The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 3, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing, regulating, and inspecting public lodging establishments to protect public safety. To accomplish this purpose, Petitioner employs persons trained to respond to citizen complaints about public lodging establishments. Such inspectors visit and inspect the premises about which complaints are made, gather facts, and make reports to document their findings. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Sean Sylvester Grovesnor ("Grovesnor") as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist assigned to its Division of Hotels and Restaurants. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent 1015 Apartments was a licensed public lodging establishment within the meaning of Section 509.013(4)(a), Florida Statutes, operating under license control number 16-04182H, and located at 1015 Northeast 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304-2465. Responding to a complaint on or about February 10, 2000, Grovesnor visited 1015 Apartments. Grovesnor's inspection revealed various violations. Specifically, Grovesnor observed: balcony railing supports in disrepair in front of Apartment No. 204; no smoke detector in Apartment No. 201; an exit sign hanging from exposed wires by Apartment No. 205; a broken window on south side of the building; water stained ceiling tiles in living room of Apartment No. 201; holes in kitchen cabinets in Apartment no. 201; cold water knob in Apartment No. 201 would not work; faucet head not properly attached to the bathtub in Apartment No. 201; mildew and mildew holes in bathroom ceiling of Apartment No. 104. the sewer line clean out pipe cover was missing in the parking lot. Respondent was informed that all violations must be corrected by February 17, 2000. On or about February 18, 2000, Grovesnor made a callback/reinspection visit for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had corrected the violations noted on the previous visit. None of the violations previously noted had been corrected. Each of the above-described violations constitutes a separate and distinct potential hazard to the health and/or safety of individuals on the premises. The balcony railing violation was corrected on March 17, 2000, by Tim's Welding of Fort Lauderdale.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-specified provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, and that Respondent be required to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 13th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jean Pierre-Louis 1015 Northeast 17th Avenue Apartment 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304-2465
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material, R. O. Crosby held a license for the premises known as Crosby Apartments, license number 60- 01726H, located at 732 Joe Louis Avenue, Pahokee, Palm Beach County, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit A). On March 24, 1986, Arnold Pergament, an Environmental Health Specialist employed with Petitioner, inspected Crosby Apartments and issued a notice of violation to Respondent for several violations of Florida Statutes and Petitioner's Rules. (Petitioner's Exhibit B). Inspector Pergament observed the following conditions: Fire Extinguishers: Inspector Pergament noted that there were no fire extinguishers on the premises which, based on its size, required a minimum of four fire extinguishers to comply with safety rules and regulations for tenants. Exit/Obstructions: Inspector Pergament observed an abandoned refrigerator on the second floor walkway which impeded the progress of persons walking in that area. Public Lighting: There were missing lights in the public toilets and other public facilities. Overhang: The roof overhang above the second floor walkway was broken; plaster was peeling and two stair handrails were loose; the steps which held the anchors for the handrails were cracked and wobbly and the stair handrails were unsafe for tenants to traverse by placing weight on the railings. Public Facilities: The public restroom on the second floor had an opening in the drainline from the urinal; the bathroom ceilings were damaged; stained walls in public restrooms and the showers, sinks and commodes were stained. The overall condition of the public facilities were dirty, grimy and inadequately cleaned. The bathrooms and toilets were not designated for each sex. Screenings: There were missing screens in the bathroom windows and box screens on other windows were torn and/or vandalized. Railings: There was a large open space in the second floor guard railings presenting a hazardous situation for minors and others. Inspector Pergament made a routine reinspection of the Crosby Apartments during September, 1986, and observed that three of the four required fire extinguishers had been replaced. He also observed that the screens had been replaced except one window in a bathroom. All other violations which were observed during the March 24, 1986, inspection still existed.
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 violations listed in the Notice to Show Cause issued on March 25, 1986, to the Crosby Apartments, license number 60-017265 and imposing a civil penalty assessment of $2,100.00 or $300.00 per violation as found herein. