The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Clivalee Mundle was the holder of a slot machine occupational license issued by the State of Florida and numbered 7937616-1051. That license expired June 30, 2008, and has not been re-issued. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a slot supervisor at The Isle Casino and Racing at Pompano Park, a licensed Florida pari-mutuel and slot machine facility located in Pompano Beach, Florida. On November 16, 2007, a senior attendant reported to the slot chip manager an incident involving Respondent. She reported that she had gone to the cage service window to use the computer. The cage is where the money is held in a casino. She reported that while she was there, Respondent came in and began assisting her. When he reached into his coat, a $100 bill fell out and onto the floor. She placed her foot next to the bill and asked Respondent if it were his. Respondent picked it up and acted, in her opinion, nervous. Employees at the casino are instructed to keep their own money in their wallets and to not have loose cash on them when they are on the casino floor. They are also instructed to keep any casino money in sight so that the money surveillance cameras can track it. Based upon the report he received, the slot chip manager contacted surveillance personnel and requested them to view the surveillance videos that recorded the incident. Upon doing so, those employees reported to him that Respondent had earlier obtained a $100 bill from the cage to pay out a jackpot on slot machine A-50-02 but that he subsequently never went to that machine to do so. Further, the videos showed that the jackpot on that machine had already been paid before Respondent obtained the $100 bill he obtained from the cage. Based upon that surveillance report, the slot chip manager viewed surveillance videos from prior dates. The review of the surveillance videos revealed the following transactions. On November 8, 2007, Respondent was at the cage service window filling out a paid-out cash slip to obtain a $100 bill when the slot chip manager came in. Rather than completing what he was doing, Respondent folded the form and put it in his pocket. Later that day, he turned in the paid-out slip and received a $100 bill. The form he filled out stated that he needed the money to settle a guest dispute. However, he never gave the money to anyone between the time he obtained it and the time he left the casino at the end of his shift. The surveillance videos for November 9, 2007, show Respondent filling out a paid-out slip at the cage, receiving a $100 bill, and concealing that bill inside a piece of paper in his coat pocket. The slip he filled out represented that he was obtaining the money for a guest dispute at machine A-15-05. Later that same day, he filled out another cage slip for a jackpot pay-out at machine A-50-08. When he received the $100 bill requested, he put it under a piece of paper on a clipboard. Surveillance videos showed that the jackpot on that machine had been paid out before Respondent obtained the $100. Surveillance videos did not show Respondent giving either of those $100 bills he obtained on November 9 to anyone in the casino. The videos show that on November 13, 2007, Respondent paid a jackpot to a customer who then gave Respondent her player's card. Respondent took her player's card to the player's card window, had a discussion with the attendant, and then returned to the player and returned her card. He then went to the cage service area, filled out a cage paid-out slip for $100 for guest satisfaction, placed the $100 underneath papers on a clipboard, and left the cage area. Between that time and the end of his shift, Respondent did not give that money to anyone. None of the monies Respondent obtained from the casino cage as described in the above Findings of Fact was used for a legitimate business purpose. Respondent failed to complete the transactions for which he allegedly received the monies. Rather, Respondent retained these monies for his own use. Respondent admits to dropping the $100 bill on November 16, 2007. His explanation is that he had previously left the casino and had picked up some relatives and taken them to his home. He stated that the $100 bill was given to him by one of those relatives so he could pick up formula and diapers on his way home. The surveillance videos do not show Respondent leaving the casino or returning prior to the incident. On November 29, 2007, Respondent was terminated from his employment by the casino. On February 7, 2008, The Isle Casino and Racing at Pompano Park issued to Respondent a Notice of Barrment [sic], which barred Respondent from the premises of the casino permanently.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered (1) finding Respondent guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, (2) excluding Respondent from all facilities of all slot machine licensees in the State of Florida, and (3) finding Respondent ineligible for a slot machine occupational license. