Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On September 10, 1984, the Petitioner received an application for a Series 4-COP, SRX Alcoholic Beverage License from Respondent Club Lido of Gainesville, Inc. On the above date, the Petitioner issued a new temporary Series 4-COP, SRX license to the Respondent pending investigation of the application. The application was submitted signed by Richmond Smith who represented himself as the president, secretary, treasurer, and sole stockholder of Respondent. The application was subsequently approved and the Respondent was issued License Number 11-00786SRX, Series 4-COP on October 1, 1984, to be utilized at a location designated as 233 West University Avenue, Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. During the year 1985, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Investigator William L. Cooter, Sr., received complaints from various restaurant owners in Alachua County, that Respondent was not operating as a bona fide restaurant, inferring that alcoholic beverage sales at Club Lido exceeded 49 percent of the gross sales. Additionally, Investigator Cooter had visited the premises on numerous occasions and had observed that only small quantities of food items were being served on the premises of Club Lido. In response to the above complaints and on the basis of his personal observations, Investigator Cooter, on September 18, 1985, proceeded to the premises of Respondent and requested a review of the Respondent's food and alcoholic beverage sales. The request for records was made to Richmond Smith, President of Club Lido. On the above date, Smith responded that the records were not on the premises and that Investigator Cooter would be required to subpoena the records if he wished to examine them. Accordingly, Investigator Cooter issued an Official Notice to Richmond Smith on behalf of Club Lido which required production of the sales records by October 4, 1985. The Respondent failed to produce its sales records as of October 4, 1985. The Respondent, as of the date of formal hearing, had still failed to produce its sales records. On November 15, 1985, Investigator Cooter, along with Investigator Donald O'Steen, proceeded to the premises of the Respondent in order to inspect its equipment, supplies, and patron accommodations. The investigators found a minimal quantity of food on the premises. There was not a sufficient amount of food products to serve full course meals to 100 or more patrons on the premises of Respondent on November 15, 1985. There were not adequate seating accommodations to seat and serve full course meals to 100 or more patrons on the premises of Respondent on November 15, 1985, in that only 94 chairs and bar stools were present on the premises. The investigators also noted that there was no employee designated as a "chef" or "cook" on the premises and that approximately two- thirds (2/3) of the silverware needed to serve 100 or more patrons had not been unpackaged. On July 18, 1986, the Respondent terminated active business operations based on the unprofitability of the business. Richmond J. Smith, was a Respondent in Case No. 78- 338, Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Business Regulation Case No. 3-77-66A, wherein violations of Rule 7A-3.14 and 7A-3.15, Florida Administrative Code, relating to the maintenance of food and beverage records relative to a SRX Alcoholic Beverage License were alleged. The above violations were settled by Stipulation and the licensee paid civil fines relative thereto.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco enter a Final Order revoking the Special Restaurant Alcoholic Beverage License of Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed by the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1927 Charles G. Brackins, Esquire Suite B 920 N.W. 8th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Mr. Richmond Smith Club Lido of Gainesville, Inc. 233 West University Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Bell, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Kearney, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner may discipline Respondent’s alcoholic beverage license for Respondent’s violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(D) and Section 561.20(4) “within” 561.29(1)(a),1/ Florida Statutes, on three separate occasions.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to un-refuted testimony, Respondent, MJT Restaurant Group, Inc., doing business as The Copper Pot, holds Beverage License 5202697, Series 4 COP, SRX.3/ Respondent’s establishment is located in Ocala, Florida. It is divided into two separate interior rooms, with two separate exterior entrances. The two rooms are connected through the interior by a single opening between one room, which is the main restaurant area, and a second room, which is the bar/lounge. A complaint was opened against Respondent with a warning letter issued by Investigative Specialist Melodi Brewton on March 15, 2007. The Administrative Complaint that was ultimately filed in this case addresses only the dates of April 7, 2007, June 17, 2007, and July 20, 2007. On April 7, 2007, Special Agents Angel Rosado and Lawrence Perez visited Respondent’s premises in an undercover capacity at approximately 