The Issue Whether Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., denied Petitioners full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered at its place of public accommodation, in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact Parties and Jurisdiction Petitioners are African Americans who reside in the State of Ohio, who visited Orlando, Florida, in June 2011 and stayed at Lake Eve Resort beginning on June 21, 2011. Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., was the owner of Lake Eve Resort, located at 12388 International Drive, Orlando, Florida, at all times relevant hereto. Each Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Commission as follows: Jessica Austin – July 20, 2012 Denise Austin – July 21, 2012 Tracie Austin – January 18, 2013 (Amended Complaint)2/ Bonlydia Jones – July 11, 2012 James Austin – July 31, 2012 Dionne Harrington – August 1, 2012 Esther Hall – January 28, 2013 (Amended Complaint)3/ Boniris McNeal – March 27, 2013 Summer McNeal – March 27, 2013 Derek McNeal – March 27, 2013 In each Complaint, the Petitioner alleges that the most recent date of discrimination is June 22, 2011. On June 21, 2012, Petitioners Esther Hall, Summer McNeal, Boniris McNeal, Derek McNeal, and Dionne Harrington, each filed a Technical Assistance Questionnaire (TAQ) with the Commission. Each TAQ is signed by the named Petitioner, is stamped received by the Commission on June 21, 2012, and contains the specific facts alleged to be an act of discrimination in the provision of public accommodation by Respondent. Allegations of Discrimination On or about May 23, 2011, Petitioner, Boniris McNeal, entered into a Standard Group Contract with Lake Eve Resort (the Resort) to reserve 15 Resort rooms for five nights at a discounted group rate beginning June 21, 2011.4/ The rooms were to accommodate approximately 55 members of her extended family on the occasion of the Boss/Williams/Harris family reunion. Petitioners traveled from Ohio to Orlando via charter bus, arriving at the Resort on the evening of June 21, 2011. Erika Bell, a relative of Petitioners, drove a rental car from Ohio to Orlando. She did not arrive in Orlando until June 22, 2011. Petitioners checked in to the Resort without incident. However, one family member, John Harris, was informed that the three-bedroom suite he had reserved for his family was not available due to a mistake in reservations. He was offered two two-bedroom suites to accommodate his family. Petitioner, Boniris McNeal, dined off-property on the evening of June 21, 2011, to celebrate her wedding anniversary. Petitioner, Bonlydia Jones, left the Resort property shortly after check-in to shop for groceries. Petitioners, Dionne Harrington and Esther Hall, were very tired after the long bus trip and went to bed early on June 21, 2011. Petitioner, Denise Austin, arrived in Orlando with the family on June 21, 2011. On the morning of June 22, 2011, Ms. Jones received a call from Mr. Harris, informing her that the Resort management wanted to speak with them about his room. That morning, Ms. Jones and Mr. Harris met with two members of Resort management, Amanda Simon and Marie Silbe. Mr. Harris was informed that he needed to change rooms to a three-bedroom suite, the accommodation he had reserved, which had become available. Mr. Harris disputed that he had to change rooms and argued that he was told at check-in the prior evening he would not have to move from the two two-bedroom suites he was offered when his preferred three-bedroom suite was not available. After some discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Harris would move his family to an available three-bedroom suite. The Resort provided an employee to assist with the move. Following the meeting with management, Ms. Jones went to the pool, along with Ms. Harrington and other members of the family. After a period of time which was not established at hearing, Mary Hall, one of Ms. Harrington’s relatives, came to the pool and informed Ms. Harrington that the family was being evicted from the Resort. Ms. Harrington left the pool and entered the lobby, where she observed police officers and members of Resort management. She approached a member of management and was informed that she and her family were being evicted from the Resort and must be off the property within an hour. Ms. Harrington left the lobby and returned to her room, where her mother, Ms. Hall was sleeping. Ms. Harrington informed Ms. Hall that the family was being evicted from the Resort and instructed Ms. Hall to pack her belongings. Ms. Jones’ cousin, Denise Strickland, came to the pool and informed her that the family was being evicted from the Resort. Ms. Jones entered the lobby where she was approached by a member of management, who introduced herself as the general manager and informed her that the family was being evicted. Ms. Jones requested a reason, but was informed by a police officer that the owners did not have to give a reason. In the lobby, Ms. Jones observed that an African- American male was stopped by police and asked whether he was with the Boss/Williams/Harris reunion. He was not a family member. Ms. Jones observed that no Caucasian guests were approached in the lobby by management or the police. Ms. Austin was on a trolley to lunch off-property on June 22, 2011, when she received a call from her cousin, Ms. Strickland. Ms. Strickland informed Ms. Austin that the family was being evicted from the Resort and she needed to return to pack her things. Ms. Austin returned to the property, where she was escorted to her room by a security guard and asked to pack her belongings. Ms. McNeal was en route to rent a car and buy groceries on June 22, 2011, when she received a call from Ms. Strickland informing her that the family was being evicted and that she needed to return to the Resort to pack her belongings. Upon her arrival at the Resort, Ms. McNeal entered the lobby. There, she was approached by Resort staff, asked whether she was with the Boss/Williams/Harris reunion, and informed that the Resort could not honor the reservations and the family was being evicted. Ms. McNeal observed that Caucasian guests entering the lobby were not approached by either the police or Resort management. Ms. McNeal was escorted to her room by both a police officer and a member of management and instructed to be out of the room within 30 minutes. Ms. McNeal inquired why they were being evicted, but was told by a police officer that the Resort was not required to give a reason. Erika Bell received a call from her mother, Ms. Austin, while en route to the Resort on June 22, 2011. Ms. Austin informed Ms. Bell that the family was being evicted from the Resort and asked her to call the Resort and cancel her reservation. Respondent gave no reason for evicting Petitioners from the property. Respondent refunded Petitioners’ money.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order: Finding that Respondent, Eve Management, Inc./KA and KM Development, Inc., committed an act of public accommodation discrimination in violation of sections 509.092 and 760.08, Florida Statutes (2011), against Petitioners Jessica Austin, Denise Austin, Tracie Austin, James Austin, Bonlydia Jones, Esther Hall, Boniris McNeal, Derek McNeal, Summer McNeal, and Dionne Harrington; and Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 28th day of May, 2014.
