The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is eligible for a consumer certificate of exemption pursuant to Subsection 212.08(7)(o), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 31, 1994, the National Council of La Raza (Petitioner) filed an application with the Department of Revenue (Respondent) for a consumer certificate of exemption as a charitable organization. Petitioner indicated, among other things, on its application that it was a social welfare organization. Petitioner filed the application in anticipation of bringing its annual conference to Miami Beach, Florida in July 1994. 1/ Petitioner is a private, nonprofit organization which was incorporated in 1968 in Arizona. Petitioner's national headquarters is in Washington, D.C. and it has offices in Arizona, California, Illinois, and Texas. Article III of Petitioner's second amended articles of incorporation provides in pertinent part that one of its purposes is to "operate exclusively for charitable and educational purposes, including, but not limited to improvement of the condition of the Mexican American poor, and the under privileged." Article III of the amended articles of incorporation further provides in pertinent part that in carrying-out its purpose it would "conduct research and inquiry of the problems and issues that confront, with local variations and particular effects, the Chicano communities"; "promote meetings, conferences, seminars, discussions and other forms of group communication and analysis of the same among those engaged in organizational activity"; "provide technical assistance to affiliated barrio/community development organizations and to encourage, promote and facilitate mutual aid and assistance among them in order to strengthen each of them through the moral, technical and material resources of all"; "encourage and assist the development of the moral, technical and material resources of the barrios and colonias"; and "organize, exist and function as a charitable, non-profit, non-political 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization." Also, Article III of the amended articles of incorporation provides in pertinent part that its priorities are to "serve as the national advocate and mobilizer of resources and support for barrio/community development programs"; and "deliver program support and technical assistance services to barrio/community development programs in [named] priority areas." Consistent with the purposes in Petitioner's amended articles of incorporation, Petitioner provides in its publicly disseminated literature that it provides its services through four major types of initiatives: (a) "capacity-building assistance to support and strengthen Hispanic community-based organizations"; (b) "applied research, public policy analysis, and advocacy on behalf of the entire Hispanic community, designed to influence public policies and programs"; (c) "public information efforts to provide accurate information and positive images of Hispanics in the mainstream and Hispanic media"; and (d) "special catalytic efforts which use the [Petitioner] structure and reputation to create other entities or projects important to the Hispanic community". On or about May 1, 1968, Petitioner received a federal income tax exemption from the Internal Revenue Service as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner's organizational classifications under Section 501(c)(3) were charitable, educational and scientific. Petitioner's Section 501(c)(3) federal income tax exemption was effective at the time of its application with Respondent for a consumer certificate of exemption. Petitioner has been granted sales tax exemption by Washington, D.C., Michigan, Texas, and the city of Los Angeles, California. Petitioner's organizational structure consists of a Board of Directors, Office of the President, Office of Finance, Office of Administration, Office of Research Advocacy and Legislation, Office of Technical Assistance and Constituency Support, Office of Institutional Development, and Office of Development and Special Events. As to the Office of Research Advocacy and Legislation (ORAL), it is responsible for conducting research and analysis of issues which have been identified by Petitioner's Board of Directors and affiliates as having a primary importance to the Hispanic community. ORAL, through its Policy Analysis Center, conducts studies and research on immigration, education, housing, poverty, welfare, census, and national farm workers issues. Also, ORAL engages in a limited amount of lobbying on behalf of the Hispanic community. ORAL's services are mainly educational. The services include providing information and pamphlets on immigration and civil rights and producing a national radio program on immigration issues. The services are delivered primarily through brochures and pamphlets which are distributed without charge to Petitioner's affiliates and certain groups and organizations. Other groups and organizations are charged a fee depending upon what the group or organization is. ORAL's services are provided to a disadvantaged Hispanic population. As to the Office of Technical Assistance and Constituency Support (TACS), it is responsible for interfacing with both Petitioner's affiliates and its branch offices to directly provide services to the disadvantaged Hispanic community. Most of TACS' assistance focuses on resource development, program operations, and management or governance needs, in addition to addressing critical community needs through national emphasis programs operated in cooperation with Petitioner's affiliates. Also, TACS provides capacity-building assistance to the staff and board members of Hispanic community-based organizations through staff and board training and on-site assistance. As to the Office of Institutional Development (OID), it is responsible for conducting research on issues new to Petitioner and directing Petitioner's services to the Hispanic community. OID coordinates, on the national level, Petitioner's new programs (program models) in education, health education, the elderly and leadership development, as well as projects involving Europe. OID implements the new programs through Petitioner's affiliates. For example, in the 1980's AIDS became a new concern for the Hispanic community and was assigned to OID. A national toll-free AIDS hot line was established by OID and maintained in its office. The hot line is advertised through various media communications, Petitioner's affiliates, and community- based organizations. Additionally, funding has been provided through OID to two (2) Florida affiliates, Centro Campesino Farmworkers Center, Inc., and the Hispanic Alliance. The funding was provided through OID's leadership initiatives to a coordinating council for the purpose of distributing post-hurricane relief to farmworkers in Florida. The offices of ORAL, TACS, and OID have under their responsibility mission activities and core activities. Core activities involve issues which are identified by Petitioner's board and its affiliate organizations as being at the core