The Issue Whether the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“the Commission”) correctly determined that a sailboat owned by Jeffrey Sundwall was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2017),1 and thus subject to sections 376.15(3)(a) and 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties The Commission is empowered to remove, or cause to be removed, derelict vessels from Florida’s public waters. §§ 376.15(3)(a) and 823.11(3), Fla. Stat. A vessel is considered to be “derelict” if it is left, stored, or abandoned “[i]n a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition upon any public waters of this state.” § 823.11(1)(b)1., Fla. Stat. Mr. Sundwall was the registered owner of a 28-foot sailboat named the Sea Joy. Facts Specific to the Instant Case Lieutenant Andy Cox of the Commission found the Sea Joy anchored off Wisteria Island in the Florida Keys on March 27, 2017. The Sea Joy had an expired registration decal, and a large amount of seaweed on the outboard motor, which probably rendered the motor inoperative. The Sea Joy had been left open and exposed to the elements, and Lieutenant Cox observed one-inch deep, green water inside the vessel. Lieutenant Cox also determined that the Sea Joy had no working bilge pumps or battery power. Lieutenant Cox initiated a derelict vessel investigation. While the Commission did not take custody of the Sea Joy at that time, Lieutenant Cox affixed a large, red sticker to the Sea Joy announcing that the vessel’s owner had 5 days before the Commission disposed of it pursuant to its authority under chapter 705. Lieutenant Cox met with Mr. Sundwall on approximately March 28, 2017, in a Florida Keys jail and served him with three infraction citations. Lieutenant Cox also provided Mr. Sundwall with a written notice indicating the Commission considered the Sea Joy to be a derelict vessel. On July 24, 2017, the County Court for Monroe County issued an Order requiring the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office and the Commission to preserve the Sea Joy as essential evidence in a criminal case against Mr. Sundwall. Thus, the Sea Joy could not be “destroyed, removed, altered, moved, or otherwise disposed of.” After Hurricane Irma struck Florida in September of 2017 and wrecked several hundred vessels, the Commission partnered with the Coast Guard in an effort to identify and remove derelict vessels. If an owner of a derelict vessel waived his or her ownership interest, then the State of Florida would not charge for a vessel’s removal and disposal.2 Wisteria Island is owned by the FEB Corporation. In November of 2017, the Commission found the Sea Joy hard aground on the shore of Wisteria Island, and the Sea Joy could not be moved without mechanical assistance. The Sea Joy had no mast or sail, and the vessel was still left open and exposed to the elements. In sum, the Sea Joy was nothing more than a hull at that point. Contemporaneous photographs and video of the Sea Joy indicate that it was resting on “wrack lines” left by the tide. Those wrack lines demonstrated that the Sea Joy was on public waters at high tide.3 In response to a request for reconsideration from the State of Florida, the Monroe County Court issued an Order on December 12, 2017, allowing the State to remove the Sea Joy from Wisteria Island. On December 17, 2017, the Commission transported the Sea Joy to a marina in Marathon, Florida. 2 The Commission’s attorney announced during the final hearing that the Commission would not seek to recover the costs of removing and disposing of the Sea Joy from Mr. Sundwall. Ordinarily, the owner of a derelict vessel is responsible for all costs associated with its removal and destruction. See §§ 376.15(3)(a), 705.103(4), and 823.11(3)(b), Fla. Stat. However, in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, the State of Florida assumed all of those costs. 3 This finding is based on the testimony of Major Robert Rowe of the Commission, and the undersigned found him to be a credible and persuasive witness. Officer David Bellville of the Commission met with Mr. Sundwall on January 4, 2018, at the Stock Island Detention Center in Key West. Officer Bellville served Mr. Sundwall with a notice stating that he had 30 days to take possession of the Sea Joy or it would be destroyed pursuant to the Commission’s authority under chapter 705. Officer Bellville also served Mr. Sundwall with an election of rights form stating he had 21 days to protest the Commission’s proposed action. Mr. Sundwall declined to waive his property interest in the Sea Joy and ultimately executed the election of rights form and a request for an administrative hearing on January 20, 2018. Mr. Sundwall’s hearing request was postmarked on January 23, 2018, and received by the Commission on January 29, 2018. Because Mr. Sundwall’s documents were received after the 21-day deadline, the Commission had the Sea Joy destroyed on February 21, 2018, and issued an Order on March 6, 2018, dismissing Mr. Sundwall’s hearing request with prejudice. Mr. Sundwall appealed the Commission’s Order to the First District Court of Appeal, and the appellate court issued an opinion in Sundwall v. Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission, 271 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), on May 16, 2019, reversing and remanding the Commission’s dismissal: After Hurricane Irma struck Florida in 2017, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) identified Mr. Sundwall as the owner of a boat declared derelict upon the waters of Florida. See § 823.11, Fla. Stat. (2017) (defining derelict vessels and empowering FWC to deal with them). Mr. Sundwall was incarcerated at the time. FWC sent Mr. Sundwall notice of the declaration, an explanation of his rights, an Election of Rights form, and a form for a Petition for Administrative Proceeding. The notice stated that a failure to make any election within twenty-one days from receipt of the notice would constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing. Mr. Sundwall signed a receipt for these documents on January 4, 2018. The twenty-first day after that fell on January 25, 2018. He signed the Election of Rights form, requesting a hearing; and also completed the Petition for Administrative Proceeding, dating both of his signatures January 20, 2018. There was no certificate of service or institutional date stamp on any of the papers, nor any institutional mail log indicating when he gave the papers to prison officials. The envelope was postmarked January 23, 2018. FWC stamped it as received on January 29, 2018. FWC dismissed the petition with prejudice because FWC did not receive it within twenty-one days and Mr. Sundwall did not request an extension within that period. FWC's order of dismissal acknowledged that the envelope from Mr. Sundwall was postmarked January 23, 2018. However, FWC relied on Florida Administrative Code Rule 28- 106.104(1), which defines filing as receipt by the agency clerk during normal business hours. In his pro-se brief, Mr. Sundwall relies on the January 20 date of his signatures and the January 23 postmark date, arguing that he is entitled to the benefit of the prison mailbox rule under Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992). FWC does not dispute that argument, but argues that Mr. Sundwall provided no proof that he placed his papers in the hands of prison officials before expiration of the deadline; i.e., no institutional mail stamp or log and no certificate of service. The record does not reflect whether Mr. Sundwall’s institution utilizes dated mail stamps or logs, but one reason there were no certificates of service is because none of the forms that FWC supplied to him contained a certificate of service. In a literal sense, however, Mr. Sundwall "provided" FWC a postmarked envelope that evidences timeliness. He argues on appeal that FWC calculated the time erroneously, and he points out that the envelope was postmarked on January 23. The postmark date was before expiration of the twenty-one-day period for requesting a hearing, and therefore the petition necessarily was submitted to prison officials before the deadline. FWC acknowledged the postmark date in its order of dismissal, and the postmarked envelope is in the record. We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings on Mr. Sundwall's petition.