11:00 p.m. On that date, the restaurant’s exterior door was closed and locked, but the lounge’s exterior door was open. The agents entered through the lounge’s exterior door and observed patrons consuming alcohol and listening to a band in the bar area. The agents requested a menu from the bartender. The bartender told them the kitchen was closed. Each agent then ordered a beer, and a sealed alcoholic beer bottle was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid inside his container had been alcoholic beer. The agents testified that they had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A chain of custody was maintained and a sample vial of the beer served by Respondent on Tuesday, April 7, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.4/ On June 16, 2007, Special Agent Rosado and Special Agent Lawrence Perez visited The Copper Pot at approximately 11:30 p.m. The outside restaurant door was not locked, but the lights were off inside the restaurant room where chairs were stacked on the tables. The agents observed patrons in the lounge room consuming alcohol. When the agents asked for a menu, the male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed. The bartender offered to heat up some spinach dip for them, but they declined. Each agent then ordered an alcoholic beer, and a liquid was sold to each of them as alcoholic beer. Each agent was over 21 years of age, familiar with the smell and taste of alcohol, and testified that the liquid sold him was alcoholic beer. Each agent testified that he had paid for, and received, the liquid as if it were alcoholic beer. A sample of the alcoholic beer was logged into the Agency evidence room on June 17, 2007. That sample of the beer served by Respondent on June 16, 2007, was brought to the hearing but was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.5/ During the June 16-17, 2007, visit, Agent Perez spoke with a woman who was later determined to be one of the corporate officers of the licensee, Judith Vallejo. When Agent Perez asked her about obtaining a meal, Judith Vallejo replied that the kitchen was closed, but they could get food at the nearby Steak’N’Shake. The male bartender then told the agents that the Respondent’s restaurant closes at 9:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. June 16, 2007, was a Saturday. June 17, 2007, was a Sunday. At about 11:00 p.m. on July 20, 2007, Special Agents James DeLoach, Ernest Wilson, and Angela Francis entered Respondent licensee’s premises through the lounge. The restaurant’s outside entrance was locked and the restaurant was dark. In the lounge, they asked for a menu to order a meal. The male bartender told them that the kitchen was closed, but they could have a spinach dip. The agents ordered, and were served, one beer and two mixed drinks, which Special Agents DeLoach and Wilson testified had alcohol in them. Special Agent Francis did not testify. Both of the special agents who testified were over 21 years of age, familiar with the taste and smell of alcohol, identified that the liquids they had been served were, in fact, alcoholic beverages, and that they had bought and paid for what the bartender served them as alcoholic beverages as if they were alcoholic beverages. Each testified that the bartender had represented that what he was serving them were the alcoholic beverages they had ordered. A sample vial of only the beer served by Respondent to Special Agent Wilson on July 20, 2007, was brought to the hearing, but it was not admitted into evidence as unduly repetitious and cumbersome.6/ Thereafter, a notice of intent to file charges was served upon one of Respondent’s corporate officers. There was testimony from a Special Agent that an SRX licensee is required to earn fifty per cent of its gross income from the sale of food and must sell food which is the equivalent of a full course meal during the entire time alcohol is being served, and that the Administrative Complaint herein should have cited Section 561.20(1) instead of 561.20(4), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing all statutory charges; finding Respondent guilty, under each of the three counts of the Administrative Complaint, of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(d); and for the rule violations, fining Respondent $1,000.00, and revoking Respondent's license without prejudice to Respondent's obtaining any type of license, but with prejudice to Respondent's obtaining the same type of special license for five years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2008, 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 4th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: D.H.S. Developers, Inc. (hereinafter designated as D.H.S.) was the owner of the World Inn, a motel located in Lake Beuna Vista, Florida. Petitioner, Jarman A. Smith, was initially employed by World Inn before it opened as director of sales. The restaurant located within the World Inn was having problems with respect to the quality of food and service. D.H.S. then asked petitioner Smith to begin operation of the restaurant and of the bar and lounge. In June of 1973, petitioner began operation of the restaurant under an oral agreement with D.H.S. This agreement was intended to be reduced to writing, but a written