Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Larry C. Griggs, is licensed as a certified general contractor, holding license number CG C001910. During the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 the Respondent was president of Kramer Homes, Inc., and in this capacity he acted as contractor for the construction of a project in Dade County known as Woods Landing. Kramer Homes, Inc., entered into subcontracts in connection with the Woods Landing project, and listed itself as contractor on these subcontracts. Kramer Homes, Inc., also caused the notice of commencement to be published, and it obtained the construction loan and paid some of the bills incurred. The Respondent, however, failed to qualify Kramer Homes, Inc., with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. The Respondent admitted the above facts, but explained that he had no intent to violate the construction industry licensing law. He asserts that he was confused as to the proper practice because he owned and operated both Kramer Homes, Inc., and his other corporation, Larry C. Griggs, Inc., which he did qualify. During the course of the Woods Landing project, funding problems developed which resulted in the failure of the Respondent to pay 16 creditors for materials furnished or services performed at Woods Landing when payment was due. Subsequently however, the Respondent has caused payment to be made, or has made arrangements for payment, to all such creditors except for five. The creditors remaining unpaid are Miami Comfort Air, Style Light, Inc., Gem Cabinet Company of Miami, Inc., World Tile Company, and Dixie Clamp and Scaffold, Inc. On approximately September 11, 1981, the Respondent issued a check on a Woods Landing account, payable to Miami Comfort Air, in the amount of $5,000. Previously, on July 31, 1981, the Respondent had acknowledged the debt due Miami Comfort Air, and had made arrangements to pay $8,000 by September 1, 1981. The check for $5,000 was in partial payment of the total debt. The check for $5,000 issued by the Respondent on September 11, 1981, to Miami Comfort Air was returned unpaid by the bank marked not sufficient funds. When the Respondent learned that this check had not been paid, he failed to make it good or to make suitable arrangements for payment of the amount due Miami Comfort Air. The Respondent contends that be believed that there were sufficient funds in his account when he issued the $5,000 check to Miami Comfort Air. He explained that his bank, County National Bank of South Florida, became insecure with the financial aspects connected with the Woods Landing project, and withdrew interest from his account without advising the Respondent, at or about the time he issued the check to Miami Comfort Air. He asserts that it is his intention to pay all of the creditors of this project, and he established his payment record of the creditors who had been paid as of the date of the hearing. Miami Comfort Air has reduced its claim against the Respondent to judgment which the Respondent has not paid, but has elected to appeal, although he did not appear in court to defend the claim when suit was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Larry C. Griggs, be found guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d), (g), (j) and Section 489.129(1)(c) to wit Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $250 on Count 1, $100 on Count 11 and $1,000 on Count 111, for a total fine of $1,350. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this the 24th day of January, 1983. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Blvd. Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 James L. Wall, Jr., Esquire 407 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment based on perceived handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on March 5, 1991, to work as a server at Respondent's restaurant, Bon Appetit. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 8, 1991, Petitioner was promoted to restaurant manager. During her tenure as restaurant manager, Petitioner was counselled about her appearance and personal hygiene. Additionally, Petitioner had problems with Respondent's performance including balancing the cash and credit card receipts collected during her shifts. Respondent required its managers to notify Respondent in advance of any absence due to a medical condition where possible. In all cases; however, managers were required to communicate with Respondent concerning their absence so that Respondent could schedule and plan for a manager's absence to avoid any disruption in its business and the scheduling of other employees. During her employment as restaurant manager, Petitioner was diagnosed as having "hammer toes". Petitioner was out of work for three weeks to have this condition surgically corrected. This absence was approved in advance by Respondent and Petitioner received full compensation for that medical leave. Following the scheduled three week absence for the surgery, there was an additional two to three week period during which Petitioner reported for work late or would leave early. Respondent considered those late arrivals and early departures to be unexcused absences. Following foot surgery, Petitioner returned to her position as manager with the same pay. Subsequently, during May 1992, Petitioner was out of work for surgery to have an ovarian cyst removed. This absence was approved by Respondent and Petitioner was out of work for five days. During this period of medical leave, Petitioner received her pay and returned to work following surgery. Following the cyst surgery, Petitioner complained of lower back pain which her gynecologist attributed to swelling from the cyst surgery. On May 30, 1992, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Morton Plant Hospital in Tampa suffering from lower back pain. Petitioner contacted restaurant manager, Leo Enciso, and told him of her visit to the hospital and "not to count on her reporting for work that day". Petitioner also informed Enciso that she would call as soon as she had been examined to give an update on her status. Subsequent to her initial phone call to Enciso on May 30, 1992, Petitioner did not speak with Enciso nor did he receive any messages from Petitioner concerning her status from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. Following her treatment in the emergency room at