The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, a tool company, should be required to repay funds that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workforce and Employment Opportunity (the "Department") alleges were erroneously paid under a North American Free Trade Agreement- Transitional Adjustment Assistance ("NAFTA" or "NAFTA-TAA") job training program for equipment that Respondent provided to two NAFTA-TAA trainees.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Department administers NAFTA-TAA, a job training program established under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement and funded by the federal government. The program provides vocational training for employees adversely affected by trade agreements made by the United States with Canada and Latin America. Once a business is certified as "NAFTA eligible" based upon diminished employment opportunities attributable to international trade, the affected employees are referred to the Department for evaluation by a local NAFTA coordinator. In consultation with the Department's local NAFTA coordinator, a participant chooses from training programs taught at various public and private educational institutions and vocational training facilities. The student is provided a training allowance that includes the cost of tuition, books and fees. The Department arranges to pay training costs directly, and to pay vendors for the required books, tools and supplies. In this case, the Department alleges that two students participating in the NAFTA program purchased tools from Respondent that were not required for their training as automotive technicians. The Department alleges that, by providing tools not required for training and obtaining reimbursement therefor from the Department, Respondent acted in violation of the "rules and practices" of the NAFTA program. The Department offered no evidence that it has promulgated rules related to its administration of the NAFTA- TAA program, and offered no evidence of a Florida statute or of federal statutes, rules or policies governing the Department's administration of the program. The Department produced no documentation to indicate that it has developed official written policies regarding its administration of the NAFTA-TAA program. Henry Broomfield, the Department's statewide TAA coordinator, testified as to the actual operation of the program. Mr. Broomfield stated that the program pays for tuition, books and supplies for up to 104 weeks. He testified that the participating schools are required to present a list of the books, tools and supplies that the student will need during training, and that reimbursement is limited to the items on that list. Mr. Broomfield testified that the list is limited to items required for training, and does not include tools that students may need in the field after they complete their training. The student and the Department's local TAA coordinator are provided with copies of the list. Charles Thackrah, an instructor at P-Tech, testified as to the development of the approved book, tool and supply list at his institution. The list was developed over time by Mr. Thackrah and his fellow instructors, and includes the minimum basic hand tools required to complete the objectives of the program. The list was not developed specifically for the NAFTA program, but is the minimum tool list for all students enrolled in the automotive service technology course. Mr. Thackrah stated that P-Tech does not require the purchase of tools outside the list. Mr. Broomfield testified that when a student needs particular items on the list, the student must contact the local TAA coordinator, who authorizes the purchase from a third party vendor. When the student receives the tools, the third party vendor sends the bill to the local TAA coordinator, who then forwards the invoice to the state office for final approval. Mr. Broomfield testified that a request for an unlisted tool must be made in writing by the student's instructor. The student brings the written request to the local TAA coordinator, who forwards it to Mr. Broomfield's office for final approval. The instructor must verify that the requested tool is necessary for training. The evidence established that, aside from one incident in which a student obtained approval for a special pair of welding shoes, neither of the students in question followed the approval procedure for unlisted tools set forth by Mr. Broomfield. On February 13, 1998, Howard Spangler of Largo was enrolled in the NAFTA-TAA program by the Department's local coordinator for the Clearwater area, Margaret Brewer. Mr. Spangler was enrolled for training as an automotive technician. Also on that date, Mr. Spangler received a letter approving his request for training. The letter stated that his training would be provided by P-Tech "at a cost not to exceed $4,400.00." The letter stated that this amount "includes tuition, books, supplies and fees." Also on February 13, 1998, Ms. Brewer provided Mr. Spangler with an "Applicant Acknowledgement Form" stating that $2,400 would be allotted for "books, equipment, supplies and/or tools. This is the total amount allowed for the entire length of your training, be it a one-week, or a two-year course." The form stated that "books, special equipment, tools and uniforms will be limited to those items required by the school for every student." The form also stated that when the amount allotted for training materials has been exhausted, any additional costs must be borne by the student. Mr. Spangler signed the form, acknowledging that its contents had been "fully discussed" with him. The evidence established that Mr. Spangler obtained from Respondent tools that were not on the approved list at a total price of $4,336.92, and that the Department paid Respondent for those purchases. Mr. Spangler testified that he was aware of the limits set forth in the letter and acknowledgement form, and of the approved list of tools, but also testified that Ms. Brewer told him that he could purchase items not on the list with his instructor's approval. He stated that Ms. Brewer never told him that her approval was required for purchases of tools not on the list. Mr. Spangler testified that he approached Ms. Brewer about a pair of special shoes for his welding course. Although the welding shoes were on the approved list, Mr. Spangler wanted Ms. Brewer's approval for his purchase because he paid more for them than the price shown on the list. Mr. Spangler testified that during this conversation he also asked Ms. Brewer about purchasing tools not on the list, and that Ms. Brewer told him that he needed only his instructor's signature to obtain tools he would need in the field. Mr. Spangler understood the $4,400 limit on tuition, books, supplies and fees. Notwithstanding the limit, he purchased over $4,000 in tools alone from Respondent. He stated that he relied on Ms. Brewer's advice in making these purchases. Mr. Spangler testified that it would be difficult to hold a job in the field with only the tools included on the approved list, and that Ms. Brewer clearly imparted the understanding to him that he would be allowed to purchase whatever he needed for the field, if his instructor approved. Ms. Brewer testified that she always told the students that the state would not pay for tools outside of those on the list. She told the student that if he needed something special that the instructor believed was necessary to complete the course, then the student would have to bring her a letter from the instructor. She would then send the letter to Mr. Broomfield in Tallahassee for approval. Ms. Brewer recalled Mr. Spangler approaching her about approval for the welding shoes, but did not recall telling him that he could get approval for items outside the approved list. She testified that she would not have approved purchases of items not on the list without writing a letter of explanation to Mr. Broomfield and obtaining his final approval. The facts that Mr. Spangler approached Ms. Brewer for approval of the welding shoes, and that Ms. Brewer submitted this request to Tallahassee for final approval, tend to support Ms. Brewer's testimony as to what transpired between her and Mr. Spangler regarding the necessity of Department approval for items not on the approved list. Ms. Brewer testified that, as far as she knew, she had no independent authority to approve purchases outside the list. She stated that it was her understanding that the NAFTA program dealt strictly with the tools needed to complete the coursework, not with tools that students might need in the field after completing the courses. Ms. Brewer had no direct contact with the vendors, but relied on the students to convey the information regarding the NAFTA program to the vendors and to their instructors. Mr. Thackrah was Mr. Spangler's instructor, and testified that he did not tell Mr. Spangler that the NAFTA program would pay for tools that he would need in the field after completing his coursework. Mr. Thackrah stated that he did not have the responsibility to track the various programs that provided funding to his students, and that he did not know what the NAFTA program would provide. Mr. Thackrah testified that he was provided no written guidelines as what the NAFTA program would or would not pay for. He stated that anything he knew about the NAFTA program was conveyed to him by his students, who told him that NAFTA would cover anything they would need in the field. Mr. Thackrah recalled helping the students put together lists of tools they would need in the field. He assumed that NAFTA would pay for these tools, based on his students' explanation of the program. Mr. Thackrah testified that he might have passed along this understanding of the NAFTA program information to Keith Williams, Respondent's employee in charge of the P-Tech account. Mr. Thackrah did not believe he told Mr. Williams that the students were allowed to buy anything they wanted, but that Mr. Williams may have heard that from the students. Mr. Williams testified that he had an informal meeting with instructors at P-Tech, and that they told him that the NAFTA students were entitled to any tools that they would need in the field to perform an automotive technician's job. The instructors gave him no dollar limit on those purchases, and told him that the students needed only the instructors' approval to purchase the tools. Mr. Williams testified that these students must have "thought it was Christmas." Mr. Williams recalled that Mr. Thackrah was "probably" the person who gave him the information about NAFTA reimbursements. Mr. Williams testified that he took the P- Tech instructors at their word, because he had been dealing with them over the course of five years and never had a problem with reimbursements. On September 1, 1998, Robert Dennison of Pinellas Park was enrolled in the NAFTA-TAA program by the Department's local coordinator for the St. Petersburg area, Sylvia Wells- Moore. Mr. Dennison was enrolled for training as an automotive technician. Also on that date, Mr. Dennison received a letter approving his request for training. The letter stated that his training would be provided by P-Tech "at a cost not to exceed $3,950." The letter stated that this amount "includes tuition, books, supplies and fees." Also on September 1, 1998, Ms. Wells-Moore provided Mr. Dennison with an "Applicant Acknowledgement Form" stating that $450 would be allotted for "books, equipment, supplies and/or tools. This is the total amount allowed for the entire length of your training, be it a one-week, or a two year course." The form stated that "books, special equipment, tools and uniforms will be limited to those items required by the school for every student." The form also stated that when the amount allotted for training materials has been exhausted, any additional costs must be borne by the student. Mr. Dennison signed the form, acknowledging that its contents had been "fully discussed" with him. The evidence established that Mr. Dennison obtained from Respondent tools that were not on the approved list at a total price of $8,046.79, and that the Department paid Respondent for those purchases. Mr. Dennison testified that he looked at the list of approved tools and concluded that no one could do a mechanic's job with those tools. He asked Ms. Wells-Moore if other tools would be provided, and she said they would. Mr. Dennison did not recall whether Ms. Wells-Moore told him that he would need her approval for purchases outside the list. He testified that, as he understood the NAFTA program, he believed all the tools he purchased were authorized. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that her practice was to tell students that all their tools and supplies had to come from the approved list. She stated that students were required to come to the Department and obtain a voucher before making any purchases. The student would then take the voucher to the merchant and obtain the approved tools. The merchant is then responsible for sending the invoice to the Department of Labor for reimbursement. Documents entered into evidence at the hearing indicate that Ms. Wells-Moore provided written instructions to Jason Hoch, a salesman working for Respondent on the P-Tech account. These instructions were consistent with her description of the vouchering process. She sent these instructions by facsimile transmission on October 2, 1998, prior to the purchase of any of the unlisted tools by either Mr. Spangler or Mr. Dennison. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that she never told Mr. Dennison that he could purchase items that he would need in the field after completing his coursework. She stated that she was not authorized to approve such purchases. Ms. Wells-Moore testified that if a student approached her about a tool not on the list, her first step would be to contact the instructor to ask whether the student really needed the tool to complete the coursework. She recalled such a conversation with one of Mr. Dennison's instructors, and the instructor telling her that the unlisted tools in question were not required for the course. Richard Knight was Mr. Dennison's instructor at P- Tech. Mr. Knight provided Mr. Dennison with a copy of the approved list and told him that these were the minimum tools. Mr. Knight testified that he had no direct knowledge of the NAFTA program and was unaware of any authority he had to approve the purchase of tools not on the list. He never told Mr. Dennison that NAFTA would provide tools for use in the field. Mr. Knight stated that he never "approved" any tool purchases, but he did recall signing a list of tools that Mr. Dennison brought to him. He understood that his signature was to verify that these were tools that the student would find useful in the field. Mr. Knight never received any written guidelines from the Department as to allowable purchases under the NAFTA program. He recalled a former student in the NAFTA program who said that NAFTA would pay the students for anything they needed in the field. Mr. Knight testified that both Mr. Dennison and Mr. Spangler appeared to assume that NAFTA would pay for tools they would need in the field. Mr. Knight also conceded that he may have relayed the students' understanding to the Respondent's salespeople. Mr. Broomfield testified that he became aware of problems when a representative of Respondent called to complain that some of its invoices were not being paid. Mr. Broomfield could find no record of the invoices at issue. He investigated and discovered that Respondent was bypassing the local TAA coordinators and sending its invoices directly to Tallahassee, some to the wrong division within the Department. Mr. Broomfield testified that this explained why so many unauthorized purchases were reimbursed by the Department. When an invoice arrives at the Tallahassee office, it is assumed that the local TAA coordinator has investigated and approved the purchase. Under ordinary circumstances, the Tallahassee office does not conduct an item-by-item review; it merely processes the invoices and writes the checks. In summary, the evidence established that Mr. Spangler and Mr. Dennison purchased tools not on the approved P-Tech list valued at a total of $12,383.71. The evidence established that these students were provided written notice of the firm limits on the allotted costs for their training. The evidence established that Ms. Wells-Moore gave Respondent written notice of the proper procedure for processing its invoices, prior to any of the unauthorized purchases. The evidence established that Respondent bypassed this procedure, and was reimbursed for purchases that had not been approved at the local level. The evidence established that the Department was remiss in its administration of the NAFTA program. It has promulgated no written rules or policies setting forth the reimbursement limits of the NAFTA program. It provided no written guidelines to either the schools or the vendors regarding allowable purchases. Ms. Brewer frankly stated that she relied on the students to inform their schools and vendors as to the purchasing limits. Whether Messrs. Spangler and Dennison honestly believed their purchases were allowed, or whether they were manipulating the system, they might not have obtained the unauthorized items had the Department directly informed P-Tech of its reimbursement practices. The evidence supports the finding that Respondent at the least was aware that the NAFTA program appeared to be unusually liberal, and that Respondent should have made further inquiry. Mr. Williams likened the program to "Christmas" for its participants. He testified that the instructors explained that the students were entitled to tools they would need in the field. However, the instructors credibly testified that, if they told Mr. Williams such a thing, they were merely relaying what the students told them. At best, Respondent was content to rely on the information provided by the students rather than contacting the Department to seek confirmation. The fact that Respondent bypassed the local TAA coordinators, and offered no explanation for this breach of the billing procedure, supports an inference that Respondent's failure to inquire was not entirely innocent. The evidence established that Respondent knew or should have known that the purchases in question were not covered by the NAFTA program, absent prior approval from the local TAA coordinators and the central office in Tallahassee. The Department's failure to establish a system of informing schools and vendors of the program's requirements was sufficiently obviated in this case by Ms. Wells-Moore's contacts with Respondent's representative. Ms. Wells-Moore directly placed Respondent on notice of the Department's reimbursement practices, prior to the purchases by Messrs. Spangler and Dennison. At the hearing, Respondent asserted a claim that the Department still owes Respondent $14,119.59 for tools provided to Messrs. Spangler and Dennison. Given the findings of fact above, it is unnecessary to address this claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department enter a final order providing that Respondent is indebted to the Department for NAFTA-TAA program overpayments in the amount of $12,383.71, and that Respondent shall repay the aforesaid amount within six months following entry of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jacqueline Corbett, Credit Manager Nestor Sales Company, Inc. 7337 Bryan Dairy Road Largo, Florida 34647 Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Mary B. Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security The Hartman Building, Suite 303 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast The Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue Whether Volkswagen of America, Inc., should be permitted to establish an additional franchised dealership in Broward County, Florida, as more specifically described in the written notice it provided the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles advising of its intention to establish such a dealership.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: VWoA is a Florida-licensed importer and distributor of Volkswagen (VW) vehicles. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volkswagen AG (VAG). VAG, which is headquartered in Germany, manufactures VW- brand motor vehicles. On a worldwide basis, it produces more vehicles than any other manufacturer except Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation. VWoA distributes to its franchised dealerships in the United States and Canada VW vehicles manufactured by VAG. VWoA establishes annual planning volumes or sales objectives for each of its franchised dealerships (based upon the dealership's past sales performance and other pertinent factors). For the first quarter of each year, VWoA's allocation of vehicles to the dealership is based upon the established planning volume for that dealership. In determining the number of vehicles to allocate to a dealership during the remainder of the year, VWoA takes into consideration the dealership's to-date sales performance for the year in relation to VWoA's expectations (as reflected by the dealership's planning volume previously established for that year). VWoA's franchised dealerships (VW dealerships) in the United States are assigned to one of five regions, each headed by a VWoA regional team leader. VW dealerships in Florida are assigned to the Southeast Region. James Wolter has been the regional team leader for VWoA's Southeast Region since January 1, 1999. Each region, including the Southeast Region, is divided into districts, each headed by a VWoA area executive. The area (defined in terms of zip codes) around each dealership in a district in which the dealership is deemed to have a geographic advantage over other VW dealerships because of the dealership's proximity (in terms of distance by air) to consumers living in that area is referred to by VWoA as the dealership's Primary Area of Influence or PAI. Three digit numbers are used to designate each dealership's PAI. VW dealerships in southeast Florida, from Indian River County (to the north) to Dade County (to the south), are assigned to District 22. Charles Westly has been the area executive of District 22 since January 1, 1999. At present, there are 11 existing VW dealerships located in District 22: Vista Volkswagen, whose PAI is 012; Esserman International, whose PAI is 029; Vero Beach Motorsports, whose PAI is 031; South Motors, whose PAI is 041; Gunther Volkswagen, whose PAI is 073; Stuart Volkswagen, whose PAI is 087; Esserman Volkswagen, whose PAI is 095; Deel Volkswagen, whose PAI is 223; Borton Volkswagen, whose PAI is 237; Palm Beach Volkswagen, whose PAI is 241; and Schumacher Volkswagen, whose PAI is 242. Nine of these 11 dealerships are located in Dade, Broward, or Palm Beach Counties (which, collectively, are also known as the "Miami Metro"). The dealerships located in Dade County are Esserman International, South Motors, Esserman Volkswagen, and Deel Volkswagen. The dealerships located in Palm Beach County are Borton Volkswagen, Palm Beach Volkswagen, and Schumacher Volkswagen. Borton Volkswagen, which is operated by Borton, is located at 2201 North Federal Highway in Delray Beach in southeast Palm Beach County. Palm Beach Volkswagen and Schumacher Volkswagen are located to the north of Borton Volkswagen. The dealerships located in Broward County are Vista Volkswagen and Gunther Volkswagen. Although Broward County presently has fewer VW dealerships than either of the other two counties which comprise the Miami Metro, of the three Miami Metro counties, Broward County is (based on 1998 registration data) the largest market in terms of the sale of new automobiles (of all makes). Vista Volkswagen, which is operated by Vista (an entity owned by Charles Dascal, Larry Hoffman, and Richard Buttafuoco, who also have an ownership interest in the entity that operates South Motors) is located 17.2 miles south of Borton Volkswagen at 700 North Federal Highway in Pompano Beach in northeast Broward County. Vista also operates (out of separate facilities and using a separate sales and service staff) a BMW dealership at this location. Gunther Volkswagen is located 11.4 miles to the southwest of Vista Volkswagen at 1660 South State Road 7 (441) in the Fort Lauderdale/Plantation area. It is operated by Gunther Motor Company of Plantation, Inc. (Gunther Plantation), which prior to July 15, 1999, was known as Gunther Motor Company, and, which prior to 1991, was known as Gunther Volkswagen, Inc. Gunther Plantation also operates (out of separate facilities and using separate sales and service staff) Kia and Mazda dealerships on the 15-acre tract on which Gunther Volkswagen is located. Joseph F. Gunther, Jr. (Mr. Gunther) is the President of Gunther Plantation and its majority (51%) shareholder. The remaining 49% of the shares of the corporation are owned by Mr. Gunther's three sons, Joseph F. Gunther III (16%), John Casey Gunther (Casey Gunther) (16%), and Michael Gunther (17%). The elder Mr. Gunther has had an ownership interest in Gunther Plantation and has been actively involved in the operations of Gunther Volkswagen since 1970. In 1970, when Gunther Volkswagen opened (as the third VW dealership in Broward County), VWoA had annual sales in the United States of 569,292 units, which were made through a dealer network of 1,160 dealerships. 