The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of sex (sexual harassment), national origin, and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Evelyn Martinez is a female and Hispanic of Puerto Rican origin. Ms. Martinez began working at the Boca Diner on May 29, 2000, as a waitress. At all times material hereto, Ms. Martinez was an employee of Boca Diner. Boca Diner does not dispute that it is an employer within the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. The hours of operation of Boca Diner were from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Boca Diner was open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The majority of the persons who were servers at Boca Diner were females; only a few were males. At all times material hereto, even though other waitresses of Hispanic descent were employed by Boca Diner, Ms. Martinez was the only Hispanic waitress of Puerto Rican origin. Ms. Martinez had prior experience as a waitress before beginning her employment with Boca Diner. At Boca Diner, Ms. Martinez worked mostly evening shifts, reporting to work around 3 or 4 p.m. She worked five to six days a week. During the week after July 4, 2000, an employee of Boca Diner by the name of Rick made a remark to Ms. Martinez that she considered sexual. He stated to her that she had nice breasts. Ms. Martinez told Rick not to make the remark again and walked away. No dispute exists that the remark was a sexual remark. Rick was a server but was not a full-time server, only part-time. His usual working hours were around 4-9 p.m. Ms. Martinez reported the incident, regarding the remark by Rick, to Boca Diner's owner and manager, John Pelekanos.1 Mr. Pelekanos indicated to her that all the other waitresses tolerated such remarks from Rick and that she should also. Ms. Martinez stated to Mr. Pelekanos that she was not going to "take" such remarks from Rick. No evidence was presented to show that Boca Diner had a sexual harassment policy. Rick made no further sexual remarks to Ms. Martinez after she reported him to Mr. Pelekanos. After reporting the incident to Mr. Pelekanos, Ms. Martinez's working schedule changed. Instead of working five to six days a week, she now worked two days.2 However, Ms. Martinez was able to obtain two additional days from other workers by them agreeing for her to work their days. Boca Diner contends that Ms. Martinez's workdays were reduced because of the slowness of business in the summer; however, Boca Diner only reduced her workdays. The undersigned considers it reasonable to reduce the number of working hours of waitresses due to a slowness of business, but considers it unreasonable to reduce the workdays of only one waitress, i.e., Ms. Martinez, by three to four days, but none of the other waitresses, because of the slowness of business. Before reporting the remark by Rick, Ms. Martinez felt harassed by and hostility from the other waitresses. The other waitresses "hassled" her for not properly performing the "side work," which consisted of setting-up the salad bar, and filling bottles of mayonnaise, ketchup, etc. After Ms. Martinez reported the remark by Rick, the hassling escalated. Additionally, Rick began to constantly tell Ms. Martinez to quickly do her work. Ms. Martinez did not inform the floor manager, Alex Lazarus, how the other waitresses or Rick were hassling her. She did not approach Mr. Lazarus because she considered him to be verbally abusive to her and other employees. Additionally, after Ms. Martinez reported the remark by Rick, on July 15, 2000, she was assigned to a different serving section at Boca Diner. Her new serving section was section one, which was the number one section and the busiest and most demanding section at Boca Diner.3 When she placed her orders, the orders were completed late. As a result, customers were complaining. Boca Diner contends that customers were complaining about Ms. Martinez before she was moved to section one. It is not reasonable to move a waitress, about whom customers are already complaining, to a busier and more demanding section of the restaurant. At the end of her shift on July 15, 2000, she was fired by the floor manager, Alex Lazarus. No dispute exists that Mr. Lazarus had the authority to fire Ms. Martinez. Mr. Pelekanos was not in the country when Ms. Martinez was fired. No dispute was presented that Boca Diner does have the right to fire waitresses or waiters who are not performing adequately or who are performing poorly. No evidence was presented as to whether Boca Diner had employed other Hispanic waitresses of Puerto Rican origin prior to Ms. Martinez's employment. No evidence was presented as to whether Boca Diner had fired other waitresses and, if so, for what reason(s). As to Ms. Martinez's income while she worked at Boca Diner, no time records were provided by Boca Diner. Boca Diner failed to retain her time records. Further, Boca Diner had no documentation regarding Ms. Martinez's employment with it. Boca Diner gave no reasonable explanation for its failure to retain time records or other documentation regarding Ms. Martinez's employment with it. Boca Diner did not provide any testimony regarding monetary remuneration to Ms. Martinez for being a waitress at Boca Diner. Ms. Martinez did not provide any pay records or federal income tax returns regarding her employment with Boca Diner. However, she did provide a handwritten statement showing her income at Boca Diner for the time that she worked at Boca Diner4 and gave testimony regarding her income at Boca Diner subsequent to her termination. Her testimony is found to be credible. At the time Ms. Martinez was employed at Boca Diner, her base pay was $40.00 every two weeks, resulting in her base pay being $80.00 per month. Ms. Martinez handwritten document indicated that she received $300.00 from May 29 through June 4, 2000; $325.00 from June 5 through 11, 2000; $325.00 from June 12 through 18, 2000; $325.00 from June 19 through 25, 2000; $300.00 from June 26 through July 2, 2000; $250.00 from July 3 through 9, 2000; and $225.00 from July 10 through 15, 2000; totaling seven weeks and $2,050.00. The evidence did not demonstrate whether the base pay was included in her income. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's total income at Boca Diner included the base pay of $40.00 every two weeks or $80.00 per month. Ms. Martinez testified that she received $1,275.00 in tips for a month. Reducing her four-week income by her base pay indicates that she received $1,195.00 in tips for the four-week period: May 29 through June 4, 2000, at $280.00 in tips; June 5 through 11, 2000, at $305.00 in tips; June 12 through 18, 2000, at $305.00 in tips; June 19 through 25, 2000, at $305.00 in tips. Reducing the remaining three-week period by her base pay indicates that she received $715.00 in tips for the three-week period: June 26 through July 2, 2000, at $280.00 in tips; July 3 through 9, 2000, at $230.00 in tips; and July 10 through 15, 2000, at $205.00 in tips. As a result, the total amount of tips that Ms. Martinez received for the time period that she was employed at Boca Diner totaled $1,910.00. Consequently, it is reasonable and an inference is drawn that she received $1,910.00 in tips for the seven-week period. After her termination, Ms. Martinez borrowed money in July and August 2000 from family to pay her monthly obligations, which included rent, food, gas, insurance, and incidentals. She estimates that she borrowed from $600.00 to $800.00. After her termination, Ms. Martinez was hired on August 26, 2000, as "counter-help" at a dry cleaners. She was paid $6.00 an hour and worked less than 30 hours a week. Ms. Martinez worked for two weeks at the dry cleaners. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's income was $348.00, using 29 hours a week at $6.00 an hour. Afterwards Ms. Martinez was hired part-time as a waitress at a restaurant. She received $100.00 per week, including tips. Ms. Martinez worked at the restaurant for three weeks. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's income was $300.00, using $100.00 per week for three weeks. Ms. Martinez was subsequently hired as a waitress at another restaurant. She received $50.00 per week, including tips. Ms. Martinez worked at the restaurant for two weeks. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's income was $100.00, using $50.00 per week for two weeks. On October 26, 2000, Ms. Martinez began working at RTA Catering, a restaurant. She was receiving $2,000.00 per month. According to Ms. Martinez, at that time, her income was comparable or equal to her income at Boca Diner and she saw no need to go further into her employment history. After her termination and prior to receiving employment at RTA, Ms. Martinez' income was $748.00. The total number of weeks from July 15, 2000, the date of Ms. Martinez's termination, to October 26, 2000, the date of her comparable employment, is 15 weeks.