Morton Plant, Petitioner sought treatment on that same date, May 30, 1992 from chiropractor Dr. Lynn Colucci. At that time, Petitioner knew she would be out of work until at least one more day. Petitioner did not communicate that information to Respondent or any of its management personnel. Petitioner's next consultation with her chiropractor to evaluate her condition was June 1, 1992. Following that session, Petitioner was advised that she would be out of work for at least two more days. Petitioner did not communicate this information to Respondent or any of its management staff. Petitioner again met with her chiropractor on June 3, 1992 and was told that she would be unable to return to work until June 8, 1992. Petitioner failed to communicate this information to any of Respondent's management or staff. Kailie Borzoni, Peter Kreuziger and Sharon Verhage, all managerial employees of Respondent, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Petitioner by phone. Verhage left a message on Petitioner's answering machine but Petitioner did not return her phone call. Petitioner was released to return to work by her treating chiropractor on June 9, 1992. There were no restrictions placed on her when she was released for work and her physician related that Petitioner's back problem had "resolved itself". Petitioner was discharged by Respondent on June 9, 1992, when she reported for work. Peter Krueziger made an independent decision to discharge Petitioner based on what he considered to be poor performance, poor appearance, excessive absences and failing to truthfully advise of her work status and whereabouts from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. When Petitioner was initially employed as a restaurant manager, Respondent's manager, Krueziger, noticed that Petitioner's dress apparel did not meet up to the standards of a "four star" restaurant that Respondent was operating. As a result, Respondent spoke with Petitioner about his expectations with regard to her dress and advised the controller to advance Petitioner some funds to purchase a wardrobe. Respondent sent one of its managerial employees to accompany Petitioner on a shopping trip to upgrade her wardrobe to reflect what Respondent considered to be appropriate dress for a restaurant manager. Respondent's managerial staff noted and complained to Petitioner on several occasions after she was given a new wardrobe, that her attire did not measure up to the standards that they expected of a manager. Negative comments were made about Respondent's stained clothing, her fingernails and her unkempt hair. Petitioner conceded that she had an exceptionally hard time balancing her cash and credit card accounts at the end of each shift. While some managers experience difficulty at the outset of their employment because an antiquated accounting system was being used, they soon became proficient in closing out the cash and credit card accounts following their shift. Respondent discharged Petitioner based on her failure to properly notify it of her absence from work during the period May 30, 1992 through June 8, 1992. Petitioner's medical condition, real or perceived, played no part in Respondent's decision to terminate her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief as she failed to establish that she was terminated from employment because of a perceived handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 3 adopted as modified, paragraph 2 recommended order. Paragraph 4 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 5 recommended order. Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, paragraph 4 recommended order. Paragraph 7, adopted as modified, paragraphs 9 and 10 recommended order. Paragraph 8 rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 15 recommended order. Paragraphs 11-16 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 17 rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 18 and 19 rejected, conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: C. A. Sullivan, Esquire 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 34616 Charles A. Powell, IV, Esquire Peter W. Zinober, Esquire Zinober and McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1750 Tampa, FL 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact For many years Mark Dunning Industries, Inc. (MDI), held the contract for trash removal and processing for Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida (NAS Pensacola). In the summer of 1995, the contract for these services, for a period beginning January 1996, were the subject of a bid solicitation. The apparent winner of the bid was Ohio Disposal Systems, Inc (ODSI). This bid was contested by MDI. Ultimately, ODSI prevailed in the bid contest and was selected to perform the contract. Performance was to begin on January 1, 1996, however, ODSI was not informed that it was to be the contractor until early December 1995. Petitioner was born on July 12, 1922. He is a U.S. citizen from Puerto Rico, and of Hispanic origin. Petitioner first came to be employed by MDI in the summer of 1994. Petitioner worked on the "hill," which is an elevated portion of the trash dump on board NAS Pensacola. It was his job to weld broken equipment. He also operated two kinds of equipment: a Bobcat, which is a small front-end loader, and a backhoe with a dozer blade mounted on the front. Petitioner was paid about $16.00 per hour as a welder. Victor Cantrel, Petitioner's friend, commenced employment with MDI in July 1995. He worked on the "hill" and also drove the Bobcat and the back-hoe. He would utilize this equipment to push trash into a compactor. In trash-handling parlance, he was known as a "hill man." He was not a welder. He worked closely with Petitioner. Mr. Cantrel was born on June 25, 1972, and is Anglo- American. He was paid about $9.00 per hour. The supervisor of Petitioner and Mr. Cantrel, during the latter months of 1995 while they were working for MDI, was Thomas Lucky. The principal of ODSI was Vince Crawford. On or about December 28, 1995, at the end of the workday, Mr. Lucky informed the employees, including Petitioner, Mr. Cantrel, and a number of trash truck drivers, that there was to be a meeting in the company office near the "hill." Present at the meeting in the office, which commenced around 6:30 p.m., was Petitioner, Mr. Cantrel, Mr. Lucky, several truck drivers, Mr. Crawford, and