Findings Of Fact Respondent, George Sigountos, is a licensed real estate broker-salesman having been issued license number 0080704 with a principal place of business at 4338 First Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. Respondent has been licensed in the State of Florida for approximately ten (10) years, having been a broker- salesman in New York for approximately twenty (20) years before coming to Florida. The Respondent Sigountos was at all material times employed by Century 21 Realty, 4922-38th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. On or before March, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. John Opal listed for sale by the Respondent a house on Benson Avenue which they then occupied. Subsequently, the Opals located another house which they desired to purchase at 5871-78th Avenue North, Pinellas Park, Florida. The Opals obtained financing to purchase the Pinellas Park home although they had not yet sold their Benson Avenue home and requested the Respondent's assistance to sell their original home. On or about March 4, 1979, the Respondent, through his broker, submitted a contract to the seller, Mr. Boyce, from the Opals, who contracted for the purchase of the Boyce home with a closing date on or before April 10, 1979. The bank where financing was arranged informed the involved title company that interest rates were scheduled to increase as of March 19, 1979. As a result of this information, the title company and parties attempted to arrange to close on March 16, 1979. The Opals attended this closing while Mr. Boyce did not. The Opals, however, executed all documents necessary on their part for the closing on March 16, 1979. Included was an agreement requiring the sellers to replace three (3) boards on the back porch because of previous termite damage. This was included as a result of a prior conversation between Mr. Opal and Mr. Boyce concerning termite damage. Mr. Sigountos did not prepare this document and it is unclear how it came into existence. No termite inspection report was filed until March 19, 1979. The Boyce home was not inspected for termites until March 19, 1979, at which time the exterminator, Hobelman Exterminating Service, Inc., left his inspection report with Mrs. Boyce which stated, in part:
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Petitioner dismissing the complaint filed April 7, 1981 against the Respondent George Sigountos. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Grover G. Freeman, Esquire Suite 410 4600 West Cypress Avenue Tampa, Florida 33607 Christopher C. Ferguson 5959 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commision 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether Robert A. Pace has violated Section 482.161(5) and (6), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10D-55.04(4) and 10D-55.35(2), Florida Administrative Code, and therefore should be denied a pest control identification card and the opportunity to take the examination to become a certified pest control operator.
Findings Of Fact Testimony and evidence was introduced by DHRS from various witnesses regarding Pace's activities as the holder in the past of a pest control identification card with both Suncoast and Bay Area Control Companies, and as an emergency certified pest control operator for Suncoast Pest Control Company. From that testimony only the following factual allegations were proven. All other allegations against Robert A. Pace as stated in the letters of denial clearly were not proven by substantial and competent evidence. On or about March 21, 1974, Pace was a holder of a pest control identification card as an employee of Suncoast Pest Control. At this time Pace was also a partner in this company. On that date, Robert Pace offered to conduct a free termite inspection of the residence of Melvin Redlin. The inspection was conducted and live termites were shown to Mrs. Redlin by Pace with the explanation that they had been found in the area of the tub trap or plumbing service access in the bathroom of the Redlin's home. On the same day, Pace solicited a termite treatment contract with the Redlins. Treatment for subterranean termites was begun by employees of Suncoast Pest Control, but while it was in progress, one of Redlin's neighbors stated that he had never seen termites. One of the Suncoast employees stated that he had some live termites in the truck and showed Redlin and others a log infested with live termites. At that point Redlin became irate, suspecting that the individual who had inspected his home had shown his wife termites taken from the truck and not from the plumbing access space. Redlin ordered all work by Suncoast to cease. At the time Redlin directed them to stop, chemicals were being introduced into the ground around the slab foundation of the Redlin home. Before leaving, a Suncoast employee poured a jar of chemicals into the tub trap. Three weeks later, in response to a complaint by the Redlins, William Bargren, who is qualified as an expert witness in entomology and who is employed as an investigator with DHRS, inspected the Redlin's residence. Bargren found no evidence of prior termite infestation. On or about July 1, 1974, a contract for the treatment of subterranean termites was solicited from John A. Johnson by Suncoast Pest Control Company. This contract bore the signature of Robert A. Pace as a representative of Suncoast; however, Johnson was unable to identify Robert A. Pace at the hearing and described the man with whom he had dealt as being taller and heavier than Pace. Pursuant to this contract, the Johnson's house was treated for subterranean termites and certain structural repairs were made in the attic by employees of Suncoast. William Bargren, identified above, testified that upon his subsequent inspection of the home, in his opinion, it was only partially treated. Bargren found evidence of previous subterranean termite infestation but concluded that the inner walls of the foundation of the house had not been treated. For the treatment of the subterranean termites and repairs to the house Johnson wrote checks payable to Suncoast in the amount of One Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Two Dollars and Forty-Five Cents ($1,822.45) and One Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Five Dollars ($1,155.00). Pace was not an emergency pest control operator until July 10, 1974. The deposition of Mrs. Annie Symons, admitted pursuant to stipulation of the parties, indicates that in October, 1974, an employee of Suncoast Pest Control known only as "Joe" to Mrs. Symons inspected her residence for termites. Mrs. Symons had recently purchased the house and obtained a termite inspection and certificate prior to purchase certifying there was no evidence of termite infestation. The Suncoast employee inspected Symons' residence and advised her that her house had an active termite infestation showing her a piece of wood with live termites. Mrs. Symons called Southern Labs, the pest control firm which had conducted the original inspection. Michael Spokes, an employee of Southern Labs, reinspected Symons' residence and found no evidence of termite infestation. Concerned at the conflicting reports, Mrs. Symons contacted the Division of Health and her house was inspected by David Jones, an etomologist qualified and accepted as an expert witness at hearing and employed by the Division of Health as an inspector. Jones inspected Symons' house and could find no evidence of termite infestation. In October, 1974, Pace was the emergency certified pest control operator for Suncoast. There was no evidence introduced that Suncoast was advised of the Symons matter and that Pace was on notice of the conduct of his employee. On or about July 23, 1975, Robert A. Pace, Philip Nicholson and Rick Draper went to the residence of Irene Shipley, 301 East Lake Fern, Lutz, Florida. Mrs. Shipley was offered a free inspection by Mr. Pace which she accepted. While Pace talked with her outside of her house, Rick Draper inspected her house and a mobile home belonging to her son located to the rear of her property. According to Mrs. Shipley, Draper went under both structures and