The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact Respondent Raymond C. Riddles has been certified as a law enforcement officer since September 1, 1971. He holds certificate number 090171. November 3, 1976 On November 3, 1976, Joseph A. Vi11ar, at the time a policeman with the Pensacola Police Department, arrested respondent Riddles at the wayside park off Gregory Street, near the northern end of Pensacola Bay bridge. In November of 1976, travelers, fishermen and other members of the public regularly made use of the park and the public bathrooms there. The park featured a double picnic table and ten or twelve other picnic tables. The old bridge across Pensacola Bay had been halved, and the park was near the end of one of the halves used as a fishing pier. The park had also gained notoriety as a meeting place of homosexuals: on two nights in 1974 police arrested 18 persons on various charges. On the night of November 3, 1976, Mr. Villar, wearing blue jeans and a pullover to disguise the fact that he was a policeman, entered the men's room in the park, after respondent Riddles called him into the bathroom. In the bathroom, Mr. Riddles beckoned Mr. Villar to a stall and, from the adjoining stall, asked if he wanted to "fool around." The partition between the toilet stalls had been to some extent removed; Villar's view of Riddles was unimpeded. Riddles first addressed Villar with his back to him, then turned around, penis in hand, continuing to masturbate. At this point, Mr. Villar placed him under arrest. Eventually Mr. Riddles stood trial on charges arising out of the incident, and was found guilty of lewd and lascivious behavior in a public place. September 12, 1984 In September of 1964, complaints that men were romping through the woods in various states of undress at a place called the Old Chimney, an abandoned steam plant site near the Scenic Highway, reached the Pensacola Police Department. As a result, on September 12, 1984, Jim Leath, a supervisor with the Pensacola Police Department, in charge of the vice unit, visited the site. Numerous persons of various sexual persuasions had come to use the area as a park. Vehicles were parked along the road, including one in which Mr. Leath spotted a Florida Highway Patrolman Auxiliary cap. Walking down a footpath, Mr. Leath came to respondent Riddles at about one o'clock in the afternoon. He recognized Mr. Riddles as someone he had seen before and remembered the cap he had noticed through the window behind the back seat in a vehicle parked in the area in which he himself had parked. Mr. Riddles stood next to a tree. A conversation arose between the two men, during which Mr. Riddles rubbed his crotch. Mr. Riddles said that he came to the Old Chimney on a regular basis to meet people, then turned away, withdrew his penis from his trousers and turned back, displaying his semi-erect penis. Only seconds had elapsed when Mr. Riddles heard someone else approach, left off stroking his penis, tucked himself in, and zipped his trousers up. Mr. Leath returned to the parking lot and made a note of the license tag number of the vehicle with the cap. He later determined that the vehicle was registered to Mr. Riddles, and located a photograph of Mr. Riddles. Eventually he obtained a warrant and arrested Mr. Riddles. In due course, Riddles pleaded nolo contendere to lewd and lascivious behavior, and to exposure of sexual organs. He was adjudicated guilty of these offenses and placed on six months' probation, on conditions including that he pay $20 a month and stay out of the area of the Old Chimney.
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that he used his law enforcement badge and credentials to misrepresent himself as acting in a formal law enforcement investigative capacity, when he was actually engaged in a private matter. The Respondent denies any misconduct.
Findings Of Fact Facts stipulated to by the parties Respondent David A. Thomasun (hereafter "Thomasun") holds auxiliary law enforcement certificate number 01-6739, issued by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 16, 1979, and holds law enforcement certificate number 03-84-002-03, issued by said Commission on November 5, 1984. On June 27, 1988, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Thomasun entered the Broward General Medical Center for the purpose of photographing an individual named Phillip Ambrose, who, unknown to Thomasun at the time, had shortly before been arrested by the Pompano Beach Police Department, and subsequently had been taken to the Medical Center by the Pompano Beach Police for further examination. Thomasun was then an auxiliary special agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, but was not on duty at the time he entered the Medical Center. He had not been authorized or requested by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the Pompano Beach Police Department, or any law enforcement agency to photograph Ambrose for any purpose. Thomasun had been hired by a personal injury attorney to take photographs of Ambrose, who was the attorney's client, at the Medical Center. Thomasun had no reason for being in the Medical Center other than to take said photographs for said attorney. Thomasun approached Pompano Beach Police Officer Scott Winters, who was guarding Ambrose, and after Officer Winters searched his camera bag and his pockets, and viewed other personal identification such as his driver's license, Thomasun displayed to Officer Winters his FDLE auxiliary special agent credentials, consisting of a black leather case containing two identification cards, one with a photograph, and a badge attached and visible on the exterior of the case. Said credentials identified Thomasun as an auxiliary special agent with FDLE. Shortly afterward, Officer Winters left the immediate area to make some telephone calls, without permitting Thomasun to take any photographs of Ambrose. Thomasun then departed without taking any photographs. On the following day, June 28, 1988, Thomasun related his account of the incident of the preceding day to his immediate supervisor, Special Agent Joyce Dawley, and to Assistant Chief of Regional Operations Harry Solowsky and Special Agent Supervisor George Vilardi. Thomasun was terminated from his position as auxiliary special agent with FDLE on June 28, 1988. Facts established by evidence at hearing Thomasun's termination from his position as an auxiliary special agent with FDLE was based on the information gathered by FDLE du ring the course of its investigation of the incident on June 27, 1988, at Broward General Medical Center. 2/ Thomasun's stated purpose for going to the hospital room on June 27, 1988, constituted, by his own admission, a direct conflict of interest with his duties as an auxiliary law enforcement officer. Shortly after realizing that the situation in the hospital room represented a conflict of interest, Thomasun left the hospital room. At all times material to this proceeding, auxiliary special agents of the FDLE were subject to the provisions of Procedural Order 87-2. Section I.C. of that procedural order read as follows: FDLE auxiliary special agents are authorized to function as regular law enforcement officers only during specific tours of duty and investigative situations. When off duty, the auxiliary special agent may only act in the capacity of a private citizen. Auxiliary special agents can only function as regular law enforcement officers when under the direct control and supervision of a full-time special agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Section VI.A.3. of Procedural Order 87-2 read as follows: Although the display of credentials will only be permitted while in an on-duty status in the company of a full-time sworn agent, the auxiliary special agent will be permitted to keep his/her credentials while in off-duty status provided they do not display or attempt to exercise official powers unless in an on-duty status. Thomasun was thoroughly familiar with the above-quoted provisions of Procedural Order 87-2.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether the alcoholic beverage license #23-03711 SRX, Series #4-COP issued to Respondent should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined because the licensee permitted patrons to commit criminal offenses on the licensed premises, including possession, delivery and distribution of controlled substances such as cocaine; because a nuisance is maintained on the licensed premises; or because the premises are a notorious gathering place for those predisposed to deal and deliver controlled substances in violation of Florida law.
