Findings Of Fact Calvin Sherman, Petitioner, was employed on November 19, 1974, by the Department of Pollution Control as an Environmental Specialist II (ES II) which at the time was assigned position number 00321. Immediately prior to the time Sherman was employed the position was vacant. He was interviewed for this position by an Environmental Specialist III (ES III) to which was assigned position number 00046 and who exercised some supervision over Sherman after the latter was employed. In January, 1975 under a reorganization plan many functions and positions formerly held by the Department of Pollution Control were reassigned to the new Department of Environmental Regulation. During this reorganization position number 00046 to which was assigned job classification ES III became vacant and Sherman, effective January 27, 1975, was promoted to this position. The job description of ES II during the time the position was held by Sherman is contained in Exhibit 1. The job description of ES III during the time the position was held by Sherman is contained in Exhibit 3. Greater administrative responsibilities are required for ES III than are required for ES II and the pay per bi-weekly pay period on January 27, 1975 for ES II was $417.60 and for ES III was $540.80. Petitioner testified that he performed the same duties as an ES III he had performed as an ES II, however, his Time and Attendance Record Report (Exhibit 7) do not so indicate. Sherman was terminated from his employment with DER effective July 25, 1975, and contested this termination before the Career Service Commission alleging that he was a permanent employee and not subject to termination except four cause. That hearing resulted in a determination adverse to Petitioner. In January, 1976 from position number 00321, position title ES II, pay grade 25, was deleted and replaced with position title, Biologist III, pay grade In March, 1977 the position title for position number 00321 was changed from Biologist III, pay grade 20 to Biologist IV, pay grade 23 (Exhibit 8). Similarly, in November, 1975 from position number 00046, position title ES III, pay grade 29, was deleted and replaced with position title, Chief of Special Programs, pay grade 32 (Exhibit 8). The procedural requirements of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes prescribed for the adoption of rules were not complied with when these various position numbers were moved within DER and assigned to a particular job description and pay grade. Each position number such as 00321 and 00046 applies to one individual position only and not to a class. For example, if DER had ten ES II's each would have a different position number and in 1975 one of these ES II's, namely Calvin Sherman, filled position number 00321. When he was promoted to ES III he filled the billet authorized by position number 00046. Thus, the position number is applicable to one position or person and is assigned to one job title, description and pay grade. The ten ES II positions, for example, authorized for DER would have the same job title, description and pay grade, but each would have a different position number.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a cattle feeding lot near Bartow, Florida consisting of 6 sheds, 1600 feet long by approximately 25 feet wide. These sheds are two story structures with the cattle fed on the upper story. The upper floor is slotted to permit cattle droppings to fall to the lower level. From there the manure and urine is processed in the waste treatment facilities consisting of a concrete sump and anerobic ponds. These treatment facilities qualify as pollution control equipment for purposes of tax assessment. Petitioner installed metal roofs over these feeding sheds which Petitioner claims also constitute pollution control equipment. Shade for cattle is required and could be provided by a fibre screen which would cost some $37,000 as compared to the metal roof costs of approximately $171,000. The difference between the costs of the metal roof and a fabric sun screen is $133,882.06 which Petitioner desires to have reduced from its assessment for tax purposes. The Property Appraiser Polk County recommended to the DER that this amount be approved as a deduction for pollution control equipment. Petitioner contends that the primary purpose of the metal roof is to divert the rainwater from mixing with the cattle droppings. As constructed rainwater is presently collected from the roofs of the feeding lots and transported via viaduct to a runoff pond required by federal EPA regulations which acts as a settling pond. From this pond, which EPA regulations requires have a ten-year storm rainfall capacity, the water is pumped for irrigation purposes. If the rainwater is allowed to fall onto the upper platform on which the cattle are kept, it will go through the slots and mix with the fecal matter on the ground floor. If this were allowed to occur it would be necessary for Petitioner to greatly increase the size of its sump and anerobic ponds to treat this waste thus increasing the cost of this portion of its plant which is clearly pollution control equipment as defined by Section 193.621 F.S. As presently operated the solids are removed from the droppings in the sump before the remaining liquid is processed in the waste treatment facilities consisting of the anerobic ponds. The efficiency of the anerobic process is increased as the concentration of the waste material is increased. Adding rainwater to this waste material would therefore decrease the efficiency of the operation as well as require a larger capacity sump and anerobic ponds. In addition to keeping rainwater out of the cattle droppings, the roof provides needed shade to the cattle, provides better shelter for cattle in rainy or cold weather, and eliminates need for adding covers over the feeding troughs. Cattle fed in open lots are as healthy, or healthier, than those fed in covered feeding lots.