produced insects which he identified as termites. Mrs. Shipley and Pace stood outside during the inspection and discussed and negotiated a price for treating both structures. Pace stated that he would spray under both homes, the woodwork and the attic for One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) for each home. Eventually a price of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) was negotiated to treat by spraying both homes. The area under and around both homes was sprayed, and an attempt to spray the attic was made but was thwarted by an inner roof. After completing the Work, Mrs. Shipley gave a check to Pace payable to him in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00). Pace gave her a contract for pest control treatment. Subsequently, Mrs. Shipley became concerned and asked the assistance of the Division of Health. William Bargren, identified above, conducted an inspection of both houses. Under Mrs. Shipley's home he could find no evidence of subterranean termite infestation but did discover dry rot, and under the mobile home, Bargren found evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation. Bargren stated that in his opinion the treatment given both homes was insufficient because there was no evidence trenching around the house supports or boring in the pilings which he discovered under the mobile home. In October, 1975, Frank Logan contacted Robert A. Pace, while Pace was treating a home for subterranean termite infestation. Logan stated that he was impressed with the work being done and asked for Pace's card. Logan stated that he knew that his home was infested with termites and later called Pace and asked for Pace to inspect his home. Pace conducted an inspection of Logan's home and advised Logan that he had a subterranean termite infestation. Pace testified that he also saw no evidence of what he took to be an inactive dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. Subterranean termite treatment was made of Logan's home; however, when Logan's problems were unabated for a year, he contacted the Division of Health. William Bargren, identified above, inspected Logan's residence and found evidence of subterranean termite infestation, a substandard treatment for subterranean termites, and an active dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. The subterranean termite treatment was substandard in that the voids in the concrete block foundation had not been drilled and treated. Bargren also testified that the signs of dry wood termites which Pace described as having seen would not indicate an inactive infestation but an active infestation. Bargren did not offer any opinion as to whether the dry wood infestation was over a year old. Bargren stated that dry wood termites are not effected by control treatment for subterranean termites because they do not require contact with the ground. Pace and his colleague, Nicholson, who had assisted Pace on the job, each thought that the other had treated the foundation. ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pace is charged with the violation of Section 482.161 (5) and (6) and Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, arising out of his conduct in providing pest control services to Melvin Redlin. Because Mr. Redlin demanded that the employees of Suncoast cease treatment of his home prior to their having completed the job, a charge of negligently treating the Redlin residence cannot be sustained. Because live termites were shown to Mrs. Redlin, strong evidence did exist of an active infestation if the termites were from the bathroom plumbing service access. If the termites were introduced by Pace into the Redlin home, clearly Pace would be guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in violation of Section 482.161(5) Florida Statutes. Based on Bargren's testimony that no evidence was found in the bath plumbing service access area of a prior subterranean termite infestation, together with the fact that treatment of that area was done rapidly without opportunity to substantially clean the area, the Hearing Officer finds that such a false representation was in fact made by Pace. Evidence introduced by DHRS clearly indicated that Pace was not an emergency certified pest control operator until July 10, 1974. The treatment of the Johnson residence occurred on July 1, 1974. Rule 10D-55.35, Florida Administrative Code, applies only to certified pest control operators; therefore, Pace cannot be held accountable under that rule for his own activities or the activities of Suncoast employees with regard to the termite control treatment of the residence of John A. Johnson. Bargren found evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation at the Johnson residence; therefore, there could have been no misrepresentation of an infestation. Bargren did find that the foundation of the Johnson residence was not properly drilled and protected with pesticide. Therefore, Pace did not use methods suitable for the treatment of subterranean termites in violation of Section 482.161(5), Florida Statutes. Although the certified pest control operator for Suncoast on July 1, 1974, would have been responsible for Pace's failure, Pace himself cannot avoid responsibility for his failure to properly treat the Johnson residence by virtue of the provisions of Rule 10D-55.35, supra. There is clear evidence that an employee of Suncoast other than Pace misrepresented the facts of an infestation to Annie G. Symons contrary to Section 482.161(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, in October, 1974. At that time Pace was an emergency certified pest control operator. There was no evidence introduced that Pace was contacted by Symons or by DHRS regarding misrepresentation to Annie G. Symons by an employee of Suncoast. Pace cannot be vicariously liable under the provisions of Section 482.161(5) or Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code, where knowledge of a misrepresentation is required. Although responsible for the pest control treatments as a certified operator, Pace cannot be considered liable for the misrepresentations of a Suncoast employee when Pace was not aware a contract had been made. Pace clearly violated Rule 10D-55.05(2), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to give Mrs. Shipley a copy of the contract before the work was done and payments made. It was clear that the nature of the treatment Pace was to perform was clearly explained to Mrs. Shipley prior to the commencement of the work. Bargren found prior evidence of subterranean termite infestation under one of the homes, and damage to the wood under the other as a result of dry rot. In any event, the inspection of the premises was by Rick Draper, and although Pace sold Mrs. Shipley the contract, it is clear that Mrs. Shipley knew that Pace did not conduct the inspection of the houses because she was talking with Pace outside while watching Draper inspect the house. Bargren's testimony was that the treatment was substandard, and he also testified that the prior infestation of subterranean termites under the mobile home had been stopped. The testimony indicated that bargaining went on between Pace and Shipley regarding the treatment that would be applied and the price for the treatment. Treatment in accordance with this agreement was performed or a good faith effort made. Considering the circumstances there is not substantial and competent evidence of a violation of Section 482.161(5) or (6), Florida Statutes, or of Rule 10D-55.04(4), Florida Administrative Code. Pace is charged with not providing adequate subterranean termite treatment and not treating an active dry wood termite infestation at the residence of Frank Logan. Bargren's inspection revealed evidence of a prior subterranean termite infestation which had been controlled and an active dry wood termite infestation in Logan's attic. Bargren's inspection took place over one year from the date of Pace's initial inspection and treatment. Pace stated that he saw evidence of what he took to be an inactive dry wood infestation when he initially inspected Logan's residence. No evidence was obtained concerning whether the infestation