Findings Of Fact All Purchase Corp. owns the restaurant and bar known as Flame Steak, located at 216 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida. The establishment holds a Series #4-COP license, #23- 03711 SRX, for the sale of beer, wine and liquor on the premises. The owner of the licensed premises is Mr. Gilberto Rivas. The licensed location consists of a 35 foot glass store front on Lincoln Road. As one enters the restaurant, immediately to the left there are tables, and farther to the left is the kitchen, which contains an open flame grill (hence the name of the establishment). Going deeper into the restaurant, at the end of the kitchen area is a bar with stools. There are more tables in the center of the room, and to the right is a dance floor. At the right rear of the dance floor is a D.J. booth. At the rear left of the establishment is a staircase leading to an upstairs hall, where the men's and women's bathrooms are located. The establishment uses the services of a security guard firm, Columbo Investigations. One guard ordinarily remains at the entrance to check IDs of patrons, and to pat patrons down, to be sure they are not carrying weapons into the establishment. In the year before the emergency suspension, the Miami Beach Police Department responded to 28 calls of incidents at the licensed premises, but none of these calls were for narcotic violations. Another guard is ordinarily stationed in the hall upstairs just in front of the bathrooms. A third guard occasionally roams the establishment. Both the security guards and the bartender are under instructions from Mr. Rivas to immediately remove any patron who breaks the law, especially one who is disorderly, drunken, or otherwise causing a problem. Although the security guard and bartender also testified that Mr. Rivas had instructed them to remove anyone engaging in any illegal activity such as the sale of cocaine, the Hearing Officer is persuaded that the focus of their activities is to remove drunken or disorderly patrons. There is no evidence of any specific program for observing patrons to watch for illegal narcotics transactions. Indeed, the evidence shows a rather casual attitude on the part of security guards to the presence of narcotics, for at one time during the investigation, one of the security guards was smoking marijuana in the men's room. (See, Finding 11, infra.). On another occasion, a DABT officer openly passed a one inch by one inch baggie of cocaine to another officer on the stairs going up to the men's room, which only elicited a wink from the security guard. (See, Finding 16, infra.). Over time, three confidential informants for the City of Miami Beach Police Department told the police that illegal drug transactions were taking place at Flame Steak. Based on these reports, the Department began an undercover investigation, which included agents from the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of the State. The evidence of the reputation of Flame Steak as a location where drugs can be purchased was rather general, but it did serve to explain a legitimate reason for the Police Department and the DABT to have undertaken their investigation. The police did not go to Mr. Rivas with their information before the investigation began. The investigation began on February 18, 1990, and continued through the arrests made at Flame Steak and the suspension of the alcoholic beverage license on Friday, April 6, 1990. Events of February 18, 1990. Miami Beach Police Detective Elicio Zacarias went to Flame Steak with a confidential informant at approximately 12:30 a.m. on February 18, 1990, in an undercover capacity. He spent several hours there, and the confidential informant introduced him to a man, "Eric" and a woman. After meeting Eric, Detective Zacarias asked Eric "how much he could get for $40" as he was standing at the bar. Eric told him to move to a table about 10 feet from the bar. Shortly thereafter Eric returned, and put a one inch by one inch clear plastic baggie of cocaine on the table top next to Detective Zacarias' hand. Detective Zacarias then gave him $40 cash in plain view; Detective Zacarias flicked the baggie to get residue from the top of the baggie down into its bottom in an open manner. Detective Zacarias then made three or four trips to the men's room in order to appear to be snorting the cocaine. He did not pretend to use the drug in the view of anyone in the public areas of the bar; he merely went to the men's room. That same night, Eric introduced Detective Zacarias to the owner of Flame Steak, Mr. Gilberto Rivas. Mr. Rivas is at the location every night. Eric obviously knew Mr. Rivas, and appeared to be familiar with the other people who worked at the bar. Nothing Eric said to Detective Zacarias implied that Mr. Rivas used cocaine, or had ever seen cocaine being passed in the bar, however. Before the bar closed, Detective Zacarias approached Eric for a second time and asked if he could get some more "to go". Eric replied "sure," and went to the front of the establishment to meet with some other person who Detective Zacarias could not see. Eric returned and gave him a similar baggie in a hand- to-hand exchange over the bar during which Detective Zacarias gave Eric $25. Detective Zacarias then left -the bar at about 4:00 a.m. with the two baggies of cocaine. Events of the night of February 24 and 25, 1990. Detective Zacarias returned to the Flame Steak with DABT Investigator Weiner and the confidential informant at approximately 11:00 p.m. on February 24, 1990, in an undercover capacity. The confidential informant introduced Detective Zacarias to a white latin male at the bar, near the staircase to the restrooms. The confidential informant asked that man if he could get something for later, to which the unidentified man replied "I'll take care of you," and told Detective Zacarias and the confidential informant to go up to the men's room. That unidentified man then came to the men's room and in the open part of the men's room sold a similar small baggie of cocaine for $45. Detective Zacarias and the confidential informant then returned to the bar and sat with Agent Weiner. From time to time they would go up to the men's room to appear to be using the cocaine. At about 1:45 a.m. on the morning of February 25, 1990, they made another buy from the same individual. This time the baggie of cocaine was transferred hand-to-hand but below the bar level. Detective Zacarias paid $45 for the cocaine. He left at about 3:00 a.m. Events of March 3, 1990. Detective Zacarias again went to Flame Steak with another undercovered detective, John Quiros on Saturday March 3, 1990. They met the same unidentified white latin male who had sold Detective Zacarias cocaine on two occasions on the night of February 24 and 25, 1990. Detective Zacarias asked him if there was anything available, and was told to go to the men's room. The unidentified latin male removed a baggie from his wallet, which he sold to Detective Zacarias for $30. Detective Zacarias was at the restaurant for approximately 2-3 hours on that occasion. Events of March 16, 1990. Detective Zacarias again went to Flame Steak on Friday, March 16, 1990, at about 10:30 p.m. with Detective Quiros and DABT Investigator Weiner and a female detective for the Miami Beach Police Department, Kelli Reid. The were also in the company of the confidential informant. After they were there almost two hours, Detective Zacarias was introduced to a black female, and he asked her in Spanish if there was "anything available." She replied "for $40 I can get you enough," and Detective Zacarias gave her $40. She went over to a latin male at the bar who took a small baggie, similar to the other baggies in which cocaine had been packaged on prior occasions, from his right rear pocket and gave it to her; she in turn gave it to Detective Zacarias over the table. At about 1:45 a.m. Detective Zacarias asked the same female if she could get more at a lesser price. She then introduced Detective Zacarias to a different white latin male who came to their table from the bar. She told him in Spanish "bring me back for 30" and about 20 minutes later he gave her a baggie which she gave to Detective Zacarias hand- to-hand at waist level containing cocaine. That same morning at about 3:30 a.m. Detective Zacarias asked the black female if he could buy some "to take home." She took Detective Zacarias to the second man again; he took the cocaine from his shirt pocket, and gave it to her for $35. Detective Zacarias held the cocaine in his right hand, examined it, put it in his pocket while he was at a table about five feet from the bar area. That same morning, Detective Zacarias saw a man whom he knew as "Freddie" snorting cocaine in the men's room as Detective Zacarias entered. At about 4:30 a.m. on March 17, 1990, DABT Investigator Weiner was introduced by the confidential informant to a white latin female, "Atricia." Agent Weiner asked Atricia if she could get cocaine, and she left the area where Weiner had been sitting to approach an unidentified latin male. She returned with a message that she could obtain cocaine for $30. Weiner gave her the $30. She left, and when she returned handed Weiner a clear plastic baggie of cocaine. Events of March 24, 1990. Detective Zacarias returned to Flame Steak with Miami Beach Police Detective Reid and DABT Investigator Weiner early in the morning of March 24, 1990, with the confidential informant. After being in the lounge for 45 minutes to an hour, the black female from March 17, 1990, invited Detective Zacarias to sit at her table in the center of the lounge area, near the dance floor. She was with three other women. Detective Zacarias asked her in Spanish if she could find something, she asked "how much?" Detective Zacarias gave her $40. The black female went to a male at the other end of the dance floor and when she returned she gave Detective Zacarias openly in a hand-to-hand fashion a baggie of cocaine over the table. Later they were joined by Eric. Eric had seen the black female purchase the cocaine she recently had given to Detective Zacarias, and asked for a "hit" of the cocaine. Detective Zacarias gave him the baggie and Eric and the black female consumed the cocaine, not openly on the floor of the establishment, but by going to the restrooms. Detective Zacarias had to make the cocaine available to the black female and to Eric in order to maintain his cover. It is common for people who arrange cocaine purchases to be rewarded by