[4] Ultimate Findings There is no dispute that the Sea Joy was a “vessel” within the meaning of section 327.02(46), Florida Statutes. When it was beached on Wisteria Island, the Sea Joy was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. It was left or abandoned in a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition upon the public waters of this state. While the Sea Joy no longer exists, the photographic evidence and the witness testimony conclusively demonstrate that it was wrecked or substantially dismantled by the time it ran aground on Wisteria Island. The photographic evidence also demonstrated that the Sea Joy was upon the State of Florida’s public waters at high tide. Mr. Sundwall made several factual arguments during the final hearing. For instance, section 823.11(1)(b)3. defines a “derelict vessel” as one that is “[d]ocked, grounded, or beached upon the property of another without the consent of the owner of the property.” Mr. Sundwall testified that he had permission for the Sea Joy to be on Wisteria Island. Mr. Sundwall’s argument is not persuasive because the Commission determined the Sea Joy to be a 4 To whatever extent that Mr. Sundwall is seeking damages from the Commission for the Sea Joy’s destruction, he must pursue that claim before a different tribunal. DOAH’s role in this matter is limited to making findings as to whether the Sea Joy was a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. and thus subject to sections 376.15(3)(a) and 705.103. derelict vessel pursuant to section 823.11(1)(b)1., not section 823.11(1)(b)3. However, even if the Commission had deemed the Sea Joy to be derelict pursuant to section 823.11(1)(b)3., Mr. Sundwall’s testimony that he had permission to keep the Sea Joy on the shore of Wisteria Island was uncorroborated and unpersuasive. In preparation to take control of the Sea Joy, Mr. Sundwall asserted that a friend of his had attempted to inspect the Sea Joy while it was beached on Wisteria Island. He claimed that the Commission forced Mr. Sundwall’s friend away from the wrecked vessel. Because the Commission was dealing with several hundred displaced vessels in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma, it is very unlikely that the Commission would have been in a position (or to have been inclined) to prevent any willing person from removing the derelict Sea Joy from Wisteria Island or inspecting it. Moreover, the undersigned generally found Mr. Sundwall’s testimony on this point to be unpersuasive and self-serving. Mr. Sundwall’s witnesses did not present any persuasive testimony to corroborate his assertions. Mr. Sundwall also argued that the instant case is part of the Commission’s ongoing effort to retaliate against him for undermining a criminal investigation. Even if that were the case, there is no evidence that the Commission left the Sea Joy anchored off Wisteria Island or caused it to become a derelict vessel. Mr. Sundwall asserts that he has been denied due process. However, the facts refute that assertion because: (a) he was given notice of the Commission’s proposed action to dispose of the Sea Joy; (b) he had an opportunity to request a hearing; (c) his case was referred to DOAH; and (d) a formal administrative hearing was conducted on February 7, 2020, at which he fully participated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission issue a Final Order deeming the Sea Joy to have been a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1. and that the Commission was authorized under section 376.15(3)(a) to relocate or remove the Sea Joy. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 1st day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Brandy Elaine Elliott, Esquire Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Jeffrey Ray Sundwall, 829113 Jackson Correctional Institution 5563 10th Street Malone, Florida 32445 Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed)
The Issue Is an Agency that settles a challenge to its denial of a license by agreeing to issue the license a "non-prevailing adverse party," as defined by section 120.595(1)(e)3., Florida Statutes (2019)? 1
Findings Of Fact The Commission denied an application by Mr. Lightsey for issuance of a Hunt Preserve License. A letter titled "Amended Notice of Denial" (Amended Notice), signed by Major Rob Beaton, Division of Law Enforcement, advised Mr. Lightsey that the Commission intended to deny his application. The Amended Notice included this dispositive paragraph: "Due to the facts stated above, pursuant to 68-1.010, F.A.C, your application for a HPL has been denied. We are processing your application fee for a refund, and you should receive it within 21 days." The Amended Notice also advised Mr. Lightsey of his right to request a hearing to challenge the intended decision. Mr. Lightsey challenged the proposed denial and requested a formal administrative hearing. Mr. Lightsey brought his challenge under section 120.57(1), which creates a right to a formal hearing to dispute a proposed agency action. The Commission referred the matter to the Division for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and conduct of the hearing. The parties settled the licensing dispute before the hearing. Their settlement agreement provided for the Commission issuing each of the denied licenses. The parties' agreement also provided for severing the attorney's fees and costs claim, leaving it pending for the Division to resolve if the parties could not agree. The order closing the file in this case severed the fees and costs claim and reserved jurisdiction over it. The parties could not agree. The division re-opened the fees case as DOAH Case No. 19-5210F. This proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter its Final Order denying Petitioner's Motion for Fees and Costs under section 120.595, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 31st day of March, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Bert J. Harris, Esquire Swaine, Harris & Wohl, P.A. 401 Dal Hall Boulevard Lake Placid, Florida 33852 (eServed) Bridget Kelly McDonnell, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Joseph Yauger Whealdon, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Sharmin Royette Hibbert, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of employment discrimination, based on age or marital status, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 and, if so, what relief is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was born in 1940 or 1941. He has a high school education, and he has obtained some credits toward an associate’s degree