Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating vehicular access and connections to or from the State Highway System in accordance with Sections 335.18 through 335.188, Florida Statutes, known as the State Highway System Access Management Act. The property which Petitioner filed an application for an access connection to US Highway 17 (SR 35) is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of SR 35 and Sixth Street in Fort Meade, Polk County, Florida. Petitioner's property abuts the east right-of-way of SR 35, with frontage of approximately 235 feet and the south right-of-way of Sixth Street, with frontage of approximately 235 feet. SR 35 has been designated as an intrastate system route. The segment of SR 35 involved in this proceeding has been assigned an Access Management Classification of Four with a design speed of 50 miles per hour and a posted speed of 40 miles per hour . Also, this segment of SR 35 has a "non-restrictive median" as that term is defined in Rule 14-97.002(23), Florida Administrative Code. The distance between all cross streets running east and west which intersect SR 35 within Fort Meade, Florida, including Sixth Street, is approximately 440 feet. (See Petitioner's exhibit 2, Department's aerial photo of the area) Petitioner's application proposes a full movement access connection to be located south of Sixth Street on SR 35 with a connection spacing between Sixth Street and the proposed connection of 190 feet. This distance was determined by measuring from the south edge of the pavement of Sixth Street to the north edge of pavement of proposed access in accordance with Rule 14- 97.002(19), Florida Administrative Code. The centerline of the proposed connection on SR 35 is located approximately 220 feet south of the centerline of Sixth Street. Petitioner's application also proposes an access connection to Sixth Street which would give Petitioner indirect access to SR 35 through Sixth Street. The centerline of the proposed connection on Sixth Street is located approximately 135 feet east of the east curb of SR 35 presently in place. Petitioner's proposed access connection to SR 35 is located immediately north of a crest of a rise over which SR 35 traverses. Both south and north of the crest is a depression through which SR 35 traverses. The point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35 is located approximately at the bottom of the depression north of the crest. A motorist attempting to enter SR 35 from the proposed access connection would have a full view of any vehicle moving north through the depression to the south of the crest or moving south through the depression to the north of the crest. A motorist attempting to enter SR 35 from the east on Sixth Street would have only a partial view of a vehicle moving north through the depression to the south of the crest but a full view of any vehicle moving north through the depression north of the crest. Both Dennis Wood and Michael Tako testified that each had viewed the traffic moving north through the depression south of the crest from a point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35. They also testified that each had, from a point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35, at least a partial view at all times of the vehicles moving north through the depression south of the crest. Based on the above and their assumption that the distance between cross streets along SR 35 was 600 to 700 feet rather than approximately 440 feet as indicated in Petitioner's exhibit 2, Department's aerial photo of the area, Wood believed and Tako concluded that there was minimum clear sight distance that would allow a motorist exiting Sixth Street to cross SR 35 safely, or turn left to enter the southbound lane of SR 35 safely or turn right to enter the northbound land of SR 35 safely. Because of the continuous partial view of the vehicles moving north through the depression south of the crest from a point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35 it may appear that there was minimum clear sight distance in that area. However, there is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that a minimum clear sight distance was established because the height of the originating clear sight line above the pavement or the height of the clear sight line above the pavement at the vehicle observed, which are required to establish a minimum clear sight distance (See Department's exhibit 10), were not established. Also, the estimate of the distance between the originating point of the clear sight line and the ending point of the clear sight line at the vehicle observed was flawed due to the use of incorrect distances between the cross streets. There is insufficient evidence to show that a motorist looking south from the point where Sixth Street intersects SR 35 would have the required minimum clear sight distance as calculated by Department, as shown in Department's exhibit 10, to allow a motorist to cross SR 35 safely or turn left to enter the southbound lane of SR 35 safely or turn right to enter the northbound lane of SR 35. Presently, there are three access connections of approximately 20 feet in width on SR 35 where Petitioner's property abuts SR 35. These access connections where constructed before Petitioner had ownership of the property. However, since there will be a change in land use, these