being given part of the cocaine they assisted in procuring. On another occasion that night while going to the men's room, Eric asked Detective Zacarias for a hit and Detective Zacarias gave Eric the cocaine in front of the security guard on the second floor landing. Detective Zacarias offered cocaine to the security guard on the second floor landing, who looked directly at it, declined, but did make the comment "it looks good." DABT Investigator Weiner later saw the guard smoking marijuana in the men's room. Later that evening at about 2:00 a.m. Detective Zacarias asked the unidentified black female if she could get more cocaine. She motioned for money and he gave her $40. The black female approached a latin male with a goatee. She gave him the cash and she returned with a clear plastic baggie of cocaine which she delivered to Detective Zacarias hand-to-hand at table level. Thereafter, at about 2:20 a.m., Investigator Weiner met Atricia and negotiated a cocaine purchase for $40. Atricia gave Weiner a baggie of cocaine in an open fashion over the table and he delivered currency to her in the same way. At about 3:45 a.m., after Detective Zacarias had made several trips to the men's room, he asked the black female if he could get some more, and gave her another $40. She then went to a latin female who had been identified as "Isabelle," and while DABT Investigator Weiner saw currency change hands, he did not see Isabelle deliver any cocaine to the black female because of obstruction of his view by people in the bar. The black female returned and delivered cocaine to him in a baggie hand-to- hand, at table level about 10 feet from the bar near the dance floor. Events of March 31, 1990. Detective Zacarias, Detective Reid, and DABT Investigators Weiner and Mesa (a female) went to Flame Steak with a confidential informant at about 12:15 a.m. on March 31, 1990. Investigator Weiner met the white latin male patron, "Frank," who asked Weiner if he "needed anything tonight?" Weiner said "yes," he would start with 1/2 gram. Frank pulled out a clear baggie and sold it to Investigator Weiner for $20. The barmaid then came to the table to take drink orders. Investigator Weiner passed the cocaine over the table to Investigator Mesa as the barmaid was serving the drinks and Mesa returned the cocaine baggie to Weiner. Although this transaction could easily have been seen by the barmaid, the evidence is not persuasive that the barmaid actually saw it. DABT Investigator Weiner negotiated a second cocaine purchase from Frank in the front part of a lounge, paying $20 for the cocaine. It was passed hand-to-hand at waist level. While they were at Flame Steak, Weiner asked Mesa to accompany him upstairs to the restrooms. They passed the security guard at the top of the stairs, where Weiner openly passed the cocaine to Mesa, which elicited the wink from the security guard which has previously been referred to in Finding 2 above. Finally at about 2:30 a.m. on March 31, 1990, Investigator Weiner negotiated his third purchase from Frank. The cocaine was purchased for $20 which was exchanged for cocaine in the same manner as the prior purchases. General Findings Despite the numerous cocaine transactions which the Miami Beach Detectives or the DABT Investigators were able to make with ease from several patrons on the licensed premises, during the entire time of the investigation, no City of Miami Beach Detective or DABT Investigator ever observed any other patrons making drug transactions at any time. Obviously Eric saw the purchase made by Detective Zacarias on March 24, 1990, because he came over and asked for "hits" from the cocaine purchased, see, Finding 11, supra. It is not clear whether the barmaid taking drink orders on March 31, 1990, saw Investigator Weiner pass cocaine to Investigator Mesa. It is clear, however, that on two occasions the security guard at the top of the stairs saw cocaine, once when it was passed from Detective Zacarias to Eric (Finding 11), the second time when it was passed from Investigator Weiner to Investigator Mesa (Finding 16). That security guard also smoked marijuana in the bathroom on the licensed premises (Finding 11). There is no evidence that any drug transactions took place in front of the owner, Mr. Gilberto Rivas. The music played by the D.J. in the bar was so loud that it would be difficult for bartenders or barmaids to overhear conversations among patrons not in close proximity to those employees. No person who sold or procured the sale of cocaine ever made any statement which could be construed as an indication that Mr. Rivas, or any bartender or barmaid knew that illegal drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. On the other hand, the security guards, who may nominally be independent contractors, but who are under the direction and control of the owner, Mr. Rivas, saw, knew about, and participated (through smoking marijuana) in the use of controlled substances on the licensed premises. No security guard called the police or asked any persons he saw with cocaine to leave the premises. Mr. Gilberto Rivas did not take any special precautions to prevent or detect drug activity on the premises. He did tell the employees to remove anyone whom they may see involved in drug activities. Mr. Gilberto Rivas had no actual knowledge that drug transactions were taking place on the licensed premises. He opposes drug trafficking, and he has not knowingly permitted the sale of drugs at the restaurant. He has even thrown people out of the establishment if he suspected that they were involved in drug- related activities. The majority of the cocaine sale transactions took place in plain view on the licensed premises. The sales did not take place only in closed toilet stalls in one of the restrooms, but in the open part of the restroom, and more importantly, at the bar or at tables in the restaurant. The number of people at the premises did make watching drug transactions somewhat difficult. For example, on several occasions the detectives or investigators had their views obstructed, so that the could not view both the exchange of currency and the delivery of cocaine to persons who purchased drugs for them. Nonetheless, in view of the number of drug buys that were made over a relatively brief period of time, and the remarkable ease with which apparently innocuous inquiries about whether "something was available" were immediately recognized by bar patrons as request to purchase cocaine, and the very brief periods of time in which sales were consummated, there was a sufficiently persistent pattern of open drug activity that the problem should have been noticed by a reasonably diligent licensee. Mr. Rivas focused his attention on patrons who became rowdy, drunk, or would not pay their bills, and failed to take reasonable efforts to discover or prevent drug transactions on the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that All Purchase Corp. d/b/a Flame Steak be found guilty of violation of the beverage laws by permitting patrons to violate the laws of Florida on the licensed premises through the use of cocaine and marijuana, and by maintaining a nuisance on the licensed premises because cocaine was used and sold and marijuana was used on the premises, in violation of Sections 561.29(1)(a) and (c), 823.10 and 893.13(2)(a)5. Florida Statutes. As a result, the beverage license should not be revoked, but should be suspended for a period of 60 days, and an administrative fine of $2,000 should be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-2189 Rulings on proposals made by the Respondent: 1. Adopted in Finding 1. and 3. Accepted, passim. Adopted in Findings 4-6, except that the amount of cocaine sold in each instance was not proven to be 1/2 gram, but from viewing it, it appear to have been approximately 1/2 gram. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Findings 9 and 10, except that the packets were approximately 1 to 1 1/2 inches square, not 1/2 inches square. Adopted in Finding 11, except that the transfer of the cocaine was not done in a concealed manner, because Eric saw it. In addition, the evidence supports the inference that the security guard was either employed by the restaurant, or was under the direct supervision and control of Mr. Rivas. Covered in Findings 14-17. Adopted in Finding 18. Accepted as to Mr. Rivas, the bartender, and the barmaids, but rejected with respect to the security guard. Accepted, see, Finding 2. Rejected because there had been 28 calls, not 4 or 5 calls to the Miami Beach Police Department. Discussed in Findings 19-22. Rulings on proposals made by the Department: Covered in Finding 1. Covered in Finding 3, in a general manner as to the impetus for the investigation. The events of each of the nights is separately explained in the Recommended Order. and 4. Rejected as unnecessary; the material purchased was cocaine. To the extent appropriate, covered in Finding 3. While the printout Sergeant Hunker offered was not admitted, his testimony established the number of police calls to the bar. Separately covered in the Findings relating to the nights of March 16 and 31, 1990. Rejected as unnecessary. Gilberto Rivas had very little useful information in his testimony, due to his limited work at the bar. Adopted in Findings 19 and 22. Generally accepted as it relates to the duties of the security guards at the premises and the instructions from Mr. Rivas. The Notice to Show Cause raises no issue with respect to sales to underaged drinkers, so no findings on that subject have been made. Generally rejected because the testimony of Mr. Rivas was rather confusing, no doubt in great part because of the difficulty in translation. Findings with respect to the time Mr. Rivas spends at the location and what he told his employees are made in Findings 5 and 19-22. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Yale L. Galanter, Esquire Beverly Myrberg, Esquire 2800 Biscayne Boulevard 9th Floor Miami, Florida 33137 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
