The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging in the following activities: (a) Discharging the Petitioner from her position of employment with Respondent because of Petitioner's race and (b) after discharging the Petitioner, continuing to seek applications for the position previously held by the Petitioner from similarly qualified or less qualified applicants. Subsequent to the filing of her petition for relief, the Petitioner filed a motion for default pursuant to Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer to the petition as required by the cited rule. By order dated September 21, 1987, the Respondent was given until October 5, 1987, within which to show cause as to why the relief requested in the motion for default should not be granted. The Respondent failed to respond to the order of September 21, 1987, and on October 7, 1987, an order was issued which included the following language: That pursuant to Rule 22T-9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is hereby deemed to have admitted all material facts alleged in the petition. That at the final hearing in this case the material facts alleged in the petition will be taken as established without further proof, but both parties will be afforded an opportunity at the final hearing to offer evidence regarding any additional relevant facts. On the day scheduled for the hearing, the Petitioner and her attorney appeared at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing, but there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Approximately 45 minutes after the scheduled commencement time, the Hearing Officer called the Respondent's offices in Jacksonville and was advised by an employee of Respondent that the Respondent did not intend to have anyone attend the hearing. Shortly thereafter the hearing was convened and the Hearing Officer received evidence offered by the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Petitioner, the Petitioner requested, and was granted, 15 days within which to file a proposed recommended order. Thereupon the record of the hearing was closed without any appearance having been made on behalf of the Respondent. On November 16, 1987, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all findings proposed by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order. Following the hearing, the Respondent was advised by letter of its right to file a proposed recommended order, but as of the date of this recommended order the Respondent has not filed any post-hearing document with the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1985, the Petitioner was referred by Job Finders of Florida, a private job placement service, to apply for a position with the Respondent, Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. The job the Petitioner applied for was Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner met all of the qualifications for the job of Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner was interviewed by Mr. Jim Hart, the manager of the Ocala office of the Respondent. After interviewing the Petitioner, Mr. Hart decided, on the basis of her experience and references, that the Petitioner was the best qualified of several applicants. In this regard, it is noted that the Petitioner's prior employment had required the performance of duties substantially similar to those of the Secretary/Dispatcher position with Respondent. Thereafter, in the afternoon or evening of October 11, 1985, Mr. Hart telephoned the Petitioner, offered her the job, and advised her that she was to report to work on October 14, 1985. On October 14, 1985, the Petitioner reported to work at the Ocala office of the Respondent and immediately began performing the duties of Secretary/Dispatcher. During the work day on October 14, 1985, the Petitioner received a telephone call from Mrs. Lou Mohrman, the managing director of the Respondent. Mrs. Lou Mohrman welcomed the Petitioner to her position of employment and stated that she was pleased with the Petitioner's placement with the company. On October 15, 1985, Mr. L. D. Mohrman, president of Respondent, accompanied by Mrs. Lou Mohrman, managing director, visited the Ocala offices of the Respondent. After engaging in a boisterous conversation with Mr. Hart and visually ascertaining the Petitioner's race, Mrs. Mohrman summarily dismissed Petitioner without articulating a legitimate business reason for the termination. Within the next few days the Respondent listed the Secretary/Dispatcher position as vacant and continued to seek to fill the position with individuals with qualifications similar to or less than the qualifications of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a black female. She is a person within the meaning of Sections 760.02(5) and 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The dismissal of the Petitioner from her position of employment with the Respondent was motivated by the president and the managing director ascertaining the Petitioner's race. The dismissal of the Petitioner was motivated solely by her race. The Petitioner's starting salary at the Respondent company was $4.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week. After her termination, the Petitioner sought employment elsewhere and obtained another job in January of 1986, where she worked until November of 1986. In November of 1986 the Petitioner voluntarily left her job in order to finish school. When she began work in January of 1986 the Petitioner was making $3.80 per hour. When she quit in November of 1986 she was making $4.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice; Prohibiting the Respondent from terminating any employee on the basis of the employee's race; Requiring the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the Petitioner under the terms and conditions of employment to which she would be presently entitled if she had been continuously employed, including any raises to which she would have been entitled on the basis of longevity. Requiring the Respondent to pay back pay to the Petitioner from the date of termination until November of 1986 in an amount equal to the total amount the Petitioner would have earned as a Secretary/Dispatcher during that period, less any amounts actually earned during that period; and Requiring the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner her reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3048 The following are my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8: Accepted Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Not included in findings of fact because they are subordinate procedural details. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Covered in prior findings. Paragraph 16: Accepted Paragraph 17: Covered in prior findings. Findings proposed by Respondent: (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esq. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 312 W. First Street Suite 605 Sanford, Florida 32771 Mr. L. D. Mohrman, President Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. 3000 West 45th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sanford Housing Authority (Respondent), committed an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Jimitre Smith (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who was pregnant during a portion of the time events occurred related to her employment with Respondent. At the time of Petitioner’s initial employment with Respondent, the Sanford Housing Authority operated public housing complexes within its geographical area pursuant to a HUD program to provide housing assistant to low income, qualified residents. At some point, the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over the management of Respondent’s properties. Due to the deteriorating condition of Respondent’s properties, residents were provided Section 8 vouchers so that they could obtain private rental opportunities. In the midst of the transition period, Petitioner’s employment with Respondent ended. Petitioner was initially hired by Respondent to replace a receptionist who was out on maternity leave. The assignment was part-time and temporary. It began on or about March 31, 2010. When the receptionist returned to work, Petitioner was offered a second part-time job as leasing clerk. Although the record is not clear when this second job started, it is undisputed that Petitioner sought and was granted maternity leave due to her own pregnancy on September 27, 2010. It was during this time period that the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over Respondent’s responsibilities. Mr. Fleming, an employee of the Orlando Housing Authority, served as the Interim Executive Director for Respondent. In November 2010 residents were advised of the plan to demolish the substandard housing units. Since the units would not be leased, a leasing clerk was no longer required. Although Petitioner had been told she could return to work after her maternity leave, there was no position available for her at that time. Once the Orlando Housing Authority took over management, all of the day-to-day work was assigned to its employees. Respondent kept a handful of maintenance workers, but there is no evidence Petitioner sought and/or was denied that type of job. Petitioner claimed she should have been offered or allowed to apply for a job with the Orlando Housing Authority. There is no evidence that entity was required to hire her or that it refused to hire her because of her gender or pregnancy or that Respondent refused to recommend Petitioner for employment due to her gender or pregnancy. When Petitioner was cleared for return to work in December 2010, there was not a job to return to as Respondent did not have a position for her. There is no evidence that Respondent hired anyone during or after Petitioner’s pregnancy or that Petitioner was refused a job that she was qualified to perform. Had a suitable job been available, it most likely would have come through the Orlando Housing Authority. In January of 2011, Respondent formally eliminated Respondent’s part-time position through a reduction in workforce decision. At that time, Petitioner received a severance payment from Respondent and an offer for other job training opportunities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jimitre Rochelle Smith 804 South Bay Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Ricardo L. Gilmore, Esquire Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway and Gibbons, P.A. Suite 600 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Avenel Cesaire, holds commercial driving school instructor's certificate number 6027. Respondent, Avenel Cesaire d/b/a Cesaire's Driving School, holds commercial driving school license 2256. Respondent's chauffeur license number C260-000-53-363-459 is currently under suspension. Each license was issued by the Department. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a driving instructor and engaged in the business of instructing persons in the safe operation of motor vehicles so they might be licensed by the State of Florida. During October and November 1984, former driver license examiner Mary Louise Smith (Smith), at the insistence and request of Respondent, issued driver licenses to Respondent's students without them having passed the required written or oral examination. Ms. Smith and Respondent were intimate. Ms. Smith first met Respondent at her place of employment: the Department's driver license examination station at 3095 Northwest 79th Street, Miami, Florida (the station). The parties began dating in June 1984 and continued to date until late November 1984, when she was discharged from her employment. During the course of their relationship, Respondent gave Ms. Smith $50-100, as frequently as twice a week. Prior to his students reporting to the station for testing, Respondent provided Ms. Smith with the names, and identification, of those students who needed "assistance." Ms. Smith issued or caused to be issued, driver licenses to such students without examination or, if examined, without regard to their failure to pass the examination. By aiding or assisting persons in obtaining driver's licenses without having first demonstrated their knowledge of the skills mandated by Section 322.12, Florida Statutes, and Rule 15A-1.12, Florida Administrative Code, Respondent caused to be licensed persons not deemed competent to operate motor vehicles upon the roads of the State of Florida. Such acts constituted a clear and serious danger to the public health, safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order permanently revoking Respondent's commercial driving school license number 2256 and commercial driving instructor's certificate card number 6027. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 9th day of May, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Suzanne H. Printy, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eric William Hendon, Esquire 8011 Northwest 22nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33147 Leonard R. Mellon, Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rolando Mirabet, was first licensed as a commercial driving instructor in 1981. His current license will expire February 1, 1983. On March 26, 1982, a cameraman for WTVJ, Channel 4, Miami, while posing as a driver's license applicant at the Central Driver License Office was approached by Respondent. The cameraman/applicant told Respondent he was looking for the answers to the driver's license examination. They entered an automobile, Respondent showed the cameraman/applicant papers which he represented to be test questions from the actual driver's license examination, and the cameraman/applicant told Respondent he needed to take the questions and answers home with him to study. Respondent sold the questionnaire to the cameraman/applicant for twenty-five dollars ($25). Other employees of WTVJ filmed the encounter between Respondent and the cameraman/applicant from inside a surveillance van. The document sold by the Respondent to the WTVJ cameraman/applicant contains fifty-three questions with multiple-choice, alternate answers provided for each question and with one of the alternate answers for each question being marked as the correct answer. The document is in Spanish. Applicants for a driver's license are required, among other things, to pass a written examination concerning rules and regulations for driving in the State of Florida. Petitioner uses four different written examinations for testing applicants. During the hearing, one of Petitioner's witnesses compared the questionnaire sold by the Respondent to the cameraman/applicant and one of the Spanish versions of Petitioner's examination. Although the witness identified five questions as being the same on both documents, he also recognized some of the questions on the document which Respondent sold as being questions from the other versions of Petitioner's Spanish examination. A close review of the actual examination admitted in evidence and the document sold by Respondent reveals, however, that all twenty questions on the actual examination are found verbatim in the document sold by Respondent, and the alternate, multiple-choice answers to each question are also verbatim. Respondent admits giving the questions and answers to driver's license applicants. Respondent denies any knowledge of the rules and regulations enacted by Petitioner. Petitioner publishes a driver's handbook. That handbook contains a number of questions that are general in nature. No answers to those questions are suggested, and a reader needs to understand the entire book in order to answer those questions. Only one sample question with multiple-choice answers is given in order to illustrate to applicants the type of question which the applicant will encounter on the licensing examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered permanently revoking the commercial driving instructor's certificate card of Respondent, Rolando Mirabet. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Judson M. Chapman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alan Goldfarb, Esquire 12th Floor, Roberts Building 28 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Mr. Chester F. Blakemore Executive Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether respondent should have an administrative fine levied against him for allegedly performing repossesions without a Class "E" repossessor license.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 15, 1990, Charlotte County deputy sheriff Terry Harbes was dispatched to Maple Leaf Estates in response to a "domestic call". Upon arriving at the subdivision, deputy Harbes found a white male, George Guy, lying on the ground in an incoherent state and bleeding from the face. Guy had been assaulted by respondent, Richard Vee Collier. According to Collier's admission at the scene of the incident, Collier was in the process of repossessing Guy's step van when the assault occurred. Collier further acknowleged that he did not hold a repossessor license issued by petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division). This latter admission was confirmed by Division records which show that Collier does not hold a repossessor license, a prerequisite to engaging in the trade of repossessing motor vehicles. Testimony of Arthur D. Morgan, former manager of Time Motor Sales in Charlotte Harbor, Florida, established that Collier worked as an independent contractor for Time Motor Sales during the period from March 23, 1990, through May 15, 1990. During that time period, Collier repossessed nine motor vehicles and was paid fifty dollars per vehicle for his services. It may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that such repossessions occurred as a result of the owners' default in payment for such motor vehicles to the lienholder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 493.319(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1989), and that he pay a $1,000 administrative fine within such a time period as is specified in the final order rendered in this matter. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Mr. Richard Vee Collier 2204 Alton Road Port Charlotte, FL 33952
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Columbia Motor Sales, is a motor vehicle dealer licensed under Section 320.27, Florida Statutes. Respondent is owned solely by Jose B. Menna. In order to obtain the license, Menna completed an application for licensure on behalf of Respondent and filed it with DMV on July 5, 1991. The license was issued the same day. On the application, which was signed by Menna under oath, Menna answered "NO" to the following questions: Has the applicant or any partner or corporate officer or director: Been arrested on a felony or equivalent charge anywhere? Been convicted of a felony or equivalent charge anywhere? As required by Section 320.37(3), Florida Statutes, DMV obtained fingerprints from Menna and submitted them to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for confirmation of Menna's criminal record. The FBI's criminal history report shows that Menna was arrested for the felonies of receiving stolen property and assault with a deadly weapon and was convicted of the felony assault charge. If an applicant shows an arrest or conviction on his dealer license application, DMV's policy does not require an automatic denial. If only an arrest is shown, DMV conducts a further investigation to determine the applicant's fitness for licensure. If a conviction is shown, DMV would also investigate the seriousness and