his wife Cathy. Mr. Crawford informed the assembled employees that he was bringing in all new equipment; that because there would be new equipment, the new employees of ODSI would be able to work 40 hours per week; and that due to the requirement to get his company in shape in time to meet the January 1, 1996, deadline, many of the employees of MDI would be offered jobs with ODSI. After revealing these preliminary matters, Mr. Crawford asked a man named Lee what he did at MDI; this man said that he was a truck driver. Mr. Crawford told him that he was hired with the new company. Then he asked Mr. Cantrel what he did; he said he drove the Bobcat. Mr. Crawford said, "Recycle, huh. You are hired." Mr. Cantrel subsequently filed an employment application. However, he knew that after the announcement at the meeting, he was going to work for ODSI. When Mr. Crawford inquired of two more people, they both responded, "truck driver," and Mr. Crawford informed them that they were hired. When he asked Petitioner, Petitioner said, "Welder." Mr. Crawford then said, "We don't need no welders here." This was the first and last encounter Petitioner had with Mr. Crawford. The next day Petitioner arrived at work at the usual time and was informed that he no longer was employed at that facility. On January 2, 1996, Petitioner presented an employment application to the office at ODSI seeking employment as a "Welder and/or Heavy Equip. Opr." He never received a response. No evidence was adduced that at that time there were job openings for a "welder and/or heavy equipment operator." Additionally, according to Petitioner, no one from ODSI informed Petitioner that he was not qualified. No evidence was adduced at the hearing which indicated that Mr. Crawford noticed that Petitioner was 73 years of age, or that he was a Puerto Rican, or that he was of Hispanic origin. The unrebutted evidence demonstrated that Petitioner was not hired, at the time jobs were available, because Mr. Crawford was bringing in new equipment. New equipment does not require frequent welding and, therefore, Mr. Crawford did not need a welder.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent committed no unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER 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 28th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Committe, Esquire 17 South Palafox Place, Suite 322 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 H. William Wasden, Esquire Pierce, Ledyard, Latta, Wasden & Bowron, P.C. Post Office Box 16046 Mobile, Alabama 36616 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner has been the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sonia V. Fortin, is a white female whose national origin is Tunisian. She has a heavy French or Tunisian accent and at the hearing was very difficult to understand. Ms. Fortin was a Southern Bell employee who had taken an extended leave of absence in 1988 in order to move from Miami to Panama City to care for her ill father. In the Fall of 1989, Ms. Fortin's extended leave of absence ended and she sought employment with Southern Bell in Panama City. Because no positions were available in Panama City, Ms. Fortin applied for and was accepted into a trainee position at the Directory Assistance (DA) operator office in Lake City. Ms. Fortin reported to work for initial training on Monday, October 23, 1989. Assistant manager Patsy Foss only needed one new person in the group of employees she was responsible for overseeing and training. Ms. Fortin was assigned to train with Ms. Foss in Ms. Foss' group. Other new trainees were assigned to other groups at various times depending on what each work group needed. During the three-day training period, the trainee listens to the manager and other experienced operators answer calls, is instructed on the proper method of "keying" in names into the directory computer in order to find the proper telephone numbers, and is given a final evaluation by a manager. In order to become a permanent employee a DA operator was expected to successfully complete a minimum of 90-92% of the calls that the operator handles. Respondent's policy is totally neutral. Ms. Foss met the Petitioner on the first day, introduced herself, and, in an effort to be friendly and out of curiousity, asked the Petitioner about herself, including where she was from. Ms. Foss used the standard Southern Bell training guide for DA operators and taught Ms. Fortin the keying method used for finding customers' numbers, observed Ms. Fortin taking actual requests from customers for directory information, and allowed Ms. Fortin to listen to other operators take calls. However, unlike other new trainees, Ms. Fortin was not able to master the keying method of locating customers and had trouble spelling customers' names even after the customer had spelled the name. In addition, Ms. Fortin was evaluated by Southern Bell Assistant manager Carolyn Land on Thursday, October 26, 1989. Ms. Fortin had an error rate of 20%. On Monday, October 31, 1989, Ms. Foss again guided Ms. Fortin through the training course a second time. Ms. Fortin continued to exhibit the same problems. On Wednesday, November 1, 1989, Manager Comer directed Assistant manager Land to conduct a second evaluation of Ms. Fortin. Ms. Fortin's evaluation resulted in an even higher error rate of 24.1%. Ms. Comer decided to continue the training and on Thursday, November 3, 1989, directed Ms. Foss to conduct a third evaluation. The third evaluation resulted in an error rate of 14%. At no time, did Ms. Fortin meet Southern Bell's standards for continued employment as a DA operator. Manager Comer, after receiving the results of the three evaluations, discussing Ms. Fortin's qualifications in detail with Ms. Land and Ms. Foss, and listening to Ms. Fortin herself, concluded that Ms. Fortin had not successfully completed the initial training for DA operator and instructed Ms. Foss to terminate Ms. Fortin. Ms. Foss informed Ms. Fortin of her termination on November 3, 1989. Ms. Fortin offered no evidence that she was treated differently or that trainees with higher error rates were hired over her. The only evidence that Ms. Fortin pointed to as supporting her charge of discrimination was that Ms. Foss asked her where she was originally from, Ms. Foss gave her what Ms. Fortin perceived to be a dirty look after she