The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent failed to provide workers’ compensation insurance as required by section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement in section 440.107(3), that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent is a company engaged in the construction industry. James Colligan is its sole employee. Respondent’s office is 637 Four Point Road, Holt, Florida, 32564. On or about October 1, 2019, Sabrina Johnson, a compliance investigator for the Division, observed someone installing vinyl fencing on an existing home located at 101 Pine Court, in Niceville, Florida. She approached and spoke to the lone worker, who identified himself as James Colligan. Ms. Johnson identified herself as a compliance investigator for the Division and asked for proof of workers’ compensation insurance. Mr. Colligan advised her that he had an exemption. Ms. Johnson consulted the Department of State, Division of Corporation’s website to determine the identity of Respondent’s officers, and found that Mr. Colligan was the sole officer. She then consulted Petitioner’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for proof of workers’ compensation coverage, and for any exemptions associated with Respondent. Ms. Johnson’s research revealed that Respondent did not have a workers’ compensation policy or an employee leasing policy, and did not have a current exemption. Mr. Colligan previously held an exemption, but it expired on July 20, 2018. He had applied for a renewal of the exemption on July 2, 2018, but his application was rejected as incomplete because the FEIN number on the renewal application did not match the one on file. Mr. Colligan was notified by email on July 3, 2018, that his application was being returned to him as incomplete. He acknowledged at hearing that he had provided his email address to the Division, but stated he gets so many emails, he does not always read them. He did not recall ever seeing the email from the Division, and believed that his exemption had been renewed. Mr. Colligan’s testimony was sincere and credible. However, it is his responsibility to make sure that his exemption is up to date, and he did not do so. Upon learning from Ms. Johnson that his exemption had expired, Mr. Colligan immediately applied for and received an exemption. However, the newly acquired exemption is prospective, and does not cover the period of noncompliance. Investigator Johnson consulted with her supervisor, who provided authorization for the issuance of a Stop-Work Order. She issued a Stop-Work Order and personally served it on Mr. Colligan on October 1, 2019. At the same time, she issued and served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation. Mr. Colligan executed an Agreed Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order, paid the minimum $1,000 fine and, as noted above, submitted a new application for an exemption. The records requested fall into five categories: 1) payroll documents, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earning records, check stubs, and payroll summaries, as well as federal income tax documents and other documents that would provide the amount of remuneration paid or payable to each employee; 2) account documents, including all business check journals and statements, cleared checks for all open and/or closed business accounts, records of check and cash disbursements, cashier’s checks, bank checks, and money orders; 3) disbursement records, meaning all records of each business disbursement including, but not limited to, check and cash disbursements, indicating chronologically the disbursement date, to whom the money was paid, the amount, and the purpose for which the disbursement was made; 4) subcontractor records, identifying the identity of each subcontractor of the employer, the contractual relationship held, and any payments to those subcontractors; and 5) documentation of subcontractor’s workers’ compensation coverage. Respondent worked as a subcontractor, but there was no evidence presented that he hired subcontractors, so records falling into the categories related to subcontractors likely do not exist. Respondent provided copies of bank statements, but these records did not contain earning records, income tax filings, check images, or other sufficient records from which the Division could determine payroll. Lynne Murcia reviewed Respondent’s records in her capacity as a penalty auditor for the Division. She testified credibly that income can be identified through direct wage payments to an employee, bonuses given, income distributions, loans that are not repaid, and the like. The bank statements provided by Respondent were simply insufficient for her to determine which items were reflective of payroll. Therefore, in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028, she determined payroll in this case by imputing payroll for the work classification assigned to the identified work being performed. On October 29, 2019, the Division issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which was served on Respondent on October 30, 2019. The penalty assessed for noncompliance with chapter 440 workers’ compensation requirements was $15,260.56. The penalty calculation is based upon the classification codes listed in the Scopes® Manual, which have been adopted through the rulemaking process through rules 68L-6.021 and 69L-6.031. Classification codes are codes assigned to different occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), to assist in the calculation of workers’ compensation insurance premiums. Ms. Murcia used classification code 6400 for Mr. Colligan. The description for code 6400 is for “specialist contractors engaged in the erection of all types of metal fences, i.e., chain link, woven wire, wrought iron or barbed wire fences.” There is no dispute that Code 6400 was the appropriate classification code for the type of work Respondent performed. Using this classification code, Ms. Murcia used the corresponding approved manual rates for that classification and the period of noncompliance. Ms. Murcia multiplied the average weekly wage by 1.5, in accordance with section 440.107(7)(e). The period of noncompliance in this case ran from the expiration of Mr. Colligan’s exemption (July 21, 2018), to the day that he applied for and received a new exemption (October 1, 2019). The average weekly wage is established by the Department of Economic Opportunity. Because the period of noncompliance involved two different pay rates, Ms. Murcia provided a separate calculation for each calendar year. The imputed gross payroll for July 21, 2018 through December 31, 2018, was $33,013.55, which she divided by 100 and then multiplied by the manual approved rate ($9.73), times two, to reach the amount of penalty to be imposed for that calendar year. A similar calculation was performed for the period from January 1, 2019 through October 1, 2019, using the manual approved rate of $8.01. All of the penalty calculations are in accordance with the Division’s penalty calculation worksheet. The Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction business for the period beginning July 21, 2018, and ending October 1, 2019, without prior workers’ compensation coverage or a valid exemption. The Division also demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the documents submitted by Respondent, which may be all of the documentation that Respondent possessed, were not sufficient to establish Respondent’s payroll, thus requiring the imputation of payroll. Finally, the Division proved by clear and convincing evidence that the required penalty for the period of noncompliance is $15,260.56.