Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Respondent, Sanwa Growers, Inc., owns and operates over the highways of the state of Florida a commercial vehicle identified as a 1987 Ford truck, VIN 9BFPH70P3HDM03333, Florida license number H1056W (vehicle). On November 13, 1990 the Respondent's vehicle while traveling on highway I-4 in Hillsborough County, Florida was stopped and weighed by the Department. The total weight of the vehicle was 24,100 pounds consisting of 10,540 pounds on the steering axle and 13,560 pounds on the rear axle. A Load Report and Field Receipt was completed which indicated the legal weight (declared gross vehicle weight) of the vehicle to be 19,999 with a tax class weight (gross vehicle weight) of 24,100 pounds which resulted in the vehicle being 4,101 pounds overweight. The Respondent was assessed a penalty of $0.05 per pound for each pound the truck was overweight which resulted in a total penalty assessed the Respondent of $205.05. The Respondent paid the penalty as assessed and was issued a Field Receipt. The gross vehicle weight (GVW) of the vehicle as declared by the Respondent in accordance with Section 320.01(12), Florida Administrative Code, on vehicle's registration certificate issued on September 19, 1990 was 19,999 pounds which was the legal weight indicated on the Load Report issued on November 13, 1991. On November 13, 1990 the GVW (legal weight) of the vehicle as declared by the Respondent was 19,999 pounds. The GVW of the vehicle as declared by the Respondent on the initial registration dated May 11, 1988 was 29,500 pounds. However, on the subsequent registration of the vehicle dated January 4, 1989, the declared GVW by the Respondent was 16,090 pounds which was the same as the net weight of the vehicle shown on the registration. Although the registration issued on January 4, 1989 expired on December 31, 1989, there was no evidence of a registration being issued upon expiration. The next registration that was issued subsequent to January 4, 1989 that is in evidence was issued on September 19, 1990 apparently for the purpose of increasing the GVW from 16,090 pounds to 19,994 pounds. This was the registration in effect at the time the vehicle was weighed on November 13, 1990. On November 15, 1990, two days after the weighing, the registration was corrected by increasing the GVW from 19,999 pounds to 29,500 pounds. There was insufficient evidence to show that the GVW set out in each of the registrations in evidence was not the GVW as declared by the Respondent at the time of issuing the registration or that the issuing agency incorrectly listed the GVW as declared by the Respondent on any of the registrations in evidence. On November 13, 1990 the Respondent's vehicle was 4,101 pounds overweight when stopped and weighed in Hillsborough County, Florida on I-4 and the calculation of the penalty ($0.05 x 4,101 pounds - $205.05) is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order finding the Respondent subject to the penalty as assessed and denying its request for refund of the penalty. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-3727 The following contributes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120- 59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in the case. Rulings on Proposed Finding of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Covered in the Preliminary Statement but adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 3. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 2 and 4. - 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Respondent did not submit or file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, MS-58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Wendy Wheelock Qualified Representative Sanwa Growers, Inc. 5107 State Road 674 East Wimauma, FL 33570 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at final hearing, the following facts are determined: Nature of Complainant's Handicap At all times material hereto, Petitioner, Charles Fenesy ("COMPLAINANT"), suffered from severe coronary heart disease (arteriosclerosis), diabetes, and excess weight. The arteriosclerosis consists of lipid deposits which obstruct and interfere with the flow of blood in all three major arteries to his heart; the diffuseness of the deposits make bypass surgery inadvisable. As a result of this disease, the COMPLAINANT began, in 1972, to experience occasional angina pectoris, which is sharp chest pain associated with activity. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton; P.E. 11.) The angina pectoris, however, occurred only when he was engaging in tasks involving physical activity and exertion, such as working in the yard, mowing the lawn, pulling weeds, and walking too fast; he has never experienced angina pectoris because of mental or emotional stress. During his 17 years as a computer analyst and programmer, he never experienced angina attacks in connection with his work environment; neither did his angina attacks ever interfere with his job attendance or performance or require that his work schedule be altered. Because of his heart disease, COMPLAINANT is unable to perform normal physical activity and exertion; his working activities are limited to those found in the office environment. The ability of a person inflicted with severe heart disease to capably function in a working environment is related to his temperament. The COMPLAINANT is a well-controlled, even- tempered person who has demonstrated ability to capably perform computer analyst and programmer duties and effectively cope with the stresses of an office environment. He has never experienced a heart attack. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 11.) In order to control and treat his heart disease (which is incurable, without surgical bypass), and relieve angina pectoris symptoms, COMPLAINANT takes various vasodilators, including nitroglycerin and inderal; he is on a diet and takes diabinese to control his diabetes. If he suffers angina pectoris when mowing the lawn, he quickly takes the prescribed medication, the pain subsides, and he continues mowing. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 11) Complainant's Application for Employment as a Program-Analyst On September 18, 1978, COMPLAINANT filed an application for employment as a program-analyst with the Respondent, GTE Data Services, Inc. ("COMPANY"). Betty Graef, Supervision of the COMPANY's CRB Source Group, had an available program-analyst position in the Customer Master File Unit; after review the COMPLAINANT's application, she concluded that he appeared to be qualified for the position and asked Nancy Fitzpatrick, the COMPANY's Personnel Representative, to arrange an employment interview. (Testimony of Fenesy, Graef, Fitzpatrick; R.E. 4.) Qualifications and Duties of the Available Program-Analyst Position. The program-analyst position which Ms. Graef had available entailed coding computer programs based on specifications prepared by a senior analyst. These programs maintained billing and address information on telephone company customers. There were approximately 22 other program-analysts in that department. The work required knowledge of assembly, also known as BAL or computer language, and typically required meeting deadlines and coping with emergency demands. Occasionally analysts were required to work long and irregular hours, due to emergencies, or in order to correct errors. The frequency of such a requirement would vary: employees who were capable and careful in their work were less likely to experience such demands. Substantial overtime work was not ordinarily required. (Testimony of Fenesy, Gradef.) During the subsequent employment interview conducted by Ms. Graef, COMPLAINANT specifically asked if the position required overtime work: she answered that, except under exceptional conditions, there would be no overtime required unless he fell behind in his work. To the extent Ms. Graef's testimony at hearing tended to describe the position as on regularly requiring excessive or extraordinary hours, it is rejected as at variance with her prior description of the position during the employment interview with COMPLAINANT, and is considered unpersuasive. (Testimony of Fenesy, Graef.) Qualification of Complainant At the time of his application, COMPLAINANT was employed by Pinellas County as an automatic mapping supervisor, at $12,000 per annum. He supervised 23 employees, and was responsible for their hiring, performance, and firing. Generally, he worked a 40-hour work week, although he occasionally worked irregular or overtime hours. During the summer of 1977, he worked 50 hours a week. (Testimony of Fenesy.) COMPLAINANT was knowledgeable and had extensive experience in the area of data processing. He had worked in that field for 17 years, and attended various technical training seminars; moreover, he had previous programming experience using BAL, the particular computer language required for the position. He also held a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. By virtue of his technical knowledge and experience, COMPLAINANT was qualified to carry out the duties of the available program-analyst position in Ms. Graef's department. The only objection raised to his employment was based on his physical condition. (Testimony of Fenesy; R.E. 4.) The Company's Conditional Offers of Employment and Rejection of Complainant. On September 21, 1978, after the COMPLAINANT's employment interview with Ms. Graef and Ms. Fitzpatrick, the COMPANY offered to employ him as a program-analyst, at $16,000 per annum, conditioned upon his passing the standard pre-employment physical. After his rejection of the offer, the COMPANY made a second offer on October 6, 1978, with a salary of $18,000 per annum; this offer was also condition upon passage of the pre-employment physical. COMPLAINANT accepted this offer, and promptly gave notice to his present employer, Pinellas County, effective October 13, 1978. He was scheduled to begin work with the COMPANY on October 16, 1978. (Testimony of Fenesy, Graef, Fitzpatrick; P.E. 1,2,3) On October 10, 1978, the medical doctor ordinarily used by the COMPANY for this purpose, Edward F. Carter, M.D., gave the COMPLAINANT the standard pre- employment physical examination. On the medical questionnaire form, COMPLAINANT disclosed that he had angina pectoris, and was taking inderal for its control; and he also explained the "over exertion may cause angina pain" (R.E. 4), and gave the name of his cardiologist, John Dormois, M.D. Despite this disclosure, no diagnostic tests were administered by Dr. Carter to determine the severity of his heart disease, or the extent to which it might interfere with his performance as a program-analyst. The stated purpose of the examination, as indicated on the COMPANY form is "to determine if . . .[the applicant] meet(s) the physical standards of the position for which . . .[he is] applying." (R.E. 4.) Several days later, COMPLAINANT was notified by Ms. Fitzpatrick that he had "flunked" the physical. Dr. Carter's brief written "Physician's Report" indicated the COMPLAINANT had "angina, on medication", and "diabetes regulated and diet"; the box labeled "unemployable at this time", was checked. (Testimony of Fenesy; R.E. 4.) COMPLAINANT protested to Ms. Fitzpatrick and tried to contact the COMPANY's affirmative action officer. He also asked Dr. Dormois (his cardiologist who was familiar with the nature of his heart disease) to call Dr. Carter to discuss his condition. On October 16, 1978, Ms. Fitzpatrick told him they would try to arrange a second physical with another doctor. Due to his resignation (extended one week), the COMPLAINANT faced unemployment as of October 20, 1978, and was anxious to quickly resolve the matter. A second physical examination was thereafter scheduled for October 20, 1978, with Phillip Hampton, M.D., a practitioner of internal medicine with specialties in both diabetes and cardiology. The COMPANY's representative involved had, at that time, resolved to go along with whatever decision was made by Dr. Hampton. (Testimony of Fenesy, Fitzpatrick, Hampton). On October 20, 1978, Dr. Hampton took the COMPLAINANT's medical history, and conducted a 15-minute physical consisting of x-rays, an electrocardiogram, blood, and urine tests. COMPLAINANT explained that he had experienced angina pectoris for approximately three years, in situations of physical exertion and stress.3 Dr. Hampton was aware that COMPLAINANT was taking vasodilatory medication to alleviate angina pain, as well as diabinese to control his diabetes. The medically recognized diagnostic test to coronary diabetes. The medically recognized diagnostic test for coronary heart disease is a coronary arteriography; however, Dr. Hampton did not administer this test to COMPLAINANT. There is one objective diagnostic test to determine whether an individual suffers from angina pectoris--the stress test. It consists of placing the patient on a treadmill requiring physical exertion; the effects of exertion on blood pressure and production of pain (angina pectoris) are detected, as are changes in the patient's electrocardiogram. However, Dr. Hampton did not perform a stress test upon COMPLAINANT. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton.) On October 27, 1978, Dr. Hampton notified the COMPANY of the results of his examination of COMPLAINANT: "Dear Mrs. Fitzpatrick: As a result of my examination of Mr. Charles A. Fenesy on Oct. 1978, I find that he has obesity, diabetes and angina pectoris. He would be largely relieved of diabetes and angina if he would reduce his weight to under 200 lbs. which means a loss of about 70 lbs. If he does not he is not a good risk physically and in danger of a myocardial infarction." (R.E. 3.) Based on Dr. Hampton's letter, Ms. Fitzpatrick notified COMPLAINANT on October 30, 1978, that Dr. Hampton had concurred with Dr. Carter, and that he would not be hired. COMPLAINANT asked for a letter to that effect which the COMPANY never furnished. (Testimony of Fitzpatrick, Fenesy; R.E. 3.) Neither Dr. Carter nor Dr. Hampton recommended to the COMPANY that COMPLAINANT was "employable" if he took medication to control his condition. They both were aware that he was already taking such medication. (Testimony of Hampton, Fenesy; R.E. 4.) However, after COMPLAINANT warned that he would file a grievance because of his rejection, Tannia Yarborough, the COMPANY's Equal Employment Opportunity Administrator, told him that he would be considered for employment if he submitted a letter from his doctor stating that his medical problems were under control and if he would participate in a COMPANY weight reduction program; the weight reduction program requisite was later withdrawn. [The COMPANY did not have a policy to monitor the weight of its employees.] Ms. Yarborough, who was involved in the COMPANY's decisions concerning COMPLAINANT, thought angina pectoris was a cardiac disease, and not a symptom of the disease. (Tr. 213.) She also was not aware at the time of hearing that COMPLAINANT's cardiac disease was progressive--that is could be controlled but not cured. In response to Ms. Yarborough's suggestion, COMPLAINANT's cardiologist, Dr. Dormois, wrote a letter on January 18, 1979, stating that COMPLAINANT's symptoms (angina pectoris) were under control by medication, that COMPLAINANT had shown "absolutely no tendency over the last several years to have any difficulty performing his usual assigned task," and that he had "no reason to think that in the foreseeable future that this will be greatly altered." (P.E. 4.) (Testimony of Fenesy, Yarborough; P.E. 4.) Effect of Complainant's Coronary Heart Disease on His Performance as a Program-Analyst There is insufficient evidence to establish that COMPLAINANT's coronary heart disease would adversely impact or interfere with his performance as a program-analyst with the COMPANY. The two COMPANY doctors who examined him had no awareness of the particular demands of the position for which he applied; they did not even discuss with him his extensive experience in the data processing field (18 years), and whether his disease had interfered with his work in an office environment. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton.) The actions of the two doctors supports an inference that the COMPANY had not enunciated, in advance, the purpose of pre-employment physicals, and the standards which apply to determining the medical "employability" of a job applicant. The COMPANY accepted the simple checking of an "unemployable" box on a form by Dr. Carter, and Dr. Hampton's reinforcing conclusion that COMPLAINANT "is not a good risk physically" (R.E.3) if he does not reduce his weight; these documents form the basis of the COMPANY's rejection. Dr. Hampton's conclusions concerning COMPLAINANT's disease were admittedly based on statistical probability, not on an individual assessment of COMPLAINANT's temperament, his defense mechanisms, and his ability to perform data processing work in an office environment. In essence, they concluded that COMPLAINANT's longevity or life expectancy is not good because of the progressive nature of his disease. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton; P.E. 11, R.E. 3,4.) Complainant's Lost Wages and Attorney's Fees COMPLAINANT made reasonable and diligent efforts to obtain employment after his rejection by the COMPANY. For 19 weeks he was unemployed; if the COMPANY had fulfilled its offer to employ him on October 39, 1978, he would have earned $6,576.93 during that period. He eventually secured various employment positions in the data processing field, and now works again for Pinellas County. As of the date of hearing, the difference between what he earned in those positions and what he would have earned with the COMPANY (had he been hired at $18,000 per annum) is $3,379.88. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 6.) COMPLAINANT claims lost of fringe benefits which he would have received if he had remained in his job with Pinellas County in 1978; alternatively, he claims loss of fringe benefits which he would have received from the COMPANY if he had been employed since October, 1978. However, the benefits accorded by the two employers, including pensions, vacation, sick leave, and insurance coverage, are markedly dissimilar. Based on the quality of the evidence submitted on this question, any conclusion concerning COMPLAINANT's actual monetary loss in fringe benefits due to the COMPANY's action would be conjecture and unreliable. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 6,9.) Because of the COMPANY's rejection of his employment application, COMPLAINANT applied for and received Social Security Disability Payments from October, 1978 through March, 1979. However, since he subsequently found gainful employment in March, 1979, (i.e., he did not remain disabled for the requisite period) the Social Security Administration retroactively denied his eligibility. He may now be required to reimburse the government for the disability payment which he received. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 5.) The COMPLAINANT testified that he is obligated to pay attorney's fees of $600 in connection with this proceeding. In the absence of the COMPANY contesting this amount, it is concluded that such attorney's fees are reasonable. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 6.)