contract never materialized. Pursuant to the oral agreement, petitioner was to operate and manage the restaurant facility, which occupied 5,000 to 6,000 square feet of the World Inn, and to remit on a monthly basis to World Inn a certain percentage (between 10 percent and 12 1/2 percent) of the gross sales from the dining room and gift shop. D.H.S. owned the heavy equipment and the fixtures located in the restaurant and was responsible for repairing and maintaining the premises in good condition. D.H.S. initially owned the food items and expendables, such as plates, utensils, table accessories, etc. When petitioner began operation of the restaurant, he paid a security deposit for these items and was responsible for maintaining them at the level necessary for operation of the facility. The petitioner had the responsibility to keep and maintain insurance on the premises, to pay the restaurant employees salaries, taxes and insurance and to hire and fire employees. Petitioner testified that the owners of D.H.S. came into the restaurant facility on a daily basis and sometimes gave instructions to the restaurant employees. Petitioner obtained an occupational license for the restaurant in his name and maintained a business bank account for the operation of the restaurant. Petitioner also managed and operated the bar and lounge during the same period of time. Under this arrangement, which was also pursuant to an oral agreement, all sale receipts were turned over to D.H.S., from which D.H.S. paid all salaries, expenses and bills and kept 12 1/2 percent. Any balance remaining was given to petitioner. D.H.S. was responsible for the operational expenses of the bar and lounge, for obtaining all business and occupational licenses and for repairing and maintaining the premises in good condition. Guests of the motel could charge their meals and drinks to their room. When a meal was charged, D.H.S. would pay the petitioner the amount charged, less a certain percentage for handling. When drinks were charged, that money was kept in the D.H.S. account. In November of 1975, when the restaurant was doing well financially, D.H.S. informed petitioner that it was going to take back the operation of the restaurant. Within a week, petitioner was required to turn everything over to D.H.S. D.H.S. paid petitioner only for the value of the food and expendable inventories left on the premises. The respondent Department of Revenue determined that a four percent sales tax was due on the ten percent monthly payment made by petitioner to World Inn based on the gross sales from the restaurant. Respondent thus issued assessments to both World Inn and petitioner. The assessment against World Inn was stayed pending the outcome of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent's assessment of a tax based upon the petitioner's monthly payment to World Inn of a percentage of gross receipts from the restaurant facility be rescinded and set aside. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard E. Benton, Esquire Smith, Young and Blue, P.A. Post Office Box 1833 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph C. Mellichamp Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William H. Muntzing, Esquire Post Office Box 1568 Winter Park, Florida 32789
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent's public food establishment license should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Thai Café, operated a public food service establishment, located at 4200 Tamiami Trail, Unit 14, Port Charlotte, Florida 33952-9233. Respondent's license, number 18-01285-R, expired on December 1, 1999, and was not renewed until March 22, 2000. Lisa Marie Wofford was, at all times relevant to this proceeding, a sanitation and safety specialist for the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, acting primarily as a restaurant inspector. On January 10, 2000, Ms. Wofford inspected Respondent's restaurant, which was open and operating. She found several violations of food service rules that she enumerated on a food service inspection report. The report warned Respondent that it had 10 days, until January 20, 2000, to correct the violations. Ms. Wofford entered a question mark on the report beside the license expiration date, because she could not at that time confirm when Respondent's license would expire. On January 20, 2000, Ms. Wofford conducted a "call back" inspection of Respondent's restaurant, which was open and operating. She found violations of food service rules, which she enumerated on a call back/reinspection report. Ms. Wofford testified that she could not recall whether she looked for Respondent's license on this call back inspection. On March 7, 2000, Ms. Wofford conducted a routine food service inspection of Respondent's restaurant, which was open and operating. She found Respondent in violation of food service rules and found that Respondent failed to display a current license. She enumerated these violations on a food service inspection report. Ms. Wofford noted on this report that Respondent was operating its restaurant without a license. Ms. Wofford testified that during the inspection, the owner told her that he had "mailed the license fee already, yesterday." At all times relevant to this proceeding, Karlin Dorothy