of dry wood termites was over one year old. Testimony was received that dry wood termites will not be affected by subterranean termite control measures; and, further, dry wood termites may fly into a building and start a colony if preventive measures have not been taken. Logan testified that the initial treatment by Pace did not control the termites because he kept seeing them. Pace was negligent in treating for subterranean termites in that he failed to assure that the foundation voids were treated contrary to Section 482.161(6), Florida Statutes. The length of time between Bargren's inspection and Pace's treatment together with the manner of infestation of dry wood termites creates sufficient doubt regarding the allegation of Pace's failure to properly identify the dry wood infestation to find the allegations not proven. The individual allegations proven above are not significant when taken singularly; however, the evidence taken as a whole presents a picture of high pressure salesmanship by Pace and those with whom he was associated, together with poor workmanship in application of treatments. In one instance the evidence is clear that Pace made a misrepresentation of a termite infestation where evidence was lacking. He did solicit contracts on occasions in which another employee made the inspections and he lacked specific knowledge of the conditions found. As part owner of Suncoast, Pace had the responsibility to oversee his employees which he failed to do. Pace should have taken greater care to insure his employees had properly inspected homes, and were dealing honestly and forthrightly with customers. As an employee, Pace did not treat homes in a workman like manner in accordance with accepted practices. The course of conduct engaged in by Suncoast and Pace's failure to control his employees cannot be overlooked.
Recommendation Considering the findings of fact generally and the conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services deny Pace's application to take the examination to become a certified pest control operator on the basis that Pace has not actively worked in pest control for some months, that substantial and competent evidence exist which indicates that Pace's expertise in pest control is lacking, and that his prior conduct raises questions of his business reputation and his ability to supervise employees. The Hearing Officer would further reand that Lewis S. Hall's request for an identification card for Pace be disapproved on the specific basis that Pace misrepresented an infestation to Mrs. Marian Redlin, which reflects adversely on Pace's business reputation and good character. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Wollett, Esquire Nixon E. Farnell, Esquire 521 Oak Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 Barbara Dell McPherson, Esquire Post Office Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
The Issue Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, through fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the licensing and regulation of persons who practice real estate in Florida. Authority for the licensure and regulation is set forth in Chapters 20, 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and associated provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent has been licensed as a Florida real estate broker at all times relevant to the inquiry. Respondent holds license no. 0237202 as broker for Shad and Shad Realty, Inc., located at 9955 Lem Turner Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent served as a property manager for the Veteran's Administration in relation to property held by that governmental body. The property management function which Respondent performed for the Veteran's Administration was as a management broker. Property at 3128 Plum Street, Jacksonville, Florida, was one of the properties managed by Respondent for the Veteran's Administration. In the interest of selling the property Respondent invoiced the Veteran's Administration and charged a management fee for his services in relation to that parcel to be paid by the Veteran's Administration. Respondent's management involved the correction of problems with the home at that address. Among the fee services provided by Respondent was the arrangement to have the house treated to rid the premises of fleas, the installation of signs, installing a lock, and certain other repairs. In these circumstances, Petitioner would have other persons responsible for performing the work or would perform the work himself. A related responsibility which Respondent performed for the Veteran's Administration in reference to the Plum Street property was to order a wood-destroying organism inspection to be performed by a licensed firm, J. F. Yearty and Sons, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, and for that firm to report the results of its findings in writing. That inspection was performed on June 7, 1995, and a report was prepared. The report which Respondent was provided and read, pointed out visible evidence of wood-destroying organisms observed to the extent, "old signs of powder post beetles scattered throughout the substructure." The report referred to live wood-destroying organisms observed as subterranean termites in the wall studs, sills, and bracing of the right side of the home. The report also stated the following: Water rot to the siding and trim scattered around the entire house. Heavy subterranean termites damage to the wall studs, sills, and bracing on the right side. Water stains to the kitchen and bathroom subflooring. Water stains to the flooring on the porch left front corner of the house. Respondent sent the inspection report to the Veteran's Administration. Realizing that the report referred to active termites, Respondent ordered termite treatment for the home. In doing so he understood that there were problems with termites in the wall studs, sills, and bracing. In his experience Respondent further understood that the extent of the damage that had been found at the home could be major. Respondent obtained a termite bond following the treatment. Respondent knew that there was a contract pending for the purchase of the Plum Street property. The buyer was John Harold Bamping. Mr. Bamping was represented by Shirley Jean Irons as a real estate sales agent for Lester W. Jenkins Real Estate, Inc., Lester Jenkins Broker, whose business address is 5147 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. In preparation for the closing on the Plum Street property, Ms. Irons went to Respondent's office, who was acting as the seller's representative for the Veteran's Administration in this context. Ms. Irons obtained a property receipt, the termite bond involving the treatment of the Plum Street property and the keys to the property. The bond constituted evidence that the property had been treated for termites but did not explain the degree of the problem for which treatment was necessary. At the time these items were picked up, Ms. Irons asked Respondent's wife for the termite inspection report related to the property. The wife told Ms. Irons that reports were not given out, only bonds. Ms. Irons told the wife that Ms. Irons needed the termite inspection report. The wife summoned Respondent from another part of the Respondent's office. Respondent then told Ms. Irons that he did not furnish the termite inspection report, properly referred to as wood-destroying organism inspection report. Respondent told Ms. Irons that the bond for termite treatment would be the only item provided to Ms. Irons in relation to the upcoming real estate closing. At hearing, Respondent indicated that his practice is not to provide a copy of the termite inspection report unless it is specifically asked for and then that Respondent does not always give the report to the party requesting the report "because that's VA property. That belongs to the VA." The VA refers to Veteran's Administration. Ms. Irons made John Bamping and Audrey Bamping his wife aware of the fact that Respondent was not providing a copy of the wood-destroying organism inspection report for purposes of the closing. This meant that the only evidence of the circumstances