Findings Of Fact From May 1, 1985, through June 30, 1987, Respondent, John Gonzalez, was a registered general contractor and qualifying agent for Le-Go Developers, Inc., license-number RG-A02757. On his application for qualification of Le-Go Developers, Inc., respondent was required to list his individual address and the address of the business entity. To this end, respondent provided an individual address of 8435 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida, and a business address of Le-Go Developers, Inc., of 9840 S.W. 81st Street, Miami, Florida. On March 25, 1986, Ms. Selma Roberts contracted, through respondent, with Le-Go Developers, Inc., for certain repairs to an apartment complex owned by her, and located at 8415 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida. At the time, respondent was a tenant of Ms. Roberts. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Le-Go Developers, Inc., was to repair an existing dock for $700 and paint the railings in the apartment complex for $400. Ms. Roberts paid Le-Go Developers, Inc., $1,100 in advance for the work. At no time did Ms. Roberts and respondent discuss the need for a building permit to undertake the agreed upon work, and no permit was secured for the project or posted on the job site. The building regulation pertinent to this case provide: PERMITS REQUIRED It shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building structure, or any part thereof. . . without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefor, from the Building official.... EXCEPTION: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following sections, for general maintenance or repairs...the value of which does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) in labor and material as determined by the Building official. Permits, to be issued by the Building Official, shall be required for the following: (a) The erection or construction of any building or structure, the adding to, enlarging, repairing, improving, altering, covering, or extending of any building or structure. Respondent repaired the dock and painted the railings in the apartment house. The work was not, however, apparently to Ms. Roberts' satisfaction and she paid a third party $100 to correct the deficiencies she perceived. While the work may not have satisfied Ms. Roberts, there is no competent proof that respondent did not comply with the terms of the agreement, that the work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, or that the work did not conform to existing building codes. At some point during the spring of 1987, respondent moved from the apartment at 8415 Crespi Boulevard to a new residence, and permitted his license to lapse. Respondent did not notify petitioner of his new residence address until he applied to reinstate his license in April 1988, as discussed infra. The petitioner's records demonstrate that respondent's license was on a delinquent status for non-renewal from July 1, 1987, until his application to change the status of his license and reinstate his license was approved May 23, 1988. In his application, dated April 4, 1988, respondent listed his residence address as 8440 Byron Avenue, Miami, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a reprimand and administrative fine in the sum of $250 against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. 2 & 4. Addressed in paragraph 4. 3. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 1. 5-7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 8-9. Addressed in paragraph 5 and paragraph 2 of the Conclusions of Law. 10. Addressed in paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. John Gonzalez 8440 Byron Avenue, #1 Miami, Florida 33167 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether there is probable cause for petitioner to bring an action against respondents for violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act?
Findings Of Fact About seven o clock on the morning of May 23, 1983, Michael S. Boyden telephoned the Pensacola offices of Shear Concrete Products, Inc. (Shear Concrete), and asked that 20 cubic yards of concrete be delivered to a construction site at 438 Creary Street. Under construction there was the house Mr. Boyden was building for himself and his family. (He has since finished it and moved in.) During the first conversation, somebody told him the concrete would arrive at half past ten. At eleven, with no concrete in sight, Mr. Boyden again telephoned; Danny Woods or Terry Knowles told him the concrete was on the way. In fact, it was at least five minutes before one before the first Shear Concrete truck was loaded, and this truck reached the site about two in the afternoon. Thirty-five or forty minutes later, the first truck had been emptied of concrete. The second Shear Concrete truck was loaded at quarter past one, but reached the construction site within minutes of the time the first arrived. Mr. Boyden, a concrete finisher and three other men he had hired were all present at the time the second truck arrived. At the finisher's direction, water was added to the concrete in the second truck; and its contents were also eventually emptied, wheelbarrow by wheelbarrow. By half past three, it was clear that a greater quantity of concrete would be needed; but it was evening before the finisher, Caesar Johnson, told Mr. Boyden that the concrete from the second truck was not setting up properly. Once