in computer science/business management. Petitioner is married, but his children are grown and no longer living at home. Petitioner worked for 30 years with a large manufacturer, which reduced its workforce and terminated him. Shortly prior to moving to Florida in 1993, Petitioner worked for two and one-half years with the fish and game division of the Enfield, Connecticut, police department, enforcing fishing and hunting laws and dealing with animals. In April 1994, Petitioner applied with Respondent for the position of animal control officer. In May 1994, Keith Larson, Director of Animal Control, telephoned Petitioner and scheduled an interview for the following week. During this telephone call, Mr. Larson and Petitioner briefly discussed his animal control experience with the Enfield police department. Mr. Larson said that Petitioner sounded like a good candidate, and Petitioner felt that he had a good chance to get the job. During the interview, which took place on May 27, 1994, Mr. Larson asked Petitioner, “Do you really think you can get through the animal control course at this time of your life?” Petitioner replied in the affirmative. Mr. Larson also asked Respondent if he were married and if his wife would mind him working the “crazy hours” required of an animal control officer because wives sometimes caused problems. Petitioner assured him that his wife would present no problems. At the time, Petitioner has been working as a Wells Fargo security officer at the courthouse. A few days after his interview, he learned from a deputy that Mr. Larson had hired someone else for the animal control position. Shortly after learning that Mr. Larson had not chosen him for the job, Petitioner complained to Ms. Linda Skelton, presently Respondent’s Human Resources Manager and then one of Respondent’s Employee Relations Supervisors. Petitioner complained about the questions that Mr. Larson had asked during the interview. Ms. Skelton conducted an investigation, which consisted entirely of talking to Mr. Larson, who denied making any of the statements. Ms. Skelton then informed Petitioner that she had found no evidence of discrimination, but referred him to the Florida Commission on Human Relations and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, if he wished to pursue the matter further. She encouraged Petitioner to reapply for an animal control position and promised a fair interview if he did. Choosing not to pursue legal relief, Petitioner reapplied for an animal control position four more times in the year following the unsuccessful initial application. On the first three reapplications, Mr. Larson declined to offer Petitioner an interview. On the fourth reapplication, Mr. Larson granted Petitioner another interview. On Petitioner’s fourth reapplication, Mr. Larson, in consultation with Ms. Skelton, arranged for a panel of County employees to interview candidates. The panel consisted of two firefighters, who were not familiar with the duties of animal control officers, and an animal control officer. Mr. Larson did not speak to any of the three panelists about their deliberations, so as to isolate himself from the selection process. However, the panelists knew Mr. Larson had formed the panel due to Petitioner’s earlier complaint about age and marital discrimination. The panel conducted its interviews in May 1995. The panelists were not particularly well-prepared to conduct interviews. The most prominent shortcoming emerged when one of the firefighters asked Petitioner’s brother, who was also interviewing for the animal control position, who was older-- Petitioner or his brother. The panelists did not take notes during the interviews. They administered a short written test to each applicant; during Petitioner’s test, one panelist continued to talk to him. Petitioner took offense at this distraction, as well as the waste of time spent on a discussion of Petitioner’s martial arts background. Given the simplicity of the test, the distraction was harmless, as was the discussion of martial arts. The deficiencies of the panel are attributable to the unsuitability of the panelists for their task; this was the first time that the panelists had interviewed applicants for an animal control position. After considering all of the applicants, the panelists recommended that Mr. Larson not hire any of the applicants, but instead try to obtain new applicants for the opening. Mr. Larson accepted this recommendation and readvertised the position. Petitioner did not apply for this or any subsequent animal control opening. After conducting another round of interviews, the panelists recommended that Mr. Larson hire Catherine Katzman. Mr. Larson did so. This was the last time that Mr. Larson used the panel to interview applicants for an animal control position. Petitioner’s career and education have had almost nothing to do with animal control. Although the record is not particularly well-developed on these points, it does not appear that much of the animal control officer’s duties in Charlotte County involve undomesticated animals, and it does not appear that much of Petitioner’s duties in the fish and game division of the Enfield police department involved domesticated animals. The job description for the animal control position calls for someone to apprehend animals and enforce the County’s animal control ordinances. The educational and physical demands are modest: graduation from a high school or vocational school with “some animal contact work experience” and “moderate physical activity.” The job description notes that the position requires knowledge of animal control procedures, relevant local law, and the geography of Charlotte County, as well as an ability to work with the public. Petitioner is qualified for each animal control position that Mr. Larson sought to fill. However, Petitioner’s qualifications are minimal and easily bettered by other applicants. Following the May 1994 interview, Mr. Larson hired William Pahl, who was in his 20s, married, and the father of at least two young children. Mr. Pahl had already earned his animal control certificate and had worked for two years as an animal control officer in Lee County. Mr. Pahl was considerably more qualified than Petitioner. The next person whom Mr. Larson hired, instead of Petitioner, was Charles Owensby, who had a high school degree and was in his 40s. Mr. Owensby had already earned his animal control certificate and had worked for three years as an animal control officer in Lee County, ten months as a veterinary technician, and 15 years as a dog trainer. Mr. Owensby was considerably more qualified than Petitioner. The next person whom Mr. Larson hired, instead of Petitioner, was James Wilcox. Mr. Wilcox had no prior experience in animal control. He was in his mid 20s. Mr. Larson based his decision to hire Mr. Wilcox on his ability to mold him into an ideal animal control officer. The record does not reveal if a factor other than youth contributed to Mr. Larson’s determination that Mr. Wilcox could be molded into the ideal animal control officer. Mr. Wilcox had only a high school education and his work experience was unimpressive, consisting of grocery store clerk (five months), outdoor furniture assembler (11 months), short-order cook and handyman at restaurant (five months), lawn maintenance (seven months), and--most recently--handyman at a resort (10 months). Again, the record is not particularly well- developed, but Mr. Larson promoted Mr. Wilcox to