Conclusions Conclusions: That Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by failing or refusing to hire Petitioner because of his handicap. The Respondent failed to substantiate its asserted defense--that the absence of Petitioner's particular handicap was a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the performance of the position for which he applied. Recommendation: That the Commission prohibit the Respondent from engaging in such practice in the future, require it to pay Petitioner lost wages and attorney's fees, and offer him employment in the next available program-analyst position. Background On November 21, 1978, Petitioner, Charles Fenesy ("COMPLAINANT"), filed a complaint of discrimination with the Intervenor, Florida Commission on Human Relations ("COMMISSION"), alleging Respondent, GTE Data Services Inc. ("COMPANY"), denied him employment because of his physical handicap--heart disease. After investigation, the COMMISSION's Executive Director issued a "Determination: Cause" on October 22, 1979, concluding that there was reasonable cause to believe that the COMPANY had committed an unlawful employment practice prohibited by Section 23.167(1), Florida Statutes (1979) [formerly Section 13.261(1), Florida Statutes (1977)]. After the parties failed to conciliate, or informally resolve the dispute, COMPLAINANT filed his Petition for Relief with the COMMISSION on February 29, 1980. Thereafter, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer to conduct a Section 120.57 hearing. Final hearing was then set for May 20, 1980. Subsequently, upon the COMPANY's motion, and without objection, hearing was continued and reset for July 9, 1980. Thereafter, upon COMPLAINANT's motion, and without objection, the hearing was again continued and reset for September 10, 1980. Several pleadings were filed and disposed of prior to final hearing. On April 29, 1980, the COMMISSION's Executive Director moved to intervene as a party in this proceeding, which motion was granted. By way of affirmative defense to COMPLAINANT's Petition for Relief, the COMPANY asserted, among other things, that the Petition was untimely in that the COMMISSION had failed to comply with its own rules, Section 9D-9.05(3), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the COMPANY asserted that the above rule requires the service of a "Notice of Failure of Conciliation" 30 days after service of the "Determination: Cause". Records show that the COMMISSION denied the COMPANY's petition for reconsideration of the "Determination: Cause" on December 5, 1979; but the Notice of Failure of Conciliation was not issued until February 21, 180. On May 12, 1980, the COMMISSION moved to dismiss the COMPANY's affirmative defense. The COMPANY responded to the COMMISSION's motions, and moved for summary judgment. By order dated June 30, 1980, the COMMISSION's motion to dismiss the COMPANY's affirmative defense was granted on the grounds that (1) Rule 9D-9.05 does not specify the time period which a Notice of Failure of Conciliation must be issued, (2) COMPLAINANT's Petition for Relief was filed within the requisite time period from the issuance of the Notice, and (3) the COMPANY's actions contributed to the delay in issuance of the Notice. Also, the COMPANY's motion for summary judgment was denied on the ground that the conduct of the parties during settlement negotiations was not germane to the issues to be decided at final hearing. On June 18, 1980, the COMPANY moved to compel COMPLAINANT to answer interrogatories, which motion was granted on July 1, 1980. At final hearing, COMPLAINANT testified in his own behalf and offered Petitioner's Exhibit1 Nos. 3 through 7, each of which was received.2 The COMMISSION presented no witnesses or documentary evidence. At the close of hearing, the parties requested and were granted the opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by October 21, 1980. Proposed findings were subsequently filed; those filed by the COMMISSION and COMPLAINANT are the subject of a pending motion to strike filed by the COMPANY.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order: Finding the COMPANY engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 23.167(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and prohibiting such practice in the future; and Providing COMPLAINANT affirmative relief from the unlawful practice by requiring the COMPANY to (a) pay him lost wages in the amount of $9, 956.81; (b) offer him the next available program-analyst position at a salary and under conditions similar to that which he would have received in October, 1978, but for the COMPANY's unlawful practice; and (c) pay him $600 for attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1980.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was the victim of discrimination by the Respondent because of an alleged disability and whether the Respondent retaliated against the Petitioner for filing a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Gregory L. Stubbs, was employed by the Respondent Department as a maintenance yard Welder for approximately five and one-half years. In 1993, he suffered a back injury on the job, resulting in chronic pain. On January 28, 1997, the Petitioner accepted a position with the Department's Office of Motor Carrier Compliance (MCC) as a Weight Inspector. The Weight Inspector position accepted by Mr. Stubbs was an open, advertised position at the time, for which the Department accepted applications and conducted interviews, including that of Mr. Stubbs. He applied for the position, was interviewed and selected for the position. When Mr. Stubbs was offered the Weight Inspector position, he was advised that appointment to the position would amount to a demotion from his current position with the Department, in the sense that he would have to accept a base rate of pay of 5 percent less than he had been earning. He voluntarily accepted that position and the reduction in pay. The pay for the position was set when the position was released for hire and was not changed because Mr. Stubbs elected to apply for the position and became the selected candidate hired for the position. Weight Inspectors work at fixed-scale weigh stations where trucks are weighed. Mr. Stubbs was assigned to the "Northbound scales" on Interstate 95 near Yulee, Florida in Nassau County. Weight Inspectors are responsible for enforcing the motor vehicle weight laws, writing citations for violations, as well as writing citations for fuel tax violations and enforcing the dimensional limits on motor vehicles. The job involves weighing and measuring vehicles, writing citations, answering the telephone, operating a computer and checking vehicle tags and registration numbers. The job does not involve any heavy lifting, loading or any physically demanding tasks. Weight Inspectors employed by MCC work alone at the scale houses, except when a new inspector is present for training. Mr. Stubbs was able to perform these duties and, when present for work, performed them well. Mr. Stubbs was supervised by Sgt. Robert Bryan. Sgt. Bryan participated in interviewing Mr. Stubbs and in selecting him for the position. During the interview process Sgt. Bryan informed Mr. Stubbs of the Weight Inspector's job duties. Mr. Stubbs never informed Sgt. Bryan that he would have any trouble performing the job duties. Mr. Stubbs also did not tell Sgt. Bryan, at that time, that he had trouble with his back or that he would have trouble reporting for work on time. Sgt. Bryan later learned that Mr. Stubbs had trouble with his back, but did not consider the problem to restrict