access connections will be closed if the site is developed whether this access permit is granted or denied. Petitioner plans to close two of these access connections and extend the opening to the third one if the application is approved. SR 35 is a moderate volume road with approximately 17,000 average daily trips (ADT's), increasing approximately 500 ADT's annually over the past five years. Sixth Street has approximately 100 to 150 ADT's at present with the ADT's projected to increase to approximately 300 if the site is developed and Petitioner's application for the access connection to SR 35 is denied. However, the number of vehicles entering SR 35 which constitutes traffic utilizing Petitioner's establishment will be the same no matter where this traffic enters SR 35. Without the direct access connection to SR 35 there will be problems with internal customer traffic flow and with the movement of semi-tractor trailers that Petitioner uses to make deliveries to its store. Although the present site plan design may be modified so as to utilize the indirect access to SR 35 through Sixth Street, the modification of the site plan design would create problems that would most likely result in the City of Fort Meade not approving the modified site plan design. Although using Sixth Street as an indirect access to SR 35 from the site may provide a safe ingress and egress to and from SR 35, the lack of a minimum clear sight distance notwithstanding, the Petitioner's proposed access connection would provide a much safer ingress and egress to and from SR 35 because of a better clear sightdistance. Although the indirect access to SR 35 through Sixth Street may provide safe ingress and egress to and from SR 35, the indirect access does not provide reasonable access to the site as the term "reasonable access" is defined in Rule 14-96.002(22), Florida Administrative Code. The primary purpose of limiting access to SR 35 is to provide safer conditions for vehicles utilizing SR 35.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a final order granting Petitioner's Connection Application Number C-16-010-90 and issuing Petitioner a nonconforming permit for the construction of the access connection to SR 35 as designed and shown in the site plan attached to the application with conditions deemed appropriate by the Department and provided for under Rule 14.96.009, Florida Administrative Code. RECOMMENDED this day 30th of October, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 30th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2794 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 16 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 21. The Respondent elected not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Diedre Grubbs Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 695 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Douglas E. Polk, Jr., Esquire BROWN CLARK & WALTERS, P.A. 1819 Main Street, Suite 1100 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The sole and limited issue in this case is whether John E. Wimberly "resigned" his position by abandonment as provided in Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a) Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The following facts are established by the parties' Prehearing Stipulation dated October 3, 1986: The Respondent, John E. Wimberly, at all times material herein was employed as a trooper by the Florida Highway Patrol in Troop F, Manatee County Florida. The Respondent was assigned the following work shift: Friday, April 11, 1986: 7:00 p.m. 3:00 a.m. Saturday April 12, 1986: 3:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m. Sunday April 13, 1986: 3:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m. Monday April 14, 1986: 3:00 p.m. 11:00 p.m. The Respondent was involved in an automobile accident in Dade County, Florida, on April 10, 1986, while off duty. His brother, Willie Wimberly, and a third person, Felix Bush, were also in the vehicle. The Respondent was admitted to Palmetto hospital on April 10, 1986, and discharged on April 12, 1986, as a result of injuries sustained in the automobile accident. The Respondent underwent surgery performed on his right index finger for repair of a lacerated tendon. The Respondent's brother, Willie Wimberly, was admitted to Palmetto Hospital with injuries. The Respondent did not report for work on April 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The Respondent did not personally contact a supervisor or a duty officer of the Florida Highway Patrol to report his absence until approximately 11 30 p.m. on April 15, 1986. The State of Florida Personnel Rules and the provisions of the Florida Highway Patrol Policy Manual referenced in the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit #1 were in effect during the time period of April 10, 1986 through April 16, 1986. On July 23, 1985 and September 27, 1985 the Respondent John E. Wimberly acknowledged receipt of the Florida Highway Patrol Forms and Procedures Manual and further acknowledged reading said manual and being afforded an opportunity to ask questions of a supervisor concerning any questions about the manual. Sgt. Anderson from the Dade County troop of the Highway Patrol, who was investigating the accident told Trooper Wimberly in the hospital that he would contact Wimberly's immediate supervisor. Troop