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: Finding that Boca Diner discriminated against Evelyn Martinez on the basis of retaliation. Ordering Boca Diner to cease the discriminatory practice. Ordering Boca Diner to pay Evelyn Martinez back pay in the amount of $4,033.25. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of October, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a place of public accommodation, violated Section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2006), by failing to accommodate Petitioner, an individual with a disability.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the formal hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Shawn Sutton, is physically disabled and entitled to the protection of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Respondent is the owner of Golden Corral Restaurant, which is a structure for public accommodation. On July 8, 2007, Petitioner, accompanied by his parents, grandmother and siblings, visited Respondent restaurant for the purpose of eating therein. The total number in the group that accompanied Petitioner was approximately 15. Prior to July 8, 2007, Petitioner's family was a frequent customer of Respondent restaurant and had eaten there on approximately 50 occasions. There had never been a request for special accommodations for Shawn Sutton on any previous occasion. Respondent has a sign on the front door of the restaurant that reads as follows: "Please remain with your party until seated. For guests with special needs, please see the manager. Golden Corral." Respondent is a buffet restaurant. Patrons pay for meals upon entry and prior to being seated. Respondent has a seating policy that requires all persons on the same receipt of payment to remain seated together until a waitress takes their beverage order, verifies that all persons in the party are included on the receipt, and delivers a plate to each person. The members of a party are then free to sit wherever they choose. On July 23, 2007, after a visit to the same restaurant on that day, Petitioner's mother emailed Golden Corral three times complaining about rudeness and lack of professionalism on the part of restaurant employees. In one email, she makes her only reference to the matter at issue in this case, indicating that when told that her son was disabled, a restaurant employee, "Tangie," "changed the entire tone and tried to accomidate [sic] us the best she could." While Petitioner's disability is such that he needs assistance carrying his plate (and food) from the buffet line to his seat, he is able to feed himself without assistance. On July 8, 2007, the entire family sat together and Petitioner was able to eat after his mother and grandmother assisted him in obtaining his food. The evidence revealed that Petitioner's mother's complaint was substantially directed to the "rudeness" she perceived from Respondent's employees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief for failure to establish an unlawful discriminatory act by Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 13th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maureen M. Deskins, Esquire Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller Katz and Craig, LLP 777 South Harbor Island Boulevard Suite 500 Tampa, Florida 33602 Jerry Girley, Esquire The Girley Law Firm, P.A. 125 East Marks Street Orlando, Florida 32803
The Issue The issue is whether, in violation of section 760.08, Florida Statutes, Respondent deprived Petitioner of full and equal enjoyment of Respondent's bar and restaurant due to discrimination based on Petitioner's nation of origin, which is Brazil.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a native of Brazil. He is fluent in English and Portuguese, which is the national language of Brazil. Respondent owns and operates Duffy's Sports Grill in Coconut Creek, Florida (Duffy's). Duffy's is a place of public accommodation serving food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to customers who may be seated indoors or outdoors. There is no indication of any difference in the availability of food and beverages between the indoor and outdoor area, but the outdoor area offers customers the option of smoking. At all material times, Petitioner was a member of the Duffy's MVP Club, which awards points for purchases, evidently to be used for future purchases. Records of Petitioner's MVP Club activity reveal nearly 50 visits to Duffy's from June 2013 through the summer of 2016. Petitioner agreed that he had been to Duffy's many times, invariably sat outside so he could smoke, and was often served by bartender, Kevin Carr. Petitioner also testified that, on many of these visits, he was in the company of Brazilian friends, who had spoken Portuguese while being served by Mr. Carr, and there had never been any problems. It is thus clear that Petitioner enjoyed Duffy's outside bar, and the retail relationship between Petitioner and Mr. Carr was functional and met with the general satisfaction of the bartender and the customer. Late in the afternoon of Friday, September 15, 2017, Petitioner visited Duffy's with his cousin, who is from Brazil. During this visit, Petitioner and his cousin sat at the outside bar and generated a tab of about $60 consisting of three or four beers each and a shared appetizer. Petitioner denied that he and his cousin ever reached a state of crapulence, but they clearly consumed enough alcohol to lower their conversational inhibitions. At one point, the cousin tried to place an order with Mr. Carr, but felt that Mr. Carr had ignored him. The cousin and Petitioner had previously noticed a sewer smell, possibly emanating from a nearby waste line, which may have put the cousin in a foul mood about his Duffy's experience. In any event, feeling slighted by Mr. Carr, the cousin said to Petitioner in Portuguese that the service was "unprofessional." It is unclear what Petitioner said, but, in short order, the cousin added that Mr. Carr was a "piece of shit," and a female bartender was a "prostitute." These latter comments will be referred to as the September 15 Vulgarities. As luck would have it, seated beside Petitioner was Caluvio Ferreira, who is Brazilian and fluent in Portuguese and English; a friend of Mr. Carr, whom he has visited at his home; and a high-minded man who is unafraid to confront others who fail to meet his standards of conduct and speech. Having suffered in silence the loud speech of Petitioner and his cousin, upon hearing the September 15 Vulgarities, Mr. Ferreira immediately left the bar to go to the restroom. As he returned to his seat at the bar, he paused beside Petitioner and his cousin and advised them to be careful about what they said because someone could understand them, even speaking Portuguese. Mr. Ferreira added that he knew Mr. Carr, his wife, and their daughter and had been to their home, and he knew the female bartender. Mr. Ferreira declaimed that Petitioner and his cousin had no right to make the comments that they had made about Mr. Carr and the female bartender. Petitioner replied that they had had bad service. Mr. Ferreira answered that bad service did not excuse their crudities, but should be brought to the attention of the manager, who would address it. Obviously angry, Mr. Ferreira, who is a large man, warned the men, "I hope you don't do that again. Maybe I'll have a problem with you." At this point, Petitioner cashed out, and he and his cousin left the premises. Having seen his friend speaking angrily to Petitioner and his cousin, Mr. Carr approached Mr. Ferreira a few minutes later and asked him what that had been about. Mr. Ferreira told Mr. Carr that Petitioner had spoken the September 15 Vulgarities. Petitioner has credibly denied making the statements, and it would seem more likely that they would come from his cousin, who had felt slighted by Mr. Carr, than Petitioner, who was a regular customer of Mr. Carr. It is likely that Mr. Ferreira was mistaken as to which of the men seated next to him made the statements, but Mr. Carr reasonably believed, based on what his friend had told him, that Petitioner had insulted him and his coworker. Ten days later, Petitioner reappeared at Duffy's. He was in the company of two friends, one of whom lived in Brazil. They took seats at the outside bar, but no one served them. Having seen Petitioner approaching the outdoor bar, Mr. Carr had gone inside to speak to the manager. After recounting the September 15 Vulgarities, Mr. Carr asked for permission not to serve Petitioner, and the manager granted the request. Mr. Carr asked whether he or the manager should inform Petitioner, and the manager said Mr. Carr should. Authorized to deny Petitioner service at the outside bar, Mr. Carr approached the party and loudly denounced Petitioner for having spoken badly about him in his "shit language," meaning Portuguese. Mr. Carr identified the September 15 Vulgarities, which Petitioner denied having spoken. Mr. Carr demanded to know what exactly Petitioner had said, but Petitioner never admitted that he or his cousin had said anything of the sort. During this exchange, Mr. Carr angrily repeated the word "shit," although in other contexts not having anything to do with Petitioner's national origin. The initial vulgar reference to Portuguese will be referred to as the September 25 Vulgarity, and all of the vulgarities spoken by Mr. Carr will be referred to cumulatively as the September 25 Vulgarities. Realizing that Mr. Carr was adamant, Petitioner went inside and appealed to the manager, who backed his bartender, but offered to seat Petitioner and his friends inside. Petitioner declined and left the premises.