cement, sand, water and gravel are mixed in a concrete mixer, a reaction begins that runs its course regardless of whether the mixture is poured in time. (The time this reaction takes depends on, among other things, how hot the day is.) If mixing is still going on when the concrete "gets hot," the elements of the mixture do not cohere and the batch is no longer useful as concrete. Adding water retards the reaction to the extent it acts as a cooling agent, but it does not reverse the process. By the time the mixture was poured into the Boydens' foundation, it was no longer suitable for its intended use. The other concrete had hardened by the next day, but concrete from the second truck, the one driven by Ronald Lane Thompson, was soft and friable. Mr. and Mrs. Boyden incurred expense in removing the miscongealed concrete. They ordered and received a replacement load on May 31, 1983, which was satisfactory. They have never paid for this load, even though Shear Concrete has billed them and given them a "notice to owner" in an effort to preserve its rights under the mechanics' lien law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been considered and adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, conclusive or subordinate.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered building contractor. The Respondent held license number RB 0047309. In June of 1983, the Respondent, doing business as Gamble's Construction Company, contracted with James B. Sampson, Jr., to construct an open steel shelter on Mr. Sampson's property, the Bull Frog Dairy Farm. The contract called for the payment of $42,052.00 for the construction of the shelter. The shelter measures 108 feet by 150 feet. The shelter consists generally of a tin roof sitting on columns. The sides of the shelter are open. The shelter was to be, and is, used as a feed barn for dairy cows. The Respondent purchased the shelter to be constructed on Mr. Sampson's property from Steel Concepts, a steel manufacturing company in Sparks, Georgia. The Respondent had purchased steel structures from Steel Concepts for several years prior to 1983. The Respondent had not, however, purchased or erected a steel structure of the size and design of the shelter to be erected on Mr. Sampson's property. The steel structure purchased by the Respondent for erection on Mr. Sampson's property was designed by Donald Gibbs, then President of Steel Concepts. Mr. Gibbs was not licensed or trained as an engineer, an architect or a contractor. Mr. Gibbs' design of the steel structure purchased by the Respondent for erection on Mr. Sampson's property was never reviewed by a licensed engineer. The Respondent made no effort to ensure that the design of the steel structure purchased for erection on Mr. Sampson's property had been approved by a licensed engineer. Construction of the shelter began in August, 1983, and was completed in September, 1983. The Respondent first designed and constructed the foundation for the shelter. The foundation consisted of a series of concrete-block piers. The concrete-block piers rested on concrete footers (concrete under the ground). The shelter included twenty-eight vertical columns which were each to be attached to one of the concrete block piers by four nuts and anchor bolts. The anchor bolts were embedded into the piers. The Respondent supervised and assisted several employees in constructing the foundation and erecting the steel structure. The Respondent used all the materials furnished to him by Steel Concepts for the shelter. Although cross bracing was provided for, and attached to, the roof of the shelter, no cross-bracing was provided for use in bracing the columns. Holes for the attachment of cross bracing of the vertical columns were provided in the columns. The Respondent should have known that cross-bracing of the vertical columns was necessary. Therefore, the Respondent should have questioned Steel Concepts about the lack of such bracing or the Respondent should have added cross-bracing on the columns. On January 22, 1987, a wind and rain storm struck the Bull Frog Dairy Farm. The next morning, Mr. Sampson discovered that the shelter erected by the Respondent was listing to the east. The structure was approximately twelve to twenty degrees off vertical. Mr. Sampson arranged for emergency repairs to prevent the shelter from collapsing. The Respondent did not make the emergency repairs because it was Friday and the Respondent had released his employees. The Respondent personally helped, however, with the emergency repairs. The damage caused to the shelter by the storm was caused by the lack of cross-bracing on the columns and the failure to properly tighten approximately one-half of the nuts to the anchor bolts connecting the columns to the piers. The Respondent should have insured that the nuts were properly tightened on the anchor bolts holding the columns to the piers. The Respondent's failure to properly supervise the tightening of the anchor bolts constituted a failure to meet acceptable industry standards of supervision. The Respondent's erection of the shelter was not within acceptable industry standards. The Respondent's failure to insure that cross-bracing was provided or to ask Steel Concepts why no bracing was provided, and the Respondent's failure to insure that all the nuts were properly tightened constituted incompetency. Although there had been erosion of the