6/ Thereafter, as Japanese imports became increasingly popular, annual sales of new VWs (VW sales) in the United States declined. There was also a decline in the number of VW dealerships in the United States starting in 1973. (The number of VW dealerships in the United States peaked at 1,203 in 1972.) In 1993, VW sales in the United States were 49,533 units, fewer than had been made in any year since 1955. By that year, the nationwide VW dealership network was "pretty fragmented." It consisted of 639 dealerships (564 less than had been in operation in 1972), not all of which were at the "right" locations. In 1993, Dr. Ferdinand Piech (an engineer by profession) became the Chief Executive Officer of VAG. Under his leadership, VAG took measures that significantly improved the quality of the product it manufactured. At the same time, VWoA reorganized its management structure and began the task of rebuilding the VW dealership network in the United States by closing underperforming dealerships, relocating dealerships to better locations, and selectively adding new dealerships in markets where it was either not represented or not adequately represented. In the years subsequent to 1993, VW sales in the United States have rebounded significantly. In 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, VW sales in the United States were 97,043, 115,114, 135,907, 137,885, and 219,679 units, respectively. While VW sales in the United States have increased over this period of time, the number of United States VW dealerships has declined each year. At the end of 1998, there were 600 VW dealerships in the United States, 39 less than in 1993 and 603 less than in 1972. VWoA anticipates that VW sales in the United States will continue to rise. It has a sales objective of 306,000 units for 1999 and 348,000 units for 2000. There has also been, subsequent to 1993, a substantial increase in VW sales by dealerships in what is now District 22 (the District 22 area) and by dealerships in the Miami Metro. In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, VW sales by dealerships in the District 22 area totaled 1,226, 2,448, 3,041, 3,913, 4,264, and 7,757 units, respectively, and VW sales by dealerships in the Miami Metro totaled 1,187, 2,351, 2,941, 3,816, 4,236, and 7,648 units, respectively. In the first six months of 1999, VW sales by dealerships in the District 22 area totaled 5,739 units, and VW sales by dealerships in the Miami Metro totaled 5,509 units. In 1998, Gunther Volkswagen sold more VWs than any other dealership in the United States. In terms of the total number of VW sales made during 1998, the other VW dealerships in the Miami Metro ranked 44th (South Motors), 56th (Esserman Volkswagen), 57th (Deel Volkswagen), 61st (Vista Volkswagen), 88th (Palm Beach Volkswagen), 100th (Schumacher Volkswagen), 105th (Borton Volkswagen), and 319th (Esserman International 7/) out of the 600 VW dealerships in the United States. Out of the 170 dealerships in VWoA's Southeast Region, the Miami Metro dealerships' sales rankings for 1998 were as follows: Gunther Volkswagen: 1st; South Motors: 10th; Esserman Volkswagen: 13th; Deel Volkswagen: 14th; Vista Volkswagen: 16th; Schumacher Volkswagen: 22nd; Borton Volkswagen: 24th; and Esserman International: 84th. For the first six months of 1999, three of the Miami Metro dealerships were among the top 50 VW dealerships in the United States in total VW sales. Gunther Volkswagen was number one, with 1,829 VW sales; South Motors was number 17, with 708 VW sales; and Vista Volkswagen was number 44, with 548 VW sales. The increases in VW sales in the District 22 area and the Miami Metro have occurred despite supply shortages of certain popular models with features desired by consumers that have resulted in dealerships creating "waiting lists" for these vehicles (a nationwide problem VWoA and VAG are taking measures to rectify 8/); the absence of a VW dealership in Martin County in 1997 and 1998; and having one less dealership in Broward County since the closing of Arnie Smith Volkswagen in or about July of 1995. Arnie Smith Volkswagen was located in an older facility in a deteriorating area on Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, approximately halfway between Gunther Volkswagen and Vista Volkswagen. In addition to being in a bad location, it suffered from management problems and high employee turnover. As a result, its VW sales were declining. (From January of 1995 through July of 1995, its VW sales were 63 units, 43 less than the number of VW sales it had made during the first seven months of the previous year.) Arnie Smith Volkswagen was bought out by VWoA and Gunther Plantation (which at the time was known as Gunther Motor Company). Vista was asked to participate in the buy-out, but declined to do so. The closing of Arnie Smith Volkswagen left VWoA with two dealerships in Broward County, neither of which was located in the rapidly growing western portion of the county. At the time of the closing of Arnie Smith Volkswagen, VWoA believed that the most prudent course of action was to keep the Broward County VW dealership count at two to allow the two remaining dealerships to "get some meat on their bones." These two dealerships, Gunther Volkswagen and Vista Volkswagen, did enjoy an increase in VW sales after the closing of Arnie Smith Volkswagen. In the first half of 1995, when Arnie Smith Volkswagen was still in business, Gunther Volkswagen and Vista Volkswagen had 571 and 121 VW sales, respectively. In the second half of 1995, when Arnie Smith Volkswagen was no longer selling VWs, Gunther Volkswagen and Vista Volkswagen had 664 and 160 VW sales, respectively. Gunther Volkswagen's VW sales in 1996, 1997, and 1998 were 1,657, 1,657, and 2,565 units, respectively. Vista Volkswagen's VW sales in 1996, 1997, and 1998 were 370, 515, and 722 units, respectively. By late 1996 to early 1997, VWoA determined that the time was right to establish another VW dealership in Broward County and bring its dealership count in the county to three (which is the same number of VW dealerships that VWoA had in the county from 1970 until Arnie Smith Volkswagen went out of business in or about July of 1995). After reviewing vehicle registration and sales data, which reflected that its principal competitors with dealerships in the Coconut Creek area of northwest Broward County were outperforming VWoA in that area, VWoA made the further determination that this third Broward County VW dealership should be located in the Coconut Creek area (which, in 1970, consisted of either swamp or farm land and today is one of the fastest growing areas in the nation, with a population having income characteristics that make it a "great spot to be selling . . . new vehicles"). There has been no showing that VWoA, at any time, attempted to coerce any of the existing VW dealers to consent to the establishment of such an additional VW dealership. After determining to establish an additional VW dealership in the Coconut Creek area, VWoA began looking for an operator for this additional dealership, and it also retained the services of a real estate company, the Core Company (which is now known as Travel Pro), to search for a suitable site in the Coconut Creek area for the dealership. Vista and Gunther Plantation were among the candidates VWoA considered to operate the dealership. VWoA had several conversations about the Coconut Creek market with Vista (which recognized that the Coconut Creek area was a "boom" area with considerable market potential). At no time during these conversations did Vista indicate that it was willing to operate full-scale VW dealerships in both Pompano Beach and the Coconut Creek area. After reviewing the qualifications and credentials of the candidates under consideration, VWoA, exercising reasonable and sound business judgment, determined that the principals of Gunther Plantation (which at the time was third in the nation in the number of VW sales) were best suited to operate the additional VW dealership in the Coconut Creek area. It then entered into negotiations with them. Thereafter, some time before March 18, 1998, Vista approached VWoA and proposed that it be allowed to either relocate its Pompano Beach VW dealership to the Coconut Creek area or operate a full-scale VW dealership in the Coconut Creek area, while maintaining a satellite VW dealership with limited sales, service, and parts facilities (as opposed to a full-scale VW dealership) in Pompano Beach. VWoA rejected both alternatives inasmuch as it had already selected an operator for the Coconut Creek area VW dealership. It does not appear that, in denying Vista the opportunity to operate a VW dealership in the Coconut Creek area, VWoA acted unreasonably; nor is there evidence that VWoA, in any other respect, acted in a manner that unreasonably denied Vista the opportunity to grow and expand its VW dealership. Notwithstanding VWoA's rejection of Vista's proposal, Vista still intends to proceed with plans to relocate its Pompano Beach BMW dealership to the Coconut Creek area, a move that would result in an increase in Vista's operating expenses. In middle to late 1997, VWoA acquired property in the Coconut Creek area for a VW dealership. The property is located on the northeast corner of State Road 7 (441) and Collum Road (Coconut Creek Site), which is in Vista Volkswagen's PAI. The Coconut Creek Site is in an area where existing dealerships representing other major brands (including brands against which the VW brand competes) are clustered. (Such clustering promotes inter-brand competition and makes it more convenient for consumers to shop for automobiles.) There are six such "automobile clusters" in Broward County and southern Palm Beach County, one each in the Delray Beach, the Pompano Beach, the Coconut Creek, the Plantation, the Ft. Lauderdale, and the Hollywood/Davie/Pembroke Pines areas. In 1997, these clusters generated the following new vehicle sales: Delray Beach area cluster: 22,270 units; Pompano Beach area cluster: 28,281 units; Coconut Creek area cluster: 29,602 units; Plantation area cluster: 24,225 units; Ft. Lauderdale area cluster: 16,968 units; and Hollywood/Davie/Pembroke Pines area cluster: 31,449 units. VWoA is presently represented in only three of these six "automobile clusters": the Plantation area cluster (where Gunther Volkswagen is located); the Pompano Beach area cluster (where Vista Volkswagen is located); and the Delray Beach area cluster (where Borton Volkswagen is located). The three existing VW dealerships closest to the Coconut Creek Site are Vista Volkswagen, which is 6.9 miles away, Gunther Volkswagen, which is 12.7 miles away, and Borton Volkswagen, which is 16.3 miles away. (There are existing dealerships in the Coconut Creek area representing brands other than VW (Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Lincoln Mercury, Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Toyota) that are 6.9 miles or less from their closest intrabrand competitor.) The driving time between the Coconut Creek Site and Gunther Volkswagen is anywhere between 26 and 40 to 45 minutes (depending on traffic). It takes from approximately 17 minutes to 30 to 35 minutes (depending on traffic) to drive from the Coconut Creek Site east to Vista Volkswagen. East-west movement in Broward County has become increasingly difficult over the years as the western portion of the county has become more densely populated. As a result, consumers in Broward County tend to move in a north-south, rather than an east-west, direction to make their vehicle purchases. On March 16, 1998, after a period of negotiation and the exchange of draft agreements, VWoA sent the following letter of understanding to Mr. Gunther and Casey Gunther: 9/ This letter will