Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner, Department, was the state agency responsible for the regulation of Adult Congregate Living Facilities, (ACLF), in Florida, and Respondent operated an ACLF, Palmetto Guest Home, at 820 5th Street West, Bradenton, Florida. On March 28, 1980, Ms. Alice P. Adler, and Ms. Mary C. Cook, both surveyors for the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification, did a routine survey of the Respondent's facility for compliance with the requirements of Chapter 10A-5, F.A.C., and Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. As a result of their survey they discovered several discrepancies which required correction. The eight pertinent to this hearing were: The facility did not have written accounting procedure that clearly outlined the operation of the business, including resident trust funds and other property. (Sec.400.417(1) and 400.427, Florida Statutes). Several resident contracts did not reflect the current rate being paid for care. (Section 400.402(10) and 400.424, Florida Statutes). There were no assurances that staff were free of infection or communicable diseases, (Rule 10A-5.019(5), F.A.C.). All centrally stored medications were not kept in a locked cabinet, in that medications were observed placed on top of the north wing medicine cabinet. (10A- 5.0182(3)(a), F.A.C.) Residents who were prescribed therapeutic diets by their physician were not served these diets as ordered. (10A- 5.020(1), F.A.C.). Various violations of the Food Service Code were identified. (10D-13, F.A.C.) Each resident record did not contain a report of physical examination to assure that the resident was free of communicable or infectious disease. (Sec. 400.426, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A- 5.0181(2)(a), F.A.C.) The facility did not provide the resident or guardian with an admission package upon admission. Sec. 400.426(4)(5), Florida Statutes and Rules 10A-5.0181(1)(a)(c) and 10A-5.024(2)(c), F.A.C.). As was normal practice, on the day of the survey, prior to departure, the team went over its findings with Ms. Miller, the Executive Director of the facility and Ms. Brown, the Administrator, pointed out each discrepancy, and advised as to what was needed to bring the discrepancy into compliance. Thereafter, a copy of the written survey report, with the classification of deficiencies, was sent to the facility and on May 8, 1989, Ms. Brown acknowledged receipt of the survey report form. A follow-up survey was conducted by both Ms. Adler and Ms. Cook on June 5, 1989. At that time, several previously identified discrepancies had been corrected, but those listed above in Paragraph 2 were still not corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order herein imposing an Administrative Fine of $250.00 for each of the eight violations established for a total fine of $2,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire DHRS Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 James D. Biggins Palmetto Guest House 820 5th Street West Palmetto, Florida 34221 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-00700 John Miller General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, HRS had jurisdiction over Respondent, which lawfully operates Hillhaven Convalescent Center, a nursing home facility in Sarasota, Florida. At all times pertinent hereto, the patient census at Hillhaven Convalescent Center exceeded 61. During the period July 13 through 15, 1982, an inspector employed by HRS conducted a survey of Respondent's facility. Among several deficiencies found, all of but one of which were corrected, was one indicating that the duties of the individual hired by Respondent as food services supervisor regularly included food preparation. The individual in question spent 24 hours of a 40 hour workweek as a full time cook. This deficiency was noted on the inspection report and brought to the attention of the provider's representative. A follow-up inspection of the facility was conducted by HRS representatives on February 15 through 17, 1983, at which time it was noted that the prior noticed deficiency had not been corrected. Though the number of hours the food services supervisor cooked had been reduced to 16 per 40 hour workweek, inspectors concluded this was still unsatisfactory and again cited the facility in the report for this as well as other deficiencies in the social services area. In a follow-up inspection on April 7, 1983, the inspector again found that the dietary services supervisor was acting as a cook for 16 or more hours per week. This deficiency was in addition to the continuing social services deficiencies which Respondent admits also continued. Hardy C. Kinney, a nutrition specialist with HRS and one of the individuals involved in the development of the agency's rules regarding food service which are allegedly violated here, indicated that as long as approximately six years ago, a committee was formulated within HRS to develop rules in the area of institutional food services such as here. The committee's concerns were to insure that the food service supervisor be a well trained individual whose job would be to consider the therapeutic nutritional needs of the patients--not to prepare and serve food. It was the feeling of the committee members, garnered from observations of other facilities where the supervisor does both, that when the food service supervisor is cooking and serving, he or she does not have the time to devote to proper patient care. There is a close relationship between food and diet and the welfare of the patient. When a patient is admitted to the facility, the physician writes that patient's nutritional orders. There is some variance permitted for taste and texture changes in the diet to make the food more interesting to the patient. Experience has shown that when the food is more interesting and attractive, the patient takes it better and thereby benefits from eating. As a result, the supervisor needs to talk with patients to determine the patients' preferences as to what foods they like and how they like it cooked. He or she also needs to spend the available work time working out strategies to meet the nutritional needs of the patients and supervising the procuring, receiving and storing of food. In short, the intent of the committee was to minimize the number of distractions the supervisor had to deal with as a nutritionist so as to promote proper patient food care. Mr. Kinney indicated the idea of the committee which developed the rule in question was not to block totally the participation of the supervisor from food preparation in emergency situations. However, it was most definitely the intent of the rule drafters that the food preparation and service was not to be even a minuscule portion of the supervisor's duties, except for emergencies. According to Mr. Kinney, even if a food services supervisor works one hour per week in a nonemergency