The Issue The issue is whether Respondents committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Richard and Clara Marron have an in-ground, fiberglass pool at their home in Zephyrhills. The pool is approximately 25 years old. In December 2005, the Marrons' pool service company told them that the pool had a leak. The pool service company referred the Marrons to Coral Isle Pools and Spas (Coral Isle) in Zephyrhills. Coral Isle was owned and operated by Richard Delafield--the father of Respondent Scott Delafield--until his death on January 31, 2006. Richard Delafield was a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, registered plumbing contactor, and the qualifying agent for Coral Isle. On or about March 29, 2006, the Marrons went into Coral Isle's store and talked to Scott Delafield about fixing the leak in their pool.2 Mr. Delafield determined that the pool was leaking around the underwater light fixture and that the light needed to be replaced. He agreed to perform the necessary repairs for $858.55. The invoice prepared by Mr. Delafield described the work to be performed as follows: "dig under deck redue [sic] electrical conduit" and "labor to install light and do diagnostic on transformer." On May 6, 2006, the Marrons made an initial payment of $250.00 to Coral Isle. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool. Mr. Delafield did not obtain a permit from Pasco County before commencing the work on the Marrons' pool.3 The work was done in four stages. First, a trench was dug under the pool deck to provide access to the back of the light fixture. Second, the existing light was removed and replaced with a new light. Third, the wire for the new light was routed through PVC conduit pipe Mr. Delafield laid in the trench. Fourth, Mr. Delafield connected the wire to the "junction box"4 adjacent to the pool deck. The trench under the pool deck was dug by Carl Lind or Mark Pickett, not Mr. Delafield. Mr. Lind and Mr. Pickett were subcontractors of Coral Isle. Mr. Delafield removed the existing light by removing the screws on the front of the light fixture. He then installed the new light and ran the wire for the light through new PVC conduit pipe to the junction box. On May 17, 2006, the Marrons paid the balance of the invoice, $608.55. Mr. Delafield did not perform any work on the higher voltage electrical wires between the junction box and the breaker box at the house. Mr. Delafield did not drain the pool to replace the light. He was able to access the light fixture from the front because the water level in the pool was below the fixture as a result of the leak in the pool. At some point after Mr. Delafield completed his work on the pool light, Mr. Lind and/or Mr. Pickett drained the Marrons' pool in order to "patch" the fiberglass bottom of the pool.5 The light installed by Mr. Delafield works, and the pool no longer leaks. Indeed, the Marrons acknowledged in their testimony at the final hearing that the work done by Mr. Delafield fixed the leak and that the pool now "holds water." Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle were not licensed, registered, or certified to perform electrical contracting work at the time Mr. Delafield performed the work on the Marrons' pool light. In April 2006, the Department issued temporary emergency certifications to Mr. Delafield as a registered building contractor, registered pool/spa contractor, and registered plumbing contractor. The certifications authorized Mr. Delafield to complete Coral Isle's "projects in progress" at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The certifications did not authorize Mr. Delafield to enter into new contracts, nor did they authorize him to perform electrical contracting work. The Marrons' project was not in progress at the time of Richard Delafield's death. The agreement to perform the work was not entered into until several months after his death. In June 2006, the Marrons filed an unlicensed activity complaint against Mr. Delafield and Coral Isle. The Department incurred costs of $206.69 in its investigation of the complaint, not including costs associated with an attorney's time. In February 2007, the Marrons made a claim for $150,000 against Richard Delafield's estate in which they alleged that their pool and deck were "rendered useless" due to the negligence of Coral Isle. They also filed a civil suit against Mr. Delafield and others for damage to their pool. The Marrons did not pursue the claim against the estate, but the civil action is still pending. Coral Isle is no longer in business. Mr. Delafield testified that he planned to pursue licensure so that he could keep the business operating after his father's death, but that he never did so. Mr. Delafield was unemployed at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Mr. Delafield guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 489.531, Florida Statutes; Imposes an administrative fine of $1,000 on Mr. Delafield; and Requires Mr. Delafield to pay the Department's investigative costs of $206.69. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 25th day of February, 2008.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting as defined in Sections 489.105(3) and 489.105(6), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006); (b) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting as defined by Sections 489.505(9) and 489.505(12), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006); and (c) if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Respondents were married and doing business together as "B and P Enterprises of Central Florida, Inc." The "B and P" stands for Brenda and Phillip. Respondents are not and never have been licensed to engage in contracting or electrical contracting in Florida. In March 2006, Carla Adams had recently purchased her first home and sought to refinance it. The lender required an inspection of the home. The lender also required that any work on the home be performed by a licensed person or entity. In March 2006, an inspector employed by Pillar to Post, Inc., conducted an inspection of Ms. Adams' home. The inspection report, dated March 10, 2006, listed a number of areas that needed work and made recommendations for correction of those problems. In July 2006, Ms. Adams saw an advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of a used car. Ms. Adams and Rev. Tracey Davis went to Respondents' property with the objective of purchasing a used vehicle. While on the property, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis entered the Respondents' home. Because both women admired the home, Respondents gave them a tour. During the tour, Respondents stated that Henley had performed the work himself. While in Respondents' home, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis told Respondents that Ms. Adams needed work done on her home. Ms. Adams also told Respondents that her lender required that the work be done by a licensee. Henley, both upon his own volition and after being asked, told Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis that he was a licensed contractor. Henley removed a picture-ID card from his wallet and stated this was his license to practice contracting. Respondent Carpenter condoned this statement. Ms. Adams showed Respondents the March 10, 2006, inspection report. Henley assured Ms. Adams that he could do everything on the report that needed to be done. Henley further stated that his license was issued by “DBPR” - the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Carpenter affirmatively agreed with this statement. Henley warned Ms. Adams that she should never have work done by anyone that was not licensed or certified and that she could check licensure status with DBPR. Respondent Carpenter affirmed this warning. Before speaking with Respondents, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis had never heard of DBPR. It was only due to Henley’s reference to DBPR that Ms. Adams knew she could contact Petitioner regarding the issues in this case. Respondents advised Ms. Adams that they were willing to go to Ms. Adams’ home and give her an estimate of what they would charge to perform the needed work. Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis left Respondents' property expecting to see Respondents in the near future. In August 2006, Respondents went to Ms. Adams’ home in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Adams told Respondents she needed electrical, structural and plumbing work done as set forth in the Pillar-to-Post report. Respondents then inspected the home, took measurements, and made a verbal offer to perform the needed contracting work. Respondents returned to Ms. Adams’ home later in August 2006. At that time, Respondents presented Ms. Adams with a written estimate of what they would charge to do certain contracting work on her home. The proposal included, but was not limited to, structural, plumbing and electrical work. Respondents' proposal stated as follows in relevant part: REMOVE ALL OLD FLOOR COVERING Carpet Padding Lineoleum (sic) Square Stick tile Tack strip All of the above, but not limited to just above 1,470 Sq. Ft. @ $1.10 Sq. Ft. INSTALL NEW FLOOR COVERING 1,470 Sq. Ft. of tile on floor @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. and install Durarock (sic) or hardi (sic) backing board, if needed KITCHEN Remove wall and old 1/2 bathroom and put back to finished product Not including finishing drywall and painting drywall Remove all old plumbing and re-route Electrical wires HALL BATHROOM Remove bathtub, and tub walls Install durarock (sic) and new plumbing fixtures [a]s provided by homeowner Install 100 Sq. Ft. of wall tile around old tub area @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. [m]aking a new shower in the room Build a curbing, and drypack and install shower floor tile Install drain and rubber pan REMOVE OLD RAILING FROM FRONT PORCH The total price listed for the above referenced work was $5,234.50. Ms. Adams had received other estimates for the work. Therefore, Ms. Adams was pleased with the price and sought assurance that it would not increase. Respondents promised Ms. Adams that the cost would not increase. To further assure her, they both signed the contract in her presence. During the hearing, Henley admitted that he contracted with Ms. Adams to perform the labor as listed on this contract. In an attempt to ascertain Henley’s skill as a contractor, Ms. Adams decided to begin with the renovation of the bathroom located in the entrance way to the master bedroom. Ms. Adams agreed to buy the construction, plumbing, or electrical materials that Henley needed to do the work. Ms. Adams works two jobs and was not always home when Respondents performed the contracted work. As a result, Rev. Davis, who lived nearby, was present at the home to let Respondents in and observe the work. In order to enlarge the bathroom adjoining the master bedroom, Henley demolished a wall between the old bathroom and a walk-in closet. Henley also removed the door into the old bathroom and constructed a single wall with the entrance to the enlarged room through the door to the old closet. In the course of this alteration and expansion, Henley damaged the adjoining wall to the living room. He subsequently repaired the damage. In the enlarged bathroom, Henley removed a sink from the old bathroom area and installed it in the area that had been a closet. The area of the old closet had no plumbing. The removal and installation of the sink required Henley to remove old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow. During the hearing, Henley admitted removing the sink and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley installed the custom-built shower as described in the contract in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. During the hearing, Henley admitted cutting a hole in the floor of Ms. Adams’ bathroom and installing a shower drain pan. Henley removed and replaced the toilet in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Additionally, Henley, with Carpenter's help, removed the old bathtub. Henley admitted removing the bathtub and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley then installed a replacement Jacuzzi bathtub at the location of the previously-removed bathtub in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Henley had to remove the old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow for the replacement Jacuzzi. The toilet, sink, and bathtub removal and the shower- installation required plumbing work that made it necessary to turn off the water to the home. During the course of installing the Jacuzzi bathtub, Henley discovered that his work resulted in drainage problems he could not correct. For the first time, he told Ms. Adams that his license did not allow him to perform plumbing work. Henley then told Ms. Adams that, as the contractor on the job, he could subcontract the needed plumbing work. In early September 2006, Henley called Roto-Rooter as a plumbing subcontractor. Roto-Rooter performed the following plumbing work at Ms. Adams' home: Hooked up all the basic [drain] lines and the toilet in new bathroom to the m/l [main line]. Also ran water lines for the new sink, but found problem with shower valve. It was put in wrong and will not work until it's moved. Note: Everything else is working at this time. Price includes parts and labor. ( * * * out the tile and fix shower valve, not everything is working.) The Roto-Rooter invoice indicates a total cost in the amount of $1,432.78 for the work performed in Ms. Adams' home. Ms. Adams and Respondents had a financial dispute about which party had to pay Roto-Rooter. The dispute ultimately led to a falling out regarding the completion of the contracted work. Ms. Adams’ bathroom currently is inoperable because the toilet and Jacuzzi bathtub do not work. There is raw sewage underneath her home. In order to repair her bathroom, Ms. Adams received an estimate of approximately $5,000.00. Ms. Adams’ decision to begin with the renovation of her bathroom also involved ascertaining Henley’s skills as an electrical contractor. Based on his assurances that he could do the work, Ms. Adams allowed Henley to remove and relocate electrical light fixtures and switches in the bathroom, closet, and hallway. During the course of this work, Henley left hot wires exposed. On or about September 14, 2006, Carpenter came to Ms. Adams’ home and presented an invoice for $1,200.00 for the contracted work that had been performed pursuant to the initial contract. The invoice was on the letter head of “Brenda & Phillip, Phillip Henley, Inc." It stated as follows in relevant part: Remodel Master Bathroom Take out all fixtures-sink, cabinet, cast iron tub, toilet and replace with new Jacucci (sic) tub, new sink and cabinet, new shower and put back old toilet. Take out