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent's alcoholic beverage license should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Notice to Show Cause filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, Respondent, Jose Manuel Acosta, was doing business at 425 Northwest 12th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida, as La Romanita Cafeteria under a series 2-COP alcoholic beverage license number 23-03308. Orlando Huguet is an investigator with the Petitioner, DABT, and has had prior experience with the Coral Gables Police Department and as an investigator with the United States Air Force. During the course of his employment with the DABT, he has been involved in several undercover operations and is fully familiar with the appearance and properties of crack (rock) cocaine. He is also aware that it is a very addictive drug and that it is usually packaged in small cellophane bags but may come in other containers or not be packaged at all. During the period of mid-August to mid-October, 1987, Mr. Huguet, along with other law enforcement investigators (LEI) of DABT and agents with the Metropolitan Dade County Sheriff's Department and the Miami Police Department were involved in an undercover investigation of Respondent's place of business as part of an investigation of drugs in bars in Dade County. During the investigation, they would enter the premises in the afternoon or evening and attempt to purchase crack cocaine from the licensee, employees or patrons of the establishment. La Romanita's is primarily frequented by Spanish speaking customers. On August 28, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita in an undercover capacity in the evening along with a confidential informant (CI). This confidential informant was utilized by Huguet in several undercover investigations. Huguet and the CI took seats at the bar counter and ordered drinks. Huguet observed the licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta, standing in front of him, behind the counter. Huguet overheard the CI ask Acosta if he (Acosta) had any drugs for sale today. Acosta commented that he had run out of drugs, but to try him tomorrow. Acosta continued to discuss drugs with Huguet, the CI, and other patrons. Subsequently, a black Latin male named Miguel approached Huguet and the CI and inquired if they were looking for drugs. Later on Huguet purchased cocaine ("perico" in Spanish) from Miguel outside the licensed premises. On August 29, 1987, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Huguet and the CI entered the licensed premises and observed the owner, Jose Manuel Acosta, sitting drown at a table with another man identified as Flaco. Huguet and the CI engaged Acosta in conversation which revealed that Acosta would provide one- half ounce of cocaine to the CI and Huguet at a future date. Subsequently, Huguet and the CI left the premises. On September 3, 1987, Huguet and the CI entered the establishment in the evening and approached the bar counter area and engaged in general conversation with a barmaid. Huguet observed a white Latin male, Tobacito, walk to the end of the bar counter, open a brown paper bag, and retrieve two pieces of suspected crack cocaine. Tobacito gave the suspected cocaine to a white Latin male in an open manner and the white Latin male gave Tobacito $20.00. Subsequently, Huguet instructed the CI to try to make a drug purchase from Tobacito. The CI approached Tobacito who reached into the same brown paper bag and took two pieces of rock ("piedra" in Spanish) cocaine and gave them to the CI in exchange for $20.00. Huguet witnessed this entire transaction and took the cocaine from the CI immediately after the drug transaction. Tobacito approached the table where Huguet and the CI were sitting, which is located on the east side of the premises. Tobacito negotiated a drug transaction with Huguet for $10.00 and then left the licensed premises, returning shortly thereafter with the cocaine. When Huguet received the piece of crack cocaine from Tobacito, he held it up to eye level, examined it, and then placed it in his front pocket. A short time later Huguet walked over to the bar counter, took a seat next to a patron named Warapito, and engaged in a general conversation about drugs. Warapito bragged that he sold the best rocks in town and stated they would enhance Huguet's sexual performance. During this conversation, Huguet retrieved the rock cocaine he had previously purchased and dropped it on the floor in front of several patrons. Warapito and another patron retrieved the cocaine and returned it to Huguet. This incident was observed by an employee, Papo, who is the son of the licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta. Thereafter, Tobacito came over to Huguet and Warapito and began to argue with Warapito over who sold the best rock cocaine. This conversation took place in front of several patrons and Papo. On September 4, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita in the early afternoon and took a seat at one of the tables on the east side of the premises. Huguet engaged in conversation with an employee, Pepito, relative to cocaine. Pepito stated that he could get one-half ounce, but that he would have to make a phone call first since it was not on the premises. During this time, Huguet noted that Pepito did the duties and functions of an employee (serving patrons, working behind the counter, using the cash register and taking orders). Pepito proceeded to make the phone call and a short time later the licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta, entered the licensed premises carrying a large box which he gave to Pepito who took the box to the storage room. Within seconds Pepito exited the storage room, came to Huguet's table and handed him a baggie of cocaine wrapped in toilet paper. Huguet put the baggie on the table and unwrapped it to conf irm that it was cocaine. Huguet rewrapped the baggie, placed it in his right front pocket and handed Pepito $320.00. During this entire transaction, Huguet observed the licensee go by his table several times. On September 16, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita at approximately 9:20 p.m. and observed that there were several patrons and two Latin female employees on duty. Huguet took a seat at a table located in the southeast area of the licensed premises and engaged in conversation with patron Tobacito. Huguet and Tobacito negotiated a cocaine transaction and Huguet gave $20.00 to Tobacito who exited the licensed premises, returning a short time later. Tobacito gave the crack cocaine to Huguet who held it up to eye level to examine. At this point, a patron, Jacquin, who was sitting at an adjacent table, offered Huguet a piece of aluminum foil in which to wrap the crack cocaine. Huguet took the foil from Jacquin and wrapped it around the cocaine. This transaction was observed by several patrons, as well as the two female employees. On September 18, 1987, Huguet entered the licensed premises and took a seat at the bar counter where he struck up a conversation with patron Tobacito. Tobacito asked Huguet if he wanted anything and Huguet responded that he was willing to purchase some cocaine. Tobacito stated that he had only one piece of crack cocaine left, but was willing to sell it for $20.00. Huguet agreed and Tobacito then left the licensed premises. Huguet approached Warapito and engaged in general conversation about cocaine. Warapito took a small piece of rock cocaine from his pocket and offered it to Huguet for $22.00. Huguet gave Warapito the $22.00 and in return received the rock cocaine. This transaction was observed by employee, Isabel, who had been waiting on the two patrons. Huguet noted that Isabel performed the functions and duties of an employee (waiting on customers, working behind the counter and using the cash register). A short time later Tobacito entered the licensed premises and handed Huguet a piece of rock cocaine. Huguet placed the cocaine on top of the bar counter and proceeded to examine it in plain view of employee Isabel. Huguet then placed the cocaine in a napkin, put it in his right front pocket, and paid Tobacito $20.00. On September 24, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita and took a seat at the bar counter. Warapito approached Huguet and asked if he needed any rocks (cocaine). Huguet stated that he did and gave Warapito $20.00. This conversation took place in front of employee, Papo. Papo proceeded to leave the bar counter area, enter the women's restroom and lock the door. Another employee, identified as Chino, noted Papo's