responded, Ms. Foss was nasty to her during training and that, upon termination, either Ms. Foss or Ms. Comer made the statement that Ms. Fortin had a language barrier when she was terminated. The evidence clearly showed that Ms. Foss was nasty to everyone regardless of national origin and that Ms. Fortin's difficulties in performing her duties as a DA operator may very well have been related to her inability to communicate with persons not used to her accent and manner of speaking. Neither Ms. Foss' nastiness or the statement about a language barrier were discriminatory. Likewise, none of the evidence Ms. Fortin points to as supporting her charge of discrimination comes close to establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Therefore, Ms. Fortin's charge of discrimination should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Southern Bell's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Allan Williams, P.E., and Allan Williams, P.E., d/b/a ABW Engineering (Respondent or Williams), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated November 15, 2013, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Allan B. Williams is a licensed engineer fully authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent's recognized and legally sufficient name to do business is "Allan B. Williams, P.E." On or about August 20, 2002, Respondent filed a fictitious name application with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations (DOS), that represented Allan B. Williams sought to do business under the fictitious name "ABW Engineering." Subsequently, the fictitious name was renewed on March 28, 2007, and was valid through December 31, 2012. On or about May 29, 2013, Respondent again filed the requisite papers with DOS to establish "ABW Engineering" as a fictitious name, with an active status expiration date of December 31, 2018. It is undisputed that Allan B. Williams, the subject of this case, is the person who established ABW Engineering with DOS. In 2007, Petitioner cited the Respondent with practicing engineering through a business entity that was not properly authorized to do business in Florida. In response to that claim, Respondent acknowledged that he did business as ABW Engineering and stated, in part: I didn't know I needed one. In all the years I practiced in Washington, D.C., Maryland and Virginia I never needed one. The only time I can remember this being a requirement, is, if you are a corporation home based outside these states and jurisdiction and you wish to do business in these states and jurisdiction, then you have to pay a "foreign corporation" tax or fee. It was my impression that Certificate of Authorization was the same as a foreign corporation fee. In further response to the 2007 dispute, Respondent filed the appropriate paperwork and paid the required fees to obtain a Certificate of Authorization for ABW Engineering (No. 27462) with Allan B. Williams, P.E., identified as the registered principal officer for the company. The licensure date for ABW Engineering was May 3, 2007. The letter announcing the approval of the Certificate of Authorization for ABW Engineering contained the following provisions: Your Certificate of Authorization will expire February 28, 2009. A notice of renewal will be mailed to the address of the business thirty (30) to forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration date. * * * In accepting this registration, you assume the responsibility of complying with the requirements of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes and Chapter 61G15, Florida Administrative Code. Allan B. Williams, P.E., did not timely renew the Certificate of Authorization for ABW Engineering when it expired on February 28, 2009. From March 1, 2009, through May 8, 2013, Allan B. Williams, P.E., did business under the letterhead and logo of ABW Engineering. Respondent used the letterhead and logo on billing for engineering services rendered by Allan B. Williams, P.E. On or about May 8, 2013, Petitioner issued a Notice to Cease and Desist to ABW Engineering. That notice provided, in pertinent part: Our records show that you do not currently have a certification as required by section 471.023, FS. If the above facts are true, they establish probable cause for FBPE to believe you are violating Florida law by offering ENGINEERING SERVICES without the required license or certification. On May 23, 2013, Respondent wrote a letter in response to the Notice to Cease and Desist that provided: Certificate of Authority has never been uppermost in my mind. Why? For over thirty five years I have always received constant reminders to complete my courses in continuing education and to renew my PE license. Not once have I received reminders about renewing my Certificate of Authority. And so Certificate of Authority becomes obscure in comparison to the other licensing requirements. Think about it. For your PE you have to satisfy educational requirements at an accredited school of Engineering; you have to work for four (4) years doing progressively challenging engineering work which prepares you to take the PE exams; you have to pass the exams and then you get your PE License. Then every two (2) years you have to pass continuing education courses. For Certificate of Authority you fill out a form and you pay $255. I don't think any Engineer would purposely avoid paying a $255 fee and risk losing thousands of dollars in earnings. It slipped my mind—I forgot it—I apologies [sic]. On June 10, 2013, Respondent received a Certificate of Authorization for ABW Engineering. On September 18, 2013, Petitioner notified Respondent that the Board was issuing a citation based upon the allegations previously disclosed to Respondent: that ABW Engineering had offered engineering services during a period of time when it was not properly certified or authorized to do business. Under the terms of the citation, Respondent was given the option of paying the penalty calculated pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.0071 ($5,000.00) or having the case prosecuted pursuant to section 455.225, Florida Statutes (2013).1/ Respondent chose the latter. At hearing, Respondent maintained that he did not do business as ABW Engineering, but as Allan B. Williams, P.E. That claim was not deemed persuasive in light of the totality of evidence that established Respondent routinely used the ABW Engineering letterhead and logo, was listed in the telephone and other directories as ABW Engineering, and billed for engineering services with the logo and name. Moreover, Respondent admitted that using "ABW Engineering" was a strategy to secure work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Respondent in violation of offering engineering services through a fictitious name that did not have a valid Certificate of Authorization, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00, awarding the costs of prosecution against Respondent, and reprimanding Allan B. Williams, P.E., as the registered general officer of ABW Engineering. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 2nd day of September, 2014.