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 11th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Clivalee Mundle 4689 Northwest 22nd Street Coconut Creek, Florida 33063 David Perry, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts were found: At all times pertinent to the allegations in this hearing, the Respondent held a certificate as a law enforcement officer and was employed by the Fort Pierce, Florida, Police Department. Respondent was not on duty on the evening of February 27, 1982, and did not participate in authorized law enforcement duties during that period. On the evening of February 27, 1982, Lamar Farrell, Willis Curry, Theodore White, and several others were gathered in the back room of Reno's Sports Center, owned by Hosley Gibson, located at the corner of 25th and D Streets, Fort Pierce, Florida, for the purpose of playing cards for money. Playing cards for money constitutes gambling and is a violation of Florida law. The parties had started to play, and each player had his money in front of him on the table. There was some money in the pot in the center of the table. Mr. Farrell had about $25, Mr. Curry about $35, and Mr. White between $30 and $40. The total amount of money possessed that evening by all players is not known. Shortly afterwards, a large black man dressed in shorts, a white shirt, and tennis shoes entered the room from behind Mr. Farrell, tapped him on the shoulder, and stated to each player, "Give me your money," or words to that effect. This individual then went around the table, picked up the money from in front of each player and that in the pot, and left the room, driving off in a black and red car. The individual who took the money was wearing on his right side a small holster from the top of which the brown handle of a pistol projected. One witness stated he was wearing a police badge on the top of the shorts, but two others did not see that. Respondent was recognized by three of the players at the game in question and known by one, Mr. Farrell, to be a policeman at the time of the incident. Mr. Farrell had seen Respondent in the company of another policeman, Sam Marrot, who could not reasonably be confused with the Respondent physically. Respondent did not turn any money in to the police evidence custodian as the result of a gambling raid during the period February 27 through March 3, 1982. Respondent owns and drives a black and red Cutlass automobile. When hired by the police department, he was issued two weapons. Both were 0.38 caliber revolvers. One was nickle-plated with a long barrel. The other had a short barrel and a brown grip. Respondent denies all implications in this matter and attributes the charges to the fact that he participated in raids on Reno's Sport Center, which resulted in finding marijuana three or four times, though he has no idea if any of the witnesses against him here were present at the time of these raids. Respondent was not arrested for this offense, nor were criminal charges ever filed against him, even though the State Attorney conducted an independent investigation into the allegations. He was discharged from the police force when he reported for duty on the Tuesday following the incident because of a "complaint" filed against him, apparently by Mr. Gibson, who owns Reno's and who was told about the incident by Farrell the morning after it happened. Theodore White, employed by Mr. Gibson and B & G Auto Parts, saw Respondent in the parts store the morning after the incident dressed the same way he was at the time of the incident and including the holster. B & G is open two Sundays a month. Three of the individuals present at the incident identified Respondent as the one who took their money. If this were a concocted situation as Respondent claims, it is improbable that the witnesses' stories would be more consistent and rehearsed than they were. Yet, the testimony, while agreeing on the major elements such as the identity of the perpetrator and what he did, differed somewhat on minor elements such as whether his holster showed or whether he had a badge. It is these very differences which reinforce the credibility of the major points. Further, the witnesses' participation in an illegal but small stakes poker game does not diminish their credibility, especially since Respondent offered no evidence to refute, beyond a denial of implication. Consequently, all evidence points to Respondent as the perpetrator of the robbery alleged on February 27, 1982, and I so find.
Recommendation Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order revoking Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida. ENTERED this 1st day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 1st day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lorenzo Williams, Esquire GARY, WILLIAMS AND WALKER 708 North 13th Street Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Mr. Robert R. Dempsey Executive Director Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. G. Patrick Gallagher Director, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On August 6, 1980, the Respondent Gerald B. Natelson, was charged in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, with violating Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, Title 21, USC, by knowingly and willingly, combining, conspiring, confederating and agreeing with others to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, marijuana, methaqualone and hashish, Schedule I and II controlled substances. The Respondent Natelson pled guilty to violating Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, Title 21, USC, as charged in Count I of the Indictment, by knowingly conspiring with others to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. The amount or quantity of marijuana which was involved in the conspiracy set forth in Count I, is not identified in the Indictment, the Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order entered December 22, 1980, or Judge Aronovitz's Order Granting Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, and Granting Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Natelson