soil around the shelter, the erosion did not contribute to the damage to the shelter. The possibility of erosion should have been taken into account by the Respondent before constructing the footers and piers. This is the first complaint ever filed against the Respondent. The Respondent attempted to resolve the matter with Mr. Sampson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding that the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department impose a fine of $1,500.00 on the Respondent payable within thirty (30) days from the date of the final order in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5391 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order has been granted and no consideration has been given to the Respondent's proposed recommended order. It has been noted below which of the Department's proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those findings of fact proposed by the Department which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 2 2 and 4. 3 11. 4 5-8. 5 10, 12-13 and 15-16. 6 17-19. 7-10 See 16, 20 and 22-23. These proposed findings of fact are pertinent in determining the weight to be given to the testimony of various witnesses or recite opinions of those witnesses. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 J. Victor Africano, Esquire Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Fred Seely Executive Director Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license Number CG C017772. On April 13, 1986, the Respondent, Richard T. Warnky, entered into a written contract with Jackson S. and Muriel Boyer to construct a home for them on Block 1244, Lots 7 and 8, Unit 19, Cape Coral, Florida, otherwise known as 2414 S.E. 28th Street for a contract price of $95,295.00. The Boyers gave Respondent a $550.00 down payment prior to signing the contract and at the time of signing, gave him an additional 10 percent of the contract price, or $9,529.50. The contract called for the payment of an additional 10 percent at commencement of construction and this payment was made at ground breaking. When the plumbing was roughed in and the slab poured, according to the contract, the Boyers paid Respondent an additional 10 percent and an additional 20 percent, or $19.059.00 when the masonry work was completed and the lintel poured. The contract called for three additional payments of 20 percent and two 15 percent payments, but for reasons subsequently to be discussed, none of these three payments was made. The contract called for the house to be completed in eight months, (240 days). According to Mr. Boyer, the Respondent left town for 8 weeks as soon as he had been paid the first 10 percent payment. Respondent claims that he was out of town for one week during which time he took ill and was physically unable to begin construction for an additional seven weeks. He also contends that he did not want construction to start without his being there to supervise it. Respondent's version of this situation is accepted. From the beginning of construction, Mr. and Mrs. Boyer had questions concerning the quality of the work being done When the slab was poured, it had holes in it and showed hills and valleys. Nonetheless, it passed inspection by the building inspector and the block work started. Pictures taken by Mr. Gogel, the licensing inspector for the City of Cape Coral at the request of Mr. Davenport, the building official, in July, 1986, reflect numerous deficiencies in the construction. They show large gaps in the vertical block joints; a lateral deflection in the tie beam poured at the top of the top course of blocks; blow out of the frame for the tie beam resulting in concrete running down the block walls; displacement of the tie beam which shows bulges and deformities; loose mortar in joints of the fifth course of blocks from the bottom; voids in joints; severe slippage in the top of the tie beam resulting in a reduction of the top; honeycombing of the concrete in the tie beam with rough attempts shown to patch it; slippage and deflection of the tie beam; and similar defects shown in the 14 pictures making up Petitioner's Exhibit 4 as well as the 15 additional pictures taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport which were introduced as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6. On August 5, 1986, after Mr. Davenport and Mr. Gogel had visited the construction site at the request of Mr. Boyer, Mr. Davenport wrote Respondent a letter in which he discussed various items of workmanship on the property which needed Respondent's attention. In his letter, Mr. Davenport referred to the provisions of the American Concrete Institute Standards and the standards of the City of Cape Coral. He specifically pointed out that as to joints between cinder blocks, the joint should be not less than one quarter inch nor more than five eighths inch wide. His inspection indicated many of the masonry joints exceeded five eighths of an inch because the blocks were cut with a hammer rather than a block saw and in some cases, poured concrete extruded beyond the surface of the block. Mr. Davenport further addressed additional items which, he indicated, would require attention by the contractor in order for the work to meet the standards of acceptability for good residential construction in the City of Cape Coral. These included: waviness or blow out of sections of the tie beam; extrusion of concrete