Animal Control Supervisor at some point, presumably due to Mr. Wilcox’s good work. Mr. Wilcox left the Animal Control Department after two or three years to join the Charlotte County Fire Department. Mr. Wilcox was not as qualified as Petitioner for the animal control position. Petitioner had some tangentially relevant experience; Mr. Wilcox had none. Petitioner had an impressive employment history; Mr. Wilcox did not. The next person whom Mr. Larson hired, rather than Petitioner, was Cheryl Vanande. She had earned a college degree, but had no relevant experience. Ms. Vanande had worked as an energy conservation specialist for a power company (four and one- half years), yellow pages salesperson (nearly two years), and automobile sales and leasing representative (one and one-half years). While serving in the naval reserves, Ms. Vanande had supervised up to 68 persons. Also, her annual earnings had consistently been about $24,000. Ms. Vanande was married and in her 30s. Despite the lack of direct animal control experience, Ms. Vanande was probably more qualified than Petitioner. The last person whom Mr. Larson hired, instead of Petitioner, was Catherine Katzman, whom he hired after the second round of interviews in June 1995. Ms. Katzman had worked for two years at an animal shelter in Charlotte County, where her responsibilities included care for fractious animals. She had also worked for a couple of months as a veterinary technician. Ms. Katzman had earned an associate arts degree and credits in a veterinary medicine major. Ms. Katzman was in her mid 20s and married. She was considerably more qualified than Petitioner. Except for the hiring of Mr. Wilcox, the decisions to employ persons other than Petitioner were entirely justified, based upon qualifications. Ms. Vanande is a closer case, but her college degree and supervisory experience probably rendered her a superior applicant over Petitioner. In each of these cases, then, Mr. Larson’s testimony that his employment decisions were not motivated by unlawful discriminatory intent is supported by the fact that he hired persons more qualified than Petitioner. The decision to employ Mr. Wilcox, rather than Petitioner, cannot be justified based on superior qualifications. On paper, Petitioner was more qualified than Mr. Wilcox for the animal control position. If Mr. Larson had reasons, besides relative youth, to hire Mr. Wilcox, he did not articulate them at the hearing. Mr. Larson’s initial interview with Petitioner is crucial in this case. Displaying an interest in Petitioner’s age and marital status, Mr. Larson revealed the role of these criteria in his hiring decisions. This does not mean that his preferences concerning age and marital status necessarily influenced subsequent decisions. In fact, the record does not establish that any of Mr. Larson’s employment decisions in this case were influenced by marital status. As for age, the superior qualifications of all the other applicants, besides Mr. Wilcox, signifies that it was unnecessary for Mr. Larson, in hiring these four applicants, to reach the issue of age. Each of these four applicants was better qualified than Petitioner to fill the animal control position, so Mr. Larson presumably ended his considerations at this point. But Mr. Wilcox was not as qualified as Petitioner to fill the animal control position. The reasonable inference is that, in hiring Mr. Wilcox over Petitioner, Mr. Larson gave effect to the discriminatory concerns, earlier expressed during the initial interview, concerning Petitioner’s age. Specifically, solely on the basis of age, Mr. Larson doubted that Petitioner was sufficiently adaptable to acquire the skills needed for the animal control position; solely on the basis of age, Mr. Larson expected that Mr. Wilcox was sufficiently adaptable--moldable--to acquire the skills for the animal control position. Mr. Wilcox’s application bears a date of receipt of February 16, 1995. It is safe to assume that Respondent received Mr. Wilcox’s application prior to the date on which Mr. Larson hired Mr. Wilcox. Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination on November 21, 1995. Clearly, then, Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination within one year of the sole act of discrimination proved in this case. Although Petitioner relies upon evidence dating from earlier than November 21, 1994, to establish an act of age discrimination, the act of age discrimination did not take place until early 1995. Petitioner’s proof of emotional suffering is too vague and uncertain to permit an award. This claim is rejected. Petitioner’s proof of lost earnings and associated benefits is more definite, but somewhat unclear. Petitioner would have initially earned $8.12 hourly as an animal control officer, which required 40 hours weekly. Six years have elapsed since the approximate date of hire of Mr. Wilcox. The record suggests that Petitioner would have retired in 2002. It is not entirely clear when Petitioner has held various jobs since March 1, 1995. At one point, Petitioner worked for Wells Fargo at $5.15 hourly. Then, he worked at the Charlotte County courthouse at $5.75 hourly and later earned $7.00 hourly. At some point, Petitioner worked at the clerk’s office at the courthouse and earned $6.50 hourly, but was employed only 30 hours weekly. The parties should try to settle upon a specific amount representing the value of lost earnings and associated benefits, when comparing the animal control job to Petitioner’s actual employment, from March 1, 1995 (or, if available, the date of hire of Mr. Wilcox) through his age of retirement, as noted in Petitioner’s proposed recommended order, in 2002. Likewise, the parties should try to settle upon attorneys’ fees and costs. If unable to reach a settlement, the parties should request the Florida Commission on Human Relations to remand the case again to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of conducting an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the precise relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations: Enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief on the ground that it is time-barred. If the Commission elects not to dismiss the Petition for Relief, enter a final order determining that Petitioner has proved that Respondent committed a single act of age discrimination in the decision to hire Mr. Wilcox on or about March 1, 1995, as an animal control officer. If the Commission enters a final order determining that Respondent has committed the act of discrimination described in the preceding paragraph, enter a final order giving the parties a reasonable period of time to settle Petitioner’s claims, other than emotional suffering, and, if they fail to do so, enter an order remanding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct an evidentiary hearing solely on the issue of the relief to which Petitioner is entitled. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Azizi M. Coleman, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Amy L. Sergent Lancaster & Eure, P.A. 711 North Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34236 Brendan Bradley Deputy County Attorney Charlotte County Administration Center 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094
The Issue Whether Respondent properly denied the applications of Petitioner for Class I wildlife; and whether Respondent's previous granting of Class I licensure to Petitioner estops Respondent from denying the instant applications.