v. United States, Case No. 82-542 SMA, entered May 10, 1982. The Indictment, at paragraphs 12, 14 and 22, sets forth the Respondent's involvement in the conspiracy, which consisted of meeting in Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on April 1 and 4, 1979, and Phoenix, Arizona, on June 1, 1979, with specifically named co-conspirators. Jose Fanelo, president of Universal Casualty Insurance Company and formerly regional director for the Department of Insurance, and Les Lloyd, regional investigator for the Department of Insurance, established that the Respondent had been a fit and trustworthy insurance agent. Additionally, the Respondent submitted various documents, identified as Respondent's Exhibits 2- 13, which support the opinions expressed by Fanelo and Lloyd that the Respondent is a fit and trustworthy insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance enter a Final Order dismissing its Administrative Complaint against the Respondent Gerald B. Natelson. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 20th day of May, 1983.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Larry J. Gardner (Respondent) was certified by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner), having been issued Correctional Certificate Number 50721 on October 19, 1982. Respondent has been a correctional officer for sixteen and one-half years. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was employed with the Dade Correctional Institution as a Correctional Sergeant. On June 13, 1995, between 1:00 and 1:30 a.m., Respondent met his friend, Richard Brack, at a bar, Jones Galley II (Galley's Bar); Respondent and Brack were going to go out together. Brack was an employee at Galley's Bar and was just getting off work. While waiting for Brack to get off work, Respondent had one drink. Brack left his vehicle at Galley's Bar. Respondent drove his vehicle, with Brack accompanying him, to the Saga Lounge which was about fifteen minutes from Galley's Bar. They were at Saga Lounge for approximately an hour or an hour and a half during which time they had some drinks. Respondent consumed two to three drinks. Between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m., Brack and Respondent left Saga Lounge. They decided to go to the Miccosukee Indian Gaming Hall (Gaming Hall) which was approximately an hour's drive. Respondent drove his vehicle, with Brack accompanying him, to the Gaming Hall. Respondent and Brack arrived at the Gaming Hall between 4:00 and 4:30 a.m. Respondent parked his vehicle in the Gaming Hall's parking lot. He and Brack, as were other patrons of the Gaming Hall, were observed in the parking lot by Gaming Hall's security personnel, using security cameras. Respondent was observed carrying a knife on the side of his belt. Knives were one of several items prohibited in the Gaming Hall. Upon entering the Gaming Hall, Respondent was approached by a security guard who advised Respondent that he would have to leave his knife in the vehicle. Respondent complied with the request, returning to his vehicle and placing the knife on the dashboard of his vehicle. After complying, Respondent entered the Gaming Hall. The Gaming Hall was almost empty. Respondent and Brack went to the lounge area where they conversed with the bartender and a waitress and consumed two to three drinks. At approximately 7:00 a.m., Officer Gustavo Hernandez, a Miccosukee Police Officer who was on duty at the Gaming Hall, requested Respondent and Brack to leave the lounge area so that revenue collection could take place. It is the procedure of the Gaming Hall to request patrons to leave the area, in which revenue collection is performed, during revenue collection. Officer Hernandez was dressed in his police uniform which has on it, among other things, a badge and insignia, indicating Miccosukee Tribe Police Department, and he was also wearing his firearm. Respondent was being vulgar and obnoxious and asked Officer Hernandez, "Who the fuck are you?" Officer Hernandez responded that he was a Miccosukee Police Officer. Respondent did not believe that Officer Hernandez was a police officer but was a security guard. After further discussion regarding leaving the area for revenue collection, Respondent and Brack cooperated and left the area where the revenue collection was being performed; they went to another area of the Gaming Hall. Respondent was loud and boisterous in the area to which he and Brack had gone, disturbing other patrons. Officer Hernandez again approached Respondent and Brack and requested Respondent to lower his voice. Officer Hernandez also advised Brack that probably neither he (Brack) nor Respondent should drive and that he (Officer Hernandez) would get them a taxi. Approximately ten minutes later, Officer Hernandez observed Respondent walking out of the Gaming Hall to the parking lot. Respondent was going to his vehicle. Officer Hernandez followed Respondent, following approximately six feet behind him, and advised Respondent continuously that he (Respondent) appeared to be intoxicated; that a taxi would be gotten for him; and that, if he got into his vehicle, he would be arrested for DUI, driving under the influence of alcohol. Respondent never turned around but continued to his vehicle. When Respondent reached his vehicle, he opened the door, got into the vehicle in the driver's seat, and closed the door. Respondent placed the keys into the ignition and attempted to start the vehicle, but the vehicle would not start. Respondent immediately attempted to start the vehicle again. This time, the