The Issue Whether Respondent, a dentist, committed the offenses alleged in the second amended administrative complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. References to Petitioner in this Recommended Order include the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, which regulated the practice of dentistry prior to the creation of AHCA. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0005929. Respondent's main area of practice is general dentistry. Respondent's last known address is his residence at 1205 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida 33139. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent lived at that address with his wife, Lisa Iver. Cocaine is a highly addictive central nervous system stimulant. Benzodiazepines, such as Valium and oxazepam, are central nervous system depressants that have the opposite effect of cocaine on the central nervous system. The usage of these two types of drugs by a cocaine user with medical knowledge may act to balance the visible and medically detectable effects of cocaine on the central nervous system. Since at least 1988, Respondent has been a cocaine addict. Various toxicology tests have reflected that he has taken a form of benzodiazepine following cocaine use. There are several factors that have worked to make Respondent's recovery more difficult. He has experienced severe marital problems, his mother was an alcoholic, and wife is also chemically dependent. The addiction recovery of one spouse directly affects the addiction recovery of the other. If one spouse falls off the wagon, the other spouse is very likely to fall out of recovery. The Physician's Recovery Network (PRN) is an independent program for monitoring certain impaired professionals, including dentists. PRN requires individuals to be evaluated and enter drug treatment, if appropriate, pursuant to a written agreement with the impaired practitioner. The PRN conducts random drug screens and provides for the exchange of information between the treatment programs, PRN, and the Petitioner for the protection of the public. The advocacy of PRN is designed to protect practitioners who have been offered the opportunity to receive care instead of discipline. The PRN program is confidential and not subject to public scrutiny. THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - 1988 On or about March 12, 1988, Respondent was arrested as a result of a shooting incident involving his wife. Respondent was transported to South Miami Hospital due to his alleged cocaine abuse. Respondent was admitted to South Miami Hospital for substance abuse evaluation and treatment. During his evaluation and treatment at South Miami-Hospital, Respondent claimed a prior sedative overdose which required hospitalization at Mount Sinai Medical Center, allegedly due to his wife spiking his drink. During his evaluation and treatment, Respondent admitted to prior sporadic use of intra-nasal cocaine. Respondent also admitted to previously free basingcocaine, experiencing paranoia, and having other reactions from cocaine. Respondent refused a nasal examination. Detoxification was required and Respondent was diagnosed as possibly being addicted to cocaine. Respondent left South Miami Hospital against medical advice on March 15, 1988, two days after being admitted. Respondent was readmitted to South Miami Hospital on April 11, 1988. As a result of Dr. Iver's arrest in March 1988, and the recommendations of the doctors who evaluated him, the PRN was contacted. Respondent signed a Chemical DependencyContract with the PRN on or about May 23, 1988. On or about June 26, 1990, Respondent signed a Chemical Dependency Contract extending his monitoring for an additional three (3) years. On or about June 26, 1993, Respondent completed his PRN contract. AFTER THE FIRST PRN CONTRACT - SEPTEMBER 1993 On September 21, 1993, the PRN received multiple telephone calls from Ms. Iver stating Respondent was using "free base" cocaine. She later retracted this story and stated that she had spiked his food. On that date, Mrs. Iver filed a domestic violence complaint (#93-33887) against Respondent with the Miami Beach Police Department. An assault rifle, and other gun-related items were taken into custody by the police. The offense report states that the attack by Respondent on his wife was a result of an argument regarding his "narcotic use." The PRN ordered Respondent to submit to a professional evaluation. On September 24, 1993, Respondent was admitted to Mount Sinai Hospital for an inpatient evaluation. Dr. John Eustace was the evaluating physician. Dr. Eustace is board certified by the American Society of Addiction Medicine and is the medical director of the addiction treatment program at Mount Sinai. During that evaluation, Respondent tested positive for oxazepam and cocaine. As a result of the inpatient evaluation, Dr. Eustace formed the opinion that Respondent was in relapse and recommended that Respondent sign a chemical dependency contract with PRN and that he refrain from practicing dentistry until he had entered a recovery life-style. Dr. Eustace used the term "relapse" without regard to whether the ingestion was voluntary or involuntary. Dr. Eustace was of the opinion that Respondent did not have an adequate recovery program in September 1993 because he was no longer involved in the PRN monitoring program, he was not attending or actively involved in the twelve step program for recovering addicts. During the evaluation, Respondent admitted responsibility for having an inadequate recovery program. Dr. Eustace's diagnosis on Respondent's discharge were as follows: Chemical dependency, inactive by history. Chemical dependency relapse behaviors, active. Obsessive compulsive traits. Adult child of alcoholic mother. Co-dependent behavior. Dr. Eustace's specific recommendations for Respondent pertinent to this proceeding, made at a time Respondent and his wife were contemplating divorce and before she entered a treatment program, were as follows: Reinstitute a program of total abstinence. Enter into a second PRN contract with the length of time to be determined by the PRN staff. Recruit a home group of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or Narcotics Anonymous (NA). Recruit a sponsor for the purpose of working the twelve steps. Attend ninety meetings of AA or NA within the next ninety days. Detach from his office practice until his drug screen had cleared and he had entered a life- style of recovery. Detach emotionally and physically form his wife. Turn all further matters concerning his divorce over to his attorney. Obtain a personal physician to avoid self- medication. Begin a professional relationship with a therapist knowledgeable about the adult child of an alcoholic syndrome, knowledgeable about the disease of addiction, and knowledgeable about co-dependency treatment. PRN, based largely on Dr. Eustace's evaluation, recommended that Respondent enter into a new contract for monitoring and to continue treatment. Respondent refused to sign a new contract. On or about December 16, 1993, PRN forwarded a letter of complaint to Petitioner. Dr. Roger Goetz, Director of PRN, noted that Respondent had a urinalysis which contained metabolites of cocaine and benzodiazepines and that Respondent refused to voluntarily enter PRN. No further action was taken against the Respondent at that time. JULY AND AUGUST 1994 On or about July 7, 1994, PRN informed Petitioner it had information from a confidential informant that Respondent was free basing cocaine. The allegations stated that Respondent appeared to be "coked" up and failed to show up at his dental office. Dr. Goetz, Director of PRN, believed that intervention might be possible through a Miami affiliate. On July 7, 1994, Dr. Jules Trop, a doctor with the Miami affiliate of PRN, evaluated Respondent. Respondent denied any drug use but refused to submit a urine sample for drug testing. Dr. Trop observed Respondent's appearance to be disheveled and his speech pattern strained. Dr. Trop expressed the opinion that Respondent was in need of professional help. On or about July 26, 1994, the Agency was informed by PRN that Respondent refused intervention by PRN. As a result of the foregoing, an Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was ordered by the Agency on August 15, 1994. The evaluation pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination was conducted a week after the Order was served upon Respondent. On August 23, 1994, Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, a psychiatrist, evaluated Respondent pursuant to the Order Compelling Physical and Mental Examination. Dr. Steiner formed the opinion that Respondent presented characteristics of an addict in denial and was a potential risk to his patients. Dr. Steiner believed that objective monitoring was the only reliable way to ascertain the continued sobriety of Respondent. Respondent admitted to Dr. Steiner that he had used drugs in the past. He further admitted that he was an addict. JULY AND AUGUST 1995 On July 28, 1995, police officers from the City of Miami Beach Police Department were called to the Iver residence in response to a 911 call. Upon arrival the officers observed drug paraphernalia commonly associated with free basing cocaine in the bedroom shared by Dr. and Mrs. Iver. Respondent had been free basing cocaine prior to the arrival of the police. The officers confiscated the paraphernalia, but took no further action against Respondent that evening. On Wednesday, August 2, 1995, at approximately 8:38 p.m., police officers with the City of Miami Beach Police Department were dispatched to the Iver residence because Mrs. Lisa Iver called 911 stating that her husband Robert Iver had overdosed on cocaine. The 911 tape reveals a voice in the background making a loud verbal noise. According to the incident report prepared by the Miami Beach Police Department, Ms. Iver told the police officers who came to the Iver residence in response to the 911 call that the Respondent had gone crazy and was out of control due to free-basing cocaine. Accompanied by professionals from the City of Miami Beach Fire and Rescue Unit, the police officers entered the Iver residence and found Respondent naked and covered in blood. Additionally, the police discovered broken glass along with a cocaine pipe, propane torch, a glass beaker, and a can that had been altered to accommodate the smoking of crack cocaine. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker are items or devices commonly associated with free basing cocaine and are similar to the items removed from the house on July 28, 1995. Respondent indicated to the police officers at the scene that he had been free-basing cocaine and stated that he had taken a "hit" off the pipe and then thought he was being attacked by three men. According to the Miami Beach Police Department incident report, Mrs. Iver stated that Respondent had been smoking a lot of cocaine and then requested that she sodomize him with a sexual apparatus. Upon refusing, he began punching her in the chest and kicking her. He also pulled her across the floor by her hair. Ms. Iver had physical injuries that were consistent with the reported abuse by Respondent. Respondent was arrested for battery as a result of this incident. During this police investigation, Mrs. Iver was wearing a bandage on her chin and had two (2) broken teeth. Mrs. Iver stated that the observed injuries were a result of her husband, Respondent, punching her two days earlier, on Monday, July 31, 1995 after an argument regarding Respondent's drug abuse. A police photographer was called to the scene by Officer Hochstadt. Color photographs of Dr. and Mrs. Iver and of the scene were taken by the crime scene technician. The photographer's report listed the investigation as a possible attempted suicide. The cocaine pipe, propane torch, and glass beaker were taken into custody by the police. Respondent was transported by the Fire and Rescue Unit to Jackson Memorial Hospital emergency room for treatment. The States Attorney's Office charged Respondent with two counts of misdemeanor battery and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia based on the events of August 2, 1995. On or about October 17, 1995, Robert Iver was found guilty of one count of use, possession, manufacture, delivery, or advertisement of drug paraphernalia, and one count battery, after pleading nolo contendre to each charge. Adjudication was withheld and Iver was sentenced to twelve months probation for each charge to run concurrently. Among the terms of his probation was the requirement that he participate in a PRN approved recovery program. The aforementioned crimes relate to the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. 1/ THE EMERGENCY SUSPENSION ORDER - SEPTEMBER 15, 1995 On September 13, 1995, after reviewing the substance abuse history of Respondent and the foregoing police incident reports relating to drug usage in the middle of the workweek, Dr. Roger Goetz of PRN opined that Respondent is impaired and that his inability to practice dentistry poses an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. This opinion resulted in an Emergency Suspension Order being filed on September 15, 1995. Respondent has been prohibited from practicing dentistry since that date based on that order. MISCELLANEOUS FACTS BASED, IN PART, ON THE STIPULATION Respondent, by and through counsel, on approximately February 15, 1994, proffered to the Agency that Respondent had submitted himself to numerous drug screens and all were negative for any controlled or illegal substances. No actual laboratory reports were produced. From approximately January 1994 to June 1994, the Petitioner actively cooperated with Respondent's counsel to negotiate a satisfactory resolution to the complaint. Respondent has, at times, denied his addiction to cocaine after numerous past positive tests, treatment and counseling. Respondent's enthusiasm about prior recovery attempts tailed off as he became more involved with his dental practice. Lisa Iver testified that she and her husband, Robert Iver, Respondent, were getting along better since entering the Mount Sinai program in September 1995, because they were currently both clean and off drugs. THE SECOND PRN CONTRACT - OCTOBER 20, 1995 On September 22, 1995, Respondent went to Dr. Eustace for the purpose of establishing a program of personal recovery, marriage and family recovery, and reentry into the PRN. Mrs. Iver also entered a recovery program at Mt. Sinai. On October 20, 1995, Respondent signed a new contract with the PRN. While Respondent asserts that he "voluntarily" entered into this contract, that characterization is inaccurate since he entered this contract after the entry of the ESO. The order of probation entered in the criminal proceeding, also signed October 20, 1995, required his participation in such a program. By signing this PRN contract, Respondent agreed that he would have random unannounced urine or blood screens, that he would abstain from using all mood altering substances, medications, alcohol and others, that he would be monitored by a physician, that he would notify the PRN if he changed his address or employment; that he was to attend a self help group such as AA or NA seven times per week; that he would receive continuing care in group therapy one time per week; that he would attend a twelve step program for recovering professionals; that he would notify the PRN in the event of a relapse; that he would agree to withdraw from practice at the request of the PRN if any problem developed; and that his wife would also enter a recovery program. In his present capacity, Dr. Eustace provides evaluations for the PRN. In this respect he sees his role as that of a servant for the PRN. He renders reports and recommendations to the PRN. The PRN relies with confidence upon Dr. Eustace's opinions and reports. Since October 20, 1995, the date Respondent signed a PRN contract, Dr. Eustace has been his monitoring physician within the program. While in the program, Respondent has undergone psychological testing, personal interviews and has otherwise complied with the terms of his PRN contract. Dr. Eustace found no evidence of any chemical relapse, Respondent's behavior is one of compliance with the PRN and he is participating in a monitored group and in a peer professional group. Both Dr. and Mrs. Iver are progressing satisfactorily. It is important to the recovery life-style of Respondent that his wife continue progressing satisfactorily in her recovery program. One important difference in Respondent's life-style prior to his signing the October 20, 1995, PRN contract and subsequent thereto is that his wife is seeking professional help for her addiction. On October 31, 1995, Dr. Eustace wrote to Dr. Goetz advising him that it was his opinion that Respondent is adhering to a recovery life-style, is in full compliance with PRN directives, is not a danger to the public or himself and that he can safely practice dentistry. Dr. Goetz acquiesced in Dr. Eustace's opinion in testimony before the Board of Dentistry in November 1995. Both Dr. Eustace and Dr. Goetz testified that in their opinions, Respondent can practice dentistry with safety and without danger to the public health, safety or welfare as long as he is being monitored by the PRN. Dr. Goetz further testified that there has been a "decent" period of time over which to monitor Respondent since his emergency suspension in September. Dr. Hans Ueli Steiner, who had evaluated Respondent in August 1994, expressed the opinion that Respondent was beyond hope. Dr. Steiner based this opinion on his one and one half hour conversation with Respondent in August 1994, on the testimony presented at the formal hearing, and on his observations of Respondent at a deposition and on the first day of the formal hearing. He did not review any medical records as he thought that they were not important. It was Dr. Steiner's opinion that Respondent was not safe to practice dentistry based primarily on the fact that Respondent had relapsed in 1993 and 1994 and therefore the PRN program was unsatisfactory for him. Dr. Steiner also questions Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. Dr. Steiner disagrees with Dr. Goetz and Dr. Eustace and states that they are emotionally involved with his recovery. This emotional involvement, in Dr. Steiner's opinion, prevents them from giving an objective medical opinion. However, Dr. Eustace clearly stated that all of his opinions related to Respondent were based upon the professional relationship and were medical opinions. Dr. Goetz stated that he had never met Respondent until the Board's November 1995 meeting and has relied, in most part, on the opinions expressed by Dr. Eustace. There was testimony as to the dangers of a recovering addict. An addict may be sober one day and under the influence of an addictive substance the next. It is possible that even after signing a PRN contract and being monitored, the Respondent may relapse. It is also possible that if the Respondent falls off the wagon or falls out of recovery, he could harm a patient before PRN is notified and appropriate action is taken. It is also true that no one, including PRN, Dr. Goetz, and Dr. Eustace, can guarantee that the Respondent will not use cocaine, and no one can guarantee that Respondent is able to practice dentistry with reasonable skill and safety. The greater weight of the evidence established, however, that the PRN was developed to assist recovering addicts, that the program is as good as any of its type, and that the program works as long as the impaired practitioner is adhering to the terms of the contract. The testimony of Dr. Eustace and of Dr. Goetz on January 10, 1996, that Respondent is presently safe to practice dentistry and that he poses no danger to the public's health, safety or welfare is more persuasive than that of Dr. Steiner that Respondent is beyond help. This conclusion is reached, in part, because of Dr. Eustace's expertise, his extensive work with the Respondent, and because Respondent was able to practice without incident while being monitored by the PRN. It is also concluded that Dr. Eustace is in a better position than Dr. Steiner to evaluate Respondent's honesty and his commitment to recovery. The PRN program worked for Respondent in the past as he was able to safely practice between 1988 and 1993 when he was being monitored pursuant to a PRN contract.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 466.028(1)(c) and (s), Florida Statutes, which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00, which suspends his license to practice dentistry until September 14, 1996, which requires the PRN to attest at its Board meeting in August 1996 that Respondent has adhered to the terms of his PRN contract and that he remains capable of safely practicing dentistry, and which places his licensure on probation for as long as he practices dentistry in Florida. It is further recommended that the terms of his suspension and the terms of his probation require that he maintain a contract with the PRN at all times and that he strictly adhere to all terms of the PRN contract. It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded for these two offenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1996 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, 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 2nd day of February 1996.
