The Issue Whether or not on or about August 23, 1975, Carole Sanders, licensed under the beverage laws as a licensed vendor, did employ, on her licensed premises persons under the age of 18. to wit: Margie Johnson, W/F, DOB: 11/12/60, age 14, address: Homosassa, Florida, and Mrs. Fawn Hetland, DOB: 5/22/59, age 16, address: Sindpiper Motel, Room #38, Clearwater, Florida, contraty to Florida Statute 562.13. Whether or not on or about August 23,1975, Carole Sanders, licensee, her agent, servant, or employee, did allow procuring for the purpose of prostitution on her licensed premises, contrary to Florida Statutes 796.07(3)(A) and 561.29. Whether or not on or about August 23, 1975, Carole Sanders, licensee, or her servant, employee or an agent, did allow a person under the age of 18 to consume alcoholic beverages on her licensed premises, to wit: Margie Faye Johnson, W/F, DOB: 11/12/60, contrary to Florida Statue 562.11.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began its presentation by offering into evidence a copy of the amended notice to show cause, together with the notice of hearing, which became Petitioners Exhibit #1 which was admitted without objection. The Petitioner also presented a copy of the license of the Respondent, which was allowed into evidence without objection, as Petitioner's Exhibit #2. Petitioner then called Margie Faye Johnson to the stand. Miss Johnson testified that she was 15 years old as of November 12, 1975. She now lives with her mother at Homasassa, Florida, but in August, 1975, she was a runaway. While away from home, the witness went to the establishment of the Respondent, to wit, Charlie's Beach Bar and applied for a job as a topless dancer. At that time the witness was 14 years old. She had been told about this job by one Fawn Hetland, an acquaintance she had met two weeks prior to applying for the job. The job application was made sometime in August, 1975, three or four days prior to certain arrest warrants were served on Charlie Sanders, the husband of the Respondent. These warrants were served on or about August 23, 1975. The process of the hiring of Margie Johnson was described by her in the following fashion She said she asked Charlie Sanders about being a dancer in his bar and that he interviewed her and asked her to dance, after which she was hired as a topless dancer in the bar. During the course of the hiring procedures the witness testified that she was never asked for an identification card of any kind. She did say that she signed a writing presented to her by Carole Sanders, which was something to do with taxes. This writing spoken of was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit #3, without objection. According to the witness, Charlie Sanders was responsible for hiring her as opposed to the Respondent, Carole Sanders. The night the witness was hired, in addition to neglecting to ask for an identification card, for some identification of her age, the witness indicated that she never saw anyone call for references concerning her age. She felt that she would have observed such a call because the phone was near the area in which she was located. During the course of her employment for the three or four days, Margie Johnson indicated that she danced topless, served alcoholic beverages, and consumed alcoholic beverages, and also worked the cash register. On the night that the arrest was made of Charlie Sanders, which would have been August 23, 1975, the witness was found in possession of a mug of beer. The mug itself is Petitioner's Exhibit #6 which was admitted without objection, after a stipulation had been entered into concerning the chain of custody of the beer mug and a stipulation that the mug contained an alcoholic substance, to wit, beer. Margie Johnson was arrested, by her statement, for drinking on the premises and being in an adult bar. Other activities concerning Margie Johnson while she was working for the Respondent, included a request by Charlie Sanders that she prostitute herself for an older man, whom she said was in the conversation, but whose name she does not know. The witness indicated that Charlie Sanders actively participated in this procurement situation by asking her if she had done any prostituting and asking her if she would like for him to set her up. The witness also indicated that Charlie Sanders propositioned her to go to bed with him, evidently for purposes of having sexual relations. To the witness's knowledge, Mrs. Sanders was not involved in any procurement for prostitution. Margie Johnson had also worked at two other topless lounges in the area to include the Savoy Lounge and the Stock Market. While working at the Savoy Lounge she said she had shown a birth certificate which had been given to her by some "chick and a guy" who picked her up. This birth certificate indicated that she was 22 years old. She had been requested to show proof of age at the Savoy Lounge and had shown the phony birth certificate, but she said she never showed any identification of age at the Stock Market. The Stock Market proprietors had asked her for proof of age but she had indicated that she would bring that proof in and never did. While at Charlie's Beach Bar, the witness stated that she never was questioned about her age. An effort was made to develop the fact that the witness worked in bars other than the bars spoken of, this was objected to and the objection was sustained because it was not felt that further development of the issue was material or relevant. Finally, the witness indicated that Charlie Sanders had told her the night they were arrested, that if she was not 18 years old that he was going to kill her. At present the witness is not in immediate contact with the Respondent or any employees at-Charlie's Beach Bar. John T. McMullen, agent for the Division of Beverage, testified that he assisted in serving a warrant issued to the Indian Rocks Police Department for August 23, 1975. This warrant was served around midnight on that date and when the witness entered Charlie's Beach Bar with the warrant party he noticed that Margie Johnson was sitting with a beer mug in her hand and that mug contained beer. This beer mug has been identified as Petitioner's Exhibit #6. When Officer McMullen approached Margie Johnson, because he felt she was under age, she stated that she was 18 and had been born in 1953. Later she admitted that she was a juvenile. Officer McMullen later returned to the bar around 1:15 A.M. on August 24, 1975, and picked up certain records from the Respondent, Mrs. Sanders. Part of these records have been admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit #5, admitted with objection. The witness testified that Mrs. Sanders told him that she had hired Margie Johnson because she knew the girl Fawn Hetland and because Margie Johnson had indicated that she was 18 years old and had worked at the Stock Market Bar. Consequently, according to Mrs. Sanders, she presumed these things to be so. Officer McMullen went back to the bar on a third occasion around 12:45 P.M. on September 3, 1975 at which time a citation for beverage violations was served upon the Respondent. At that time the witness stated that he read the citation to Carole Sanders and she told him she couldn't go and not plead guilty to the citation, because she had hired Margie Johnson and that her husband had hired Fawn Hetland and that they knew the girls were minors. Beverage Agent Woodrow Ray took the stand and testified essentially the same way as Officer McMullen, about the facts surrounding the service of the warrant on August 23, 1975, at Charlie's Beach Bar. Officer Ray also went back to get records In the early morning hours of August 24, 1975. He indicated the receipt of Petitioner's Exhibit #5 from Carole Sanders and stated that he had given her a receipt in return which is admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit #4, without objection. *A more complete description of the objection to the introduction of Exhibit #5 will be discussed in the section of this order entitled CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Officer H. C. Adams of the Indian Rocks Police Department, testified that he was involved in serving the warrant on Charlie Sanders at Charlie's Beach Bar on August 23, 1975. He had seen Margie Johnson drinking the beer which was in Petitioners Exhibit #6, and had removed the beer mug and contents from Margie Johnson. The Petitioner called Jack Lewzader to the stand. Before Mr. Lewzader testified, the Petitioner offered to amend count 2 of the amended information by changing the date of August 23, 1975, as reflected, to the date of August 16, 1975. The Respondent was offered the right of a continuance since there had been a change in count 2; however, the Respondent indicated that he was sufficiently prepared to defend the charges reflected in count 2 and the testimony of Jack Lewzader was taken. Mr. Lewzader said that he was a customer in Charlie's Beach Bar and that on one occasion he had taken home one Fawn Doyle* and