The Issue The parties have raised myriad issues hare. Petitioner has alleged being capriciously and arbitrarily denied its permit because similar treatment plants have been licensed nearby. The parties disagree over whether local Lake County Pollution Control Board rules are applicable to Petitioner's plant. If the rules are applicable, they disagree over their interpretation. The parties further disagree over whether Petitioner has pending an application for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. It is this last issue which is discussed below because it is dispositive of the case.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a waste water treatment plant in Lake County, Florida which serves four motels at the intersection of U.S. Highway 27 and SR 19 immediately to the south of Interchange 27 on the Florida Turnpike. On October 27, 1972, DER issued a construction permit to Petitioner to construct the plant at a design capacity of 250,000 gallons per day (gpd). The treated effluent was proposed to be discharged via a spray irrigation system to the ground water on Petitioner's site. The plant has never operated at capacity. Its normal volume has ranged from between a low of 40,000 gpd to a peak of 140,000 gpd. Petitioner's plant is situated on a 12.5 acre site over a clay hard pan. The hard pan which is immediately below the ground surface prevents adequate percolation of the plant's effluent down to the underlying ground water. During periods of heavy rain the effluent from the plant has breached a retaining dike and flowed directly into a marsh area known as the Little Everglades to the north. Petitioner has submitted four permit applications to the Department. The first, submitted in September of 1972 was for the construction permit already mentioned. The next applications dated October 22, 1973, was for an operation permit. The application indicated that there would be no discharge to surface waters but there would be a discharge to ground waters. The application also indicated that the availability of space for the expansion of the plant was limited to the site at that time. Petitioner later purchased additional land not reflected in this application. The operation permit was never granted by the Respondent. As stated by Mr. Potter, President of Lake County Utilities, Inc., "In the fall of 1973, I made an application as engineer for the utility company to the Florida DPC [Department of Pollution Control] and to Lake County for an operation permit. That permit was denied by the Department on the ground that we had not satisfied Lake County as to the total containment of our effluent." Subsequently on August 30, 1976, Petitioner submitted a construction permit application to DER for permission to add a 1.32 acre oxidation-polishing pond, to regrade and regrass the existing spray irrigation field, to construct a 0.40 acre denitrification pond and to add a nutrient uptake. No increase in the design capacity was proposed. On that application Petitioner indicated that there would be a discharge to the surface waters of the state. In answer to that part of the application which asked for proposed drainage path of the effluent Petitioner stated, "From treatment plant to 'on-site' ponds to 'on-site' grassy pond and marsh would overflow to ajacent Florida DOT [Department of Transportation] borrow pit: thence via developed drainage waste to the 'Little Everglades' swamp: then, via developed canal and ditches and through natural ponds and marshes to 'Little Lake Harris' and ultimately the Atlantic Ocean." This permit was denied by DER because the Lake County Pollution Control Board did not approve the plan. Finally on September 29, 1978, Petitioner applied for another construction permit. Thee construction would include: Construction of storm water control structures and culverts: Regrading of water and sewer plant sites; Construction of percolation pond "A" and enclosing dikes; and Construction of percolation pond "B" and enclosing dikes. This application was made in response to advice from DER that Petitioner's plant should be in a no discharge condition in order to comply with Lake County Pollution Control rules. On November 2, 1979, the Department issued a Letter of Intent to deny the last permit application because the application was deemed to be incomplete and because the further data which DER requested was not provided. In response to DER's intent to deny the construction permit Petitioner on November 20, 1979, filed its Petition for an Administrative Hearing. Petitioner does not now intend to construct the proposed facilities for which it requested the construction permit in September of 1978. The following colloquy is from the final hearing. Mr. Stephens Have you-- Can you describe briefly the nature of the changes proposed in your 1978 construction permit application? Mr. Potter 1978 construction permit application on nominally the five acre parcel to create a diked pond or lake. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter Solely that. The part on the nominally two and a half acre parcel, give or take, was to create a deep percolation pond in which I proposed digging through the clay to the sand and shell below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter So that waters that entered that pond, A, because of its depth, would denitrify and release nitrogen contents to the atmosphere; and, the water would, because of its hydraulic head in relation to the soil below, would push its way into the soils below. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. Mr. Potter But in the event I could not dispose of the water through that form of percolation, it would overflow into the five acre diked area. And thereby I hoped to satisfy Lake County and the D.E.R. and solve this lingering festering problem. Mr. Stephens Uh-huh. You are the Petitioner in this case. Is it your desire or intention to complete those. . .that construction? Mr. Potter Now that I have been made aware of the law, the law of Chapter four oh three, the rules of Florida D.E.R. and become clear as to the ordinances adopted by the County Commission and the Lake Pollution Board of Lake County as to Class 3-B waters, I have no intention of squandering my money, and, in effect, the money of my customers, in such a wasteful pursuit. Mr. Stephens So you're saying here under oath you don't intend to perform that work even if granted a permit? Mr. Potter Not shy of a court order. As the result of Mr. Potter's testimony on behalf of the Petitioner at the final hearing, it is found that Petitioner has withdrawn its September 1978 application for a construction permit. There is not now pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation a valid permit application for the Petitioner to operate its waste water treatment plan. On May 9, 1980 Lake County Utilities, Inc. served Petitioner's Fourth Interrogatories to Respondent which asked by Interrogatory 10: Please state when and by whom the Department of Environmental Regulation has caused field studies to be made and samples to be taken out of the waters of Lake County (and specifically the geographical vicinity of U.S. 27 - S.R. 19 - Fla. Turnpike) periodically and in a logical geographic manner so as to determine the levels of water quality of the waters as such studies and sampling is within the powers and duty of the Department as mandated by the Florida Legislature in Chapter 403 of the Laws of Florida. (emphasis in original) The Department responded: 10. The Department conducts sampling in the waters of Lake County in conjunction with individual permit applications and not on a systematic basis throughout the County. Respondent objects to this interrogatory as being irrelevant to this proceeding in that the subject permit was not denied on the basis of anticipated water quality violations, but rather, as a result of the pollution control ordinances of Lake County, Florida, which prohibit any discharge to surface waters from the subject facility, and which the Department is required to enforce pursuant to Section 403.182(6), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it Is RECOMMENDED: That the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing without prejudice, however, to the filing of a new application by Petitioner for a waste water treatment plant operating permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 12th day of May, 1981.
Findings Of Fact By application filed on September 9, 1980, Respondent/Applicant, John H. Land Builders, Inc., sought a permit from Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), to conduct dredge and fill activities in an approximate one acre area located in the southeast corner of a proposed housing development in Section 10, Township 29 South, Range 19 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida. A copy of this permit application may be found as DER Composite Exhibit B. Specifically, Land sought to excavate 4,100 cubic yards of material (muck) and to backfill the area with 14,400 cubic yards of granular material from adjacent uplands to allow for development of a street and building lots in an unnamed wetland. A permit from DER is required because the project involves a wetland that is contiguous with a ditch that connects to the Palm River, all of which constitute waters of the State that are subject to dredge and fill permitting requirements. The plans have been reviewed by other state and local authorities in the Hillsborough County area, and no adverse comments have been received. After the installation is completed, the elevation of the land will be raised, and will permit five homesites to be built on the land as well as the construction of an access road to the property from an adjacent street. The installation in question is but a small part of a larger proposed housing development known as Timberlake Subdivision that will ultimately involve more than 300 homesites. However, no further dredge and fill activities under DER jurisdiction will be undertaken. The proposal of Respondent/Applicant was received by the Department and certain timely additional requests were made from the Department to the Applicant to provide information necessary to evaluate the request for permit. Applicant subsequently furnished the required information, and it may be found in DER Exhibit C. The Department performed a field inspection and review of the dredge and fill site, including the surrounding areas, to assess the impact of water quality caused by proposed dredging and filling activities in wetlands areas. It concluded that the Applicant had affirmatively provided reasonable assurance to the Department that the short-term and long-term effects of the activity would not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. A copy of the permit application appraisal may be found in DER Exhibit A. On January 21, 1981, DER issued its Intent to Issue a dredge and fill/water quality certification with certain conditions therein, including the requirement that future development be dependent upon separate stormwater review by the Department (DER Exhibit D). On October 20, 1980, Applicant filed a Notice of Stormwater Discharge with the Department's Southwest District Office in Tampa (DER Composite Exhibits B & F). Thereafter, the Department conducted a field inspection and review of the proposed housing development and surrounding areas to determine whether the proposed stormwater discharge would have a significant impact on water quality. Based upon the results of that inspection, which concluded that the proposed discharge would not have a significant impact on the waters of this State, the Department issued Applicant a stormwater exemption on November 7, 1980. The project site is located in an unnamed wetlands area. It is weedy and has a dense cover of primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), willow (Salix caroliniana), cattail (Typha sp.), red maple (Ace rubrum) and is overgrown with grapes vines (Vitus rotendifolia). It lies just to the north of a series of fish farms owned by Petitioner, Penisular Fisheries, Inc. Other commercial industries and single family dwellings are found south of the proposed activities. To the west and northwest lie marshlands, two old borrow pits, and Interstate Highway 4. Water runoff from the dredge and fill area will flow to the storm drainage system in the proposed street, and from there to a designated retention pond. Because there will be minor contaminants in the runoff, the water will be retained for treatment for a period of five days, which exceeds the 100 hour retention period required by DER. After treatment, the runoff will flow into a well-defined county drainage ditch west of 58th Street, travel down the ditch which lies adjacent to the fish ponds, and then meander into the existing marshland. Water runoff from the remainder of the project (excluding the dredge and fill area) will drain into the two existing borrow pit lakes which lie close to Interstate Highway 4. The designated retention pond will be located west of the project and has a controlled spill-off elevation. It will provide sufficient treatment to and cleaning of the water to insure that no violation of water quality standards will occur. A stormwater system to be constructed by Applicant will actually reduce the volume of water runoff now occurring. Reasonable assurances have been given that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed activity will not result in violations of the water quality criteria, standards, requirements and provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. Based upon Use location of the point of discharge of Land's proposed stormwater discharge, the volume and frequency of discharge for which the proposed facilities are designed, and the anticipated constituents of discharge, the proposal will not have a significant impact on the water quality of the waters of this State. Accordingly, the exemption from stormwater licensing requirements was properly issued by the Department. Water quality violations which were alleged to have existed in a ditch on property adjoining the properties of Land and Petitioners were the subject of a notice of violation issued to the owners of that property. However, no notice of violation was ever issued to Land. Further, the ditch is not a part of the installation proposed by Applicant for issuance of the dredge and fill permit. Petitioners' concern is that Applicant has not given reasonable assurance that water quality standards would not be violated by the stormwater discharge and that downstream waters might be contaminated by urban runoff from the project. In reaching that conclusion, Petitioners' expert relied on a review of certain materials submitted to him by Petitioner's counsel. He did not visit the project site, nor had he reviewed drainage plans or construction drawings for drainage improvements contemplated by the notice of stormwater discharge filed by Land.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation grant the requested dredge and fill permit/water quality certification to Respondent/Applicant John H. Land Builders, Inc. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order confirming the stormwater exemption issued by the Department to Respondent/Applicant on November 7, 1980. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 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 27th day of April, 1981.
Findings Of Fact The Sound Transportation Planning Coalition, Inc., and The Florida Lung Association have standing to bring this action. This action is brought pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, and challenges the validity of the repeal of Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code. On or about July 8, 1977, the Department of Environmental Regulation published a notice of rule making for adoption of proposed amendments to Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code, in the Florida Administrative Weekly. This Publication included notice of a hearing to be held by the Environmental Regulation Commission for the consideration of the adoption of proposed amendments to the subject rule. At least thirty (30) days notice prior to the foregoing hearing by the Environmental Regulation Commission was also given in newspapers of general circulation around the state. For the purposes of this proceeding the parties have stipulated that the Department of Environmental Regulation complied with the provisions of Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, regarding notice of hearing on the proposed rule which was an amendment to an existing rule. The Environmental Regulation Commission took action on August 11, 1977, with regard to the matters pertinent to this Proceeding and no notice other than that referred to above in paragraph 3 pertinent to the action taken by the Environmental Regulation Commission was given by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The rule making action proposed by the Department of Environmental Regulation was the amendment of Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code, which amendment, according to the Department's notice, was designed to make the indirect source permit system workable and yet maintain ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide. The amendment was expected to reduce the number of permit reviews required and to limit the evaluation for each indirect source to one pollutant, carbon monoxide. The action taken by the Environmental Regulation Commission on behalf of the Department of Environmental Regulation was the complete repeal of Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code. After having considered the proposed amendments to the subject rule it was