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission of Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission of Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Christopher Donnelly, Esquire C.J. Donnelly Law Offices PLLC 3020 Northeast 32nd Avenue, Unit 803 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 (eServed) Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esquire Arielle S. Eisenberg, Esquire Brandon U. Campbell, Esquire Jackson Lewis PC One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 Two South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 (eServed) Joao Fonseca 3020 Northeast 32nd Avenue, Unit 803 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Mark Rouleau Duffy’s Sports Grill 1926 10th Avenue North, Suite 300 Lake Worth, Florida 33461
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact No findings are made in this case. Petitioner did not appear and did not submit any evidence to support findings of fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 30th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg Chapman 2727 Frontage Road Davenport, Florida 33837 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Laura I. Korson, Esquire John Baird & Associates 360 Campus Lane, Suite 201 Fairfield, California 94533-1400 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Rina Norman, did solicit Robert Hutter for the purpose of committing a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 3, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Heather Lovell did commit a lewd act, to-wit; oral copulation on one Steven Lee Hobson, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about April 12, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Nite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Susan Edith Laursen, did commit a lewd act, to-wit; fellatio, on one Norman Eric Williams, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes. Whether or not on or about July 20, 1979, Terwell, Inc., d/b/a Mite Gallery II, licensed under the Beverage Law, its servant, agent, or employee, one Connie Nadine Reeves did solicit Beverage Officers F. J. Dunbar and P. M. Roberts for the purposes of prostitution, contrary to Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, and Section 561.29, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent in this cause is Terwell, Inc. This corporation is the holder of beverage license No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, to trade as Nite Gallery II at a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida. This license is held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, which organization has the responsibility of the licensure and regulation of those several business entities within the State that sell alcoholic beverages. On April 3, 1979, Officer Robert T. Hutter of the Orlando, Florida, Police Department went to the licensed premises at 1720 Lee Road. Officer Hutter was in the company of Police Officer Barrett of the same department. The two officers entered the bar in an undercover capacity and sat down and ordered a beer. After a moment, the officers were approached by a female who was a dancer in the licensed premises. The dancer's name was Rina Norman and in conversation Norman asked the officers if they wanted a "blow job" for $25.00. (This expression pertains to an offer to commit fellatio.) Rina Norman was subsequently arrested by Officer Hutter and was allowed to go to the back of the licensed premises to a dressing room area and to change from her "go go" outfit into street clothes. The suspect, Rina Norman, had also been seen dancing as a performer on the licensed premises prior to her apprehension. On the same evening, April 3, 1979, Officer Barrett had been contacted by two females in the licensed premises and from his encounter with those individuals determined to arrest them for assignation to commit prostitution or lewdness. The officer went outside briefly and then reentered the licensed premises to look for the two suspect females. One of the areas which he examined in his search for the suspects was an area in which there are two booths with curtains across the front opening of the cubicles. These booths are located down a hall leading to the female dancers' dressing room area which is on the west side of the bar. In looking in one of the booths, Officer Barrett pulled hack the curtain and found a woman identified as Heather Lovell committing an act of fellatio on a man who was in the booth with her. Lovell was-wearing a "go go" costume at the time she was seen involved in this activity. She was placed under arrest and went to the dressing room area to put on street clothes after the arrest was effected. The dressing room area which Lovell used was the same area used by Rina Norman. Lovell had also been seen by Officer Barrett in the licensed premises at an earlier time on the evening of April 3, 1979. Officers Hutter and Barrett went back to the licensed premises in the company of Beverage Officers Wallace and Boyd on April 12, 1979. At that time, Officer Hutter went to the booth area spoken of before to investigate for lewd acts. When Officer Butter pulled back the curtain to one of the booths, he observed Susan Laursen performing fellatio on a man located in the booth with her. Laursen and the man were arrested and Laursen went back to the dressing room area mentioned before to change into her street clothes. Beverage Officers Dunbar and Boyd returned to the licensed premises on July 20, 1979, at around 11:35 p.m. for the purpose of investigating alleged prostitution which was occurring in the licensed premises. The two officers seated themselves inside the bar area and they were approached by Connie Nadine Reeves, who sat by them and asked them if they would like to have a private party in the back, which would include nude dancing and a "blow job", meaning fellatio. Officer Dunbar asked if this entertainment was free and Reeves replied that, "No, the 'blow job' (fellatio) is $25.00 and dancing is $10.00." Beverage Officer Roberts had not heard this overture from Reeves and Dunbar asked Reeves to repeat her statements, which she did. Roberts then went with Reeves to the back part of the area of the hallway and the two booths which have been mentioned before. Beverage Officer Dunbar went outside to pain the assistance of the other Beverage Officer and the local police officers for purposes of effecting an arrest of Connie Nadine Reeves. Roberts followed Reeves down the hallway and into one of the booths. Reeves had motioned Roberts to follow her to this location. Reeves repeated the statement that it would cost $25.00 for a "blow job" (fellatio) and Roberts gave her $30.00 and she replied that she would keep $5.00 for a tip. Roberts seated himself on a chair in the room and Reeves told him to "Go ahead and pull it out" and he replied that he was not turned on and that she should dance. Reeves took her clothes off and danced for a few moments and then there was some problem with the music and she yelled out of the room for someone to get the jukebox working. This problem with the jukebox occurred a couple of times. At this point, Roberts arrested Reeves for violation of Section 796.07, Florida Statutes, pertaining to lewd acts. In the interim, Beverage Officer Dunbar and the other law enforcement officers had entered or reentered the licensed premises and attempted to go up the hallway to the booth area and were confronted by a number of females in "go go" attire who tried to keep them from going into that area and in doing so stated that the area was private and was to be used by employees only, referring to the area of the booths. Officer Dunbar went back to the booth where Roberts had made his arrest and at this point Reeves was protesting her arrest and acting belligerent. Dunbar left that location and met Beverage Officer Wallace, who was talking to Ron Wells, a corporate officer of the Respondent. Wells was asked to go with Dunbar to try to convince Reeves to accompany the officers without further incident. The officers asked Wells if Reeves were his employee and Wells responded that she was. Wells was then told by Dunbar to straighten her out, meaning that if she did not get dressed they would take her into custody without clothing. Wells then talked to Reeves and she left and went to the dressing room mentioned before in this case and dressed herself. Reeves also stated that she was an employee at the licensed premises.