Mr. Stubbs' ability to perform the Weight Inspector job. Weight Inspectors are required to report for work on time. The failure to report for work timely, results in closure of the scale facility. When a Weight Inspector has to be late or is unable to report for work before the beginning of a shift, he is required to advise the supervisor before the scheduled time for the shift. This requirement is contained in the Department's published Conduct Standards. Copies of the Department's published Conduct Standards are provided to all Weight Inspectors that work for MCC, including the Petitioner. Department employees are advised that unexcused tardiness or absences will be grounds for disciplinary action and the Petitioner was so informed. On October 19, 1997, Sgt. Bryan counseled Mr. Stubbs about failing to notify him of an absence from work. Sgt. Bryan stressed the need for Mr. Stubbs to contact him as soon as he became aware that he would not be able to timely report for work. On October 12, 1998, Sgt. Bryan counseled Mr. Stubbs for failing to report to work on time. Sgt. Bryan again stressed the need for Mr. Stubbs to timely report to work. On December 31, 1998, Mr. Stubbs acknowledged receipt of a Memorandum from Lt. Vicki D. Thomas concerning tardiness and the use of leave. Lt. Thomas is the Jacksonville Field Office supervisor for MCC and is Sgt. Bryan's immediate supervisor. Lt. Thomas' Memorandum requires Weight Inspectors to contact both the main MCC office and the inspector who they are scheduled to relieve whenever they will be tardy or absent. On January 13, 1999, Sgt. Bryan again counseled Mr. Stubbs about failing to report to work as scheduled In 1998, Mr. Stubbs filed a grievance through his union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). The subject of the grievance was the reduction in pay Mr. Stubbs' sustained by accepting employment with MCC. He sought re-instatement of the pay he had received as a Welder. Lt. Thomas received the AFSCME grievance on August 17, 1998, and responded to it by noting that the grievance was untimely and that Mr. Stubbs had voluntarily accepted the Weight Inspector position and attendant reduction in pay. Although the grievance was unsuccessful Mr. Stubbs continued his employment with MCC. On or about February 9, 1999, the Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC alleging that the Department had discriminated against him on the basis of race and disability by reducing his pay when he accepted the Weight Inspector position. On May 13, 1999, the EEOC advised the Petitioner that it could not investigate his charge because it was not filed within the time required by law. A copy of the EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights was provided to the Department. A copy of the EEOC Notice was also sent to Mr. Stubbs at the Department's address. This copy was mistakenly opened by the Department and then forwarded to Mr. Stubbs. Sgt. Bryan became aware of the complaint when the letter was opened in the Department offices, but the complaint was not a factor in his supervision of Mr. Stubbs. On April 2, 1999 through June 25, 1999, the Petitioner was absent from work. He exhausted all of his sick leave and was authorized additional, unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. On June 25, 1999, Mr. Stubbs returned to his Weight Inspector assignment. He was scheduled to work on July 2, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 16, 1999. He did not report for work on those days. On July 8, 1999, he failed to advise Sgt. Bryan that he would not be reporting for work. Sgt. Bryan checked with other supervisors to see if Mr. Stubbs had advised anyone else that he would be absent, and learned that Mr. Stubbs had not contacted them. Lt. Thomas issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner for these absences. The reprimand was issued because he was absent from work without authorized leave and failed to follow the Department's rules concerning advance approval for leave. Neither the Petitioner's prior complaint to the EEOC or his back problem motivated Lt. Thomas to issue the reprimand. On July 20, 1999, Sgt. Bryan spoke with Mr. Stubbs about a cash penalty that Mr. Stubbs had collected on a "load report." Weight Inspectors who collect cash penalties are required to convert the cash funds to a money order or cashier's check within 48-hours after the date the report is issued. Weight Inspectors are allowed to use work time to convert cash penalties to money orders or cashier's checks. Sgt. Bryan asked the Petitioner about the cash because the load report involved was apparently issued six days earlier. The Petitioner told Sgt. Bryan that he had not converted the cash to a money order, that he had the cash with him and that he believed the inquiry was ridiculous. Sgt. Bryan then had to go to Mr. Stubbs's doctor's office to retrieve the cash penalty. Mr. Stubbs received a suspension for his handling of the cash penalty and related behavior. Lt. Thomas investigated the allegations contained in the suspension letter and believed them to be correct. She prepared the letter for signature. Neither Mr. Stubbs' prior complaint to the EEOC or his back problem motivated Lt. Thomas to issue the suspension. During the period from July 21, 1999 to August 6, 1999, the Petitioner was repeatedly absent and late to work. At 12:25 p.m., on August 1, 1999, the Petitioner advised Lt. Thomas that he had not worked as scheduled on July 31, 1999, and had not reported for work on the morning of August 1, 1999. On August 26, 1999, the Petitioner received a suspension for his unauthorized and excessive absences. Lt. Thomas investigated the allegations contained in the suspension letter, believed them to be correct and prepared the letter for signature. Neither the Petitioner's prior complaint to the EEOC or his back problem motivated Lt. Thomas to issue the suspension. The Petitioner was advised that any further violations of the Department's Conduct Standards would result in more severe discipline, up to and including dismissal. The Petitioner was scheduled to work from October 11 through October 15, 1999, but did not report for work on those days. He did not contact Sgt. Bryan or Lt. Thomas to advise them that he would not be at work. Lt. Thomas and Sgt. Bryan checked with other MCC supervisors and staff but were not advised that Mr. Stubbs had contacted anyone. Sgt. Bryan and Lt. Thomas did not hear from Mr. Stubbs from October 11 through October 15, 1999, and had not authorized his absences. The Department dismissed Mr. Stubbs from employment for those unauthorized absences. The Petitioner was apparently ill during that period but did not provide the Department with a doctor's note until approximately six weeks after the