of Petitioner's existence, such as civil rights enforcement and immigration issues. These activities are not necessarily funded by a particular government contract or grant from a private foundation or corporation. Mission activities consist of activities which are important in supporting the mission of Petitioner, but are not currently funded by a particular government contract or grant from a private foundation or corporation. These activities relate to administrative functions engaged in by ORAL, TACS, and OID to support Petitioner's operations and are funded with internal funds. The offices of ORAL, TACS and OID work interdependently. A problem is identified in the Hispanic community by Petitioner and/or its affiliates and assigned to ORAL or OID; ORAL or OID conducts research and develops programs to address the problem; and TACS delivers the program services to the disadvantaged Hispanic community, working with affiliates and community-based organizations to implement the programs. A program called Project EXCEL (Excellence in Community Educational Leadership) is an educational program developed by Petitioner. The problem of illiteracy and low graduation rates was identified. Research was conducted on the problem and the program, Project EXCEL, was developed. Petitioner implemented the program through its on-site staff who had oversight responsibility and who evaluated the program and actually worked with the clients to assist in the program's evaluation; whereas, the actual direct educational services were delivered to the clients by persons working for the organizations. Project EXCEL was implemented at public schools, day care centers, and churches. Petitioner secured and provided the funding for the community-based organizations to run demonstration sites for Project EXCEL. Two Florida organizations received assistance from Petitioner regarding Project EXCEL. Centro Campesino Farmworkers Center, Inc., which holds a sales tax exemption from Respondent, utilized the Project EXCEL curriculum developed by Petitioner in providing after-school services to children of migrant farmworkers. Also, the Coalition of Florida Farmworkers Organizations, Inc., which holds a sales tax exemption from Respondent, received a grant to implement Project EXCEL and Petitioner provided a curriculum and some of its staff to assist the Coalition of Florida Farmworkers in working with the children. Both the Centro Campesino Farmworkers and the Coalition of Florida Farmworkers pay annual dues to Petitioner as affiliates. They have received from Petitioner pass-through funds as subgrants. Petitioner does not engage in direct fund raising to support the organizations. Pass-through funding is funding distributed through Petitioner to its affiliates or other outside organizations through subgrants. The funds are received by Petitioner from grants for which Petitioner applies. For both the Centro Campesino Farmworkers and the Coalition of Florida Farmworkers, Petitioner has not provided volunteers to run any of the organizations' programs or provide the organizations' services at the local level. Furthermore, Petitioner does not control, govern, or administer any of the Centro Compesino Farmworkers' or the Coalition of Florida Farmworkers' services or activities at the local level. In another instance, Petitioner identified housing problems for the Hispanic community regarding ownership, quality and availability. Research showed that, for Hispanics, there existed a low rate of home ownership, substandard housing, and discrimination. Petitioner secured funding to build low income housing and commercial developments in low income neighborhoods; at times, providing pre-development costs or professional services such as engineers and architects. As with Centro Campensino Farmworkers and the Coalition of Florida Farmworkers, Petitioner does not provide volunteers to work for its affiliate organizations at the local level (Petitioner's staff are paid employees), Petitioner does not engage in direct fund raising to support its affiliate organizations, and Petitioner does not control, govern, or administer any of the services at the local level. Also, ORAL, TACS, and OID have worked interdependently in developing programs in the health field. AIDS public service announcements have been produced by Petitioner. An AIDS national toll-free hot line is operated by Petitioner, with professional staff manning the phones to provide information to AIDS patients and others and with the costs being borne by Petitioner. As to the Office of Development and Special Effects (ODSE), it is responsible for fund raising, proposal writing, receipt of grants, Petitioner's future endowment or capital campaign. ODSE's primary responsibility is the operation of Petitioner's annual conference and Congressional awards dinner. The annual conference is held in different locations and the awards dinner is held in Washington, D.C. The annual conference is attended by thousands of participants from across the United States to discuss topics and issues relevant to the Hispanic community. Affiliates which attend pay a registration fee. Usually offered at the conference are workshops, seminars, an art show, job fair, silent auction, and an exhibit hall where corporations and governmental agencies can promote themselves. Except for the meal events, all the other activities are open to the public at no charge. As part of the conference, Petitioner sponsors a Youth Leadership Program in which the expenses are paid for 25 to 30 youths (tenth to twelfth graders), who are disadvantaged and at-risk and from various parts of the country, to attend the conference. A similar program is sponsored by Petitioner for college students. Additionally, Petitioner sponsors a one day event for area disadvantaged district school students. Petitioner's 1994 annual conference was held at Miami Beach, Florida on July 17 - 20, 1994. Petitioner provided or sponsored all of its usual activities or programs, except for a job fair. In addition, Petitioner sponsored a senior citizens day for the disadvantaged elderly. The registration fee for affiliates was $150. Petitioner's Office of Finance is responsible for the fiscal management of all internal matters and the financial practices of Petitioner. Petitioner reflects its fiscal financial picture on two documents. As a Section 501(c)(3) organization, Petitioner files federal tax returns, known as Forms 990, on a yearly basis. Additionally, Petitioner has audited financial statements prepared annually. Among other things, Form 990 reflects Petitioner's expenses found on its audited financial statements, but in greater detail. Petitioner's fiscal year is from October 1st to September 30th of each year. Expenditures associated with Petitioner's Board of Directors, Office of the President, Office of Finance, and Office of Administration are general administrative expenses. These expenditures fall within the category of supporting activities on Petitioner's audited financial statements. For the fiscal year October 1, 1992 to September 30, 1993, Petitioner's