Recommendation It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the beverage license of the Respondent, Terwell, Inc., No. 58-1134, Series 2-COP, which allows the Respondent to trade as Nite Gallery II in a business premises located at 1720 Lee Road, Orlando, Florida, be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th 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 relevant hereto, N.K., Inc., d/b/a Tobacco Road, held alcoholic beverage license number 23-733:4-COP authorizing it to sell alcoholic beverages at 628 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida. The establishment in question is located in the downtown area of Miami, Florida. It provides both a food and beverage service to its patrons. The bar's hours of service are from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 a.m. daily. The kitchen is generally open from late in the morning until 3:00 p.m. and from between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. until 4:00 or 5:00 a.m. each day. The lounge has two floors. The first floor has a bar, restaurant and outdoor patio. Entertainment is provided primarily by a disc jockey. The second floor is accessed by an interior stairway from the first floor and contains a bar and stage. The upstairs is patterned after a speakeasy from prohibition days, and features live theater performances and entertainment provided by a live jazz band. The clientele of Tobacco Road may be characterized as "mixed". During the daytime hours, it is frequented by many business and professional persons from the downtown area who partake of both meals and drinks. At night the crowd tends to be more younger and middle class although it is still an admixture of all ages, occupations and classes. The bar is located four blocks from the "tent city" where the City of Miami housed large numbers of Cuban refugees in 1980. Some refugees have frequented the Tobacco Road on occasion. The Petitioner received unidentified complaints regarding the possible sale or use of drugs in a number of Miami area lounges, including Tobacco Road. This prompted visits by undercover beverage agents to the licensed premises in January, 1981, to ascertain whether such complaints were true. On or about January 13, 1981, at approximately 10:20 p.m., Officers Mignolet and Gonzalez, two female beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to investigate whether narcotics were being sold on the premises. In the parking lot, they met two white male patrons named Carlos and Mark who were just leaving in their automobile and engaged them in a brief casual conversation. The officers then entered the lounge and seated themselves at the bar on the first floor. Carlos and Mark returned to the bar shortly thereafter and sat next to Mignolet and Gonzalez. The conversation turned to narcotics and after a period of time, Mark reached into his pocket and pulled out two tablets which he handed to Gonzalez. A laboratory analysis later established these tablets to be methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). When the delivery occurred, Chris (Christopher Najdul), a bartender, was in the bar well directly in front of the beverage officers. Seated nearby were "a few other" patrons. The lighting in the area was described as "dim". After being handed the tablets, Gonzalez showed Chris the tablets in her hand. However, Chris did not say anything to acknowledge that he had seen the transaction. This was the fourth visit to the licensed premises by the two agents but represented the first time they were successful in obtaining a controlled substance despite repeated efforts to do so. On or about January 23, 1981, at approximately 12:40 a.m., Officers Brock and Thompson, two female beverage agents, visited the premises of Respondent in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether narcotics were being sold. After seating themselves at the center of the bar on the first floor, they engaged in a conversation with a white male patron named Armando Garcia. The agents asked it they could obtain some "ludes" (methaqualones). Garcia said he could obtain some "grass" (marijuana) from upstairs and temporarily left the bar. He later returned without any drugs. He then went outside the premises to his car, obtained two tablets, returned to the bar, seated himself between Brock and Thompson, and passed one each into their hands. The officers briefly examined the tablets and then placed them into their pocketbooks. Subsequent laboratory tests revealed the tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). On or about January 24, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson again visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Read at about 1:00 a.m. After seating themselves at the bar they were immediately approached by Armando Garcia, the same patron who had given them two methaqualones the previous evening. After approximately 15 minutes, Brock and Garcia moved to a booth away from the bar where Garcia gave her a tablet. Thompson then joined them at the booth, and Garcia set a tablet on the table for Thompson. The transaction was not observed by any employee or patron. Shortly afterwards, the agents returned to the bar where Garcia joined them. At approximately 2:10 a.m., Garcia passed a tablet hand to hand to Thompson, and swallowed another himself. When the latter delivery occurred, the bartender, Peter Aitken, was working behind the bar well but did not verbally acknowledge seeing the transaction. A laboratory analysis subsequently revealed the three tablets were methaqualones (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). On January 25, 1981, at approximately 12:15 a.m. Officers Roberts and Jones, two male beverage agents, visited the Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity to ascertain whether controlled substances could be obtained. After seating themselves at the bar, they began a casual conversation with a male patron at the bar named Lance concerning the possible purchase of drugs. They left the bar and went to the stairway between the first and second floors were Roberts asked Lance if there were any "ludes" around. Lance replied he had one for $3.00. Roberts handed Lance $3.00 and received a tablet. Laboratory tests subsequently revealed the tablet given to Officer Roberts was a methaqualone (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). When the transaction occurred, several other patrons were ahead of Roberts on the stairway. Prior to this delivery, Roberts and Jones had visited the premises on at least two other occasions but were unsuccessful in obtaining a controlled substance. On or about April 25, 1981, at approximately 12:30 a.m., while on the licensed premises, Officer Marrero, a male beverage agent, met a Latin male patron who offered to sell some marijuana. Officer Jones accompanied Marrero and the patron to the men's restroom where, in a bathroom stall, Marrero bought five suspected marijuana cigarettes from the patron for $5.00. No other patrons or employees were present when the sale occurred. Subsequent tests performed by the laboratory confirmed the cigarettes were in fact marijuana (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). On or about January 28, 1981, Officers Brock and Thompson visited the licensed premises of Tobacco Road in an undercover capacity and seated themselves next to Peter Aitken, who was off-duty that evening, and who appeared to be in an intoxicated state. Peter left the premises with Thompson to go to his automobile to smoke a marijuana joint. The automobile was parked on a public street in front of the lounge. Although Thompson was ultimately able to purchase a bag of marijuana from Peter for $35, the transaction occurred off the licensed premises and was beyond the dominion and control of the licensee. The corporate owner of Tobacco Road is Neil Katzman, a former police officer with the City of Miami. Prior to purchasing Tobacco Road, he owned and operated a licensed lounge and package store. Katzman takes an active role in the management of the lounge, including such diverse activities as maintenance work, greeting customers, occasionally tending bar and taking inventory. However, because of the long hours of operation (9:00 a.m. - 5:00 a.m. daily) it is impossible for him to be on the premises at all times. For this reason, he has hired a manager to whom he recently delegated authority to hire and fire employees. Katzman has a strict policy of employees not using or distributing illegal drugs. Violation of this rule results in immediate dismissal of the errant employee. Prospective employees are personally counseled on the no-drug policy of the management before they are hired and are reminded of this policy periodically. Polygraph tests have been given since 1978 to employees, including the manager, to determine whether they use or sell drugs, have stolen money, given away free drinks or engaged in any other prohibited activities. They are specifically asked if they have sold or delivered drugs on the premises, and whether they have seen other employees do so. "Numerous" employees have been fired as a result of taking such tests. Indeed, Chris Najdul, a bartender, was fired a week before the undercover operations were made known to Katzman for admitting to the use of narcotics on the premises. The no-drug policy of management has been effective. This is evidenced by the fact that no drugs were obtained from employees during the period in question despite numerous efforts by undercover agents to purchase narcotics from them. It is also a strict policy of the Respondent that if patrons are seen with narcotics on the premises, they are asked to leave. Katzman himself periodically checks the restrooms and patio to see if patrons are using illegal drugs. Other than the deliveries and sales described above, the undercover agents did not witness any employee or patron using, selling or in possession of any suspected narcotic on the licensed premises. Respondent has never been cited or warned about any beverage law violation in this or any previous establishment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Counts I and II of the Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 6th day of July, 1981.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner was discriminated against by Respondent in employment through sexual harassment; because of her age, sex, marital status, and handicap; and in retaliation for complaints made by her against management.