associated with the termite problem remained the termite bond. On July 11, 1995, the transaction closed for purchase of the Plum Street property, utilizing forms prepared by the Veteran's Administration. Ms. Irons and the Bampings attended the closing. Subsequent to the closing the Bampings became aware of the wood-destroying organism damage at the Plum Street house. The problems discovered were not evident when Ms. Bamping first saw the home before it was purchased. After the Bampings discovered the extent of the problem, they obtained a copy of the wood-destroying inspection report from Yearty and Sons which reflected the exact nature of the problems with the dwelling. Attempts were made to try and resolve the issue concerning the damage to the home. Eventually, the Bampings found it necessary to hire an attorney to assist them in addressing the damage to the home caused by the wood-destroying organisms. A suit was filed against the Veteran's Administration and damages were recovered in the amount of $2,000, and the Veteran's Administration was released in full from all claims for the wood-destroying organism damage. The Bampings also authorized their lawyer to file a complaint with Petitioner concerning Respondent's failure to disclose the wood-destroying organism inspection report.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and imposing a 30-day suspension and a fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Vernon B. Shad Shad and Shad Realty, Inc. Post Office Box 9750 Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are: a) whether White Construction Company, Inc. timely filed its requests for hearing with the Department of Transportation in response to notices of intent to suspend White's certificate of qualification because of alleged delinquencies on State Project Nos. 97770-3305 and 97770-3306 and; (b) if not, whether the doctrine of equitable tolling, waiver, estoppel or other legal or equitable principles apply under the facts of this case such that White is entitled to a formal hearing on the merits of the department's determination of delinquency.
Findings Of Fact White Construction Company, Inc. (White) is a contractor prequalified to bid on Department of Transportation (Department) construction projects in excess of $250,000. It was incorporated in 1951 and maintains a home office in Chiefland, Florida. White was the successful bidder on three projects that are included within the Department's Seminole Expressway Project in Seminole County which is being funded and supervised by the Department's Turnpike Office. The projects are three contiguous segments and are identified as State Project Nos. 97770-3304, 97770-3305 and 97770-3306. The Seminole Expressway Project consists of twelve separate projects. HNTB Corporation is the Department's Resident Engineer for Project Nos. 97770-3304 and 97770-3306 and maintains an office at 2927 US 17-92 in Sanford. ICF Kaiser Engineers is the Resident Engineer for Project No. 97770-3305 and maintains an office in a trailer at the job site. The Resident Engineers are the main liaison between White and the Department on the Project. The Department's Turnpike Office maintains a local office at 112 Beider Avenue in Casselberry. The Resident Engineers are supervised from that location by Mr. Gary Geddes, the Department's Program Manager, in conjunction with Mr. Ray Daniel, an Area Engineer who is employed by Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, which is under contract with the Department. The Resident Engineers, though employed by private consultants, serve as the Department's representatives and are delegated the title of Engineer of the Project for the Department. On July 30, 1993, the Department issued notices of intent to suspend White's certificate of qualification because of alleged delinquencies in White's performance on State Project Nos. 97770-3305 and 97770-3306. The Department's notices of intent to suspend were received by White at its Chiefland offices on August 3, 1993. Each notice contained the following language: Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-23 and in accordance with this determination, we intend to suspend your Certificate of Qualification and those of your affiliates. This suspension will become conclusive final agency action unless you request an Administrative Hearing within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Your request for a hearing shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Mail Station 58, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwanee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 within ten days of receipt of this notice. A copy of the request for hearing shall also be provided to the State Construction Engineer, Mail Station 31, Haydon Burns Building, 605 Suwanee Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450. The request for hearing shall include: The name and address of the party making the request; A statement that the party is requesting a formal or informal proceeding; and All specific facts and circumstances which the Contractor believes legally excuses the unsatisfactory progress on the project. A request for hearing is filed when it is delivered to and received by the Clerk of Agency Proceedings. If a hearing is timely requested after the receipt of the notice of the intent, the hearing shall be held within 30 days after receipt by the Hearing Officer of the request for hearing in accordance with 337.16 of the Florida Statutes. In addition to a request for an Administrative Hearing and in accordance with Article 8-8.2 of the Special Provisions of this project, you are hereby given opportunity to request an extension of allowable contract time in an amount of cause progress on this contract to be acceptable or to submit other information to show that progress of work is not delinquent. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7, emphasis added) White forwarded the two Notices of Intent to its attorneys, Cummings, Lawrence and Vezina, P.A. On August 11, White's attorneys sent to Mr. Burney Keen of White Construction, via Federal Express Priority Morning Delivery, a package containing originals and copies of requests for formal hearing and for contract time extensions for both projects, with written instructions to have the requests executed and delivered to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings and James Lairscey, via Federal Express, and to hand deliver copies to the Project Engineers no later than August 13. The package from White's attorneys did not arrive at White's offices until late in the afternoon on August 12, when Mr. Keen was no longer in the office. Mr. Keen did not receive the package from White's counsel until the morning of August 13. Notwithstanding the Priority Delivery designation, Federal Express delivery to White's Chiefland office occurred between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. Keen instructed his secretary, Patti Cook, to have the documents executed by an officer of White, and to have them hand-delivered to the Department's Resident Engineers and delivered to the Department's Tallahassee offices by Federal Express, in accordance with counsel's instructions. On Friday afternoon, August 13, 1993, White hand-delivered its request for hearing, along with its requests for contract time extension, to the Department's two Resident Engineers. On that same day, White sent out a package containing copies of these documents by Federal Express addressed to Mr. J. Lairscey, 605 Suwanee Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. Mr. Keen and Ms. Cook both believed that J. Lairscey was the Clerk of Agency Proceedings. This is not surprising since at his deposition, J. Lairscey, who is the State Construction Engineer for the Department, did not know who the Clerk of Agency Proceedings was either. Standard operating procedure for the Project established by the Department at the preconstruction conference required that all correspondence from White be sent to the Department's Resident Engineers. Mr. Keen believed it to be of utmost importance to timely hand-deliver the requests for formal hearing to the Department's Resident