actions and advised Huguet that if Huguet ever wanted to "shoot up, snort up, or smoke up," that Chino would let him have the key to the women's bathroom. Huguet noted that Chino performed the duties and responsibilities of an employee (serving customers, working behind the counter and using the cash register). A short time later, Warapito reentered La Romanita and gave Huguet a large piece of rock cocaine. Huguet placed the cocaine on top of the bar counter, examined it, and proceeded to wrap it in a napkin in front of employees Chino and Alisa. Huguet stated that Alisa also performed the duties of an employee (waiting on customers, working behind the counter and using the cash register). Tobacito subsequently approached Huguet and handed him two pieces of rock cocaine which Huguet placed on top the bar counter and examined. He then wrapped the cocaine in a napkin. Alisa and Chino were in a position to observe this transaction as well. A short time later, Warapito and Tobacito began to argue over who sold the better rock cocaine. A few minutes later Huguet paid Tobacito $20.00 for the cocaine he had received and exited the licensed premises. On September 29, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita and approached Tobacito who was sitting on a bar stool next to the counter. Tobacito told Huguet that he was sorry but that he had run out of rocks (cocaine). Huguet then called Warapito over to where he was sitting and asked him if he had any drugs. Warapito replied that he could get Huguet cocaine but would need $30.00 up front. Thereupon, Huguet handed him the money and Warapito exited the premises. This conversation took place in front of several patrons and an employee, Papo, who was standing behind the counter making change from the cash register. A short time later, Warapito entered La Romanita and handed Huguet two pieces of rock cocaine. Huguet took the cocaine, held it up to eye level to examine in front of several patrons and an employee, Chino, and then placed the cocaine in a napkin he had retrieved from the counter. On September 30, 1987, Huguet entered the premises and met with Warapito. Warapito offered to sell Huguet one gram of cocaine for $50.00 but stated that he would need the money up front. Huguet gave Warapito the money whereupon Warapito exited the premises. A short time later Huguet approached the bar counter and took a seat next to Tobacito. Tobacito advised Huguet that if he (Huguet) wanted any drugs that he (Tobacito) had two pieces of rock cocaine left and would sell them for $20.00. Huguet agreed to buy the cocaine whereupon Tobacito exited the premises. A short time later, Tobacito returned and presented the cocaine to Huguet in front of employees Alisa and Chino. Huguet took the two pieces of rock cocaine, examined them and made the comment that they were very dirty. Tobacito exclaimed that he had dropped the cocaine on the way back to La Romanita because he had been frightened when he had observed police officers nearby. Huguet then paid Tobacito the $20.00. A short time later, Warapito returned to the premises and stated that he had been unable to find any cocaine and returned the $50.00 to Huguet. On October 1, 1987, Huguet entered La Romanita and proceeded to the juke box area of the premises to have a conversation with Warapito. Warapito advised Huguet that he would try to obtain one gram of cocaine for him for $50.00. Huguet and Warapito discussed the drug purchase in further detail. Standing next to Huguet and Warapito was Jose Manuel Acosta, the licensee, who was in a position to hear the conversation. Subsequently, Warapito told Huguet that he thought he was a police officer. Huguet denied this allegation and then departed the licensed premises. On October 6, 1987, at approximately 12:15 p.m., Huguet entered La Romanita and approached Tobacito and Warapito at the bar where they were talking to employee Papo. Tobacito asked what Huguet wanted and Huguet responded that "twenty" would do. Huguet gave Tobacito the money and Tobacito exited the premises. Warapito subsequently told Huguet that he (Warapito) was going to secure a half gram for a friend of his and asked if Huguet wanted any cocaine as well. Huguet replied that he would like one gram and gave Warapito $50.00. A short time later, Tobacito reentered La Romanita and handed Huguet two rocks of cocaine in front of Papo. Huguet examined the cocaine at eye level, took a napkin from the bar counter and wrapped up the cocaine. A few minutes later, Warapito reentered La Romanita and gave Huguet back his money stating that he had been unable to locate any cocaine. All of the events referred to herein, with the exception of the drug purchase on August 28, 1987, took place on the licensed premises during business hours when other employees and patrons were present on the licensed premises. None of the employees or patrons who sold or delivered cocaine to Officer Huguet, or allowed others to do so, ever expressed any concern about any of the drug transactions and took no action to prevent or discourage drug transactions. The licensee, Jose Manuel Acosta, stated that he was neither present during most of the dates set out in the Notice to Show Cause nor did he hear or observe any drug transaction. He denied ever meeting or speaking with Officer Orlando Huguet about any cocaine transactions. He knew that drugs were easily obtainable in the area of town in which La Romanita was located, but did not believe that he had any drug problems on his premises. In light of the detailed testimony of Officer Huguet, which was recorded in his report, stating he and the CI spoke with Mr. Acosta on two occasions about purchasing cocaine and that on one other occasion Mr. Acosta was in a position to observe a cocaine transaction, Mr. Acosta's statements are not credible. Mr. Acosta did not perform polygraph examinations or background checks on his employees and did not use a security guard on the licensed premises. The premises contained no signs or other form of documentation revealing to patrons the policy of the management relative to drug possession, sale or usage. Instead, the only sign on the licensed premises stated that customers should not detain themselves if they were not going to consume. Mr. Acosta denied that Pepito, Isabel or Chino were his employees. Instead, he stated that he employed his wife, his son Papo, other relatives and occasionally people to help him lift things on his licensed premises. He did admit that Alisa was his employee for several weeks. His only policy concerning drugs was to tell his employees that it was illegal and to call "911" if there was a problem. He noted that he had received letters from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco but did not read them because he did not know English. At all times material to this case, Papo, Pepito, Isabel, Chino and Alisa were employees on the licensed premises of La Romanita. They performed the functions and duties of employees in that they served customers, worked behind the counter, waited on tables and used the cash register. The great majority of drug transactions related herein took place in plain view on the licensed premises of La Romanita. The exchanges of drugs and money in conjunction with the open conversations engaged in by employees, patrons and Officer Huguet demonstrated a persistent pattern of open and flagrant drug activity. The instances occurring at La Romanita were sufficiently open to put a reasonably diligent licensee on express notice that drug sales were occurring on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license held by Respondent, Jose Manuel Acosta, No. 23-03308, series 2-COP, be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been subjected to unlawful discrimination in a public accommodation by Respondent, as alleged in the Amended Public Accommodation Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on July 30, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rungvichit Yongmahapakorn, was hired