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order finding that Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of section 440.107 and impose the penalty identified in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with credit for the $1,000 already paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 February, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: James Colligan 637 Four Point Road Holt, Florida 32564 Rean Knopke, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kami Alexis Sidener, Law Clerk Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Leon Melnicoff, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 30, 1993, a man identifying himself as "Mr. Sapp," entered into a contract with Richard Leslie Hennig, 2184 Harbor View Drive, Dunedin, Florida, for repairs to a dock located at Hennig's home. "Mr. Sapp" was a sales representative for building contractor John S. Davis II. The contract admitted into evidence at the hearing states that it is "subject to office approval." There is no credible evidence that the Respondent saw or approved the contract entered into evidence at hearing. There is no credible evidence that "Mr. Sapp" disclosed the extent of the agreement to the Respondent. It is the Respondent's standard business practice to sign a sales contract when it is approved. The contract admitted into evidence was not signed by the Respondent. The signature on the contract indicates that the contract was signed by "John Sapp." There is no evidence that "Mr. Sapp" was authorized to execute formal contracts on behalf of or to otherwise bind the Respondent without the final approval of the Respondent. Count One of the Administrative Complaint alleges that the Respondent contracted with Hennig to rebuild the boat dock for a total of $2,800 and that a deposit of $1,400 was paid at the time the contract was written. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent was involved in the agreement between Hennig and the alleged "Mr. Sapp." There is no evidence that the $1,400 deposit was forwarded to or received by the Respondent. Count One further alleges that the dock construction fails to meet applicable building codes and constitutes gross negligence, incompetence or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The evidence establishes that the pilings used in the project are undersized or missing and that lumber used in the project fails to meet the required dimensions for compliance with the codes. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent participated in the project or was responsible for the quality or sufficiency of materials used therein. Count Two of the complaint alleges that the Respondent did not obtain proper permits for the work. The evidence establishes that the permits obtained for this project were inappropriate and did not permit the extent of construction required to provide the dock sought by Hennig. There is no credible evidence that the Respondent participated in planning the project. There is no evidence that the Respondent bore any responsibility for the permits or lack thereof. The Respondent testified that "Mr. Sapp" entered into a number of "side deals" of which the Respondent was unaware. There is no evidence contrary to the Respondent's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against John S. Davis, II. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of September, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 27th day of September, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643, 5116 John S. Davis, II 6727 126th Avenue North Largo, Florida 34643
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to these proceedings, the Respondents were licensed as real estate brokers in Florida. In March, 1979, a Ms. Stockton contacted Respondent Rappaport and proposed renting a small wood-frame house which he owned and was then using as a storage facility. Rappaport verbally agreed to rent the premises for nine months, giving Stockton an option to purchase at the end of that period. Monthly rental payments of $100, plus $75 in tenant repairs, were to constitute partial down payment on the purchase price of $25,000. However, at the conclusion of the nine month period in December, 1979, Ms. Stockton made a counter offer that would have required Rappaport to make substantial improvements or accept a reduced price of $20,000. Since Rappaport did not accept the counter offer, there was no valid contract. Around December, 1979, Respondent Rappaport became a 50 percent stock owner of Respondent Mike Novak Realty Corporation. Respondent Michael T. Novak retained 50 percent stock ownership in this corporation and, as part of the merger, acquired a 50 percent interest in certain properties previously owned solely by Rappaport. The residential parcel discussed above, along with an adjacent office building, were included in this transaction. On January 30, 1980, the Respondents contracted to sell the above described residence and office building to a group of investors for $175,000. The contract required that termite inspections and any fumigation would be provided by the sellers. The required termite inspections were provided, but the inspector furnished a certificate only on the office building since the wood-frame house was found to have termites. He reported this fact to Mike Novak Realty, but nothing was done to correct the problem prior to closing. The termite infestation was discovered by the purchasers after they had closed on the property. Respondent Rappaport was aware of the termite problem prior to closing since it had been called to his attention by the Stocktons in mid-1979. After being confronted by the purchaser subsequent to the closing, Respondents agreed to pay the fumigation costs which amounted to $300. They did not, however, reimburse the buyers for these expenses on demand, but did so only after this Administrative Complaint was filed. Although these omissions by Respondents leave much to be desired in terms of broker reliability, there was no evidence of intentional concealment of the termite infestation or willful withholding of the $300 fumigation payment. Rather, this negligence by Respondents resulted, at least partly, from the minimal interest shown by the contracting parties in the condition of the wood- frame house. Respondents had reached their valuation of this property virtually without consideration for the wood-frame house. The buyers were primarily interested in the office building and the land occupied by the house. They expressed their intention to tear down or move this house so they could develop the underlying land. Even though two members of the purchasing group had real estate experience and all were represented by counsel, none of them noticed the missing termite inspection report. Furthermore, none of the buyers had even entered the wood-frame house to determine its condition prior to closing.