on the way home Fawn Doyle had offered to sell herself for $10.00 and as the car stopped, Fawn Doyle grabbed the $10.00 from his hand and jumped out of the car. He stated that he went back to Charlie's Beach Bar and confronted Charlie Sanders later that same day, with the details of his problem with Fawn Doyle. Lewzader said that Charlie Sanders told him that he would have to talk with her. Charlie Sanders then introduced Lewzader to a Mike and a Linda who were in Charlie's Beach Bar. A conversation then ensued, in which it was indicated through Charlie Sanders, that he might help make the matter with Fawn Doyle right by the introduction of Mike and Linda. Linda and Mike stated that Linda would sell herself for $25.00 for the first hour, $50.00 for the second hour and $75.00 for all night and that they would deduct the $10.00 that had been taken by Fawn Doyle. This conversation with Linda and Mike took place on the premises of the Respondent, to wit, Charlie's Beach Bar. On cross-examination, Mr. Lewzader indicated that he had gone to the Indian Rocks Police Station to complain, after the $10.00 had been taken by Fawn Hetland. Then he went to speak to Charlie Sanders and met Mike and Linda, and later returned back to the police station to file a complaint. Respondent's Exhibit #1 was introduced through the witness, Lewzader. This item of evidence was the affidavit of complaint by Jack Lewzader. It was admitted without objection. As Respondent's Exhibit #1 reflects, the discussion Mr. Lewzader had at the police station was with one Officer Marvin Padgett. The witness indicated that Respondent's Exhibit #1 accurately reflects the details of his complaint. Respondent presented testimony in the course of the hearing, and the first witness was Diane Poole. Diane Poole is 23 years old and is a topless dancer at Charlie's Beach Bar at this time and has been so employed for two months. She testified that she applied for a job at Charlie's Beach Bar while down there having a glass of wine. She indicated that while having the wine she was carded by the bartender who was a lady; however, she auditioned before showing any identification card. The process of her hiring included Charlie Sanders asking where she had worked before and dancing to three songs, discussing certain written rules, discussing how old she was and signing a certain paper on income tax. She said that she has never been asked about being a prostitute. The witness has been a dancer for about 3-1/2 years and had started in Phoenix, Arizona. She has also held jobs as a model and as a secretary. *Fawn Doyle and Fawn Hetland was believed to be one and the same person to the knowledge of the witness. Marvin Padget took the stand, after being called by the Respondent. He testified that he knows Charlie Sanders and Carole Sanders. He further testified that he knows Jack Lewzader as being a complainant who came to him about alleged acts of prostitution by Fawn Hetland. In the discussion of his complaint about Fawn Hetland, the witness said he advised Lewzader of his rights and told him that he would not prosecute him for his involvement with the minor, Fawn Hetland. The witness further stated that he asked Lewzader if he was a regular patron of Charlie's Beach Bar and told him to keep his eyes and ears open. If he heard about anything else, such as prostitution, going on in the bar, he instructed Lewzader to report any matters of impropriety to him concerning prostitution in Charlie's Beach Bar. He also asked Lewzader if he had heard of other incidents such as the one with Fawn Hetland. He did not mention the names of any persons he wanted observed in Charlie's Beach Bar. Later, according to the witness, Jack Lewzader completed the complaint which is Respondent's Exhibit #1. Carole Sanders took the stand in her own behalf. She testified that Margie Johnson came into Charlie's Beach Bar and that she auditioned to be a dancer. According to Carole Sanders, Margie Johnson was asked for an identification and she told her she had lost her purse and that she would bring in some identification at a later time. She said she told Margie Johnson about their rules, which were not in the form of writing at that time, and also explained to her about the matters concerning income tax. The witness seemed to indicate that the actual hiring of Margie was at a later time, although she and her husband had agreed to hire Margie Johnson on the same date of the audition. According to the witness, it was her understanding that Margie Johnson would have an identification to show at the time she was actually employed. She doesn't know if any identification was ever shown by Margie Johnson to indicate her age. The witness said, to her knowledge, there is no prostitution in Charlie's Beach Bar and has not been since she became the proprietor, even though there have been 30 or 40 girls hired by the bar in that time period. According to the witness, Fawn Hetland was hired by Charlie Sanders. Margie Johnson, as indicated by the witness, was interviewed and eventually went to work the first day, effective the night that her bar was raided. The witness indicated that she never told anyone she was guilty of hiring minors. Nevertheless, she indicated that she knows she should have made sure on the age of her employees and was remiss in the instance of Fawn Hetland and Margie Johnson. She further stated that she is more careful now about the matter of identification for prospective employees. Charlie Sanders took the stand in behalf of the Respondent. Charlie Sanders, as stated before, is the husband of the Respondent. Describing the hiring of Fawn Hetland, he said he asked for a proof of age and she produced an employment card for Orange County. The witness said he was bothered by that somewhat and asked for further proof of age and Fawn Hetland promised proof later on. He testified that he knew she was married and had a child and for that reason seemed to be satisfied to accept better proof of age at a later time. To the witness's way of thinking, the reason better proof of age was never forth coming was because Fawn Hetland's husband had most of her identification and refused to give it to her. He also stated he had phoned an establishment called the House to see if she had danced there before and was told yes. In discussing Margie Johnson, the witness indicated that he had hired her over a four day period but that she had only worked one day. He said he asked Margie Johnson where she had worked before and she indicated the Savoy Lounge. His wife was there when Margie Johnson was hired. He said he wasn't shown any identification at the time of hiring but Fawn Hetland said that she was alright and he also called the Savoy Lounge, after which he was satisfied at that time. The witness then said that on the second or third night that she had worked she showed him a birth certificate that indicated that she was born in 1953, to which he simply replied, "is this yours?" and then told Margie Johnson to get to work. He said he told his wife that he had seen Margie Johnson's identification. To the witness, Margie Johnson, in August, 1975, looked 22 years of age as the phony birth certificate indicated. In discussing the Lewzader matter, the witness said that Lewzader came into the bar and wanted to talk to him about Fawn Hetland. He said that Lewzader told him that Fawn Hetland wanted some money for baby food and that he was going to give her $10.00 and she "ripped" the $10.00 off him, and that Lewzader simply wanted him to know what kind of person Fawn Hetland was. He confronted Fawn Hetland with the matter and Fawn Hetland said that Lewzader was trying to have sex with her. Before he could resolve the difference between Jack Lewzader and Fawn Hetland, he had to leave the bar and to his knowledge that was the end of the situation. The witness indicated that he had found out about the complaint before the time of his arrest by the Indian Rocks Beach Police Department, for prostitution type charges. He said that Lewzader was in his bar and he confronted Lewzader with the fact of Lewzader's claim in the affidavit, and Lewzader told him they simply had made it up, meaning the police. He said that Lewzader told him that he would never have come back into the bar to face him had he made the charges that the police claim. As an aside, the witness indicated that there had been a Linda working there at one time but that her fiance had not liked it and she had quit the job. He said that Linda continued to come in there, perhaps, but that he did not think Linda was in there at the time Jack Lewzader came to discuss the matter of Fawn Hetland. Attention is drawn to Petitioner's Exhibit #5 which is records turned over to the police by Carole Sanders, Respondent. These records seem to indicate that Margie Johnson was working there for more than one night. Moreover, these records seem to indicate that a person named Linda was working there at the same time that Marge (Margie Johnson) was. From the discussion of the employment of