apparently the decision of the Environmental Regulation Commission that the better action would be the complete repeal of the rule and that is the action they took. The Department of Environmental Regulation prepared an Economic Impact Statement directed to the impact of the proposed amendments to the subject rule. The parties have stipulated that for the purpose of this proceeding only, the Department of Environmental Regulation complied with the provisions of Section 120.54(2)(a), Florida Statutes, with regard to the proposed amendments to the subject rule and the said Economic Impact Statement would have been satisfactory for the adoption of the proposed amendments had they been adopted. No Economic Impact Statement directed to the repeal of the subject rule was prepared. No individual in the Department of Environmental Regulation was instructed to prepare an Economic Impact Statement for the repeal of Rule 17- 2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Department at no time prior to the hearing held by the Environmental Regulation Commission on the proposed amendments to the subject rule, gave specific notice to any individuals that it intended to repeal Rule 17-2.04(8), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: On August 31, 1978, Raymond M. Ewing Realty, Inc., also referred to herein as the "applicant," submitted its application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct an extended aeration wastewater treatment and disposal facility on Perdido Key in Escambia County. The Department of Environmental Regulation issued its notice of intent to issue the permit with conditions on December 5, 1978. The petitioner Perdido Key Development Association timely requested an administrative hearing and the motion to join Southwest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc. as a party petitioner was granted. The proposed facility is designed to serve a condominium complex on Perdido Key consisting of 72 units. It is expected that 250 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring an average daily design hydraulic flow of at least 18,000 gallons per day. The plant described in the application will have a capacity to handle 25,000 gallons per day. The plans and specifications, engineering report and application are in substantial conformity with each other. Substantial residential development presently exists on Perdido Key. No central sewer system exists to service Perdido Key, and only septic tanks and package sewage treatment plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. The proposed facility will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the plant and then discharged into an underground drainfield system. The facility is designed to remove 95 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. Duplicate blowers and pumps are included to insure continued operations in the event of failure of one of the units. In the event of a power failure, a contractual arrangement with the treatment plant operator will provide for the bringing in of emergency electrical generators. The 100 year flood elevation for this area is eleven feet. The top of the proposed plant is fifteen feet above mean sea level, and a water manifold is provided to prevent water from splashing into the plant. The drainfield is located approximately 330 feet from Old River, a body of water adjacent to Perdido Key. Such location is the farthest and highest reasonable point away from the River. While the plant is designed to remove over 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, it is not designed to remove nutrients or phosphorous from the effluent. The drainfield is located on porous coastal dune sand. There is an acceptable distance between the bottom of the drain field and the maximum high ground water level. There was evidence presented which illustrates that nutrients and phosphates will be removed through the absorption and precipitation phenomena as they move through the sand and become diluted by the groundwaters. Vegetation on top of the drainfield will also assist in the removal of phosphates and nitrates. Field testing has not shown any contamination of ground water or Old River by an existing sewage treatment plant. Among the conditions proposed for the issuance of the construction permit is that an application be submitted for an operation permit. Such application must include four months of results analyses and flow measurements to substantiate compliance with the applicable rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation. The initial test results must be provided within six weeks after the facility has been placed in operation. Further conditions require that there be no discharge to area surface waters, and that, prior to placing the facility into operation, the construction be certified and approved as having been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The petitioners herein are both organizations whose members own property, reside or have a business interest on Perdido Key. The members of the petitioners use the waters of Old River recreationally and commercially.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation issue to the respondent Raymond M. Ewing Realty, Inc. the requested construction permit subject to the conditions contained in the Department's initial notice of intent to issue the permit. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: M. Michael Patterson 26 East Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Daniel P Fernandez Assistant General Counsel Twin Tower Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffrey T. Sauer Smith, Sauer and Venn, P.A. Post Office Box 12446 Pensacola, Florida 32582 Charles Collette, Esquire Post Office Box 10161 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Secretary Jake Varn Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law above, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Board revoke the Respondent's license, suspending said penalty upon continued voluntary surrender of the Respondent's license for two years. At the end of said period, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board set aside the revocation permanently upon the Respondent's satisfactorily demonstrating that she is fully rehabilitated. This will permit the Board to observe the Respondent's conduct for the remainder of her court supervised probation and an additional year of observation of the Respondent in an unsupervised environment. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 James Freeland, Esquire 26 Wall Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway - Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Corrections (Respondent or the Department) constructively discharged Petitioner Lou Armentrout (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by subjecting Petitioner to a hostile work environment because of Petitioner’s race, age, or gender.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Asian female born February 25, 1970. Petitioner speaks Chinese and English. Petitioner speaks with a Chinese accent. She does not speak or understand Spanish. Respondent is a state agency responsible for “the incarceration and supervision of offenders through the application of work, programs, and services." See § 20.315(1), Fla. Stat. At all material times, Respondent employed more than 15 persons. Petitioner was employed by Respondent at its Lake Correctional Institution (Institution) from September 16, 2011, until October 12, 2012, as a Senior Registered Nursing Supervisor. Petitioner's duties as a Senior Registered Nursing Supervisor included the supervision of approximately 80 nurses at the Institution. While employed at the Institution, Petitioner worked directly under the supervision of the Institution's Chief Health Officer. When Petitioner was hired, the Chief Health Officer was Dr. Moreno. Dr. Moreno’s annual performance evaluation of Petitioner for the period ending February 29, 2012, gave Petitioner an overall 3.51 performance rating score, indicating that Petitioner “consistently meets and may occasionally exceed the performance expectation of the position.” Petitioner never received an evaluation score below a 3, indicating that the employee at least “meets expectation,” on any written evaluation of her performance while she was employed by the Institution. After Dr. Moreno resigned in April or May 2012, Dr. Virginia Mesa was hired as Chief Health Officer of the Institution in May of 2012. Dr. Mesa is Hispanic. Dr. Mesa’s supervision was often harsh. Dr. Mesa had a bad temper and would raise her voice and reprimand employees in the presence of others, including inmates. Dr. Mesa described her supervisory style as the “team approach.” She advised that, instead of meeting with employees individually, she would meet them as a “team.” She would meet every morning with the nurses in the medical unit and once a week in the psych unit. Petitioner attended these meetings. During the meetings, Dr. Mesa would often address the group, many of whom were Hispanic, in Spanish instead of English. Many of the discussions were regarding Dr. Mesa’s medical direction and discussion about patients’ cases. Dr. Mesa knew that Petitioner did not speak Spanish. On more than one occasion, Petitioner asked Dr. Mesa what was being said, and Dr. Mesa would reply, “Ask one of the nurses.” Although Dr. Mesa never specifically mentioned Petitioner’s race, age, or gender, she treated Petitioner harshly and made fun of Petitioner’s Asian accent behind her back. On one occasion, while Petitioner was not present, Dr. Mesa made a joke of Petitioner’s pronunciation of a word by substituting Petitioner’s mispronunciation with a vulgar term, repeating the word a number of times in the presence of other employees and laughing with those employees while poking fun at Petitioner. While not mentioning Petitioner’s race, it is evident that the joke was designed to ridicule Petitioner on account of Petitioner’s race.2/ Petitioner was made aware by others that Dr. Mesa belittled her behind her back. Dr. Mesa’s contempt for Petitioner was overt. Dr. Mesa would raise her voice and glare at her, and challenge Petitioner’s competence as a supervisor and medical professional in front of others in a bullying way. Dr. Mesa would humiliate Petitioner by testing Petitioner’s bedside nursing skills in front of other nurses and inmates, knowing that Petitioner had not been working as a nurse for a number of years, primarily because Petitioner had been working in an administrative position. Feeling as though her authority was being undermined by Dr. Mesa, and wanting to improve her business relationship and obtain some direction from Dr. Mesa, Petitioner asked for private meetings with Dr. Mesa on numerous occasions. Dr. Mesa refused. In addition, despite Petitioner’s continued requests that she use English, Dr. Mesa continued to address Hispanic staff in Spanish during morning staff meetings. Dr. Mesa did, however, meet privately with Gary Assante, a white male, who, although not licensed in a medical profession, was an administrator with the Institution with lateral authority to that of Petitioner. Instead of giving directions directly to Petitioner, Dr. Mesa would give directions through Mr. Assante to Petitioner. Some of the directions were of a medical nature. Dr. Mesa would also use nurses supervised by Petitioner to deliver directions to Petitioner. Dr. Mesa’s tactics undermined Petitioner’s supervisory authority. Petitioner became frustrated because Dr. Mesa’s tactics were interfering with Petitioner’s ability to do her job. Petitioner complained to the assistant warden of the Institution, Assistant Warden Young, of Dr. Mesa’s intimidation and behavior. In particular, Petitioner complained that, in addition to her intimidation of Petitioner, Dr. Mesa threatened nursing