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 23rd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Grover C. Freeman, Esquire 4600 West Cypress Avenue Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 Peter J. Kelly, Esquire Post Office Box 3324 Tampa, Florida 33601 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance that met the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, thus warranting issuance of a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Florida Workers' Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes, including those provisions that employers shall be liable for, and shall secure and maintain payment of compensation for their employees who suffer work-related injuries. Respondent was, on September 12, 2011, an active Florida for-profit corporation. On September 12, 2011, Petitioner's investigator, Daniel G. Pfaff, conducted an inspection of a worksite at 333 Pablo Road, Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. Mr. Pfaff did not testify at the hearing, and neither the Order nor the Request for Production provide a description of who Mr. Pfaff observed at the site or what they were doing, if anything. The record is silent as to the process by which Mr. Pfaff performed his investigation to determine Respondent’s status in the workers’ compensation system, or by which he received authorization to issue the Order and Request for Production. The Order required Respondent to cease all business operations statewide, and assessed a penalty equal to 1.5 times the amount the employer would have paid in premiums when applying the approved manual rates to the employer's payroll for the preceding three-year period, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). The Request for Production required Respondent to produce business records for the period from September 13, 2008, through September 12, 2011. At the hearing, Petitioner offered into evidence more than 1,200 pages of documents that were alleged to have been produced by Respondent in response to the Request for Production, consisting of, among other things, information provided by subcontractors and vendors, insurance certificates, tax forms, and bank records. The record contains no information regarding the date on which the documents were produced, the identity of the recipient of the documents, or the path the documents traveled before coming to rest on the desk of Mr. Mason two weeks prior to the final hearing. Although the pages are consecutively numbered, from page 0091 through page 1307, there was no indication of who numbered the pages, or when they were numbered.1/ The documents were used by Petitioner to prove the truth of the matters asserted therein, e.g., identity of employees, dates of employment, salaries, and workers’ compensation coverage. As will be discussed in the Conclusions of Law to follow, the documents are hearsay. The documents were received in evidence because they were reviewed by Mr. Mason in the performance of his duty as a penalty calculator. Mr. Mason, the only witness testifying, was not identified as Petitioner’s records custodian, and offered no testimony to suggest that he served in that capacity. The 1,200+ pages of documents were unaccompanied by any form of certification or declaration that might have substantiated their authenticity. Since Respondent did not appear at the final hearing, the documents were not authenticated, nor is there a foundation for determining that the records meet any exception to the hearsay rule. The undersigned has no doubt that Mr. Mason diligently performed his duty in reviewing the records that were provided to him and applying the various manuals and class codes that are routinely used by the Division in imputing income and calculating penalties for an employer’s failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation. However, given the lack of any contemporaneous or documented evidence as to the manner in which those documents were produced, or how they were stored, kept, and maintained by Petitioner, it is found that the documents introduced in evidence, without more, do not provide clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated the Workers' Compensation Law during the period of September 13, 2008, through September 12, 2011, as alleged in the 3rd Amended Order. See Hunter v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 137 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Mazine v. M&I Bank, 67 So. 3d 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Scott v. Dep’t of Prof’l Reg., 603 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Doran v. Dep’t of HRS, 558 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Juste v. Dep’t HRS, 520 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Finally, the records introduced by Petitioner include a document entitled “Answer,” which contains a number of hearsay statements that, if proven to be from Respondent, could be construed as an admission of liability for penalties in the amount of $7,324.98. However, the document does not bear a signature and, as with the other records described herein, has an insufficient evidentiary foundation upon which to base a finding that the document is authentic.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent, The Ford Company Construction, Inc., for its failure to secure and maintain required workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 23rd day of September, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Stop-Work Order issued by Petitioner for Respondent's failure to comply with a business records request served in connection with Petitioner's workers' compensation coverage audit of Respondent was issued in conformance with section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance covering their employees, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent, D. Tech Networking Services, LLC, is a registered Florida limited liability company engaged in the technology service business. At the time of Petitioner's audit giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent's principal address was 2933 Southwest Lakemont Place, Palm City, Florida 34990. Respondent actively conducted business between July 29, 2014, and October 28, 2014, the audit period pertinent to this proceeding. As the result of an injury referral filed with Petitioner by an employee of Respondent, on October 28, 2014, Petitioner's Compliance Inspector Michael Cicio attempted to visit Respondent's business site. The principal business address identified in the Division of Corporations Sunbiz records for Respondent was a residential mailing address, so Cicio was unable to conduct a site visit at that