The Issue The threshold issue in this case is whether Petitioner's claim is time-barred for failure to timely file an initial charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. If Petitioner's claim were timely, then the question would be whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact From April 4, 1998 until May 22, 2003, Petitioner Carol Manzaro ("Manzaro") worked for Respondent Department of Children and Family Services ("DCF") as an Inspector Specialist I (essentially, an investigator) in the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG"). Manzaro's duty station was at a satellite office located in Riviera Beach, Florida. Her supervisor was Richard Scholtz, who was based in the OIG's Fort Lauderdale field office. In October 2002, Sheryl Steckler became DCF's Inspector General. Shortly after assuming this position, Ms. Steckler hired Tom Busch as Chief of Investigations. Mr. Busch was responsible for, among other things, overseeing the OIG's field office in Fort Lauderdale and the satellite office in Riviera Beach. Ms. Steckler and Mr. Busch worked at offices in Tallahassee. In late December 2002, Mr. Busch called Manzaro and reprimanded her for sending an e-mail that Ms. Steckler felt was inappropriate. Manzaro believes that the reprimand was unwarranted and demonstrates that she was being singled out (or set up), but the evidence regarding this particular incident is much too sketchy for the undersigned to make such a finding. In January 2003, Manzaro and Louis Consagra, another inspector who worked in the Riviera Beach satellite office, were directed to attend a meeting in Fort Lauderdale, which they did. After they arrived, their immediate supervisor Mr. Scholz, recently back from a trip to Tallahassee, told the two that Mr. Busch had said to him, "Sometimes when you get older, you miss a step." Mr. Scholz further related that Mr. Busch had announced that "changes w[ould] be made." Mr. Scholz warned them that "they are looking to fire people," and that he (Scholz) would fire people to protect himself if need be. The three (Manzaro, Consagra, and Scholz) then met with Mr. Busch, who had traveled to Fort Lauderdale to see them. Mr. Busch informed them that he had just fired an inspector who worked in Fort Lauderdale, and that Ms. Steckler planned to close the Riviera Beach satellite office by June or July of 2003, at which time Manzaro and Mr. Consagra would be reassigned to the Fort Lauderdale field office. Manzaro, who was then 55 years old, decided at that moment it was time to start looking for a new job. Immediately upon returning to Riviera Beach, she began making phone calls to that end. Manzaro claims that for some weeks thereafter she received "haranguing" phone calls from Mr. Busch, who deprecated her abilities and was rude and patronizing. The undersigned credits Manzaro's testimony in this regard (which was not rebutted), but deems it insufficient to support an inference that Mr. Busch was critical of Manzaro because she was over the age of 40.1 Mr. Busch's telephone calls caused Manzaro to see (in her words) the "handwriting on the wall"; by this time, she "knew" her employment would be terminated. In March 2003, Manzaro's co-worker, Mr. Consagra, was fired. Around this time——it is not clear when——Manzaro was given a below-average performance evaluation.2 Not long after that, by letter dated April 18, 2003, Manzaro was notified of her appointment to the job of Economic Self Sufficiency Specialist I with DCF's District Nine, a position which Manzaro had sought.3 By accepting this appointment, she could continue working for DCF in Palm Beach County, albeit at a lower salary than she was earning as an inspector for the OIG. She decided to take the job. Manzaro resigned her position with the OIG via a Memorandum to Ms. Steckler dated April 18, 2003. In pertinent part, Manzaro wrote: I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to serve the Department and Office of Inspector General and for the opportunity to find other employment within the Department. At this time, familial and financial responsibilities preclude my traveling to the proposed new duty location in Ft. Lauderdale. As you will see from the attached letter, I have accepted a position with Economic Self Sufficiency effective May 23, 2003. With your permission, I would like to complete writing the three cases I presently have open and commence annual leave on May 5 through May 22, 2003. On or about May 27, 2003, Manzaro started working at her new job for DCF. On July 12, 2003, Manzaro received some paperwork that had been sent to her accidentally, which revealed that her replacement in the OIG was younger than she, and also was being paid more than she had earned as an investigator. Manzaro claims that it was then she discovered that she had been the victim of age discrimination, absent which she would not have been "involuntarily demoted" to the position of Economic Self Sufficiency Specialist I. Ultimate Factual Determinations Manzaro's theory is that she was forced to resign her position in the OIG by the threat of termination, which caused her to seek and ultimately accept other, less remunerative employment with DCF. Manzaro describes the net effect of her job-switch as an "involuntary demotion" and charges that DCF "demoted" her because she was over the age of 40. Manzaro testified unequivocally, and the undersigned has found, that during a meeting in Fort Lauderdale in January 2003 (the one where Mr. Busch had informed Manzaro and her colleagues that the Riviera Beach satellite office would be closed), Manzaro had made up her mind to look for another job. This means that the untoward pressure allegedly used by DCF to force Manzaro's resignation had achieved its purpose by January 31, 2003, at the latest.4 Therefore, if the alleged discrimination against Manzaro were a discrete act——which is, at least implicitly, how Manzaro views the matter——then the discrete act apparently occurred on or before January 31, 2003.5 Assuming, for argument's sake, that DCF did in fact force Manzaro to decide, in January 2003, to resign her position as an inspector, then the pressure that DCF exerted on Manzaro consisted of: (a) a verbal reprimand regarding an e-mail; (b) Mr. Busch's comment (reported via Mr. Scholz) that age sometimes causes one to "miss a step"; (c) Mr. Scholz's warning that people would be fired; (d) the firing of a Fort Lauderdale-based inspector; and (e) the announcement that the Riviera Beach satellite office would be closed. Assuming for argument's sake that the foregoing circumstances amounted to discriminatory coercion, the undersigned determines that Manzaro should have known, when she succumbed to the threat of termination and involuntarily decided to resign, that she might possibly be a victim of age discrimination.6 The undersigned comes to this conclusion primarily because Mr. Busch's comment about older people sometimes missing a step is the strongest (if not the only) hint of age discrimination in this record.7 The significance of the previous finding is that, if the discrimination consisted of the discrete act of demotion (as Manzaro urges), then the 365-day period within which a charge of discrimination must be filed with the FCHR began to run on Manzaro's claim no later than January 31, 2003, by which time she was on notice of the allegedly discriminatory act.8 Because Manzaro's charge of discrimination was not filed with the FCHR until June 10, 2004, it is clear that, as a claim involving a discrete act of discrimination, Manzaro's charge was untimely. Putting aside the question whether Manzaro's case is time-barred, it is further determined that, in any event, Manzaro did not suffer an "adverse employment action." The undersigned is not persuaded that Manzaro was forced to take another job, as she now contends. Rather, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that Manzaro elected voluntarily to seek other employment after learning that her duty station was being moved to Fort Lauderdale and developing concerns about her job security in light of new management's efforts to weed out employees it viewed as under-performers. Ultimately, it is determined that DCF did not discriminate unlawfully against Manzaro on the basis of her age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Manzaro's Petition for Relief as time-barred, or alternatively finding DCF not liable for age discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 13th day of September, 2005.
The Issue The issues for consideration in this case concern separate notices to show cause placed against the named Respondents alleging violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.), and Chapter 7C, Florida Administrative Code. These notices date from January 25, 1991. The notices to show cause seek to impose fines against the corporation and the Nelsons.