at the blow out patches; proper preparation of the cinder block walls for the receiving of stucco surface; honeycomb portions of the tie beam; and shimming and re-nailing of furring strips on the interior walls which had bent to follow the warped inner curve of the tie beam. These word descriptions are of the same defects shown in the photographs mentioned above. When Respondent reached that point in the construction where he felt an additional draw payment was called for, he requested it of the Boyers, but because of their dissatisfaction with the quality of the work he had done, they refused to make such payment. Mr. Warnky thereafter contacted his attorney who advised the Boyers by letter dated January 26, 1987, that their continued refusal to make draw payments as required by the contract, would jeopardize completion of the construction. No further payments have been made by the Boyers, however, since they consider the workmanship to be substandard and Mr. Warnky has done no further work on the project. The Boyers have had the work finished by another contractor at considerable additional expense. It should be noted, however, that the work done by the Respondent was passed by the building inspectors for the City of Cape Coral who did not indicate that it was below the cited code standards. Respondent is charged with gross negligence as a result of his failure to properly supervise the laying of the block walls with a resultant defect in the tie beam attached thereto. He admits that he was not present for approximately five to seven days during the ten days to two weeks that it took to lay the block on this project. Both Mr. and Mrs. Boyer contend that Respondent was not present at any time during the laying of the blocks by his employee, Mr. Sweebe. Since Mr. Boyer admits that he was not present at all times on all days that the blocks were being laid, it is impossible for him to indicate with any certainty that Respondent was never present. At best, the evidence shows that on those days when Mr. or Mrs. Boyer were present, Respondent was not present for the laying of the blocks. Based on his visit to the site and his observation of the workmanship, Mr. Davenport concluded that it was not of good quality. The materials used appeared to be suitable, but the application of the materials did not meet the criteria of the Southern Standard Building Code. These conditions are reparable, however, and it appears that Respondent did make efforts to repair some of the defects pointed out. For example, photographs taken on November 5, show an attempted "repair" of a honeycomb patch on the tie beam as does the November 19 photo. This latter picture, however, also shows that the tie beam is out of plumb and that furring strips were shimmed and covered with new furring in an attempt to comply with Mr. Davenport's letter of August 5. Further, this photo showing the waviness on a part of the tie beam indicates some grinding down in an attempt to bring it within standards. Notwithstanding, in Mr. Davenport's opinion, the workmanship by Respondent is below what is normally seen in the industry in Southwest Florida as it pertains to block masonry. These sentiments were reiterated by Mr. Verse, a certified general contractor in Sarasota for 13 years. Mr. Verse evaluated the various photographs taken by Mr. Gogel and Mr. Davenport and compared the work done by the Respondent as depicted on the pictures, against the accepted standards utilized by the building trade in Florida. He concluded that Respondent's work was not acceptable. He agreed with Mr. Davenport as to the deficiency in the joints, in the support of the tie beam, of the forming of the tie beam, and as to all masonry and concrete work. The negligence involved here was in letting this type of work go on when it was not up to code. A prudent general contractor would have stopped any subcontractor when he saw this type of work being done. If Respondent was not present to do so, then he failed to properly supervise. If he was present and allowed this substandard work to continue, he was grossly negligent. Mr. Verse rejects Respondent's excuse for washed out mortar joints, attributing them to rain, as unsatisfactory and unacceptable because a careful contractor will generally cover his work with a plastic sheet in the event rain is imminent. Respondent states that in his years as a contractor, he has never seen this done. Neither did Mr. Mahlmeister. In any case, a prudent contractor would make some provision to protect his work against any outside factor which might reasonably tend to threaten it. Respondent's failure to do so does not excuse the result. The honeycombing and bulging of the tie beam could occur from either improperly formed concrete or properly formed concrete which was improperly vibrated. Based on his examination of the photographs, Mr. Verse concluded it was probably improperly formed. Supports for the forming were not used. Had they been, they would have prevented the bulges that are seen. Even if the form work was properly braced and formed, if the concrete in the tie beams was improperly poured, the tie beam could bulge out at the bottom. Mr. Dililch, the individual who poured the concrete for Mr. Warnky, indicated that the procedure was accomplished at the very hottest part of the day in the hottest part of the year, which caused the concrete to dry out too rapidly and necessitated adding