old tile on walls and drywall, take out two closets to enlarge bathroom. Re-wire and re-plumb all fixtures and installed durarock (sic) on floor, walls and wet areas and installed blueboard on balance of walls. Built a custom shower and installed custom tile design on walls and floor. Cost: $1,900.00 Less cash advances: 8/9 $100 8/16 $300 8/22 $300 $700 -700.00 $1,200.00 Plus: Materials & receipts: 8/11 $ 81.19 8/17 23.67 8/19 26.84 8/24 108.51 $240.21 +$240.21 Balance Due: $1,440.00 Other labor -240.00 $1,200.00 The invoice was signed by Henley and Carpenter and included the following statement: "Thank you for doing business with Brenda & Phillip!" The invoice stated that the check should be payable to Carpenter. Excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, Petitioner has expended $554 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2541 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2545 against Henley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that each Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, imposing a total administrative fine in the amount of $11,000 against each Respondent, and assessing costs in the amount of $554 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 against Henley. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brenda Carpenter Phillip Henley 5209 Southwest U.S. 221 Greenville, Florida 32331 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting and electrical contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Antoney Manning was not licensed nor had he ever been licensed to engage in contracting as a State Registered or State Certified Contractor in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaints, Manning Builders did not hold a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida and was not licensed, registered, or certified to practice electrical contracting. Respondent, Antoney Manning, was at all times material to this proceeding, the owner/operator of Manning Builders. Respondent is in the business of framing which includes framing, drywall, tile, trim work, and painting. A document which is in evidence purports to be a contract dated September 5, 2004, between Manning Builders and Ms. Gwendolyn Parker, for the construction of a 14-foot by 14- foot addition in the rear corner of Ms. Parker's house located at 8496 Southern Park Drive in Tallahassee, Florida. The contract identifies Manning Builders as the "contractor." The contract price is $15,000. Unfortunately, only the first page of the contract is in evidence. However, Respondent acknowledges that he and Ms. Parker entered into a contract regarding the 14-foot by 14-foot addition to Ms. Parker's home. Respondent insists that he informed Ms. Parker that he was not a certified general contractor, but that he could find a general contractor for her. When that did not work out, Respondent told Ms. Parker that she would have to "pull" her own permits and that he could do the framing. He also told her that he would assist her in finding the appropriate contractors to do the electrical work, plumbing, and roofing. Ms. Parker did not testify at the hearing. On September 7, 2005, Respondent signed a receipt for $7,500 for a "deposit on addition (14 x 14)." The receipt identifies Ms. Gwendolyn Parker as the person from whom the money was received by Respondent. Respondent acknowledges finding an electrical contractor to perform the electrical work on the addition. However, he insists that he did not hire the electrical contractor but found one for Ms. Parker to hire. He gave the name to Ms. Parker but she apparently did not contact him. In any event, the electrical work was never done on the addition. Respondent completed the framework on the addition. Respondent did not build the roof, as he was aware that would require a roofing contractor. Work on the project ceased before the addition was finished. Ms. Parker's home suffered rain damage as a result of the roof not being completed. There is nothing in the record establishing the dollar amount of damage to her home. The total investigative costs to the Department, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $360.59 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06- 0601, which charged Respondent with the unlicensed practice of contracting. The total investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney's time, was $140.63 regarding the allegations relating to Case No. 06-0602, which charged Respondent with the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order imposing a fine of $1,000 for a violation of Section 489.127(1); requiring Respondent to pay $360.59 in costs of investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 06-0601, and dismissing DOAH Case No. 06-0602. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian A. Higgins, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Antoney Manning 11865 Register Farm Road Tallahassee, Florida 32305 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mr. Young, is a black male. From May 8, 1980 until September 20, 1985, Petitioner was employed by PCR, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida. PCR, Inc., is a chemical manufacturing company which mixes and manufactures some of the most toxic chemicals that exist at its Gainesville plant. In September, 1985, PCR, Inc. was owned by SCM Organic Chemicals. Petitioner was first employed by PCR, Inc., in May, 1980 as a maintenance helper and was subsequently promoted to maintenance mechanic. The maintenance department at the plant had seven employees, including Petitioner, who was the only black. Respondent followed a practice of documenting meetings between supervisors and employees concerning disciplinary matters and employee reprimands by memorandums written by the supervisors. Also, employees were counselled by supervisors in an informal manner where no memorandums were written. Prior to December, 1984, Petitioner had only been counselled or reprimanded regarding his work performance one time. The reprimand was for a one-day unexcused absence from work following four days of vacation. Sometime in October, 1984, Mr. Singletary became the supervisor of the maintenance department at PCR's plant in Gainesville. As such he was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Singletary had worked for Respondent for over 20 years in Respondent's Jacksonville plant, where he had moved up through the ranks to become second in command in the maintenance department. In Jacksonville, Mr. Singletary had a reputation of being a tough, but fair supervisor who was concerned with "getting the job done," and who treated his coworkers and those he supervised equally, regardless of their race. One of Mr. Singletary's first duties upon becoming maintenance supervisor in the Gainesville plant was to review the personnel files and attendance records of the maintenance department employees. From this review, it appeared to Mr. Singletary that Petitioner had been abusing the sick leave privilege. After consulting with Mr. Pitrolo, the plant superintendent at the time, Mr. Singletary and Mr. Pitrolo met with Mr. Young on December 4, 1985. At the meeting, Mr. Singletary showed Mr. Young his attendance record and decided to extend the time for the yearly review of Mr. Young's performance. The substance of the meeting was memorialized in a memorandum dated December 4, 1988, written by Mr. Singletary, as follows: This is to