Findings Of Fact On May 14, 1990 Windy Shores Trading Post Inc. conveyed property at 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, to Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. That latter corporation is the Respondent in DOAH Case No. 91-0681. Again for ease of reference Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. shall be referred to as "the corporation." The Respondent corporation is a Florida corporation. No one identified as having appropriate authority to request a hearing for the corporation either on an expedited basis or pursuant to the normal notice time prescribed by Section 120.57(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes, has asked that the corporation be heard in defending accusations made in the notice to show cause pertaining to DOAH Case No. 91-0681. The hearing request described in the preliminary statement made by Eric Nelson does not constitute a legitimate request for hearing by the corporation. This determination is made based upon the record established at hearing both in testimony and documentary evidence. All that has been established concerning the corporation's position is that, according to Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 in DOAH Case No. 91-0681, the corporation through certified mail return receipt requested was served with the emergency order and associated notice to show cause. At all times relevant to the inquiry, a building a 30 South Grandview Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, was operated as a seven unit, transient rental, public lodging establishment. The last license of record for that property had been issued in the name of Roy E. Midkiff, d/b/a Layton Apartments under license no. 74-01494H-1. This license was issued under the authority of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Neither the corporation nor the Nelsons have ever sought or been issued a license pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, which would allow those Respondents to operate the public lodging establishment at 30 South Grandview Avenue. It can be inferred that the property in question passed from Midkiff eventually ending up with the Respondent Corporation after the conveyance from Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. on May 14, 1990. By history, the City of Daytona Beach became aware of the subject property and its problems back in March, 1990. In particular, the City of Daytona Beach through its Code Enforcement Division was concerned about the addition of a living unit at the premises without appropriate permission. Concerns about this were addressed to Carol E. Nelson at 2036 South Ocean Shores Boulevard in Flagler Beach, Florida by certified mail return receipt requested dated March 26, 1990. A copy of this notice of violation may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. This was followed up by an affidavit of violation and notices of hearing addressed to Carol E. Nelson, who in this affidavit of violation and notices of hearing was referred to as President, as she had been in the March 26, 1990 correspondence. This description of the violation of adding a living unit and other matters related to that from the point of view of the Code Enforcement Board of the City of Daytona Beach may be found in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2. These documents under Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 run from April, 1990 to January 29, 1991. In would appear that the presidency which was being attributed to Carol Nelson was that affiliation with Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc., the former corporate owner of the subject property. The violation concerning the addition of an unauthorized living unit at the subject facility remains pending before the City of Daytona Beach. When the tax records were prepared for 1990 the City of Daytona Beach became aware of the change in the ownership of the subject property as described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 listing the corporation as the owner and the corporate headquarters as 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. Fred Holmes of the Daytona Beach Code Administration Division and Inspector/Supervisor for that Division, in his testimony, addressed the history of the property from the point of view of the City of Daytona Beach. When he was on the property on January 29, 1991, the persons who were on the property other than tenants were the Nelsons. Holmes is also aware that on January 30, 1991, an application for an occupational license to operate the subject property was made with the City of Daytona Beach and was signed by Carol Nelson in the interest of the corporation. A copy of this occupational license application can be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. It points out that the property is owned by Winifred L. Nelson of 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, which has been shown to mean 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard in Flagler Beach, Florida. The record on balance supports the fact that Winifred L. Nelson, who is Eric Nelson's mother, owns the corporation. The application and Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence refers to a transfer of ownership of the subject property from Windy Shores Trading Post to the corporation. On January 29, 1991, the City of Daytona Beach communicated with Petitioner in the person of Barbara Palmer, Director, notifying the Petitioner that effective January 25, 1991, the City had placed the property in question off limits by notice that it was unsafe and its use or occupancy prohibited. A reinspection on January 29, 1991, pointed out that the violations about which the City, as well as the Petitioner, were concerned related to safety and occupant welfare had not been corrected. The correspondence of January 29, 1991, from the City to the Petitioner found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 speaks of those matters. A list of deficiencies found by the City corresponds in many respects to allegations in the notices to show cause. According to Fred Holmes an inspection was made on February 1, 1991 to speak to the application for occupational license and the results of that inspection were not known at the point of hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence related to the City of Daytona Beach and its inspection dated January 11, 1991, points out deficiencies that are common to the concerns in the notices to show cause. Notice of these deficiencies was provided to Carol and Eric Nelson at the time of this January 11, 1991 inspection. Inspector Holmes was of the opinion that the apartment building would not have met local code requirements of the City of Daytona Beach. The City was continuing to express concerns about the unauthorized occupancy of the one apartment added without permission. The City at that point expected corrections to be made and the removal of that improvement, i.e. the additional apartment. Inspector Holmes is unaware of any changes over time in persons who are responsible for the conduct of the business at the property in that he has no documentation in his records concerning such changes. In particular, he is not aware of any permission from Winifred Nelson to Eric Nelson allowing him to act in her behalf. At the hearing Holmes was unaware that Winifred Nelson was the authorized agent for the corporation. Charles Casper, Environmental Health Specialist for the Petitioner, made an inspection at the premises on June 8, 1990, and found certain deficiencies which are set out in the Composite Exhibit No. 7. Among the highlights of this inspection was the identification of the fact that the property was being rented without being properly licensed and that an additional unit had been installed under the building without city approval or permits as described before in the remarks attributable to Inspector Holmes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 is a composite exhibit and it also contains a complaint by J. Young made on June 29, 1990, concerning a security deposit about which she had requested reimbursement on moving out of the apartment at the subject premises effective May 5, 1990. Within that exhibit is found a copy of a memorandum dated May 2, 1990, from Carol E. Nelson signed as d/b/a Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. releasing Ms. Young from lease obligations as a tenant. The contents of the Young lease may be found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. It includes the agreement under the terms of the lease related to the security deposit. Back in June, Casper was attempting to get Carol Nelson to seek a license from the Petitioner to operate the premises. He made Ms. Nelson aware of the problems that he had identified at the premises to include the lack of a license. If Carol Nelson should arrange for the purchase of a license for the benefit of the corporate operator the obtaining of that license, according to Casper, would take care of the complaint about a lack of license. He reminded Carol Nelson that if the corporation as opposed to Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. operated the premises, it would need a license and that if during certain relevant times the two corporations operated the premises separately that the proprietors would be paying for licenses twice within a license period. During this conversation Carol Nelson told Casper that when problems were experienced they were responded to by changing to a new corporation. Carol Nelson told Casper that Carol Nelson and Eric Nelson operated the property in question. When Casper made his June inspection he understood the name of the premises to be Layton Apartments. This was based upon the records of the Petitioner associated with the earlier licensed operator Mr. Midkiff. J. M. Young had entered into the lease that has been described through Volusia Realty Associates, Inc. as agent for Midkiff. Four or five months later Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. bought the property from Midkiff, to Young's understanding. This is confirmed in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9, correspondence from a representative of Volusia Realty to Petitioner in which Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. in this May 17, 1990 correspondence is identified as the new owner. Ms. Young had been made aware of that change on January 24, 1990 in correspondence from Volusia Realty to J. Miller setting out that Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. was now the owner of the property in question. Carol Nelson and her husband are the owners of Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7, which contains the January 24, 1990 correspondence sets out the fact that Ms. Young's security deposit had been transferred to the new owners, the Nelsons. After the change in ownership from Midkiff to Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc., Young would pay Carol and Eric Nelson her rent and would get a receipt from Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. Following certain problems, which brought about Young's departure, she got the release from the requirements of her lease from Carol Nelson as has been described. Eric Nelson told Ms. Young that she would get her security deposit back as did Carol Nelson. The security deposit has not been returned. This has not been arranged even though Ms. Young has continued to contact Eric Nelson to get the deposit money. No notice has been given to Ms. Young concerning a claim against the security deposit made by Eric Nelson. Ms. Young was never made aware of a transfer of the ownership of the subject property to the corporation. Dennis Steinke is a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with Petitioner. On December 20, 1990, he performed an inspection at the premises in question. This inspection together with an inspection of January 22, 1991, forms the basis of the charges in the notices to show cause. The findings in the Steinke inspection are part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 10 in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. A legal notice was given of the findings of that inspection. That led to a notice to show cause dating from January 15, 1991, directed to Eric and Carol Nelson trading as Layton Apartments. This notice to show cause predates the notices to show cause which are under consideration in the present cases. The prior notice to show cause of January 15, 1991 is part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 10 in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. It carries with it the same nine violations which are