additional water to the mixture in order to keep it pourable throughout the process. Mr. Dililch indicates that though those abnormal steps were necessary, nonetheless, the concrete was poured in one session without any necessity to layer it. There appear to be no joints in the beam, the major defects being the honeycombing and bulging. Mr. Dililch recognizes there were blow outs where the concrete oozed out from under the framing, but contends that these are relatively common and occur on many different jobs by different contractors. Numerous factors could cause a blow out including loose braces, loose clamps, and things of that nature. Prior to pouring the concrete here, Mr. Dililch examined the form carefully and was satisfied it met standards and was safe. Nonetheless, the tie beam contained several examples of honeycombing. Blow outs are difficult to see before the concrete is formed. Older rental clamps quite often come loose and the looseness shows up only when the concrete is poured into the form generating the stress which forces the "mud" out through the joint. On every house he has worked on, there has been at least one blowout. It is, in his opinion, a common occurrence. His self-serving testimony is of little probative value here. The forming for the tie beam was inspected by Mr. Mahlmeister before the beam was poured and determined to be safe. Mr. Verse was shown pictures of work accomplished by other contractors which show similar defects to those attributed here to the Respondent and he admits that other contractors do, from time to time, substandard work. However, based on the opportunity he had to examine Respondent's work in this instance, the Respondent's performance showed defects throughout the entire project, not merely in isolated instances. The deficiencies in Respondent's work are broad based and wide spread. While all contractors make mistakes, the number of Respondent's mistakes take his performance beyond the realm of accident and indicate substandard work in general. Respondent is a small-contractor who does most of the work on his projects by himself and supervises the rest. It is his practice to be present on the construction scene every day but in this case, he admits he was not present all of every day. He has been a contractor in Florida for seven years, building approximately two houses per year. Prior to coming to Florida, he was a builder up north. He takes a great deal of pride in his work and has had very few complaints concerning the quality of his construction. In fact, he got the Boyer job because he had built a house for the Boyer's daughter who was happy with the quality of his construction. He believes his work is equal to the standards of most Cape Coral builders. Respondent admits that he makes mistakes, but he strongly contends that none of the deficiencies here were serious or would make the house unsafe. With all the complaints against it, the tie beam poured under Respondent's supervision, was never changed or altered. Most of the defects cited were cosmetic in nature and would have been corrected by him when the house was stuccoed. Respondent has been disciplined by the Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, previously, in 1984, when he was fined $250.00. It would appear that action was based on similar grounds to those in the instant action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor be suspended for six months, that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00, and that he be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1718 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. BY THE PETITIONER Petitioner failed to number Findings of Fact submitted and included them in a section entitled FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. However, as best as can be determined: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Rejected as a restatement of testimony. Accepted. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. Accepted as evidence of prior disciplinary action. BY THE RESPONDENT None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Sims, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard T. Warnky 4924 S. W. 11th Court Cape Coral, Florida 33904 Fred Seely, Executive Director DPR, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Did Respondent, Commercial Concrete Systems, LLC (Commercial Concrete), discriminate against Petitioner, Bernard Maybin, because of his race or color?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Maybin was an employee of Commercial Concrete in 2019. Mr. Maybin is a dark-skinned African-American. In 2019, Commercial Concrete reprimanded Mr. Maybin for tardiness and absenteeism on January 18, April 15, and August 16, 2019. On November 8, 2019, Commercial Concrete terminated Mr. Maybin for being absent all of the preceding 30 days. This was consistent with its policy of terminating employees who were absent for thirty days without communicating with the company. During at least some of the days that he was absent, Mr. Maybin was recovering from an automobile accident. He advised Commercial Concrete of the accident. But he did not advise it which days he would be unable to work due to the accident or request leave. He also did not communicate with Commercial Concrete during the period of absenteeism, beyond advising it of the accident when it first occurred. There is no evidence that any non-African-Americans or light-skinned employees with attendance failings similar to Mr. Maybin's were treated differently than him. There is no evidence of statements by any manager or other employee of Commercial Concrete alluding to Mr. Maybin's race or color. There is no evidence that non-African-American or light-skinned employees were paid more than Mr. Maybin or received vacation pay that he did not, although his petition makes that allegation. When Commercial Concrete discharged Mr. Maybin, it was not aware that he had filed a complaint of discrimination with the Commission.