by Respondent as an internal auditor in December 1998, then was promoted to vice president of accounting and finance in April 1999. While she worked for Respondent, Petitioner was provided room and board at the hotel. Her employment was terminated by Respondent on May 30, 2003. The circumstances of her termination are not at issue in this proceeding. Respondent, Amtel Group of Florida, Inc., d/b/a Ramada at Amtel Marina, owns and operates a 24-story full service hotel in downtown Fort Myers, Florida, overlooking the Caloosahatchee River. The hotel offers over 400 rooms and suites to guests. Petitioner testified that in May 2003, she visited her native Thailand. She returned to Fort Myers on June 3, 2003, and proceeded to Respondent's hotel, where she learned of her termination. Petitioner testified that the notice of her termination was posted on the door of Room 411, a room dedicated to staff of the hotel in which she had lived for several months. The notice also informed her that she must vacate the hotel's premises immediately. Having nowhere else to go and wishing to have some time to assess her options, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to stay as a paying guest of the hotel. She also complained of mildew in Room 411 and asked for a different room. Hotel staff showed her Room 1621, a non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. The standard rate for this suite was $129.00 per night. During the month of June, the rate actually charged for this room ranged from $89.00 to $119.00, depending on demand. Petitioner rejected Room 1621 claiming that the furniture was dirty and scratched, and the carpet needed cleaning. Ginger Eodice, director of Housekeeping for the hotel, personally cleaned the room. Petitioner did not approve of Ms. Eodice's work. Hotel staff then showed Petitioner Room 1613, another non-smoking king guest suite facing the water. Petitioner claimed that the window screens in this room were dirty and demanded that hotel staff show her another room. Petitioner was told that she could have her choice of Rooms 411, 1621, and 1613. Ms. Eodice testified that all three of the rooms were up to Ramada standards of cleanliness and in good repair. Rooms 1621 and 1613 were provided without incident or complaint to hotel guests before and after Petitioner's stay in the hotel. Petitioner refused to select a room. She was upset and became increasingly loud in the hotel lobby. Hotel staff attempted to mollify her in order not to create a scene in front of other guests, but Petitioner would not calm down. Den Chinsomboon, who was then a manager at the hotel, told Petitioner that she had to choose a room or be escorted from the hotel property. Petitioner continued her tirade, and Mr. Chinsomboon ordered a front desk employee to call the Fort Myers Police Department. The police arrived and told Petitioner that she had to select a room or leave the premises. Petitioner then calmed down and chose to stay in Room 1613. Petitioner paid in advance for ten days' stay in the room totaling $646.10. Upon her checkout on June 12, 2003, Petitioner received a full refund of $646.10 from the hotel. No witness offered any first-hand explanation for the low rate charged or the reason for the full refund. Kevin Matney, the hotel manager who made these decisions, no longer works for Respondent and did not testify at the final hearing. Petitioner testified that, while she was a guest in Room 1613, the hotel's engineering staff used pass keys to enter the room without her permission. Under cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that the engineering staff came to the room at her request to change a light bulb, but she still maintained that they entered without knocking. Several staff members testified that Ramada's firm policy was for staff to knock twice on a guest's door before using the pass key to enter. Petitioner offered no evidence that hotel staff discriminated against her because she was Asian, Thai, or because she was female. The evidence established that the hotel's owners are Thai, as were several other employees at the time. She contended that Mr. Chinsomboon's actions were motivated by the "normal" Thai male's tendency to discriminate against Thai females, but offered no firm evidence to support this bare assertion. Petitioner attempted to show that two white male employees were treated differently after their employment was terminated. At most, Petitioner was able to show that one of these terminated employees was later allowed to hire out the hotel's banquet facilities for a wedding reception. This can hardly be termed disparate treatment, given that Petitioner was allowed to stay at the hotel without charge for ten days after she was terminated. Petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment in the fact that the hotel summoned the police to evict her because she complained about the condition of the rooms she was offered. The weight of the evidence established that Respondent's employees called the police because Petitioner was causing a disturbance and was refusing to select a room. Once Petitioner selected a room, she stayed at the hotel for nine nights without further incident and was not charged for her stay. The evidence established that Petitioner had lived at the hotel since 1998 without complaining about the cleanliness or general repair of her rooms. The evidence established that Petitioner was irate over her termination and that her anger caused her to make unreasonable demands regarding the conditions of the rooms. Hotel staff attempted to satisfy Petitioner's demands, if only to prevent a loud confrontation in the hotel's lobby. There was no credible evidence that any employee of the hotel behaved in a manner that could be termed discriminatory against Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Townsend Seafood, violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2018),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race and/or her sex.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black woman who lives in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner testified that she frequently waits at a bus stop adjacent to a strip mall on Townsend Boulevard in Jacksonville, across the street from a Publix Supermarket. In 2017, Townsend Seafood occupied the end of the strip mall nearest the bus stop. Townsend Seafood was a seafood market and restaurant. Petitioner testified that Ahmed Al Janaby, the apparent proprietor of Townsend Seafood,3/ repeatedly accosted her on the public walkway near the bus stop. In early May 2017, Mr. Al Janaby demanded that Petitioner remove a Publix grocery cart from the bus stop. Petitioner responded that she needed the cart because she has a chronic back disease and was unable to carry the several bags of groceries she had in the cart. Furthermore, the cart was on public property, not Mr. Al Janaby’s premises, and Petitioner knew that a Publix employee would retrieve the cart after she got on the bus. On Memorial Day, 2017, Petitioner stopped by Publix on her way home from festivities downtown. As she stood on the public walkway near the bus stop, Mr. Al Janaby came out of his premises and demanded that Petitioner move. When Petitioner declined, Mr. Al Janaby began insulting her choice of clothing, stating that she looked like a “whore.” Petitioner responded by calling Mr. Al Janaby’s mother a whore. At that point, Mr. Al Janaby spat at Petitioner. On July 4, 2017, Mr. Al Janaby again confronted Petitioner on the public walkway near the bus stop, demanding that she move. On this occasion, Mr. Al Janaby used what Petitioner called “the N-word.” When she threatened to call the police, he retreated to his business, but not before again spitting in her direction. On August 21, 2017, Mr. Al Janaby assaulted Petitioner with a broom, which resulted in Petitioner’s toe being broken. This incident also occurred on the public walkway near the bus stop. Petitioner testified that she had no choice but to