Findings Of Fact 1. At the time in issue, the facility in question in this hearing was owned by HP Tampa, LC (HP Tampa) and was operated by Mr. James Rogers under a contract with his management company. After Mr. Rogers' contract was terminated, the facility was operated by Cornerstone Hospitality Group Cornerstone. Management 's duties included employee relations. As manager, Mr. Rogers had almost free rein to hire and fire and was responsible for employee policies. HP Tampa did not oversee these details. 2. Petitioner had been employed at the Respondent's property in Tampa for approximately 18 years when she was terminated on November 27, 1995. During the period of her employment, Petitioner was recognized at least once as employee of the year and was asked to take over management of the facility's bar, which she initially refused because she had several children to raise. Finally, after six years, she took the position and served as manager of the hotel bar, the Silver Dollar Saloon, for the last 12 of the 18 years she worked there. Petitioner contends she worked without any problems until Mr. Lloyd was hired in April 1995, and asserts she has never filed a discrimination complaint against any employer until this one. 3, Mr. Lloyd was hired as comptroller at the facility in April 1995. It was announced that his job was to get control of the audits of the operation, and he was to work with the Petitioner to implement controls to reduce costs in the lounge. Petitioner understood, however, that she was to continue to report directly to the Manager, Mr. Rogers, and that she was on a parallel level of authority to Mr. Lloyd. 4. Petitioner alleges that during June and July 1995, Mr. Lloyd began making sexually oriented comments to her. He mentioned her breasts -- jokingly, she believed because she was so slim at the time and had small breasts. Petitioner was not amused by Mr. Lloyd's attempts at humor and complained to him directly. 5. Petitioner also claims that Mr. Lloyd began to drink More and more while on the job. On one occasion, she contends, he came into the liquor room while she was there and grabbed her from the back. She resisted and, afterwards, complained to Mr. Rogers and his assistant both orally and in writing. She received no feedback. 6. According to Petitioner, sometime during either July or August 1995, Mr. Lloyd called her into his office to go over the bar's operating figures. After a period of business conversation, Mr. Lloyd reportedly stated it was a shame she was married. Petitioner demurred to that comment, and when she got up to leave, she claims Mr. Lloyd grabbed her and kissed her. When she slapped him in response, he replied that he always got what he wanted. After this incident, Petitioner wrote another memo to Mr. Rogers and asked to see him. He finally did see her quite a while later, she claims, but treated the incident lightly. She wanted him to speak to Mr. Lloyd with her because she was uneasy working with him, but this did not happen. 7. On another occasion, when she was supposed to go to Las Vegas with her husband, she gave up her trip to work, letting her husband go by himself. While her husband was gone, she contends, Mr. Lloyd asked her to meet him at an off-premises location, a request which she refused. At this point, she also told him what she thought of him. She also claims he had touched her on two. occasions, which resulted in a heated argument between them. 8. On November 3, 1995, an employee of the bar came to Ms. Cremeens and advised her that Mr. Lloyd had said that she, the reporter, and another employee would be terminated. Ms. Cremeens confronted Mr. Lloyd and asked him by what right he had told employees under her supervision they would be terminated. Mr. Lloyd became loud and threatening, which scared Ms. Cremeens. She immediately tried to call Mr. Rogers, but he was out of town. As a result, she left messages for Mr. Rogers and his assistant that she wanted to see them as soon as possible. 9. Ms. Cremeens finally got to talk with Mr. Rogers with his assistant present and told him how frightened of Mr. Lloyd she was. She told Mr. Rogers she would try to get a restraining order against Mr. Lloyd and at that point, Mr. Rogers told her he would talk to Mr. Lloyd and get back to her. Mr. Rogers did not do so, however, until he found out that Mr: Cremeens' husband had tried to call mr. Morris, Mr. Rogers' boss. Ms. Cremeens also told Mr. Rogers she would talk to Mr. Morris about what was going on even if it cost her her job. 10. Some time thereafter, Ms. Cremeens was called in and terminated. She was told at the time her termination was necessitated because of a drop in business and because, due to the effect on the working atmosphere caused by the dissention between her and Mr. Lloyd, one of them had to go. At that time, Mr. Rogers told Ms. Cremeens that she would receive four weeks vacation pay, but she never got it. Her termination threw her into a state of shock as a result of which she became extremely depressed and cut herself off from family and friends. She claims she has never been right since. The irony of this situation, she contends, is the fact that in January 1995, she was offered a job at the High Point Resort. At that time, Mr. Rogers came to her and begged her not to leave because she was doing such an excellent job. If this is the case, she queries, why was she let go for cause less than a year later? 11. Ms. Cremeens has sought other employment since her termination and worked part time as a waitress and bartender. However, she was let go after a short while because of mutual dissatisfaction. She claims she has never been able to bring herself back to the status she occupied while manager of the bar at the Days Inn. She has been to counseling in an effort to help herself, but she finally realized that the only way to get this trauma out of her system was to file her complaint. As it is, it has taken four years for the state to reach a determination of cause. Much of this time, she believes, was due to the failure of the Respondent to provide the information required by the Commission. 12. The Respondent sought to make much of the fact that Ms. Cremeens has been married four times and filed bankruptcy with her third husband in 1993. Her fourth husband filed bankruptcy in 1999, but she was not a party to that action. Neither her multiple marriages nor her bankruptcy have been shown to have any bearing on the instant issue, however, and are disregarded. 13. Petitioner admits, however, to having failed to report all tips she received when she manned the service bar from time to time. The facility had a requirement that all bar employees report tips for consolidation and sharing and contends Petitioner's failure to do this is identified as a basis for her termination. 14. Mr. Rogers was manager of the facility in question during the entire time in question. He contends that the basis for Petitioner's termination was a continuing decline in the profitability of the bar operation under her Management from a significant profit in 1991 to a loss of $1,048 in 1995. Ms. Cremeens was already working as bar Manager at the hotel when Mr. Rogers began overall management. The Silver Dollar was a local bar primarily for local people which was also used by hotel patrons. The bands, which Played in the evening, were mostly country and western. 15. As general manager, Mr. Rogers had as Support staff an assistant Manager, a comptroller, a beverage/lounge Manager (Ms. Cremeens), a restaurant manager, an executive housekeeper, a chief engineer, and a director of sales and marketing. Each of those department heads had a staff. The department heads were Salaried, but the Majority of the employees were hourly employees. 16. Petitioner was the only salaried lounge employee. Her staff included bartenders, Servers, and bar backs, who were hourly employees and also received tips. Tips were to be reported to the comptroller for tax purposes, and, though Petitioner was a salaried employee, she also received tips which should have been reported. As was noted previously, Petitioner admitted she did not always do this. The band was contracted for and band members were not hotel employees. 17. Because of a downturn in revenues and profits over the years starting in 1990, cutbacks in all departments (not just the lounge) were Mandated by a memorandum dated December 20, 1993, Mr. Lloyd was hired as comptroller by mr. Rogers sometime in 1995 because profits at the hotel, including the lounge, were declining so rapidly a real potential for closure of the hotel existed. Mr. Lloyd had a degree in auditing and was a Certified Public Accountant who had experience in hotel and restaurant Management. 18. Revenues in all departments of the hotel were declining, but not as badly as in the lounge upon which revenues management relied for a large portion of the cash flow. The lounge had previously been a "cash cow" for many years, and when the revenues declined, the hotel's owners started putting pressure on Mr. Rogers. His job was at stake, and since he was paid a portion of profits, so was his income. 19. Historically, the lounge manager had the authority to hire and fire employees, to schedule employee work hours, to supervise employees and bartending, to hire all bands and entertainment, to purchase all liquor and bar supplies, to prepare for all inspections, to provide for bar security, and to insure harmonious guest relations. 20. Petitioner, as lounge manager, had total responsibility for the lounge operation, including financial responsibility for that profit center, and to insure the facility operated within budget constraints for entertainment, advertising, and drinks. She was to report to Mr. Lloyd as comptroller on accounting matters, and Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Lloyd to work with Petitioner to bring lounge expenses under control and to increase sales. According to Mr. Rogers such a relationship is common in the industry. 