situation, if this requirement is written into the job description, or is accomplished as a routine task on a recurring basis, the agency considers it a primary duty which is prohibited by the rule in question. It is pertinent to note here that in the instant case, the inspectors were not in any way contending that the rule violation resulted in a diminishment of patient care. To the contrary, Mr. Mitchell, the then incumbent food services supervisor, had, in general, done all that was required. He was not able to accomplish it all in the normal work time, however. His work schedule during the period December 10, 1982, to February 24, 1983, was as follows: Dec. 10-16: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Dec. 17-23: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Dec. 24-30: 16 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 50 percent cook Dec. 31-Jan. 6: 16 hrs. cook; 24 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 50 percent cook Jan. 7-13: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Jan. 26-27: 8 hrs. cook; 8 hrs. supervise = 50 percent cook Jan. 28-Feb. 3: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Feb. 4-10: 32 hrs. cook; 8 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 66 percent cook Feb. 11-17: 24 hrs. cook; 16 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 60 percent cook Feb. 18-24: 32 hrs. cook; 8 hrs. off; 16 hrs. supervise = 66 percent cook From the above, it can readily be seen that during the period in question, prior to and just subsequent to the first inspection, the food services supervisor spent between 50 and 66 percent of his time in food preparation and service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be fined $100 for the violation alleged in the administrative complaint dated April 22, 1983, and $100 each for the violations alleged in Paragraphs (3)(b), (c) and (d) in the administrative complaint dated June 16, 1983, for a total of $400. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of November, 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 3rd day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Stephen H. Durant, Esquire 3000 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of her race and thereby engaged in an unfair employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner asserts that she was discriminated against by the employer's failure to promote her. The Respondent denies any discrimination. At the hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and offered documentary exhibits. Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the proceedings was prepared and filed. Pursuant to agreement of the parties, their proposed recommended orders were originally due by no later than February 1, 1988. At the request of the Petitioner, for good cause shown, the filing date was twice extended. On March 21, 1988, both parties filed timely proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Respondent also filed a supporting brief. The post-hearing submissions of the parties have been carefully considered in the formulation of this recommended order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact submitted by all parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Rebecca Riley, a black female, began work at Nassau General Hospital in 1971 as a dietary aide or "salad girl." Currently, the Petitioner is employed by the Respondent as a cook. Petitioner's first supervisor was Ms. Hazel Adams. Ms. Adams was a white female. Ms. Adams was food service manager from the time the Petitioner was hired in 1971 until 1980. Ms. Adams became ill in 1975 and was eventually forced to leave her job at Nassau General in 1980 due to her failing health. During the latter part of 1979, the Respondent entered into a management contract with Methodist Regional Hospital Systems to provide new management for the hospital. As part of the new management team, Mr. Ronald Rice was hired by Methodist Regional Hospital Systems to be the new hospital administrator. Mr. Rice served in that capacity from 1980 until 1985. Mr. Rice was well qualified for that position by formal education and prior experience. When Mr. Rice began his employment as administrator, the Respondent hospital had a large number of management and financial problems which it was hoped the new management could resolve. When Ms. Adams left in 1980, Ms. Delia Boynt partially assumed the duties of food service manager. Ms. Boynt also had a severe health problem. Ms. Boynt was a white female. In August of 1981, Ms. Barbara Fletcher became consulting dietician to the hospital. Ms. Fletcher initially worked 8 hours per week, but as Ms. Boynt became progressively more ill, Ms. Fletcher started assuming the duties of food service manager, including doing the kitchen-paperwork, ordering food, and evaluating employees. With the passage of time, Ms. Fletcher's hours increased from 8 to 20 hours per week. Ms. Boynt left the hospital in September of 1982. At that time, Ms. Fletcher was working 20 hours a week as food service manager. Ms. Fletcher was concerned that when she left work each day at noon, there was no one left to function in a supervisory capacity in the kitchen. Because of this concern, Ms. Fletcher approached Mr. Rice concerning the creation of a head cook position. The head cook position would be primarily responsible for taking care of any problems that came about during the time when Ms. Fletcher was not at work. Also, the head cook would be responsible for checking in food received from vendors, performing inventories each month, ordering food, and cooking. When Ms. Fletcher made the suggestion to Mr. Rice concerning the creation of the head cook position, she intended to continue to function as the food service manager. Ms. Fletcher suggested to Mr. Rice that the head cook position be offered to all three of the cooks. In September of 1982, the cooks in the kitchen at the respondent hospital were Eddie Melton, Elizabeth Fullwood, and the Petitioner. When Ms. Fletcher offered the head cook position to Ms. Melton, Ms. Melton declined the position. The Petitioner expressed an interest in the position, as did Ms. Fullwood, who had been working at the hospital since August of 1981. Ms. Fletcher decided the best way to choose between the Petitioner and Ms. Fullwood would be to develop a test to determine which employee was more qualified. However, before Ms. Fletcher could develop the test, Ms. Fullwood approached her and informed her that she felt that the other employees in the kitchen would make a racial issue out of her pursuit of the job as head cook. Consequently, Ms. Fullwood withdrew her name from consideration for the head cook position. Ms. Fullwood is a white female. In 1982, all of the other nonsupervisory employees in the hospital kitchen were black. Ms. Fletcher then offered the head cook job to the Petitioner, who accepted the job. The Petitioner served as the head cook