address. Thereafter, Cicio attempted to conduct a site visit at an alternate address, which was identified in Sunbiz records as the location of Respondent's business operation. However, he was unable to locate the business at that address, so again was unable to conduct a site visit. To determine whether Respondent had obtained workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by law, Cicio checked the State of Florida Coverage and Compliance Automated System and the National Council on Compensation Insurance computer databases, which contain information regarding workers' compensation insurance policies that have been obtained by employers. These databases showed no record of any workers' compensation policies covering Respondent's employees having been issued. Thereafter, Petitioner served a Request for Production of Business Records ("RPBR") on Respondent. Respondent received the RPBR on October 30, 2014. The RPBR ordered Respondent to produce, within ten business days, the following business records: payroll documents; bank account documents; business disbursements; contracts for work performed by the business; documents evidencing workers' compensation coverage secured by the business; professional employer organization records, including certificates of workers' compensation coverage for leased employees; independent contractor records; documentation of any exemptions from the workers' compensation coverage requirement obtained by the business; documents regarding subcontractors employed by the business; and documentation of subcontractors' workers' compensation coverage. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.0152/ requires these specific types of business records to be maintained by Respondent and to be produced to Petitioner upon request. Respondent did not produce the requested business records in response to the RPBR within ten business days. Accordingly, on December 1, 2014, Petitioner issued a Stop-Work Order, directing Respondent to cease all business operations for all worksites in the state on the basis that Respondent failed to produce required business records, in violation of section 440.107(7)(a). By its terms, the Stop-Work Order remains in effect until Petitioner either: (1) issues an order releasing the Stop- Work Order upon finding that the employer has come into compliance with the workers' compensation coverage law and paid applicable penalties, or (2) issues an agreed order of conditional release subject to certain specified conditions. Neither of these actions can occur unless and until the employer provides records showing current compliance with the workers' compensation requirements of chapter 440. On December 13, 2014, Respondent requested an administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the Stop-Work Order. Also on that date, Respondent produced some business records in response to the RPBR. Respondent also sent correspondence to Petitioner asserting that all persons who worked for Respondent were independent contractors who were responsible for obtaining their own workers' compensation insurance coverage, so that the Stop-Work Order was issued in error. The records produced did not adequately respond to the RPBR. Specifically, Respondent failed to produce records3/ sufficient to substantiate its claim that its workers were independent contractors for whom Respondent was not required to provide workers' compensation coverage. Indeed, the payroll records produced indicated that the workers were, in fact, employed by Respondent rather than being independent contractors. Respondent also produced a copy of a liability insurance policy covering the business itself, but did not produce any workers' compensation policies showing that any workers were covered. Respondent produced additional documents that similarly were unhelpful in enabling Petitioner to determine whether Respondent's workers were independent contractors or whether they were employees for whom Respondent was responsible for securing workers' compensation coverage. In sum, the records Respondent produced in response to the RPBR were insufficient to enable Petitioner to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements of chapter 440. Respondent did not submit any additional records rectifying this deficiency. Accordingly, Petitioner did not lift the Stop-Work Order, which remains in effect.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, issue a final order adopting the Stop-Work Order as its final agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 15th day of January, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office for approximately nine years. For the past four years and at all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as a property clerk. Respondent's duties as a property clerk included the following: (1) taking physical custody of evidence, (2) assigning physical locations in alpha- numerically numbered "bins"; (3) recording the receipt of evidence and its physical location in the computer; (4) printing and affixing to the evidence, bar codes for identification of the evidence; and (5) placing the items in the appropriate bins. Also, in her role as a property clerk, Respondent was responsible for retrieving evidence from the bins for officials of the Sheriff's Office when such evidence or property was needed for court, analysis, or other purposes. In collecting and logging in items, property clerks follow a specified routine. Each item of evidence has a unique police report number for tracking purposes in the Sheriff's Office computers. Typically, the Property Section will receive an item of evidence from a law enforcement officer with identifying information contained on an adhesive "property and evidence" label. The label includes the police report number, date and place of collection, the officer's name and payroll number, and any special instructions. The collecting officer and the property clerk sign the label when the item of evidence is received by the property clerk. After the property clerk receives the item, the property clerk enters the information into the computer and assigns the item a physical location in the Section. Once the information is entered into the computer, the property clerk will command the computer to print a small adhesive paper label which contains a bar code, location number, and brief item description. The property clerk then affixes the label to the bag containing the item. Except for guns, drugs, and oversized materials, once items are processed, they are stored in cardboard boxes (or bins) in the Property Section's warehouse. The warehouse is located behind a secure door and contains items of property or evidence. The boxes are arranged alpha-numerically. For example, there is a rack in the warehouse containing the "Y" boxes, from Y-001- upwards. The boxes are filled sequentially. The property clerks process the items at a computer terminal located behind the glass partition separating the secure areas of the Property Section from the common lobby area. Typically, there are four boxes of different sizes on the