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Department committed an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner's employment due to her age or her sex or by retaliating against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Fred Chaplin supervises the fire protection specialists (fire inspectors) for the southeast region of the Bureau of Fire Prevention, Division of State Fire Marshal, Department of Financial Services. The headquarters for the southeast region is in West Palm Beach, with a field office in Plantation. For approximately five months there had been a vacant fire inspector position in the southeast region, and Ashley Caron, a fire protection specialist, was covering all of the counties in the southeast region during that time. She worked out of the Plantation field office where Amy Peebles was the administrative assistant. Michael Long, another fire protection specialist, worked out of the West Palm Beach office. He, like Ashley Caron, was responsible for inspecting state-owned and state-leased buildings and new construction. He was also responsible for all fire alarms in the southeast region whether they were in new construction or in existing buildings. He investigated fire alarm systems when he received complaints from outside contractors or other fire inspectors. When Petitioner Andrea Spainhour interviewed for the vacant position in the southeast region, she was interviewed by Caron, Long, and Joe Furiatto from the Department's Tallahassee personnel office. Prior to her interview, Long had talked with Peebles about whether they should re-post the vacancy since there were only two candidates. He erroneously thought there had to be a minimum of three applicants for a vacancy in order to fill it. Long, Caron, and Furiatto were impressed with Petitioner during her interview. She had an excellent background and extensive experience. The three interviewers rated Petitioner, a 50-year-old female, as superior to the other applicant, a younger male, and recommended that she be hired. When Petitioner accepted the offer of employment, Long, Caron, Peebles, and Chaplin were all excited that Petitioner would be working with them. Petitioner's first day of work was May 7, 2001. She reported to the Plantation office where Chaplin spent time with her in orientation over the next several days. He advised Petitioner that Caron would train her during May and June and that Petitioner would become responsible for the inspections in Miami-Dade County. He further advised Petitioner, as he had before she began work, that she was a probationary employee and that the Legislature was considering "privatizing" fire protection specialists. He further advised Petitioner that hers was a job "out in the field," but that she was expected to come into the office to pick up phone messages and mail, turn in inspection reports, and sign documents. He told Petitioner the guideline was that it would take approximately eight hours a week to take care of duties in the office. Amy Peebles assisted Petitioner by answering her questions, showing her how to use her Nextel telephone and the computer, and creating forms on the computer so that Petitioner could fill them out and e-mail them to her when Petitioner was out of the office. Caron also assisted Petitioner by answering questions and showing her how to fill out forms. Long told Petitioner to call on him if she had any questions. Everyone tried to make Petitioner feel part of "the team." On May 10 Petitioner sent Chaplin an e-mail saying that Caron and Peebles had given her a plant for her office and that she already felt like part of the family. Although not mentioned in the e-mail, Caron also gave Petitioner some shirts like Caron and Long wore when they made inspections identifying Petitioner as a fire inspector so she would be recognized as a member of the fire inspectors team. Caron also gave Petitioner a mapping program of Miami-Dade County that Caron had purchased to assist Petitioner in becoming familiar with the locations of facilities she would be inspecting. When Chaplin advised Long and Caron by e-mail that they had been complimented for their professionalism by the construction administrator at the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), Long immediately advised Chaplin by e-mail that Petitioner was also present at the referenced meeting and had acted professionally and been an asset to the inspection team. Chaplin forwarded those e-mails to Petitioner to let her know that Long had included her in the compliment. When Petitioner began making inspections, she did not always submit the proper forms to Peebles or fill them out properly so that Peebles could send the required letters to those responsible for the inspected facilities. Peebles reported this problem to Chaplin. Petitioner also made mistakes on her vehicle logs that Chaplin corrected for her before forwarding them to Tallahassee. On June 12, Caron and Long car-pooled down to Miami- Dade County to attend a meeting at Florida International University (FIU). After the meeting, Long, who was responsible for fire alarm systems in the region, took the opportunity of being in Miami-Dade to evaluate the fire alarm system at the DJJ, which was located close to FIU, in order to ascertain how long his final inspection of the system would take. Their visit to DJJ was not an official visit and did not include an inspection. When Petitioner learned that they had gone to one of "her buildings" without her, she thought they intentionally excluded her from official business. She concluded they did not want her in her position due to her experience. At about that same time, Caron