total expenditures were $5,581,316. Of this total of expenditures, $4,407,194 represented expenses for program services, per the category on Form 990, of which $126,250 represented pass-through funds to subgrantees; of which over $2.6 million represented compensation of officers and directors, etc., other salaries and wages, pension plan contributions, other employee benefits, payroll taxes, and conferences, conventions and meetings 2/ ; and of which $57,421 represented legislative advocacy. Also, of the total expenditures, $1,174,122 represented expenses for supporting activities, of which $976,044 represented general administration; and of which $198,078 represented fund raising which is money expended in writing proposals to fund Petitioner's programs. For the fiscal year October 1, 1991, through September 30, 1992, Petitioner's total expenditures were $5,150,084.00. Of this total of expenditures, $3,982,552 represented expenses for program services, including $172,620 for pass-through funds to subgrantees, over $2.3 million for compensation of officers and directors, other salaries and wages, pension plan contributions, other employee benefits, payroll taxes, and conferences, conventions and meetings, and $54,410 for legislative advocacy. Also, of the total expenditures, $1,167,532 represented expenses for supporting services, including $978,557 for general administration, and $188,975 for fund raising. Even though Petitioner claims to have 182 affiliates, only 162 affiliates were identified. Petitioner actively works with 120 of the 162 identified affiliates. Nine of the affiliates hold certificates of exemption issued by Respondent. Because of the minimal descriptions provided by Petitioner of the affiliates, only a small minority could be determined to provide services for free or at a substantially reduced cost.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order DENYING the National Council of La Raza a consumer certificate of exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from the position of a District Manager with the Respondent on or about December 21, 1992, on the basis of his national origin (Hispanic), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, The Silent Witness, Inc., is a corporation engaged in providing worker's compensation investigative services for insurance companies. It currently employs approximately forty (40) employees. In December, 1992, it employed approximately 71 employees. Respondent is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Respondent has been in business since 1988. Bob Gott, President of Respondent, and Phil Sanford, Vice President, were owners of the Company at all times relevant to this case. At the relevant time, a company Directorate had been established for managing the day to day operations of the company. The Directorate was made up of five (5) employees, Jim Yockey, Director of Operations (Atlanta), Tom Overton, Director of Operations, Jo Branton, Director of Sales, Sheila Harold, Director of Administration, and Keith Freeman, Director of Human Resources. The Respondent has adopted and had in effect at all times pertinent, a written policy of equal employment opportunity. Respondent has employed and promoted Hispanic and African-American employees in the past. Petitioner, Juan Falcon, is an American male of Hispanic (Puerto Rican) descent. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from August 10, 1992 until December 21, 1992 as a Division Manager. Petitioner was hired a rate of pay of $500 per week and received a $100 per week raise in September, 1992. During the course of his employment, Petitioner was not reprimanded for poor performance. Petitioner was interviewed and hired into a management position (Division Manager) upon the recommendation of Keith Freeman who had known and supervised him at a previous employer, Florida Claims Bureau. During the relevant time period, there were three division managers in the Respondent's investigative division, Petitioner, Danny Laughlin and Tom Overton. Petitioner and Danny Laughlin, an African-American, reported to Tom Overton, a white male, Director of Operations, who also acted as a Division Manager. In the fall of 1992, the owners, Bob Gott and Phil Sanford, and the Directorate became concerned with problems in the Operations Department. These problems related to communications with other departments, loss of customers, and lack of follow up by the Operations Department after additional training. In December, 1992, Bob Gott came to Keith Freeman and stated to Freeman that he had found an audio tape on his desk. Gott stated that he did not know where the tape came from or who had placed it there but he had listened to it. Gott stated to Freeman that the substance of the tape was indicative of attitude problems the Petitioner and others were having and important enough to discuss at the next Directorate meeting. The tape apparently consisted of conversations between Laughlin and the Petitioner and investigators working under each of them. The conversations included debriefings of the investigators. Gott believed the tape demonstrated poor attitudes on the part of the Division Managers and investigators involved. Gott came to the Directorate meeting on December 8, 1992. He advised the Directorate that he had a tape, that he did not know where the tape came from, that he was disturbed by the contents of the tape, and that he wanted the Directorate to review the tape and take appropriate action. Gott then left the meeting. The Directorate listened to the tape and appointed Tom Overton to conduct an investigation into the problems reflected on the tape. Overton was to report back to the Directorate at the next meeting with an analysis of what he felt was wrong with the Operations Department and how to improve its operations and fix the problems. The Directorate specifically ordered Overton not to discuss the investigation with anyone other than the members of the Directorate or the owners. Overton contacted all of the employees who were on the tape, except one, and played the tape at a meeting in his home. Petitioner and Danny Laughlin, who were Division Managers, as well as Mark Jarrett and John Bagley who were investigators were present. Jarrett worked under the Petitioner and Bagley worked under Laughlin. Theresa Miller, who worked under Laughlin, was also on the tape but was not present because she was out of town. Overton told those present not to say anything about the tape and not to admit that they knew the tape existed. Gott found out that Overton had played the tape for those on it and had divulged the existence of the investigation to other people in the company. When confronted by Gott, Overton initially denied he had let his employees listen to the tape, but eventually admitted it sometime before December 21, 1992, the date when Petitioner was terminated. On or about December 17, 1992, Gott spoke briefly with the Petitioner concerning the Petitioner's knowledge about the tape and the meeting at which Overton played it. The Petitioner denied any knowledge of any