staff members with termination on several occasions. Assistant Warden Young set up a meeting between Petitioner, Mr. Assante, and Dr. Mesa to discuss the issues in July 2012. During the meeting, Dr. Mesa stated that she is paid too much to listen to the allegations. Despite Petitioner’s complaints, Dr. Mesa’s intimidating behavior continued. On August 22, 2012, without any prior warning of disciplinary action, Dr. Mesa brought Michelle Hanson to Petitioner’s office. Michelle Hanson was the Regional Nursing Director of the Department’s Region 3 Office, which included the Institution. During the meeting, Dr. Mesa questioned Petitioner’s competency as a nurse and told Petitioner that she wanted to demote her. Petitioner told Dr. Mesa that she did not want a demotion and asked Dr. Mesa to specify the problems with Petitioner’s performance. Dr. Mesa never did. In fact, there is no evidence of verbal counseling or reprimands from Dr. Mesa in Petitioner’s personnel file. Dr. Mesa never provided a written evaluation of Petitioner’s performance while Petitioner was employed by the Institution. Near the end of August or early September, Petitioner verbally complained to the Institution’s warden, Warden Jennifer Folsom, about Dr. Mesa’s behavior. Dr. Mesa’s intimidation continued. On September 16, 2012, Petitioner provided Warden Folsom with a letter explaining how Dr. Mesa’s “workplace bullying” was adversely affecting Petitioner and the workplace environment, asking “higher level management for assistance and to make a reasonable working environment,” and advising that Dr. Mesa had asked Petitioner to take a demotion. Petitioner’s letter explained, in part: I strongly feel workplace bullying is linked to a host of physical, psychological, organizational and social costs. Stress is the most predominant health effect associated with bullying in the workplace. My experience with workplace bullying is developed poor mental health and poor physical health, inability to be productive and loss of memory and fear of making key decisions. Recently, I also turn to other organizations for job opportunities and I have been asked by Dr. Mesa and Mr. Assante where do I go for interview and how long will this last by asking for days and hours for interviewing. My fearful of retaliation even made me so scared to ask for job interviewing. Petitioner met with Warden Folsom the next day, September 17, 2012. During the meeting, Warden Folsom assured Petitioner that Dr. Mesa did not have the authority to demote her, and gave Petitioner someone to contact in Employee Relations regarding her concerns. Warden Folsom followed up the meeting with a letter dated September 17, 2012, stating: It has come to my attention that you have alleged harassment by your supervisor. You are being provided the name and contact number for the Intake Officer at the Regional Service Center. Norma Johnson (407)521-2526 ext. 150 Please be aware the Department does not tolerate inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Your allegations will be looked into and any appropriate action taken. The letter was signed by Warden Folsom and a witness, as well as by Petitioner, acknowledging receipt. It was copied to Norma Johnson, Employee Relations. After that, Petitioner spoke a couple of times by telephone with Norma Johnson. She told her that Dr. Mesa was continuing to harass and bully her in the workplace, and that Dr. Mesa was causing a hostile work environment. Despite Petitioner’s complaints, nothing changed. It is apparent that Petitioner’s complaints were ignored. In fact, Dr. Mesa claimed that she never heard about complaints that she treated individuals that are Hispanic differently than she treated Petitioner, and could not recall if the Warden ever approached her regarding Petitioner’s complaints. Incredibly, Dr. Mesa testified that she was not made aware of Petitioner’s complaint that she was speaking Spanish and Petitioner could not understand until after Petitioner left her employment with the Institution. After Petitioner’s meeting with the Warden and conversations with Norma Johnson, Dr. Mesa continued to speak Spanish at meetings with staff and Petitioner could not understand. Dr. Mesa continued to direct Petitioner through other employees. And Dr. Mesa continued to raise her voice and challenge Petitioner’s competence in front of other employees. The evidence supports Petitioner’s claim that the way she was treated was discrimination, based upon Petitioner’s race. The evidence does not, however, support Petitioner’s claims that she was discriminated against based upon Petitioner’s age or gender. The harsh treatment Petitioner received, based upon her race, undermined Petitioner’s supervisory authority and interfered with Petitioner’s ability to do her job. The discrimination was overt, continuous, and created a hostile work environment that was intolerable. Petitioner, in essence, was forced to leave the employ of the Institution. Approximately two weeks later, on September 28th or 29th, 2012, after deciding that she could no longer endure the situation, Petitioner sent the following letter to Dr. Mesa and Warden Folsom: Dear DOC: Please accept this letter as my formal notice of resignation from Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor effective 10/12/12. This is the most difficult decision I have ever made throughout my career; however, my time here at Lake Correctional Institution has been some of the most rewarding and memorable years of my professional life. I sincerely appreciate the opportunities that I have been given to contribute to the organization’s success, while growing professionally and personally. Sincerely, Lou Armentrout Cc Human Resource: Please leave all my leave times (annual and sick leaves) in people first until receiving notification from me. Thank you for your assistance. In the year following Petitioner’s resignation, the health care services were