table. Usually, the property clerks place evidence boxes on a table located directly behind them. Once an item of evidence is processed, it is placed in one of the four boxes on the table. The placement of items of evidence in one of these four boxes alleviates the need for the property clerk to shuttle each individually processed item of evidence to the warehouse. Once an evidence box is full, the property clerk takes the box to the warehouse and places it in the appropriate rack. Then the property clerk removes the next consecutively numbered empty box and takes it to the table in the processing area. On or about April 10, 1995, Sgt. Wallace Colcord, Section Commander of the Property and Evidence Section, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, was notified by the supervisor of the midnight shift, Robert Bayer, of inquiries regarding missing pieces of property. Essentially, in looking for an item of evidence, a property clerk had failed to locate an item of evidence for a forensic technician. In this instance, the computer indicated that the item was located in a certain bin in the warehouse, but upon a search of the designated bin, the property could not be located. Based upon his investigation, Supervisor Bayer determined that the original bar codes indicated that the evidence had been initially processed by Property Clerk Betty Chandler. Bayer spoke with Chandler regarding the missing item and directed her to locate the property. After spending the entire weekend looking for the missing item of evidence, Chandler located the initial missing item as well as several others that had been relocated. What Chandler discovered were items that were mislocated and had new bar codes affixed over the original bar codes prepared by Chandler. However, it was determined that the computer entry for the items showed the original location. During the course of this investigation, it was discovered that seven items of evidence had been mislocated in this manner. The bar code printing machine maintains a continuous ribbon which was able to be examined. Through such examination, it was determined that the new bar codes on the mislocated items had been printed on the evening shift of April 1, 1995, during the time that only Respondent was on duty. On or about April 24, Sgt. Colcord and Richard Roberts, Respondent's immediate supervisor, met with Respondent Styers regarding the mislocation of items that occurred during her shift on April 1, 1995. Respondent initially indicated that she had heard something about the problem. Sgt. Colcord presented to Respondent two items of property which had been mislocated, two inmate knives. He then directed Respondent to inspect the items, the labels and the bar codes and asked her if she had anything to do with those items. Respondent denied knowing about or having anything to do with the items. After being told that it had been determined that the bar code ribbons indicated that she had printed the "new bar codes" for the two inmate knives, Respondent changed her story. Respondent stated that she had been working on a relocation to an "L" box in the presence of her husband and eight-year old daughter, who had come to the office to have dinner with her. She indicated that her daughter must have used the computer and mislocated the property while she and her husband were outside smoking. Sgt. Colcord then asked Respondent whether he could call her husband regarding his recollection of the events of April 1, 1995. Within a short time, Sgt. Colcord spoke to Respondent's husband by telephone regarding his recollection of the events. In this conversation, Mr. Styers did not recall that he and Respondent ever left their daughter in the Property Section Office alone. Also, Mr. Styers indicated that he did not believe that, without supervision, his daughter had the computer skills necessary to make the entries required to relocate property or evidence. After the telephone discussion with Mr. Styers, Sgt. Colcord and Roberts resumed their interview with Respondent. After learning that her husband's version of the events conflicted with hers, Respondent changed her story. Respondent then indicated that she had not left her daughter alone in the secure area of the Property Section. Respondent indicated that her daughter was interested in the "stickers" and based on her daughter's interest, Respondent showed her daughter how locations were done. According to Respondent, in demonstrating to her daughter how the labels were printed, Respondent took several items of property that were laying out on the counter and, in the computer, changed the location of the items, printed out the new labels showing the new location, and affixed these labels to the items of property. According to Respondent, she then went back to the computer and returned each item to its original location, but forgot to print corresponding stickers and "inadvertently" took these items and placed them in the bins as indicated on the stickers. Respondent Styers acknowledged making these mistakes, but indicated that the errors were accidental or inadvertent. Most of the items of evidence mislocated by Respondent had been originally processed by Property Clerk Chandler. At the time of the incident, both Chandler and Respondent were eligible for a promotion to a position soon to be vacated by the retirement of Supervisor Bayer. By creating the appearance of mistakes on the part of Chandler with regard to the handling of evidence, Chandler's promotional opportunities would be negatively impacted. Based on his conclusion that Respondent had been untruthful during the investigation and on her actions of mislocating property, Sgt. Colcord referred the matter to the Administrative Inquiry Division (AID) of the Sheriff's Office. During this investigation, Respondent was interviewed by agents of the Internal Affairs Section of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. At that time, Respondent told investigators that on the evening of April 1, 1995, she was demonstrating to her daughter how items were relocated both physically and through bar code changes in the computer. According to Respondent, she thought that she had returned the items used in the demonstration to their appropriate computer locations and had properly bar coded the items. During these interviews, Respondent again admitted that she was responsible for the errors but stated that the errors were simply mistakes and were not made intentionally. After completing its investigation, the AID presented its entire investigative file to the Chain-of-Command Board without conclusion or recommendation. The Chain-of-Command Board met and sustained the complaint. Specifically, Styers was charged with violations of four rules of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. The charges involve allegations that Respondent violated the following rules and regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office: (1) C-1,V.A,6,(006), relating to truthfulness; (2) C-1,V,A,14c.,(016), relating to conduct unbecoming a member of the agency; (3) C-1,V,C,5,(064), relating