Engineers. Although White had filed notices or requests with the Department Clerk in the past, this was Mr. Keen's first experience with the delinquency filing procedures. The package arrived at the Department's offices in Tallahassee on Saturday, August 14, 1993, and was delivered to Mr. Lairscey's office, MS 31, and not MS 58 (which is the Clerk of Agency Proceedings' Mail Station and office) on the morning of August 16, 1994. The package delivered to ICF Kaiser contained an original letter from White addressed to Michael Landry, which requested an extension of time on Project No. 97770-3305 and referred to an enclosed request for hearing. The package also contained an original letter addressed to: Clerk of Agency Proceedings, 605 Suwanee Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. The letter to the Clerk requested a formal hearing in response to the Department's July 30th Notice of Intent and referred to three large appendices which were enclosed. Upon its receipt on August 13, 1993, a secretary and the office engineer at ICF Kaiser's office recognized that they received misdirected originals of important legal documents. The office engineer and secretary telephoned Ray Daniel, the Department's Area Engineer, at the Department's office in Casselberry and told him that they had received from White what looked like an original legal document, which they did not think they were supposed to have. They questioned whether the documents should be redirected to the Department. Mr. Daniel instructed them not to send the documents to him. Mr. Daniel knew that requests for hearing should be sent to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings in Tallahassee, but was not sure that a mistake was made and took no action regarding the request for hearing. The documents were filed away at ICF Kaiser until August 27, 1993, when Michael Landry followed up an inquiry from Ray Daniel and had the originals forwarded to the Turnpike's Casselberry office. The package delivered to HNTB Corporation also on August 13 contained an original letter from White addressed to Ralph Burrington which requested an extension of time on Project No. 97770-3306 and referred to an enclosed request for hearing. Like its counterpart, this package also contained an original letter addressed to: Clerk of Agency Proceedings, 605 Suwanee Street, MS 58, Tallahassee, Florida 32399. The letter to the Clerk requested a formal hearing in response to the Department's July 30th Notice of Intent and referred to three large appendices which were enclosed. The Resident Engineer at HNTB, Mr. Ralph Burrington, did not note that the documents were originals and filed them away. Mr. Burrington's normal procedure is to forward such documentation by facsimile to the Department's Casselberry office, but in this instance he feels he made a mistake. The package delivered to the Department's Tallahassee offices on Saturday, August 14, 1993, contained one signed photocopy of the requests for formal hearing for Project No. 97770-3305 addressed to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings, unsigned copies of the requests for formal hearing in Project Nos. 97770-3305 and 97770-3306 addressed to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings, as well as copies of the request for time extension for Project Nos. 97770-3305 and 97770-3306 and appendices. The documents were received by J. Lairscey on Monday, August 16, 1993, and were filed away until they were inspected on August 27, 1993, as a result of an inquiry by Ava Parker, a Department attorney. Sometime before August 27, 1993, Ava Parker, as a result of an inquiry from Gary Geddes, the Department's Program Manager, began to investigate whether White had filed its requests for hearing. Ms. Parker first checked with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings and was informed that nothing had been filed at that location. Ms. Parker then contacted Charles Peterson, the Department's Area Construction Engineer, to discern whether White had filed a request for hearing. Mr. Peterson searched his files and the Department's central files; he questioned various people in the Department's Tallahassee office and telephoned Ray Daniel in the Department's Casselberry office. Ray Daniel told Mr. Peterson that he had no knowledge concerning White's requests for hearing and no idea where they were. Mr. Daniel in fact knew at that time that White had delivered its requests for hearings to both Resident Engineers on August 13, based upon previous conversations with the Department's Resident Engineers and office staff. Mr. Peterson later discovered from Jimmy Lairscey that Mr. Lairscey had received the requests for hearing but they had been filed away. On Friday, August 27, 1993, Joe Lawrence, counsel for White, telephoned Ava Parker to discuss consolidation of the hearings and discovery. Ms. Parker advised White's counsel that no requests for hearing had been filed with the Clerk in response to the two Notices of Intent. Ms. Parker knew prior to her conversation with counsel for White that the requests had not been filed with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings, yet made no attempt to contact White or its counsel to notify them that the Clerk had not received the request. On Monday, August 30, 1993, copies of the requests for hearing were delivered to the Department's Tallahassee offices from counsel for White, via Federal Express addressed to Ava Parker and Clerk of Agency Proceedings, Florida Department of Transportation, 605 Suwanee Street, MS 58, Haydon Burns Building, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450. The documents were received by Ms. Parker who delivered the requests for hearing to the Clerk and they were stamped in by the Clerk of Agency Proceedings on that same date. The Clerk of Agency Proceedings' function is to docket and maintain a record of documents and to send a copy of any requests for hearing in contractor suspension cases to the legal section and to Jimmy Lairscey. The Department's standard procedure after receipt of requests for hearing and contract time extension is to have the documents reviewed by Jimmy Lairscey and the Project Resident Engineer to determine whether the time extension should be granted. The legal section then determines whether to send the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department's purpose in soliciting a request for contract time extension in conjunction with its Notice of Intent to Suspend is to afford the contractor the opportunity to cure the delinquency. The Department, prior to taking action on the request for hearing, reviews the time extension request to determine whether it may obviate the need for further delinquency proceedings. The Department's Resident Engineers are primarily responsible for evaluating and making recommendations concerning time extension requests. It is generally after the Department makes a determination concerning the appropriateness of the request for contract time that it proceeds to act upon the request for hearing. The Department did not deny White's request for contract time extension until August 30, 1993, the same date that White's requests for hearing were docketed in by the Clerk. The Department's review, analysis and decision can take up to five months. The delay in docketing the requests for hearing did not, therefore, delay the process. There was no prejudice to the Department by White's delivery of its requests for hearing to the Department's Resident Engineers on August 13, 1993, rather than to the Clerk of Agency Proceedings. There was no harm to the Department by Jimmy Lairscey's receipt of White's requests for hearing on Monday August 16, 1993, rather than the Clerk receiving it on Friday, August 13, 1993. The Department was aware, prior to and on August 13, 1993, that White disputed the Department's determination of delinquency on State Project Nos. 97770-3305 and 97770-3306. The Department expected White to file requests for formal hearing challenging the Department's determination of delinquency on State Project No. 97770-3305 and 97770-3306. White had verbally notified the Department prior to August 13 that it