absences. The doctor's note does not indicate that the Petitioner was unable to call his supervisors to report his anticipated absence. The Petitioner did not establish that he was unable to report to his supervisors as required. The Department's discipline of the Petitioner and the ultimate decision to dismiss him from the Department were not motivated by Mr. Stubbs' prior complaint to the EEOC. Although some of his absences from work may have resulted from his back injury, the evidence does not establish that all of his absences were related to his injury. He was absent for material amounts of time in excess of his available leave. In 1999, he exhausted his accrued leave and used twelve weeks of unpaid leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. After returning from family medical leave, he continued to be absent for a significant period of time. There was no showing that additional leave would enable Mr. Stubbs to return to work on a regular basis. Additionally, he failed to notify his superiors in advance of his absences as required and instructed.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Burdick, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Gregory L. Stubbs 3563 North Hampton Cove Court Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether a penalty should be imposed on Pettegrove Equipment for driving a truck over a bridge when the truck weighed more than the posted bridge weight limit.
Findings Of Fact Raymond S. Cran drove a loaded dump truck owned by Pettegrove Equipment over a bridge on State Road 850 which crosses over Florida's Turnpike on September 26, 1990. The truck weighed 69,100 pounds. The truck was a straight truck, not a tractor trailer combination. The bridge which Mr. Cran drove across is a low limit bridge. Signs were posted in five places on the approaches to the bridge of the 26 ton limit for straight trucks. The first is at the intersection of State Road 850 and East Highland Pines Drive, which states "Weight Limit Restriction Ahead." One mile from the bridge at the intersection of Green Meadows Road is a second sign which states "Weight Limit" and has silhouettes of a straight truck and of a tractor trailer combination, showing a 26 ton limit for the straight truck and a 38 ton limit for the tractor trailer combination (tractor trailers have a higher limit because their weight is distributed differently). Similar signs are posted one half mile from the bridge, two tenths of a mile from the bridge, and at the foot of the bridge. Officer Joseph Barkas, a Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Compliance Officer, stopped Mr. Cran and prepared the Load Report and Filed Receipt describing the incident. The Respondent did not dispute that the truck was 17,100 pounds overweight, nor that the penalty for crossing the bridge based on that weight is $865, as shown on the Load Report and Field Receipt. Pettegrove Equipment disputes the fine because it's driver misunderstood the weight limit signs on the approach to the bridge. The silhouette of the straight truck is much shorter than the silhouette of the tractor trailer combination. Mr. Cran believed that the 26 ton limit for a straight truck applied to only small trucks, such as pickup trucks, and not to a large dump truck like the one he was driving. This contention is unpersuasive. Ordinary pickup trucks are incapable of carrying loads any where near 26 tons. Mr. Cran's interpretation is simply unreasonable. The limitations for straight trucks were clearly posted, and were violated.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation sustaining the fine of $865 assessed against Pettegrove Equipment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon Whittier, Esquire Assistant General Counsel WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 4th day of June 1992. Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ann Porath, Esquire Wellington Country Plaza Suite 209 12773 Forrest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact The facts reveal that Jose Gonzalez, a driver for the Respondent, operating one of Respondent's tractor/trailer pieces of Respondent, went to a rock company located in Hollywood, Florida, on February 13, 1978, for the purpose of picking up a load of "P" rock. This rock was purchased from Miramar Lakes, d/b/a Miramar Rock on that date and the driver, Gonzalez, was given a weight ticket. The weight ticket from Miramar Rock reflected a gross weight of 72,360 pounds, which is the total of the equipment and load. (The scales at Miramar peck used to weigh the Respondent's equipment and load had been certified by the Petitioner to be accurate on June 7, 1977, and again on April 11, 1978.) The weather on February 13, 1978, was clear and the purchase, loading and weighing done on the subject equipment was without incident, until the driver attempted to pull away from the weight scales. At that moment the universal joint and yoke snapped and this caused the vehicle to be inoperable. Gonzalez left the truck at the Miramar Rock Company. At that point, the load was covered by a canvas and the trailer was not seeping or leaking water from the rock aggregate. Later, on February 13, 1978, a mechanic employed by the Respondent came to effect repairs to the vehicle, but due to the unavailability of certain parts necessary to complete the repairs, did not finish the work until February 14, 1978. When the repairs had been completed on that date, the driver, Gonzalez, removed the truck from the Miramar Rock compound and entered the roads of Broward County, Florida. At around 9:15 a.m. on February 14, 1978, Gonzalez arrived at the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Flamingo Road in Broward County, Florida, eastbound on Hollywood Boulevard. At that intersection, officers employed by the Florida Highway Patrol, Weights Division, intercepted the Des Rocher truck and caused the vehicle to stop. After the stop the equipment being operated at that time was established to be a vehicle measuring between 37 feet to 38 feet from the front axle to the rear axle, and the peak of the rock load was located in the center rear portion of the trailer. Officer Wilkerson of the Florida Highway Patrol observed water dripping out of the rear tailgate after making the stop. Gonzalez was asked to produce a weight ticket and in response to this request produced the weight ticket given him by Miramar Rock on February 13, 1978. Officer Wilkerson commented that this ticket was from the day before and that a ticket bearing the current date was required. Gonzalez was then told that the truck would be weighed with the method for weighing the truck being by two portable scales. Officer Wilkerson weighed one side of the truck and Officer Herron went to the other