to performance of duty; and (4) C-1,V,C,19,(082), relating to the care, custody, and control of property and evidence. Pursuant to General Order B-15, violation of the rules cited above relating to truthfulness and conduct unbecoming a member of the agency are considered Level Five violations. Violations under the rules related to performance of duty and the care, custody, and control of evidence and property are considered Level Three violations. Under the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Guidelines (Guidelines), a sustained finding of two Level Five violations is the basis for assigning sixty disciplinary points. A sustained violation of two Level Three violations is the basis for assigning twenty-five disciplinary points. The Sheriff's Office General Order B-15 does not contain a disciplinary range for a total point award of eighty-five points. However, consistent with the established Guidelines, the Chain-of-Command Board adjusted Respondent's total disciplinary point award at seventy-five points. For seventy-five (75) total points, the discipline imposed may range from ten days suspension to termination. Based on its findings, the Chain-of-Command Board recommended that Respondent be terminated. Petitioner concurred with the recommendation of the Chain-of-Command Board and terminated Respondent from her position as property clerk with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. Prior to the incident in this case, Respondent has not been the subject of an administrative investigation or any disciplinary action by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the charging document and upholding Respondent's termination from employment as a property clerk with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 10th day of July, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0022 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted. 7.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Accepted. 14.-34. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 35. First sentence accepted and incorporated. Remainder of paragraph rejected as argument. 36.-41. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated. 7. Accepted in part. Reject characterization of interview as "informal discussion" and statement that Respondent was not informed of the nature of the mislocation of items. 8.-9. Accepted and incorporated to extent not subordinate or unnecessary Accepted and incorporated to extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Reject characterization of discussion as "informal interview." Accepted and incorporated. Accepted except phrase "no evidence of such was presented" is rejected as not supported by the record. First sentence accepted and incorporated. Remainder of paragraph rejected as argument and/or legal conclusions. Accepted. First two sentences accepted. Remainder of paragraph rejected as argument and/or legal conclusions. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as argument and conclusions of law. First two sentences and last sentence accepted. Remainder of paragraph rejected as argument. Accepted and incorporated to extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-23. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Craig, Esquire ALLEY AND ALLEY/FORD AND HARRISON 205 Brush Street Post Office Box 1427 Tampa, Florida 33601 Joseph M. Ciarciaglino, Esquire CIARCIAGLINO AND COYLE, P.A. 200 Mirror Lake Drive St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 34617 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice when it terminated Petitioner's employment on July 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses while testifying, exhibits admitted into evidence, stipulations and arguments of the parties, and evidentiary rulings made, the following relevant and material facts are objectively determined: Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Timely File Petition for Relief This case arises out of a Charge of Discrimination (Charge) filed by Petitioner (Mr. Tabak) with the Commission on July 19, 2002. Mr. Tabak alleged in the Charge that Respondent (Office Depot) discriminated against him based on his religion (Jewish), disability, and age (54 years) and retaliated against him for complaining of the same when it terminated his employment on July 20, 2001. Office Depot denied the allegations in the Charge and contends that it does not discriminate on the basis of religion, disability, age or any other factor. On March 12, 2004, a no cause determination was issued by the Commission after its investigation of the allegations in the Charge. The determination states that "there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred." The no cause determination and the Notice were mailed to Mr. Tabak on March 12, 2004. The Notice informed Mr. Tabak of his right to request an administrative hearing by filing a petition for relief within 35 days of the date of the Notice (i.e. April 16, 2004), and it further informed Petitioner that his claim would be dismissed if it was not timely filed. The Commission received Mr. Tabak's Petition for Relief (Petition) on April 19, 2004, 38 days after the date of the no cause determination and Notice of March 12, 2004. Mr. Tabak gave no reason for the failure to timely file his Petition, other than "he put it in the mail and the postal services should have delivered it." Failure to Respond to Discovery Mr. Tabak acknowledged receiving Office Depot's First Request for Production of Documents and First Set of Interrogatories. Mr. Tabak acknowledged that he did not answer Respondent's discovery requests. Office Depot did not file a motion to compel or any other pleading to have Mr. Tabak's refusal to comply with discovery addressed by the undersigned prior to the hearing, and the noncompliance issues are now moot. Claim of Discrimination Mr. Tabak was hired by Office Depot on November 25, 1994, as a delivery driver at the satellite facility located in Fort Myers, Florida. Delivery drivers would report to the warehouse each morning to be assigned a "route" and/or "delivery" by the "lead" driver. The lead driver was an employee promoted from among the drivers. Drivers with the most experience and knowledge of the "delivery aspect" of the business, who had demonstrated an ability to manage other drivers and interviewed well as a potential leader, as determined by management, was promoted to lead driver positions. During Mr. Tabak's employment with Office Depot, a male and female were promoted to lead driver positions. At the time of hire, all of Respondent's employees, to include Mr. Tabak, were provided with a copy of Office Depot's employee handbook. Office Depot's employee handbook includes policies regarding equal employment opportunity, prohibition of unlawful harassment, and appropriate workplace conduct. The policies prohibit discrimination or harassment of employees on the basis of several factors, including religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, race, and national origin and require employees to treat one another with respect. The handbook provided the