F in Bradenton was notified of Wimberly's accident at approximately 11:40 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, 1986. Petitioner's Exhibit #1 testimony of Wimberly). On Friday, April 11th, Major Paul Taylor, Troop F Commander, instructed his secretary to call the hospital to determine Trooper Wimberly's condition. Efforts to reach Wimberly were unsuccessful but the associate of the attending physician informed Major Taylor that the injuries were minor, that surgery was going to be done on Wimberly's finger and he would be released on Saturday, April 12th. (testimony of Taylor; Petitioner's Exhibit #1) Trooper Wimberly was released from the hospital in Miami at 1:30 p.m. on the 12th. On the evening of that date, his supervisor, Sgt. Cheshire, began trying to reach him at his home in Bradenton. Similar efforts were made on Sunday and Monday. On Monday night Sgt. Cheshire was told by Trooper David L. McCarter, Jr. that Trooper Wimberly was still in Miami and would be in to see him (Sgt. Cheshire) Tuesday. Trooper McCarter had called Wimberly in Miami. (Petitioner's Exhibit #1 testimony of Wimberly) At no time during his absence from April 11th through 15th did Trooper Wimberly, or anyone on his behalf, request leave. Wimberly's injuries in the accident consisted of a lacerated tendon in his right hand and a sprained ankle. He had a soft cast on his leg, and after surgery, a cast on his hand. He admits that he could have physically contacted his supervisors at Troop F but was concerned about his brother who had been seriously injured and after his own release, spent most of his time at the hospital. (testimony of Wimberly) Relevant sections of the Florida Highway Patrol Policy Manual provide Reporting Late for Duty If, due to an illness or other circumstances, a member cannot report for duty at the assigned time but will be late, the member will contact his/her supervisor before the start of the shift to explain the situation and provide an estimated time of arrival. Failure to Report for Duty Due to Illness. Any member unable to report for duty due to illness or injury shall notify his or her immediate supervisor as soon as possible on the first day of absence. If possible, the member should provide at least a 2 hour notice to allow for a replacement to be obtained. . . . Absence Without Authorized Leave Florida Highway Patrol officers are expected to report for duty on their assigned shift except when prevented by injury, illness, or emergency situations. Any leave of absence with or without pay shall be approved prior to the leave period except when emergency situations prevent such action. If an employee takes unauthorized leave, the employee will be placed on leave without pay status. Abandonment of Position Any member who is absent without authorization for 3 consecutive work days shall be deemed to have abandoned the position and to have resigned from Career Service. Any member who separates under such circumstances shall not have the right to appeal to the Career Service Commission and is subject to all pro- cedures outlined in Section 22A7.10(2) of the Rules of the Career Service Commission. 5.09.00 Sick Leave Members will be permitted to take sick leave only for instances of illness, injury or other reasons as specified in Section 22A-8.11 of the Personnel Rules of the Career Service System. The Department may, after three workdays of absence in any 30 calendar day period, require a medical certification of the member's illness before authorizing any additional use of sick leave credits by the member. Abuse of sick leave benefits by reporting off ill or injured when actually fit for duty will be grounds for disciplinary action. A member, while on sick leave for any reason, is expected to be at his or her residence, or to notify the immediate supervisor of any other location. (Petitioner's Exhibit #4) Trooper Wimberly was aware of the policy and has followed it in the past. (testimony of Wimberly) The absence of law enforcement personnel affects the staffing of shifts and sometimes court appearances cannot be honored. The details of when and how long an individual will be absent are important to the effective functioning of the troop. (testimony of Taylor)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding that Respondent was appropriately terminated for abandonment in accordance with Rule 22A-7.010(2)(a) Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of October 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2154 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Findings by Petitioner 1. through 5. Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #3. Rejected as unnecessary. Relevant portions of the policy manual are addressed in paragraph #4. Adopted in paragraph #4. and 11. Adopted in paragraph #1. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in general in paragraph #5. The fact of termination is addressed in the Background portion of the Recommended Order. Findings of Fact Proposed by Respondent 1. through 3. Adopted in paragraph #1. 4. and 5. Adopted in general in paragraph #2. The period of hospitalization is addressed in paragraphs #1 and #2. Thursday night until early Saturday afternoon does not constitute three days. Rejected as immaterial. Major Taylor also testified that he could have been assigned to other duties. The issue was not his ability to function as a trooper. Addressed in part in paragraph #3 otherwise rejected as immaterial. Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #2. Adopted in paragraph #1 as to the date and time of trooper Wimberly's return; otherwise rejected as provided in paragraph 7 above. Adopted in paragraph #4. Rejected as immaterial. His subjective intent was inconsistent with his failure to seek authorized leave. Ruling on Exceptions to Recommended Order Exceptions of Petitioner Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles 1. Not an exception - simply restates Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact 3 and 4. 2. Not an exception - simply restates Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law 7. 3. Not an exception. 4. Rejected. Exceptions of Respondent Santiago Baez 1. 1 through 4 Rejected for the reasons set out in the Recommended Order in Conclusion of Law 7. COPIES FURNISHED: R. W. Evans, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John E. Wimberly c/o Robert A. Pell, Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association Post Office Box 11239 Tallahassee Florida 32301
The Issue The following issues were presented by the Petitioner or arose at hearing: Was a proper investigation and showing of interest made in this Petition? Should Assistant Sorensen be included or excluded from the proposed unit? Whether the appropriate unit should be composed solely of personnel within the Road and Bridge Department.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner should dismiss Respondent from her employment as a bus driver for an eight-day absence from work that was allegedly unauthorized.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner employed Respondent as a substitute bus driver on November 18, 2002. From February 10, 2003, through the date of the hearing, Petitioner employed Respondent as a bus driver. A bus driver is an educational support employee. Respondent was absent from work for eight days from February 2 through 11, 2005. The absence was not authorized. The unauthorized absence from February 2 through 4, 2005, comprised three days of unauthorized absence within one pay period. The unauthorized absence from February 7 through 11, 2005, comprised five days of unauthorized absence within one pay period. The eight-day unauthorized absence occurred during the regular school session. Respondent's supervisor scheduled a substitute bus driver to drive Respondent's assigned bus route. Respondent was absent from work for a vacation cruise in Chile. The unauthorized absence was not needed for medical or family reasons or for some other emergency. The terms of Respondent's employment are prescribed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Petitioner and the Service Employee's International Union (SEIU). The terms of employment are further explained in a document identified in the record as the Bus Driver Handbook. Respondent had actual knowledge that she was entitled to only four personal days off from work with prior approval from Petitioner. Sometime in August or September 2004, an SEIU representative advised Respondent, in response to her inquiry, that the CBA authorized a maximum of four personal days off upon approval of Petitioner. Respondent did not disclose that she intended to be absent from work for a vacation while school was in session. On January 3, 2005, Respondent asked the dispatcher to approve eight personal days off for a vacation. The dispatcher explained that his authority to approve or disapprove leave requests was limited to requests for up to four personal days. Only the compound supervisor had authority to approve a request for authorized personal days in excess of four days. The compound supervisor denied Respondent's request before Respondent left for her vacation, and Respondent had actual notice of the denial. The denial was based in part on the ground that Respondent had no contractually authorized personal days in excess of four days during the regular school session. Even if she were to have authorized personal days in excess of four, the compound supervisor needed all of his bus drivers because school was in session. There was a shortage of bus drivers. February was a busy period in the school year. It was imperative that students have transportation to their schools. Absences in excess of authorized personal days must be requested on a form entitled Request for Leave of Absence, identified in the record as PCS Form 3-137. Respondent never requested a leave of absence on PCS Form 3-137. Rather, Respondent utilized the form authorized for requesting up to four personal days for the purpose of requesting a leave of absence of eight days. A request for a leave of absence on Form 3-137 would have been submitted to the director of transportation for Petitioner. The director never received such a request. Several aggravating circumstances are evidenced in the record. Respondent did not take the unauthorized absence for medical or family reasons or for some other emergency. Respondent took the unauthorized absence for her own leisure. Bus drivers, including Respondent, are nine-month employees. Respondent had other opportunities during the school year for vacations, including summer, a week at Thanksgiving, two weeks during Christmas, and a week during spring break. When school is in session, Respondent had no contractual right to more than four paid personal days. Respondent took the unauthorized absence with knowledge that her action would adversely affect her employer during a busy time of the school year. Respondent knew that the unauthorized absence would result in disciplinary action. Prior to her vacation, Respondent's supervisor suggested Respondent may want to remove her personal items from her bus before leaving for her vacation because she probably would face disciplinary action when she returned. Petitioner has imposed previous discipline against Respondent. Petitioner issued a letter of reprimand to Respondent for segregating black and white students on her bus.