21. At the time Mr. Rogers hired Mr. Lloyd, he claims he had some personal concerns about the hotel operation. Because of declining sales and profits, particularly in the lounge, and as the result of the negative reports of comparison shoppers, he wanted the lounge operation looked at with regard to service levels (were servers attentive and courteous?), portion control, and accounting for sales to tell him how the customers were being served. He also claims he had heard complaints of rudeness and lack of courtesy by employees, and most of these reports had been passed on to Petitioner. Though they had had an open communication for nine years, he found that usually on negative reports Petitioner denied the problem or became defensive. 22. Nonetheless, Mr. Rogers instructed Mr. Lloyd to work with Petitioner and come up with proposed controls in the bar to decrease expenses. Mr. Lloyd came up with the controls and he and Mr. Rogers met with Petitioner about them. Some of Mr. Lloyd's proposals were not acceptable to Petitioner. One of these was the proposal to close the service bar, which was where Petitioner often worked and from which she derived tips. Mr. Lloyd wanted to close it because of the inability to control what went on there. The proposals were put into effect, but even so, there was little improvement in the operation. Mr. Lloyd wrote a memorandum to Mr. Rogers to this effect on November 1, 1995, and sometime after receiving it, Mr. Rogers made, he 10 claims, a business decision to terminate Petitioner for her failure to perform adequately and to implement proposed internal controls and increase profits. 23. According to Mr. Rogers, Petitioner assumed a proprietary interest in the lounge operation. She had built up profits during the late 1980's and the early 1990's, but from 1993 on, business dropped. He claims he gave her five years to turn the operation around and make it profitable again, but she failed to do so, and he considered letting her go even before Mr. Lloyd was hired. In addition, her salary as bar manager was based on her prior performance, and she was not performing up to that level. Therefore, he believed he could save money by terminating her and having a bartender do the work. After Petitioner was terminated, another bar manager was not hired. Instead, one of the bartenders was promoted to head bartender, with a slight hourly wage increase, and was assigned some of Petitioner's former duties. 24. Concerning the complaints allegedly made by Ms. Cremeens regarding sexual harassment by Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Rogers contends he never received any complaints from her about it or reports from Petitioner or anyone else that Mr. Lloyd was harassing her or had asked her out. He admits that she complained to him that she was afraid of Mr. Lloyd because of an incident which occurred in the kitchen. On the whole, there is insufficient evidence to support finding that Ms. Cremeens 11 complained to Mr. Rogers about Mr. Lloyd sexually harassing her, and it is so found. on the other hand, there is sample evidence that she complained to Mr. Rogers about Mr. Lloyd's rudeness, threats, and verbal abuse, but these do not constitute actionable misconduct in this forum. 25. With regard to the kitchen incident, both Petitioner and Mr. Lloyd came to mr. Rogers upset with each other. As he’ recalls, Petitioner came to see him first contending that she and Mr. Lloyd had had an argument and she was afraid of him due to his size and his temper. At the time, Mr. Rogers asked her if Mr. Lloyd had touched her and she said no. She indicated that Mr. Lloyd had started the altercation, but she admitted she took part. Mr. Rogers claims he took care of the incident, but apparently not to Petitioner's satisfaction. 26. It appeared to Mr. Rogers that Petitioner felt she owned the bar and could ignore instructions she didn't like. He recalls she complained about Mr. Lloyd constantly for various things, but he cannot recall it ever being for harassment or assault. In each case he claims he looked into her complaints and could not find any misdeeds by Mr. Lloyd. It was evident to Mr. Rogers that Petitioner wanted Mr. Lloyd out of the bar which she apparently felt was her territory. However, he also received complaints about Mr. Lloyd from the director of sales and Marketing and from his own son, who has a learning disability. Both indicated that mr. Lloyd yelled at them and was abrupt, but 12 neither complaint was of a sexual nature. Mr. Rogers received a total of four complaints about Mr. Lloyd, for each of which Mr. Lloyd was reprimanded. 27. Kristi Carroll, formerly administrative assistant to Mr. Rogers when he was manager of the Days Inn, worked there at the same time Mr. Lloyd did. At no time did she ever see Mr. Lloyd engage in any sexual misconduct on duty, nor did she ever hear any complaints of such even from Petitioner. She knows of no sexual advances by Mr. Lloyd to any hotel employee. There is evidence to the contrary, however. 28. When Mr. Rogers left the management of the hotel in early 1997, he claims he was not aware of Petitioner's complaint and was not made aware of it until January 2001. Petitioner worked under his supervision for approximately nine years and was equal to Mr. Lloyd in the chain of command. He considers the two memoranda which Mr. Lloyd wrote concerning her performance to be warnings to her but neither was placed in her personnel record after she signed acknowledgement of it. , . 29. Mr. Rogers admits that during the time in issue, 1991 through 1995, room income and beverage income both dropped radically. He includes in the reasons therefor in the bar area as being increased competition; the cessation of band entertainment, a decision of his; a lack of air conditioning; and crime in the immediate area. All these factors contributed to a reduction in patronage, but he considers Petitioner's performance 13 to be the Major cause. In 1994, due to a decline in restaurant business, mr. Rogers considered Closing the restaurant and making the whole area a lounge however, he did not do so. 30. Ms. Carroll, while assistant general manager during 1995, looked into the causes of the lower hotel and lounge revenues, which had declined from good levels in 1993 and 1994, Her investigation showed that increased competition from new Ybor City clubs substantially impacted revenue in the Silver Dollar. Ms. Carroll immediately noticed tension between Mr. Lloyd and the Petitioner due to Mr. Lloyd's new Procedures and his interference with Petitioner's authority. He was given input into areas wherein Petitioner had previously had free reign, and this was obviously difficult for Petitioner to accept. 31. Mr. Rogers ultimately concluded that Petitioner might have to be terminated, When it finally occurred, Petitioner's removal was based on a financial decision that a lounge Manager was not needed. After a thorough review of lounge advertising, entertainment, the need for a back bar, and the size of the staff, it was deemed beneficial to replace the salaried Manager position with a current bartender paid hourly. ms. Carroll admits that management knew the decline in income in the bar was not due solely to Petitioner's Management. There was a definite increase in competition, and Petitioner's being laid off was a cost cutting decision. 32. At the time of Petitioner's removal, neither 14 Ms. Carroll nor mr. Rogers knew of Petitioner's complaint nor diq Petitioner's age play any part in the decision. Ms. Carroll 33. Ms. Carroll was present when Petitioner was terminated Mr. Rogers about vacation time. She cannot recall the Particulars of the discussion, however, but it is found that Petitioner was promised four weeks vacation time for which she was not compensated. 34. Ms. Carroll also substantiates Petitioner's claim that Mr. Lloyd was argumentative and abusive in his work relations with subordinate employees. She knew there was tension between Petitioner and mr. Lloyd and that Petitioner complained to Mr. Rogers, but she cannot recall the specific complaints. She is of the Opinion that mr. Lloyd had a temper and is aware that Mr. Lloyd had altercations with several staff members. Notwithstanding all the bad language between Petitioner and Mr. Lloyd, Ms. Carroll cannot recall ever hearing Petitioner use foul language or curse customers. 35. Several employees of the lounge were aware of the conduct of both Petitioner and mr. Lloyd. Several claimed Mr. Lloyd was loud and abusive in language to employees. Several i5 recalled he made a Sexually oriented comment regarding at least one female employee. Further it is clear that Mr. Lloyd dated at least two female employees of the lounge, one of whom was made head bartender when Petitioner was terminated. 36. On the other hand, while at least one employee described Petitioner as seductive and flirtatious, the majority claimed otherwise, and while her detractors described her as loud and abusive, the Majority of her employees did not. At no time did any of the lounge employees, save those aligned with Mr. Lloyd, describe Petitioner as having lost interest in the lounge operation before she was terminated. 37. According to Sadie Strickland, a long-time co-worker of Petitioner in the lounge, Mr. Lloyd would talk to lounge employees about Petitioner and her performance and he espoused opinions and suggestions which he wanted implemented in the bar without seeking or obtaining Petitioner's participation. Nevertheless, Petitioner remained supportive. When on one occasion Ms. Strickland threatened to quit because of problems with Anna-Marie Genco, another lounge employee, Petitioner talked Anna-Marie out of it. Petitioner was, in her opinion, a good employer/manager who gave her best without any support from upper Management. Rather than help, Mr. Rogers took away the bar's advertising budget and refused to act on Petitioner's suggestions. 38. To be sure, there was tension between Petitioner and 16 Mr. Lloyd and between Petitioner and some other lounge employees. For example, on November 8, 1995, Petitioner is alleged to have called in Ms. Carla Genco and her sister, Anna-Marie, and yelled at them because of their refusal to talk to Ms. Strickland. on that occasion, Petitioner is alleged to have said she'd like to stomp Anna-Marie's "f---ing butt." As a result, Ms. Genco prepared a letter to Mr. Rogers recounting the incident. Ms. Genco does not know what, if any, action was taken, but she enjoyed working at the hotel because both Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Rogers were good to her. 39. Mr. Lloyd's account of the situation differs substantially from that of the Petitioner. When he first started working at the hotel as comptroller, he was instructed to initiate internal controls in several areas, one of which was the bar. Before doing anything, he analyzed the situation for about two and a half months and came up with proposals which he coordinated with Mr. Rogers. 