spoken to in the subject notices to show cause. Again, the Nelsons do not contest the findings set out in the legal notice which followed the inspection by Steinke and as identified in the present notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 attached as an appendix and as restated from the January 15, 1991 notice to show cause. The January 15, 1991 notice to show cause was served on the Nelsons. No one availed themselves of the opportunity for an informal conference on January 24, 1991 that the January 15, 1991 notice to show cause made available. At the time Steinke made his December 20, 1990 inspection and made the findings reported in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10 he was unaware that the corporation owned the premises. Steinke's findings of December 20, 1990 were based upon the inspection of three or four units within the licensed premises. Another Inspector with the Petitioner who had a knowledge of the premises is Arthur Begyn. He took certain photographs of the premises on January 25 and 29, 1991, found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 11 showing the state of disarray at the licensed premises and further confirming observations that had been made by Inspector Steinke in his December 20, 1990 inspection. Begyn had been to the property in mid-November based upon a complaint about operations there. His purpose was to inspect the property but no one was available for such inspection. He tried to find out who the owner of the property was by calling a number that was located on the building. That telephone number is found in one of the photographs in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 admitted into evidence. He made contact through that telephone number and presented himself as a possible future tenant. The person who spoke to him on the phone was a lady. She stated that someone would come and make contact with him at the property. As a result of this telephone conversation he met with Carol Nelson who said she was representing Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. which was the name in a recorded message eminating from the telephone number that had been found on the building. In other words, the telephone answering device said that the caller had made contact with Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. When the contact was made with Carol Nelson at the property, Begyn made the remark that "you must be the owner of the building", to which Carol Nelson replied "yes, I am". That comported with what certain tenants had told Begyn, that is to say that Carol Nelson and her husband owned the building. Carol Nelson in the course of the conversation with Begyn told him that he should pay her or her husband Eric Nelson the rent money. It was not clear whether the payment would end up with an individual or a corporation. Among the highlights of the photographs of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11 are those which show that the basement apartment has a door shorter than that of Mr. Begyn how is 6' 1 1/2" tall. There is one photograph that shows a smoke detector ripped from a wall and his inspection of the seven units demonstrated that the individual units did not have smoke detectors. There was a smoke detector in the hall which worked. A rear entrance door on the first level appears to be rotting and in that same area the wood had been disturbed and there were rodent droppings in evidence. There was a leak in an apartment bathroom. There was tile that had been ripped up and not repaired. There was loose electrical wiring hanging down in a certain area. One door which normally has a window was missing a window. A junction box showed where a wire had touched the metal and had a charred appearance with exposed wiring. There was a large hole in the ceiling leading up into an attic. These items were of the nature found by Steinke in his December 20, 1990 inspection. On January 25, 1991, when Begyn was at the property around 6:25 p.m. the Nelsons arrived and removed certain notices that had been placed by the Petitioner in Daytona Beach which prohibited the occupancy of that building. At one point Eric Nelson yelled out to Begyn to, "stay the f off by mf property." Begyn served and read the order and notice related in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 to Carol Nelson on January 25, 1991. This pertains to the emergency order and notice to show cause. These items are seen in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14 admitted into evidence. Chester Cole who is the District Director for Petitioner in the Orlando, Florida area, in his testimony, identified the fact that the Petitioner became aware that the property in question was operating without the appropriate license contemplated by Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The records of the Petitioner indicated that Midkiff was the last license holder. Someone contacted the Petitioner and said that he was taking over the property, that person claimed to be Eric Nelson. Eric Nelson indicated that he was the owner of the property and made no mention of a corporation. Nelson was sent an application in which he could point out the change in ownership and get a new license. That application was never returned by Eric Nelson. Mr. Cole was not made aware through any notice from the Nelsons or anyone else who the owner was beyond the Midkiff ownership. As of January 14, 1991, Cole was of the opinion that the Nelsons owned the premises in question. Cole became aware of the tax roll information found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 which showed that the corporation owned the property in question. Cole was also aware through information from the Secretary of State, carried forward on a computer printout of the Petitioner that the corporation had a corporate address of 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida, and the registered agent was Winifred Nelson whose address is 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. This is found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12 admitted into evidence which carries a date of January 25, 1991 and another date referred to as a "filed date" of May 2, 1990. As alluded to before, Carol Nelson was served with the emergency order and notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682. Her husband was also served on January 25, 1991. Both parties were served at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida. Corroboration of service on the corporation by certified mail in DOAH Case No. 91-0681 was made in remarks from Eric Nelson to Mr. Cole in which Nelson identified that the service was perfected by certified mail and the return receipt dispatched. The corporation's address and that of the Nelsons at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard, Flagler Beach, Florida is the same. Based upon the remarks by Eric Nelson in his testimony, the property in question was never owned in his proper person or by his wife. He did acknowledge that at one time Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. owned the property in question and that ownership in the Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. was held with his wife. Nelson points out that he and his wife never did business as Layton Apartments. From Eric Nelson's testimony and other matters presented it appears that Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. took ownership from Mr. Midkiff. In turn the transaction of May 14, 1990, took place in which Windy Shores Trading Post, Inc. sold out to the Respondent corporation. Eric Nelson in his testimony said that he and Carol Nelson his wife do not work for the corporation or have any "statutory" tie to the corporation. He says in his testimony that he and his wife divested association with the corporation through the change of ownership of May 14, 1991. He describes himself as an independent subcontractor for the corporation as it relates to the building in question. Eric Nelson states that he has not collected rent at the property. He reiterates that his wife is not an employee of the property. He makes the comment that his mother had asked his wife to collect rent for the mother until the mother had returned from her trip to Canada. He indicates that some other "agent" collects rent for the mother on the property in question. He identified the fact that on January 25, 1991, that his mother was in Florida the latter the part of the afternoon and was at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard between 10 a.m. and noon briefly and as he describes it "in and out." Eric Nelson identified that he sleeps at 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard at times and that the corporation gets mail there. Contrary to Eric Nelson's protestations, he and his wife during the relevant times associated with the December 20, 1990 and January 22, 1991 inspections referred to in the notice to show cause in DOAH Case No. 91-0682 were serving as managers, and appointed agents of the corporation, as defined at Section 509.013, Florida Statutes (1990 Supp.). Eric Nelson in his behalf and that of his wife conceded to the factual observations of the January 22, 1991 inspection performed by Joseph Pitrowski and found within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence. They coincide with the earlier inspection of December 20, 1990 by Mr. Steinke. Testimony of Mr. Pitrowski was given as it relates to accusations made against the corporation at a time where counsel for Petitioner had announced that the Pitrowski testimony would relate to the corporation and not to the Nelsons. Under the circumstances, Mr. Nelson as representative for himself and his wife departed the hearing room before Pitrowski testified. Therefore, with the exception of the written report rendered by Mr. Pitrowski found within Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 admitted into evidence and related to an inspection of January 22, 1991, it would be inappropriate to find facts against the Nelsons based upon the Pitrowski testimony. Likewise, that testimony by Mr. Pitrowski related to the corporation has no utility in that the corporation has never requested a formal hearing to contest the accusations placed against it when examining the present record.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which absolves the Nelsons of the allegations under Item no. 1 in the appendix; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Item no. 2; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 3; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $1,000 for the violation established in Item no. 4; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 5; absolves the Nelsons of the violation alleged in Item no. 6; fines the Nelsons in the amount of $500 for the violation established in Item no. 7; absolves the Nelsons of the violation Item no. 8 and fines the Nelsons in the amount of $250 for the violation established in Item no. 9. No disposition is suggested concerning the corporation, it having been concluded that the corporation has not requested a formal hearing. In that respect the case is returned to the referring agency for disposition in DOAH Case No. 91-0681 without commenting on the merits of the allegations made against the corporation. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0681 The following discussion is made of the Petitioner's proposed fact-finding. Paragraphs 1 and 2 with the exception of the last sentence of Paragraph 2 are subordinate to facts found. The last sentence of Paragraph 2 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 3 through 10 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 11 is subordinate to facts found with the exception of the discussion of the violations as they pertain to the corporation which alleged violations have not been challenged by the corporation. Concerning Paragraph 12, remarks attributable to Inspector Pitrowski are rejected because they were made outside of the presence of the Nelsons at a time when counsel for Petitioner had announced that the case related to the Nelsons had been concluded. Paragraph 13 is subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Palmer, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Emily Moore, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Janet E. Ferris, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Eric Nelson 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136 Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson 2036 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136 Windy Shores Aero Research, Inc. Attn: Winifred Nelson 2038 South Ocean Shore Boulevard Flagler Beach, FL 32136