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the alleged violation and dismissing Respondent from her employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2006, 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 3rd day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Timberly S. McKenzie 446 Fifth Street, South Safety Harbor, Florida 34695 Laurie A. Dart, Esquire Pinellas County School Board 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Timberly McKenzie 125 Rhonda Drive Clayton, Georgia 30525 Dr. Clayton M. Wilcox, Superintendent Pinellas County School Board Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Honorable John Winn, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner L. H. Turner is a Highway Patrol Officer II with the Florida Highway Patrol, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, having been employed since 1977. By memorandum dated August 10, 1982, to Troop Commanders and Florida Highway Patrol Staff, the Acting Director of the Florida Highway Patrol, Roger C. Collar, gave the following instructions: Effective August 20, 1982, all off-duty employment, including self-employment, shall be reported by all uniformed personnel on a weekly basis to coincide with the weekly report of daily activity. The first reporting period will be August 20-26, 1982, and the report shall be submitted each week along with the trooper's weekly report of daily activity. The attached sample reporting form will be used until permanent forms are developed. The sample reporting form attached to the memorandum required personnel to list the starting and ending time of their "off-duty employment" on a daily basis, the number of hours worked and the Florida Highway Patrol vehicle miles. At the bottom of the form is a signature line, above which is written I certify this is an accurate report of all off-duty employment (including self- employment) worked during the reporting period. The form also requires the signature of the "immediate supervisor" after the word "reviewed." The instructions contained in this August 10, 1982 memorandum are intended to apply to all uniform members of the Florida Highway Patrol. Failure to file a weekly report of off-duty employment or the filing of an inaccurate report would subject the employee to discipline for insubordination. Article XIII of the current collective bargaining agreement between the State of Florida and the Florida Police Benevolent Association pertains to employment outside State government. The Agreement requires advance approval for out- side employment, and provides that approval will not be unreasonably withheld as long as such employment does not conflict with the employee's State employment or with the agency's procedures limiting outside employment. With regard to off-duty police employment, Article XIII provides that approval will be granted if it does not constitute a conflict of interest, does not interfere with the employee's primary duties, is within the employee's jurisdiction and scope of employment, and as long as all mileage placed on a State automobile is paid for by the employee at the statutory mileage rate. General Order Number 19, adopted by reference in Rule 15B-11.03, Florida Administrative Code, contains provisions relating to prohibited acts which may constitute a conflict of interest, including, in certain instances, the acceptance of other employment or other business or professional activity. Paragraph 15 of General Order Number 19 requires a written request and authorization before an employee may accept "part-time employment outside of this Department." The request for outside part-time employment must include a statement of the nature of duties, the approximate hours of duty contemplated and the name and address of the firm. Guidelines for part-time employment are listed. Paragraph 15(b) sets forth the procedures for approval of requests to be employed or compensated by more than one State agency or to hold employment during the normal working hours for which the employee is being compensated by the Department. Paragraph 15(c) contains guidelines for "off-duty police details." Among such guidelines is that an employee may only engage in up to twenty (20) hours per week of such off-duty police details, unless the employee is on annual leave for the week in question or receives approval for work in excess of twenty (20) hours 4 per week. There are no limitations on the hours per week which an employee may devote to employment other than "off-duty police details."