tape recordings because he believed he might lose his job. Gott came to Freeman and asked him to meet with Gott and the Petitioner. Gott was concerned that the Petitioner had denied any knowledge of the tape because everyone else involved had said the Petitioner was at the meeting where Overton played the tapes. Gott was aware of Freeman's relationship with the Petitioner and wanted Freeman to meet with Gott and the Petitioner to try to alleviate the Petitioner's concerns and try to get him to honestly answer the questions. Later the same day, Freeman and Gott met with the Petitioner in Freeman's office. Freeman told the Petitioner that he had known the Petitioner for years, that he had helped bring the Petitioner into the company and that the Petitioner did not need to be concerned about his position as long as he told the truth. Freeman also told the Petitioner that if a manager had told the Petitioner to do something the Petitioner was uncomfortable with, the only person he had to be honest with was the owner of the company. The Petitioner was specifically asked if he heard the tape, if he had any knowledge of the tape, and if he was in a meeting with Overton. The Petitioner stated that he was not aware of any tape recordings made between investigators and their managers and he did not attend a meeting called by Overton. At the next meeting of the Directorate, the Directors discussed the fact that Overton had divulged the investigation and contents of the tape to outside parties and discussed it with other people besides the Directorate. Overton was not at the meeting because he had admitted this to Gott. The Directorate voted to terminate Overton for direct violation of the Directorate's orders; however, because of Overton's longevity with the Respondent it voted to offer Overton a demotion. The Directorate voted to terminate Laughlin for lack of performance. The Directorate voted to terminate the Petitioner for dishonesty. On December 21, 1992, Overton was called into the Directorate meeting and was terminated and then offered a demotion. The Petitioner was called in next and was terminated for being dishonest to an executive officer and for lack of performance. Laughlin was called in and informed of his termination. The day after Petitioner's discharge, Ed Coglin, a white investigator was promoted to the position of Division Manager at a rate of pay of $650 per week. Coglin had not passed his division manager's test at the time of his promotion. At the end of the week, Phillip Sanford, Vice President of the Respondent, called Laughlin and offered him a job in a demoted position as a senior investigator. Laughlin indicated he had had a number of other offers with other companies and declined the offer. Sanford did not contact the Petitioner to offer him a position because of his dishonesty in response to Freeman and Gott's questions about the tape. The week after their termination on December 21, 1992, Laughlin and the Petitioner filed a complaint with the Altamonte Springs Police Department concerning the tape of their conversations with their investigators. The complaint was forwarded to the State Attorney's office, which took no action. Between January, 1992 and June 1993, at least eight other employees besides the Petitioner have been terminated for poor work performance. Of those eight, two were Hispanic, five were white and one was black. Two other employees, one white and one Hispanic, were terminated for dishonesty in 1990. The Petitioner was specifically informed that he could be terminated without notice for dishonesty when he was first employed. In fact on August 10, 1992, the Petitioner signed and acknowledged the list of termination offenses. The Respondent's employee policy handbook also states that dishonesty in dealing with clients or management are grounds for immediate termination. At the time of the Petitioner's termination, two employees were promoted to Division Manager, i.e., Reginald McCutchen, black, and Ed Coughlin, white. One Division Manager position was eliminated. McCutchen was in the Atlanta office at the time. Coughlin and Overton performed the duties of Division Manager in Orlando. Respondent has employed twenty division managers since 1989. Of those twenty, seven were non-Caucasians. The longevity of the division managers is delineated below: Caucasian division managers: 5 years 2 4 years 1 3 years + 5 2 years + 2 1 year + 2 6 months 1 TOTAL 13 Non-Caucasian division managers: 2 months 1 4 months 1 1 year + 2 (Laughlin + McCutcheon who worked in Atlanta) 2 years + 2 As of October, 1994, no Hispanic investigators were working for Respondent. Petitioner claimed that Bob Gott, the Company President, was a racist and treated him discriminatorily by behaving coldly to him and never greeting him and because he was a "very cold distant type individual". Gott lacked interpersonal skills, could be moody, had an abrasive personality, and often spoke abruptly to other employees both Hispanic and non-Hispanic. The evidence failed to show that Gott had a "racist" attitude toward Hispanics. The Petitioner claims he was treated differently than similarly situated non-Hispanic employees when he was terminated. The Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to show that he was terminated on the basis of his national origin (Puerto Rican). As of Tuesday, December 22, 1992, the date of Petitioner's discharge, he was earning $600 per week. As of the date of the Division of Administrative Hearing's hearing Petitioner had accrued 94 weeks of back pay at the rate of $600. per week. Following his discharge, Petitioner earned $14,897 in 1993 and he had earned $10,598 as of the date of the Division of Administrative Hearing's hearing on October 11, 1994. Thus, the information shows the following: INCOME AT SILENT WITNESS 94 x 600 = 55,200.00 INCOME ACTUALLY EARNED SINCE DISCHARGE: 1993 14,897 1994 10,598 25,495.00 TOTAL LOST INCOME 29,705.00
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: p.1, paragraph A.1 (in part); p.2, paragraphs 1, 2, 3; p. 3, B2; p.4, paragraph C.1 (in part); p.5, paragraph C.2.2; p.5, paragraph C.2.3. (in part); p.6, C.2.4.; p.6, C.2.5 (in part); p.7, D.1, D.2. Rejected as contained in the Preliminary Statement: p.1, paragraph A.1 (in part); p.5, paragraph C.2.1, or subsumed. Rejected as a argument on comment on the evidence and irrelevant and immaterial: p.3, paragraph B.1.; p.4, paragraph B.4, C.1 (in part); p.6, C.2.6. Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence or hearsay: p.4, C.1 (in part); p.5, paragraph C.2.3. (in part); p.6., C.2.5 (in part). Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 (in part), 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (in part), 11, 12, 13 (p.4), 13 (p.5), 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23. Paragraphs rejected as argument or a comment on the evidence and irrelevant and immaterial: Paragraphs 4 (in part), 10 (in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Swanson, Esquire 801 N. Magnolia Avenue Ste 302 Orlando, Florida 32803 Dorothy F. Green, Esquire Richeson & Brown, P.A. Post Office Box 3006 Orlando, Florida 32802 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Hayward Trucking, Inc. for certification as a minority business enterprise be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a construction company. Petitioner is a black male who was employed by Respondent for almost six years as an electrical helper until his termination on February 2, 2015. The incident giving rise to Petitioner’s termination occurred on February 2, 2015, in Port Everglades, Florida. On that date, Petitioner was working on a project as an electrical helper. Petitioner and another employee in the area of the work reportedly violated Respondent’s “Lock out/Tag out” (“LOTO”) safety policy. LOTO is required to cutoff electrical power whenever construction, modification, testing, start-up, servicing, or maintenance is being performed on equipment or systems in which the unexpected energization, start-up, or release of stored energy, could cause injury to people or damage equipment. Any employee of Respondent whose job requires him or her to operate or use a machine or equipment on which construction, modification, testing, start-up, servicing, or maintenance is being performed under a LOTO, or whose job requires him or her to work in an area in which such activities are being performed, must comply with LOTO. Petitioner and another employee reportedly failed to comply with LOTO in an area in which they were working on February 2, 2015. Respondent considers the failure of an employee to comply with LOTO to be a terminable offense. Both Petitioner and another employee in the area were discharged by Respondent on February 2, 2015, for failing to comply with the LOTO policy. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Petitioner was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons having nothing to do with his race, color, or national origin. Petitioner’s charge of discrimination is based on speculation and conjecture, and Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent’s reasons for his firing are a mere pretext for intentional race, color, or national origin discrimination.
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 dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact On August 28, 1989, Sandco submitted its request for DBE certification to the Department. On other occasions where Sandco had sought this form of recognition it had been denied certification by Leon County and the State of Florida, Department of General Services. It had been successful in that endeavor with the City of Tallahassee. The similarity or dissimilarity between the requirements for certification with the Department and the City of Tallahassee was not identified at hearing. Sandco is a general construction firm which emphasizes site work and excavation. It has three owners who share a one-third interest in the company. They are: Mr. Behzad Ghazvini-Najad, Mr. Mehran Ghazvini-Najad, and. Mr. Mehrdad Ghazvini-Najad. They are in turn the President, Vice President and Secretary/Treasurer for the corporation. After review of the application the Department in the person of Juanita Moore, Director of Minority Programs Bureau, notified the applicant that the certification request had been denied. This notification came on about January 31, 1990. On February 12, 1990, Sandco requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The owners of Sandco, according to the documents submitted with the application, are Iranians who have become naturalized Americans. Further explanation of their heritage was not made through the course of these proceedings. In lieu of specific reference to the family experience of the principals in the Sandco corporation, they presented information said to be from the Encyclopedia Britanica. In addition, in the correspondence which enclosed the application materials, the Sandco President made certain references which he asserts are from Races of Mankind: Their Origin and Migration, by Calvin Kephart and Fieldiana: Anthropology, by the Chicago Natural History Museum, in particular the volume Contributors to the Anthropology of Iran by Henry Field. Excerpts from the Encyclopedia Britanica were included with the application and presented at hearing. The other two reference sources as excerpts were not submitted. The references from the Encyclopedia Britanica at pages 881, 883 and 884 pertain to 79 A.D. through 651 A.D. and do not describe a sufficient relationship with tihe region which includes modern day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to say that the principals in the applicant corporation are "Asian/Indian Americans" within the meaning of Rule 14-78.002(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code. Because the other texts from which this material is quoted was not provided it may not be confirmed for fact finding purposes nor can any fact be found about a map which is allegedly attributable to the Field book.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the application by Sandco to be certified as a DBE be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-1219 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact of the parties. Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 is a statement of the controlling rule which is set out in the conclusions of law. Paragraphs 2 and 3 are s1ubordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are contrary to facts found. Respondent' s Facts: All are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 William D. Whitlock, III, Esquire Barrett, Bajoczky, Hoffman and Harper 131 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1501 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1501 William P. Martin, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact First Bank of Hollywood Beach is a state-chartered bank duly authorized and empowered under the laws of the State of Florida and of the United States to conduct a general banking business in and from offices in the State of Florida. First Bank's main office is located in Broward County, and it has three authorized branch offices in Broward County. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) American Bank of Hollywood is a state-chartered bank duly authorized and empowered under the laws of the State of Florida and of the United States to conduct a general banking business in and from offices in the State of Florida. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) It conducts business in its main office in Broward County, has a branch office in Broward County, and has applied for a second branch office in Broward County. Gerald A. Lewis is the Comptroller of the State of Florida and, as such, is the head of the Department of Banking and Finance. On August 1, 1980, the Department received request from the First Bank of Hollywood Beach for approval of an amendment to its charter changing its name to First American Bank of Broward County. On August 22, 1980, the department received an objection to the requested name change from American Bank of Hollywood. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Both banks have engaged in the banking business in Broward County, Florida, for more than eight years using their current corporate names. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) Some of the principals of First Bank of Hollywood Beach, either as directors, officers, or shareholders, are and have been directors, officers, or shareholders of the First American Bank of Palm Beach County, which bank conducts a business through a main office and ten branch offices in Palm Beach County, Florida. Said principals desire to change the name of First Bank of Hollywood Beach to reflect its affiliation with the First American Bank of Palm Beach County. Additionally, substantially the same group of individuals has pending with the Department an application to organize a new bank to be named First American Bank of Broward County, which bank will also conduct its business through its main office in Broward County, Florida. If the de novo charter is approved, the new bank would also function as part of the "group" comprised of the First American Bank of Palm Beach County and the First Bank of Hollywood Beach. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1) As of the date of hearing in this cause, banks with the word "American" in their names were located in thirteen different counties within the State of Florida. At that time, within Broward County, the following commercial banks and savings and loan associations used the word "American" in their titles: American Bank of Hollywood + 1 branch (+ 1 branch applied for) Transamerica Bank of Florida + 1 branch Pan American Bank of Broward + 3 branches Great American Bank of Davie Great American Bank of Broward County Gulfstream American Bank & Trust Company + 5 branches AmeriFirst Federal Savings & Loan Associa- tion + 5 branches American Savings & Loon Association + 14 branches The proposed First American Bank of Broward County, together with First Bank's group if its requested name change is approved, would produce five additional locations of banks with "American" in their titles in Broward County. The sole basis for American Bank's objection to First Bank's requested name change is confusion based upon name similarity. No confusion exists between the First American Bank of Palm Beach County and the Pan American Bank of Palm Beach County or between the First American Bank of Palm Beach County and any bank in Broward County with "American" in its name, although the First American Bank of Palm Beach County has a branch within one mile of the Palm Beach/Broward County line. David Starke, an economist who specializes in consulting work with financial institutions, was not tendered as an expert witness and, accordingly, was not accepted as one. However, the surveys of banks with similar names in the State of Florida prepared by him reveal that all banks using the word "American" in their names also use either a first-word adjective and/or a geographic designation to distinguish one from the other. According to those surveys, both the banks and the savings and loam associations in Broward County with "American" in their titles use these two methods of distinguishing themselves. Both methods of distinction would be utilized by the requested one change in this cause. Other than uncorroborated hearsay evidence, American Bank introduced four items of correspondence which David L. Cory personally obtained from mail erroneously received by American Bank on one Saturday. All of the items of correspondence originated from persons outside of Broward County, with two of them originating from outside of the State of Florida. None of the items was addressed to the American Bank of Hollywood; however, three of the four items specifically carried American Bank's mailing address. The 1980 Hollywood (Broward County, Florida) telephone directory contains a listing for a First American Bank of Broward County, a bank formerly known as Executive Bank of Fort Lauderdale and now known as Great American Bank of Broward County. 10 . In March, 1979 the American Bank of Hollywood reserved with the Secretary of State's office the corporate name of American Bank of Broward. Other than reserving the name, American Bank has taken no steps toward using that name. The Department takes no position on the requested name change herein and recommends neither approval nor disapproval.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered approving the request of First Bank of Hollywood Beach to change its name to First American Bank of Broward County. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, 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 13th day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard L. Levenstein, Esquire 1500 South Dixie Highway Coral Gables, Florida 33146 Walter W. Wood, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert B. Butler, Esquire Ellis, Spencer, Butler & Kisslan 1909 Tyler Street Post Office Box 6 Hollywood, Florida 33022 The Honorable Gerald A. Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Joanne Gamache is a white, American female, and she owns 51 percent of the stock of Sun World Travel, Inc., (hereafter Sun). She submitted an application for MBE Certification in behalf of Sun to the Department of Management Services, (hereafter DMS). (R.E. 1, p. 24-31) Gillies Gamache, Joanne's husband, owns 49 percent of Sun World Travel. (Tr. 19-20) The major business purpose of this business is the sale of travel. (Tr. 35) Sun is a corporation domiciled in Florida with less than 25 employees, and a net worth of less than $1 million dollars. DMS, through its Certification Officer Morris, reviewed the file, completed an on site visit to Petitioner's business, and Sun's application for MBE Certification was tentatively denied. (Tr. 97-100) Sun was duly notified of DMS's decision, and filed a timely request for formal hearing on the intended agency action. In 1978, Gilles Gamache bought a travel agency in Broward County called Transit Travel using the joint savings of Gilles and Joanne Gamache. (Tr. 11- 12) All of the stock of this travel agency was issued to Gilles Gamache. (Tr. 19) He was both travel agent and the manager of Transit Travel. (Tr. 11) Joanne Gamache also worked in the agency making resevations, delivering tickets and doing the bookkeeping. (Tr. 15-16) Both Gamaches were also employed full time as teachers in the Broward County school system. (Tr. 12-13, 15-16) In 1981, the Gamaches moved to Tallahassee selling both their home and the business in South Florida. (Tr.14) Gilles Gamache opened another travel agency in Tallahassee called Sun World Travel using the proceeds of the sale of Transit Travel and other jointly held property. (Tr. 14 and 31) He was initially the 100 percent owner of the agency. (Tr. 19) Gilles Gamache initially worked in the travel agency full time and Joanne Gamache continued to teach school full time, and deliver tickets and work on business' books. (Tr. 16-19) She occasionally made some reservations. (Tr. 16-19) In 1989, Gilles Gamache transferred 51 percent ownership of Sun to Joanne