Margie Johnson, both from the standpoint of Margie Johnson, Carole Sanders, and Charlie Sanders, it appears that Margie Johnson was employed on the licensed premises of the Respondent when she was under the age of 18. Furthermore, the description of the technique involved by Carole Sanders and Charlie Sanders in trying to ascertain the age of Margie Johnson does not demonstrate due diligence on the part of the Respondent in hiring Margie Johnson. This conclusion assumes the validity of the story of any one of the three witnesses, to wit, Margie Johnson, Carole Sanders, or Charlie Sanders. It is noted that there is a major inconsistency concerning the date at which Margie Johnson was formally employed by the Respondent, when considering the version of Carole Sanders and Charlie Sanders, and consequently Margie Johnson is more creditable. In examining the application of count 1, to Fawn Hetland, one must look to the statements of Charlie Sanders. Assuming that what Charlie Sanders has said is exactly true, it would appear that Charlie Sanders as the agent or employee of Carole Sanders did not use due diligence in hiring Fawn Hetland. This is further established in view of the fact that a prima facie case has been established that Fawn Hetland was under the age of 18 when she was hired, as set forth by testimony offered by officer McMullen in discussing Carole Sanders admission. Although the nature of the acts of Jack Lewzader in involving himself with a minor for purposes of promoting prostitution on the part of Fawn Hetland and then in returning to Charlie's Beach Bar and engaging in the discussion of further prostitution with a subject whose name is Linda, would make his testimony somewhat suspect, it would still seem strong enough to support the charges in count 2. The testimony of Jack Lewzader must be contrasted with the interest on the part of Charlie Sanders in protecting the license, and must be considered in view of the fact, that there was a Linda working there at some time and who was apparently working there at the same time as Margie Johnson. Furthermore, Margie Johnson testified that she had seen Fawn Hetland discuss the price of $25.00 for purposes of prostitution, and leave with the man she was having that conversation with and not return until the next day. Finally in discussing count 3 of the charges, it is well established that Margie Faye Johnson was consuming an alcoholic beverage, to wit, beer on August 23, 1975, when the investigators arrived on the premises to serve the warrant. It has also been established that due diligence had not been followed in ascertaining the age of Margie Johnson before allowing her to consume that alcoholic beverage on the licensed premises, for reasons set forth in the discussion of count l.
Recommendation For committing the violation alleged in count 1 of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Beverage revoke the license of the Respondent. For committing the violation alleged in count 2 of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Beverage assess a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00. For committing the violation alleged in count 3 of the amended Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Director of the Division of Beverage revoke the license of the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert K. Hayden, Esquire 932 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed by the Florida State Board of Nursing as a Licensed Practical Nurse. On or about January 2, 1979, the Respondent and Linda Sue Hilton, another Licensed Practical Nurse, resided together as roommates in an apartment in the town of Indian Harbor Beach, Florida. They were both at that time employed as Licensed Practical Nurses at the Holmes Regional Medical Center, which is also known as Brevard Hospital. On the evening of January 2, Respondent was the victim of a knife attack by an unknown assailant. Respondent was taken to the hospital accompanied by Linda Sue Hilton. The police were notified, and Stephen D. Hand, a detective employed by the City of Indian Harbor Beach Police Department, conducted the investigation. He came to the Respondent`s apartment on the night of January 2. Two other police officers were already at the scene, and the apartment door was open. He observed a towel full of blood on the couch in the living room and one on the floor in the bathroom of the apartment. He entered the bathroom and found syringes and various pills. There was a trail of blood leading into one bedroom. He followed the trail, and found additional pills in the bedroom, and several small plants which were later identified as cannabis sativa on the window sill. On his way out of that bedroom he observed through the open door of another bedroom several pills on a dresser. He seized all of the pills and the cannabis sativa plants. He also seized from the living room of the apartment a pipe, a smoking device called a "bong", and cigarette rolling papers. Residue of cannabis sativa was later identified in the Pipe. At the time he conducted this investigation, Detective Hand was 22 years old and had been employed as a detective for only a few months. He is the only, and the first detective employed by the Indian Harbor Beach Police Department. At no time during the investigation did he obtain a search warrant, despite the fact that he observed drugs which he thought might be illicit, and despite the fact that he had ample opportunity to secure the premises and obtain a search warrant. No criminal charges were ever brought against the Respondent, or against Linda Sue Hilton. The drugs which Detective Hand seized were turned over to the Holmes Regional Medical Center. On January 12, 1979, the Director of Nursing at Holmes Regional Medical Center, Sally A. Taylor, confronted the Respondent and Hilton with the drugs that had been seized from their apartment. The Respondent told her that some of the pills had been obtained by prescription, and that some were not prescription drugs. The Respondent admitted that she had taken some Surfak, a non- prescription drug which is also a a controlled substance, from the hospital. Both the Respondent and Hilton admitted to taking some used syringes home from the hospital. The Respondent and Hilton told Miss Taylor that the drugs were taken inadvertently . Taylor testified at the hearing that they did not tell her the drugs were taken inadvertently, and that she felt the Respondent and Hilton admitted to stealing the drugs. The testimony of the witness Taylor is in conflict with testimony that the witness had given earlier at a deposition. The deposition was received in evidence as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1. The testimony is also contrary to the testimony of Virginia Bixby, the Assistant Director of Nursing at Holmes Regional Medical Center, who was present during the interview. The testimony of the witness Taylor that the Respondent and Hilton admitted to taking the drugs home other than through a mistake is not creditable. There is no competent evidence in the record in this case from which it could be concluded that any drugs were taken from the hospital other than inadvertently. The testimony in this matter does not reveal which of the seized drugs were taken from the bathroom, and which were seized from which of the two bedrooms. Neither does the testimony reveal which of the Respondents used which bedroom. Detective Hand testified that he recalled either McDonald or Hilton telling him at a later date that the bedroom where the cannabis sativa was found was Respondent's bedroom. His memory in this regard was, however, quite blurred, and is not worthy of reliance. There is no competent evidence in this matter from which it could be concluded that the Respondent was in possession of any particular combination of the pills and drugs seized from her apartment, or that Hilton was in possession of any of them. Indeed, it was not established whether other persons than the Respondent and Hilton occupied the apartment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the complaint filed against the Respondent, Kathie Verlene McDonald. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jerrold A. Bross, Esquire MITCHELL, LITUS, BROSS, & HENDERSON 2323 S. Washington Avenue Suite 117 Titusville, Florida 32780 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Geraldine B. Johnson Investigation & Licensing Coordinator Florida State Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Kathie Verlene McDonald 201 Harbor City Parkway Apt. F331 CASE NO. 79-416 Indian Harbor Beach, Florida 32939 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 0468641 /