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 18th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 R. O. Crosby 478 East Main Street Pahokee, Florida 33476 R. Hugh Snow, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 4, 2005, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all relevant times, the Division is the state agency responsible for licensing, regulating, and inspecting public lodging establishments. With particular relevance to this case, it is the Division's responsibility to establish and enforce rules pertaining to sanitation and public health and safety in accordance with relevant provisions of the Florida Statutes; to ensure compliance with its rules; and to impose discipline in appropriate circumstances. At all relevant times, Green Terrace was licensed by the Division as a public lodging establishment under license number 1605642. At all relevant times, Green Terrace was located at 260 Southwest 8th Street, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060, and was owned by Peter Sporea (Mr. Sporea). At all relevant times, Larry Torres (Mr. Torres), a certified food manager and specialized fire safety inspector, was employed by the Division as a sanitation and safety inspector. Mr. Torres' duties include conducting inspections of Division licensees, including Green Terrace. On or about August 5, 2005, Mr. Torres conducted a routine inspection of Green Terrace. Based upon his inspection he documented various sanitation and safety violations and issued a written warning to Green Terrace which directed that the violations be remedied within 30 days. On September 29, 2005, Mr. Torres returned to Green Terrace to conduct a re-inspection. His re- inspection revealed that the violations documented at the time of the inspection had not been remedied. Two violations observed by Mr. Torres were "critical" in that they are more likely than other violations to pose an immediate threat to public health or safety; the remaining violations were deemed by Mr. Torres to be “non-critical.” Non-critical violations are violations which pose risk to the public health or safety, but are not considered to present an immediate threat. The violations which Mr. Torres observed and documented at the inspection, and again at the re-inspection were: Violation 01-09, based upon Mr. Torres' observation that a portable fire extinguisher located near apartment four was not charged. Failure to provide and maintain fire extinguishers in an operational condition is a critical violation. Violation 12-02, based upon Mr. Torres' observation of a loose railing on the second floor balcony by apartment seven; all building structural components, attachments and fixtures shall be kept in good repair. This violation is a critical violation due to the risk of serious injury if a person were to fall from a second floor balcony. Violation 13-01, based upon Mr. Torres' observation of a door in disrepair and a broken window in or near apartment 10. This is a violation because building structural components must be kept in good repair. Violation 25-01, based upon Mr. Torres' observation that excessive trash was observed in various places on the property grounds. For example, discarded equipment such as stoves was observed in hallways on the second floor. Violation 26-01, based upon Mr. Torres' observation that garbage was lying loose on the ground in the fenced area where garbage cans are available for community use. This is a violation because proper disposition of garbage is necessary to prevent nuisance conditions. Violation 26-14, based upon Mr. Torres' observation that trash receptacles lacked covers. This is a violation because uncovered trash receptacles could attract pests and constitute a public nuisance. Violation 26-18, based upon Mr. Torres' observation of a soiled waste receptacle that was attracting pests. This is a violation because dirty receptacles may attract pests, as they did here, and constitute a public nuisance. Mr. Torres and Mr. Sporea were the only witnesses at hearing. The trier of fact closely observed each, and evaluated such factors as their demeanor under oath; their candor with the fact-finder and with the opposing party under cross-examination; their opportunity to speak from personal knowledge concerning relevant facts; and their respective backgrounds, training and experience. Mr. Torres was forthright, direct and entirely credible. Mr. Sporea dissembled, and provided no persuasive testimony with respect to any of the material allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Upon a finding that a public lodging establishment licensee has operated in violation of relevant provisions of the Florida Statutes or rules promulgated thereuder, the licensee is subject to fines not to exceed $1,000.00 per offense; mandatory attendance at an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program; and the suspension, revocation or refusal of a license. In this case the Division has proposed that Respondent pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,700.00, and attend, at personal expense, a Hospitality Education Program approved by the Division. The proposed penalty is well within the Division's authority and is reasonable and generous under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding the violations described and imposing an administrative fine on Green Terrace in the amount of $2700 due and payable on terms prescribed by the Division; and requiring the owner and/or manager of Green Terrace to attend, at the licensee's personal expense, an educational program sponsored the Hospitality Education Program or other educational program approved by the Division, within 60 days of the date of the final order, and to provide proof thereof to the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 24th day of July, 2006.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this matter, the Respondent was appropriately licensed by the Petitioner to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), Enon Country Manor, in Pensacola, Florida. CASE NO. 88-5652 On October 9, 1986, an authorized representative of the Petitioner, James H. Temkin, a fire protection specialist, performed a complete routine fire safety inspection of Enon Country Manor. Mr. Temkin testified at the hearing following qualification as an expert witness in fire safety. During the October 9 inspection, Mr. Temkin found eleven deficiencies in the facility's compliance with fire safety regulations of the Petitioner. Mr. Temkin discussed the deficiencies with the Respondent and established a timeframe for the correction of the deficiencies. On December 9, 1986, Mr. Temkin again inspected the facility to determine whether the previously identified deficiencies had been timely corrected. At that time three deficiencies remained uncorrected. The remaining deficiencies were the lack of a documented fire safety plan including fire drills and alarm tests, the lack of steel supports for ceiling access panels, and the lack of one-hour fire rated construction of certain walls and ceilings including the inability to inspect certain locked rooms to which entry