, but in DEP's Proposed Recommended Order, DEP notes that it has now withdrawn its objection to the spray irrigation system. The effluent that would be discharged via spray irrigation is the same as that which would have been deposited into the percolation ponds. The evidence admitted into the instant hearing fails to establish that the County should be issued a general permit for the use of spray irrigation on the Denton Avenue property at the Embassy Hills wastewater plant. THE EMBASSY HILLS FILTRATION SYSTEM ISSUE Matis asserts that the single media filtration system included in the Embassy Hills construction permit has never been installed, and asserts that the discharge of water into the ponds should cease until after the permit condition has been met. Paragraph 1(b) of the 1987 settlement agreement provides as follows: The County agrees to install a single media filtration device at the Embassy Percolation Ponds located on Denton Avenue for the purpose of filtering effluent prior to disbursement to the pond system. The County further agrees that the effluent so filtered shall meet the following treatment parameters - 15 BOD, 5 TSS, and 10 nitrates . . . . In recommending approval of the operating permit applications, the Hearing Officer's 1993 Recommended Order stated that the treatment plants had been operating "without violations." Matis filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's finding related to the lack of violations, citing uncontested testimony acknowledging that the single media filtration system had not been installed. The DEP Final Order of December 1993 granted the exception and modified the Recommended Order, noting that the single media filtration device had not been installed at the Denton Avenue site. In granting the issuance of the operating permits, the proposed permits were modified to specifically include" any and all conditions, fulfilled or unfulfilled, set forth in the Settlement Agreement." Inexplicably, the single media filtration device has still not been installed at the Denton Avenue ponds. The operation of the Embassy Hills plant without installation of the single media filtration device is a violation of the construction permit, which was issued pursuant to the 1987 settlement agreement. The operation of the Embassy Hills plant without installation of the single media filtration device is a violation of the operating permit, which specifically includes the conditions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
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 as follows: An operating permit for the Embassy Hills Subregional Reuse Facility should be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties at the hearing of July 7, 1999. An operating permit for the Hudson Subregional Reuse Facility should be granted in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated by the parties at the hearing of July 7, 1999. The application for general permit to provide for spray irrigation at the Embassy Hills facility on property adjacent to that owned by Marie Cook Matis should be denied. Utilization of the Denton Avenue discharge ponds at the Embassy Hills facility should cease until such time as the County has installed the required single media filtration system. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles D. Hinton, Esquire William Deane, Esquire Deane and Hinton, P. A. Post Office Box 7473 St. Petersburg, Florida 33739-7473 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 James Benjamin Harrill, Esquire Figurski and Harrill Suite 350 2435 U.S. Highway 19 Holiday, Florida 34691 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