was challenging the delinquency notices. No evidence established any prejudice or harm to the Department from the Clerk's receipt of White's requests for hearing on August 30, 1993 rather than August 13, 1993. White will be severely prejudiced if not afforded a hearing, and therefore automatically declared delinquent, because it will be precluded from bidding and acquiring much needed additional work. White's work is primarily for the Department, in all phases of highway construction. At the time of hearing White had Department contracts of approximately $100 million, which contracts carry over a several year period, and it employed approximately 500 people. No culpability or blame can be ascribed to either party in the series of gaffes surrounding the filing of White's requests for hearing. Mr. Keen, a novice to the process, thought he was doing the right thing by assuring timely filing with the Resident Engineers, who had always received other correspondence related to the Project. Mr. Daniel, who was immediately informed that the original documents were filed in the wrong place, did nothing to correct the error, but neither did he deliberately frustrate the process (as argued by White) since the message he received about some original legal documents was ambiguous. Mr. Lairscey had no idea that his packet was intended for the Agency Clerk; moreover, he had no idea who the agency clerk was. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any more than mere inconvenience to the Department, it is patently unfair to deny White its hearing on the merits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Department enter its final order granting a formal hearing to White Construction Co., Inc. on the substantive issue of whether it should lose its qualification to bid. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. - 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 2; otherwise rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Adopted in part in paragraph 10; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 4. Except as to the conclusion that the notice was not filed with the clerk on August 13, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence, considering the testimony of Keen in its entirety. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 5, 8, 9, 10 and 12. Rejected as argument and conjective unsupported by the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. Adopted in part in paragraphs 6-9, otherwise rejected as immaterial. Adopted in part in paragraph 9; otherwise rejected as statement of testimony or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. 16.-18. Adopted in paragraphs 14 and 19; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 18. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. Adopted in part in paragraphs 23-26; otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 27 and 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 27.-28. Adopted in part in paragraph 36; otherwise rejected as argument or unnecessary. White clearly proved it will be severely prejudiced, even if it is not "put out of business". 29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to prejudice to the agency). 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence; more commonly, the agency rules on the extension request first. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Rejected as unnecessary. 19. Adopted in paragraph 18. 20. Adopted in paragraph 19. 21.-22. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 23. Adopted in paragraph 21. 24. Adopted in paragraph 22. 25. Adopted in paragraph 23. 26. Adopted in paragraph 24. 27. Adopted in substance in paragraph 25. 28. Adopted in paragraph 26. 29. Adopted in paragraph 27. 30. Adopted in paragraph 28. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 29. Adopted in part in paragraph 30; otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence (as to being a "paper shuffler"). 34.-38. Adopted in paragraph 31. 39.-40. Adopted in paragraph 32. 41.-42. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 36, except that the implication that the company will absolutely go out of business is rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, MS 58 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Cummings, Lawrence and Vezina, P.A. 1600 S.E. 17th Street, Suite 304 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue is whether the time limit that would otherwise bar Petitioner’s claim of alleged discrimination in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006),1 is tolled by the doctrine of equitable tolling.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a public university located in Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner was an employee of Respondent until October 11, 2006, when Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on the grounds that Petitioner had allegedly participated in the falsification of employee time records. Respondent deleted Petitioner’s name from the payroll records and stopped paying Petitioner. No continuing employment relationship existed after October 11, 2006. Respondent notified Petitioner of the proposed termination of employment by letter dated August 25, 2006. Respondent conducted two predetermination conferences on September 5 and October 5, 2006. Petitioner was represented by counsel in each predetermination conference.2 Shortly after the termination of Petitioner’s employment on October 11, 2006, Petitioner, through his attorney, filed a grievance against Respondent. The grievance was resolved against Petitioner in a final arbitration decision that was issued on October 3, 2007. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the Commission) on December 27, 2007, approximately 442 days after Respondent terminated Petitioner from his employment on October 11, 2006. Subsection 760.11 requires Petitioner to have filed the Charge of Discrimination within 365 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice that occurred on October 11, 2006. A preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the factual prerequisites for equitable tolling are present in this case. For the reasons stated hereinafter, a preponderance of the evidence does not show that Petitioner was misled or lulled into inaction, was in some extraordinary way prevented from asserting his rights, or timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum. Petitioner did not mistakenly assert his claim of discrimination in the arbitration proceeding. The grievance decided by arbitration did not allege that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner. Nor did Petitioner allege discrimination at anytime prior to the termination of his employment, including the two predetermination conferences. Respondent did not mislead or lull Petitioner into inaction. Respondent did not represent to Petitioner that Petitioner had to wait until the conclusion of the arbitration proceeding before Petitioner could file a claim of discrimination. When Petitioner filed the grievance and participated in the arbitration, Petitioner was represented by counsel. At no time did either Petitioner or his attorney contact Respondent and ask if he could, or could not, file a claim of discrimination during the arbitration proceeding. Respondent did not, in some extraordinary way, prevent Petitioner from asserting his claim of discrimination. Respondent did not delay the arbitration unnecessarily. The delay in the arbitration was caused, in relevant part, by the unavailability of counsel for Petitioner. The first available date for all of the arbitrators was April 19, 2007. On April 17, 2007, one of the arbitrators cancelled the arbitration for medical reasons. The next available date for all of the arbitrators was August 31, 2007. The arbitration hearing occurred on August 31, 2007. The arbitrators issued the decision on October 3, 2007. The Charge of Discrimination which Petitioner filed with the Commission on December 27, 2007, does not raise any fact that was not known to Petitioner before the expiration of 365 days after the termination of employment on October 11, 2006. By July 19, 2006, Petitioner was aware of the facts on