use the bus stop near Mr. Al Janaby’s business. The bus stop itself was not covered, and the public walkway at the strip mall was the only place to seek refuge from the sun on hot days. Petitioner did most of her shopping in that area, and frequented one business in the same strip mall as Townsend Seafood. She did not shop or eat at Townsend Seafood. Judy Slonka, a white friend of Petitioner’s, testified that she once stood on the public walkway while waiting for the bus on a day when the heat index was over 100 degrees. Mr. Al Janaby emerged from Townsend Seafood and hit her with a broom, saying that she was obstructing the entrance to his business. Petitioner testified that since the events described by her and Ms. Slonka, Townsend Seafood has relocated from the end of the strip mall to an interior storefront. Neither woman has had a problem with Mr. Al Janaby since he moved his business away from the bus stop. Petitioner’s testimony was credible as to the facts of the events she described. Ms. Slonka’s testimony was likewise credible. As the undersigned explained to Petitioner at the conclusion of the hearing, the problem is that the events they described do not meet the statutory definition of discrimination in a “place of public accommodation,” because they occurred on the public walkway outside of Townsend Seafood. Mr. Al Janaby certainly had no right to accost these women on a public walkway, but this was a matter for local law enforcement, not the FCHR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Townsend Seafood did not commit an act of public accommodation discrimination against Petitioner, Shirley P. Williams, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 2018.
The Issue Whether the registration of the Respondent, Betty Lou Haber, license #0034988 should be revoked or suspended, or whether Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact An administrative complaint was filed by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, on September 29, 1978, seeking to revoke or suspend or otherwise discipline Respondent Haber. The administrative complaint charged that the licensee was presently confined in a state prison. Respondent requested an administrative hearing. A stipulation was entered by Barry A. Cohen, Esquire, the attorney for Respondent, confirming that Respondent Haber was and had been continuously confined in the Broward Correctional Institution since August 16, 1977. Said stipulation is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Prior to the hearing a letter was received by the Petitioner, Florida Real Estate Commission, advising the Petitioner that Respondent did not intend to proceed to hearing and requesting Petitioner to close the matter. The Division of Administrative Hearings was not so notified. A copy of said letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof. Petitioner presented the aforesaid stipulation and aforesaid letter and a witness at the hearing. The witness, Martha Iglesias, Inmate Records Supervisor for the Broward Correctional Institution, testified that Respondent Haber was an inmate of said institution, having been found guilty by a jury of First Degree Murder in Case #75-518 in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the State Penitentiary for a period of her natural life.
Recommendation Revoke the non-active salesman license held by the Respondent, Betty Lou Haber. DONE and ORDERED this 18TH day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Barry A. Cohen, Esquire 100 Twiggs Street, Suite 4000 Tampa, Florida 33602 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether or not on or about August 9, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Ruth Ira Holmes, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation, for the sum of $40.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Sergeant R. A. Boyd, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about August 22, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc. , a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation for the sum of $40.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Officer B. A. Watts, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 6, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, its agent, servant, or employee, one Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully offer to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation for the sum of $50.00 U.S. currency, with Beverage Officer C. E. Lloyd, contrary to Subsection 796.07(3)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about September 6, 1978, Beach Park Motel, Inc., a vendor, licensed under the Beverage Law, on its above-described licensed premises, by its agent, servant, or employee, or entertainer, one, Diana Alice Baumbach, did unlawfully beg or solicit a patron, customer, or visitor, Beverage Officer C. E. Lloyd to purchase a beverage, to-wit; "CHERRY DELIGHT", for such employee, servant, agent or entertainer, in violation of Section 562.131, Florida Statutes. (The charging document, i.e., Notice to Show Cause, originally contained other allegations found in its Counts 1 and 5; however, those counts were withdrawn by the Petitioner in the course of the hearing and are therefore removed from consideration through this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact The Respondent in this cause is Beach Park Motel, Inc. , a closely held corporation. This corporation is a holder of Beverage License No. 15-002265, Series 4-COP, to trade as Beach Park Motel at a business premises located at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Coco Beach, Florida. This license is held with Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which organization has responsibility for the licensure and regulation of those several business entities within the State that sell alcoholic beverages. This case is here presented for consideration on the basis of a Notice to Show Cause/Administrative Complaint which contains six counts, Counts 1 and 5 having been withdrawn. The details of the remaining counts are as set forth in the issues statement of this Recommended Order. On August 9, 1978, Officers Richard Boyd and Bethel Watts, Jr., of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, went to the licensed premises at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida, for purposes of investigating alleged prostitution activities at the licensed premises. They entered the premises and took a seat at the bar around 9:30 p.m. While seated there, they observed Ruth Ira Holmes performing as an entertainer in the bar by dancing. This person, Holmes, was also referred to by a stage name, "Nina". Holmes then left the stage and approached Officer Boyd, who was sitting in a separate location from Officer Watts. This contact between Holmes and Boyd occurred thirty or forty minutes after the officers had arrived at the licensed premises. There ensued a discussion between Boyd and Holmes on the subject of purchasing marijuana. (The allegation concerning the Respondent's participation in this alleged possession and sale of marijuana has been withdrawn.) Holmes then went around the service bar and picked up her purse from behind the bar. Boyd and Holmes then left the interior of the licensed premises. Once outside Holmes produced two envelopes with a substance which appeared to be marijuana and the officer also observed in her purse a larger bag which had a substance of similar appearance. Boyd asked how much the contents of the larger bag would cost and gave her $25.00, purchasing those contents. The witness then returned the small envelopes to her purse. Boyd asked Holmes what she was doing after work and she replied, "Are you asking for a 'date'?" Boyd responded, "Yes" and Holmes stated, "You mean 'that'?" and thrust her body at him. Boyd asked her what it was going to cost and she replied that for $40.00 she would do anything he wanted. He accepted her offer and she gave him the key to Room 224, which was a key to the motel part of the Respondent's establishment. Holmes checked to make sure that no one was observing them and they proceeded to the motel room. When they reached the room, he gave her two twenty dollar bills. She placed the money in her purse and took off her clothing with the exception of a "G" string and stated to him, "Let's get started." Boyd moved-toward the door of the motel room, after which he produced his law enforcement officer's identification badge and officers of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department took Holmes into custody. Howard Warren, President of the Respondent corporation, was seen at the licensed premises that night. Later, in connection with an investigation of her activities, a statement was given to Officers Boyd and Watts by Ruth Ira Holmes in which she indicated to the officers that she had been employed in the licensed premises known as the "Booby Trap" to work as a dancer and Howard Warren, then President of the Respondent corporation, had hired her. Her rate of pay was $2.50 per hour. She further stated that she had been employed for about seven months and was paid at the end of each week by check from Howard Warren. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence is a series of checks written by Howard Warren and made payable to Ruth Ira Holmes beginning on July 7, 1978, with the last check being drawn on September 1, 1978, and one of the checks being drawn on August 1, 1978. The observation of Holmes' dancing on the licensed premises on the night in question, the statement that she was an employee paid by Howard Warren and the series of checks drawn by Howard Warren to Ruth Holmes, also known as Ruth Ira Holmes, are sufficient to show that Ruth Ira Holmes was employed as a dancer by the Respondent to work at the licensed premises in such capacity on August 9, 1978. This determination is further borne out by the Petitioner's Exhibits 3 and 5 admitted into evidence which are copies of the payroll accounts of the Respondent showing that Ruth Holmes was an employee and by part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6, which is a motel registration card showing Ruth Holmes to be registered in the same room, 224, spoken to before and shows her occupation to be dancer. Officer Watts returned to the licensed premises on August 22, 1978, and again operating in an undercover capacity. While seated at the bar, he was approached by Diana Baumbach, also known as 'Misty'. Baumbach asked Watts if he were having a good time and he told her that things were rather slow and that he had been led to understand that the "Booby Trap" was a place where the action was. Baumbach responded by telling Watts that she could provide him some action for $40.00, either a "blow job"/fellatio or "screw"/intercourse. During this conversation Baumbach indicated that she worked in the licensed premises. She also stated in the course of the conversation that when a certain girl who was dancing had finished her performance it would be Baumbach's turn. Baumbach was wearing a long sleeved jacket and bikini panties and after this initial discussion with Watts went to the dance area and performed for the crowd. Baumbach returned to the location of the officer and stated she was ready to go. They walked through the rear of the bar and she took him to Room 206 in the motel part of the Respondent's complex. They entered Room 206 and Baumbach stated that she wanted her $40.00 and Watts gave her two twenty dollar bills. Baumbach took off her coat and Watts stated that he wanted to check to see if anyone was outside. He opened the door and allowed an officer of the Cocoa Beach Police Department to enter the room and Baumbach was arrested. On September 6, 1978, Officer C. E. Lloyd of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity to investigate alleged prostitution at that location. He entered the licensed premises and took a seat at the bar in the area of the dance floor. After being seated, he was approached by Diana Baumbach, who asked him if she could sit down. She inquired if Lloyd would buy her a drink and he complied with that request and bought the drink. She then asked Lloyd if he "messed around" and his answer was, "Sometimes." She stated that she would give him a "blow job"/fellatio for $30.00 or "all the way"/intercourse for $50.00. She then stated that she could not go right away because the master of ceremonies was going to call her up to dance. She danced two times in front of the audience. The dancing she did was a topless routine. She returned to Lloyd's location and asked if he knew his way around and stated that he should go up to Room 216 and that she would follow up. When he arrived at Room 216 in that part of the Respondent's establishment, Baumbach was already there. They went inside the room and Baumbach again advised Lloyd that the price was $50.00. She took her clothes off and he took off his shoes and then went to the door, at which point he advised Baumbach that she was being arrested and she was arrested. Lloyd later spoke with Howard Warren about the solicitation for prostitution that had occurred on the part of Baumbach as a follow up to his investigation and the arrest of Baumbach. Baumbach, on the occasions of August 22, 1978, and September 6, 1978, at which points she solicited Officers Watts and Lloyd, respectively, for the purposes of committing prostitution, was an employee, agent and entertainer of the Respondent in the sense of the dance performances she gave for the benefit of the patrons in the licensed premises. This determination of employment is supported by the testimony of Carol Sue Warren, daughter of Howard Warren and manager of the "Booby Trap" during August and September, 1978, who testified that Baumbach was an employee of the Respondent at time which corresponds to August 22, 1978, and September 6, 1978. Moreover, the rendezvous between Ruth Ira Holmes and Officer Boyd on August 9, 1978; the rendezvous between Diana Alice Baumbach and Officer Watts on August 22, 1978, and the rendezvous between Diana Alice Baumbach and Officer Lloyd which occurred on September 6, 1978; all these meetings for purposes of committing prostitution in the motel which is a part of the Respondent's establishment located at 4290 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida, were types of activities known by the officials of the Respondent to be taking place. This knowledge on the part of the officials of the Respondent covered the period of August 9, 1978, through September 6, 1978, and pertained not only to the solicitation to commit prostitution, lewdness or assignation and the occurrence of such prostitution, lewdness and assignation on the part of Ruth Ira Holmes and Diana Alice Baumbach but also pertained to such activities by other employees or dancers who worked in the licensed premises during this period of time. This knowledge on the part of the Respondent's officials, and in particular its president, Howard Warren, was not part of a pattern of conduct which actively condoned activities of prostitution by the employees and/or dancers who worked at the licensed premises, in fact the owners had a stated policy of not allowing prostitution or soliciting drinks or activities involved with drugs on the part of their female employees or others who might be dancing in the licensed premises and the Respondent's representatives had fired certain of the female employees in the past when they had been discovered committing acts of prostitution. Nonetheless, the Respondent in the person of Howard Warren stated that he did not wish prostitution in the licensed premises but didn't feel he could really effectively stop it and went further by rehiring Ruth Ira Holmes as an employee of the Respondent after she had been discovered committing acts of prostitution. Holmes, after returning as an employee, then continued her activities as a prostitute. Diana Alice Baumbach had also been employed by the Respondent and had been fired several times during the course of her employment, one of those firings occurring after her arrest for the prostitution incident involving Officer Watts that occurred on August 22, 1978. She was then rehired and was an employee of the Respondent on September 6, 1978, when she committed a further act of soliciting for prostitution which occurred with Officer Lloyd. Baumbach was also represented by Howard Warren as attorney following an arrest. Both Holmes and Baumbach were allowed to remain as tenants in the Respondent's motel, the same motel where the prostitution had occurred, and were allowed to do so following their arrests in August of 1978, for prostitution offenses.