Findings Of Fact On July 15, 1998, Petitioner applied to the Commission for licenses, via three separate applications, to possess wildlife, particularly bears, leopards, and baboons at three separate locations. The applications cited the addresses of 127 West Hiawatha Street, 116 West Elm Street, and 6802 North Highland Avenue, all in Tampa, Florida, as the locations where Petitioner planned to possess the animals. Petitioner applied to possess bears (family ursidae), leopards (family felidae) and baboons (family cercopithecidae) at each location. All these animals are Class I wildlife. Respondent issued Notices of Denial of the three applications to Petitioner on September 22, 1998. Class I animals are dangerous animals that cannot be possessed for personal use, and are typically found in zoos. They are dangerous because of their ferocity and size. These animals may be aggressive towards anyone, including their keeper. Class II wildlife are potentially dangerous animals which should only be possessed by experienced individuals. Class III animals are of smaller size and are less aggressive. The goal of the Commission's classification system is to promote the safehousing of wildlife, and to protect the general public and the individual keeping the animals. In the application for 116 West Elm Street, Petitioner noted that he presently possessed five white-tailed deer, one muntjac, and one emu, all Class III wildlife. Petitioner did not possess authorization to house Class I wildlife at 116 West Elms Street, the year previous to the instant application. In the application for 127 West Hiawatha Street, Petitioner noted that he presently possessed two panthers and one bobcat, both Class II wildlife, and two alligators, which are Class III wildlife. Petitioner did not possess authorization to house Class I wildlife at 127 West Hiawatha Street the year previous to the instant application. In the application for 6802 North Highland Avenue, Petitioner noted that he presently possessed no wildlife at this location. Petitioner did not possess authorization to house Class I wildlife at 6802 North Highland Avenue the year previous to the instant application. Two of Petitioner's locations are contiguous: 127 West Hiawatha Street, and 166 West Elm Street. Petitioner's location at 6802 North Highland Avenue is approximately one block from the other two sites, and on the other side of the street. Elm and Hiawatha are not one property, but two separate residences and addresses. The Hiawatha and Elm Street addresses were treated as two separate locations by the Commission as they are separate addresses with separate applications. The Elm Street and Hiawatha locations are separated by a fence at the back of each property. Petitioner uses a ladder to traverse over the fence between the Elm Street and Hiawatha locations. The area where Petitioner wishes to house Class I wildlife is a residential area with small single-family houses located close together, with small yards, and near a major road. There are residential properties to the east of both the Hiawatha and Elm Street locations. Petitioner's neighborhood is densely populated, with single-family residential dwellings and small lots. Petitioner's locations are within approximately 100 yards from large intersections at Sligh Avenue and Florida Avenue. The three properties where Petitioner sought to keep Class I wildlife are zoned single-family residential. Approximately six people per week visit through Petitioner's facilities. Petitioner has received various permits, including Class I, from the Commission for over the past 15 years. It is possible to obtain a Class I license and not be qualified to possess animals at the address on the license. Pursuant to law, a permittee for Class I wildlife has to meet specific requirements including standard caging requirements and land area. The land area required to house Class I wildlife is 1/4 acre minimum. An acre of land is 43,560 square feet. One-quarter of an acre is 10,890 square feet. The 1/4 acre minimum area for Class I wildlife is critical because it allows for a larger buffer for dangerous animals. Respondent wildlife inspectors visit applied-for sites to determine whether the facility meets the caging requirements, whether wildlife are housed safely and ensure the public is not at risk. Respondent inspections are made to determine whether caging is strong enough to contain animals safely and to verify the owner or possessor does not exceed the number of permitted animals. Wildlife officers regulate and enforce the caging of captive wildlife, both exotic and native. It is necessary to have cages meet the rules to protect the safety of the animal, the neighbors, and the keeper. Respondent's Lieutenant Stephen Delacure, who has been a Commission Wildlife Officer or Inspector for approximately ten years, has been to Petitioner's three locations in Tampa at least 15 times over the past four years. Delacure has never seen any Class I animals at any of Petitioner's three locations. On November 12, 1998, Delacure and Lieutenant Krause inspected all three of Petitioner's locations pursuant to his application. Delacure inspected the three locations for appropriate caging and land area for bears, leopards, and baboons. Delacure measured all locations with Petitioner present and indicated that he gave Petitioner "the benefit of the doubt" as to the measurements. Delacure measured the total area for 127 West Hiawatha Street to be 103 feet by 39 feet (front and depth) (4,017 square feet). Delacure measured the total area of 116 West Elm Street to be 87 feet by 69 feet (6,003 square feet). Therefore, Delacure found the combined area for 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm to be 10,020 square feet. Delacure measured the total area of 6802 North Highland Avenue to be 102 feet by 42 feet (4,284 square feet). Delacure found no adequate caging for Class I bears, baboons, or cats at 127 West Hiawatha Street. In addition, Delacure found no caging for Class I wildlife at 116 West Elm Street nor 6802 North Highland Avenue. The November 1998 inspection was the basis for the issuance of the amended notice of denial for failure to meet land area requirements and to meet caging requirements. Respondent denied Class I licenses to Petitioner because of inadequate land area and caging. Class II licenses do not say "all" for possession purposes, as these licenses are defined by specific animal families. However, Class III licenses may say "all" for possession purposes. The Respondent changed Class I licenses to animal specific from the "all" designation to ensure that the animal possessor is familiar with the handling of that family or species of animal as nutritional, health, and handling requirements are different for each animal family. Linda Coomey is a building inspector for the City of Tampa, having done this job for 15 years. Coomey inspects zoning and code enforcement. Coomey has been to Petitioner's locations 12-13 times over the last eight years. Coomey calculated the area of 127 West Hiawatha Street as 38 feet by 103 feet (3,914 square feet). Coomey calculated the area of 116 West Elm Street as 65 feet by 80 feet (5,200 square feet). Therefore, Coomey found the combined area of 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm Street is 9,114 square feet. The area of 6802 North Highland Avenue was calculated by Coomey as 50 feet by 104 feet (5,200 square feet). These measurements were taken