side of the truck. Wilkerson weighed the steering axle on his side of the truck; the drive axle on his side of the truck, and two tires on the rear tandem axles on his side of the truck. It is not known what Officer Herron did, if anything, in effecting the purposes of this inspection and weigh-in, because Officer Herron did not appear at the hearing in this cause and was not seen by Officer Wilkerson in conducting his inspection activities, if any. Therefore, the total weight of the truck as ascertained from the inspection ostensibly conducted by these officers was not shown by competent evidence. However, it was demonstrated through the testimony in this hearing that the plan which the officers had for making the roadside inspections was one which called for basically stopping all trucks of the category of aggregate haulers that were eastbound through the intersection on Hollywood Boulevard, to the exclusion of pickup trucks and moving vans. After stopping the former category of trucks, some were weighed and others were not. As a result of the stop, Gonzalez was ticketed for a weight violation and that ticket was in the amount of $136.45 as an assessed penalty. Gonzalez then took the truck back to the Des Rocher installation which contained a set of scales and between 10:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. the truck was weighed and shown to be 35.64 tons, or 71,280 pounds as the gross weight including the equipment and load. (The scales that were utilized had been certified by the Petitioner on June 7, 1977, and again on May 8, 1978.)
The Issue Whether a commercial motor vehicle owned by Respondent exceeded the posted weight when it crossed a "low limit" bridge in rural Brevard County, Florida on June 3, 1992, in violation of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes. Whether extenuating circumstances justifies the reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty for the alleged violation.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, which regulates the weight and load of commercial motor vehicles on the state highway system. State Road 520, in Brevard County, Florida, is a part of the state highway system, and title to the right-of-way for said highway is held in the name of the State. A bridge which crosses over the St. Johns River on State Road 520 (SR520) in Brevard County, Florida, had a weight limit of 80,000 pounds for motor vehicles until October 20, 1991. On that date, the maximum weight for vehicles was reduced to a limit of 56,000 pounds. On May 26, 1992, the weight limit was again reduced, and the Department posted a new weight limit for the bridge of 30,000 pounds. On June 3, 1992, a commercial motor vehicle owned by Respondent was traveling northbound on Interstate 95 (I-95). The vehicle exited I-95, proceeded westbound on SR 520, and crossed the bridge. After the vehicle crossed the bridge, it was stopped by a Department Transportation Officer, and taken to a nearby pit scale. The weight of the vehicle was accurately determined to be 56,140 ponds. The Transportation Officer then imposed a fine of $1,307.00 on the vehicle, based on 5 cents per pound above the posted weight limit of 30,000 pounds. The penalty was paid by M & M Truck Service, and the vehicle was permitted to proceed. M & M Truck Service sought a refund of the penalty from the Commercial Motor Carrier Review Board. The Board authorized a 50 percent refund under its policy providing for a 50 percent refund when vehicles exceed a posted weight limit within 30 days of the date of a posted weight reduction. The following standard weight limit signs, each showing a 30,000 pound weight limit, had been posted by the Department on SR 520, from I-95 to SR 528, on May 26, 1992: Facing Eastbound on SR 520 (in Brevard County): Just east of I-95: "Weight Limit Last Exit" Just west of I-95: "Weight Limit" (no distance to bridge stated) 2 miles east of the bridge and just east of SR 524: "Weight Limit 2 Miles" Just east of the bride: "Weight Limit" Facing Westbound on SR 520 (in Orange County): Just west of SR 528: "Weight Limit 9 Miles" 4.2 miles west of bridge: "Weight Limit Restriction Ahead" (no distance to bridge state) 4 miles west of bridge: "Weight Limit 4 Miles" Just west of SR 532: "Weight Limit Last Exit" 2 miles west of the bridge: "Weight Limit 2 Miles" Just west of the bridge on the St. Johns River: "Weight Limit" The above signs meet current MUTCD standards. MUTCD refers to the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 Edition, which has been incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-15.010. SR 520 was under construction at the time the vehicle crossed the bridge, and the driver did not observe the signs posted by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that a penalty correctly assessed to M & M Truck Service, Inc., under the provisions of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, and that no refund of the reduced penalty of $653.00 should be made. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance by stipulation. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Consisted of argument directed to the stipulated facts and need not be specifically ruled upon. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Gary E. Moses, President M & M Truck Service, Inc. 313 Shadow Oak Drive Casselberry, Florida 32707 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Michelle Arsenault #58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the $124.00 penalty assessed against Respondent by the Department of Transportation is legally and mathematically correct.
Findings Of Fact The maximum legal weight allowed for vehicles traveling on a Florida state highway is 80,000 pounds. On November 18, 1991, a commercial motor vehicle owned and operated by Respondent was driving on State Road 15, also known as U.S. Highway 1, in Nassau County, Florida. At that time and place, DOT Weight Inspector R. S. Young weighed Respondent's vehicle on the pit scale at the Hilliard Weigh Station at approximately 23:32 (11:32 PM), using a "split weigh" method because the vehicle exceeded the 56 feet which the DOT scale would accommodate. Inspector Young filled out the Load Report indicating three separate axle weights of the vehicle with a total weight of 82,480 pounds, which exceeded the maximum weight restriction by 2,480 pounds. The fine imposed was $124.00, calculated at five cents per pound by which the scale weight of the vehicle exceeded the maximum weight of 80,000. Respondent paid the fine. The scale at the Hilliard Weigh Station which was used by Inspector Young on November 18, 1991 had been inspected and certified pursuant to statute by the Florida Department of Agriculture on July 24, 1991, four months before the weighing