vehicle started, and Respondent placed the vehicle in drive and drove away at a high rate of speed. A rapid sequence of events took place from the moment Respondent reached his vehicle to the moment that he drove away. Almost at the same time that Respondent was trying to start the vehicle for a second time, Officer Hernandez reached Respondent's vehicle and informed Respondent that he was under arrest for DUI. At that point in time, Officer Hernandez had placed Respondent under arrest, and Officer Hernandez was attempting to effectuate the arrest. At the time of placing Respondent under arrest, Officer Hernandez did not identify himself as a police officer. Almost simultaneously with Respondent placing the vehicle in drive, Officer Hernandez opened the vehicle's door, but only partially, and reached for the keys in the ignition, reaching as far as the steering column. Almost simultaneously with Respondent driving away, but, immediately before Officer Hernandez opened the door, Respondent had started the vehicle and had placed the vehicle in drive. As Respondent began driving away, the partially open door closed from the forward movement of the vehicle, striking Officer Hernandez's left arm as it was closing.1 The evidence is clear and convincing and a finding is made that at no time did Respondent intend to touch or strike Officer Hernandez or for the door to strike Officer Hernandez. However, the evidence is not clear and convincing and a finding is not made that Officer Hernandez touched Respondent's shoulder and that Respondent, with his hand, pushed Officer Hernandez back when Officer Hernandez reached into the vehicle.2 Respondent admits that he heard Officer Hernandez state that he (Respondent) was under arrest at the same time that he was driving away. Respondent did not stop his vehicle. Officer Hernandez pursued Respondent in his police cruiser but stopped due to safety reasons because of the traffic. There was no evidence that Officer Hernandez used his police siren or lights or called for assistance during the pursuit. Before Officer Hernandez stopped the pursuit, he was able to get Respondent's vehicle tag number which was used to locate Respondent. Respondent was unaware that Officer Hernandez was pursuing him. Respondent was later arrested.3 Respondent was disciplined by his employer for the incident, including the DUI. He received a 30-day suspension which was reduced, due to a settlement agreement with his employer, to a 20-day suspension. Prior to this incident, Respondent had not been disciplined by the Petitioner. After this incident and not associated therewith, on October 15, 1997, the Petitioner issued Respondent a Letter of Acknowledgment for DUI.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order: Dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Larry J. Gardner; or in the alternative Suspending the certification of Larry J. Gardner for 30 days, together with any appropriate terms and conditions, if a determination is made that he committed the offense of resisting arrest without violence. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 19th day of February, 1999.
The Issue Whether Respondent's Registration as a real estate salesman should be revoked for alleged violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), and 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent was not represented by legal counsel at the hearing and, accordingly, he was advised as to his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, including the right to testify as a witness, if he so desired. The Respondent acknowledged understanding of his aforesaid rights and elected to represent himself.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been registered as a real estate salesman since April 17, 1975 (Exhibit 1.) On October 9, 1975, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, upon a plea of guilty, Respondent was convicted of the offense of knowingly and intentionally distributing a controlled substance in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. Respondent was committed to the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative for imprisonment for a period of 18 months, or until otherwise discharged by due process of law, and to serve a special parole term of three years as provided by law (Exhibits 2,3) Respondent was confined in the Federal Prison Camp at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida on November 5, 1975. His confinement, will extend to January 11, 1977, unless sooner paroled (Exhibits 4,5.) Respondent testified at the hearing and admitted that he had made a mistake, but believes that he should not be, subjected to adverse action concerning his registration as a real estate salesman because he will have paid his debt to society after serving his sentence. He stated that he must work when he leaves prison in order to support his two children, that his previous reputation was good and that his offense was an isolated incident brought on by the bad economic situation at the time (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That Respondent's registration as a real estate salesman be revoked pursuant to Section 475.25(2), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Lewis B. Guttmann, III, Esquire Staff Attorney Florida Real Estate Commission 2699 Lee Road Winter Park, Florida 32789 Mr. Ronald R. Eppinger c/o Superintendent E.V. Aiken Eglin Federal Prison Camp P.O. Box 600 Eglin Air Force Base Eglin, Florida 32542