from the Hillsborough County plat maps and Coomey does not consider any error in measuring the square footage as acceptable. The Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's Office found the area of the three properties to be as follows: 127 West Hiawatha Street, 38 feet by 103 feet (3,914 square feet); 116 West Elm Street, 65 feet by 80 feet (5,200 square feet); and 6802 North Highland Avenue, 50 feet by 104 feet (5,200 square feet). None of these individual areas is equal to or greater than 1/4 acre, nor does the combining of the areas of 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm Street (3,914 square feet and 5,200 square feet, for a total of 9,114 square feet) meet or exceed 1/4 acre. The Hillsborough County Tax Collector's Office reports 127 West Hiawatha Street as being .09 acres; 116 West Elm Street as being .12 acres; and 6802 North Highland Avenue as being .12 acres. Therefore, the Hillsborough County Tax Collector's Office found the combined area of 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm Street is .21 acres. Per Petitioner, 127 West Hiawatha Avenue is 39 feet by 103 feet (4,017 square feet) in total area, and Respondent's officers informed Petitioner he did not have the required acreage. Respondent informed Petitioner on more than one occasion that Petitioner could have a Class I license that allows a person to borrow an animal and not be allowed to posseses Class I animals on the license holder's property. On September 6, 1991, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited that Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, felidae and cercopithecidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On July 23, 1993, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited that Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all excluding felidae. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited that Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, ursidae, cercopithecidae, and felidae. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner was issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, ursidae, felidae, and cercopithecidae; Class II, all excluding venomous reptiles; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On June 29, 1994, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, all, excluding venomous reptiles; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On June 29, 1994, Petitioner was a issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, all, excluding venomous reptiles; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On July 4, 1994, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On June 27, 1996, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all, excluding venomous reptiles. On August 9, 1996, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, felidae and cercopithecidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On August 9, 1996, Petitioner was issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, felidae and cercopithecidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. This was the last instance where Petitioner was licensed to possess Class I wildlife. On September 16, 1997, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 Hiawatha Street, which cited Petitioner could possess: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all. On September 16, 1997, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited Petitioner could possess: Class I, none; Class II, none; Class III, all, excluding venomous reptiles. On September 16, 1997, Petitioner was issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess: Class I, none; Class II, none. Lieutenant Dennis Parker is an inspector for Respondent, having worked for Respondent 26 years. Parker has consistently inspected Petitioner's facilities for more than 15 years. Parker measured 127 West Hiawatha Street "from curb to curb" in 1992 pursuant to Petitioner having a bear on the premises. Petitioner immediately received notice from Respondent that his acreage was inadequate via a "field revocation." Petitioner was ordered to remove the Class I animals. Petitioner was mistakenly provided a Class I license for ursidae before the Commission measured 127 West Hiawatha Street, under Parker's assumption that Petitioner had adequate acreage. A Class I license requires 1/4 acre or more to possess a Class I animal on that property. Petitioner's license for Class I ursidae was based on Petitioner's borrowing a bear for exhibition, with the bear being kept at a licensed facility not owned by Petitioner. Petitioner used 127 West Hiawatha Street as the mailing address for the license. Respondent had never inspected or authorized caging for bears at 127 West Hiawatha Street. Petitioner originally obtained bears without the knowledge and/or consent of Respondent, then a complaint was filed with Respondent. Petitioner recently had an animal escape from the 116 Elm Street location. Petitioner presently possesses Class I animals. Petitioner's properties do not meet the regulatory requirement for acreage size to house Class I wildlife pursuant to Rule 68A- 6.022 (formerly 39-6.022), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner is one of thousands of persons who has authority to possess animals, but does not have an approved facility address to house the animals. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the properties are combined, Petitioner's properties at 127 West Hiawatha and 116 West Elm fail to meet the mandatory requirements for acreage to house Class I wildlife, pursuant to Rule 68A-6.022, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter a final order upholding the Commission's Amended Notice of Denial. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 18th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Preston T. Robertson, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Allan L. Egbert, Ph.D., Interim Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 James Antista, Acting General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on October 29, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Hispanic woman who was employed by Respondent from December 1997 until her termination on October 2, 2002. She worked in Alachua County Animal Services (Animal Services) as an animal control officer. Animal Services control officers are supervised by the Animal Services field supervisor who reports to the director of Animal Services. Petitioner received a bachelor's degree in 1983 in agriculture with a concentration in animal production and agricultural management courses, has experience in animal nutritional research, and has one published paper in that field.2/ Prior to working for the Alachua County, Petitioner managed a small pest control business. By the time she applied for the supervisory position, she had obtained Florida Animal Control Association (FACA) Level I, euthanasia, and chemical immobilization certifications. An animal control officer is responsible for enforcing state laws and county ordinances regarding small animals. Animal control officers impound animals at-large, issue warnings and citations, handle citizen complaints, and investigate animal bites and cruelty to animals. Petitioner served as interim Animal Services supervisor for a little over one month in June 2000. When the position of Animal Services field supervisor became vacant in December 2001, Petitioner applied for the job. Penny Lefkowitz, a newly hired Animal Services officer, also