Kahl was a management review specialist and compliance coordinator for the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, District 6, and was a custodian of the records maintained at the district office in Fort Myers. Ms. Kahl testified that the Division's records reflected that Respondent's license expired on December 1, 1999. The records also reflected that the license fee was not received by the Department until March 22, 2000, well after Ms. Wofford's inspections of January 10, January 20, and March 7, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of $1,000, to be reduced to $500 if paid within 10 days of the date the final order is entered in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Thai Café 3135 Cortez Road Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., and its directive that the square footage making up the licensed premises of a special restaurant (SRX) license be “contiguous,” constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, and, if so, whether Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Adjudication should be denied.
Findings Of Fact The following findings of facts are determined: The State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Respondent) is the state agency responsible for adopting the existing rule which is the subject of this proceeding. Under the provisions of Section 561.02, Florida Statutes, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, is charged with the supervision and enforcement of all alcoholic beverages manufactured, packaged, distributed and sold within the state under the Beverage Law. The Division issues both general and special alcoholic beverage licenses. Petitioner, Brooklyn Luncheonette, LLC, d/b/a Del Tura Pub and Restaurant is the owner/operator of a restaurant located in North Fort Myers, Florida. It is seeking issuance of a special restaurant license (SRX) pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes, from the Division. Therefore, Petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged rule. Petitioner operates a restaurant on a leased parcel of property consisting of two buildings with a dedicated pathway between the two buildings. Petitioner’s restaurant premises consist of two buildings which contain a minimum of 2,500 square feet in the aggregate of service area. Petitioner’s restaurant facility is equipped to serve 150 patrons full course meals at tables at one time. The sole reason asserted by Respondent for denial of Petitioner’s application is the alleged noncompliance with the “contiguous” requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. The provision of general law, applicable to Petitioner, which sets forth the specific criteria for an SRX license, is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. To these statutory criteria, Respondent has, by Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2., added an additional criteria: “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single establishment.” Respondent has interpreted the provision to mean that the buildings containing the square footage must physically touch. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141 reflects that the sole law implemented is Subsection 561.20(2)(a)4., Florida Statutes. Susan Doherty is the chief of Respondent’s Bureau of Licensing, whose duties include determining “if a license will be issued based upon the qualifications of the applicant [and] whether the premises meets all requirements based on the type of license applied for.” Ms. Doherty, whose deposition was taken on May 12, 2009, testified in pertinent part: Q. All right. If I can direct your attention to Subsection (2)(a)(2) of Rule 61A-3.0141, it says, “The required square footage shall be contiguous and under the management and control of a single licensed restaurant establishment.” What does “contiguous” mean? A. Touching, actually connected, touching. * * * Q. Do you see anything in the statute that prohibits a licensee from qualifying if the square footage is in two buildings that the applicant leases and they’re connected by a pathway which the applicant leases? Do you see anything in the statute that precludes that? A. In the statute, no. Q. Do you see anything in the rule that precludes that? A. In my opinion, Section (2)(a)(2), the contiguous would. Deposition of S. Doherty, pp. 15 and 18. Chief Doherty conceded, however, that she could not point to any provision of the relevant statute that imposes a “contiguous” requirement regarding the square footage. Chief Doherty further noted that for special licenses issued for hotels pursuant to Subsection 561.20(2)(a)1., Florida Statutes, she was aware that there were numerous non-contiguous buildings licensed pursuant to such section. The deposition of Respondent’s agency representative, Major Carol Owsiany, was taken on May 13, 2009. Major Owsiany testified: Q. . . . Isn’t it correct that there’s 2,500 square feet of service area located in the two buildings that are currently the subject of the [Petitioner’s] temporary SRX license? A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you point to me any provision of Section 561.20(2)(1)(4) that precludes the petitioner from having the requisite square footage in two buildings? A. One second, sir. Not in the statute, but I can in the rule. Deposition of C. Owsiany, p. 8. For purposes of this rule challenge case, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position as a delivery person with the Respondent on or about September 28, 1991, on the basis of his race (Black), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Portion-Trol Foods, Inc., d/b/a Mother Butler Pies, is in the business of manufacturing and delivering pies to Denny's Restaurants, and is an employer under the Florida Human Relations Act of 1977, as amended. Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Respondent on June 26, 1990. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a delivery person, whose primary duty was delivering Respondent's pies to restaurants throughout the Central Florida area, which he did in 1990 and 1991. Petitioner's direct supervisor was Percival Gordon, a black male. Petitioner, like all other employees working under direct supervision, had been informed on several occasions regarding how to properly work and interact with restaurant personnel when delivering pies to the restaurants. Petitioner displayed no patience while interacting with restaurant personnel when he delivered pies. Beginning in early 1991, Petitioner began to act rudely and abrasively toward restaurant personnel with which he interacted when delivering pies to their restaurants. This improper conduct by Petitioner included being very loud and verbal in front of restaurant customers. He offended a restaurant hostess, a restaurant unit aide, and restaurant managers with his objectionable agressive behavior. He spoke rudely to everybody, and used profanity toward restaurant managers while in the restaurants. On one occasion he removed pies from a restaurant cursing, and destroyed customer pies by placing the pies on top of another in the hands of a restaurant cook. Petitioner's supervisor gave him verbal reprimands regarding his conduct in April and May, 1991. As supervisor of delivery persons, it was a job duty to routinely visit the restaurants to which the delivery persons he supervised delivered pies. During these visits Petitioner's supervisor would talk to the restaurant manager and other restaurant personnel in an effort to obtain feedback regarding the job performance of the delivery persons over which he had supervision. On June 5, 1991, Petitioner's supervisor visited two restaurants as part of his job duties. During these visits, management personnel of the restaurants approached Petitioner's supervisor, and voiced a complaint regarding Petitioner and a specific incident where Petitioner had delivered the wrong pies to each of the restaurants, and Petitioner's response to them. Petitioner's response was abusive and inappropriate in both instances. Both management persons told Petitioner's supervisor that due to Petitioner's inappropriate conduct, they did not want to see him back in their restaurant anymore. After being informed of these two most recent acts of improper conduct by Petitioner toward those individuals to whom he delivered pies, Petitioner was issued a written counseling review on June 8, 1991, which summarized the facts regarding these incidents of improper conduct. In this written counseling review, it was explained to Petitioner that he had already been issued several verbal warnings regarding his negative attitude and use of abusive, profane language toward restaurant personnel with which he interacted. Petitioner was warned that if such an incident occurred again, further disciplinary action would be taken against Petitioner. Respondent's Bakery Plant Manager reviewed the counseling review form issued to Petitioner, and prepared a memorandum which he gave to Petitioner. In this memorandum, it was reiterated to Petitioner that if there were "any further occurrences [sic] of the type of poor behavior described that it will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. You need to understand that this is very serious, and up to you to correct immediately." Despite the above-mentioned warnings from his supervisor, Petitioner continued to conduct himself inappropriately when interacting with restaurant personnel to whom he delivered pies. In September 1991, Petitioner engaged in another act of improper conduct. On this occasion Petitioner was delivering pies to a restaurant in Apopka, Florida. On this occasion, Petitioner first spoke with a cook on duty at the time. Petitioner told the cook that he had permission from Respondent's main office "to destroy or get rid of pies out of the case that don't [sic] supposed to be there." Petitioner did not at any time during his employment with Respondent have permission from Respondent's main office to remove customer's pies from restaurants and throw them away. Petitioner began to remove the customer's pies from the restaurant and stack them one on top of the other, into the hands of the cook. Petitioner then took the pies out of the cook's hands and put them in a tub used for bussing the tables of the restaurant. After verifying the incident, the General Manager spoke with Petitioner via telephone about the incident. During the conversation Petitioner got angry with the manager, and slammed down the phone. After receiving a report regarding this most recent incident, Petitioner's