for only a very few days. After working as head cook for just a very few days, the Petitioner informed Ms. Fletcher that she did not feel that the job was worth the money she was to be paid and that Ms. Fletcher could have the job back. Upon the Petitioner's relinquishment of the head cook position, Ms. Fletcher approached Ms. Fullwood, the only remaining cook who had expressed an interest in the head cook position, and offered her the job. Ms. Fullwood still had reservations about accepting the job and spoke to the Petitioner to ensure that there would be no "hard feelings" if Ms. Fullwood were to accept the job. Having determined that there would be no hard feelings, Ms. Fullwood accepted the position of head cook on or about October 1, 1982. At this time, Ms. Fletcher still intended to continue to function as the hospital's food service manager. In mid-October of 1982, Ms. Fletcher experienced some domestic problems which resulted in her giving notice that she would be quitting her employment at the hospital. Her last day of employment was October 29, 1982. Because of Ms. Fletcher's notice that she would be leaving, it became incumbent upon Mr. Rice to hire a food service manager. The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services license standards for hospitals require a designated food service manager. Mr. Rice initiated the process of selecting a new food service manager by informing Cathy Fox, Ms. Fletcher's replacement as consulting dietician, that the hospital was required to hire a food service manager. At the same time, Mr. Rice asked Ms. Fox to draft a new job description for the position of food service manager. Mr. Rice wanted to upgrade all the job descriptions at the hospital for purposes of satisfying the Joint Commission on Accreditation. Joann Robinson, personnel director at Nassau General at that time, also had input into the drafting of the job description. The job description Ms. Fox developed required that the food service manager be: high school graduate with at least 2-3 years management experience in food service, or a 2 year food service technology course plus one year experience in food service management, or a 4 year college degree in Institutional Food Service Management. Mr. Rice also contacted Danny Bellford at the Job Corps and asked Mr. Bellford to recommend local people for the job of food service manager. The Job Corps sent two candidates for the position of food service manager to the hospital. Ms. Fox interviewed these two individuals and determined that neither of them was qualified. It was common knowledge throughout the hospital in mid-October 1982 that the position of food service manager was available. Ms. Fullwood, head cook at that time, approached Mr. Rice in his office and informed him that she was interested in the position. The Petitioner also expressed an interest in the position during a conversation held with Mr. Rice in the cafeteria. Thus, the two candidates from whom a food service manager would be selected were Ms. Fullwood and the Petitioner. Ms. Fox made the recommendation that Ms. Fullwood receive the position of food service manger. Mr. Rice accepted Ms. Fox's recommendation of Ms. Fullwood based upon his review of both the Petitioner's and Mrs. Fullwood's applications and Ms. Fullwood's superior qualifications. Upon comparing Ms. Fullwood's qualifications to the Petitioner's qualifications, it was obvious that Ms. Fullwood was clearly the better qualified candidate. Ms. Fullwood met all of the requirements in the job description. The Petitioner did not meet all of those requirements because the Petitioner did not have a high school diploma and did not have any management experience in food service. Ms. Fullwood had a GED certificate, had five years of experience as an assistant manager supervising three employees in a school food service position, and had successfully completed numerous courses regarding food service and food service management. At most, the Petitioner completed only one course related to her job, even though given opportunities to take other courses. In light of the superior qualifications of Ms. Fullwood, Mr. Rice approved Ms. Fox's recommendation of Ms. Fullwood for the position of food service manager. Mr. Rice did not consider the Petitioner's race at any time in his decision to select Ms. Fullwood for the food service manager position. There is no persuasive evidence of any improper motivation in the selection of Ms. Fullwood rather than the Petitioner. Since the selection of Ms. Fullwood for the position of food service manager, the Petitioner has made no effort to obtain other employment in a supervisory position in any type of institutional food service facility.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Petition in this case be dismissed and that the relief sought by the Petitioner be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 11th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3625 The following are my specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by all of the parties. Findings proposed by the Petitioner (The paragraphs of the Petitioner's proposed findings are not numbered. The ordinal numbers below correspond to the order of the paragraphs, with each indentation of the text of the proposals being treated as a new paragraph. For convenience, page numbers are also included.) First paragraph (page 1): First sentence rejected as statement of position rather than proposed finding of fact. Second, third, and fourth sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Fifth sentence accepted. Sixth and seventh sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Eighth and ninth sentences rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence or contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second paragraph (page 1) : First three sentences accepted. Last sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and, as in any event, irrelevant to the issues in this case. Third paragraph (pages 1-2): First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third sentence accepted in substance. Fourth sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant to the issues in this case. Fourth paragraph (page 2): Accepted. Fifth paragraph (page 2): Accepted in substance, with clarifying details added and editorial comments omitted. Sixth paragraph (page 2): Accepted in substance. Seventh paragraph (page 2): Accepted. Eighth paragraph (page 2): Accepted in substance. Ninth paragraph (page 3): First two sentences accepted in substance. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant because this was a "head cook" position, not a food service manager position. Last sentence rejected as unnecessary editorial comment. Tenth paragraph (page 3): First sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Eleventh paragraph (page 3): First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Parenthetical sentence accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Twelfth paragraph (page 3): Rejected as unnecessary argument or editorial comment rather than proposed findings. To the extent it constitutes proposed findings of fact, it is cumulative and unnecessary. Thirteenth paragraph (page 3): Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Fourteenth paragraph (page 4): First sentence accepted, but in context with additional information about Fullwood's employment history. Second sentence rejected because it contains details contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Fifteenth paragraph (page 4): First sentence rejected because it contains details contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Third sentence rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Last four sentences rejected as procedural details. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance, with numerous unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant to disposition of the issues in this case. Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as unnecessary details. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19: Accepted. Paragraphs 20, 21, 22, and 23: Accepted in substance, with numerous subordinate details omitted. Paragraph 24: Accepted. Paragraph 25: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 26: Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin Moore, Esquire 619 South 10th Street Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Mr. Johnell Preliou, President National Association for Advancement of Colored People Nassau County Branch Post Office Box 403 Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034-0403 Patrick D. Coleman, Esquire James M. Craig, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Petitioner's facility meets the standards and qualifications to be eligible for licensure as an Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner/operator of Old Cutler Retirement Home (Old Cutler) which is located at 19720 Old Cutler Road in Miami, Florida. Old Cutler has been functioning as an ACLF since at least 1981 and has been the subject of citations for violations of the fire and health safety codes which Respondent enforce. (Respondent's Dade County Health Report dated June 9, 1981.) On October 7, 1985, Respondent conducted a survey of Old Cutler and found the following deficiencies: the income and expense records for the facility were not available for review. services delivered for the facility by a third party contractor were not documented and placed in the residents' records. the facility did not have personnel policies and work assignments. the facility failed to provide assurances that (1) at least one staff member was on duty at all times who was certified in an approved first aid course; (2) staff that provided hygiene assistance was properly trained, and (3) staff was free of communicable disease. the facility did not have written job descriptions available for review. the employees were not furnished written policies governing conditions of employment. full bedside rails were observed in one resident's bed room. notations concerning drug disposition of a former resident's medication were not entered into the resident's file. the facility did not have policies and procedures to insure minimal leisure services for residents. the facility did not have procedures for assisting residents in making medical and related health appointments. residents' bedrooms did not have adequate space for hanging clothes. the facility did not have an adequate number of bathrooms for the residents. furniture at the facility was not kept in good repair. the facility smelled of a strong urine odor. the facility grounds were cluttered with debris and garden/construction equipment. the facility did not have a written main- tenance and housekeeping plan. Food Service irregularities (observed on October 7, 1985): the facility did not have food service procedures to provide for resident's nutri- tional care. the employee designated responsible for providing food service failed to demonstrate proper training of food service personnel purchasing sufficient food, (3) food service coordinated with other services, (4) duties were performed in a safe and sanitary manner, and (5) a knowledge of food that meets regular diets. the therapeutic diets did not meet the residents nutritional needs. there was no documentation of standardized recipes. menus were not planned, dated or posted as required. a week's supply of food was not on hand at the facility. food was not served at a safe, palatable temperature, as example, ambrosia fruit salad was kept and served at room temperature. food service was not properly carried out and the service was unsanitary in that spoiled and rotten food was stored in the refrigerator; the sinks and shelves were soiled, greasy and coated with debris; food was improperly thawed with standing hot water; hair restraints were not used; and at least one food service employee was observed smoking while preparing food. Additionally, on October 7, 1985, the laundry area did not provide the required one hour flame separation from the remainder of the facility. Also, the following fire safety irregularities were noted during the October 1985 survey: a manually operated fire alarm system with activating handles at each exit were not provided. smoke detectors powered by the electric current and interconnected to the fire alarm system was not provided. reports were not provided showing that the fire alarm system was tested quarterly. two means of egress are not provided for rooms 1 and 6. twenty-minute fire rated doors are not provided at all residents' doors. a commercial hood vented to the outside with an automatic extinguishing system is not provided. a key operated lock from the inside appears on the door of Room No. 13. there are obstructions in front of egress doors in room 3 and the dining area. the electric source supply to emergency lighting is provided by an extension cord. Petitioner has placed a mobile home immediately alongside the main facility at Old Cutler and the mobile home is situated closer than ten (10) feet from all sides of Old Cutler. The curtains, drapes, interior walls and ceilings of the mobile home do not provide either the requisite flame spread or are not flame proof as required. The mobile home is not equipped with approved smoke detectors in each room and the east/west end exits are either blocked or difficult to egress. Finally, there are no approved steps at the east exit of the mobile home. These conditions have existed in the mobile home since at least April 1981 and Petitioner has failed to take any corrective action to bring the above-noted irregularities into compliance (Respondent Exhibit 5). Respondent sent its staff along with members of the Ombudsman Council to again survey Petitioner's facility on March 9, 1987. As of that date, Petitioner has not shown any intent to correct the numerous deficiencies noted herein. Additionally, Petitioner advised Human Services Program Supervisor Alvin Delaney that she did not intend to bring her facility into compliance. As noted in the Appearances section of this Recommended Order, Petitioner did not appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as an Adult Congregate Living Facility and cancel the conditional license which was issued to Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of April 1987.