summarize our understanding of the actions to which you and Volkswagen of America, Inc. ("VWoA") are prepared to commit to establish a new, exclusive Volkswagen dealership for the Gunther organization ("Gunther") in Coconut Creek, FL. The following bullet points are a recap of our meeting on January 30, 1998, and include the following. In light of what we believe to be the potential growth in this market, it is the intent of VWoA to designate Coconut Creek as an open point and to construct a new dealership facility on the property owned by VWoA in Coconut Creek. While the building architecture will be based on the new Volkswagen Corporate Design guidelines, VWoA agrees to seek your input into the size of the building and land requirements needed to operate the dealership. The actual facility construction costs are estimated to be approximately $100 per square foot, but this may vary depending on local requirements and conditions. VWoA will defend its right to designate Coconut Creek as an open point in the event that another dealer in the market protests VWoA's action. Once the facility is completed, VWoA and Gunther will enter into a lease agreement for the land and building. The annual lease will be negotiated based on the cost to purchase the land used by the dealership, the final facility construction costs and local market value. Prior to entering into a new lease for the Coconut Creek dealership, Gunther will have purchased or entered into an intent to purchase from VWoA the existing Gunther Volkswagen, Inc. 10/ building and real property located in Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 11/ It is understood by both parties that it will take time to establish service and parts business at the new point in Coconut Creek, which business will be an integral part of the Volkswagen operations at that facility. The parties further understand that to establish that business will require sufficient New and Used Vehicle sales volumes to generate a gross profit reasonably sufficient to support the facility lease. Because this will be a new point, and because at this time there is not an established sales rate for the Coconut Creek market, VWoA agrees to establish annual new vehicle planning volumes in the following manner: At a minimum, an annual new vehicle planning volume will equal one percent (1%) of the national retail sales objective for the respective year. By way of example only, if the national new vehicle retail objective for a given year is 200,000 vehicles, the planning volume for Coconut Creek would be 2,000 vehicles. 12/ This method of calculating planning volumes will remain in effect for the first three years of operation of the new Coconut Creek point. After the third year, the dealership's new vehicle planning volume will be calculated in the same manner then used by VWoA to establish the planning volume for every Volkswagen dealer. After the first year of operation, the dealership's annual planning volume may be set at a level higher than the calculated 1% of national retail objective if supported by actual retail sales rates at the dealership. All requirements as delineated in the then current Volkswagen Dealer Agreement, Standard Provisions and Operating Standards shall apply to your appointment as a Volkswagen dealer in Coconut Creek. In the event that Gunther elects not to pursue this opportunity to operate an exclusive Volkswagen dealership in Coconut Creek, then Gunther (a) acknowledges VWoA's intent to designate Coconut Creek as an open point and (b) agrees to waive its right to protest the appointment of another dealer operator in Coconut Creek. As previously mentioned, this letter is intended to confirm issues we discussed in January. If you are in agreement with the above, please sign the attached copy of this letter and return it to me. Once we receive the executed copy, we will file the necessary documents with the city and state to obtain their approvals to move forward with our plans. This is an exciting opportunity for both Volkswagen and the Gunther organization, 13/ and we look forward to working closely with you as we get this project underway. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Mr. Gunther and Casey Gunther both signed this letter on March 25, 1998, indicating that they "concur[red]" with the representations made in the letter. VWoA customarily makes special arrangements concerning allocation of vehicles, like those set forth in the letter of understanding signed by Mr. Gunther and Casey Gunther, with dealers operating newly created VW dealerships to "get the dealership[s] going." This is a reasonable business practice. Following the execution of this letter of understanding, Debra L. Kingsbury, Esquire, VWoA's attorney, sent the following letter, dated April 2, 1998, to Ronald Reynolds, the Administrator of the Department's Dealer License Section: Dear Mr. Reynolds: Pursuant to the requirements of Florida Statutes, Section 320.642, notice is hereby given that Volkswagen of America, Inc. ("VWoA") intends to establish Gunther Motor Company as a dealership for the sale of Volkswagen vehicles at Block 89, Lots 22 and 23, Coconut Creek, Broward County, Florida 33073. This vacant property is on the northeast corner of State Rd. 441 and Collum Rd. VWoA intends to engage in business with Gunther as a dealership on or after April 1, 1999, assuming that no protest is filed. The dealer(s) of the same line-make vehicles in the county where the new dealership will be located and all counties adjoining that county are as follows: County Palm Beach County Borton Volkswagen 2201 N. Federal Highway Delray Beach, FL 33483 Palm Beach Volkswagen 6870 Okeechobee Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33415 Schumacher Automotive 3720 Northlake Blvd. Lake Park, FL 33403 Broward County Vista Volkswagen 700 N. Federal Highway Pompano, Beach, FL 33062 Gunther Volkswagen 1660 S. State Road 7 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33317 Collier County A+ Car World 601 Airport Pulling Rd. Naples, FL 33942 Dade County Deel Volkswagen 3650 Bird Rd. Miami, FL 33133 South Motors of Dade County 16125 South Dixie Highway Miami, FL 33157 Esserman Volkswagen 16825 NW 57th Ave. Miami, FL 33055 The names and address of the dealer-operator and principal investors of Gunther Motor Company are: Dealer-Operator Joseph F. Gunther, Jr. Principal Investors Joseph F. Gunther, Jr. 1660 S. State Road 7 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33317 If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to let me know. To the extent that Ms. Kingsbury's letter reflected that Joseph F. Gunther, Jr., would be the "dealer-operator" of the dealership VWoA proposed to establish in Coconut Creek, the letter was inconsistent with the representations made in the March 16, 1998, letter of understanding VWoA had sent to Mr. Gunther and Casey Gunther that the "dealer-operator" of this proposed dealership would be the entire "Gunther organization" (that is, the corporate entity which was owned by Mr. Gunther and his three sons, each of whom had an ownership interest in excess of 10%). 14/ By letter dated April 22, 1998, Mr. Reynolds notified Ms. Kingsbury that a "notice of publication to establish a franchise for Gunther Motor Company" was "published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on April 17, 1998." A copy of the "notice of publication" was enclosed, and it read as follows: Pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, Volkswagen of America, Inc. ("VWoA"), intends to allow the establishment of Gunther Motor Company, as a dealership for the sale of Volkswagen vehicles, at Block 89, Lots 22 and 23. This vacant property is on the northeast corner of State Road 441 and Collum Road, Coconut Creek (Broward County), Florida 33073, on or after April 1, 1999. The name and address of the dealer operator(s) and principal investor(s) of Gunther Motor Company is Joseph F. Gunther, Jr., 1660 S. State Road 7, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33317. The notice indicates an intent to establish the new point location in a county of more than 300,000 population, according to the latest population estimates of the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Certain dealerships of the same line-make may have standing, pursuant to Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, to file a petition or complaint protesting the application. Written petitions or complaints must be received by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice and must be submitted to: Mr. Ronald D. Reynolds, Administrator, Dealer License Section, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Room A-312, Neil Kirkman Building, 2900 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635. A copy of such petition or complaint must also be sent by U.S. Mail to: Debra L. Kingsbury, Attorney, Volkswagen of America, Inc., 3800 Hamlin Road, Auburn Hills, MI 48326. If no petitions or complaints are received within 30 days of the date of publication, a final order will be issued by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles approving the establishment of the dealership, subject to the applicant's compliance with the provisions of Chapter 320, Florida Statutes. As noted above, in 1998, including the time when Ms. Kingsbury wrote to Mr. Reynolds and when the April 17, 1998, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly was published, the corporate entity that is now known as Gunther Motor Company of Plantation, Inc., was known as Gunther Motor Company. It was not until July 15, 1999, that its name was changed to its present name. On that same day, July 15, 1999, a new Florida corporation, named Gunther Motor Company and having Mr. Gunther as its sole shareholder, was formed. If an additional VW dealership is established on the Coconut Creek Site (Proposed Dealership), it would be assigned a PAI consisting of zip codes that are now included in the PAIs of existing VW dealerships which are located further away from the centroids of these zip codes than is the Coconut Creek Site. (The Proposed Dealership's PAI will be referred to herein as the "Coconut Creek PAI.") In 1998, 782 new retail VWs were registered in what would have been the Coconut Creek PAI had the Proposed Dealership been in operation that year. (Only Gunther Volkswagen's PAI (with 1642) and Deel Volkswagen's PAI (with 942) had more than 782 new retail VW registrations that year.) Of these 782 vehicles, 327 were sold by Gunther Volkswagen (constituting approximately 13% of its VW sales), 219 were sold by Vista Volkswagen (constituting approximately 30% of its VW sales), and 113 were sold by Borton Volkswagen (constituting approximately 20% of its VW sales). VWoA takes the position in this proceeding that it is not adequately represented in the "community or territory" in which the Proposed Dealership is located. To evaluate the merits of this claim, it is first necessary to identify this "community or territory." VWoA and Vista agree, and the undersigned finds, that the relevant "community or territory" in the instant case (Comm/Terr) consists of the PAIs now assigned to Gunther Volkswagen and Vista Volkswagen (the two existing VW dealerships in Broward County) and to Borton Volkswagen (which is the southernmost VW dealership in Palm Beach County). In 1998, there was a total of 3,371 new retail VWs registered in the Comm/Terr. While there is no dispute regarding the identity of the relevant "community or territory" in the instant case, VWoA and Vista are not in agreement as to the standard that should be used to measure the performance of VWoA's dealership network in the Comm/Terr. Dealership network performance is generally assessed based upon the "market share" or "market penetration" (which are synonymous terms) achieved by the brand in the market in question during the applicable time period, compared to the "market share" or "market penetration" the brand was "reasonably expected" to achieve. ("Market share" or "market penetration" is expressed as a percentage, and it represents a brand's share of the total number of new vehicle registrations in the market.) A "reasonably expected" "market share" or "market penetration" for the VW brand in the Comm/Terr may be determined by: (a) selecting an appropriate comparison market area separate from the Comm/Terr (but preferably in the same local area) where the brand appears not to be inadequately represented; (b) ascertaining the brand’s "market share" or "market penetration" in that comparison market area; and (c) utilizing a process called "segmentation analysis" to account for any differences in consumer preferences and demographic characteristics that may exist between the comparison market area and the Comm/Terr. VWoA suggests, and the undersigned agrees, that it is reasonable and appropriate to assess VWoA's performance in the Comm/Terr by comparing it with VWoA's performance in the PAIs for Schumacher Volkswagen and Palm Beach Volkswagen (Palm Beach PAIs), as segment adjusted (Palm Beach Standard). 