accepted method for employees to file their objections to all proposed disciplinary actions taken against them by management, at the time they were notified of adverse action impacting their employment status. On October 13, 1997, some 35 months after he was hired, Mr. Tabak applied for a lead driver position that was advertised. Mr. Tabak was interviewed, selected, and promoted to the lead driver position with an increase in pay and responsibilities. The overall responsibility of the lead driver was to ensure each day (1) that all vehicles were operative, that drivers were present and assigned delivery routes, and that drivers were scheduled to fill in for drivers who were on vacation and out sick. When necessary, the lead driver will drive for a driver who is out sick and no replacement was timely found. All Office Depot drivers understood that "the daily delivery of goods was the ultimate objective to be achieved." On or about May 11, 2001, driver Jamie Salazar radioed Mr. Tabak, his lead driver, informing Mr. Tabak that he ran out of gas while driving a delivery route. During their conversation on the office-to-truck radio, another driver, Daniel Vasquez, overheard Mr. Tabak tell Mr. Salazar, "if you have a fucking problem, say it to my face," or some vulgar statement to that effect. Mr. Salazar and Mr. Vasquez reported Mr. Tabak's vulgar comment to Jeff Parry, the satellite manager. Mr. Parry discussed Mr. Tabak's inappropriate conduct with his immediate supervisor, Tom Perrin, the district manager/supervisor. Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin agreed that Mr. Tabak's comments and conduct were inappropriate and were a violation of Office Depot's policy and practice that required "employees to treat one another with respect." On May 11, 2001, Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin concluded that Mr. Tabak would receive written counseling for his comment to Mr. Salazar, with the warning that the next policy infraction would result in a final written counseling warning and/or termination. The written counseling becomes a part of the employee's personnel file. Office Depot's Problem Resolution policy is included in the employee handbook. Through the Problem Resolution policy, employees may contest proposed disciplinary counseling or other adverse actions taken by Office Depot management. Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form at the time he was informed by management of the "written counseling warning," but he elected not to complete the form to contest the written counseling warning he received for his vulgar comment to Mr. Salazar. On May 11, 2001, Mr. Parry and Mr. Perrin gave Mr. Salazar a final written warning for running out of gas. This final warning was given because it was the responsibility of the driver, Mr. Salazar, to ensure that the truck assigned to him was fully gassed each morning before leaving the facility. On or about July 10, 2001, driver, David Tollison, reported to Mr. Parry that at the end of his delivery run he attempted check-in with Mr. Tabak, his lead driver, by giving his signed clipboard evidencing deliveries made. According to Mr. Tollison, Mr. Tabak shoved the clipboard back to him and said "fucking check yourself in." When confronted by management with this second complaint of using vulgarity to coworkers, Mr. Tabak denied using the specific word "fucking" but admitted he "may" have said "hell" or "damn" when he shoved the clipboard at Mr. Tollison. Again Mr. Parry discussed this incident with Mr. Perrin, and they agreed that Mr. Tabak's conduct was inappropriate and violated Office Depot's policies and practices requiring "employees to treat one another with respect" and that he should receive a final written counseling. On July 10, 2001, Mr. Tabak received his final written counseling for his inappropriate conduct toward Mr. Tollison. The final warning informed Mr. Tabak that the next infraction of Office Depot's employee policies would result in termination. Again, Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form at the time he was informed by management of the "final written warning," but he elected not to complete the form to contest the written counseling warning he received for his vulgar comment to Mr. Tollison. On July 18, 2001, Mr. Parry was advised that Mr. Tabak had made derogatory comments about the sexual orientation of Lisa Holmes, a lead driver. It was reported that Mr. Tabak, in the presence of drivers, Dan Mouser and Glenn Michalak, had on more than one occasion referred to Ms. Holmes as "that gay bitch." On two or more occasions Mr. Tabak made derogatory comments about Ms. Holmes in the presence of Vailoa Tavia, referring to Ms. Holmes as a "bitch" and stating that "she should not be working as a driver at Office Depot because she is a woman." Mr. Tabak, in the presence of Mr. Michalak, continued his barrage of derogatory comments about Ms. Holmes, referring to her as a "dike" and stating "we sure don't need any gay leads [drivers] around here." Mr. Tabak's derogatory comments about his coworkers were not restricted to just the sexual orientation of Ms. Holmes. In the presence of Mr. Michalak and on more than one occasion, Mr. Tabak expressed his opinion regarding his Mexican and Black American coworkers, to include the statement "if we could get rid of all the Blacks and Mexicans, this place would run better," and "we don't need Blacks and Mexicans, because they are lazy." Mr. Tabak's repeated inappropriate comments made about his coworkers in the presence of other coworkers, after two written warnings, were brought to the attention of Richard York, Office Depot's Regional Human Resources Manager, located in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. York, through his own investigation of Mr. Tabak's comments regarding the race, national origin, and sexual orientation of other Office Depot employees confirmed repeated violations, after warnings, had occurred. On July 20, 2001, Mr. Tabak was terminated for repeated violations of Office Depot's policies concerning equal employment opportunities and non-harassment. Again, at the time of his termination for the third and last time, Mr. Tabak was given a Problem Resolution form to complete to contest his termination. Mr. Tabak did not, however, mention in his Problem Resolution any claims of religious, age, or disability discrimination; failure to accommodate; or retaliation. It is undisputed that Mr. Tabak's termination was the sole and direct result of his having made three or more derogatory statements about his coworkers in the presence of other coworkers, each such statement being a separate violation of Office Depot's policy regarding mandatory respect of each employee for coworkers. Mr. Parry terminated another employee, Mr. Mouser, for making derogatory remarks about Mr. Tabak's Jewish religion. He also terminated Michael Salters and Charles Wrotten for misconduct. Neither Mr. Mouser, Mr. Salters nor Mr. Wrotten was Jewish or disabled, and they were all in their early to mid 20's when terminated. Mr. Tabak was terminated solely for his