was not made available. The lack of a documented fire safety plan is a violation of Rules 10A- 5.023(15)(a), 4A-40.013, 4A-40.014 and 4A-40.017, Florida Administrative Code. The lack of steel supports for ceiling access panels is a violation of Rules 10A-5.023(15)(a) and 4A-40.005, Florida Administrative Code. The lack of one-hour fire rated construction is a violation of Rules 10A-5.023(15)(a) and 4A-40.005, Florida Administrative Code. The three deficiencies are classified as Class III violations under Section 400.419(3), Florida Statutes, which provides for the classification of violations of the ACLF operational standards established by the Department. Class III violations, are subject to a penalty of not less than $100.00 or more than $500.00 for each violation. The Petitioner has determined that in light of the nature of the violations and the prior history of the facility that a penalty of $250.00 for each of the three violations, or a total of $750.00, should be imposed. No evidence was presented to indicate that such a penalty was not warranted. CASE NO. 88-5649 On October 29, 1986, an authorized representative of the Petitioner, Richard Glover, performed a general operational inspection of Enon Country Manor for relicensure purposes. Mr. Glover testified at the hearing following qualification as an expert witness in general ACLF operations. During the October 29 inspection, Mr. Glover identified seventeen deficiencies in the facility's compliance with the operational standards regulations of the Petitioner. Mr. Glover discussed the deficiencies and established a timeframe for the correction of the deficiencies. On or about December 11, 1986, Mr. Glover again inspected the facility to determine whether the previously identified deficiencies had been timely corrected. At the time four deficiencies remained uncorrected. The remaining deficiencies included the failure of the facility to make fiscal records available for inspection, the failure to maintain a facility staff work schedule, the failure to maintain employee time sheets, and the failure to maintain a written kitchen cleaning schedule. The failure to make available the fiscal records of the facility is a violation of Rule 10A-5.024(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code. The failure to maintain a facility staff work schedule is a violation of Rule 10A-5.024(1)(a)(6), Florida Administrative Code. The failure to maintain employee time sheets is a violation of Rule 10A-5.024(1)(a)(7), Florida Administrative Code. The failure to maintain a written kitchen cleaning schedule is a violation of Rule 10A-5.020(1)(m), Florida Administrative Code. The failure to maintain a written kitchen cleaning schedule is a Class III violation under Section 400.419(3), Florida Statutes, and is subject to a penalty of not less than $100.00 or more than $500.00 for each violation. The Petitioner has determined that a fine of $100.00 is appropriate and no evidence was received which would indicate otherwise. As to the remaining violations, under the provisions of Section 400.419(4), Florida Statutes, they are unclassified and subject to a penalty not to exceed $500.00 for each violation. The Petitioner has determined that a fine of $250.00 should be imposed for the failure to make available the fiscal records, and that fines of $150.00 should be imposed for each of the two remaining violations. There was no evidence received which would indicate that such penalty was not appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law and failure of the Respondent to appear at hearing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing against the Respondent an administrative fine of $750.00 in Case No. 87-5652 and an administrative fine of $650.00 in Case No. 87-5649. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 4th day of October, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-5649 AND 87-5652 The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact were accepted as modified and reflected in the findings of fact in the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Senior Staff Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Office of Licensure and Certification 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Alfred Q. Gregory Enon County Manor 7000 Lindskog Street Pensacola, Florida 32506 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of age and retaliating against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Meikle is an African-American male. At hearing, Mr. Meikle withdrew his claim of age discrimination. Mr. Meikle is only pursuing the claim of retaliation. Mr. Meikle was employed with the Radisson Hotel (Radisson), which was owned by Hotels Unlimited. Mr. Meikle’s supervisor at the Radisson was Harland McPhun, who was the Assistant General Manager. Mr. McPhun’s supervisor at the Radisson was Diane Gray, who was the General Manager. During his employment at the Radisson, Mr. Meikle was promoted from a cook to the Kitchen Director. He was very proud of being in the position of Kitchen Director. Mr. McPhun had not encountered any problems with Mr. Meikle being on time for work or being a “no-show” for work as scheduled. However, Mr. McPhun had encountered problems with Mr. Meikle in other areas, such as Mr. Meikle's providing his sister, who was employed at the front desk of the Radisson, with larger portions of food than the other employees; and being in places other than the kitchen area talking, i.e., at or near the front desk. Mr. McPhun gave Mr. Meikle verbal warnings, regarding the incidents, but never documented any of the verbal warnings. At some point in time, Hotels Unlimited decided to convert the Radisson to a Double Tree Hotel (Double Tree). The Double Tree’s structure required the position of a Food and Beverage Manager, who would supervise the food and beverage personnel, kitchen staff, and restaurant servers. Gerald Brown was hired as the Food and Beverage Manager in January 2008. Mr. Brown began his employment before the completion of the conversion from the Radisson to the Double Tree. On February 14, 2008, Mr. Brown held his first staff meeting with the entire staff over whom he had supervision. Mr. Meikle was late for the staff meeting. On February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a “Disciplinary Document” indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for being late at the meeting. Mr. Meikle admits that he was late for the meeting. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager (the date of the signature was not completed), and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. Additionally, on February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued another Disciplinary Document indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for failing to follow rules and direction involving four different matters about which Mr. Brown had repeatedly counseled Mr. Meikle on several occasions, but were not being adhered to by Mr. Meikle. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 16, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. On February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 23, 2008, a Saturday night. Mr. Meikle was scheduled to work, but he departed the kitchen and the hotel property without informing and obtaining permission from the manager. Hotels Unlimited’s policy required the informing of the manager in order for the manager to take appropriate steps to make adjustments to accommodate the absence. Mr. Meikle was entitled to a break, but he failed to notify the manager of his absence in accordance with the policy. The Disciplinary Document included a statement that “Disciplinary Action to be decided by the General Manager.” The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle on February 26, 2008, by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 25, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 26, 2008. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s absence from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, he was working an 18-hour shift, without anyone to relieve him, which meant that he was unable to take a break. He was exhausted and needed to take a break. Before Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle was working the 18-hour shift, and after Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle agreed to continue working the 18-hour shift. Mr. Brown did not wish to disrupt what was already in place, so he agreed to allow Mr. Meikle to keep the 18-hour shift. It was not unreasonable for Mr. Brown to maintain Mr. Meikle on the 18-hour shift, as Mr. Meikle requested. On that same day, February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 25, 2008. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, resulting in guests being disturbed. As Mr. Meikle had been absent from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, Mr. Brown was inquiring of Mr. Meikle the reason for his (Mr. Meikle’s) absence. Further, during the conversation, Mr. Brown raised several other concerns. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, which Mr. Brown determined was disturbing the guests. Mr. Brown requested Mr. Meikle to remove himself from the dining area. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Brown on February 26, 2008. Mr. Meikle refused to sign the Disciplinary Document where the employee’s signature is indicated; but, he (Mr. Meikle) noted on it, “Refuse to sign because I did what I was told,” and signed his name under the statement. Each Disciplinary Document indicated that Mr. Meikle’s termination was effective “2/29/08.” Mr. Brown did not indicate a date for termination on any Disciplinary Document and could offer no explanation as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such information. Furthermore, no testimony was presented as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such notation. Mr. Brown contacted Ms. Gray, recommending the termination of Mr. Meikle. Ms. Gray did not approve the recommendation; she wanted to continue to work with Mr. Meikle. On February 25, 2008, a letter, bearing the same date, from Mr. Meikle was faxed to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources. Among other things, Mr. Meikle notified Human Resources that he was working in a hostile work environment created by Mr. McPhun, providing examples of what he considered inappropriate action and conduct by Mr. McPhun; that Mr. McPhun “strongly dislike[s]” him “for whatever the reason”; that Mr. McPhun was taking food from the hotel and that he (Mr. Meikle) had reported it to the general manager; that all of his (Mr. Meikle’s) current problems at work stemmed from Mr. McPhun, providing examples of the problems that he (Mr. Meikle) had encountered2; that Mr. McPhun was the cause of all of his problems at work; that he (Mr. Meikle) had no one to ask for help; that Mr. McPhun was out to get him (Mr. Meikle) fired; that everyone was biased against him (Mr. Meikle) because of Mr. McPhun; and that a copy of the letter would be forwarded to the EEOC and the FCHR. Ms. Gray was notified by her superior that Human Resources had received a letter from Mr. Meikle, but she was not notified of the content of the letter nor did she receive or view a copy of the letter. Her superior told her to talk with Mr. Meikle and resolve the problem. Hotels Unlimited’s Employee Handbook, Employment Policies & Practices section, provides in pertinent part: Equal Employment * * * If you suspect discriminatory or harassing actions on the part of the Company or any other employee, you should immediately notify your General Manager or Corporate Department Head, as applicable, or, if you prefer, a Company Officer. Such notification will be held in confidence to the extent possible. Discriminatory behavior or action by any employee is cause for discharge. * * * Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment Policy Statement: Hotels Unlimited, Inc. is committed to a work environment in which all employees are treated with respect and dignity. It is the policy of Hotels Unlimited, Inc. to provide a work environment that is free from discrimination and harassment. Action, words or comments based on an individual’s sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law – either overt or subtle – are demeaning to another person and undermine the integrity of the employment relationship. . . . * * * Harassment on the basis of any other protected characteristic is also