The Issue Whether Petitioner committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is an eating establishment located in Bell, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held license number 3100051 issued by the Division. Julianne Browning is an inspector employed by the Division. Ms. Browning has a bachelor's degree from Florida State University in hotel and restaurant administration. She has been employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation since 1990. Prior to that time, she worked for approximately 10 years in the field of public lodging and food service. She also has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, as well as fire safety. On October 23, 2002, Ms. Browning conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises. Rita Martin was not on the premises at the time of the October 23, 2002 inspection. Christina Martin, Rita Martin's sister-in-law who also works at Respondent's establishment, signed for the inspection report. Ms. Browning subsequently discussed the investigation findings and report with Rita Martin. During the October 23, 2002 inspection, Ms. Browning observed flies in the kitchen. Having flies in the kitchen is a critical violation because flies carry germs and bacteria, posing a direct threat to the public's health. Ms. Browning also found that there was no proof that employees who had worked at Respondent's establishment for 60 days or more had received food training. This is a critical violation because employees need to be trained in the correct way to handle food and the required temperatures for food. Ms. Browning also observed tuna salad in the refrigerator at 45 degrees, which is considered an unsafe temperature. The inspection took place at 2:30 p.m. but Ms. Browning determined that the tuna salad was prepared at 9:00 a.m. Food kept out of temperature for more than four hours are potentially hazardous because the food begins to grow bacteria if left out of refrigeration for too long. Ms. Browning also observed coleslaw, tuna salad, and crab salad that were not date-marked. These types of prepared foods can only be held for seven days or they become potentially hazardous food. These foods need to be date- marked so one knows when they were made to then determine when the foods should be thrown away. Ms. Browning observed that the hood filters had a severe grease buildup. A severe grease buildup in the hood filter is an indication that the flue has a grease buildup, which is a fire hazard. Ms. Browning observed a black substance on the interior of the ice machine. She was uncertain as to what the black substance was but believed it to be mildew. Mildew is hazardous near food because it has spores which could fall into the ice. Ms. Browning observed recyclables not stored in a waste handling unit that is inaccessible to insects or rodents. She observed boxes kept either on the ground or in an open trailer. This is a hazard because all garbage, whether recyclables or other garbage, has to be in a container that protects against the entrance of rodents or flies, which could potentially come into the restaurant. Ms. Browning observed a light shield missing from the light in the dry storage area. This is potentially hazardous because if the light bulb broke, the glass could shatter with the potential of getting onto the food in the storage area. Ms. Browning observed that the fire suppression report for the hood over the cooking equipment was not available for review. Such reports are made when the fire extinguishing company comes to service the fire suppression system. The report is the only way a Division inspector can tell if there are any deficiencies that need to be corrected with the fire suppression system. Ms. Browning observed bulk rice with a handle-free bowl for dispensing. This is hazardous because it allows for bare hand contact with the food. Rita Martin offered mitigating circumstances regarding some of the deficiencies noted by Ms. Browning. Regarding the allegation of flies in the kitchen, the Martins built a screened-in porch to keep flies from coming into the restaurant. Further, they put fly machines at the front and back doors and a blower at the back door. According to Ms. Martin, it is rare for flies to get into the restaurant. When flies get into the restaurant, "we get rid of them" and that she "cannot remember the last time I saw a live fly in my restaurant, period." Regarding the allegation of lack of proof of employee training, only one employee had worked there more than 60 days at the time of the inspection. Ms. Martin did not post that employee's card because the employee did not want her social security number posted. Eventually, Ms. Martin "whitened out" the social security number to post it. In any event, the employee's card was not available at the time of the inspection as required. Regarding the allegation that prepared foods were out of temperature and not properly date-marked, she responded: We try to put our salads or whatever we're making in large containers so that they will cool quickly. The foods that were made that day were made--one of the foods were made at 9:00 a.m., which was the coleslaw and crab. The tuna was made at 2:00. That was one of the ones that was--I think it was the tuna that was out of temperature. It had not been made--think it was less than an hour old. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegation that the hood filters had a grease buildup, Ms. Martin acknowledged that the hoods needed cleaning and were cleaned approximately one month after the inspection. Ms. Martin denied the existence of any black buildup on he interior of the ice machine. She looked in the ice machine shortly after the inspection and did not see any black buildup. According to Ms. Martin, there is a lime build-up because of lime in their water, and it is brownish in color. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegation of recyclables not stored in a closed unit that is inaccessible to rodents or insects, Ms. Martin explained that only clean boxes are put in a trailer, garbage is put elsewhere. Ms. Martin denied the allegation that a light shield was missing from the light in the dry storage area. The light shield had just been replaced prior to the inspection and is transparent and difficult to see. The storage area is narrow and it is difficult to see in there. Her assertions in this regard are accepted as credible. Regarding the allegation that there was no fire suppression report, Ms. Martin asserted that Ms. Browning had not made it clear in the past as to what was required to be posted and available. Whether Ms. Browning verbally reminded Ms. Martin about this requirement or not, the report was not available as required. Regarding the allegation that a bowl was used to dispense bulk rice, Ms. Martin explained that the rice was in dry, not ready-to-eat, form and that everyone knows to use a scoop. However, she acknowledged that she was not there for the inspection and could not say for certain that there was not a bowl in the rice.