Recommendation Based on the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief of Petitioner Bernard Maybin. 2 Federal case law dealing with Title VII applies when interpreting chapter 760. School Bd. of Leon Cty. v. Hargis, 400 So. 2d 103, 108 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day February, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Peter Shoup Commercial Concrete Systems, LLC 6220 Taylor Road, Suite 101 Naples, Florida 34109 Bernard Maybin 290 Lowell Avenue North Fort Myers, Florida 33917 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is a state agency charged with the responsibility, inter alia, of regulating the practice of contracting and, pertinent to this case, prosecuting administrative complaints for the unlicensed practice of contracting, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Edward Irons, is not now, nor was he ever, licensed by the Department to engage in the business or profession of contracting in the State of Florida. Irons Contracting For some time prior to August 1992, Respondent's brother, Gerry Irons, was engaged in the business of contracting in the State of New York. At the time, Gerry Irons was licensed by the State of New York as a contractor, and did business as Irons Contracting. Respondent was not present in New York State during that period, and had no interest or involvement with his brother's business. Following the landfall of Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, and the opportunities it presented to the construction industry, Gerry Irons relocated to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. There he engaged in construction related activities under the name Irons Contracting, and, when joined by Respondent as discussed infra, he was engaged by Tank Mangoya, a licensed contractor, to assist in the repair of residential damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. At no time was Gerry Irons or Irons Contracting licensed or certified as a contractor by the State of Florida. The Respondent and his involvement with Irons Contracting Respondent, Edward Irons, was born December 13, 1948, and completed his formal education with graduation from high school. His training and experience post-high school, to the extent it appears of record, was shown to include boat repair (painting and varnishing), but not construction related activities (until his employment by his brother, discussed infra, in or about August 1993). At the time of hearing, Respondent was engaged in reconditioning (washing, waxing, and buffing) automobiles. Personally, Respondent presents as a well, if soft- spoken gentleman, who is pleasant, candid, and credible. At or about the time Gerry Irons relocated to southeast Florida, Respondent was residing in Venezuela with his family, aboard his boat, and had so resided for approximately one year. Previously, Respondent and his family had resided in the Bahamas for approximately five years. In or about August 1993, about a year after Hurricane Andrew struck southeast Florida, the Irons family began their return voyage to the United States. At some point during the voyage they encountered a storm, which severely damaged their boat. Fortunately, Respondent was able to run the boat aground on an island; however, the boat, as well as the family's possessions, were lost. Lacking insurance, Respondent's family was rendered homeless, and without any means of support. Responding to his brother's call, Gerry Irons offered the family accommodations at his home, and sent them money and airplane tickets for their return. Upon their return, Respondent's family resided with Gerry Irons for about six months, after which they relocated to South Carolina. In the interim, Gerry Irons employed Respondent to work in his business (Irons Contracting). At the time of Respondent's initial employment, Gerry Irons was engaged by Tank Mangoya, a licensed contractor, to assist him in repairing residential damage suffered by Hurricane Andrew. Under his arrangement with Mangoya, Gerry Irons included Respondent's time in his billings to Mangoya. Mangoya would pay the bill submitted by Gerry Irons, and Gerry Irons would pay Respondent for his labors. Toward the end of 1993, Mangoya laid-off Gerry Irons and, consequently, Respondent. At the time, or immediately prior, Irons Contracting had been working under Mangoya repairing a home for the Chasner family in southwest Dade County. The Chasner family was apparently satisfied with the work performed because when asked by a neighbor, Ms. Sally Stern, they recommended Irons Contracting. At the time, Ms. Stern was renting a home in the neighborhood, having been displaced from her residence at 10452 Southwest 114th Street, Miami, Florida, because of damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. Apparently, she had employed a number of contractors