privatized and provided by Corizon Health, Inc. Most employees kept their jobs that they held prior to privatization. Had Petitioner remained with the Institution, it is likely that she would have transitioned over to an equivalent position with Corizon Health, Inc. After leaving the Institution on October 12, 2012, Petitioner obtained a job with the Department of Health on October 26, 2012. Petitioner suffered a loss of pay in the amount of $2,222.40 during the period of her unemployment between October 12, 2012, and October 26, 2012. Petitioner’s pay at her new job with the Department of Health is $299.32 less per two-week pay period than her job at the Institution. $299.32 per two-week pay period equals $648.53 less each month ($299.32 X 26 weeks = $7,782.32/year ÷ 12 months = $648.53/month ÷ 30 = approximately $21.62/day). The time period between the date Petitioner began her new job with the Department of Health on October 26, 2012, and the final hearing held January 16, 2015, equals 26 months and 21 days. The loss in pay that Petitioner experienced in that time period totals $17,315.80 ((26 month x $648.53/month) + ($21.62/day x 21 days) = $17,315.80). The total loss in pay ($2,222.40 + $17,315.80) that Petitioner experienced from her resignation until the final hearing is $19,538.20. Petitioner also drives 92 miles further each work day to her new position with the Department of Health. The extra cost that Petitioner incurs to get to her new job, calculated at the State rate of $0.445 per mile, equals $40.94 per day. Taking into account 260 work days per year (5 work days per week), from beginning of Petitioner’s new job through the date of the hearing equals a total of $23,663.32 (578 days x $40.94/day), without subtracting State holidays or vacation days. Subtracting nine State holidays and two weeks for vacation each year results in a total of $21,943.84 to reimburse Petitioner for the extra miles driven each work day through the day of the final hearing (536 days x $40.94/day).
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 the Department constructively discharged Petitioner Lou Armentrout by subjecting her to a hostile work environment on account of Petitioner’s race in violation of the Act; Ordering the Department to pay Petitioner $19,538.20 in back pay through the date of the final hearing, January 16, 2015, plus $21.62 per diem thereafter through the date of the Commission's final order, with interest accruing on the total amount at the applicable statutory rate from the date of the Commission's final order; Ordering the Department to pay Petitioner $23,663.32, as an additional aspect of back pay, for extra daily travel expenses incurred to get to and from her new job through the date of the final hearing, plus $40.94 for each work day thereafter that Petitioner drives to her new job through the date of the Commission's final order, with interest accruing on the total amount at the applicable statutory rate from the date of the Commission's final order; Ordering the Department to make arrangements to reinstate Petitioner to an equivalent position with Corizon Health, Inc., for service at the Institution; Prohibiting any future acts of discrimination by the Department; and Awarding Petitioner her costs incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2015.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the National Pollution Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permitting program in Florida. The Department promulgated the rules in Florida Administrative Code Title 62 that are applicable to the permitting of wastewater discharges. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. IP owns and operates a paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida. IP is the applicant for the Department authorizations that are the subject of DOAH Case Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923. Background When this rule challenge was filed, DOAH Cases Nos. 08-3922 and 08-3923 (the permit cases) involved challenges by these same Petitioners to four Department authorizations for IP: an NPDES permit, a Consent Order, an approved exemption for the experimental use of wetlands pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300, and a waiver related to the experimental use of wetlands. IP later withdrew its request for the experimental use of wetlands exemption and the related waiver. Petitioners were ordered to show cause why their claim regarding the invalidity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 660.300 was not rendered moot by IP’s withdrawal of its request for the exemption. Subsequently, the challenge to the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300 was dismissed as moot. At the commencement of the final hearing on June 22, 2009, FOPB and James Lane announced that they were withdrawing their rule challenges except with respect to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300(6), and that the only legal ground being asserted for the invalidity of the rule is that it is vague and vests unbridled authority in the Department. Petitioners’Standing Jacqueline Lane, James Lane and a substantial number of the members of FOPB swim, boat, and make other uses of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay would be affected by IP's wastewater effluent. The challenged rule was applied by the Department to determine that IP's proposed industrial wastewater discharge was in the public interest. The Challenged Rule Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, is entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Subsection (6) of the rule states: Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. Most of the permits that are issued by the Department are issued to private entities whose primary purposes are personal uses or the production of private incomes and profits, rather than solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public.