which Petitioner bases his claim of a hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination as untimely for the reasons stated in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 70-54, Pinellas County Code, which prohibits retaliation against a person who has opposed a discriminatory employment practice, by terminating the Petitioner's employment, and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Menz was hired by Dr. Weisel as a receptionist for his dental office located in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida, on October 6, 2007. Ms. Menz's job responsibilities included answering the phone, checking patients in and out of the office, collecting co-payments, and entering treatment plans in the record. According to Dr. Weisel, Ms. Menz was a good employee because she was eager to learn, and she was very people orientated. Respondent is a professional association located in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent employees less than 15 employees and is in the business of providing dentistry services. Respondent is subject to the Pinellas County Code concerning human relations. In June 2008, Dr. Weisel sold his Tarpon Springs dental practice to Dr. Kontos. Dr. Kontos had graduated from dental school in May 2007 and had worked for another dentist office. By January 2008, Dr. Kontos wanted to purchase a dental practice in his hometown, Tarpon Springs. When Dr. Kontos purchased the practice from Dr. Weisel, Dr. Kontos had no experience in owning a business or managing employees. According to Dr. Kontos, he decided to keep all of Dr. Weisel's employees for continuity. Dr. Kontos described Ms. Menz's job duties as opening the practice in the morning, "in-putting insurance," collecting co-payments, and "doing treatment plans." By July 2008, Dr. Kontos had promoted one of the dental assistants, Daniel Mauzerolle (Mr. Mauzerolle), to office manager. During the time that Mr. Mauzerolle worked for Dr. Kontos, they became friends and would socialize together. Ms. Menz testified that she had complained to Dr. Kontos in the past about Mr. Mauzerolle about issues from work. Ms. Sholtes, a former dental hygienist for Dr. Kontos, also testified on Ms. Menz's behalf. She testified that Ms. Menz was a good employee and courteous to patients. By November 2008, Dr. Kontos hired Ms. Marchese to collect aging insurance claims and account receivables, as well as review his office procedures. According to Dr. Kontos, the dental practice had a "phenomenal" amount of outstanding insurance claims, in excess of $20,000.00, which had been denied. Ms. Marchese had worked in the dental field since 1991 and was familiar with software systems used to run dental offices. Further, she was familiar with the submission of insurance forms for dental reimbursement. On May 11, 2009, Ms. Menz opened the office at 7:00 a.m. As she turned on her computer, Ms. Menz noticed the internet web history showed that someone had used her computer the night before. Ms. Menz found that one site had been visited 28 times. Upon visiting the site, Ms. Menz found that the website contained pornographic images. Further, because Mr. Mauzerolle was the only person that worked in the evening in the office, Ms. Menz assumed that Mr. Mauzerolle was the person who had accessed the pornographic site. Ms. Menz credibly testified that she informed Dr. Kontos and told him that Mr. Mauzerolle's actions were unacceptable to her. Ms. Menz credibly testified that she told Dr. Kontos that she could not work under the conditions that she considered to be a hostile workplace environment. Dr. Kontos informed Ms. Menz that he would "take care of it." Dr. Kontos credibly testified that Mr. Mauzerolle, in addition to being the office manager, was his friend and that he was not happy with Ms. Menz reporting the issues concerning the pornography in his office. Two days later, on May 13, 2009, Dr. Kontos terminated Ms. Menz's employment. Ms. Menz credibly testified that at the time of her termination, Dr. Kontos did not provide her a reason for her termination, only stating "nothing personal, but I'm going to have to let you go." Dr. Kontos testified that he had already decided to terminate Ms. Menz's employment before May 11, 2009, when Ms. Menz complained about the pornography. According to Dr. Kontos, Ms. Marchese had informed him since the end of 2008 about errors that Ms. Menz had been making at work that cost the dental practice money. Dr. Kontos indicated that Ms. Menz made errors such as failing to collect co-payments or collecting improper co-payments and failing to fill out the insurance forms correctly. The result was that insurance claims would be denied and the dental office would lose money. According to Dr. Kontos and Ms. Marchese, on or before April 8, 2009, Ms. Menz made an error that almost cost the dental practice $2,000.00. The alleged error involved putting the wrong information concerning an insurance plan for a patient. Based on this error, Dr. Kontos testified that he made a decision with Mr. Mauzerolle and Ms. Marchese to place an advertisement for a receptionist with Craigslist to replace Ms. Menz. Later that day, Mr. Mauzerolle placed the advertisement with Craigslist. On April 9, 2009, potential job applicants began calling Dr. Kontos' office about the receptionist position. Ms. Menz took the phone messages from the applicants, including Ms. Kristen Chase. Ms. Menz credibly testified that based on phone calls that she asked Dr. Kontos about the job advertisement and whether or not she was doing a good job. Ms. Menz credibly testified that Dr. Kontos stated that she was doing a good job and not to worry about the advertisement. Further, Ms. Menz credibly testified that she asked Ms. Marchese about the advertisement. Ms. Menz testified that Ms. Marchese stated that Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace Christina Benzel (Ms. Benzel), a co-worker who worked the front desk with Ms. Menz. Ms. Menz believed Ms. Marchese because Ms. Menz had observed that Ms. Benzel's job responsibilities had been reduced. According to Dr. Kontos, sometime at the beginning of May 2009, he and Mr. Mauzerolle interviewed Ms. Chase for the receptionist job. According to Dr. Kontos, he offered Ms. Chase the job after the interview, and he had decided to replace Ms. Menz. Dr. Kontos's testimony on the point that he offered Ms. Chase the job in early May and had decided to replace Ms. Menz is not credible. Ms. Chase credibly testified that she did not receive the job offer from Dr. Kontos at the interview in early May. Further, Ms. Chase credibly testified that, because she did not hear anything from Dr. Kontos, she had assumed that she had not gotten the job. Further, Ms. Chase credibly testified that she was offered the job on May 14, 2009. Dr. Kontos testified that he had decided to terminate Ms. Menz on April 8, 2009, but that he did not tell her before May 13, 2009, because he "had to build up the nerve to do it." He testified that he felt bad having to terminate her and that he let her go because she made too many mistakes. For support concerning the number of errors made by Ms. Menz, Respondent offered the testimony of Ms. Marchese and numerous exhibits. Ms. Marchese testified that because of the number of errors occurring in the office that she moved her work space to be next to Ms. Menz. According to Ms. Marchese, she was monitoring Ms. Menz and providing "one-on-one training." Further, Ms. Marchese offered testimony that each day she would conduct an "audit trail" of the office and bring errors to Dr. Kontos's attention daily. Ms. Marchese testified that Ms. Menz failed to collect co-payments; entered insurance information incorrectly, resulting in insurance reimbursements being denied; failed to provide adequate information to support insurance billings; and gave patients incorrect estimates on the amount that the patient would owe for different treatments based on the patient's insurance plan. Ms. Marchese testified that she estimated that Ms. Menz had cost the dental office approximately $100,000.00 in lost revenue and made 90 percent of the office errors. Ms. Marchese identified a number of