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of Rules 21F-3.02, 3.03 and 3.07, Florida Administrative Code. During the course of the hearing, counsel for Petitioner withdrew the alleged violations of Rule 3.03 and 3.07, F.A.C.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Corporation operates a cosmetology salon at 1626 South Federal Highway, Boynton Beach, Florida under Certificate of Registration Number 11579 issued by Petitioner on May 14, 1971. Petitioner's Inspector visited Respondent's salon on February 27, 1976 for a routine inspection. She discovered hair and soiled towels in cabinets at the various stations and observed that the carpeting was littered with hair. In addition, soft drink bottles and coffee cups were found in the area. Respondent's salon has been issued warnings in the past due to unclean conditions. The shop is now in a clean state. (Testimony of Padgett) Respondent's manager testified that some of the employees are natives of Puerto Rico and Cuba and are unaccustomed to the sanitary requirements of the United States thus making it difficult to control conditions. He conceded that the shop was not in proper condition on the date in question merely because that day was a Friday and the shop was quite busy. (Testimony of Wellmann)
Recommendation That Respondent be issued a formal written reprimand for violation of Rule 21f-3.02, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida R. Basil Rutter, President Steppe's of Florida, Inc. Box 788 Athens, Ohio
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting prostitution activity on his licensed premises. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses John Harris, Kelvin Davis, Carlos Bauxalli, Lewis Terminello, Hugo Gomez, Louis Viglione, Keith Bernard Hamilton, and Alfonso Scott Julious. Respondent called as witnesses Isaac Dweck, Gary Arthur, Irene Madden, Collins Jones, Mary Scott, Debbie Heenan, Judy Pearson, Joe E. Clements, Cecil Rolle, and the Respondent himself, Eddie Lee Pittman. Petitioner offered and had admitted a videotape which was viewed during the hearing. Respondent offered and had admitted one exhibit. Petitioner also offered a composite exhibit containing police reports relating to the licensed premises for the years 1981 and 1982. That composite exhibit was admitted as hearsay to corroborate the testimony of the police officers relating to the reputation of the licensed premises. These police records were of very limited probative value and no finding of fact was based upon these records. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was the holder of beverage license No. 23-371, Series 2-COP. The license is issued to the licensed premises at 1772 N.W. 79th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and was originally issued to Respondent on October 6, 1965. On the evening of March 22, 1983, Beverage Officer Kelvin Davis visited the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn, in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity in the licensed premises. Officer Davis was accompanied by Beverage Officer Eddie Bauxalli. After entering the licensed premises Officer Davis was approached by a white female named Elnora Moore who engaged him in conversation. The conversation led to a discussion of voter registration cards and Ms. Moore stated that a voter registration card could get you out of jail on a misdemeanor charge. Officer Davis asked why she needed a card for that purpose and Ms. Moore said because of solicitation. She then asked Officer Davis if he would like to be solicited and asked how much money he had. He responded that he had twenty dollars and she said that would get him a "straight." "Straight" is slang or street language for sexual intercourse. He agreed to the price but told her he also had a friend (Officer Bauxalli). Ms. Moore offered to service both men for $100. Officer Davis and Officer Bauxalli agreed to this offer and the three of them prepared to leave. The conversation between Ms. Moore and Officer Davis took place next to the bar where the officers were seated. This was approximately three to five feet from the cash register where the bartender on duty was working. The conversation took place in a normal tone of voice. As Officers Davis and Bauxalli and Ms. Moore began to leave, a white female named Peggy Schultz yelled across the bar to Officer Bauxalli and asked where he was going. Officer Bauxalli yelled back that he was going to have a good time. In response, Ms. Schultz yelled back "How can you have a good time without a date?" Officer Bauxalli responded that he would figure something out. At this point Ms. Schultz walked over to Officer Bauxalli. Ms. Schultz asked Officer Bauxalli if he wanted a "date" and he asked what is a "date." She responded that a "date" is a "straight" for $20 or a "straight" and a "blow job" for $25. He agreed to a "date" and Ms. Schultz then told him to drive around to the back and she and Ms. Moore would meet them at the back door. She also stated that the owner did not like the girls to go out the front door. Officers Bauxalli and Davis then left the bar, drove around to the back door of the licensed premises and picked up Ms. Moore and Ms. Schultz, who were waiting just inside the back door of the lounge. While Officers Bauxalli and Davis were in the licensed premises, the bar was pretty crowded and there was a lot of noise from people talking. At the time Ms. Schultz solicited Officer Bauxalli, she spoke in a normal tone of voice while they stood approximately four or five feet from the cash register on the bar. Ms. Schultz was dressed in a low-cut blue silky dress that was made of a material which you could easily see through. She was wearing only panties underneath the dress. The owner, Mr. Pittman, was observed in the licensed premises on the evening of March 22, but there was no evidence that he observed or overheard any of the discussions between the two beverage officers and Ms. Schultz and Ms. Moore. On the evening of September 17, 1983, at approximate1y. 10:A5 p.m., Beverage Officer Louis J. Terminello went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Immediately upon entering the licensed premises he was approached by a white female named Michelle Orfino. The bar was pretty crowded and there were a number of females in the bar and poolroom area who by their dress appeared to be prostitutes. These women were mingling with the men at the bar and in the poolroom area. A number of couples were exiting through the back entrance. When Ms. Orfino approached Officer Terminello, she walked up to him and asked if he was looking for a "date." He asked her what a "date" was and she said "a blow job." She then asked if he wanted one and Officer Terminello responded "yes." She told him the price would be $20 plus $5 for the room. As they had been talking Officer Terminello, accompanied by Ms. Orfino, walked into the poolroom area. After agreeing to the price, Officer Terminello took Ms. Orfino by the arm and started to walk out the front door of the lounge. She stopped him and said that they had to use the back door because Eddie does not allow them to leave through the front door. She then told him to drive around back and Officer Terminello responded that his car was just outside the back door. She then walked with him out the back entrance and into the parking lot. As they walked to his car Officer Terminello observed the Respondent, Eddie Pittman, in the parking lot. After driving away, Officer Terminello placed Ms. Orfino under arrest. Ms. Orfino was dressed in a very low-cut latex body suit. For at least three nights prior to September 17, Officer Terminello, while on surveillance, had observed a continuous pattern of a patron entering the bar, coming back out and driving his car to the rear entrance. A woman would then come out the back door, get in the car and they would drive away. Twenty minutes or so later the car would come back and the girl would get out and go back in. After the arrest of September 17, Officer Terminello returned to the bar in the early morning hours of September 18 to arrest two other women for prostitution. The Respondent had not been advised of the arrests on September 17. On the evening of September 15, 1983, Beverage Officer Louis Viglione went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. After entering the licensed premises he took a seat at the bar near the rear entrance. Shortly after entering, he was joined by two black females named Veronica and Angie. He purchased a beer for each of the two women and the three of them engaged in conversation about good times, good loving, and Pink House. The Pink House is a boarding house in the area where the licensed premises is located and is used by prostitutes for "dates." A "date" is a slang or street term used commonly by prostitutes to refer to sexual intercourse or other sexual acts for pay. During this conversation, Veronica stated that one hour with her would cost $40 or $50 and Angie stated that she charged $100 an hour. As an excuse, Officer Viglione then stated that he did not have enough money because he wanted two women at once. He remained in the lounge approximately one more hour and left. On this particular evening Veronica was wearing a short white dress and Angie was wearing a blue print dress with white stockings. Both were dressed in what Officer Viglione described as normal dress. Several other women in the lounge were dressed in a very provocative manner and appeared by their dress to be prostitutes. The lounge was approximately 3/4 full of patrons, but it was not particularly noisy or boisterous. There were also several women outside the front and rear entrances of the licensed premises who appeared to be prostitutes. The area where the licensed premises is located is an area which has a visible concentration of prostitutes and has a reputation as an area where prostitution is prevalent. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on September 16, 1983, Beverage Officer Keith Bernard Hamilton entered Eddie's Dive Inn. Upon entering the lounge, Officer Hamilton took a seat at the west end of the bar. There were approximately 40 or 50 male patrons in the lounge and at least 30 women. The women were scantily dressed in very revealing clothes and were observed by Officer Hamilton to be moving around the bar stopping and talking with the men. Several of the women left the bar after talking to one of the men who also left the bar. While seated at the bar, Officer Hamilton was approached by a young black female named Anna. Anna had been talking to a white male seated next to Officer Hamilton. She asked Officer Hamilton what he was interested in tonight. He asked what she had and she asked if he wanted to fuck. She also stated that for $35 plus $5 for the room she would give him a "suck and fuck." He said he would wait for a while and Anna left but returned several times during the evening. After Anna left, another woman walked up to Officer Hamilton and asked if he dated. He was short with her and she moved over and began talking to the white male seated next to him. A few minutes later, Officer Hamilton went to the bathroom and was stopped by a black female named Carol Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence stated that she needed money and asked if he could help her out. Officer Hamilton asked what did she have and Ms. Lawrence responded "a suck and fuck for $35." Officer Hamilton agreed to this but said he wanted to wait a while. She then left, but approached him at least three more times that evening. On the evening of September 16, 1983, there were three security guards at the licensed premises. They primarily remained outside where they regulated the crowd outside the lounge. One of the guards told one of the females that she shouldn't leave with a guy but should wait inside the rear door. The guard did not object to the woman and man leaving in the man's car. On this particular evening, the Respondent was present at the licensed premises until approximately 11:00 p.m. He was in and out of his office during the course of the evening. On September 17, 1983, at approximately 9:30 p.m. Officer Hamilton returned to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. When Officer Hamilton entered the lounge, the Respondent was seated at the bar. The activity in the bar was about the same as the night of September 16, and there was a smaller crowd. There were about 20 women in the bar. These women were walking around the bar talking to the men. There was a man seated next to Mr. Pittman who was being kissed by one of the women. After kissing the man she moved on and began talking to another male patron. Shortly after entering the lounge one of the women in the lounge looked at Officer Hamilton and winked. Later, when Officer Hamilton was in the rear of the lounge near the bathrooms, be observed this same woman standing near the rear entrance. He asked her where she was going and she responded that she would be back. She then offered him a "suck and fuck" for $20 plus the cost of the room. As she walked out the rear entrance Officer Hamilton agreed to the offer. That same evening Officer Hamilton was again approached by Anna whom he had met the previous evening. She asked if he was ready and again told him the price of a "suck and fuck." He agreed and she told him to leave out the front door and she would wait around back. Officer Hamilton left the lounge and drove his car to the rear entrance where Anna was waiting just inside the screened door of the back entrance. On the evening of September 15, 1983, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Beverage Officer Alfonso Scott Julious entered the licensed premises. There were several men seated inside the bar and several women were walking around the bar. The women were dressed casually and some were wearing short dresses which were low cut in the front. After entering the licensed premises Officer Julious observed women from time to time leave the bar with a man and then come back. Each of the women exited through the rear door. At approximately 9:45 p.m. Officer Julious was approached by a white female named Gail Sylvia James. She asked if he wanted a "date" and he said what is a "date." She then said that she would "fuck him and suck him" for $30. He responded that he would be around for a while and would get back to her. Officer Julious left the lounge at approximately 10:30 p.m. During the evening Officer Julious had overheard other men being solicited and observed at least five men leave with women. On this evening Officer Julious considered the women's dress to be casual, nice dresses. Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:00 p.m. on September 16, 1983. After entering the lounge he was approached by a white female named Patricia. She asked him if he wanted a "date" and he asked "what is a "date?" She then said she would fuck him for $30. Officer Julious responded that he would be around and would get back to her. Some time later in the evening Gail James, whom he had met the previous night, approached Officer Julious and asked if he was ready for a "date." She said she would go half and half, "suck and fuck" for $30. He told her he would be around for a while. Officer Julious was also approached by a woman named Mindy Jo Gelfin, who asked if he wanted a "date." He asked "What is a date?" and she responded "half and half, fuck and suck" for $40. He also did not accept this offer. Officer Julious left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 p.m. On Saturday, September 17, 1983, Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:05 p.m. The Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was in the lounge. Immediately after entering the licensed premises, Officer Julious was approached by Mindy Gelfin, who asked if he was ready for a "date." Officer Julious stated that he would be around all night and Mindy said she would come back. Later, Mindy returned and asked if he was ready and he responded "yes." He asked if they could go to the Holiday Inn and she asked if he was a cop. Officer Julious said "Do I look like a cop?" She then asked if she could pat him down. He said "yes" and she patted him down. She then said that she wanted to go in a friend's car. She borrowed the car and drove to the Holiday Inn where she was arrested. At the time of her arrest Mindy Jo Gelfin was residing with Collins Winston Jones and his girlfriend. At the time of the final hearing, Mindy Gelfin was continuing to live at Mr. Jones' residence. Mr. Jones' girlfriend had allowed her to move in. Mr. Jones is the manager of Eddie's Dive Inn. On September 29, 1983, Detective Hugo Gomez of the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. Detective Gomez was accompanied by Detectives Manny Gonzalez and Ray Gonzalez. Detective Gomez stood at the west end of the bar and his two partners sat at the bar next to him. After they ordered a beer, they were approached by a white female named Catrina Gibides. She sat down between the two officers who were seated. She asked what they were doing and told Detective Gomez he looked like a cop. He then pulled up his pants legs to show he was wearing no socks and she said "you can't be a cop" and grabbed his groin. She then began playing with Manny Gonzalez's leg and asked if they wanted a "date." She was wearing a very loose chiffon type outfit and her breasts were barely covered. The officers who were seated had been pretending not to speak English and Ms. Gibides asked Detective Gomez to ask Manny Gonzales if he wanted to go across the street to a motel with her. She said that she would perform intercourse and fellatio for $25 plus $5. She then called over another white female named Lisa Brown, who also began talking about going across the street to a motel. Lisa Brown said her price was $25 plus $5 for the room. They then discussed going in different cars. During these conversations the bar was crowded and Eddie Pittman was in the lounge approximately 8 to 10 feet from where the officers were located. It was pretty loud in the bar. There were also barmaids working behind the bar. Isaac Dweck is a regular patron of Eddie's Dive Inn. He goes there primarily on Sunday afternoons to watch football and shoot pool. He is almost never in the licensed premises after 9:00 p.m. and averages going to the lounge four or five times a month. He has never been solicited