document our meeting and its conclusion we had December 4, 1984. I went over your work record and you have thoroughly abused the time off with pay segment of our working agreement. You are hereby not awarded a yearly review but instead it will be extended until 15 months. You will also be placed on probation for a period of three (3) months starting 12/05/84 and ending 03/05/85. Any further violations as we discussed will end in termination. The problem is definitely not with your work, however, its being at work. In early 1985, Mr. Singletary implemented a four day work week, ten hours per day work schedule for the maintenance department employees. Mr. Singletary received reports that Mr. Young was telling other plant employees that he would receive overtime pay for the extra two hours of work per day. This became a concern to Mr. Singletary, since it was not true, and he did not want other employees to think that the maintenance department employees were receiving preferential treatment. On February 9, 1988, Mr. Singletary met with Petitioner and Petitioner denied he was making comments regarding the overtime pay. Mr. Singletary felt Petitioner was lying and instructed him to stop spreading rumors. Sometime in late February or early March, 1985, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence. After his arrest, Petitioner started telling people at the plant, including Mr. Pitrolo, that his intoxication had been caused by the chemicals present at the plant. Mr. Pitrolo told Petitioner that if he had a problem he should talk to his immediate supervisor, Mr. Singletary, and not make comments to other people in the plant. Instead of talking with Mr. Singletary, Petitioner continued to talk with others at the plant. Because Petitioner continued to talk about the intoxication to others, in violation of Mr. Pitrolo's instruction to talk with Mr. Singletary, another meeting was held between Petitioner, Mr. Singletary and Mr. Pitrolo, on March 5, 1988. Petitioner denied he was telling others that his intoxication was caused by the chemicals, but Mr. Singletary did not believe him. Petitioner was told to stop spreading rumors and to follow the chain of command if he had a problem. In early April, 1985, Petitioner was convicted of driving under the influence and sentenced to serve a 6-month jail term. Also, in April, 1985, Mr. Bailey became plant supervisor of the PCR, Inc., plant in Gainesville. He had previously been interim plant manager from May to September, 1984. After Petitioner's conviction, the Department of Corrections asked if Petitioner could return to his job at PCR, Inc., so he could be placed on a work release program instead of serving the 6-month sentence in jail. After consulting with Mr. Singletary, and reviewing Petitioner's personnel file, Mr. Bailey decided to allow Petitioner to work at the plant on the work release program. Petitioner started back at work on April 22, 1985. On that date, Mr. Singletary met with Petitioner to discuss the work release program and to let Petitioner know he was on "thin ice with the company." On April 26, 1985, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Singletary met with Petitioner. Mr. Bailey had reviewed Petitioner's personnel file and had seen all the memorandums in the file which had been written as a result of past counselling sessions. Mr. Bailey showed all the memorandums to Petitioner and asked him if he understood them and Petitioner said yes. Petitioner signed all the memorandums in the file. Mr. Bailey explained to Petitioner that if he had a problem, he should speak to Mr. Singletary. Also, Petitioner was told that being disruptive in the plant was bad and could cause operators to do something wrong. Petitioner was told that any further acts of a disciplinary nature would result in immediate termination. Approximately one month later, Mr. Bailey during his walks through the plant, began receiving reports that Petitioner was disgruntled, was complaining to other employees about the work he had to do, and was slow in completing work assignments. Reportedly, Petitioner would accuse the operators of breaking the machines on purpose. Mr. Bailey spoke with Petitioner informally during walks through the plant and told Petitioner to stop being disruptive. However, the number of people complaining about Petitioner's comments increased and things reached a point where operators told Mr. Bailey and Mr. Singletary that they did not want to turn in work orders because they were concerned about the comments Petitioner would make. Mr. Bailey, concerned with plant safety, consulted with Mr. Singletary and they decided that they had enough and would terminate Petitioner. On September 20, 1985, Mr. Singletary and Mr. Sauer, the personnel officer, met with Petitioner and explained to Petitioner that he was being terminated. The reasons given to Petitioner for his termination were poor performance, attitude and not being a team player.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5570 The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1. Accepted. RO1. 2. Rejected as irrelevant. 3. Generally accepted. RO3. 4. Accepted, except events occurred in October. RO4. 5. Accepted. RO8. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. RO17. 8. First sentence accepted. RO19. Second sentence rejected. Mr. Singletary testified that he followed up and determined that the complaints were accurate. 9. Accepted, except for phrase "although no additional acts of a disciplinary nature had occurred", which is rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. RO21. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph First sentence accepted. RO2. Second sentence rejected; no evidence was presented about when PCR, Inc. was sold. Generally accepted. RO2. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. RO1 and 3. First four sentences accepted. RO6. Last two sentences are supported by competent evidence but are unnecessary to the decision reached. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted generally. RO5. 8-12. Accepted generally. RO6. 13-20. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted generally. RO4. Accepted, except last sentence which is rejected. RO5. Accepted, except second sentence. RO7. Second sentence rejected as not supported by competent evidence. 24-25. Accepted. RO9. Accepted. RO10,11. First sentence accepted. RO12. Rest of paragraph is supported by competent evidence but is unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted generally. RO14,15. Accepted. RO16. Accepted. RO17. Generally accepted. RO18. Generally accepted. RO18. Generally accepted. RO20. Generally accepted. RO18. Generally accepted. RO19. Accepted. RO20. Accepted. RO21. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as not a finding of fact, but a recitation of testimony. Not a finding of fact. See conclusions of law portion of the RO. Supported by competent evidence. 42-43. Not a finding of fact. See conclusions of law portion of the RO. COPIES FURNISHED: Reese Marshall, Esquire 210 West Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 T. Geoffrey Heekin, Esquire Commander, Legler, Werber, Dawes, Sadler & Howell Post Office Box 240 Jacksonville, Florida 32201-0240 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Ms. Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 240, Building F 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race and sex, and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for making complaints of discriminatory treatment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent JATC is an apprenticeship program which provides training to persons who desire to become journeymen electricians. JATC is supervised by the United States Department of Labor and a corresponding State of Florida governmental agency. JATC is based in Gainesville, Florida, and is headed by a six-member committee of three contractor representatives appointed by the area's National Electrical Contractors Association and three labor union representatives appointed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1205. The committee decides disciplinary actions and policy matters involving apprentices. The committee employs a director. JATC's geographical jurisdiction is bounded at Wildwood, Florida, on the south to the St. John's River on the east, cutting across west of Jacksonville through Tallahassee and Panama City, Florida, to the west, and includes three counties in Georgia to the north. An advisory subcommittee deals with routine matters in and for the Tallahassee area, and a similar advisory subcommittee handles routine matters in and for the Panama City area. For matters which are not considered routine and require final action, the subcommittees refer the matters to the full committee at the Gainesville headquarters. JATC does not have actual offices in Tallahassee or Panama City, but utilizes the union halls for the subcommittees' activities. Persons desiring to become journeymen electricians apply to JATC to enter the apprenticeship program and, if selected for the program, are required to enter into an apprenticeship agreement with JATC. In order to complete the program, a person must complete 8,000 hours of on-the-job training, complete 144 hours per year of classroom training, and pass various tests. The apprenticeship program was originally designed as a five-year program, but JATC has condensed the classroom work and the on-the-job training to four years with no summer vacations. JATC is responsible for the selection, placement, and training of the apprentices as work is available. JATC does not employ apprentices. It refers apprentices for employment to participating electrical contractors for positions which provide wages and on-the-job training within JATC's geographical jurisdiction. When a participating contractor needs to hire electrician apprentices, the contractor contacts JATC. In turn, JATC contacts the requested number of apprentices and refers them to the contractor for possible hiring. The decision to hire an apprentice is made by the contractor, who also determines whether to terminate or layoff an apprentice. The duties of the apprentice on the work site are assigned by the contractor and may include such tasks as carrying trash and digging ditches. The policies and standards of JATC do not require an apprentice to be under constant supervision on job sites. Apprentices are provided direct supervision, which allows them the opportunity to have direction from persons who are knowledgeable in the type of work that is being performed by the apprentices. Opportunities for on-the-job training depend on the needs of the contractors. Jobs can last anywhere from two days to four years, and depend on the amount of building construction in the area at any given time. Due to the fluctuation in the number of jobs available in the various areas within JATC's jurisdiction, apprentices have been referred to and have worked on jobs in areas within JATC's geographical jurisdiction that are away from the apprentices' residences. Johnson, a black female, entered into an apprenticeship program with JATC in August 1998. She signed an Apprenticeship Agreement, sometimes referred to as an "Indenture," in which she agreed "diligently and faithfully to perform the work of said trade during the period of apprenticeship, in accordance with the registered standards of [JATC]." The Policy Statements of JATC govern the conduct of the apprentices. Johnson received copies of each Policy Statement in effect during the time that she participated in the apprenticeship program. She signed statements acknowledging that she had read, understood, and would comply with the Policy Statements. The Policy Statements provided: "Violations of J.A.T.C. rules and policy may lead to or result in termination of indenture or other action deemed appropriate by J.A.T.C." Johnson was interviewed and accepted for the first JATC class in Tallahassee. During the interviews of apprentices for the first Tallahassee class, the candidates were specifically asked whether they would be able to travel to other cities for work, away from where they normally resided. During her interview, Johnson did not indicate any problems or difficulty with traveling to work in areas away from her Tallahassee home. On October 16, 1998, Johnson was issued a Notice of Termination from Miller Electric Co. (Miller). She had been employed by Miller on referral from JATC. The reason given on the notice was that Johnson had resigned; however, JATC had actually pulled Johnson away from the job because it understood that Miller was going to terminate Johnson. JATC felt that Johnson had potential as an apprentice so she was referred to another contractor, Raytheon Constructors, Inc. (Raytheon) which had an opening for an apprentice. On March 12, 1999, Raytheon issued a Termination Notice to Johnson, terminating her employment for "failure to meet job site requirement," and indicating that she was not eligible for rehire with Raytheon. Johnson had failed a drug test. Johnson informed JATC of the situation with Raytheon. The Director of JATC advised her to present a clean drug test, which she did. Although the Policy Statements provided that Johnson could be disciplined for being terminated and receiving a "not for rehire," she was not disciplined. She was referred for more job assignments. By letter dated December 17, 1999, Johnson complained to the Director of JATC that she was not being given work when work was available. She requested that JATC force her former employer, Hartsfield Electric, to reemploy her, even though she complained that when she worked for Hartsfield that she was given "the hardest and dirtiest jobs they had." She concluded her letter by stating: "I will do what ever it takes to stay in this program, but I won't leave Tallahassee to do so." Johnson resided in Tallahassee and was unwilling to take assignments outside the Tallahassee area. When the Director of JATC received the December 17, 1999, letter from Johnson, he investigated her allegations, including her work assignments with Hartsfield. He determined that Johnson's assignments were within the duties of an apprentice and, although some of the tasks may have been "crappy work," that was part of being an apprentice. Hartsfield was not satisfied with Johnson's work and was unwilling to rehire her. Johnson received an "unsatisfactory job performance" evaluation from Atkins Electric Co. for the period April 13, 1999, to May 7, 1999. Because of her prior job performance, participating Tallahassee contractors were refusing to hire Johnson. JATC continued to accommodate Johnson's desire not to work outside the Tallahassee area. When a new contractor who did not have previous experience with Johnson would come to Tallahassee, JATC would refer Johnson to that contractor. Apparently Hartsfield changed its position and rehired Johnson at some point, because on May 15, 2000, Hartsfield gave Johnson a Notice of Termination. The notice cited lack of production, the need for constant supervision, and tardiness as the reasons for termination. The notice also indicated that Johnson was not eligible for rehire. The JATC Policy Statements provided that an apprentice who was terminated from a job or received a "not-for-hire" was to appear before the committee to discuss the termination before any disciplinary action would be taken. The Policy Statements also provided that the apprentice would not be reassigned to any job until JATC reviewed the termination. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee, who referred the termination issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was issued a notice to appear before the Gainesville committee. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson for the termination. The committee gave her the option of going to another location to find employment and, when work became available in Tallahassee, being sent back to Tallahassee to work. By letter dated August 9, 2000, Hartsfield wrote to the Local Union 1205, requesting that Johnson not be referred to Hartsfield and giving as reasons that Johnson did not follow orders well, was not dependable, and was irresponsible. On November 3, 2000, JATC notified Johnson to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee for absenteeism from class. The class attendance sheets showed that Johnson had been absent from class three times from August to October 2000. No disciplinary action was taken against Johnson because of her absences. Around November 16, 2000, the Director got Johnson hired by a new participating contractor in Tallahassee. Johnson was terminated by that contractor for having a bad attitude. The contractor would not rehire Johnson. Johnson appeared before the subcommittee and requested that she be allowed to come up with a plan in which she would wire her home and those hours working on her home would be counted towards her required on-the-job training hours. The Director told her to put the plan in writing so that it could be presented to the committee. Johnson failed to prepare a written plan. After being on the job with Miller Electric for 28 days, Johnson received a poor performance evaluation on March 3, 2001. The evaluation indicated that Johnson needed improvement in her work habits, needed constant supervision, stood around and showed little interest in her job, was resentful and uncooperative, and had very little mechanical aptitude. Johnson was noticed to appear before the Tallahassee subcommittee concerning her poor evaluation. The subcommittee referred the issue to the committee in Gainesville. Johnson was notified to appear before the committee in Gainesville, which she did on March 27, 2001. She told the committee that she was getting mixed feelings on what she was expected to do on the job. The committee explained in great detail what was expected of her. Johnson acknowledged that she understood. The committee placed her on one-year probation and advised her in writing that "any further infraction to the policy statement could mean your immediate termination." Johnson filed an appeal of the action placing her on probation. The Director investigated her claims and spoke to anyone he could find on the job site in question. He interviewed the supervisors, who had been on the job with Johnson. Johnson was given the opportunity to provide the committee with the names of witnesses who could support her claim that she should have been given a better evaluation and any other information that she had concerning the performance evaluation. At the April 24, 2001, meeting of the Gainesville committee, the Director advised that he had statements from some of the people he interviewed. Johnson had not supplied the committee with any additional information. Having received no information from Johnson, the committee denied her appeal. On two occasions, Johnson told the Director that she believed the Tallahassee contractors were discriminating against her. On each occasion, the Director investigated her claims, interviewed individuals on the job site, and interviewed Johnson. Based on his investigation, he was unable to conclude that she had been discriminated against. Electricians in North Florida or Tallahassee cannot make a living by limiting their job opportunities to the towns in which they live. The supply of workers is greater than the demand for labor. After Johnson was put on probation, JATC continued to have difficulty finding any contractors in Tallahassee who would hire Johnson. The Director offered her referrals wherever work was available, such as Panama City, Gainesville, and Palatka. She refused the offers, and stated that she would not leave Tallahassee. Around August 7, 2001, JATC committee member and assistant business manager for IBEW Local 1205, Tommy Ward, attempted to contact Johnson by telephone to provide her referrals for on-the-job training work. He continued to attempt to contact her two times by telephone during the following week. Several referrals for jobs were available at that time. On August 13, 2001, Mr. Ward learned that Johnson had changed and updated her address and telephone number. He attempted twice to contact her using her new telephone number. He was unsuccessful, but he left messages for her to contact him. Johnson failed to return Mr. Ward's calls, so he sent her a certified letter dated August 15, 2001, advising her that he had been trying to reach her. She signed for the receipt of the letter on August 18, 2001. He continued to attempt to contact her by telephone after he sent the letter. From August 9, 2001, through September 5, 2001, Mr. Ward attempted to contact Johnson at least ten times, but was unsuccessful. The Policy Statements require that one unexcused absence from class in any semester may result in apprentices being terminated from the program. Johnson had been absent from class two times in August 2001. A certified letter dated September 10, 2001, was sent to Johnson by JATC notifying her that action would be taken at the September 25, 2001, Gainesville committee meeting to terminate her from her indenture with the apprenticeship program for failure to attend classroom training and failure to respond to work assignments. The letter was unclaimed, and the postal service returned the letter to JATC after the September 25, 2001, meeting. The committee was advised that Johnson had called the Interim Apprenticeship Director the day of the meeting, asking for the telephone number for Mr. Ward. Unaware that Johnson had not received the notice of the committee meeting, the committee voted to terminate Johnson from the apprenticeship program. By letter dated October 23, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that the committee had voted to terminate her from the program. The Policy Statements of JATC provide procedures for appealing actions of the committee. The procedure is as follows: APPEAL PROCEDURE If an apprentice feels that he or she has been treated unfairly or canceled without due course, he or she may file an appeal within ten (10) days of receipt of notice of the committee's action. This complaint shall be in writing and signed by the apprentice and shall include his/her name. No reinstatement shall be considered unless a written appeal is received within ten (10) days after receiving cancellation notice from the J.A.T.C. The Policy Statements also require that when an apprentice requests to appear before the committee, the apprentice has the responsibility to make certain that he or she is available at the time assigned by the committee. Johnson appealed the committee's decision to terminate her from the program. By letter dated December 21, 2001, JATC notified Johnson that her appeal would be heard at the Gainesville committee meeting scheduled for January 22, 2002. Johnson advised the committee that she would not be able to attend the January 22 meeting because her house had burned. JATC notified Johnson by letter dated February 13, 2002, that she could present her appeal to the committee at its meeting on February 26, 2002. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to appear at the February meeting. The committee notified her that it would consider her appeal at the March 26, 2002, meeting. Johnson received notice of the meeting, but failed to attend the March meeting. JATC took no further action on her appeal after her failure to appear. Johnson claims that the younger white males in the program were treated differently than she. The only person that she could recall was Mark Hoffman, whom she asserted was absent more than she and was not disciplined for his absences. As revealed by the records of JATC, Mr. Hoffman was terminated from the program in December 2001 for a failing average for the year and for absenteeism. At least three males had been terminated from the program for absenteeism before Johnson was terminated. Johnson also claims that she was treated differently than the younger white males on the job site because she was given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. All apprentices are given tasks such as cleaning up the work site and digging ditches. It is part of the job. When a person progresses from an apprentice to a journeyman, the person is still expected to do work such as cleaning up the site and digging ditches. The evidence does not support Johnson's claim that she was treated differently in the duties that she was being given on the work site. Johnson was involved in an automobile accident in September 1999. As a result, she suffered a torn rotator cuff, which required surgical repair. Johnson brought suit against the other driver in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County, Florida, Carol Johnson vs. Kone, Inc., and Kirk Kyle Pope, Case No. 01-CA-2412. Her deposition was taken in that case on June 10, 2002. In her deposition, Johnson was asked the following questions and gave the following answers: Q. And I am asking you, okay, do you think, do you think that you would be an electrician today if you didn't have the shoulder problem? A. Yes. Q. Okay, and why do you say that? A. Because eventually I will have to find another career. I have waited all my life to do work in construction. I finally found a job that I like and now I can't, I wouldn't be able to do it much longer. Q. Well, what, why don't you think you are going to be able to continue in your chosen field as an electrician or apprentice or helper? A. Because the pills, the pain pills I take they make me sleepy. They make me tired. I can, I can't get up and do like I used to, so eventually I will have to find a desk job. I won't even probably be able to go back to agriculture because you have to be able to work in the field. I will have to find another career. Part of the duties of an electrician, apprentice, or journeyman, includes being able to lift and carry over 50 pounds and having good motion ability. Johnson admits that during her apprenticeship and as of the final hearing that she had a physical disability that affected her ability to perform in the apprenticeship program. She stated that she would be slowed down in her work, and she would not be able to pick up and handle heavy things like she could do prior to her accident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee did not discriminate against Carol D. Johnson based on race or sex and did not retaliate against her for making complaints of discrimination, dismissing her petition, and denying Gainesville Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee's request for attorney fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 12th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul A. Donnelly, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Laura A. Gross, Esquire Donnelly & Gross Post Office Box 1308 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1308 Carol D. Johnson 1420 North Meridian Road, Suite 108 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact David F. Ramsey, Respondent, is a registered professional engineer holding registration No. 15307 and a registered land surveyor holding registration No. 2545 and at all times relevant hereto he was so registered. In April 1974 Respondent was President and qualifying professional engineer for Ramsey and Associates, Inc. , the engineering firm retained to prepare plans and specifications for a mobile home park known as Heritage Village. Approved financing for this project was near expiration date and the plans had not been approved by Indian River County officials. Before the plans for the sewage treatment plant and percolation pond associated therewith could he approved, a subsoil percolation test was required. On April 24, 1974, Respondent, in company with Larry Brown, General Manager of Brown Testing Laboratory, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ramsey and Associates, Inc., proceeded to the site of the Heritage Village project. There five test holes were dug to obtain subsoil conditions and prepare Subdivision Analysis Form (Exhibit l) for submission to Indian River County so the plans could be approved. No hole was dug deeper than 3.2 feet. Brown testified only a posthole digger was available for digging while Respondent recalled a hand auger also being available. Since Brown did the digging, his memory may be the better. During the procedure, Respondent took notes as the holes were excavated. Hardpan was found 2-1/2 to 3 feet below the surface, but the thickness of this hardpan was not ascertained. No water was put in the holes to ascertain the percolation rate for the subsoil. After the testing was completed, Respondent and Brown retired to the Holiday Inn for lunch where Respondent prepared page 4 of Exhibit 1, which is titled "Survey of Subsoil Conditions". Thereon for the 5 holes reported he included the percolation time for water in the test holes to drop one inch. These figures were estimated by Respondent based upon the type of soil observed in the holes. These figures were certified by Respondent to be representative of existing subsoil conditions at the time the test was made. It is this certification, which was submitted to Indian River County to get the plans approved, which forms the basis for the charge here under consideration. While Respondent was under investigation, and after being fully advised of his rights, he told an investigator that he had estimated the percolation rates because no water was available in the vicinity and submission of the subsoil report was urgent due to the financing deadline. In his defense, Respondent did not deny the percolation figures submitted on Exhibit 1 were estimates rather than the measurements they purported to be, but contended that the percolation rates and subsoil conditions shown on Exhibit 1 accurately represent conditions as they existed. Evidence to support this position was included in the tests conducted and reported in Exhibit 3. Standard procedure for taking percolation tests is to fill the hole with water and observe the time it takes the water level to drop three inches. It is also standard to dig a 6-foot deep hole. Here it was testified that hardpan prevented the hole depth from exceeding 3.2 feet. However, when a proper test was made shortly before the hearing, no difficulty was encountered getting to a depth of 6 feet using a hand auger. It is difficult to dig deeper than about 3 feet with a posthole digger.