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order which confirms the violations found, dismisses the violations not found, imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $1,000, and requires Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 27th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-1015 Rita S. Martin Post Office Box 145 Bell, Florida 32619 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an Adult Congregate Living Facility licensed by Petitioner. Maria Mier is a district programs specialist employed by Petitioner in its Adult Congregate Living Facility program. She was assigned the responsibility of working with Respondent to assure Respondent's compliance with Petitioner's regulations on May 5, 1981. Petitioner presented no testimony regarding the conditions at the Aloha prior to that date. Isabell Arango is a long-term care administrator for Petitioner. She has the responsibility for assessing the amount of administrative fine to be imposed as a result of any violation of Petitioner's regulations. In doing so, she reviews the recommendation of the specialist in charge of that facility and then applies her personal set of guidelines, which were not introduced in evidence. Mier and Arango signed both Administrative Complaints under consideration herein. Petitioner filed a Petition for the Appointment of a Temporary Receiver to operate the Aloha. Petitioner's Petition was heard in the circuit court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, on May 15, 1981, and a receiver recommended by Petitioner was appointed to operate and manage the facility. By order entered June 11, 1981, a circuit court judge granted an Agreed Motion for Substitution of Court-Appointed Receiver and appointed a substitute receiver recommended by the Petitioner. By order entered October 5, 1981, a circuit court judge granted the Moha's Motion to Terminate the Receivership. On May 4, 1981, a resident of the Aloha was found naked by the police somewhere outside of the facility. He was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital, and his daughter was contacted. Adult Congregate Living Facility residents are free to come and go as they wish and do not require permission from facility personnel in order to be allowed to leave the facility. The resident located by the police had left the facility on a regular basis in the past, and no evidence was offered to indicate the resident in question would be likely to be in danger at any time that he was away from the facility or that there had been any prior problems regarding his absence from the Aloha. On November 10, 1981, Mier went to the Aloha to investigate a complaint from a resident that an envelope addressed to her containing a check had been opened. Mier did not see any opened mail at the Aloha and did not observe the facility's procedure for handling residents' mail. On December 17, 1981, Mier prepared a citation for that complaint and had the citation delivered to the administrator of the Aloha, although the citation itself advised that Petitioner considered the alleged deficiency to have been corrected as of December 1, 1981. (These facts form the basis for an allegation found in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-179.) On January 20, 1982, Petitioner received a complaint from a different resident that an envelope addressed to her had been opened. On February 2, 1982, the same resident filed with Petitioner a written authorization requesting that the Aloha personnel open her mail for her. (These facts form the basis for an allegation found in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-737.) According to the facility's records, during June, 1981, a resident refused to take medication on numerous occasions. The records did not reflect that the resident's doctor was notified. A resident in an Adult Congregate Living Facility cannot be forced to take medication. The resident in question had a history of drug and alcohol addiction, and his physician had advised the staff at the Aloha to withhold any medication from him at any time they believed he had been drinking due to the dangerous combination of his medication and alcohol. On July 29 and August 3, 1981, 15 residents observed in the lobby had foul body odor and dirty clothing. Four male residents needed shaving. If a resident of an Adult Congregate Living Facility does not wish to shave or wants to wear dirty clothing, personnel at the facility cannot force that resident to shave or to remove dirty clothing. On July 19, 1981, one resident of the Aloha was determined by a physician to be in need of nursing home care, services which the Aloha is not licensed to provide. On July 29, 1981, that resident was still at the Aloha. Only a medical doctor can order a transfer of a resident from an Adult Congregate Living Facility to a nursing home. Once the doctor orders it, the Adult Congregate Living Facility is in charge of making arrangements. If no nursing home beds are readily available, then a unit within the Petitioner's organization is in charge of placement into nursing homes. A wealthy patient can be placed easily; placement for a Medicaid patient may take time. On August 3, 1981, 24 out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked the required physician's statement regarding the resident's physical condition. Those records were brought into compliance, and Mier knows of no medical problems involving those 24 residents during the time of noncompliance. On August 3, 1981, the admission/discharge register for the residents of the Aloha was not properly maintained. The register was subsequently brought into compliance. On August 3, 1981, seven out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked a properly executed contract for services between the resident and the Aloha. Seven contracts had the resident's date of admission as the date the contract was signed, although the charges listed in the contract were effective after the admission date. This deficiency was subsequently remedied. On August 3, 1981, 23 out of 27 resident files reviewed lacked complete demographic data, i.e., the information pertinent to a death certificate. On August 3, 1981, four out of 24 personnel records reviewed lacked references in the employment application, and one record lacked the employment application. On August 3, 