asked Long for assistance at one of her facilities in Broward. Prior to Petitioner's employment, Caron had told Long she had some concerns regarding a fire alarm system at the Coconut Grove Playhouse. When they finished in Broward, Long reminded Caron he needed to look at the Playhouse; so, they car-pooled down to Miami-Dade. This was an informal visit, and no official inspection took place. Again, when Petitioner learned they had gone to the Playhouse without her, she assumed they were intentionally excluding her from official business meetings. On July 25, 2001, Petitioner asked Chaplin to come to the DJJ in Miami-Dade because she had some questions about the Code. After they went through the facility and were in the parking lot, Petitioner began making allegations that gave Chaplin concern. She said that Long and Caron were trying to make her quit because they did not like her. She said she resented their making courtesy visits without her. She told him that Long and Caron were intentionally excluding her from meetings. Chaplin told her that she was misinterpreting their behavior and that he was sure there was a reasonable explanation for their attending meetings without Petitioner. She also told Chaplin that she had had a problem in the past working with other females. The following morning Chaplin directed Long and Caron to cancel their appointments and come to his office. He told them what Petitioner had said. They told him that the courtesy visits were not scheduled meetings but spur-of-the-moment visits when Long was in Miami-Dade. They were shocked at Petitioner's accusations because they had selected her for her position and had thought their relationships with Petitioner were good. Chaplin directed them to make Petitioner feel part of the team. That same day Petitioner sent Chaplin an e-mail that included a reminder that she was concerned about the matters she had discussed with him the previous day. On the following day, Chaplin received a call from Caron, who advised him that Peebles was quite upset and he should call her. When Chaplin called, Peebles sounded distraught and on the verge of tears. She told him that Petitioner had been in the office and was really mad at Chaplin, Long, and Caron. Peebles told him the negative things Petitioner had said about her co-workers and her supervisor. Peebles said she was somewhat afraid for her safety due to Petitioner's behavior. Chaplin told her to write a report, and she did. Based upon the description of the incident between Petitioner and Peebles, his own concerns from his meeting with Petitioner two days earlier, and Petitioner's failure to consistently submit accurate and timely vehicle logs and inspection reports, Chaplin made the decision to terminate Petitioner. He was concerned that Petitioner was creating a hostile atmosphere among her co-workers and with him. Chaplin contacted his supervisor and then sent a memo regarding Petitioner's behavior. A few days later he sent a follow-up memo detailing other concerns he had regarding Petitioner's job performance: inspection reports turned in late or not at all, vehicle logs with errors, and failure to follow standard office procedures. Petitioner's age and her sex were not considered when Chaplin made his decision. Chaplin's recommendation that Petitioner be terminated was processed and approved through his chain of command. Petitioner's employment by the Department was terminated August 23. Since she was terminated during her probationary period, she did not have any career service appeal rights. Petitioner was replaced by a 50-year-old male who was even more qualified for the position than was Petitioner. Only administrative assistants had access to the TMIC computer program. Although Petitioner wanted access, no fire protection specialists could access that program. Petitioner was told several times that she did not need to access TMIC and that no inspector had access. The "red book" contains information about the various facilities in a geographic area that are inspected. It is only a guide for inspectors to track when they last inspected a facility. It is not a necessary tool for an inspector to perform his or her job duties and only contains information also available in the office files. Petitioner was not discriminated against by not being given an updated red book until the end of July since the information in it exists elsewhere in the office. Petitioner believes that Chaplin discriminated against her because he did not like her, did not want to hire her, and provided her with a faulty vehicle. Prior to assigning the car to Petitioner, he drove that vehicle for a few days, had it cleaned, and had it serviced and inspected. He knew of no problems with that vehicle. When Petitioner later questioned the condition of the tires, he told her to get the car checked and bring him something in writing. He never received anything in writing from her regarding the condition of the tires.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed in her burden of proof and dismissing the petition filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 15th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Spainhour 400 North Main Avenue Clermont, Florida 34712 Mechele R. McBride, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 23201 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 23201
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner Employee.