strictly prohibited. Such harassment is defined as verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility toward an individual because of his/her race, color religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law, and that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance; or otherwise adversely affects an individual’s employment opportunity. * * * Administration of Policy: * * * It is unlawful to retaliate in any way against anyone who has complained about harassment. Any incident of retaliation should be reported in the same manner as an incident of harassment. Any employee who engages in such retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. All allegations of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation will be subject to prompt, thorough and confidential investigation. All investigations will be designed to protect the privacy of, and minimize suspicion toward, all parties involved. . . . The Employee Handbook provided protection against employment practices for statuses beyond those set forth by law.3 In the early morning hours of February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was awoken by a telephone call from a co-worker inquiring as to why he (Mr. Meikle) was not at work. Mr. Meikle informed his co-worker that he was off that day, but his co- worker advised that he (Mr. Meikle) was scheduled to work. Mr. Meikle telephoned Mr. Brown, who informed Mr. Meikle to be at work. Mr. Meikle reported to work, but failed to report for his shift as scheduled. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s failure to report to work on time for his scheduled shift, all work schedules for Food and Beverage, during Mr. Brown’s tenure, were typed and posted, one week in advance. The work week for Food and Beverage was Monday through Sunday. The posted work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, was prepared, typed, and posted by Mr. Brown and indicated that Mr. Meikle was required to work on Monday, February 25, 2008, and Tuesday, February 26, 2008; was not required to work on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, and Thursday, February 28, 2008; but, was required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008, specifically, from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mr. Meikle reviewed a work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, that was typed and hand-written. The work schedule indicated that it was prepared by Mr. McPhun and that he (Mr. Meikle) was not required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008. Based on that work schedule, Mr. Meikle did not believe that he had to report to work on February 29, 2008. However, Mr. Meikle was required to report to work on February 29, 2008, and work from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled.4 No dispute exists that, at no time previously, had Mr. Meikle failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was terminated for failing “to be at work on time for [his] schedule [sic] shift.” A Termination Report dated February 29, 2008, was signed by Mr. Brown, by Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray. Mr. Brown made the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray agreed. Mr. McPhun did not participate with Mr. Brown and Ms. Gray in the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle. At the time of Mr. Meikle’s termination, Mr. Brown was not aware of Mr. Meikle’s letter to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Hotels Unlimited/Double Tree did not retaliate against Marshall Meikle in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended and dismissing his petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issues presented in this consolidated proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts and violations alleged in the two administrative complaints, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating restaurants in the state. Respondent is licensed as a restaurant, pursuant to license number 5802478, and operates as 459 Chinese Restaurant at 657 North Primrose Drive, Orlando, Florida 32803 (the restaurant). A sanitation and safety specialist (Specialist) for Petitioner inspected the restaurant on October 28 and 29, November 5, and December 1, 2004. The Specialist inspected the restaurant again on April 26 and 27, 2005. On December 1, 2004, Respondent committed three violations of applicable statutes and rules. On April 27, 2005, Respondent committed another violation. Each violation was an uncorrected violation that first occurred in previous inspections. On December 1, 2004, Respondent did not document that an employee at the restaurant had received training in professional hygiene and food-borne disease prevention in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(4)(a). This violation is a critical violation. Petitioner's witness identified a critical violation as a violation that is an immediate danger to the public safety. On December 1, 2004, a grease buildup existed on the kitchen wall near the fryer. Food-debris buildup was also present on the floors in the corner of the kitchen. Neither of these violations is a critical violation. On April 27, 2005, Respondent maintained eggs at a temperature of 64 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than 45 degrees, in violation of Rule 3-5.01.16(B) of the Food Code. This is a critical violation. Several mitigating factors are evidenced in the record. The violations did not result in actual harm. Respondent has no prior discipline. The violations are not continuing or ongoing violations. The only aggravating factor is that two of the violations are critical violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the acts and violations alleged in each Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent's representative to attend the educational program prescribed in Petitioner's PRO, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,300, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date that the agency serves Respondent with a copy of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Quinn 459 Chinese Super Buffet 657 North Primrose Drive Orlando, Florida 32803 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