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts found herein, the Conclusions of Law reached and those matters offered in mitigation, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, Beach Park Motel, Inc. d/b/a Beach Park Motel, be REVOKED. 4/ DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, (Division), was the state agency responsible for regulation the wholesale and retail sales of alcoholic beverages in Florida. Respondent, Warehouse Liquors, III d/b/a Lake Avenue Liquors, held 3-PS liquor license 93-00582, for its retail liquor store located at 209 E. Lake Avenue in Tampa. The parties stipulated that the facts as alleged in paragraphs 1 - 18 of the Emergency Order of Suspension issued in this case on September 27, 1994, and Counts 1 through 11 of the Notice to Show Cause of even date are correct, and may be incorporated herein as Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer. They are as follows: On or about April 29, 1991, Tampa City Councilman, Perry Harvey, notified the licensee's President and sole officer, Michael Kwasin, Jr., by letter, of specific public nuisance problem associated with his operation of the licensed premises. Mr. Kwasin was also given a corrective action plan to follow which included working with the Tampa Police Department, (TPD), to remedy the problem. In addition, TPD Sergeant G. Kelly contacted the licensee, through Mr. Kwasin, by telephone on several occasions in an effort to have him address the public nuisance complaints from the police Citizens Advisory Committee, made up of community leaders and city officials, relative to the licensed premises. In addition, citizens who reside in the surrounding neighborhood have met with Mr. Kwasin to voice their complaints about the drug dealing and safety problems related to his operation. Notwithstanding the repeated notices of misconduct in and around his facility given to Mr. Kwasin, the records of TPD reflect numerous complaints, incident reports and arrests associated with the licensed premises. On or about April 16, 1994, Special Agents, (SA), Hamilton and Murray went to the licensed premises as a part of an ongoing narcotics investigation. While at the premises, SA Murray observed patrons in the possession of "crack" cocaine. On or about May 19, 1994, SA Hamilton spoke with Mr. Kwasin regarding drug and loitering problems at the licensed premises. Nonetheless, TPD continued to receive complaints about the drug activity on the premises from citizens of the neighborhood. On or about June 2, 1994, SA's Hamilton, Zedell and Akins returned to the premises and while there, Zedell observed several male patrons, some of whom were conducting drug transactions, loitering in front of the licensed premises. Again, on or about July 21, 1994, SA's Maggio and Zedell returned to the licenses premises where Zedell observed patrons conducting drug transactions right in front. On or about August 25, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises and went inside where they met with the two female employees of the licensee and a male patron to arrange a purchase of marijuana. Zedell handed the male patron ten dollars and received, in exchange, a small plastic package of a substance which, when later analyzed, was determined to be marijuana. On or about August 26, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell again returned to the licensed premises where Zedell observed patrons conducting drug transactions out in front. After one transaction, a patron went inside. When the agents went inside, they met with an employee, Lori, who asked the previously mentioned male patron if he had any marijuana. Thereafter, McKenzie got change from Lori from which he gave the patron ten dollars in exchange for a small plastic package containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. On or about September 1, 1994, SA's McKenzie and Zedell again returned to the licensed premises. While there they were approached by a male patron and solicited to buy marijuana. This patron thereafter directed McKenzie inside the premises to conduct the transaction because, he indicated, there were two police cars in the area. While inside, in front of employee, Lori, McKenzie gave the patron ten dollars for a small plastic bag of a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Again, on or about September 2, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises where they observed several male patrons loitering outside. Just outside the door, McKenzie met with one of the male patrons to whom he gave ten dollars in return for a small bag containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. On or about September 7, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell went back to the licensed premises where they were approached outside by a male patron regarding the sale of marijuana. McKenzie and the patron went inside where McKenzie handed him ten dollars in exchange for a small package containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. Later that same day, McKenzie and Zedell were again approached by the same patron regarding a sale of marijuana. McKenzie and the patron entered the premises where McKenzie again handed him ten dollars in exchange for a small plastic package containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. This transaction was witnessed without interference by a male employee of the establishment. Again, that same day, Zedell met for a third time with that patron and gave him ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance later analyzed and found to be marijuana. On September 9, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell returned to the licensed premises where they were approached by another patron, different from all the previous patrons mentioned, who offered to sell them marijuana. They went with that patron inside the licensed premises where, in the presence of Respondent's employee, Jackie, McKenzie handed the patron ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. On September 12, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell again went to the licensed premises where they were approached by yet another patron, a female this time, who offered to sell them marijuana. Again, as with prior patrons, they went inside the licensed premises where, in the presence of and with the concurrence of Respondent's employee, Lori, McKenzie handed the patron ten dollars in exchange for which he received a small plastic bag containing a substance which was later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Two days later, on September 14, 1994, McKenzie and Zedell again went to the licensed premises where they were approached by several male patrons who were competing with one another to sell marijuana. All these patrons displayed small packages of purported marijuana and followed McKenzie into the licensed premises. Two of the patrons got into an argument about what was described as marijuana being openly displayed on the counter. Nonetheless, while inside the premises, McKenzie gave one of the patrons ten dollars in front of Jackie for which he received in return a small plastic bag containing a substance which was later analyzed and determined to be marijuana. Respondent's President, Mr. Kwasin, on the other hand, while not denying the details of the reported drug transactions which reportedly