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Clifford McCullough (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Nesco Resources (Respondent) in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2015)1/.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a company that refers pre-screened job candidates to employers upon request by an employer seeking to fill a specific position. The Petitioner is an African-American male, born in 1959, who sought employment through the Respondent. The Respondent does not make the hiring decision. The actual decision is made by the employer requesting referrals from the Respondent. The Respondent is compensated by the employer if and when the employer hires an applicant referred by the Respondent. On occasion, the Respondent publishes advertisements seeking applications to fill specific positions, such as “forklift drivers.” The fact that the Respondent seeks applications for specific positions does not mean that an employer has contacted the Respondent seeking referrals for such positions. The advertisements are used by the Respondent to create an inventory of applicants who can be referred to employers. On December 20, 2013, the Petitioner submitted a job application to the Respondent seeking a “forklift driver” position. At that time, the Petitioner indicated to the Respondent that he was available to perform “warehouse, packing, production, shipping and receiving tasks.” Several weeks prior to the Petitioner’s application, the Respondent had referred job candidates to an employer seeking to fill an available forklift driver position. The employer filled the position by hiring an African-American male born in 1961 who was referred to the employer by the Respondent. As of December 20, 2013, the Respondent had no pending employer requests seeking referrals to fill forklift driver positions. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had any employer requests at that time which were consistent with the Petitioner’s skills. The Respondent’s general practice when contacted by a prospective employer is to recommend applicants who have maintained ongoing contact with the Respondent’s staff after the submission of an application. There was minimal contact between the Petitioner and the Respondent after the Petitioner submitted his application in December 2013. The Respondent presumes that some people who submit applications subsequently relocate or obtain employment elsewhere. Accordingly, the Respondent requires that previous applicants periodically submit new employment applications so that the Respondent’s inventory includes only active job seekers. On April 8, 2014, the Petitioner submitted another application to the Respondent. Also in April 2014, an employer contacted the Respondent to obtain referrals to fill another forklift driving position. The employer filled the position by hiring an African- American male born in 1964, who was referred to the employer by the Respondent. Prior to his referral for the forklift driver position, the successful applicant routinely contacted the Respondent’s staff, in person and by telephone, regarding available employment opportunities. The evidence fails to establish whether the Respondent was included within the applicants who were referred to the requesting employer. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s referral process reflected factors related to any applicant’s race, color, sex, or age. The Petitioner has also asserted that his application should have been referred to an employer who, on one occasion, was seeking to fill an available cleaning position. The position was a part-time job paying an hourly wage of $10. The Petitioner had not submitted an application for such a position. Nothing in the information provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent indicated that the Petitioner was interested in such employment. Through the Respondent’s referrals, the employer filled the cleaning position by hiring an African-American male.
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 Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 21st day of June, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Six signs were described in a violation notice to Respondent Dandy Signs from Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation dated July 7, 1977. The notice stated the signs were alleged to be in violation of Chapter 479 and rules 14-10.04; rule 14-10.03. By stipulation of the parties the charges on the signs listed were dropped except for the following two signs: a sign located one mile west of U.S. 1, State Road 44, Mile Post 28.25 with copy "Bob's Sandpiper Restaurant" and a sign located at Junction 17-92 Deland, U.S. Highway 17 (Section 35 Mile Post .02) with copy "Buddy Sheats". The foregoing signs have no permit and evidence was presented to show that each sign is nearer to a permitted sign than 500 feet. The Respondent admits that neither sign has been permitted and that both signs violate the spacing requirements. Respondent was given time to submit evidence that the signs had at one time been permitted, but no evidence was submitted to this hearing officer although the hearing was held in excess of three months before this order is being entered.
Recommendation Remove the subject signs and invoke penalty under Section 479.18, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1978. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dan Richardson, Owner Dandy Signs 324 Flagler Street New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069