exhibits that supported Respondent's claim that Ms. Menz was terminated for numerous errors. Ms. Marchese further testified that in March 2009 that she told Dr. Kontos and Mr. Mauzerolle that Ms. Menz was "untrainable" and that she should be terminated. According to Ms. Marchese, in April 2009, she discussed with Dr. Kontos and Mr. Mauzerolle the error that nearly cost the practice $2,000.00 and the decision to advertise for the new receptionist. After the advertisement was taken out in Craigslist for the new receptionist, Ms. Marchese remembered being asked by Ms. Menz about the advertisement and about whether or not Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace her. Ms. Marchese testified that she told Ms. Menz that she did not know if Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace her. Ms. Marchese denied telling Ms. Menz that Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace Ms. Benzel. Ms. Marchese, however, admitted that Dr. Kontos had been unhappy with Ms. Benzel based on her internet usage at the office. Ms. Marchese testified that she informed Dr. Kontos about each of these errors daily and testified about a group of exhibits. A review of the exhibits identified by Ms. Marchese, Exhibits 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 41, and 44 shows that the documents are dated December 18 and 21, 2009. When questioned about the dates on the exhibits, Ms. Marchese testified that these exhibits were documentation from the "daily sheets" and that she had "minimized the amount of discovery." Also, she explained that the documents were "printed to condense the information into one page instead of, for instance, on exhibit 25, it would have been over 30 pages." Further, she testified that she had added the notes explaining Ms. Menz's errors to the sheets on or after December 18, 2009. The "daily sheets" were not admitted into evidence. At best, the offered exhibits may be considered summaries. Even considering the documents, the record shows that the offered exhibits show that the documents were compiled to support Ms. Menz's termination after May 13, 2009, and in response to the investigation by Pinellas County. Thus, the exhibits carry little weight in the consideration. Similarly, Exhibits 10, 11, 18, 23, and 24 are all dated after Ms. Menz's termination date of May 13, 2009. A review of Exhibit 10 shows a "Single Patient Ledger" printed up on September 8, 2009. Based on Ms. Marchese's testimony, the document shows that on April 8, 2009, the patient received two dental procedures that cost $1,050.00. According to Ms. Marchese, the patient was told to pay $215.00 for two treatments. Presumably, the balance of the dental bill would be paid by insurance. However, Ms. Marchese testified that the patient did not have dental coverage for the two procedures. Consequently, the dental office lost money on the two procedures because the patient refused to pay, and there was no insurance to bill. Although the testimony shows this event occurred before the termination, the "Single Payer Ledger" is dated after the termination. Further, a hand-written notation from the patient's chart, which is part of Exhibit 10, stating that "Valerie dropped the ball on the correct fee twice" is dated May 14, 2009, the day after her termination. Similarly, a review of Exhibits 23 and 24 shows that they are insurance claims that were denied before May 13, 2009. Ms. Marchese testified that Dr. Kontos was aware of these errors. However, Exhibits 23 and 24 only show that insurance claims were re- submitted after the date of Ms. Menz's termination. The exhibits do not support the finding that the claims were denied because of Ms. Menz or that these errors were considered before terminating her employment. These exhibits were prepared after the termination as a justification for the action as opposed to contemporaneous proof of Ms. Menz's performance. In contrast to the above listed exhibits, Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 are examples of errors and notes that were documented before Ms. Menz's termination. A review of these exhibits shows that the complained of errors occurred on January 22, 2009; February 3, 2009; March 2, 2009; and April 27, 2009. Respondent also offered the testimony of other employees from the dental office. Ms. Little, a dental hygienist, testified that she was aware that Ms. Menz made errors in entering codes for different treatment plans. She had spoken to Ms. Menz about the error, and Ms. Menz indicated that she would try to correct the problem. According to Ms. Little, the errors continued, but were not as bad. Finally, Ms. Little testified that Ms. Marchese was responsible for insurance claims with the office. Similarly, Ms. O'Leary, a dental hygienist, testified that she knew that Ms. Menz had some issues with insurance, but that she had a good working relationship with Ms. Menz. Ms. Menz candidly admitted that she made mistakes at her work and credibly testified that she was never told of the many errors that Respondent was claiming she had made or that she had cost Respondent money. Dr. Kontos admitted that that he did not individually counsel Ms. Menz about her errors. Rather than counsel individual employees, Dr. Kontos testified that it was his practice to speak to his employees as a group about errors because he wanted to avoid similar errors. Ms. Menz testified that she earned $10.75 an hour and that she had been out of work for 87 weeks. Ms. Menz agreed with her counsel's question that her calculated damages were $37,410.00. The record also shows that Ms. Menz filed for unemployment compensation, but was unclear about whether or not she received any compensation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Respondent violated section 70-54, Pinellas County Code. Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Menz the sum of $37,410.00 and interest at the prevailing statutory rate; and Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Menz reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees, if the parties are unable to agree to the amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 12th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Faulkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Jeremy W. Rodgers, Esquire Spector Gadon and Rosen, LLP 390 Central Avenue, Suite 1550 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Matthew K. Fenton, Esquire Wenzel, Fenton, and Cabassa, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Leon W. Russell, Director/EEO Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Peter J. Genova, Jr., EEO Coordinator Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue Whether respondents are guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged by petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, including the pleadings and argument of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Carolyn E. Simmons, is a black female. In 1990, she began employment as a cook with respondent, Inverness Inn (Inn), an employer allegedly subject to the Florida Human Rights Act, as amended. At that time, the Inn was owned by respondent, Cvetko Blazevski. On March 25, 1992, petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) alleging that she was "harassed and subjected to racial terms by Mr. Cretko (sic) Blazevski, Owner, from the beginning of (her) employment until the present time." For the purpose of ruling on this motion only, the undersigned has accepted this allegation as being true. The charge of discrimination, and the petition for relief subsequently filed, did not specify the relief being sought. In April 1992, Blazevski's ownership in the Inn was terminated by a court, and the Inn later closed and went out of business. Petitioner continued to work in her position as a cook after Blazevski left the Inn and until it closed. According to petitioner's counsel, Simmons seeks only compensatory damages against respondents for their conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Kenneth S. Stepp, Esquire 305 North Apopka Avenue Inverness, Florida 34450 David L. Wilcox, Esquire 452 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, Florida 34452