of Respondent's vehicle. On March 4, 1992, approximately five months after Respondent's vehicle was weighed, the Hilliard Weigh Station scale was again inspected and certified by the Florida Department of Agriculture. Neither time was there a discrepancy in true weight which would have materially affected the weighing of Respondent's truck on November 18, 1991. Affording Respondent's position every benefit of the doubt, it is possible, but not proven, that the Hilliard Weigh Station scale could have weighed 80 pounds heavier than the truck's true weight on November 18, 1991. Respondent contended that he had "split weighed" his loaded vehicle earlier on November 18, 1991 on a commercial Howe scale and that the Howe scale weight was accurate in showing his vehicle weighed under the 80,000 pound statutory limit, as opposed to the weight at the Hilliard Weigh Station later the same day, which weight showed the loaded vehicle weighed over the 80,000 pound statutory limit. All witnesses are agreed that if done correctly, a "split weigh" is reasonably accurate for multiple tandem, multiple axle vehicles longer than 51 feet, and it is unrefuted that many of these types of weigh-ins are done regularly at the Hilliard Weigh Station and throughout the industry. The method is specifically permitted for use by law enforcement, in this instance, by DOT. However, the expert testimony of Mr. Robert Garris, Supervisor of Weights and Measures for the State of Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is accepted that "split weighs" on a Howe scale are "assuredly inaccurate" because such scales are not manufactured to be used with "split weighs" and that, although DOT is authorized, for law enforcement purposes, to do "split weighs", DOT's scales also are not necessarily any more accurate for use with the "split weigh" method than the Howe commerical scale. Therefore, it is found that if it could be shown by competent evidence that the Howe scale "split weigh" and the Hilliard scale "split weigh" were each done correctly and showed different weights, one weight being "over" and one weight being "under" the statutory limit, DOT could not prevail herein by a preponderance of the evidence. Respondent presented a weight ticket purportedly showing that this loaded vehicle had a gross weight of 76,600 pounds on the Howe scale at 14:29 (2:29 PM) on November 18, 1991, also achieved by a "split weigh" method. Although self-serving, Respondent's direct testimony to this effect is unrefuted, as is his direct testimony that when he weighed his loaded truck on the Howe scale, the Howe scale bore a current Florida Department of Agriculture certification seal. However, the four weights printed automatically onto the Howe scale weight ticket do not add up to the pencilled "76,600" handwritten thereon. Upon Respondent's direct testimony and supporting exhibits, it was also shown that a commercial Certified Automated Truck Scale (CAT Scale) had recorded the gross weight of Respondent's front two axles as only 19,280 pounds on October 9, 1991. The CAT scale, which renders a "full platform" gross weight, provides a more accurate gross weight than the "split weigh" method, but this weigh-in occurred approximately a month before the weighing of Respondent's truck at the Hilliard Weigh Scale on November 18, 1991 and accounted for only two axles and no load. Respondent contended that if one added together the weight of his load as stated by the shipper on his November 18 bill of lading, the manufacturer's weight of 9500 pounds as stamped on the side of the trailer, a weight he personally estimated for nylon ropes to secure the load, possible fuel intake, and the CAT weight of his vehicle's front two axles, Respondent's vehicle weight on November 18 would still have been under 80,000 pounds when it reached the Hilliard scale, and Respondent would not have been subject to an overweight assessment and fine. However, this scenario is speculative. It is speculative because of insufficient predicate for the accuracy of some of the figures named, due to the failure of the numbers on the Howe scale ticket to add up as specified by Respondent, and due to the margin for error when only two axles were weighed a month earlier on the CAT scale.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Transportation enter a Final Order ratifying the assessment and penalty of $124.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17 day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-1872 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1-6, 8 (There is no "6", but the unnumbered paragraph between "5" and "7" is treated as "6") Accepted. 7 Accepted in part and rejected in part because of Respondent's direct testimony which established certain facts found. Respondent's PFOF 1, 13 Accepted that some of this is what the shipper told Respondent and placed on the bill of lading, but it remains hearsay and unpersuasive on the dispositive issue of true weight in light of other exhibits and testimony. Accepted except where contrary to the probative evidence and rejected as unproven and also rejected where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Specifically, the numbers show a print out of 4 axles, not 3, or four printed items for gross, tare and net pounds. It is not clear which. Also, the total of the four figures are in excess of legal weight limits. See Exhibit R-1. Rejected as not of record and rejected as legal or persuasive argument as opposed to a proposed finding of fact; rejected as not dispositive and as not persuasive. The first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as mere legal or persuasive argument. 5-6, 8-10 Accepted except where unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 7,14 Rejected because much of this is not of record. Otherwise it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 20-21, 23 Accepted, except that Mr. Garris did not testify that the Howe scale was certified or accurate. This was Respondent's testimony. 11-12 Rejected as stated because not supported by the record as a whole. Covered accurately in the RO. 15-18 These calculations are rejected as speculative and not supported by any weight ticket. Legal and persuasive arguments are also rejected as not factual proposals. 19 Accepted, but unnecessary, subordinate and cumulative. 22, 24 Rejected as legal and persuasive argument only, not factual proposals. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn S. Holifield Chief, Administrative Law Section Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Mrs. Thomas Bachota 201 North Shaffer Street Milford, Indiana 46542 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Thornton J. Williams, General Consel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