1981, nine out of 24 personnel files reviewed lacked the proper documentation that the employee was free of communicable diseases. Respondent admits that during surveys conducted on June 2, June 15, July 17, August 3 and November 2, 1961, the following facility maintenance and housekeeping standards were violated: Strong urine odors in resident rooms; Lack of toilet supplies in bathrooms; Inoperable drapes in resident rooms; Broken fixtures in resident bathrooms; Presence of vermin in the locked physician's examination room; A broken corner on a mirror in a resident's room; Two areas of cracked tile in the dining room; Furniture in need of repair. Mier, who conducted the inspections, has no knowledge as to what furniture was in need of repair. Petitioner conducted inspections of the facility's physical plant on June 2, June 15 and November 2, 1981. An additional inspection was commenced on July 29 and was concluded on August 3, 1981. On June 2, Rooms 25 and 59 had no air conditioners, but both rooms had large windows which opened for ventilation. On July 29, 1981, the air conditioning units in Rooms 31 and 40 were not working. On July 29, 1981, Rooms 27 and 73, which were being used for storage, lacked proper ventilation from either air conditioning or windows. On July 29, 1981, Rooms 1 and 10 had light bulbs missing from fixtures in the bathrooms. New light bulbs were installed while Mier was still present. (c) On July 29, 1981, Rooms 36, 40, 60, 68 and 70 lacked non-slip safety devices in the bathrooms. On November 2, 1981, only Room 36 of those inspected on July 29 still lacked non-slip safety devices. Additionally, non-slip safety devices were missing in the bathrooms of Rooms 46, 48 and 57. On July 29, 1981, the Aloha lacked handrails in 43 resident bathrooms. The Aloha purchased over 40 handrails, the total number that could be located in Miami at the time, and placed an order for an additional 45. The Aloha filed a copy of that order with Petitioner at the time. On each of her inspections, Mier found the second floor lobby to be uncomfortably hot. She therefore determined that the lobby was unusable and that the facility, therefore, did not comply with the required 35 square feet per resident in common-use areas. She did not take the temperature of the area which she determined to be uncomfortably hot on any of those occasions. She does not know the measurements of the second floor lobby, and no evidence was introduced regarding the size of the common areas in order to determine whether the 35- square-foot-per-resident requirement was met. Mier admits that based upon her recommendation, Aloha installed fans in that lobby. An air conditioning unit was later placed on the roof in order to cool the second floor rooms even more. Martha Perez is a nutrition consultant for the Petitioner. She conducted inspections of the food service standards at the Aloha on June 3 and November 3, 1981. On June 3, 1981, the Aloha had 129 residents. The chart of one of those residents indicated a need for a diabetic diet. Perez found no diabetic foods or special menus regarding a diabetic diet at the Aloha. On November 3, 1981, the Aloha still had 129 residents. Perez found no special provision for anyone needing a special diet but was also unable to identify anyone residing at the Aloha whose file indicated a need for a special diet. On June 3, 1981, the Aloha had only a one-and- a-half days' supply of non-perishable food, rather than the one-week's supply required. On November 3, 1981, the emergency food supply had been increased so that it was sufficient for two and a half days. On June 3, 1981, Perez found frozen raw meat being defrosted at room temperature. On November 3, 1981, Perez found a fully cooked meatloaf cooling off on the stove.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in Case No. 82-179 and further dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in Case No. 82-737. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 1st day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Department of HRS 1320 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Barry L. Halpern, Esquire Koger Executive Center, Suite B-106 8405 NW 53rd Street Miami, Florida 33166 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of sex discrimination in employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the relevant statute. Respondent is a wholesale food cooperative, which pools the wholesale purchasing power of numerous independent grocers. Respondent purchases goods from manufacturers and then sells them to the grocers, which are members of Respondent. The grocers offer the goods for sale at retail. Respondent also operates as a wholly owned subsidiary an insurance agency, which sells insurance to members and nonmembers. Although independent from the wholesale food operation, the insurance operation is housed in the same Tampa office building/warehouse complex as is the wholesale food operation. On June 19, 1991, Respondent hired Petitioner to work in the wholesale food operation. She was hired as an executive secretary or assistant to Gary Rinehart, who is the Vice President of the wholesale food operation. Petitioner had applied to work in the insurance operation, but was offered only the job in wholesale food. From the start, Petitioner told Mr. Rinehart that she wanted to move into insurance at the first opportunity. Mr. Rinehart had no objections as long as he was not left short- handed. Petitioner's primary responsibilities in wholesale food was to support the salespersons who travelled in the field assisting member-grocers with purchasing and displaying products. When the salespersons needed assistance while they were on the road, they would call Petitioner, who, from the Tampa office, would coordinate the efforts to solve a member's problems or get information or product to a member. Petitioner's ready availability was an important element of her job performance. Petitioner's immediate predecessor had quit after she had married another employee of Respondent. However, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent maintained a policy of requiring female employees who married another employee to leave upon their marriage. In any event, nothing surrounding the circumstances of the departure of Petitioner's predecessor suggests that her termination had anything to do with dating, which presumably preceded the marriage for some period of time. Mr. Rinehart discouraged dating among employees. When he first announced to his group that he had hired Petitioner, someone--presumably a travelling salesman--asked if she were married. Mr. Rinehart responded by telling his group that he did not like his employees to date each other. When Petitioner first began work, she did an excellent job, although she quickly developed a problem leaving work early and arriving late. She also failed to take a shorthand class that Mr. Rinehart had asked her to take, as Respondent's