nature of the offense, whether the applicant's civil rights had been restored, and the surrounding circumstances before DMV would make a determination on the application. When an applicant does not reveal prior arrests or convictions on his application and DMV discovers their existence, DMV notifies the licensee and gives him an opportunity to submit documentation to clear the matter up informally. DMV did send Menna a letter advising him that there was a problem with his criminal record. The letter required Menna to provide information and documents regarding these criminal events within 20 days. It further stated that "Failure to respond to this letter will result in an administrative proceeding to revoke you license." Menna acknowledges that he received the letter, but he went to Guatemala for five weeks to sell cars and did not respond to the letter. After he returned, he says that he tried to call DMV, but at no time did he ever provide documents regarding these arrests and conviction. In fact, even at the hearing, he had no such documents with him. DMV's policy and position is that an applicant's failure to disclose and truthfully answer the questions on the application raises serious questions as to the applicant's honesty and integrity in dealing with the public. Menna testified that if he'd known that there were records showing the arrests and conviction, he would have answered the questions on the application "YES." He admits knowing that he had been arrested and convicted as the records show, but believed the records no longer existed. It is found that Menna was not honest when he denied having been arrested or convicted, because he knew of the existence of the arrests and conviction at the time he denied them. The question was simple and straightforward. Menna believed that his denial would not be a lie as long as no records existed to show the arrest and conviction. Menna was wrong in this belief.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Division of Motor Vehicles, enter a Final Order and therein revoke the motor vehicle dealer license of Columbia Motor Sales. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-1788 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Division of Motor Vehicles Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-7(1-7), 8 & 9(7), and 10- 13(8-11). Proposed finding of fact 14 is unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman Assistant General Counsel Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, A-432 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Room B439, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500 Stephen M. Witt Attorney at Law Post Office Box 2064 Lake City, FL 32056
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent Agency is a Florida-licensed (Class "A" license number A88- 00297 private investigative agency. Respondent Foreman is the owner of the Agency. He is a Florida-licensed (Class "C" license number C00-02486) private investigator. He has been licensed for approximately the past 20 years. At no time during the period of his licensure has the Department taken any disciplinary action against him. At around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of September 30, 1994, Foreman interrupted his work schedule to drive a male tenant living in an apartment that he owned (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenant") to the Henderson Mental Health Clinic, an outpatient mental health facility located in Broward County, Florida. The Tenant needed to receive treatment at the clinic. After parking his vehicle, Foreman escorted the Tenant to the reception area of the facility. Foreman was wearing a gun belt and a holster. A loaded firearm was encased in the holster. It was a warm day and Foreman did not have on a jacket. 2/ Consequently, the holstered firearm was in plain view. At the time, Foreman had a Department-issued Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, but he did not have a Class "G" Statewide Firearm Permit. 3/ Detective Joel Maney of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department was working a uniformed off-duty security detail at Henderson Mental Health Clinic that morning. From his position behind the reception counter, Detective Maney observed Foreman enter the reception area with the Tenant and noticed that Foreman was carrying a firearm. Not wanting to cause a disturbance inside the facility, Detective Maney did not immediately confront Foreman. He did, however, monitor Foreman's activity. After informing the receptionist that the Tenant had arrived and was waiting to be seen, Foreman left the facility. Detective Maney followed Foreman outside. As Foreman was walking on the sidewalk toward his vehicle, Detective Maney approached him and asked for identification. Foreman responded to the request by stating that he was a detective/investigator and that he did not have time to talk inasmuch as he was in the middle of an investigation. Eventually, Foreman produced his Florida driver license, his Class "C" Private Investigator License, and his Class "W" Concealed Weapon or Firearm License for Detective Maney. He also showed Detective Maney a five-pointed, star-shaped badge. In the center of the badge was a replica of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The words, "Special Investigator Foreman Investigative," were inscribed around the seal. When Detective Maney first saw the badge, he thought it was a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge because of its shape and because it bore the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Unlike a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge, however, Foreman's badge did not have a map of Florida superimposed on the seal. Moreover, the written inscription on the badge was different than that found on a Broward County deputy sheriff's badge. Throughout the period that he has been licensed, Foreman has used this badge as a means of identifying himself in connection with the performance of his duties as a private investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (1) finding the evidence sufficient to establish that Respondent Foreman committed the violations alleged in Counts II and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, disciplining Respondent Foreman him for having committed these violations by imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00, and (3) dismissing the remaining counts of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1995.