15/ The undersigned rejects Vista's contention that, to properly evaluate VWoA's performance in the Comm/Terr, VWoA's "market share" or "market penetration" in the Comm/Terr should be compared, not with the Palm Beach Standard, but "with [VWoA's] average penetration in the U.S. major metros, the Southeast major metros, and the Florida major metros" (Vista's Approach). Vista's Approach does not take into account, or make adjustments for, any consumer preferences, such as import bias, 16/ and demographic characteristics that may distinguish the Comm/Terr from the "average" "metro" market in the United States, in the southeastern United States, and in Florida. Moreover, Vista's Approach fails to take into consideration that VWoA has an incomplete national dealership network and is inadequately represented in various markets included in "the U.S. major metros, the Southeast major metros, and the Florida major metros." As a result, Vista's Approach yields a standard that, unlike the Palm Beach Standard, is too conservative to reflect a "reasonably expected" "market share" or "market penetration" for the Comm/Terr. Employing the Palm Beach Standard (as segment adjusted), the "reasonably expected" "market shares" or "market penetrations" in the Comm/Terr and the Coconut Creek PAI for the VW brand for the years 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 were as follows: Comm/Terr: 1995- 1.9%, 1996- 3.5%, 1997- 3.5%, and 1998- 6.2%; and Coconut Creek PAI: 1995- 1.8%, 1996- 3.5%, 1997- 3.4%, and 1998- 6.1%. The actual "market shares" or "market penetrations" in the Comm/Terr and the Coconut Creek PAI for the VW brand for these years were as follows: Comm/Terr: 1995- 2.2% (which was more than "reasonably expected"), 1996- 3.8% (which was more than "reasonably expected"), 1997-3.2% (which was less than "reasonably expected"), and 1998- 5.4% (which was less than "reasonably expected," but more than VWoA's "average penetration in the U.S. major metros [4.6%], the Southeast major metros [4.4%], and the Florida major metros [4.4%]"); and Coconut Creek PAI: 1995- 2.0% (which was more than "reasonably expected"), 1996- 3.2% (which was less than "reasonably expected"), 1997- 2.8% (which was less than "reasonably expected"), and 1998- 4.6% (which was less than "reasonably expected," but the same as "the average penetration in the U.S. major market metros" and more than the "average penetration in the . . . Southeast major metros, and the Florida major metros"). Accordingly, for every full year after 1996, VWoA's "market share" or "market penetration" in the Comm/Terr has been less than "reasonably expected," and for every full year after 1995, VWoA's "market share" or "market penetration" in the Coconut Creek PAI has been less than "reasonably expected." Comparing VWoA's actual versus its "reasonably expected" "market share" or "market penetration" in the Comm/Terr and the Coconut Creek PAI reveals the "retail registration effectiveness" of its dealership network in those markets. The "retail registration effectiveness" of VWoA's dealership network in the Comm/Terr in 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 was 119%, 108.1%, 93%, and 87.1%, respectively. The "retail registration effectiveness" of VWoA's dealership network in the Coconut Creek PAI during those years was 111.6%, 93.4%, 84%, and 76.3%, respectively. Accordingly, for every full year after 1995, the last year that VWoA was represented by four dealerships in the Comm/Terr, the "retail registration effectiveness" of VWoA's dealership network in the Comm/Terr and the Coconut Creek PAI has declined. During this period of decline in VWoA's "retail registration effectiveness" in the Comm/Terr and the Coconut Creek PAI, demographic factors in these markets, insofar as retail vehicle sales are concerned, have been favorable. In fact, such sales increased in absolute terms in the Comm/Terr in 1996, 1997, and 1998 (from 1,367 in 1995, to 1,715 in 1996, to 2,341 in 1997, to 3,902 in 1998), but not enough in 1997 and 1998 to meet reasonable expectations with respect to "market share" or "market penetration" (which measures a brand's performance relative to other brands). The likely cause of VWoA's recent "retail registration [in]effectiveness" in the Comm/Terr is the absence of an adequate number of VW dealerships located within its boundaries (which negatively impacts consumer convenience). There are 132 franchised dealerships (of all brands) in the Comm/Terr. Only three (or 2.3%) of these dealerships are VW dealerships. (The Comm/Terr has had only three VW dealerships since the closing of Arnie Smith Volkswagen in or about July of 1995.) In contrast, in the Palm Beach PAIs, 4% of the franchised dealerships are VW dealerships It does not appear that the recent "retail registration [in]effectiveness" in the Comm/Terr has been caused by the supply shortages of VW product (that have led to the creation of "waiting lists" for certain types of VW vehicles) inasmuch as there is no indication that such supply shortages existed only in the Comm/Terr and were not present elsewhere (including, most significantly, in the Palm Beach PAIs). Having identified the cause of VWoA's recent "retail registration [in]effectiveness" in the Comm/Terr as an insufficient number of VW dealerships, the solution to this problem is obvious: the addition of at least another VW dealership in the Comm/Terr. The Coconut Creek area cluster (where the Coconut Creek Site is located) is an appropriate location for this additional dealership. Relocating one of the existing VW dealerships in the Comm/Terr to the Coconut Creek area would not solve the "retail registration effectiveness" problem that VWoA is experiencing in the Comm/Terr inasmuch it would still leave VWoA with an inadequate share of the franchised dealerships in the Comm/Terr. The establishment of an additional VW dealership on the Coconut Creek site would benefit not only VWoA (by increasing its VW sales and enabling it to attain greater "market share" or "market penetration" in the Comm/Terr than it would with just three dealerships in the Comm/Terr). Consumers, particularly those in the Coconut Creek PAI (Coconut Creek consumers), would benefit as well. At present, with three VW dealerships in the Comm/Terr (none of which is located in the Coconut Creek area) Coconut Creek consumers, on the average, have to travel a further distance (8.6 miles) to buy new VWs (or to have their VWs serviced or repaired) than they do to purchase (or have serviced or repaired) vehicles of any of the 27 major brands that are represented in the Coconut Creek PAI. To purchase (or have serviced or repaired) vehicles manufactured by VAG's and VWoA's principal import competitors, Honda, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Mazda, and Nissan, these consumers have to travel, on the average, 4.1, 4.4, 4.4, 4.6, and 4.8 miles, respectively. If the Proposed Dealership is established on the Coconut Creek Site, Coconut Creek consumers would, on the average, be 4.6 miles away from a VW dealership. The establishment of the Proposed Dealership would not only reduce the distance Coconut Creek consumers, on the average, have to travel to get to a VW dealership, it would also increase the number of service stalls available in the Coconut Creek PAI to service and repair VW vehicles. These additional service stalls are badly needed. For example, consumers wanting to have their vehicles serviced or repaired at Gunther Volkswagen (which has 17 service stalls, four more than the number of stalls Vista Volkswagen has that are completely devoted to VW service and repair 17/), must wait, on average, a minimum of two weeks from the time they make an appointment before the dealership is able to service or repair their vehicles. If there is not an increase in the number of service stalls in the area, as VW sales rise, Coconut Creek PAI VW owners seeking to have their vehicles serviced will face even greater delays and resulting inconvenience. Consumers would also benefit from the increase in interbrand competition and intrabrand competition (among VW dealerships) that would occur as a result of the establishment of an additional VW dealership on the Coconut Creek Site. 18/ The benefits VWoA and consumers would derive from the establishment of the Proposed Dealership would not come at the expense of the existing VW dealers in the Comm/Terr, if these existing dealerships were to respond competitively to a new intrabrand competitor in the market. It is reasonable to anticipate that these dealerships would respond in such a competitive manner and that, among other things, they would increase their marketing efforts in the Comm/Terr. Such increased marketing efforts, along with the addition of a fourth VW dealership in the Comm/Terr, would produce an increased awareness of the VW brand, which, given the significant untapped potential of the brand in the Comm/Terr, would enable each of the existing dealerships, including Vista Volkswagen, to increase its VW sales. Indeed, even if the positive impact (of an additional VW dealership in the Comm/Terr) on consumer demand for the VW brand were disregarded, the opportunity (in terms of VW sales) presently available in the Comm/Terr (that is, the opportunity that the existing VW dealerships have not taken advantage of and therefore have "lost," hereinafter referred to as "lost opportunity" would be sufficient to support a fourth VW dealership in the Comm/Terr and, at the same time, allow the three existing VW dealerships to increase their VW sales in the Comm/Terr inasmuch as this "lost opportunity" in the Comm/Terr is significantly greater than the number of VW sales that it is reasonable to expect the Proposed Dealership would make to Comm/Terr consumers. Vista has made a significant investment ($3,311,971.00 as of October 1998) to perform its obligations under its dealer agreement with VWoA (with which it is in substantial compliance). The establishment of the Proposed Dealership, however, would not cause Vista to be deprived of a fair return on its investment, nor would it have "a significant and unfair negative financial impact on Vista," as Vista claims in its Proposed Recommended Order. While it is true that the size of Vista Volkswagen's PAI would be reduced by the addition of a VW dealership on the Coconut Creek Site, having a smaller PAI 20/ would not have any adverse impact on Vista's VW business if Vista were to respond in an effective, competitive manner 21/ and aggressively take advantage of the opportunity that would be available in the Comm/Terr as a whole 22/ (which, as noted above, would be sufficient to support four dealerships), with its efforts being focused upon the geographic areas closest to its dealership. There is no reason to believe that Vista would not be able to respond in such a fashion and offset any loss of Coconut Creek consumer business that it might suffer as a result of the establishment of the Proposed Dealership with an increase in business from consumers residing in its newly configured PAI and in other areas outside of the Coconut Creek PAI. There is no evidence that VWoA has unreasonably denied Vista opportunities for growth within the Miami Metro market. The establishment of the Proposed Dealership appears to be warranted and justified based upon present and anticipated economic and marketing conditions in the Comm/Terr.
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 approving the proposal/application of Volkswagen of America, Inc., to establish an additional dealership in the Coconut Creek area of Broward County. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of December, 1999.
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06, F.S. enter an assessment for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Respondent's bond.
