The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Construction Industry Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent, Ysidro Cid Fernandez, on the basis of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint which the Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, filed against him on November 30, 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ysidro Cid Fernandez, is licensed as a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CC-C029602. The Respondent's license was in effect at all times referred to in these Findings of Fact. On or about March 15, 1986, an employee of Sunshine Solar and Roofing, a roofing company for which the Respondent acted as qualifying agent, entered into a contract with Fred Chambers to re-roof a house Chambers owned at 5871 64th Terrace North, Pinellas Park, Florida. The house was a small house, with not more than 1000 square feet of living area, and the contract was to re-roof the entire house for $600 plus tax ($31.50). The shingles to be used were to be 20-year shingles. The contract also provided: "Install on front F/S [far side] 8' long 5" wide T/G [tongue in groove] board." The Respondent's company did the work in April, 1986. Chambers paid the full amount of the contract, $200 down and the balance on or about May 1, 1986. Despite the re-roof, the roof still leaked where it did before the work was done. When Chambers called for warranty repair work, the Respondent refused until Chambers paid what the Respondent said was the cost of extra work the Respondent claimed Chambers had had the Respondent's workers do. The Respondent first came to the opinion that extra work had been done after he received invoices from his supplier indicating that his employees had ordered 1600 square feet of shingles for the job. The Respondent asserted that the contract called for only the front far side of the roof to be replaced. He bases this interpretation of the contract on the language quoted in the last sentence of Finding 2, above. The Respondent claimed that 1600 square feet was twice as much shingle as would be needed to re-roof half of the existing roof. Regardless whether the Respondent's employees ordered too much shingle for the Chambers job, or where the extra shingle might have gone, if not on the Chambers roof, the contract provided for the entire Chambers roof to be replaced for the contract price. The Respondent was not justified in demanding additional money before doing warranty work. The City of Pinellas Park, Florida, the governmental entity with jurisdiction over the Chambers job, required that a building permit be obtained before commencing the Chambers re-roofing construction. The City of Pinellas Park also required inspections of the Chambers re-roofing job. The Respondent claimed to have timely obtained a building permit for the Chambers job and, in testimony at final hearing, detailed an elaborate story about how he went about getting one. But the Respondent's own evidence, in the form of late-filed Respondent's Exhibit 2, establishes that he did not apply for the building permit until December 17, 1987, after receiving notice through the November 30, 1987, Administrative Complaint in this case, that the Department was charging him with failure to obtain a building permit for the job. Not having obtained a building permit, the Respondent did not call for the required inspections for the job. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent was grossly negligent or incompetent in estimating the cost of the Chambers job. First, the evidence did not prove that the job was seriously underestimated; to the contrary, the evidence tended to show that the Respondent's employees ordered more material than needed for the job. (When this came to the Respondent's attention, he unfairly blamed Chambers for having his employees do extra work not called for by the contract.) Second, the Respondent had nothing to do with the cost estimate on the job. The Respondent's price per square foot of roof area was fixed; he depended on his employees to accurately measure the size of the roof being priced. There is no evidence how the Respondent went about training his employees to measure a roof for purposes of a cost estimate. The Respondent has been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board once before. He received a reprimand in August, 1987, for failure to obtain a building permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for one year and fining the Respondent $2,500. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0570 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): Rejected in part (the Respondent's name is not Thomas L. Jackson); otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part; the evidence did not prove that the roof was unfinished or that the roof was done correctly or that the work was done incorrectly, only that it leaked after the work was done. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven by the evidence. (See 3., above.) Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 13014 North Dale Mabry Suite 315 Tampa, Florida 33618 Ysidro Cid Fernandez 2700 North McDill Avenue Suite 204 Post Office Box 4726 Tampa, Florida 33607 Ysidro Cid Fernandez 8109 Rivershore Drive Tampa, Florida 33604 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
Findings Of Fact The respondent; Dr. Asher S.A. Padeh d/b/a Ladon Apartments, currently operates under license number 23-5073H. The Ladon Apartments is located at 2217 Normandy Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. On September 16, 1985, the petitioner conducted an inspection of the Ladon Apartments. At this time the following conditions were noted: (a) there was no proof that the fire extinguishers had been serviced the tags were missing (b) the clean out plug in the rear of the apartments had been removed to alleviate indoor plumbing problems, and effluent was all around the area (3) a refrigerator was located outside the apartments (4) the state operational license had not been posted. As a result of the inspection, Dr. Padeh was sent a notice which stated, "WARNING Minor and/or major violations in the operation of your establishment must be corrected by 10 days from notice." The notice explained what had to be done to remedy the situation. On October 7, 1985, petitioner conducted a call back inspection of the premises. None of the violations had been corrected. However, there was no evidence presented to show that this inspection occurred after ten days from receipt of the notice. Although Dr. Padeh received the notice sometime in late September or early October, insufficient evidence was presented to find that respondent received it ten days before the inspection of October 7, 1985. On or about November 1; 1985, petitioner issued a Notice to Show Cause which alleged that respondent was in violation of various statutes and rules based on the conditions noted on September 16, 1985, which remained uncorrected on October 7, 1985. An informal hearing was scheduled for November 19, 1985. 