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 17, 2006, Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination (formerly known as a "Charge of Discrimination") on the basis of disability/handicap and national origin with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. On June 15, 2007, the Commission entered a Determination: No Cause. On or about July 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission. On or about July 5, 2007, this case was referred by the Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On July 18, 2007, a telephonic conference was held to schedule a final disputed-fact hearing date. The hearing date agreed upon was October 1, 2007, and a Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued on July 18, 2007. Neither party complied with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. At the time noticed for October 1, 2007, Respondent appeared for hearing. In the Joint Response to Initial Order, filed July 16, 2007, and in a subsequent Motion filed September 26, 2007, Respondent referred to itself as "Wal-Mart Stores, East L.P. (incorrectly referred-to in the caption as Wal-Mart Stores)," but made no motion to correct the style of this cause. Respondent acknowledged in its pleadings, and its counsel acknowledged orally at hearing, that it was the appropriate Respondent in this cause, regardless of the case's style. After waiting 30 minutes, Petitioner still had not appeared for hearing. The undersigned made diligent inquiry to ensure that Respondent had done nothing to discourage Petitioner from appearing, and closed the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Complaint of Discrimination and a Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___ ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Amy Harrison, Esquire Lindsay A. Connor, Esquire Ford & Harrison 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Catrina Soriano 1826 Nekoma Court Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent) committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination against Stephen G. Leslie (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) of 1992.
Findings Of Fact In 1986, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent as a "Safety Specialist." Beginning in 2001, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as an "Outdoor Advertising Regional Inspector." As an outdoor advertising regional inspector, the Petitioner's responsibilities included patrolling state roads in his assigned counties to ascertain the status of permitted outdoor advertising signs and to remove signs that were illegally placed on state right-of-way. The Respondent's duties required extensive driving, which he did in a state-supplied vehicle. The Petitioner was based at the Respondent's Tampa headquarters, but was supervised by employees located in Tallahassee. In 2007, the Petitioner began to experience neurological health issues, but he continued to work and was able to perform the responsibilities of his employment. From September 2008 to June 2011, the Petitioner was supervised by Robert Jessee. In 2009, the Petitioner's health issues got worse. He began to take more sick leave, which the Respondent approved upon request of the Petitioner. The Respondent also provided equipment to accommodate the Petitioner's health issues, including a laptop computer and larger mirrors on the Petitioner's state vehicle. The Respondent also assigned another employee to ride with the Petitioner and to remove signs illegally placed on state right-of-way so that the Petitioner did not have to exit the vehicle. In 2010, the Petitioner was involved in two automobile accidents while driving the state vehicle. In January, he ran into a vehicle that was stopped for a school bus. In February, while transporting a group of other employees on I-75, the Respondent struck rode debris and the vehicle was damaged. In April 2010, the Petitioner's presence in the Tampa headquarters building was restricted for reasons that were unclear. Although the restrictions caused embarrassment to the Petitioner, there was no evidence presented at the hearing to suggest that such measures were related in any way to the Petitioner's disability. Following an investigation of the traffic incidents by the Respondent's inspector general, the Petitioner received a written reprimand dated August 18, 2010, and was directed to take the Respondent's online driving course. Beginning in June 2011 and through the remainder of the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent, the Petitioner was supervised by Michael Green. The Respondent collects statistical data to measure the productivity of persons employed as outdoor advertising regional inspectors. The Petitioner's productivity statistics were significantly lower than those of other inspectors, and he was behind in his assignments. Accordingly, Mr. Green rode along with the Petitioner for three consecutive days in September 2011 to observe the Petitioner's work. At the hearing, Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner arrived late to pick him up at his hotel on all three days. On one of those days, the Petitioner accomplished an employment- related task prior to picking up the supervisor. Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner's driving made him feel unsafe during the observation. Mr. Green observed that the Petitioner accelerated and slowed the vehicle in an abrupt manner, and that he failed to use turn signals at appropriate times. Mr. Green also testified that the Petitioner was preoccupied as he drove by electronic devices, including a cell phone. Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner appeared to have difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle, and with hearing certain noises in the vehicle, including the click of the turn signal. Mr. Green testified that he felt so unsafe that he asked the Petitioner to alter his driving practices while Mr. Green was in the vehicle. Mr. Green testified that during the observation ride, the Petitioner discussed his physical condition and admitted that medical appointments during the week made it difficult to maintain the routine work schedule. The Petitioner also advised Mr. Green that he was considering filing for disability retirement. After returning to the Tallahassee headquarters, Mr. Green prepared a memorandum dated September 19, 2011, to memorialize his observations about the Petitioner's job performance. Mr. Green's memorandum was directed to Juanice Hughes (deputy director of the Respondent's right-of-way office) and to the Respondent's outdoor advertising manager. In the memo, Mr. Green recommended that the Petitioner be required to provide medical verification of his continued ability to perform the responsibilities of his position. In a letter to the Petitioner dated September 23, 2011, Ms. Hughes restated Mr. Green's observations and directed the Petitioner to obtain medical verification that the Petitioner was able to perform the responsibilities of his position safely. The letter specifically directed the Petitioner to provide medical information related to his ability to work his normal schedule, the existence of any work restrictions or required accommodations, and the impact of any medications prescribed for the Petitioner. The letter established a deadline of