Gamache. (Tr. 19-20) This shift resulted when Gilles Gamache became involved in additional business ventures, Joanne Gamache had more time to devote to the business because their daughter had entered school, and the transfer reflected the ownership interest which Joanne Gamache had possessed in Sun and its predeccessor, Transit Travel. It is incorrect to state that Joanne Gamache did not pay anything for her share of the business because she would have been entitled to a share of the business equal to her contribution to the joint funds used to purchase Transit Travel and jointly held property from which the money came to start Sun. (Tr. 31) The uncontroverted evidence is that Joanne's contributions to those savings was greater than Gilles' because she had always maintained her full time employment as a teacher. (Tr. 43 and HO's notes p. 6, 14, 27) The bylaws of the corporation provide that no transfer of stock which would dilute the 51 percent ownership of this corporation by minorites shall be permitted. (Tr. 21, Pet. Exh. 2, Article IV, Section 5) Concurrent with the shift in ownership and responsibilities, Sun hired an office manager because of a technical requirement that the manager of such an agency must be a certified reservationist, and Joanne Gamache is not certified. Initially, one of the existing employees, who was certified, was employed as the manager. Thereafter, Cindy Cimbora was hired as the manager; however, she is under the direction and control of Joanne Gamache. Gilles Gamache continues to be employed as a reservationist with Sun, as well has being the sole employee of two other companies which he owns. One of these companies is an importing company and the other involves text books. Gilles Gamache works 20 to 30 hours per week for Sun World Travel and 16 hours in his other businesses. (Tr. 80, 29-30) One of the major purchasing decisions made by Sun in the last five years was the purchase of the current business site. Joanne Gamache suggested the purchase of the building as a business location for Sun, and was the prime mover in its purchase, although both Gamaches participated in the negotiations for the purchase. The Gamaches own the building personally and rent the building to their businesses. The office of Gilles Gamache's companies are also in this building, but separate from those of Sun. None of the travel agency's business is transacted in the area used by his other businesses, and visa versa. (Tr. 76) Joanne Gamahe designed, selected and purchased the business' sign, entrance, and doors. She contracted for the security system for Sun. Rent paid by Sun on the building is less than $20,000 a year. Joanne Gamache earns $32,000 a year as a teacher and $7,000 a year from Sun World Travel. (Tr.46-47) Joanne Gamache goes to the business before and after school to deal with day to day business decisions providing direction to Cimbora in writing, directly, and by telepone. Joanne Gamache does a portion of her bookkeeping work at home at night and on the weekends. (Tr. 49) She estimates that she works 15-20 hours per week for Sun World Travel during the school year. Currently, Cindy Cimbora directs the other agents during business hours from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (Tr. 76-94) The Gamaches, as teachers, originally decided to engage in the travel business because its peak busy periods coincide with traditional school breaks. Sun employs Joanne Gamache, Gilles Gamache, Cindy Cimbora, Mary Waltman and John Moseley. Joanne Gamache makes personnel decisions, although most of the current employees were employed prior to the transfer of business ownership, and prepares and signs all payroll checks. She did interview and hire Cindy Cimbora, a white, American female in January 1992, on an employment contract which provides that Cimbora has first right of refusal if the agency is put up for sale. Cindy Cimbora is an experienced travel agent, and certified reservationist. (Tr. 50-51) Gilles Gamache signed the latest contract for the business' reservation computer system; however, Joanne Gamach negotiated the contract, and did not sign in behalf of the business because she was out of town because of an illness in her family. (Tr. 36) Joanne Gamache negotiated and signed the previous contract for reservation computer services. (Pet. Exh. 4 & 5, and Tr. 37) Joanne Gamache currently pays payroll, purchases supplies, handles accounts receivable, deals with the accountant about taxes, and gives direction to Cindy Cimbora on business to pursue. Joanne Gamache controls the finances of the business. Sun has a line of credit with First Florida Bank for which both Gamaches are jointly and severally liable. The business regularly uses credit card accounts for which both Gamaches are jointly and severally liable. Sun is unable to procure credit without the personal guarantee of both Gamaches. Cimbora and Gilles are additional authorized signatories on the business' checking account to facilitate transactions, such as making refunds to customers. Joanne Gamache writes the majority of the checks to suppliers and service providers. The company supplied a list of daily business activities for each owner at the request of the Certification Officer. (R.E. 1, p. 33-36) Gilles Gamache listed the following duties: disseminate information on new travel deals, coordinate ticket deliveries, organize travel literature files, look out for the best insurance values, monitor sales, solicit new business and make travel arrangements for clients. (R.E. 1 p. 34) Joanne Gamache listed her activities as the following: purchase goods and services, sign checks, do payroll, monitor profitability, monitor overhead costs, monitor collection of commissions, monitor stock of documents, issue refunds and process weekly airline report. (R.E. 1 p. 35) All of Joanne Gamache's functions related to management and the setting of policy, not day to day arrangements for travel; however, her duties are essential to the success of the business. In order to establish and maintain a travel agency the Airline Reporting Corporation requires that a travel agent with two years experience must run the business. (Tr. 123) To become a travel agent, a person must take a four hundred hour course covering topics including the opening and closing of a sale, learning airports, the destination of airlines and scheduling. (Tr. 88) There is a separate course requirement for the COVIA reservation system. (Tr. 88) COVIA is a system for making computerized airline reservations. Joanne Gamache has not attended these courses and is not a certified travel agent. (Tr. 75) This is the reason Sun employs Cindy Cimbora. The department's determination was based upon its conclusions regarding control of the business. To determine who has control of a family- owned business the agency looks at the contributions of each family member, the history of involvement with the business of each spouse, who sets policy, the resumes of the owners, the relative involvement of each owner in the business, and the length of time each had been active in the travel business. The agency initially concluded that Gilles Gamache's experience in the business was more extensive than his wife's, and that Joanne Gamache does not control Sun World Travel. (Tr 123-125)