Findings Of Fact Frank Hampton, d/b/a Hampton's Gulf Station, has operated at 2610 North Myrtle Avenue, Jacksonville, for many years and has had no prior complaints against it by the Petitioner. Respondent is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. The facts in this case are largely undisputed. On November 28, 1990, Bill Ford, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, visited the Respondent's premises to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Ford drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where John Anderson, under the supervision of Nancy Fischer, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether the sample met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .21% by weight of sulfur. This in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product, but it would qualify as "2-K" kerosene. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 30, 1990) the tank from which the test sample had been drawn contained 3887 gallons of product. It was determined from Respondent's records that 4392 gallons had been sold to the public since the last delivery of 5500 gallons on November 16, 1990. The product was sold at $1.58 per gallon. The calculated retail value of the product sold was determined to be in excess of $1,000.00, and the agency permitted the seller to post a bond for $1,000.00 (the maximum legal penalty/bond) on December 3, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases. On this occasion, Respondent had purchased the kerosene in question from a supplier which is not its usual wholesale supplier. This was the first time Respondent had ever ordered from this supplier and it is possible there was some miscommunication in the order, but Respondent intended to order pure "1-K" kerosene. Respondent only purchased from this supplier due to the desperate need in the community for kerosene during the unusually cold weather that occurred during the fall of 1990. Respondent ordered "1-K" kerosene and believed that "1-K" had been delivered to it by the new wholesale supplier up until the agency inspector sampled Respondent's tank. After posting bond, Respondent originally intended to send the unused portion of "2-K" kerosene back to its supplier, but instead was granted permission by the agency to relabel the remaining product so that the label would correctly reflect that the product was "2-K." Respondent accordingly charged only the lesser rate appropriate to "2-K" kerosene for sale of the remaining 3887 gallons.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Cnsumer Services enter a final order approving the $1,000.00 maximum penalty and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: FRANK HAMPTON HAMPTON VILLA APARTMENTS 3190 WEST EDGEWOOD AVENUE JACKSONVILLE, FL 32209 CLINTON COULTER, JR. ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES (LEGAL) MAYO BUILDING, ROOM 510 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File by June C. McKinney, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s letter of withdrawal of protest of the establishment of AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc., a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent, AutoNation Dodge of Pembroke Pines, Inc. be granted a license for the sale and service of Chrysler passenger cars and light trucks (CHRY) 13601 Pines Boulevard, Pembroke Pines (Broward County), Florida 33027 upon Filed January 27, 2012 3:47 PM Division of Administrative Hearings compliance with all applicable requirements of section 320.27, Florida Statutes, and all applicable Department rules. DONE AND ORDERED this 2 q day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Michael D. Le Assistant Deputy Director Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this _A\\__ day of January, 2012. Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Hicense Administrator NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. MDM/jde Copies furnished: Thomas H. Yardley, Esquire Law Office of Thomas H. Yardley 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building D Cocoa, Florida 32922 Phil Langley Chrysler Motors, LLC 10300 Boggy Creek Road Orlando, Florida 32824 R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dean Bunch, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS MASSEY-YARDLEY CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., Petitioner, vs. Case No. 11-6491 CHRYSLER GROUP CARCO, LLC, AND AUTONATION DODGE OF PEMBROKE PINES, INC., Respondents.
The Issue Whether or not the agency may, pursuant to Section 525.06 F.S., assess $390.04 for sale of substandard product due to a violation of the petroleum inspection laws and also set off that amount against Petitioner's bond.
Findings Of Fact Coleman Oil Co., Inc. d/b/a Shell Oil Co. at I-75 and SR 26 Gainesville, Florida, is in the business of selling kerosene, among other petroleum products. On November 15, 1990, Randy Herring, an inspector employed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and who works under the direction of John Whitton, Chief of its Bureau of Petroleum, visited the seller to conduct an inspection of the petroleum products being offered for sale to the public. Mr. Herring drew a sample of "1-K" kerosene being offered for sale, sealed it, and forwarded it to the agency laboratory in Tallahassee where Nancy Fisher, an agency chemist, tested it to determine whether it met agency standards. The testing revealed that the sampled kerosene contained .22% by weight of sulfur. This is in excess of the percentage by weight permitted by Rule 5F- 2.001(2) F.A.C. for this product. A "Stop Sale Notice" was issued, and on the date of that notice (November 20, 1990) the inspector's comparison of the seller's delivery sheets and the kerosene physically remaining in his tanks resulted in the determination that 196 gallons of kerosene had been sold to the public. Based on a posted price of $1.99 per gallon, the retail value of the product sold was determined, and the agency accordingly assessed a $390.04 penalty. The agency also permitted the seller to post a bond for the $390.04 on November 21, 1990. The assessment is reasonable and conforms to the amount of assessments imposed in similar cases.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order approving the $390.04 assessment and offsetting the bond against it. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 25th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED TO: CLINTON H. COULTER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 510 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800 MR. RANDAL W. COLEMAN COLEMAN OIL COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 248 GAINESVILLE, FL 32602 HONORABLE BOB CRAWFORD COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE THE CAPITOL, PL-10 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0810 RICHARD TRITSCHLER, GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES 515 MAYO BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-0800
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's site, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375, located at U.S. #1 and Pennekamp Park, is eligible for restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Restoration Program (FPLIRP) set forth in Section 376.3072, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Circle K General, Inc., Store #2375 owns and operates a petroleum storage site located at U.S. #1 and John Pennekamp Park, Key Largo, Florida. The DER Facility ID Number for the site is 448624728. Circle K operates at the site three 10,000 gallon fiberglass tanks which contain gasoline. The tanks currently operated at the site were installed in 1987. Four monitoring wells for the site were installed at the same time as the Circle K tanks were installed in 1987. Monthly monitoring well reports were completed each month beginning on December 12, 1987, and ending on July 30, 1989, by Professional Services Industries on behalf of Circle K. Steve Belin is the individual at Circle K responsible for reviewing or supervising the review of the monitoring well reports for Store #2375. The November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring well report indicated the presence of petroleum odor in all four of the monitoring wells at the site. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the November 26, 1988, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The monthly monitoring report dated March 20, 1989, indicates the presence of a petroleum odor in one of the four monitoring wells. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monitoring well report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department. After receipt of the March 20, 1989, monthly monitoring report, neither Steve Belin nor any employee of Circle K undertook steps to investigate the source or cause of the petroleum odor. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report indicates the presence of petroleum product in all four monitoring wells. The July 30, 1989, monthly monitoring well report was not received by Steve Belin until September, 1989. On July 31 and August 1, 1989, Combustion Engineering installed a set of four new compliance monitoring wells. Circle K contracted for the installation of new monitoring wells because the four existing monitoring wells were only 15 feet deep and were dry. By letter dated August 17, 1989, Combustion Engineering notified Steve Belin that a petroleum odor was detected in the soils retrieved while drilling one of the new monitoring wells and that a petroleum odor was also detected in one of the old monitoring wells. On August 21, 1989, Steve Belin filed a Discharge Notification Form with the Department for Circle K Store #2375. After the discharge notification was filed on August 21, 1989, none of the tanks were taken out of service. After the filing of the August 21, 1989 Discharge Notification Form, Circle K inspected the inventory records for the site beginning in October, 1988, through September, 1989, and detected no significant loss of petroleum product. On October 6, 1989, an inspection of Circle K Store #2375 was conducted by Leslie Rueth of the South District Office of the Department of Environmental Regulation. At the time of the October 6, 1989, DER inspection, free product was noted in two of the four new monitoring wells, and all of the wells contained a petroleum odor. On October 19, 1989, the South District Office of Department of Environmental Regulation notified Steve Belin of the October 6, 1989, inspection results and requested (1) that a tank and line tightness test be performed to determine if there was a leak in the petroleum storage system and (2), if free product was present, that an initial remedial action (IRA) be implemented as defined in F.A.C. Rule 17-70.006. An Initial Remedial Action consists of the removal of free product through the bailing or pumping of free product off the water table and may include the removal of excessively contaminated soil. On October 30, 1989, Steve Belin submitted tank tightness test results for the three 10,000 gallon tanks located at Circle K Store #2375. All three tanks passed the tank and line tests. By letter of October 17, 1989, Steve Belin requested ATEC Associates, Inc. to have all of the monitoring wells of Store #2375 bailed of free product once a week for one month. The free product present at Store #2375 resulted from old tanks and piping installed by Circle K's predecessor, U Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 presence of a layer or odor, or the positive report of a laboratory that the monitoring well sample contains pollutant, shall be treated as a discharge. A properly installed monitoring well should have at least one foot of water in the well in order to be able to take a water sample from the well. If a foot or less of water is present in a monitoring well, a vapor monitoring device should be used to test the wells. From December, 1987, until July, 1989, the Circle K monitoring wells were usually dry. Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 17 wells must be constructed such that the bottom of the casing is at least five feet below the water level at the time of drilling but no deeper than 25 feet. The monitoring wells constructed at Circle K Store #2375 did not meet the construction specifications set forth in Chapter 17-61, Florida Administrative Code. Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-61.050(b)(6) requires discharges to be reported to the Department within three working days of discovery. DER was not notified of a discharge subsequent to either the November 26, 1988, or the March 20, 1989, monitoring well reports, nor did Circle K contain the leak.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for site restoration pursuant to the Florida Petroleum Liability and Insurance Program (FPLIRP). DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2065 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the Respondent's proposed findings of fact (the Petitioner not having filed any): 1.-27. Accepted and incorporated. Cumulative. Accepted; subordinate to facts found. 30.-33. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 34.-38. Accepted and incorporated. 39. Cumulative. 40.-41. Accepted and incorporated. 42. Accepted but subordinate to facts found and unnecessary. 43.-44. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted but unnecessary. 47.-48. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 49. Cumulative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Belin The Circle K Corporation Regional Environmental Director 500 South Faulkenburg Road Tampa, FL 33619 Janet E. Bowman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her gender or subjected her to a hostile work environment in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Subsection 760.02(10). Petitioner is a female and filed a complaint with the Commission alleging that Respondent engaged in gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and the creation of a hostile work environment. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Subsection 760.02(7). Respondent operates a car dealership and services new and used Chrysler-manufactured automobiles and trucks in the State of Florida. Respondent hired Petitioner as a lube tech in Respondent’s service department on July 26, 2006. Petitioner was the only female employee in the service department. Petitioner remained employed as a lube tech in the Quick Lube part of the service department throughout her employment and earned $7.50 per hour. Respondent did not raise or lower Petitioner’s compensation during her employment. Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on February 28, 2007. On March 22, 2007, Petitioner obtained employment at an automobile dealership in West Palm Beach, Florida, at an hourly rate of $13.00. Arrigo Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Arrigo) hired Petitioner as a pre-delivery inspection technician, but Petitioner voluntarily terminated that employment for personal reasons unrelated to this proceeding.2 On or about February 28, 2007, Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment compensation.3 Respondent responded to the claim on March 8, 2007. The response stated, in relevant part, that Mr. Richard Burton, the service manager and Petitioner’s immediate supervisor during her employment with Respondent, terminated Petitioner’s employment for violation of Respondent’s so-called “no-dating” policy. The no-dating policy prohibits Respondent’s employees who are managers or supervisors from dating non-management employees. The response to the unemployment compensation claim is an admission within the meaning of Subsection 90.803(18)(a). However, the admission contains two factual inaccuracies. First, Mr. Burton had no authority to hire or fire employees he supervised. Second, the no-dating policy was not a ground for the termination of Petitioner’s employment. As further described in subsequent findings, Respondent corrected the inaccuracies in the response to the claim for unemployment compensation through testimony at the administrative hearing in this proceeding. The fact-finder found the testimony to be credible and persuasive. August 3, 2007, when Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination, was the first time Petitioner alleged that Mr. Burton coerced her into having sexual intercourse with him on October 5 and 13, 2006, and harassed her thereafter. The Charge of Discrimination alleges in relevant part: On October 5, 2006, Richard Burton invited me out drinking with a group after work. After drinking, when all others left, he walked me to my car where he began to kiss me. I pushed him away, but he continued. I felt if I did not acquiesce, I would be fired. He grabbed my breast and put his hand down my pants. He then directed me to his car, drove across the street, exited his side of car, came to my side and had sexual intercourse with me. He then drove me back to my care [sic] and I went home crying. On October 13, 2006, Mr. Burton again invited me for drinks, and directed me to perform oral sec [sic] in the parking lot of the bar. He then attempted to have sexual intercourse with again, but could not. . . . I was invited out for drinks with Mr. Burton again, but refused. On two occasions, I was told by Richard Burton that if I did not continue our relationship, I would be fired. The treatment became terrible. Mr. Burton no longer protected me from the nasty comments of other employees, including other employees saying I was “stupid”, telling me to “go home and make babies” because that is what I was supposed to do and that I did not belong. Some of the worst comments came from Joseph Roadkit, technician, Dave Morgan, technician, Curtis, technician, and Devon, porter. I became friends with another technician, Wesley Wilkerson. On occasions when I was not busy, I would attempt to learn from him. I spend time with him as he was an experienced technician. Despite other lube techs talking to other employees when they are slow, I was disciplined in January 2007, for talking to Mr. Wilkerson. I transferred from an inside job with opportunities to learn and advancement to working outside with limited opportunities. This decision was made by Richard Burton and Tom Grabby [sic], Manager of Fixed Operations. Eventually, in February 2007, Joseph Roadkit was terminated due to his behavior. On February 24, 2007, Richard Burton invited me out for drinks for the first time in a while. I initially agreed until he advised I would have to drive him home. I advised him I could not. Mr. Burton assured me he would never fire me as I had hit his “soft spot”. I refused to go out with him. Four days later Richard Burton approached me at work with the manager of fixed operation’s wife, Patti Grabby [sic]. Mr. Burton advised me I was terminated as there was no room for me in the shop anymore. I was not the least qualified nor was I the last hired. Mr. Burton did not testify in the administrative hearing. Respondent terminated the employment of Mr. Burton, sometime after Respondent terminated the employment of Petitioner, because Mr. Burton was no longer licensed to drive, and a valid driver’s license is a job requirement of the position held by Mr. Burton. Petitioner’s testimony was the only testimony concerning the alleged coerced sexual intercourse and sexual harassment by Mr. Burton. The fact-finder finds the testimony of Petitioner to be less than credible and persuasive. Petitioner’s testimony that she was the victim of sexual coercion on October 5, 2006, is less than persuasive. Petitioner had a restricted driver’s license that authorized her to drive to and from work. Petitioner drove to a local Ale House to have drinks with Mr. Burton, Mr. Radtke, and Mr. Radtke’s wife. Everyone at the table was drinking alcoholic beverages. Petitioner consumed six alcoholic beverages in approximately four hours. Petitioner consumed two drinks identified in the record as Smirnoff Ice, a malted-rum, bottled drink, and four shots, identified in the record as vanilla vodka. After the fifth shot, Petitioner went to the bathroom, “puked up my cheeseburger and the rest of the drinks,” returned to the table, and consumed the sixth shot. The testimony of Petitioner during the hearing contains several inconsistencies with her deposition testimony, responses to discovery, and allegations in the Charge of Discrimination. Petitioner alleges in the Charge of Discrimination, “I felt if I did not acquiesce, I would be fired.” Petitioner found greater detail in her testimony during direct examination in the final hearing. Petitioner testified that after sexual intercourse in Mr. Burton’s vehicle, Mr. Burton said, “If you tell anybody, I will fire you.” The Charge of Discrimination does not allege that Mr. Burton used force to engage in sexual intercourse with Petitioner. The testimony of Petitioner during direct examination in the final hearing claims that Mr. Burton prevented Petitioner from exiting the vehicle by grabbing her hand each time she reached for the door handle. Petitioner did not seek medical treatment for rape and did not report a rape to any law enforcement agency. Petitioner viewed the alleged encounters with Mr. Burton as “dates.” Q. Did what happened between you and Richard Burton, did you consider that dating? A. Yes. Q. Why did you consider that dating? A. Because sex is sex. Transcript (TR) at 130, lines 5 through 9. The Charge of Discrimination alleges that Mr. Burton accompanied Petitioner to his vehicle on October 5, 2006, after Mr. Radtke and his wife had left the Ale House. Petitioner testified on direct examination in the final hearing that Mr. Radtke and his wife were at the restaurant while the alleged coerced sexual intercourse occurred. Petitioner testified that she agreed to meet Mr. Burton for drinks again on October 13, 2006. Mr. Radtke and his wife were again present at the restaurant. When Mr. Burton allegedly offered to accompany Petitioner to her vehicle, Petitioner did not ask Mrs. Radtke to accompany her. Petitioner testified that the alleged coerced sexual intercourse on October 5 and 13, 2006, occurred in Mr. Burton’s vehicle. Petitioner’s testimony lacks plausibility. Petitioner weighed 170 pounds at a height of five feet, six inches, and Mr. Burton weighed 194 pounds at a height of five feet, eight inches. Mr. Burton drove a Jeep Compass on both nights, the smallest of the sport utility vehicles manufactured by Jeep. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner testified that Mr. Burton placed Petitioner in the passenger side of the vehicle, told her not to open the door, walked to the other side of the car, sat in the driver’s seat, and drove to a construction site across the parking lot that was abandoned at that time of night. Q. So when he drove the car over to that construction area, how did he get you in the back seat? A. He threw me between the two seats.[4] Q. What happened next? A. Well, he went-–he came into the back. And he put my panties down to about my knees, and he put his dick in me. I’m screaming, “No. Stop.” Q. And what happened next? A. He finished and I ran pulling up my underwear to my car. The Charge of Discrimination alleges that Mr. Burton drove Petitioner back to her car after the sexual intercourse on October 5, 2006. Petitioner’s vehicle was parked in the parking lot at some distance from the construction area. The table where Mr. Radtke and his wife were sitting is in the outside bar area of the restaurant. Petitioner testified that her screams were not heard by patrons in the outside bar because the bar was crowded and noisy. Petitioner did not present the testimony of any witnesses in the outside bar who, more likely than not, would have observed Petitioner running from the construction area to her vehicle at some distance across the parking lot while Petitioner pulled her underwear up from her knees. On October 5 and 13, 2006, Petitioner remained in the passenger seat of Mr. Burton’s vehicle, with nothing preventing her from leaving the vehicle, while Mr. Burton allegedly walked from the passenger’s side to the driver’s side of the vehicle. Other inconsistencies further attenuate the testimony of Petitioner. During the final hearing, Petitioner claimed the coerced intercourse occurred on October 2 and 3, 2006. Although those dates correspond to telephone communications between Mr. Burton and Petitioner, Petitioner’s sworn Answers to Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories, sworn statement in her Charge of Discrimination, and prior deposition testimony all allege that her contact with Mr. Burton was on October 5 and 13, 2006. Petitioner testified in the administrative hearing that on October 5, 2006, Petitioner contacted Mr. Burton to let him know that she would meet him for drinks. In her deposition, Petitioner testified that on the night of the first incident, Mr. Burton called her to confirm her attendance. Petitioner contends that Mr. Burton called her several times on the night of the second incident, both before and after the incident. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Petitioner received no telephone calls from Mr. Burton on either October 5 or 13, 2006. Petitioner testified in the final hearing that she was wearing a dress on the night of the first incident. However, in sworn Answers to Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories, Petitioner alleges that Mr. Burton “put his hand down [her] pants.” The same allegation is reiterated by Petitioner in the Petition for Relief. In her deposition, Petitioner testified that Mr. Burton allegedly stuck his hand down her pants and that at the end of the first incident, Petitioner left pulling up her “pants and underwear.” (Emphasis supplied) Petitioner unpersuasively attempted to explain the apparent discrepancy by testifying in the final hearing that when she uses the term “pants” she is referring to her underwear. Petitioner did not avail herself of the procedures outlined in Respondent’s written No Harassment policy for complaining about discrimination, sexual harassment, or the creation of a hostile work environment. Written Equal Employment Opportunity and No Harassment policies are contained in Respondent’s Employee Handbook. The written policy specifically prohibits its employees from engaging in any verbal or physically offensive conduct and expressly prohibits offensive sexual remarks, advances, or requests. Further, the written policy explicitly describes the procedures available to a victim to report violations.5 Petitioner received the Employee Handbook and reviewed the Equal Employment Opportunity and No Harassment policies at the time of her hiring. Petitioner acknowledged in writing her receipt, review, and understanding of these policies. The evidence does not establish a prima facie showing that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner, harassed Petitioner, or created a hostile work environment. Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment for valid business reasons unrelated to Petitioner’s gender or the alleged coerced sexual intercourse by Mr. Burton. When Respondent first employed Petitioner, Petitioner enrolled in the Chrysler Dealer Connect computer training system for Level I and II courses and examinations, which was the customary practice of new employees in the service department. Technicians such as Petitioner must complete each training course and examination to reach the next level of certification. Petitioner claims, in relevant part, that Respondent prevented Petitioner from talking to and learning from more experienced technicians. However, lube technicians such as Petitioner do not advance through the Chrysler training program by talking to service technicians. Respondent provided Petitioner with access to the Chrysler Dealer Connect training courses through a computer area in its service department. Petitioner, like other technicians, also had access to computers in management offices when available. Petitioner remained in the Chrysler Dealer Connect system up to and through February 2007. In eight months of employment, Petitioner completed Level I certification and several Level II courses. The average for Level I and II course completion and certification in the service department is three and one-half months. Respondent pays lube technicians and service technicians differently. Respondent pays lube technicians an hourly rate and pays service technicians a flat rate based on work actually completed. Respondent maintains a policy that requires lube technicians who are not busy to either clean their work area or train through the Chrysler Dealer Connect system. The policy prohibits lube technicians from training by talking to service technicians in lieu of Chrysler training. Lube technicians who socialize with service technicians reduce the production rates of service technicians and reduce the lube technicians’ Chrysler training time. Respondent repeatedly corrected Petitioner for spending her free time at work socializing with service technicians in their bays rather than utilizing the Chrysler Dealer Connect training system. The corrections were verbal, as are the majority of Respondent’s corrective measures. Chrysler requires Respondent to maintain a monthly Customer Service Index (CSI) of approximately 90 percent. A CSI is a manufacturer-distributed evaluation by consumers based on customer satisfaction with the service provided by the service department. The consequences of a low CSI is detrimental for Respondent. The Quick Lube portion of Respondent's service department has significant CSI implications because of the high volume of customer contact. Petitioner worked in the Quick Lube part of the service department during her employment with Respondent. Respondent repeatedly corrected Petitioner for noncompliance with Respondent’s “Personal Appearance” policy. Petitioner did not keep her shirt tucked in. Petitioner did not wash her hands after working on a customer’s vehicle. Petitioner did not wear a clean uniform despite having several in her possession. Petitioner did not wear her hat facing forward. Petitioner’s unprofessional appearance and her visibility at Respondent’s Quick Lube caused her to be singled out by customers to Mr. Tom Grabbe, the fixed operations manager for Respondent and the immediate supervisor of Mr. Burton. Respondent received numerous customer complaints about Petitioner’s poor quality of work and performance. In August 2007, Petitioner received three negative Customer Feedback Reports (CFRs) for poor job quality and performance. One customer waited an hour and a half for an oil change when the Quick Lube was not busy. Petitioner failed to put the oil cap back onto the engine of another customer’s vehicle. Petitioner put too much oil into the engine of another customer’s vehicle and soiled the fender of that vehicle with oil. On January 25, 2007, a fourth CFR complained about Petitioner’s poor quality of work and performance. Petitioner was using her cellular telephone while rotating tires. Petitioner also dropped a tool on the customer’s vehicle and dented the body of the vehicle. Petitioner received other customer complaints. Not every customer complaint regarding Petitioner’s poor work quality and performance was reduced to writing as a CFR. Some customer complaints that were made on-site to Respondent’s employees would not generate a CFR because the complaint was resolved immediately. Petitioner admitted to being reprimanded at least two times in addition to the previously discussed CFRs for getting grease on cars. Petitioner was also instructed to wipe dirt and grease off customer vehicles after customers complained. In January 2007, Mr. Grabbe transferred Petitioner from an interior lube bay to an exterior lube bay. The transfer was in response to complaints from service technicians that Petitioner’s numerous attempts to socialize with them was affecting their production. The transfer from an inside bay to an outside bay in the Quick Lube portion of the service department was not a demotion. Petitioner continued the duties of a lube tech. Petitioner received the same compensation she received prior to the transfer. Petitioner had the same access to the Chrysler Dealer Connect training system before and after the transfer. Respondent required male lube techs to work in both the inside and outside lube racks. In January 2007, service advisors informed Mr. Grabbe that customers continued to complain about Petitioner leaving grease on their vehicles. After Petitioner received her fourth CFR in January 2007, Mr. Grabbe instructed Ms. Wisty Fisher, the customer relations manager for the Service Department, to gather a sample of the customer complaints about Petitioner and to review the CFRs with Petitioner and Mr. Burton. Ms. Fisher and Mr. Burton both addressed the four CFRs with Petitioner in a meeting and informed Petitioner that she needed to “clean up her act” and be more aware and conscious of the customers’ vehicles. The four CFRs compiled by Ms. Fisher were put into Petitioner’s personnel file. Respondent continued to receive customer complaints regarding Petitioner. On the evening of February 27, 2007, Mr. Grabbe received a telephone call from a customer of Respondent complaining that grease and dirt had been left on his vehicle. Mr. Grabbe reviewed the service ticket number and discovered that Petitioner had been responsible for working on the vehicle. Mr. Grabbe instructed Mr. Burton to terminate Petitioner the following morning because of Petitioner’s inability to refrain from getting grease on customer vehicles. Mr. Grabbe was the sole decision-maker in terminating Petitioner’s employment with Respondent. Mr. Burton did not raise the issue of whether Respondent should terminate Petitioner’s employment. On February 28, 2007, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment based on Mr. Grabbe’s determination that Petitioner’s continued poor work quality and performance threatened Respondent’s CSI score. Respondent did not terminate Petitioner’s employment for violation of Respondent’s “No Dating” policy. Neither Respondent nor any of its employees had any knowledge of Petitioner dating any individual employed by Respondent until after Petitioner was terminated. Mr. Burton did not have authority to hire or fire any employee of Respondent. Mr. Burton had the authority to discipline Respondent’s employees subject to the prior approval of Mr. Grabbe. Respondent did not create or acquiesce in a hostile work environment for Petitioner. In September 2006, Petitioner was called a “stupid idiot” by one of Respondent’s employees, Mr. Richard Lawrence. Petitioner alerted Mr. Burton to the comment, and Mr. Burton reprimanded Mr. Lawrence. At the time, Petitioner lived with Mr. Lawrence. The comment by Mr. Lawrence was the only negative comment made to Petitioner prior to October 13, 2006. After October 13, 2006, the only comments which Petitioner was subjected to were from co-employees and pertained to Petitioner needing to “get back to work” and “do more stuff.” Petitioner never complained to any employee of Respondent regarding any alleged comments after October 13, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not commit the factual allegations and violations alleged in the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether the Verified Complaint filed by General Motors for review of its decision to deny a transfer of Buick and GMC Truck franchises from Gus Machado to Alan Potamkin should be dismissed.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles dismissing the Verified Complaint filed by General Motors for review of its decision to disapprove the proposed transfer of the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements from Gus Machado Buick-GMC Truck, Inc., to Alan Potamkin. The proposed transfer does not include the sale of the Machado land and facilities, and consequently the proposed transfer cannot meet the requirements of Section 320.643(1), Florida Statutes (1989). Moreover the Recommended Order in Case 91-1997 (Machado I) if accepted by the Department, will mean that Mr. Machado has no franchise for Buick or GMC Truck to transfer to Mr. Potamkin. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of April 1992. 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 9th day of April 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Edward Stein, Esquire Fine, Jacobson, Schwartz, Nash Block & England 100 Southeast 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33131 James D. Adams, Esquire 7300 West Camino Real Boca Raton, Florida 33433-9984 Edward W. Risko, Esquire Office the of the General Counsel General Motors Corporation 3031 West Grand Boulevard Detroit, Michigan 48202 Dean Bunch, Esquire Cabaniss, Burke & Wagner, P.A. 851 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Room B439, Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 =================================================================
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter the final order dismissing Crown's Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Loula M. Fuller, Esquire Walter E. Forehand, Esquire Myers, Forehand and Fuller 402 Office Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dean Bunch, Esquire Cabaniss and Burke, P. A. 909 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue Whether the application of Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors and PC Scooter and Cycle, L.L.C., to establish an additional franchised dealership for the sale of Zhejiang Summit Huawin Motorcycle Co. Ltd. (POPC) motorcycles to be located at 3401 East Business Highway 98, Panama City, Bay County, Florida 32401, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed motor vehicle dealer in Florida and an existing POPC dealer located at 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72, Panama City Beach, Florida 32407. There was no evidence which demonstrated Petitioners’ market share in the motorcycle market. There was no evidence presented analyzing the motorcycle market in the Panama City area. Likewise, there was no evidence presented regarding anticipated growth in the market area. This type of evidence is generally presented by the distributor or manufacturer of the product. As indicated, Petitioners did not appear at the hearing. Given this lack of evidence, the market share for Petitioners’ motorcycles cannot be established. Mr. Wooten, Respondent’s CEO, established that Petitioners’ proposed location is within 25 miles of Respondent’s current location. Respondent has the ability to adequately serve the needs of the population of Bay County, including Panama City and Panama City Beach through its sales and service of the POPC motorcycles. In the current economy, the entry of Petitioners into the POPC marketplace would have a significant negative financial impact on Respondent’s ability to maintain its sales, service, and customer base. Respondent has expended significant sums on advertising, both in print and online, and could not afford to continue to advertise the POPC line if Petitioners’ application were approved. Respondent already works seven days a week to maintain his market share, and would suffer significant financial losses if Petitioners’ application were approved. Respondent provides low prices for the products it sells and would be forced out of business if Petitioners’ application were approved. Petitioners seek to sell the identical motorcycles sold by Respondent, and the Bay County market is not sufficiently large to support a new entrant. If Petitioners’ application is approved, Respondent will be forced to close its business in Panama City Beach. Respondent is in good standing with the distributors of the products it sells. Respondent’s license with the State of Florida is active and in good standing. There are no barriers to access for customers seeking to purchase the products offered by Respondent. Respondent’s location is centrally located for customers in Bay County, including Panama City and Panama City Beach.
Recommendation Based upon 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 denying the establishment of Petitioners’ dealership at 3401 East Business Highway 98, Panama City, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 6th day of July, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jennifer Clark Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-308 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Donald Watts PC Scooter & Cycle, LLC 1903 Brown Avenue Panama City, Florida 32405 Dan Vogel Snyder Computer Systems, Inc., d/b/a Wildfire Motors 11 Technology Way Steubenville, Ohio 43952 Barry Wayne Wooten Moto Import Distributors, LLC 12202 Hutchison Boulevard, Suite 72 Panama City Beach, Florida 32407 Carl A. Ford, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room B-439 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0635 Robin Lotane, General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