to work on the home, and at the time she approached the Irons was dissatisfied with the progress made by the current contractor. Following discussions with Ms. Stern, Gerry Irons, who was no longer employed by or working under a licensed contractor (Mongoya), approached a friend of his, Terry Klob, a licensed contractor. While not privy to the entire conversation, it was Respondent's impression that Mr. Klob agreed to be the contractor on the job and Gerry Irons (Irons Contracting) would do the actual work.1 Subsequently, Gerry Irons met with Ms. Stern to inspect the property and negotiate the scope of work to be performed, and then prepared a proposal for the repair of Ms. Stern's home at 10452 Southwest 114th Street, Miami, Florida. The proposal named Irons Contracting as the contractor, and the proposed contract price was $118,093.75. On December 29, 1993, Gerry Irons and the Respondent met with Ms. Stern, and she acknowledged her acceptance of the proposal by affixing her signature to the agreement. Signing on behalf of Irons Contracting were Gerry Irons and the Respondent. Notably, it was not customary for the Respondent to sign documents on behalf of Irons Contracting; however, in this instance, Gerry Irons prepared the contract to include Respondent as a signatory to assure Ms. Stern, who had apparently developed a sympathetic concern for Respondent's loss, that he would be employed to work on her house. At no time was Ms. Stern led to believe, nor did she ever believe, that Respondent was a licensed contractor. Rather, it was always her understanding that Gerry Irons was the licensed contractor. Not only was it not customary for Respondent to sign on behalf of Irons Contracting, it had never occurred before and never occurred again. Notably, Irons Contracting was Gerry Irons' business, and he exercised primary control over its operations. Gerry Irons operated the business from his home; owned all the tools and other equipment used in the business; conducted all negotiations with Irons Contracting customers or potential customers; signed contracts, proposals, correspondent, and all other documents on behalf of Irons Contracting; and paid the bills or debts of Iron Contracting, including Respondent's pay, by check.2 Respondent's association with Irons Contracting was strictly as an employee,3 who was paid on an hourly basis for the work he did on Irons Contracting jobs. On an average week, Respondent would usually earn approximately $400. During part of the period following the signing of the contract and April or May 1994 when work ceased,4 Respondent worked as a day laborer on Ms. Stern's house,5 as well as other Irons Contracting projects. During that period, Ms. Stern made payments totaling $35,000. Each payment was by check payable to Irons Contracting, and each check was endorsed by Gerry Irons. Respondent, apart from being compensated for his daily labors, did not share in any of the proceeds Gerry Irons received from Ms. Stern. The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, Petitioner offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, as of April 23, 1998, totaled $663.88. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order: Finding the Respondent guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent not guilty of Counts III through VIII of the Administrative Complaint; Imposing an administrative penalty of $300.00; and Requiring, pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, that the Respondent pay Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $663.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's operation of an overweight truck over the low-limit bridge involved herein is a violation and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutes involving commercial carrier and truck vehicle weights on covered vehicles operated on the streets and highways of this state. It does so through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to conduct random safety and compliance inspections of commercial vehicles being operated in this state. The parties agree that on August 8, 1991, Respondent, P.J. Constructors, Inc. was prime contractor to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation for the removal and replacement of a highway bridge over the Florida Turnpike where it intersects with Hood Road in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. At the time in issue, Respondent was operating a 1981 MAC tractor trailer low boy on which it was transporting a piece of heavy construction equipment. At the time in issue, Officer Neff stopped the vehicle for crossing over this bridge which was clearly posted as having a maximum weight limit for tractor trailers of 15 tons, (30,000 pounds). Following standard Department weighing procedures measuring weight at each axle and combining those weights to arrive at a total, and using portable Department scales which are calibrated every 6 months for accuracy, Officer Neff determined the vehicle weight at 54,800 pounds. This was 24,800 pounds over the legal weight and resulted in a penalty assessment of $1,240.00 at 5 per pound of overweight. The approaches to this bridge were clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this type vehicle was 15 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge to give a driver ample notice of the restrictions and ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route over roads