for prostitution in the lounge and has never overheard someone else being solicited. Gary Arthur goes to Eddie's Dive Inn two or three times a week and generally leaves some time between 7:30 and 9:00 p.m. Once or twice he has stayed until 11:00 or 12:00 p.m. He has never been solicited for prostitution and has never overheard anyone else being solicited. He has been going to Eddie's Dive Inn for five or six years. The Respondent has a policy against drugs, fighting, solicitation, and profanity and also has a dress code. He employs 11 full-time employees at the lounge and three or four of these employees are security guards who work at front and back doors. The Respondent has a closed circuit television system with cameras on the cash register and pool room area. The screen is in Respondent's office. Over the past 12 years the manager, Collins Jones, has barred 12 or 13 women from the bar after he heard them soliciting in the bar. In the twenty years he has operated Eddie's Dive Inn, the Respondent has barred approximately 20 women from coming into the licensed premises because of prostitution. Once the women are arrested for prostitution, they are barred from the premises. There are signs posted in the bar prohibiting soliciting. Irene Madden works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has been instructed to not serve known prostitutes and that if she heard someone soliciting she should diplomatically ask them to not do that and inform Mr. Pittman or the manager. Mary Scott works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has heard women solicit in the lounge for prostitution. She does not have the authority to ask someone who solicits for prostitution to leave the premises. She does have authority to ask people to leave who are in violation of the dress code. In September, 1972, the Respondent was charged in an administrative proceeding against his license with permitting prostitution on the licensed premises. He was also charged criminally with permitting prostitution. Respondent paid a $350 administrative fine and his license was placed on probation for the remainder of the license year. He pleaded guilty to the criminal charge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Department of Business Regulation Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur M. Garel, Esquire 40 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners on the basis of race, or retaliated against them for exercising a protected right, or both, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was admitted into the record at the final hearing, the undersigned cannot make any findings of fact. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (“Findings of fact shall be based … exclusively on the evidence of record and on matters officially recognized.”).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondents not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Petitioners no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 27th day of October, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Antonio Carraway Whang Carraway 1406 Southwest Osprey Cove Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 (eServed) Jillian Sidisky, Esquire Stefanie S. Copelow, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Palm Beach Health Department (Respondent) committed an unlawful employment practice by failing to reasonably accommodate the alleged disabilities of DeLores Boatwright (Petitioner). Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on Petitioner’s age.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and an employer within the meaning of section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2012). Petitioner was employed by Respondent between January 3, 2002, and January 31, 2013. On January 31, 2013, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment for cause. Petitioner worked as an HIV counselor, which required her to provide both pre-test and post-test counseling to clients interested in HIV testing. Counseling performed by Petitioner involved her sitting in an office setting with the door closed to discuss with clients risks for contracting HIV and methods to reduce those risks. HIV counseling sessions are typically conducted face to face. There was a dispute in the record as to how much computer input is necessary while conducting a counseling session. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that any notes would typically be taken by hand and that any computer input would typically be made after the counseling session had been completed. Counseling sessions typically lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Due to privacy and HIPPA considerations, counseling sessions were conducted in a private office with the door closed. Petitioner was directly supervised by Robert Scott from 2005 until December 2011. In October 2009, Petitioner was rear-ended in a car accident while working. This accident prompted a workers’ compensation claim. Petitioner advised Mr. Scott that she had hurt her neck, upper back, and right shoulder. Initially, Petitioner had work restrictions of no lifting, no driving for the job, and no bending. As of October 27, 2009, Petitioner’s work restrictions were lifted, and no other work restrictions were placed on Petitioner. On January 28, 2010, Petitioner was referred to Dr. Edward Chung, an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Chung placed no work restrictions on Petitioner. On February 3, 2010, Dr. Chung determined Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement and gave her an impairment rating of zero percent. During the remainder of her employment, Petitioner had no on-going impairment rating or work restrictions as a result of her automobile accident. Petitioner worked at the West Palm Beach Health Center, which is Respondent’s primary care medical clinic. This clinic, located on 45th Street in West Palm Beach, is generally known as the 45th Street Clinic. The majority of the rooms in the 45th Street Clinic are examination rooms with an examination table, a small sink, and a small desk for use by the nurse or doctor. The 45th Street Clinic has a limited number of consultation rooms, which are typically small interior offices with a desk that separates the counselor and client with counter space behind or to the side of the counselor for computer work. For a year and a half between 2004 and 2005, Petitioner conducted her counseling sessions in Room 104 of the 45th Street Clinic. Room 104 is a relatively small office with no windows. At the end of 2005, Petitioner’s office assignment changed to Room 102, which is also an interior office with no windows. This move was at Petitioner’s request when the room became available due to the retirement of a colleague. Room 102 is slightly larger than Room 104. Petitioner remained in Room 102 until the beginning of 2010. While she was assigned Room 102 and Room 104, Petitioner kept her door closed, even when she was not seeing clients. This practice was problematic because other staff members were unable to determine when Petitioner was available to counsel patients. Mr. Scott discussed with Petitioner on numerous occasions the need for her to keep her office door open when she was not with a client. Petitioner informed Mr. Scott that she kept the door closed because of a sinus problem that felt better when the door was closed. Petitioner never provided medical documentation of her alleged sinus problem, and there was no credible explanation why keeping her office door closed would improve a sinus condition. In early 2010, Petitioner’s room assignment was changed from Room 102 to Room 107. This reassignment was necessary because Respondent needed to make Room 102 available for another, legitimate business use. Room 107 was an exterior office with a window. Its furniture was in an “L” shape attached to a wall. The office contained a desk and a counter for a computer. During counseling sessions, the counselor and client would sit face-to-face on opposite sides of the desk. The computer was to the counselor’s side, which required the counselor to turn or swivel her chair away from the client to access the computer. In December 2010, Petitioner complained to Mr. Scott that the furniture arrangement in her office was causing her neck and back pain. Petitioner attributed that pain to turning to access her computer or turning to talk to a client while on the computer. In response to Petitioner’s complaint of pain, Mr. Scott requested that Michial Swank, Respondent’s risk manager, perform an ergonomic evaluation of the furniture in Room 107. Such an evaluation is a service that requires no medical documentation and is offered by Risk Management to any employee. Mr. Swank determined that if the furniture could be reconfigured, it should be so that Petitioner did not have to twist to look from a client to the computer or vice versa. Mr. Swank provided his assessment to Respondent’s General Services Department to determine whether the furniture could be