supervisor went to the restaurant in Apopka, and conducted a complete investigation into what took place. The supervisor and the Baker Plant Manager evaluated this most recent incident of improper conduct by the Petitioner, in light of his prior employment history with Respondent, and decided to terminate Petitioner based upon his continued improper conduct. Their decision was based upon the fact that Petitioner had received numerous warnings regarding his inappropriate conduct, and had failed to respond in a positive manner to any of these warnings. Petitioner offered only three unsubstantiated allegations as to why he believed he was terminated based upon his race. First, Petitioner alleged that when white delivery drivers employed by Respondent delivered pies to various restaurants, restaurant personnel would not make them wait as long as they would make him wait. However, Petitioner admitted that the restaurant managers and personnel, who he claimed kept him waiting longer than other white drivers, were not the managers of Respondent, Mother Butler Pies, but rather of Denny's Restaurants. Second, Petitioner alleged that he believed that he was terminated by Respondent based upon his race, because he was issued shirts with different people's names on it, which his wife had to stitch his name onto for identification purposes. Third, Petitioner claimed that he believed he was terminated based on his race due to an alleged incident in which a restaurant manager started a fight with Petitioner and subsequently Respondent did not want Petitioner "to go into the store to make a delivery because he [the restaurant manager] was having a problem with the employee. He [the restaurant manager] took it out on me". Petitioner admitted that the restaurant management personnel with whom he had problems were not the managers of Respondent, Mother Butler Pies. Petitioner offered testimony concerning his damages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 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 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0320 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8(in part), 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19(in part), 21, 22, 24, 25 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or a comment on the evidence: paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(in part), 9, 10, 13, 17, 19(in part), 20, 23 COPIES FURNISHED: Veerasammy Mangali (pro se) 5642 Pendleton Drive Orlando, Florida 32839 William Curphey, Esquire 205 Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33601 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue By Notice to Show Cause filed August 24, 1977, the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on or about June 29, 1977 Respondent failed to discontinue the sale of alcoholic beverages when the service of full course wools had been discontinued. Three witnesses were called by Petitioner, two witnesses were called by Respondent and one exhibit was admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact P & D, Inc. t/a Pete and Lenny's holds a 4 COP special restaurant beverage license and the Hearing Officer has jurisdiction over the parties and the violations alleged. On or about 12:30 a.m. June 29, 1977 beverage agents Meek and Shepherd entered Pete and Lenny's, seated themselves at the bar and ordered drinks. After finishing their drink they ordered a second drink and inquired of the bartender, Richard Bohan, if they could get food. He replied that they could get sandwiches at the Banana Boat next door. Further questioning by the agents elicited responses that Respondent had stopped serving and the cook had been transferred next door, that the Banana Boat served sandwiches until 1:30 a.m., that Respondent usually offered New York strip steaks but "not this late", and that the Banana Boat and Pete and Lenny's were owned by the same corporation. After identifying themselves as beverage agents and asking for the manager, Meek and Shepherd inspected the kitchen and restaurant area. Inspection of the kitchen revealed the only cooking equipment to be a microwave oven, empty icebox at 420 F, no evidence that food had been prepared in the kitchen for several days, insufficient silver to serve 200 diners simultaneously as required by regulations for special restaurant licenses, and musicians instrument cases occupying a substantial portion of the kitchen floor. Unopened boxes of silver was produced from the storeroom in sufficient quantity to meet the minimum requirements of the regulations. Respondent's witnesses testified that the icebox had been inoperative for a day or two and food had been removed to next door, but that they were not refusing to serve full course meals. The only meal offered appears to have been the New York strip steak either cooked next door or in the microwave oven. No facilities were available in the kitchen with which to prepare vegetables and these witnesses testified potato salad was served as the vegetable. Pete and Lenny's is a night club where the music is loud and continuous. When the live band is on break recorded music is provided. On the evening of the inspection by beverage officers Meek and Shepherd little, if any, food had been served in Pete and Lenny's.