repeated violations of Office Depot's employee policy consisting primarily of derogatory remarks and inappropriate conduct toward his coworkers and for no other reason as he alleged some three years after his termination. Religious Accommodation Claim Office Depot does not have nor does it observe any company-wide, close all stores, religious holidays. The policy of Office Depot was to accommodate any employee's request, should another employee be found to replace the absent employee, or the day off was one of those listed for all employees. No day off was given any employee merely because of that employee's religion or other personal traits and/or desires. Leave and vacation time was available should an employee plan his schedule and have eight or more hours leave available for any purpose the employee deemed appropriate. Mr. Tabak's claim of discrimination, to include religious discrimination, was filed on July 19, 2002, more than 1,000 days after he was required to come in to work on Yom Kippur in September of 1999. Mr. Tabak's requests for time off for religious holidays during his employment, beginning in November of 1994 through September of 1999, with Office Depot were granted without exception when another driver could and would be available to cover Mr. Tabak's assigned duties. Mr. Parry was Mr. Tabak's manager in 1999 and 2000 during both Jewish holidays, Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah. In 1999, Mr. Tabak was called in to work on Yom Kippur by Mr. Parry after his prior request for that day off had been granted. On that day, the unexpected absence of two drivers would have caused undue hardship on the operations of the facility where Mr. Tabak was employed as a lead driver. Mr. Tabak's suggestion that a driver could be requested from the Miami location to travel to Ft. Myers for one day's work that he might celebrate a religious holiday was rejected by Mr. Parry because had never requested driver assistance from Weston/Miami on the day of a crisis. Mr. Tabak was not called in to work on Jewish holidays in the year 2000 because no drivers called in sick. Religious Discrimination Claim Mr. Tabak's claim of religious discrimination was based on his not getting promoted to the Ft. Myers managerial position in November 1998 for which he also applied. Again, the religious discrimination claim was not raised in 1998. Mr. Parry's employment with Office Depot began in 1988, when Office Depot acquired Allstate Office Products, by whom Mr. Parry was already employed as a driver in Tampa, Florida. In 1993, Office Depot incorporated the Allstate Office Products Tampa office system for computer centralized customer delivery from the warehouses into the Fort Myers facility. In December 1994, one month after Mr. Tabak was hired, Mr. Parry was temporarily assigned to the Ft. Myers facility to set up and implement the computer centralized customer delivery system and to train its drivers. Tim Edwards, Office Depot's manager, made the decision to promote Mr. Parry because he felt that Mr. Tabak did not do well during his interview. Mr. Edwards gave Mr. Tabak an out- of-cycle pay increase in November 1998 of approximately six percent. Mr. Parry hired Jordan Silverstein, a Jewish driver, after Mr. Tabak's termination on July 20, 2001. At the request of Mr. Tabak, and as a part of its business practice of giving back to the community, Office Depot made two voluntary donations of $2,500 each to Mr. Tabak's Jewish Temple, once in 2000 and again in 2001. Considering all evidence of record favorable toward Mr. Tabak regarding religious discrimination, Mr. Tabak failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated against him because of his religion when he was not selected for promotion to the position of manager of the Ft. Meyers facility in November 1998. Mr. York was 53 years of age in July 2001 when he participated as a manager in the decision to terminate Mr. Tabak. Mr. Perrin was in his early 40's when he participated in the decision to discipline and ultimately terminate Mr. Tabak. Mr. Michalak was 51 years old in July 2004. During his employment with Office Depot, Mr. Michalak testified to never having experienced age discrimination and never having observed or heard of any age-related discriminatory remarks toward Mr. Tabak. Mr. Tabak's only evidence of age discrimination was his allegation that Mr. Michalak made the remark, which Mr. Michalak denies, that "an old fart like you is never going to make manager." Considering all evidence of record favorable toward Mr. Tabak regarding age discrimination, Mr. Tabak failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated against him because of his age, when he was not selected for promotion to a manager's position or because of an alleged statement made by Mr. Michalak. Disability Discrimination Mr. Tabak based his claim of disability discrimination on his alleged diminished hearing capacity. Mr. Tabak alleged that he suffered with diminished hearing that was corrected and restored to 100 percent when he would wear his hearing aid. Mr. Tabak's alleged diminished hearing did not interfere with or prohibit his performance of his job and duties while employed at Office Depot. Mr. Tabak passed his annual Department of Transportation hearing tests while he worked under Mr. Parry's management in the Ft. Myers facility. Mr. Tabak never personally made Mr. Parry aware of his diminished hearing, and, consequently, Mr. Parry was not aware that Mr. Tabak suffered with a hearing problem that was corrected with a hearing aid. Mr. Tabak offered no medical evidence in support of his "diminished" hearing allegation. Considering all evidence of record favorable toward Mr. Tabak, he failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot discriminated against him because of his diminished hearing that was corrected and restored to 100 percent when he would wear his hearing aid. Retaliation At no time during his employment or during his termination process, including his opportunity to identify and address his retaliation claim on his Problem Resolution form, did Mr. Tabak allege that not being selected to a position of manager and his termination were acts of retaliation. Indeed, when his termination was first and in the forefront of his concerns, Mr. Tabak did not complete his Problem Resolution form to raise a claim of retaliation or to contest his termination. Office Depot was first made aware of Mr. Tabak's claims of alleged religious, age, and disability discrimination; failure to accommodate; and retaliation on July 19, 2002, one year after his termination. Mr. Tabak failed to establish a prima facie case that Office Depot retaliated against him when they terminated his employment on July 20, 2001.
Recommendation Based upon the foregone, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief and the Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 1st day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alexander Tabak 214 Southwest 46th Terrace Cape Coral, Florida 33914 Joanne B. Lambert, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