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by obtaining a license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment; violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-2.027(2), by failing to disclose material information in her application; and, if so, what, if any, penalty is appropriate. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. All references to rules are to rules adopted in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Order.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in the state. Respondent is licensed in the state as a real estate broker pursuant to license number 0421942. The last license issued to Respondent was as a broker t/a Action First Realty, 7622 Praver Court, Jacksonville, Florida 32217. On January 9, 1984, Respondent applied for a license as a real estate salesperson. On February 11, 1993, Respondent applied for a license as a real estate broker. On each application, Respondent signed a sworn affidavit that all of her answers were true and correct and: . . . are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever. . . . In relevant part, question six on the sales license asked Respondent whether she had ever been arrested or charged with the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality or state without regard to whether she was convicted. Question nine on the broker application asked Respondent whether she had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, even if adjudication was withheld. Respondent answered "no" to both questions. In each case, Petitioner relied on the accuracy of the application and issued a license to Respondent. On November 7, 1978, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of cashing a worthless check in the amount of $5.00. Respondent wrote the check to Carvel Ice Cream for a birthday cake for her daughter's birthday. Respondent was in the process of moving, and the notice of insufficient funds was not delivered to her. Respondent went to court and paid the $5.00 check and the court costs. The judge characterized the charge as frivolous and was perturbed that the charge consumed time in his court. On October 30, 1980, adjudication was withheld on the charge of driving with a suspended license. Respondent attended driving school. The offense does not appear on Respondent's Florida driving record for her entire driving history. Respondent did not willfully misstate a material fact on either application. Respondent testified under oath that she did not consider either offense to be a crime and did not try to lie about either offense. Her testimony was credible and persuasive. Respondent answered "no" to questions six and nine on her applications in the good-faith belief that the offenses were immaterial and not the type of offenses addressed in either question. When Petitioner's investigator interviewed Respondent, Respondent answered all questions fully and truthfully and cooperated in the investigation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 61J2-2.027(2), and imposing no penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey Kirk, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1900 Barbara Lynn Clarke 7622 Praver Court Jacksonville, Florida 32217 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Respondent's motor vehicle dealer license should be revoked for his prior conviction of a felony, as proposed in an administrative complaint dated October 26, 1993.
Findings Of Fact It is uncontroverted that Respondent Lorenzo Reddick, Jr. (Reddick) holds an independent motor vehicle dealer license, issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV). The complaint fails to allege, and there is no evidence of, when the license was issued. The licensed place of business is 3214 Orange Center Boulevard, #C, Orlando, Florida. On April 27, 1993, Reddick pleaded, and was adjudged guilty of a single count offense in a multi-count superseding indictment, in U.S.A. v. Lorenzo Reddick, Case #92-104 Cr-Orl-19, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The offense, as described in the Judgment, was "Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity", on 12/30/91, pursuant to title 18 U.S. Code, section 1957(a), and title 18 U.S. Code, Section 2. (Petitioner's exhibit #1) Reddick was sentenced to twenty-four months imprisonment, commencing May 21, 1993, with two years supervision after release. According to the court documents comprising Petitioner's exhibit #1, the sentence was less than provided in sentencing guidelines "upon motion of the government, as a result of defendant's substantial assistance." Reddick is currently serving his prison term. At the time of the offense Reddick was not operating nor was he licensed as a motor vehicle dealer. There is no evidence of whether his license was obtained before or after his conviction. There is no evidence whatsoever of the offense other than what is found on the face of the judgment, as reflected above. DHSMV learned of Reddick's conviction in the process of investigating a filed complaint related to failure to transfer title and registration of a vehicle purchased from Reddick's dealership. Neil Chamelin was the manager of DHSMV's dealer license and consumer complaint programs and was responsible for evaluating requests for administrative action and preparing administrative pleadings for the division director. Chamelin received a copy of Reddick's Judgment of Conviction and Sentence and based the administrative complaint on those documents only. Chamelin has no independent knowledge of the offense. DHSMV has a longstanding policy that a single felony conviction may be sufficient for the agency to take action against a dealer's license. That is, the agency has interpreted the language of the relevant statute to mean that a licensee does not automatically get one free felony before his dealer's license is jeopardized, even after the language was amended seven or eight years ago to include a requirement of sufficient frequency of violations as to establish a pattern of wrongdoing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter its Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint that is the subject of this proceeding. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 17th day of May, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Alderman Assistant General Counsel Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 James R. Cunningham, Esquire 200 East Robinson, Suite 1220 Orlando, Florida 32801 Charles J. Brantley, Director Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