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioners based on their race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2006) ("Florida Civil Rights Act").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: All Petitioners are African-American males; all were employed by Respondent. Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were discharged on September 20, 2006. Petitioner Cole was laid off on August 25, 2006. Respondent, Solid Wall Systems, Inc., is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act; it constructs cast-in- place solid concrete wall structures for the production home industry. This construction methodology is typically employed in large residential developments, and the construction "critical path" requires timely completion of each construction progression. For example, if walls are not timely completed, roof truss installation will be delayed, erection equipment will be idle, follow-up subcontractors are delayed, and money is lost. Petitioner, Ralph Alexander, was employed by Respondent in July 2004, as a laborer, being paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, he was a leadman being paid $14.00 per hour. Petitioner, Stevie Daniels, was employed by Respondent in March 2004, as a laborer, being paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, he was a leadman being paid $13.00 per hour. Petitioner, Ernest West, Jr., was employed by Respondent in October 2004, as a laborer and paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises during the next several years. At his discharge, he was being paid $11.00 per hour. Petitioner, Carlos Cole, was hired in September 2003, as a yard helper with Space Coast Truss, a subsidiary of Respondent's corporate owner, being paid $6.50 per hour. In October 2003, he was transferred to Respondent and received $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, on August 25, 2006, he had been promoted to leadman and was being paid $15.00 per hour, but was working as a laborer. On September 11, 15 and 19, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were "written-up." That is, they were disciplined for failing to follow the specific instructions of supervisors. On September 11, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were on a "stripping" crew working at Wedgefield in East Orange County. Alexander was advised that the job had to be completed that day, because trusses were scheduled to be installed the following day. Notwithstanding direction to the contrary, the crew left the job without completing the stripping. The time cards of Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West indicate that these Petitioners "clocked-out" at between 5:24 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. It is between 30 and 45 minutes from the job site and Respondent's yard. Petitioners would have spent several additional minutes cleaning up before "clocking- out." Not only did Petitioners fail to complete the job, they left the job site early. Petitioner Ernest West, Jr., had a part-time job working for Space Coast Cleaning, a janitorial service, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The job was located in Viera approximately 15 to 20 minutes from Respondent's yard. September 11, 2006, was a Monday and a work day for West's part-time job. Petitioner West told Respondent's operations manager that they left the job site so that he could get to his part-time job on time. On September 15, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were assigned to strip a multi-unit job site in Titusville. The crew was told to complete the stripping before they left the job site. Time cards indicate that Petitioners "clocked-out" between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Petitioners left the job unfinished, because they thought they would be unable to complete the job that day. On September 19, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were assigned to strip a building at Viera High School. After a building is stripped, crews have standing orders not to leave any "cap" forms on the job site. This is a particular type of form that crews are specifically instructed to return to the main yard immediately after use and re-stock in bins for use on subsequent projects. On this day, Petitioner Alexander called Roy Brock, a field manager, and inquired regarding the "cap" forms. He was instructed to bring all forms to the yard. Brock visited the Viera High School job site after the stripping crew had returned to the yard and found several caps that had been left at the site. He loaded them on his truck and returned them to the yard. As a result of these three incidents, which were deemed acts of insubordination, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were terminated on September 20, 2006. In May, June, and July 2006, the housing construction market suffered a significant decline. This was reflected by Respondent having a profit of $10,000 in May, a profit of $2,000 to $3,000 in June, and a $60,000 loss in July. In August, there was literally "no work." Respondent's employees were being sent home every day because there was no work. As a result of the decline in construction, Vince Heuser, Respondent's operations manager, was directed to lay off employees. Petitioner Cole was among five employees laid off on August 25, 2006. Of the five, three were African-American, one was Caucasian, and one was Hispanic. Seven Hispanic laborers were hired on July 5 and 6, 2006. Respondent had taken over the cast-in-place wall construction portion of two large projects from a subcontractor named "JR." The general contractor/developer, Welch Construction, requested that these seven Hispanic individuals, who had been "JR" employees, and had done all the stripping on these two Welch Construction jobs, be hired to complete the jobs. Hiring these seven individuals to continue to work on the jobs was part of the take-over agreement. In September 2006, three Hispanic laborers were hired. Two were hired to work on "amenity walls" which require a totally different forming process than does the standard solid- wall construction. The third was hired to work on the Welch jobs as he had worked with the "JR" crew previously.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter final orders dismissing the Petitions for Relief for Petitioners Ralph Alexander, Stevie Daniels, Ernest West, Jr., and Carlos Cole. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 31st day of January, 2008. 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 Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire Enrique, Smith and Trent, P.L. 836 Executive Lane, Suite 120 Rockledge, Florida 32955 Chelsie J. Roberts, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801