40. Mr. Lloyd found a lack in internal controls. Bar stock was not being maintained appropriately, inventory was too high, requisitions were not being done on a regular basis, bar tabs were not being rung up timely, and guest checks were not being accounted for. He also felt there was not enough business to justify keeping the service bar open. Labor costs were too high relating to sales, and costs were higher than industry standards due to the pouring of too many free drinks. 17 41. Mr. Lloyd gave a copy of his analysis to both Mr. Rogers and the Petitioner, and discussed his analysis with Ms. Cremeens. Her reaction to the memo was that she would try to comply with the suggestions. Somewhat later, in November 1995, Mr. Lloyd prepared a follow-up memorandum, which he gave to Mr. Rogers and which pointed out those suggestions which were not being followed by Petitioner and identified additional deficiencies for review. The memo identified a continuing problem with free drinks; a failure to ring up sales at the time of sale; a failure to monitor promotion drinks; a failure to properly punch time cards; and a failure to properly declare tips. 42. Mr. Lloyd's analysis of Petitioner's performance indicated to him that she had lost interest in her job. This conclusion was based on his determination that she had failed to provide relevant cost information as required; failed to be on site for an appropriate time on busy nights; and demonstrated a temper and used foul language at inappropriate times. He observed some instances wherein Petitioner would get mad at people working behind the bar and would start yelling and swearing at them. Other similar instances were reported to him. This is not supported by the majority of lounge employees, however. 43. When Petitioner was terminated in November, 1995, she 18 was not replaced with a salaried bar manager. Instead a position was developed as head bartender for operations, and Mr. Lloyd assumed responsibility for inventory and cash payments. Anna Genko was promoted to head bartender on an hourly wage basis as a joint decision of Mr. Rogers, the assistant Manager, and Mr. Lloyd. According to Mr. Lloyd, there was no immediate change in profitability as a result of these changes, but over the succeeding year, there was a considerable increase which he claims was due to the implementation of innovations designed to attract customers. 44. Mr. Lloyd contends that Petitioner's age had nothing to do with her termination. He repeatedly asserted that the decision to terminate Petitioner was based on her performance. He claims to have discussed the problem areas with her and explained her weaknesses. However, he contends, she failed to modify her performance to comply with the directives of management. 45. Mr. Lloyd also denies having sexually harassed the Petitioner. He denies having suggested she meet him at another place while her husband was out of town. He denies having ever touched her or kissed her. He denies having told her he gets what he wants, and he denies ever having made a comment to her about her breasts. He also denies drinking on the property though the evidence indicates he did. Mr. Lloyd had a very selective memory at the hearing, however, he does admit to having 19 a temper and to having yelled at Petitioner from time to time. Taken as a whole, however, there is insufficient evidence of record to support a conclusion that Mr. Lloyd sexually harassed Ms. Cremeens. To be sure, he did not always behave like a gentleman toward her, but it cannot be said his conduct constituted sexual harassment, and it is so found. 46. Once Petitioner was terminated, she became despondent and withdrawn and pushed family and friends away. Petitioner was terminated on November 27, 1995, but did not file her claim for discrimination until September 1996, almost ten months later. She delayed filing her complaint because she was in shock and embarrassed. She lost self-esteem and self-confidence and was afraid her marriage would be jeopardized if her husband found out the particulars of the termination. 47. Dr. Glenn D. King, a clinical psychologist whose specialty is forensic psychology, reviewed the materials relevant to Petitioner's claim against HP Tampa and did his own personal evaluation of the Petitioner relating to her claim of psychological harm resulting from her termination. 48. One of Dr. King's major opinions was that Petitioner had a longstanding psychological disorder stemming from childhood resulting in demonstrated histrionics, flirtatiousness, and a misperception of the motives of others. She has had an extraordinary number of chaotic events throughout her life that makes her no different after her discharge than before. Her 20 previous psychiatric history is lengthy reflecting professional mental health care at age 28 because of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by her husband which caused her to leave home and Move to Tampa. The significance of this is that the psychological difficulties which she claims were caused by her discharge existed years before this incident and have resulted in her being in counseling for years prior to the termination. Her medical records indicate she has been taking psychotropic medications for years. 49. Dr. King also notes that though Petitioner mentioned her termination in the first counseling session she had after that incident, the major thrust of her complaints dealt with Marriage and family problems. 50. After Petitioner was terminated at the Silver dollar, she got a job at another lounge for about two months earning $10 per hour before she was fired. She then took another job for eight months before being hired at a Golden Corral for two years. She was let go from that job in August 1997 and drew unemployment compensation at $100 per week for five months. She opened another lounge, Angel's Place, in October 1997. This position lasted only a short time, after which she went to work for Old JR's Steak House where she earned $400 per week from January 5, 1998 to March 1, 1998. She then worked for the Old Florida Pub in Naples for five months before starting at Target stores and is currently employed by Target Stores. 21 51. Petitioner is seeking back wages for the period from when she was terminated in 1995 to the present and for five years forward at the rate she was getting less what she earned in the interim. In addition to the sums she earned from the various jobs she held, she also sold off household goods and had between $30,000 and $40,000 in gambling income, a part of which went into the costs of opening Angel's Place. All of this income was reported to the IRS. 52. Petitioner also seeks payment of $50,000 which represents the equity in her home which was lost to foreclosure in 2000, almost five years after her termination by HP Tampa. Some time after her termination by HP Tampa, Petitioner was declared eligible on her husband's insurance, yet she seeks to have HP Tampa also pay for her medical insurance. 53. According to Melissa Mancini, human resources director for Cornerstone Hospitality Group, Petitioner was never an employee of Cornerstone, but her office prepared the response to the Commission on Human Relations regarding Petitioner's claim. It would appear that there was some confusion as to who was responsible for the response, but ultimately, the requested information was forthcoming. When the Petition for Relief was received, it was sent to the corporate office of Cornerstone because Cornerstone was handling the sale of the property. Cornerstone admits to no liability regarding Petitioner's claim. 22
Conclusions For Petitioner: Angel Cremeens, pro se 5351 Hemingway Lane, West Apartment 506 Naples, Florida 34116 For Respondent: David P. Thatcher, Esquire Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams and Martin 191 Peachtree Street, Northeast Ninth Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1747
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 27 Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order reflecting a determination of No Cause regarding Petitioner's claim of discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this & day of July, 2001, in eel Jha NOLD POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Tallahassee, Leon County, Fl Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this be aay of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Cremeens 5351 Hemingway Lane, West Apartment 506 Naples, Florida 34116 David P. Thatcher, Esquire Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams and Martin 191 Peachtree Street, Northeast Ninth Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1747 Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 28 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds license No. 16-816-SR, 4-COP, which is a special restaurant license. At about quarter of ten on the morning of September 13, 1977, Emil Marrero, James F. McAuley and Joe L. Nato, all of whom were then beverage officers, arrived at respondent's place of business. Officer Marrero purchased a fifth of rum from Elizabeth Boyd, who was behind the counter in the package store portion of respondent's premises. Ms. Boyd told Officer Marrero that, if he wanted a meal, he "would have to go to the kitchen around the building." (T29). Officers Marrero and Mato went outside the building in search of the kitchen but found the back door to the kitchen locked, Back inside, officer Nato discovered some slips of paper and cigarette packages that lacked tax stamps. Then respondent's employee Margaret Faye Lewis was asked where the kitchen was, she pointed to a padlocked door which John Davis, another of respondent's employee unlocked for the beverage officers. With some difficulty, the beverage officers located the kitchen, where they found respondent's cook, James Dowling. In response to the officers' questions, Mr. Dowling said that he had opened the kitchen that morning at quarter or half past ten as he customarily did seven days a week; that