applied for the job. At that time, Ms. Lefkowitz had seven years of animal control experience in Arizona as lead officer. In that capacity, she was a sworn officer with firearm authority, a field training officer, and handled over 1,000 calls per year in that position. She held National Animal Control Association (NACA) Level I and II certifications. She was euthanasia- certified and had 25 years' experience breeding dogs and horses. Ms. Lefkowitz has a high school diploma. Ms. Lefkowitz was placed in the interim field supervisor position for a period of approximately three months, during which time she received supervisory pay. The record is not clear whether there was a separate application process for the permanent position following the appointment of the interim supervisor position. In any event, Respondent hired Bill Burris as Animal Services supervisor in March 2002. At the time he applied, Mr. Burris had nine years of animal control experience in Arkansas, where he was the animal control officer and shelter assistant. He held a high school G.E.D. Additionally, he held NACA Level I, II, and III certifications. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination regarding failure to promote only references Ms. Lefkowitz's appointment to the interim director position, "[i]n December 2001, a newly hired officer, white female with less experience was hired as interim supervisor." It does not reference Mr. Burris as being hired in the director position. Her Petition for Relief alleges, "[t]hose less qualified individuals were hired and promoted in violation of county/company policy." Thus, it is not clear that Respondent hiring Mr. Burris for the permanent position is properly within the scope of this case. Nonetheless, the evidence presented at the hearing regarding Mr. Burris' qualifications is addressed herein. Mr. Burris held the position of field operation supervisor from March 2002 until his resignation in September 2003. Based upon the evidence in the record, at the time the decision was made to place Ms. Lefkowitz in the temporary supervisory position, she and Petitioner met the qualifications for the job. Ms. Lefkowitz had significantly more supervisory and field experience than Petitioner. At the time he was placed in the job, Mr. Burris met the qualifications for the job and had significantly more supervisory experience than Petitioner. Petitioner held a college degree, which neither Ms. Lefkowitz or Mr. Burris had. However, according to Mr. Burris, a college degree was not a minimum requirement of the job, but two years' animal control or animal shelter experience were required. There is nothing in the record to contradict his testimony in this regard. When Mr. Burris became field supervisor, he held a staff meeting and told the animal control officers he supervised that he would start fresh as far as performance and discipline issues. He handed them an empty folder and informed them that he would only consider their past performance if he saw a pattern that caused him to look at past personnel records. Mr. Burris called staff meetings to discuss policies that were not up-to-date or in need of updating. Prior to the staff meeting, Mr. Burris sent a memorandum to the animal control officers informing them that there would be a staff meeting. Officers were expected to attend and were excused only if they were on an emergency call. If an officer was absent from a meeting, Mr. Burris would promptly notify them in memorandum format as to what happened at the meeting. When changes were made in policies or procedures, Mr. Burris would put a copy of the policy changes in every officer's box. Each officer had his or her box where they would receive their mail. Each officer was expected to check that box daily. The boxes were accessible to everyone so that when there was a confidential document, such as payroll information, that document was placed in an envelope and then put in the officer's box. Petitioner's mid-year performance review was due in April 2002, approximately six weeks after Mr. Burris became the supervisor. Petitioner received an overall rating of "exceeded expectation." There are five categories of performance ratings, and "exceeded expectation" is the second highest category. That rating was consistent with ratings Petitioner received from previous supervisors. On April 24, 2002, Mr. Burris held a staff meeting to discuss a new policy regarding issuance of warnings and citations. The new policy required officers to give animal owners in violation of vaccination or licensing requirements 15 days to come into compliance. Previous to this, some officers had given animal owners 30 days to come into compliance. Under extenuating circumstances and upon seeing reasonable attempts to achieve compliance, the officer could extend an owner's deadline by 15 more days. Testimony is conflicting as to whether Petitioner attended this meeting. Petitioner insists she was not at this meeting. Mr. Burris insists that she was and that this issue was discussed in great detail. In any event, Mr. Burris put the new policy in writing a few days after the April 24, 2002, meeting, and the new written policy was given to all the officers. The weight of the evidence establishes that even if Petitioner did not attend the April 24, 2002, meeting, she would have been notified of the policy change shortly thereafter. On April 29, 2002, Petitioner issued a warning to a dog owner, which allowed the dog owner 30 days to achieve compliance with licensing and vaccinations for 24 dogs. According to Petitioner, she considered 30 days to be ample time for the owner to come into compliance. Petitioner maintains that at the time she issued this warning, she was not aware of the change in policy from 30 to 15 days. She acknowledges that Mr. Burris later explained the change in policy to her. It is clear that Mr. Burris informed Petitioner of this policy change and directed her to follow these procedures. In June or July 2002, Mr. Burris designed a policy and procedure manual incorporating all policies and procedures. A manual was issued for each truck used by the animal control officers. On July 31, 2002, Mr. Burris issued a memorandum entitled, "Bite Priority," to the animal control officers. Following a staff meeting where this memorandum was given to the officers, an informal discussion took place around the dispatch area. During this informal discussion, Petitioner questioned Mr. Burris as to whether he had ever read a document called the rabies compendium. Mr. Burris described Petitioner as speaking in a disrespectful, challenging tone. Ms. Lefkowitz witnessed the exchange and described it as disrespectful and condescending.3/ This statement made in front of other officers was inappropriate. The "Bite Priority" memorandum reads, in pertinent part, as follows: All Bites will be priority. Stand-by officers will be required to respond if the bite is after hours during their on-call shift. Bites will not be passed on to the next day. Shifts are 10 hour shifts, not 9 1/2 hours, if you end up working over you are compensated. Officers will not pass calls off to the stand-by person. Priority calls will be taken by Officers during their regular shift. The remainder of the memorandum dealt with off-premise bites. In early August 2002, Mr. Burris decided to "work the roads on a Saturday to take up some of the slack" because the animal control officers were overworked. Late one afternoon, Mr. Burris attempted to reach