Findings Of Fact Petitioner designs, manufactures, and sells the "Little Casino" video game machine. The machine is designed to enable a player, through the insertion of either one or two quarters, to play one of four games: poker, high-low, blackjack, or craps. The machine contains two switches which enable the owner to control the cost per game, whether 25 cents or 50 cents per game. Upon deposit of the appropriate amount of money, the player of the game receives 10,000 points to play the selected game. If the operator utilizes the entire 10,000 points in less than four hands or rolls, the game is over. If, however, the operator earns or wins 100,000 points by the conclusion of the fourth hand or roll, a free fifth hand or roll is allowed. If the operator earns 200,000 points by the conclusion of the fifth hand or roll, a free sixth hand or roll is allowed. The player of the game is allowed no more than six hands or rolls in the chosen game, regardless of the number of points scored. Depending upon the game option selected, cards or dice appear on the video screen. So far as can be determined from the record in this cause, the dealing of the cards or roll of the dice is entirely determined by the programming of the machine, and the player is wholly unable to control or influence the initial selection of cards or the roll of the dice. Little Casino does not allow free replays, does not accumulate free replays, and makes no permanent record of free replays. The game is not classified by the United States as requiring a federal gambling tax stamp under any applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The machine can be set to eliminate what Respondent considers to be the objectionable fifth and sixth hands.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Knites of Redington, d/b/a Fort Knox Bar (the “Bar”), discriminated against Petitioner, Kevin Murphy (“Murphy”), on the basis of his age or, alternatively, for retaliation, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Murphy is a 56-year-old male. At all times relevant hereto, he was employed as a bartender at the Bar. He had been hired at the Bar initially by its former owners, the Smiths, in approximately March 2009. In December 2009, Bachert purchased the Bar and retained Murphy as an employee. When he purchased the Bar, Bachert formed a corporation, Knites of Redington, Inc., to own the assets. Bachert was listed as the only officer, director, or owner of the corporation. The corporation was formed on December 17, 2009. Murphy was one of several bartenders working at the Bar. Under the prior owners, Murphy was paid $25.00 per shift, plus tips. When Bachert took over, Murphy was paid $40.00 per shift, plus tips. By his own admission, Murphy did not report all of his tips to the Internal Revenue Service. Bachert’s sister, Elizabeth Horton, also worked at the Bar, helping out with accounting services. Apparently, she and Murphy did not get along. Murphy testified that Ms. Horton called Murphy names and said he was “old, fat, and slow.” Murphy also claims that Ms. Horton was a cocaine user, used the Bar’s money as her own, and caused “problems” at the Bar with customers. There was no other competent, substantial evidence presented to support those claims. Some time in February 2011, Bachert became aware that Murphy had an extensive criminal background. Bachert had not done a criminal background check on Murphy because he (Murphy) was already an employee of the Bar when Bachert took over operations. When he found out about Murphy’s background, Bachert placed Murphy on a temporary leave of absence to further investigate Murphy’s past. Bachert expressed a concern that he did not believe persons with criminal backgrounds are allowed to work as bartenders. Murphy said no such prohibition exists. Neither party introduced support for their position. After a couple of weeks, Bachert called Murphy in and told him that “things just aren’t going to work.” Bachert said that because of Murphy’s criminal past, and the fact he was “running sheets” from behind the bar, his employment at the Bar was being terminated. (“Running sheets” refers to the practice of betting on football games, car races, and other events. It was common for such bets to be going on in the Bar, and in fact Bachert took part. The problem was that Murphy was running sheets from behind the bar while on duty, and Bachert had asked him not to do that. Despite that request, Murphy continued to run sheets from behind the bar.) During Murphy’s entire period of employment, he had never heard Bachert make any disparaging or discriminatory remarks about him. The only person who allegedly made such remarks was Ms. Horton. The evidence does not prove that Ms. Horton had any authority over Murphy. At the onset of the corporation, she was not listed as an officer. On the Division of Corporations printout produced by Murphy, however, Ms. Horton is shown as secretary of the corporation. However, that document was dated May 12, 2011, i.e., some three months after Murphy was terminated. Thus, the evidence does not support that Ms. Horton had authority over Murphy at the time she allegedly made disparaging comments. The average age of bartenders and employees at the Bar was about 49 years of age. Murphy refused to testify during his case-in-chief. He reluctantly testified during the Bar’s case-in-chief, but did not, during his testimony, establish any evidence of discriminatory behavior by the Bar or its owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim for relief filed by Petitioner, Kevin Murphy, should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 25th day of January, 2013.