1/ On November 9, 1985, Dr. Padeh completed the Request for Hearing form attached to the Notice to Show Cause. Under the statement "Disputed issues of fact", Dr. Padeh referred to the four violations alleged stating, "They have all been corrected since." On November 15, 1985, another inspection of the apartments revealed that the only condition that had been corrected was that the refrigerator had been removed from the premises. On February 17, 1986, petitioner conducted another inspection, due to the impending hearing in this cause, and found that all of the problems had been corrected. Mr. Delgado, the manager of the Ladon apartments, testified that he tried to fix everything as soon as possible after being informed of the violations. He explained that the clean out plug had to be replaced several times because the tenents would remove it everytime it was replaced. As of the date of the hearing, the clean out plug had been permanently affixed. The fire extinguishers always had been properly serviced, but the tags had been removed or had blown away. The tags are now taped on and the extinguishers are protected from the wind. The refrigerator outside the building had been taken out of an apartment, and its door had been removed. The city had been called to pick it up, but it took the city a couple of weeks before they came and removed it. The state license is now posted over the mailboxes. Although Mr. Delgado explained why the problems existed and what he had ultimately done to correct them, there was no evidence presented that would explain or justify respondent's failure to have all the violations corrected prior to the November inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that respondent violated rules 7C-1.02(1), 7C-1.04(l)and 7C-3.0l(l), Florida Administrative Code, and assessing a fine of $200 for each of the violations, for a total amount of $600. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1986.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 760.027, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner is an African-American female. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked full-time as a floor technician (floor tech) at Respondent's nursing home facility. As a floor tech, Petitioner was responsible for dusting, mopping and buffing the floors. At all relevant times, Cheryl Johnson was Respondent's facility administrator. Ms. Johnson has held that position since December 2002. In May 2003, Petitioner asked Ms. Johnson if she could receive her paycheck early. Petitioner was aware that Ms. Johnson had given an early paycheck to a nurse. The record does not reveal the nurse's race. Ms. Johnson refused to give Petitioner the early paycheck. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had made a mistake in giving the nurse an early paycheck. Ms. Johnson stated that she would not violate Respondent's policy against early paychecks again. Petitioner filed a grievance, claiming that Ms. Johnson was not being fair. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Johnson gave an early paycheck to a dietary employee. The dietary employee was an African- American. With regard to early paychecks, there is no evidence that Ms. Johnson ever gave preferential treatment to employees who were not members of a protected group. In October 2003, Sue Goldfarb was Petitioner's supervisor. Ms. Goldfarb criticized Petitioner because Petitioner was spending too much time in the Activities Room. Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed two grievances, claiming that she was being treated unfairly. According to Petitioner, Ms. Goldfarb and a medical records clerk, Pam Brock, did not get into trouble for spending time in the Activities Room. Ms. Johnson explained that Petitioner could assist in the Activities Room, but only after she completed her floor tech duties. There is no evidence that Respondent ever allowed employees to assist in the Activities Room before they completed their regularly assigned duties. Petitioner did not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of Ms. Goldfarb's criticism. At some point in time, Respondent informed all housekeepers, including Petitioner, that their hours were being cut from seven-and-a-half hours per day to six-and-a-half hours per day. Respondent also informed the housekeepers that they would not be eligible for overtime hours. Respondent took these actions because the facility's "census" (number of residents) was low. In February 2004, Ms. Johnson decided to redecorate the Activity Room as a special weekend project. Ms. Johnson requested Gary Brock, Pam Brock's husband and a maintenance man for the facility, to work over the weekend to complete project. Ms. Johnson also requested Ms. Brock to assist with the project because Ms. Brock recently had been short on hours. Thereafter, Petitioner impermissibly reviewed a document on a supervisor's desk. The document indicated that Ms. Brock, the medical records clerk, received three hours of overtime on the weekend of the special project. Petitioner copied the document and returned the original to the supervisor's desk. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not supposed to be looking at documents on the supervisor's desk. In February 2004, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining that Ms. Brock had received overtime. Petitioner thought it was unfair for Ms. Brock, a medical records clerk, to receive overtime hours, while the housekeepers had their hours reduced. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed a grievance that Ms. Goldfarb was not doing her job. After receiving Petitioner's complaint, Ms. Johnson decided to obtain a statement from each housekeeper as to whether they had any concerns regarding Ms. Goldfarb. In March 2004, Ms. Johnson temporarily held all of the housekeepers' paychecks. She requested the housekeepers to visit her office, render their opinions about the housekeeping supervisor, and collect their checks. Petitioner, like all of the housekeepers had to visit Ms. Johnson's office to pick up her paycheck. While she was there, Petitioner signed a statement, indicating that Ms. Goldfarb did not treat her fairly. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining, in part, because Ms. Johnson held the paychecks for the entire housekeeping department. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At the end of March 2004, Petitioner had a confrontation with a co-worker, Robert Goldfarb. Mr. Goldfarb was Sue Goldfarb's husband. The altercation occurred after Mr. Goldfarb walked across a wet floor that Petitioner had just mopped. Mr. Goldfarb had to walk across the wet floor to get to the restroom. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb cursed at each other and engaged in a shouting match. Petitioner filed a grievance about the incident. Respondent did not discipline Petitioner or Mr. Goldfarb for getting into the argument. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb have not had a similar exchange since the March 2004 incident. In September 2004, Petitioner and her supervisor, Ms. Goldfarb, engaged in an argument outside Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Johnson suspended both employees for three days. After an investigation, Ms. Johnson reinstated Petitioner and Ms. Goldfarb and gave them back pay to make them whole. Since September 2004, Petitioner has received pay raises. She has not received any write-ups, reprimands, or any other type of discipline. She has not filed any grievances since September 2004. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Goldfarb was still Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner was serving as Respondent's Chairperson of the Safety Committee, a position of special trust and responsibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 26th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorina Smith 1160 East Mays Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Alvin J. Taylor Delta Health Group 2 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rodney G. Green and Charter Realty, Inc. (petitioners) are both small business parties within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1984). This is not disputed by respondent. They are licensed real estate brokers actively engaged in the real estate business in Oveido, Florida. On February 1, 1985 respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate (Division), filed an administrative complaint against petitioners alleging that they had violated certain provisions within Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, in connection with a real estate transaction that occurred in 1984. After hearing a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on July 3, 1985 dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The Recommended Order was adopted as a Final Order by the Division on August 20, 1985. There is no judicial review of that order. By adopting the Recommended Order, respondent's Final Order sustains petitioners' position that no impropriety or unlawful conduct occurred. The petition for attorney's fees and costs was filed on October 7, 1985 and is therefore timely. With leave of the undersigned an amended petition was later filed on October 25, 1985. Respondent filed its response on November 15, 1985. To defend against the Division's action, petitioners engaged the services of an attorney. According to an affidavit attached to the amended petition; petitioners have incurred $399.50 in costs and $2,287.50 in legal fees. These costs are found to be reasonable since respondent has not filed a counter-affidavit questioning their reasonableness. According to petitioners' affidavit, the disciplinary action in Case NO. 85-0735 was substantially unjustified because of the following reasons: The actions of the state agency in bringing this proceeding and prosecuting it through formal hearing were not substantially justi- fied and under the circumstances it would be just to award attorney's fees and costs to Respondents pursuant to Subsection 57.111, Florida Statutes. Respondent's affidavit responds in the following manner: The Petitioner acted within the scope of its judicatory responsibilities as prescribed in Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, when it initiated and advocated that administrative disciplinary action be taken against the licensees of Respondent's Rodney G. Green and Charter Realty, Inc. In accordance with the pre-existing statutory and regulatory re- quirements, petitioner's actions in this matter conformed to and were consistent with the aforementioned delegated authority. At all times relevant, the Petitioner's acts were "substantially justified" in that there was a reasonable basis in law and fact that the Respondents had violated Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. The administrative complaint in Case NO. 85-0735 generally alleged that petitioners had solicited and obtained a sales contract from certain prospective purchasers of property, that the purchasers had given respondents a $20,000.00 cash deposit to be held in escrow, and that when the transaction did not close petitioners failed to return the deposit to the purchasers until they complained to the Division. The complaint also charges petitioners with having failed to properly place the deposit in their escrow account, and with having failed to notify the Division when conflicting demands for the deposit were made. In an attempt to substantiate the charges, the agency presented the testimony of the principal purchaser and offered into evidence certain documentation concerning the transaction. The charges were ultimately determined to be without merit, and the complaint was dismissed.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact By a three-count Administrative Complaint dated June 7, 2011, the Respondent charged the Petitioner with alleged violations of law related to the sale of certain products. The allegations of the Administrative Complaint were prosecuted in the disciplinary case. A final hearing in the disciplinary case was conducted on January 24 and 25, 2012. On April 18, 2012, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order determining that the products referenced in the Administrative Complaint were unregistered securities and that the Petitioner "violated section 626.611(16) [Florida Statutes,] by selling an unregistered security that was required to be registered pursuant to chapter 517." The Administrative Complaint also charged the Petitioner with additional violations of statute including a "[d]emonstrated lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance," in violation of section 626.611(7). As set forth in the Recommended Order, the ALJ determined that the evidence failed to establish the additional violations. Based on violation of section 626.611(16), the ALJ recommended that the Petitioner's license be suspended for a total of six months, two months for each product sale alleged in the three separate counts of the Administrative Complaint. On July 6, 2012, the Respondent issued a Final Order determining that in addition to the violation of section 626.611(16) found by the ALJ, the Petitioner had also violated section 626.611(7). Despite finding the additional violation, the Respondent adopted the penalty recommended by the ALJ. The Petitioner took an appeal of the Final Order to the District Court of Appeal for the Fifth District. The Court determined that the products sold by the Petitioner were not securities that required registration at the time they were sold by the Petitioner, and, on June 21, 2013, issued an order reversing the Final Order issued by the Respondent. The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner was the prevailing party in the disciplinary case and is a "small business party" as defined by section 57.111(3)(d).