took place on the premises, denied ever being advised by his employees, the police, or his neighbors, that the situation was as bad as reported. His employee, Jacqueline Hall, (Jackie), in testimony at the hearing, indicated there was no room for drugs in the store because Mr. Kwasin has made it clear he doesn't want them there. She indicated management has also tried to get rid of the pushers outside the store as well and has cooperated with the police in all efforts to clean up the area. In her opinion, the primary responsibility lies with the police. Ms. Hall noted that she and Mr. Kwasin have gone to neighborhood meetings and have tried to implement the suggestions give by the police and others in an effort to cut down drug activities. There are only two employees at the store, she and Lori, and she has heard from law enforcement and others in the area that Respondent's policies on drugs are effective. According to her, the police have indicated that Respondent is doing all that can be done, and his efforts are appreciated. Ms. Hall has lived in that area all her life and she knows who the drug dealers are. They have come onto the licensed premises, but when they try to sell drugs inside, she sends them out. She denies having ever seen Lori selling drugs on the premises. Her testimony is patently incredible. Nonetheless, some law enforcement officers feel Respondent is being cooperative and trying to solve the drug problem. According to TPD Officer Garrett, who has spoken with Respondent Kwasin about the problem on many occasions, there has never been an instance where Kwasin has not cooperated fully with him, and Kwasin has sought suggestions from him on how to curb the drug traffic in the area. Respondent's general manager, Ms. Kennedy, has worked with him for about eight years. Approximately three years ago, the company put out a policy seeing to operate a drug-free work place. All employees are given copies of this policy. Earlier this year, Respondent's worker's compensation carrier provided her with new information to use to promote a drug free environment, which called for mandatory drug testing of employees and signed affidavits of non-use required from each employee. These new procedures have not been implemented as yet, however. Ms. Kennedy knows that Mr. Kwasin goes to the licensed premises in question each day, seven days a week. She also sees him at the location where she works, at least four hours a day the six days a week she is there. They have frequently discussed, prior to their implementation, anti-drug policies and procedures which Mr. Kwasin has brought back with him from training sessions at the IBD conventions he attends. He recognizes it to be in his best interests to conform to a no-drug policy in his stores. Ms. Kennedy is available to all Respondent's employees 24 hours a day, either at work, or on call at home. All employees go through a training program on anti-drug activity, but the drug testing and the anti-drug affidavits have not yet been implemented. Mr. Kwasin believes his efforts to curb drug activity in and around Lake Avenue Liquors had brought the problem under control. When Sgt. Hamilton spoke with him in May, 1994, he added more external lights and found that within a week of installation, all bulbs were broken. He replaced them four times, finally installing another type of bulb which is not so easily broken. He has tried to work with the police and even suggested they send in an undercover agent to work in the store as a clerk. This was not done, however. He has tried to enlarge the peep hole through which in-store activity could be monitored, but this was resisted by his employees who felt it placed them in increased danger of bodily harm. Mr. Kwasin claims he tried every way he knew to reduce the drug activity in the area because he knew it was a liability. He has taken pictures of the drug activity going on in the area outside his facility and contends they show open and unfettered drug sales going on without any interference by police. He tried to solicit suggestions from the police but nothing he tried helped. He thought his presence at the store would reduce drug dealing and when he was present, it was usually quiet. All of this related to drug activity outside the store, however. Mr. Kwasin claims to have had no knowledge at all that any drug activity was going on inside the store. He was told by his employees that they were doing what the could do and that no problem existed. It was only recently he found that his two female employees were being flattered by the male patrons who then could do what they wanted on the premises. Respondent now has a plan for new employees which includes "responsible vendor training" on anti-drug policies and procedures at the company headquarters and at the store. He had thought his prior policy was enough since no liquor was sold over the bar. At Respondent's Gandy Boulevard store, where liquor is sold by the drink, he has implemented such training, and will implement it at Lake Avenue Liquors. He will also repair and place into operation a video monitor which has been installed but not working for the past year, and he will manage the licensed premises personally until he gets proper, qualified employees in place, and he will monitor the closely after that. In short, Mr. Kwasin contends there was a tremendous breakdown in communications between him and the police and his neighbors, but denies there is any reason to fear being in the area at night. He claims he has been there at night many times. He admits his previous written policies have not worked with the employees he had. He admits his video system didn't work, and he admits that neither Jackie nor Lori was checked out on anti-drug training or tested. Notwithstanding Mr. Kwasin's denials of knowledge that any problem regarding drug sales existed inside the premises, Senator James T. Hargrett, Jr., who has lived in the area of the licensed premises for many years and who passes it frequently, has received numerous complaints from residents about the area, and as a property owner, he has made considerable effort to insure his properties are in compliance with all requirements of the law. He has observed the area at all hours and has worked with the police regarding it. Senator Hargrett believes Respondent could have done more to thwart the drug trafficking in the area. If the Senator suspected drug activity inside the premises, he would have gotten rid of those who were engaged in illegal activity; he would have worked more closely with the police; and he would have worked to get rid of loiterers. Lake Avenue Liquors has a very poor reputation in the surrounding community. It is not responsive to the neighbors' concerns about illegal activity. This facility constitutes a definite problem compared with other businesses in the neighborhood and seems to suffer from owner neglect. In Hargrett's opinion, it is incumbent upon anyone in business to supervise and audit what goes on in his business establishment and to be aware of any illegal activity. This was not done here, he feels, and this absence of proper supervision has resulted in the creation of a nuisance in the community.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the alcoholic beverage license number 39-00583, series 3- PS, issued to Respondent, Warehouse Liquors III, Inc., d/b/a Lake Avenue Liquors, be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. - 29. Not Proposed Findings of Fact but restatements of the testimony of witnesses. They are, however, accepted as accurate restatements of the testimony as they support the findings made herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: No submittal by Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr., Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Michael Kwasin, Jr., pro se Lake Avenue Liquors 4023 Gandy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33611 John J. Harris Acting Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