situated between the signs and the bridge. In addition to the signs, however, earlier the same day, as warnings were issued to users of the bridge who were going to a construction site on the other side, Respondent's driver was specifically told of the bridge's low limits and advised of an alternate route to avoid it. Admittedly, the alternate routes would be longer than the route over the bridge, but no evidence as presented by either party as to how much the difference was. Respondent's General Manager, Mr. McAllester, claims the signs were not in position on the two occasions he visited the site during the bid process in February or March, 1991. He cannot say that he knew where the signs might have been located (away from the site), but avers only that he did not see any. However, officer Neff specifically checked to see that the signs were in place before issuing the citation on August 8, 1991 and it is, therefore, found that the signs were properly in place on that date. Mr. McAllester also urges in the alternative, however, that even if the signs were in place, as contractor on the bridge replacement project, the terms of the bid specifications, which directs contractors from operating equipment in excess of the maximum weights set out by law, exempts the contractor where the existing road or bridge is to be removed as a part of the work included in the project. The bridge in issue here was removed and replaced as a part of the project on which Respondent was contractor and the current bridge has no limit. Mr. McAllester admits that when the instant citation was issued, Respondent had no special permit to cross the bridge with an excess load. Once the citation was issued, however, Respondent quickly retained an engineer to do a structural analysis of the bridge in issue. Based on that analysis, Respondent thereafter sought and obtained permission to cross the bridge with an overload provided all other traffic was stopped on Hood Road while the excessively laden vehicle was on the bridge so it would be the only vehicle thereon at the time, and provided that vehicle kept to the center of the road while on the bridge. Subsequent to the citation and before the permit was issued, Respondent did not operate any excessively laden vehicles on the bridge. Respondent admits that at the time the citation was issued, there was traffic operating both on the Turnpike and on Hood Road. Therefore, a potential danger to the public existed. Nonetheless, traffic was maintained on both roadways throughout the entire project without incident. None of the weight limits or a need to maintain weight standards was discussed at the pre-bid conference, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a civil fine in the amount of $1,240.00 against the Respondent. P.J. Constructors, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Foster McAllester Vice President and General Manager P.J. Constructors, Inc. 4100 S.W. 70th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Ben G.Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel ]Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 1979, the petitioner forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings a request for a formal hearing in the instant case. On January 7, 1980, the hearing was scheduled for February 28, 1980 in Bradenton, Florida. The Notice of Hearing which was mailed to the Respondent at the address furnished the Petitioner was returned undelivered with no forwarding address. Attempts to locate the Respondent proved unsuccessful until June 5, 1981, at which time an investigator from the Board located the Respondent working as a foreman on a construction site in Clearwater, Florida, and served him with a copy of the Notice of Hearing. On April 15, 1978, the Respondent entered into a contract with Mollie Cooper to construct a 12' x 31' room addition including a family room, bedroom and bath, onto an existing residence. The contract price was $11,340.00. An initial payment of $5,670.00 was made on April 17, 1978 by Ms. Cooper to the Respondent's construction company, Southern Cross. In the contract, the Respondent agreed to complete the working drawings for the addition and to obtain building permits. The Respondent obtained a building permit for the project from the City of Bradenton, Department of Planning and Development on May 17, 1978. The Respondent began working on the addition in May of 1978. On May 30, 1978 workmen poured the slab for the addition. When Ms. Cooper awoke on June 4, 1978, she discovered approximately four inches of water in her house which was caused by the slab being poured at the wrong angle. Later that day, a workman arrived at Ms. Cooper's home and removed the ends of the roof including fascia and guttering. Nothing further occurred until June 29, 1978 when the Respondent delivered concrete blocks to Ms. Cooper's home. Ms. Cooper never spoke to the Respondent after June 29, 1978, but her lawyer did contact the Respondent's attorney regarding problems which she was having with the Respondent's work. The job was never finished by the Respondent and Ms. Cooper was required to spend approximately $1,500.00 to repair her home. The Respondent holds active registered contractors license No. RR 0012951. The City of Bradenton has no local licensing board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor be revoked and an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