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered granting the Petitioner's request for certification of the minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of October, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue Should Petitioner be certified as a minority business enterprise (MBE) by the Minority Business Advocacy and Assistance Office of the Department of Labor and Employment Security?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a sole proprietor seeking certification as an MBE under the minority status of Native American (Indian). Also in his application seeking MBE certification, Petitioner claimed the category of Hispanic American but did not attempt to prove this category at the hearing. Petitioner is seeking certification as an MBE qualified to perform building maintenance, grounds maintenance, painting, cleaning, landscaping, and clearing and grubbing. Petitioner’s great-grandmother was a full-blooded Cherokee Indian (Native American) who lived her life as an Indian. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that his great-grandmother was a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe, as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner was at one time a member of the American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia. However, Petitioner resigned from the American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia and no longer claims any ties to that group. The American Cherokee Confederacy of Georgia is not a federally recognized Indian Tribe as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner is not a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe as that term is defined by Rule 38A-20.001(17), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent stipulated at the hearing that its denial was based solely on the fact that Petitioner had failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he was a minority person as that term is defined in Section 288.703(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner's application for Minority Business Enterprise status be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Calvin W. "Bill" Wood 10577 Schaefer Lane Lake Wales, Florida 33853 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired and began work with DPR on August 22, 1989, in the position of Information Specialist II. The job duties for that position are contained in Respondent's Exhibit 1. Petitioner was terminated on February 5, 1990, before the expiration of her probationary term under the Career Service System. On November 30, 1989, Randy Reid was hired as a public information specialist and worked with Petitioner. It is uncontroverted that Ms. Reid and Petitioner had a personality conflict. Effective January 25 or 26, 1990, Ms. Reid was promoted to the position of Public Information Supervisor, a position to which Petitioner was directly responsible. Before that time, Petitioner had made Ms. Reid aware that the duties which she was performing were not the duties for which she had been hired. Specifically, Petitioner wanted to cover board meeting and to write. Instead she was spending much of her time responding to telephone requests for information. Ms. Reid initiated the paper work to promote Petitioner to the position of Information Specialist III. According to Respondent's Exhibit 2, Petitioner would have been performing the duties for which she had expressed an interest. She would also receive a pay increase. When Ms. Reid informed Petitioner of this promotion, Petitioner was unhappy because she did not want to begin an new probationary period. Petitioner made the situation more difficult by refusing to take directions from Ms. Reid unless the instructions were given by Ms. Reid in writing. Petitioner also responded inappropriately to reporters' requests for information. Instead of advising that certain confidential information was not available, Petitioner, having been a reporter herself for 15 years, expressed empathy with the reporters' dilemma and frustration with not being able to get the information the reporters sought. The information was confidential and Florida Statutes expressly prohibit disclosure. On February 2, 1990, an incident occurred during which Petitioner was insubordinate to Ms. Reid. Petitioner raised her voice and told Ms. Reid that she would not take verbal directions from her. Petitioner then left her work place and went to the personnel office to complain about Ms. Reid's alleged verbal abuse. Based on this incident and the other problems experienced between Ms. Reid and Petitioner, Ms. Reid recommended to the DPR Assistant Secretary that Petitioner be terminated. When Petitioner returned to her work place, Ms. Reid took her to the Assistant Secretary's office. Petitioner was given the option to resign or be terminated. She was very agitated when the Assistant Secretary presented her with that option. She was given the upcoming weekend to make her decision. Petitioner returned to work the following Monday morning, February 5, 1990. She refused to resign and she was terminated. The parties stipulate that Petitioner is over the age of forty and is of French origin. Petitioner's position of Information Specialist II was filled by a person over age forty of American origin. Petitioner alleged throughout this proceeding that Ms. Reid regularly, verbally harassed her by making disparaging comments about her age and national origin. She alleged that Ms. Reid is married to a German man from the Alsace- Lorraine region, which has been the subject of many disputes between the French and Germans. She further alleged that the marital relationship prompted Ms. Reid to harass her in order to please her husband. Finally, Petitioner alleged that Ms. Reid verbally abused her with specific negative comments about her age and French accent. Absolutely no credible evidence was produced by Petitioner to substantiate any of these allegations. It is found that Ms. Reid did not verbally harass Petitioner based on age or national origin. Petitioner did perform her job duties adequately except for the specific instances found herein.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint for age and national origin discrimination. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 28th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Liliane Parbot-Johnson Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); and 12 & 14(11). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 4, and 15 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 5-11, 13, and 17 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 16 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(4); 4(3); 5(5); 6(5); and 10(10). Proposed findings 2, 7, 8, and 9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Liliane Parbot-Johnson Post Office Box 20363 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