September 30, 2011, for the Petitioner's compliance with its requirements, and advised that he would not be permitted to resume his employment duties until the medical verification information was provided and any required accommodations were in place. The Petitioner apparently did not become aware of the letter until September 29, 2011. On that date, both Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes attempted to contact the Petitioner via his work cell phone and by email to advise him of the letter and to direct that he retrieve the letter from the district headquarters. Shortly after 4:00 p.m., contact was made with the Petitioner by calling his personal cell phone. At that time, the Petitioner was advised that he needed to return to the district headquarters to pick up the letter. He was further advised that he was being placed on leave until the requirements of the letter were met and that he needed to turn in his state vehicle when he arrived at the headquarters. The Petitioner advised Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes that he was attempting to obtain documentation required to file for disability retirement, and he asked for an extension of time during which to do so. His request for an extension was denied. The Petitioner, clearly unhappy with the circumstance, made a statement during the conversation that was considered by Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes to suggest that the Petitioner could cause damage to himself or to the state vehicle. The actual words spoken were disputed at the hearing, and the evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner would have actually damaged the vehicle or himself. Nonetheless, it was clear after the conversation that the Petitioner was resistant to the Department's instructions. The Respondent immediately directed James Moulton, the director of Transportation Operations for the Tampa district, to check on the Petitioner's condition and to retrieve the vehicle assigned to the Petitioner. Mr. Moulton did so, accompanied by local law enforcement personnel, at approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 29, 2011. In a letter to the Petitioner dated September 30, 2011, Ms. Hughes recounted the events of the day before and again directed the Petitioner to obtain medical verification that he was able to perform the responsibilities of his position safely. No deadline was set for the Petitioner's compliance, and he was advised that he could use leave for any absence related to obtaining the medical documentation. A few days later, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that he would be unable to obtain the requested medical verification and that he would be filing an application for medical disability retirement. In November 2011, the Petitioner filed the application accompanied by medical documentation establishing that the Petitioner had a "total and permanent disability," as defined by section 121.091(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/ His application was approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner Maia Fisher (Petitioner) on the basis of her gender and retaliated against Petitioner because of her pregnancy in violation of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 16. Petitioner is a female and filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Respondent engaged in gender discrimination and retaliation after Petitioner disclosed her pregnancy. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 16. Respondent operates a printing business. Respondent is a corporation wholly-owned by Mr. John Disbrow and Ms. Angela Disbrow. Mr. and Ms. Disbrow are the principal operators and decision-makers. Respondent was Petitioner's employer. Petitioner was an employee during the relevant period. Petitioner began her employment with Respondent sometime in March 2008. Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on July 28, 2008. Petitioner discovered in June 2008 that she was pregnant. Petitioner informed Mr. and Ms. Disbrow. Mr. Disbrow instructed Mr. Alfred Buranda to terminate Petitioner’s employment sometime in July 2008. Mr. Buranda was the head of human resources for Respondent at that time, but has since moved on to other employment. Mr. Buranda refused to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Mr. Buranda conducted a teleconference with Petitioner in his office on July 28, 2009. Mr. Buranda telephoned Mr. and Ms. Disbrow on his office speaker phone with Petitioner present in his office. Mr. and Ms. Disbrow explained to Petitioner by speaker phone that the pregnancy was the reason for the termination of employment. Respondent owes Petitioner unpaid compensation in the total amount of $2,820.00. Respondent owes Petitioner back wages for unpaid overtime equal to $720.00. Respondent owes Petitioner unpaid commissions equal to $2,100.00. Back wages in the amount of $720.00 is the product of multiplying an hourly overtime rate of $12.00 by the total of uncompensated overtime equal to 60 hours. Unpaid commissions of $2,100.00 are composed of two parts. Petitioner made five sales under $500.00 for which Respondent owes a commission of $100.00 for each sale and a total of $500.00 for all five sales. Petitioner made eight sales over $500.00 for which Respondent owes a commission of $200.00 for each sale and a total of $1,600.00 for all eight sales. Petitioner has been living in a shelter for battered women. Contact and service on Petitioner has been problematic. The Board may require an investigator or other means to provide Petitioner with actual notice of the final order in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order issued in this proceeding should find that Respondent is guilty of discrimination and retaliation on the basis of gender in violation of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37 and require Respondent and its principals to pay Petitioner $2,820.00 in unpaid compensation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 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 8th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Maia Fischer 2302 48th Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34207 Camille Blake, EEO Manager Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1101 John Disbrow ADCO Printing 8412 Sabal Industrial Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33619