he ordinarily closed the kitchen at four in the morning; and that the business was open for the sale of liquor from seven in the morning till two the following morning. Officer Marrero wrote out a statement for Mr. Bowling's signature reciting the opening and closing times Mr. Dowling had related to him. Petitioner's exhibit No. 3. At this point, Robert H. Close, respondent's president, appeared and asked to read the statement, after which he said: These are a bunch of fucking lies. The restaurant is open at 7:00 A.M. in the morning. You have got no fucking right coming in here and telling my employees to sign anything. (T54) As a result of this outburst, Mr. Dowling declined to sign the statement Officer Marrero had prepared; and an argument between Mr. Close and Officer Marrero ensued. On respondent's premises, Officer McAuley counted "153 chairs, 32 2' by 2' tables, 36 cocktail tables and two tables capable of seating four people." Petitioner's exhibit No. 9. He found 43 spoons in the kitchen along with various victuals. Officer Marrero never actually requested a meal of any of respondent's employees. Once he had identified himself as a beverage officer, he testified, he "imagine[d] a roach in the corner would have jumped up and served [him] a meal if [he] so desired to have one." (T71). Although not assigned to the kitchen, Mr. Davis and Mrs. Lewis were available, before Mr. Dowling's arrival on September 13, 1977, to cook for respondent's patrons. Mrs. Lewis testified without contradiction that a full course meal could have been prepared if one had been requested. (T87). On September 13, 1977, "the Broward County Health Department . . . cited the [respondent] for being in violation of certain sanitary codes established by the State or County." Petitioner's exhibit No. 6. See petitioner's exhibit No. 4. On the same day, on behalf of petitioner, Officer Marrero gave respondent official, written notice that it had "been closed by the county health department & any further sale of alcoholic beverages without maintaining the SR requirement is in violation of [law]." Petitioner's exhibit No. 5. On the following day, Officers Marrero, McAuley and Mato returned to respondent's premises and waited outside while Officer Bates went in and, at twenty past two in the afternoon, bought a bottle. After Officer Bates' purchase, respondent was charged with "selling alcoholic beverages, being closed down by the Health Department." (T63). At three o'clock on the afternoon of September 14, 1977, representatives of the Broward County Health Department inspected respondent's premises and lifted the closure order, at the conclusion of the inspection. Although Mr. Close testified otherwise, respondent served no food on September 14, 1977, before the closure order was lifted. Respondent sold alcoholic beverages on September 14, 1977. On September 13, 1977, Officer McAuley asked Margaret Lewis if "the records" were on the premises. She answered affirmatively and led Officer McAuley to certain invoices and other records which he reviewed briefly. Later he asked Mr. Close "for all the invoices pursuant to the rule;" (T97) and Mr. Close was "requested . . . by official notice . . . [to] produce all documents concerning the operation of his business . . . (T123). In response to this request, Mr. Close furnished the beverage officers all of respondent's records then on the premises. Not on the premises were liquor invoices and other records dated on and after September 1, 1977, and invoices reflecting purchases of food. These records were at respondent's bookkeeper's at the time of the beverage officers' visit on September 13, 1977, but had been returned to respondent's premises by the time beverage officers returned on September 14, 1977. On September 13, 1977, the beverage officers left with all the records respondent had furnished. The beverage officers did not inquire about the additional records on September 14, 1977, and respondent's employees did not mention them at that time. Respondent's employees never took the additional records to petitioner's office. Robert Close gained control of respondent and respondent's license in 1968. On April 13, 1970, respondent paid a stipulated civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00), because a patron bought liquor in the package store portion of respondent's premises and shared it with a minor in the lounge portion of respondent's premises. On March 2, 1971, respondent paid a civil penalty of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) in connection with an alleged violation of Rule 7A-3.15(b), Florida Administrative Code. On July 2, 1975, respondent paid a civil penalty of seventeen hundred fifty dollars ($1,750.00) after a notice to show cause alleged the following matters: On the 19 day of July 1973, on your licensed premises, SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE, FREDDY THOMAS, your agent, servant or employee, did sell to Agent L. LAWSON BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, for the sum and consideration of $20.00 U.S. Currency, a quantity of narcotics, to wit Heroin. This being in violation of F. S. 893.13 (1A1). On or about September 21, 1973, on the above described premises, you, your agent, servant or employee did continue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course meals had been discontinued, in violation of Florida Alcoholic Beverage Rule 7A-3.15. On or about September 21, 1973 on the above described premises, you failed to maintain necessary china and table ware to serve 200 persons, in violation of Florida Alcoholic Beverage rule 7A-3.15(e). On or about October 17, 1973 investigation revealed that you, SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE INC., D/B/A SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE, did fail to submit within 10 days a certified copy of minutes of stockholders meeting at which a change of officers was effected, in violation of Florida Alcoholic Rule 7A-2.07(2). On or about September 21, 1973 investigation revealed that on August 8, 1973, August 30, 1973, September 6, 1973, September 13, 1973, you, SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE, INC., D/B/A SUNRISE EMBASSY LOUNGE did fail to maintain the sanitary code of Florida, in violation of F. S. 381.031 and chapter 100.13 FAC Sanitary Code of Florida. On October 15, 1975, respondent paid a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for failure to disclose to petitioner a change in its corporate officers. Respondent employs seven or eight persons. Rule 7A-3.15(b) Florida Administrative Code, for alleged violations of which respondent paid civil penalties, has since been adjudged inapplicable to licenses like respondent's. Thayer v. State, 335 So.2d 815 (Fla. 1976).
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondent's license in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00). DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire Staff Attorney 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Robert C. Stone, Esquire Suite 400, Center Court Building 2450 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33020
Findings Of Fact In April, 1975, Terri Lynn Beard, also known as Terri Lynn Armstrong Beard Francis, did apply for a job as a bartender or cocktail waitress with the Respondent. The application stated that Terri Lynn Beard was born on August 23, 1955, and was 19 years old at the time of the application. Terri Lynn Beard was, in fact, hired by the Respondent and employed in the establishment known as The Climax. At the time of her employment by the Respondent, Terri Lynn Beard, was 16 years of age. At the time of her employment Terri Lynn Beard was not asked for any identification with regard to her age. Notice, as required by law, has been given in this cause to the Respondent. The Respondent is the holder of Beverage License No. 26- 780,4-COP.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent denied Petitioner access to a public accommodation on the basis of her disability in violation of Pinellas County Code Chapter 70 (the Code).
Findings Of Fact The Department investigated the complaint of Petitioner and issued a determination on April 2, 2009, that reasonable cause exists to believe that Respondent denied Petitioner access to a public accommodation on the basis of her disability. Respondent requested a hearing, and the Department referred the matter to DOAH. Several facts are undisputed. Petitioner is a disabled female confined to a wheel chair. Mr. Chris Maganias is the owner and operator of the respondent company. The principal business of the company is the operation of a skating rink in Pinellas Park, Florida. Petitioner did not present a prima facie case of denial of access to a public accommodation. After the representative for Petitioner was placed under oath, the representative stated the issue that she was there to resolve, but testified to no substantive matters or other evidence. Her testimony lasted less than three minutes. There was no cross-examination. Petitioner did not testify. After excusing Petitioner's representative from her oath, the ALJ asked Petitioner if she wished to testify, and Petitioner stated that she did not want to testify. Petitioner's lone exhibit is a two-page affidavit that lists the allegations which make up the complaint against Respondent. However, the affidavit does not explain or supplement competent and substantial testimony, or other evidence, of the representative or Petitioner at the hearing. This is a de novo hearing and not an appellate review of a determination previously made by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DOAH enter a final order no later than February 3, 2010, pursuant to Section 70-77(g)(13) of the Code, finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations in the complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 31st day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon W. Russell, Director/EEO Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Melissa Cook c/o Eleanor Cook Johnson 15047 Georgey Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33760 Peter Genova, Jr., EEO Coordinator Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Chris Maganias Astro Skate Pinellas Park, LLC 10001 66th Street North Pinellas Park, Florida 33782