reconfigured. Respondent’s General Services Department determined the furniture could not be reconfigured because it was modular furniture custom-made for the office and bolted together. Around March 2011, Dr. Cook, the director of the 45th Street Clinic, proposed that Petitioner change rooms with another HIV counselor located in Room 104. Mr. Swank performed an ergonomic assessment on Room 104 and determined the furniture and computer location to be ergonomically correct for counseling a patient while on the computer. Respondent offered Petitioner the option of moving from Room 107 into Room 104, but she refused that offer and opted to remain in Room 107. Petitioner cited her sinus problems as the reason she did not want to move back to Room 104. Despite her decision to remain in Room 107, Petitioner attempted to persuade Helen Bonner, a nurse, to switch offices with her. This attempt was without the knowledge or permission of Mr. Scott or any other administrator. Ms. Bonner’s room was set up for clinical use for patients with seizure disorders. When Yankick Gribikoff, the nursing supervisor, heard of Petitioner’s effort to have Ms. Bonner swap offices, Ms. Gribicoff immediately squelched the idea. Ms. Bonner’s office had specialized equipment, including specialized telephone equipment and refrigerators. Ms. Gribicoff had valid reasons to end Petitioner’s efforts to swap rooms with Ms. Bonner. In the fall of 2011, two of Respondent’s clinics were closed due to budgetary constraints. Certain personnel were moved from those closed clinics into the 45th Street Clinic. At that time, Rooms 104 and 107 were the only two rooms in the 45th Street Clinic available for HIV counseling. It became necessary to use Room 107 for both HIV and STD (sexually transmitted disease) counseling. Because of its location and proximity to other services, Respondent had a valid reason to select Room 107 over Room 104 as the room for HIV and STD counseling. While Petitioner had had some training in STD counseling, she had difficulty with that type of counseling. An expert in STD counseling was among the personnel being moved from one of the closed clinics to the 45th Street Clinic. Respondent had a valid reason to select the expert to occupy Room 107. Respondent reassigned Petitioner to Room 104. Petitioner agreed to the reassignment and moved into Room 104 on October 3, 2011. Petitioner kept the door to her office closed even when she was not counseling clients. In early November 2011, Mr. Scott received a complaint about the physical condition of Room 104 from someone who used that office while Petitioner was away. The complaint centered on the room’s lack of cleanliness. On November 18, 2011, Mr. Scott met with Petitioner to discuss certain concerns he had. It was during that meeting that Petitioner told Mr. Scott, for the first time, that she was claustrophobic in Room 104. Petitioner referred to Room 104 as being a “closet” and stated that she could not stay in that room. Petitioner brought to Mr. Scott a doctor’s note dated November 23, 2011, that reflected that Petitioner was experiencing claustrophobic symptoms and could not stay in a small, closed space for 15 to 20 minutes. Upon receiving the doctor’s note, Mr. Scott notified Human Resources of the doctor’s note. Arrangements were made to provide Petitioner a larger room in another clinic. Due to the merger of the two closed clinics with the 45th Street Clinic, no room at the 45th Street Clinic, other than Room 104, was available for Petitioner’s use as an HIV counselor. A larger office was found in the Lantana Clinic. The targeted Lantana office was being used by another HIV counselor. To accommodate Petitioner, Respondent arranged to have the Lantana counselor transferred to the 45th Street Clinic and Petitioner transferred to the Lantana Clinic. Petitioner was advised of this change in location and agreed to move around December 18, 2011. She never advised or stated she could not drive to the Lantana Clinic. Petitioner called in sick on December 18, the day she was scheduled to move to the Lantana Clinic. On December 19, 2011, Petitioner reported for work at the 45th Street Clinic instead of the Lantana Clinic. Petitioner stayed at work at the 45th Street Clinic for a few hours, but left because she was not feeling well. On December 19, 2011, Petitioner suffered a stroke1/ and went on medical leave. In May 2012, Petitioner told Mr. Scott that she was ready to return to work. For legitimate business reasons, the Lantana Clinic office was no longer available. Jacqueline Lester is the equal opportunity manager for the Florida Department of Health. Ms. Lester reviews requests for reasonable accommodations with the authority to approve or reject a request. Ms. Lester first became aware of Petitioner as a result of Petitioner’s accommodation request dated December 15, 2011. Petitioner asked to stay at the 45th Street Clinic in a larger office with a furniture arrangement not requiring her to turn her neck. That request was not processed because Petitioner soon thereafter went on medical leave for an extended period. On June 19, 2012, a second request for accommodation was received from Petitioner. In this request, Petitioner asked for a reasonably-sized office, which Petitioner described as being at least 10’ x 10’, with a window. She also asked that the office be within close distance to her home in Palm Beach Gardens due to her inability to drive or sit for “any great length of time.” Petitioner also requested that she start back to work on a part-time basis. Petitioner’s request included notes from two doctors. This medical documentation did not state that Petitioner could not drive due to a neck and back disability. After reviewing the request and medical documentation, Ms. Lester, whose office is in Tallahassee, talked with Respondent’s personnel in Palm Beach County. Ms. Lester decided to accommodate Petitioner’s request. The accommodation was an office located in Respondent’s clinic in Delray Beach. The office was 10’ x 10’ with a window. Although the Delray Beach Clinic was a substantial commute from Petitioner’s home in Palm Beach Gardens, the accommodation included permission for Petitioner to stop as needed while traveling to work without being penalized for late arrival at work.2/ The accommodation also provided that Petitioner could return to full-time schedule at the Delray Beach Clinic “upon release from her medical providers.” Petitioner refused the offer of the office at the Delray Beach Clinic. On January 31, 2013, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment for cause based on Petitioner’s refusal to return to work. Petitioner presented no meaningful evidence that Respondent discriminated against her based on age or because of her perceived disabilities. Petitioner filed her Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR on September 5, 2012. FCHR issued its “Notice of Determination: No Cause” and “Determination: No Cause” on May 21, 2013. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief on June 12, 2013.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 August, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Petitioner's application for registration as a service warranty association sales representative should have been granted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, William E. Andrews, currently resides in Largo, Florida with his wife and one child. He is employed as an Assistant Manager at T.V. Stereo Town, Inc. located in Largo, Florida. On April 22, 1985, the Petitioner filed with the Department of Insurance an application for qualification and registration as a Service Warranty Association Sales Representative. The application specified that the Petitioner would represent T.V. Stereo Town, Inc. On April 9, 1983, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the Circuit Court of Pinellas County to the offense of Grand Theft. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Petitioner on probation for a period of three (3) years. The Petitioner was ordered to make restitution to the victim as a special condition of probation. The Petitioner was represented by counsel. On June 9, 1982, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Pinellas County to the offense of Battery. The Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and was sentenced to a 10 day suspended jail term and supervised probation for a period of six months. The Petitioner was not represented by counsel. On May 13, 1983, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty in the County Court of Pinellas County to the offense of Obtaining Property in Return for a Worthless Check. The Court withheld adjudication and placed the Petitioner on unsupervised probation for a period of 60 days. The Petitioner was ordered to make restitution to the victim as a special condition of probation. The amount of the check was thirty-five dollars. The Petitioner was not represented by counsel. The grand theft charge involved theft of money and/or inventory from a business which the Petitioner and his ex-wife, Virginia Martin were involved with. The business consisted of a free standing display, or kiosk, which was set up in the middle of the Sunshine Mall in Pinellas County. The parent company was D & P Creations and the business involved gift shop merchandise. The Petitioner and Ms. Martin had an arrangement with D & P Creations wherein they would receive 20% of gross sales generated by the display. The business was opened on November 17, 1983 and closed on December 26, 1983. The loss in inventory and/or money to the parent company amounted to approximately $3,000. Throughout the operation of the business, the Petitioner worked as a desk clerk at the Gulf Sands Beach Resort Hotel. The Petitioner's ex-wife, Virginia Martin, worked as a bus driver for the Pinellas County School System. The Petitioner's wife actually ran the business, but Petitioner looked in on it from time to time. The Petitioner, upon considering advice of legal counsel, pled guilty to the offense of Grand Theft from D & P Creations. Virginia Martin, the Petitioner's ex-wife, was the victim of the battery charge to which Petitioner pled guilty. The battery occurred while the Petitioner and Ms. Martin were dating and before they were married. Petitioner and his ex-wife, Virginia Martin, maintained a joint account during the period when Petitioner pled guilty to obtaining property in return for a worthless check. The amount of the check was $35.00. The Petitioner and Virginia Martin were married in July of 1983; they were divorced in December of 1983.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED THAT the Department of Insurance issue a final order denying William E. Andrew's application for registration as a service warranty association sales representative. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1985. APPENDIX Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Finding Ruling Accepted, see R.O. paragraph 3. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraph 3. Matters not contained therein are rejected as conclusions of law. Partially accepted; see R.O. paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. Matters not included therein are rejected as argument and conclusions of law. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 4. Accepted; see R.O. paragraph 5. Rejected as argument and conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Tritschler, Esq. Department of Insurance and Treasurer 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Dowdell, Esq. General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David L. Levy, Esq. P. O. Box 5167 Largo, Florida 34294-5167 Hon. William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent, KaShamba Miller-Anderson, violated section 112.3145(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2016), by willfully failing to file a 2015 CE Form 1, “Statement of Financial Interests”; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is currently a member of the Riviera Beach City Council. As a member of the Riviera Beach City Council, Respondent served as a “local officer” as defined in section 112.3145(1)(a), throughout the year 2015. Respondent was aware that she was required to file a CE Form 1 every year, including for the year 2015. Financial disclosures are filed in order to allow the public to monitor public officials and employees for any conflicts of interest that may arise. The requirement that financial disclosures be filed is intended to deter corruption and increase the public’s confidence in government. In 2016, Respondent received e-mails at the address kmiller@rivierabch.com. She received regular mail at the address 430 West 28th Street, Riviera Beach, Florida 33404. The CE Form 1, “Statement of Financial Interests,” for calendar year 2015 was required to be filed on or before July 1, 2016. There is a grace period for filing the form that expired on September 1, 2016. After the expiration of the grace period, an automatic fine of $25 per day was imposed for each day the form is late, up to a maximum fine of $1,500. The maximum fine accrued on October 31, 2016. The Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections (Palm Beach SOE) office sent Respondent the original blank 2015 financial disclosure form, along with the requirements for filing the form, before June 1, 2016. She was instructed to file her completed form no later than July 1, 2016. Respondent failed to file her 2015 CE Form 1 by either July 1, 2016, or September 1, 2016. Respondent received notice from the Commission regarding her failure to file her 2015 CE Form 1. On July 31, 2016, the Palm Beach SOE sent a delinquency memorandum to Respondent at 430 West 28th Street, Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 by certified mail. The mail was unclaimed. The July 31, 2016, memorandum included the following statement: Pursuant to State law, please be advised that although you are delinquent in filing Form 1, a grace period is in effect until September 1, 2016. If your form is not received by September 1, 2016, we will be required by law to notify the Commission on Ethics of the delinquency. A fine of $25 for each day late will be imposed, up to the maximum penalty of $1500. In addition, pursuant to enacted legislation, the Commission on Ethics must initiate investigations of delinquent filers in certain circumstances. This can result in you being removed from your public office or employment. Respondent took no action to file her form by September 1, 2016. If she had done so, it would have been considered timely. Commission staff sent Respondent a courtesy letter on September 7, 2016, and advised her that she was accruing a fine of $25 per day for failure to file her 2015 CE Form 1. The Commission also e-mailed Respondent on September 20, 2016, using the e-mail address kmiller@rivierabch.com. Respondent accrued the maximum fine of $1,500 as of October 31, 2016, as authorized by section 112.3145(7)(f), for failing to file her CE Form 1 for the year 2015. On November 4, 2016, the Commission again e-mailed Respondent at the same e-mail address, advising her that the maximum fine had accrued and she still needed to file her 2015 CE Form 1. The November 4, 2016, e-mail attached a blank 2015 CE Form 1 and a form to appeal her fine. Respondent did not avail herself of the opportunity to appeal the fine that had accrued. On February 21, 2017, the Commission sent Respondent a Notice of Assessment of Automatic Fine by certified mail, using the 430 West 28th Street address. Respondent acknowledged receipt of the February 2017 notice. This e-mail also provided the appeal process for contesting the maximum fine. Respondent did not pay the fine at that time because she did not have the funds to do so. She believed, in error, that she now could not file the 2015 CE Form 1 until she paid the fine. Her belief, however misplaced, was sincere. On June 16, 2017, the Commission mailed Respondent a Notification of Issuance of Default Final Order at the 430 West 28th Street address. The Notice was not returned to the Commission as undeliverable. On June 22, 2017, Respondent paid the $1,500 fine. On June 28, 2017, Respondent filed her CE Form 1 for calendar year 2015. Respondent did not have a particularly compelling reason for not timely filing her 2015 CE Form 1. Her position on the city council is a part-time position, for which she is not assigned an assistant. She admitted at hearing that the notice and the form simply got lost on her desk, and she did not make it a priority. However, Respondent claims that while filing her 2015 CE Form 1 was not the priority it should have been, she never intended not to file the form, and she never indicated to anyone that she would not do so. Respondent filed her 2015 CE Form 1 and paid the fine prior to the finding of probable cause in this case. There are some differences between the financial disclosure Respondent filed when she initially ran for office and the one filed for 2015. Those differences however, are not so great as to support an inference or finding that she was attempting to hide something by not filing timely. The term for which Respondent was elected expired on March 21, 2018. She was re-elected for another term which began March 21, 2018.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a final order and public report finding that no violation of section 112.3145(8)(c) has been demonstrated. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 7th day of June, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Millie Wells Fulford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed) Melody A. Hadley, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Ronald G. Meyer, Esquire Meyer, Brooks, Demma and Blohm, P.A. 131 North Gadsden Street (32301) Post Office Box 1547 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 (eServed) C. Christopher Anderson, III, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed) Virlindia Doss, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 (eServed)