expense, since she joined Respondent. By the end of 1991, Petitioner evidently felt underchallenged by her assignment and had lost her enthusiasm for working in the wholesale food operation. Mr. Rinehart was receiving numerous complaints about Petitioner not being at her desk when needed, being on personal calls during working hours, and not relaying messages. She was also not doing her clerical tasks, like typing, accurately. Mr. Rinehart spoke with Petitioner about her work- related problems, but no improvement was seen until, in mid- December, 1991, Petitioner secured Mr. Rinehart's permission to seek a transfer into the insurance operation. Before the transfer was made, Petitioner had assisted in the preparation for an insurance seminar in Orlando sponsored by Respondent in late 1991 and had also begun attending the Monday morning meetings of the insurance sales staff. By mid-January, 1992, Petitioner had discussed with Harry Britton the possibility of her transfer into insurance. Mr. Britton is the general agent for Respondent's insurance agency and also serves as the Director of Human Relations. In February, 1992, Mr. Britton informed Petitioner that she could transfer into insurance if it was acceptable to Mr. Rinehart. Mr. Rinehart agreed, as long as Petitioner trained her replacement. She did and, at an undisclosed point in the month, transferred to the insurance operation. Petitioner's timing was unfortunate, assuming that she would have preferred her prior secretarial job to none at all. When Petitioner joined Respondent, it was still struggling to recover from the loss of the business of Kroger, which, when it withdrew from Florida, had accounted for over half of Respondent's gross sales. Respondent's performance had been poor for sometime, and it had already sold buildings, equipment, and leases in order to cut its expenses. Before taxes, on a consolidated basis, Respondent had the following earnings/(losses) for fiscal years ending 1987 through 1992, respectively: $482,000, $289,000, ($1,275,000), ($1,909,795), ($398,489), and ($1,503,543). The insurance operations accounted for the following earnings/(losses) for fiscal years ending 1988 through 1992, respectively: ($18,417), ($8207), $18,180, and $1810. In early 1992, Respondent confronted the facts that it had lost over $2.5 million over the past five years, was in the process of losing $1.5 million--the largest loss in Respondent's history--in 1992, and had already sold various assets. Additionally, it was entering the slow spring wholesaling season. Respondent's top management decided to make a reduction in force. The decision to make layoffs was made and communicated to Messrs. Rinehart and Britton around February 10-13, 1992. The decision had been discussed for about two months previously. The record does not disclose exactly when Petitioner transferred to insurance, but it appears to have been in early February, 1992. On February 22, 1992, Mr. Britton informed Petitioner that she would be laid off. Seven other employees were laid off at the same time, including others in the insurance operation. Layoffs were generally based on seniority with Respondent or in a particular department, and the layoff of Petitioner was consistent with this policy. Mr. Rinehart laid off four persons in his department. Although all of them hadmore experience than did Petitioner, her replacement as executive secretary, who had less experience with Respondent than did Petitioner, was not laid off. Unlike others laid off, Petitioner was given an indefinite period of time to look for work while remaining on Respondent's payroll and as much time off the job as she needed while she looked for work outside the office. Mr. Britton gave Petitioner special treatment because he wanted her to remain parttime. He offered her a parttime job in insurance at the meeting at which he informed her she was being laid off and again several times over the ensuing months. She refused each offer of parttime employment. After some difficulty, Mr. Britton eventually filled Petitioner's former position with a parttime person. On March 13, 1992, Petitioner announced that she did not want to remain employed by Respondent any longer, even under the special circumstances outlined above. She quit and Respondent paid her through March 20, 1992. Since the last quarter of 1991, Petitioner had been dating another employee of Respondent. This situation was known to Messrs. Rinehart and Britton. Although Mr. Rinehart was not reluctant to discourage employees from dating, there is no indication in the record that he took any action against Petitioner for dating an employee. The man whom Petitioner dated has also dated other employees of Respondent, evidently without adverse consequences to himself or the other employees, and remains employed with Respondent. More importantly, Mr. Britton, who laid off Petitioner, did not share Mr. Rinehart's concerns about dating among employees. Petitioner asked Mr. Britton at least twice if he had any problems with her dating an employee, and he replied that he did not. The record does not indicate that he took any action against Petitioner for dating an employee. Respondent had a legitimate, nonpretextual reason for laying off Petitioner--or, more precisely, converting Petitioner's position from fulltime to parttime. The reason was economics. Additionally, Petitioner had been a marginal employee in the wholesale food operation, so it is hard to interpret her untimely transfer to insurance as part of a conspiracy to rid Respondent of her for reasons of gender. If Respondent were discriminatorily focusing on the female employee of a male- female dating duo, it is not apparent from the record how Respondent would have addressed its "problem" by retaining Petitioner in parttime employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. ENTERED on December 20, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 20, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-321 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1, 4, 6, 8: rejected as subordinate. 2-3, 5, 7, 10: rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. (additional evidence): stricken as outside the record. (first): adopted. 9 (second): rejected as legal argument. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3, 13-15, 17-18, 20-26, 30-39: adopted or adopted in substance. 4: rejected as legal argument and recitation of testimony. 5-7, 9, 11-12, 16 (except for fact that Petitioner approached Messrs. Rinehart and Britton): rejected as subordinate. 8: rejected as repetitious and recitation of testimony. 10, 27-29: rejected as recitation of testimony. 19: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40-43: rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Peggy J. Thornton, pro se 6802 North Branch Avenue Tampa, Florida 33604 W. Reynolds Allen Kevin O'Toole Hogg Allen 324 South Hyde Park Avenue, Suite 350 Tampa, Florida 33606