Petitioner on the radio, but was unable to do so. He asked the dispatcher to contact Petitioner. Petitioner acknowledges that she was contacted by the dispatcher and received Mr. Burris' request to fill up the truck she was driving and to leave the keys and the fuel card on Mr. Burris' desk. Petitioner had already filled up the truck that day in the late morning. She did not fill up the truck again at the end of the day, but described the truck as being seven-eighths full at the end of her shift, after making ten to 12 calls after stopping for fuel. Petitioner believed her actions complied with Mr. Burris' instructions. Mr. Burris described finding the truck the next morning as half-full of gas. Mr. Burris concluded that Petitioner did not follow his instructions. Mr. Burris' conclusion in this regard was not unreasonable. The truck incident gave rise to Mr. Burris' first written warning about her conduct. On August 5, 2002, Mr. Burris issued a memorandum to Petitioner for "failure to follow verbal instruction." The memorandum noted a safety concern in that he was not able to reach Petitioner by radio and his concern that she did not follow his directive. On August 6, 2002, Mr. Burris called Petitioner into his office to discuss the written memorandum. Mr. Burris described Petitioner's behavior when he handed her the memorandum to be disrespectful. As a result, Mr. Burris went to the director's office to explain the circumstances surrounding this incident. This resulted in a meeting in the director's office at which the director, Mr. Burris, and Petitioner were present. Petitioner acknowledges that she made the statement, "I guess one out of a hundred is unacceptable" during this meeting, and that she said it using a sarcastic tone. Later on August 6, 2002, Mr. Burris issued Petitioner another in-house written warning, the subject of which was "improper conduct" about her conduct in the director's office, which read in part: I informed Dr. Caligiuri of Blanca's discourtesy and or improper conduct. I had Blanca meet with me in Dr. Caligiuri's office to discuss her comment and the way in which it was stated. During our conversation in Dr. Caligiuri's office Blanca used mild sarcasm, expressing, "I guess one time out of a hundred is unacceptable" as we discussed the importance of responding to her radio. At this time, I do not want to write this up as a group I #19 Discourtesy to another employee or a Group II #7 Improper conduct which would effect the employees relationship with co-workers. However, if this behavior continues I will be left with no alternative. I know Blanca is capable of doing her job in a professional manner. I only want this as a written documentation of what occurred on this day, to prevent future occurrences of this same behavior. Petitioner refused to sign the August 6, 2002, memorandum. On August 13, 2002, Animal Services received a call about a dog bite at a residence. Animal control officer Jay Butts was dispatched on the call. When he arrived, he saw two or three dogs inside the home, and he could not determine which dog was involved in the reported bite. The owner of the dog was not at home. He left without leaving a written warning because, "I did not have the correct owner or dog, so I didn't know which dog or which owner to leave a written warning to. . . So I wanted to come back and find out which dog actually was involved in the bite." The following morning, Mr. Butts received information from the Health Department regarding the dog's owner and learned that the dog was not currently vaccinated or licensed. Mr. Butts returned to the residence where the bite occurred. He posted a notice to the dog's owner. Apparently the owner was still not home because he posted a warning which included the following necessary corrective action: "Your dog must be placed into quarantine by 5:00 pm on 8-14-02 at our shelter or a licensed vet. If you do not have this done today your animal will be impounded and you will receive a citation of $200.00 per day." The warning required the owner to correct the violation by 5:00 p.m. that day. Officer Butts proceeded to handle other calls until his shift was over. He did not make contact with the dog's owner before his shift ended. His shift ended before 5:00 p.m. The dog's owner called Animal Services after 5:00 p.m. on August 14, 2002. Petitioner took the call. After speaking to the dog's owner, she called a veterinarian and learned that the dog's vaccination had expired by a few months. She did not pick up the dog. She gave the following reason: Yeah, it happened on property. The dog was confined to his property. We had contacted the owner. And basically even though the vaccination had expired, even a one-year vaccination is good for three years. This is a known fact of any vaccine, any rabies vaccine manufactured in the United States, a one-year vaccine has an efficacy of three years. So I take all that matter into consideration when I have to make a decision as to what to do with a bite dog. Petitioner told the dog's owner that he had to comply with the written warning given by Mr. Butts. According to Petitioner, she told the dog's owner that he had to quarantine the dog off the property either at the shelter or at a veterinarian clinic. She also informed him that the only person who could reverse that decision was her supervisor. The next morning, August 15, 2002, the dog's owner called Mr. Burris. Mr. Burris spoke to the dog's owner and then questioned Petitioner to get her side of the story. He then instructed Petitioner to pick up the dog. She did not pick up the dog as instructed; another officer picked up the dog later that day. Mr. Burris gave a verbal warning to Officer Butts regarding his handling of the dog-bite incident. Mr. Butts had received previous disciplinary actions, including suspensions, prior to Mr. Burris becoming the field supervisor. However, on August 20, 2002, Mr. Burris initiated a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action (Notice) to Petitioner in which he recommended a three-day suspension without pay. The reasons referenced in the Notice were willful negligence in the performance of assigned duties or negligence which would endanger the employee, other employees, or the public; and refusal to perform assigned duties or to comply with written or verbal instructions of a higher level supervisor. The narrative of the Notice referenced the dog-bite incident and the August 6, 2002, improper conduct memorandum. Mr. Burris explained his decision to give different disciplinary actions to Officer Butts and Petitioner: Q What should she have done with the dog? A She should have impounded it immediately. If the owner refused her, she should have issued him a citation for failure to comply. Q Jay Butts participated in this. We had some testimony about that. Jay Butts participated in this event two days prior and one day prior to Ms. Carbia getting involved. Why wasn't Butts given any suspension on the same matter? A Jay Butts was given the same verbal consultation that Officer Carbia had received. The only thing Jay Butts could have done differently would have perhaps left a posted notice the day of or given a notice to the roommate with generic information. Jay Butts received consultation pertaining to that. He did not receive disciplinary action because he never made any contact with the owner. The officer that made contact with the owner and had the first opportunity to take the dog was Officer Carbia. Q So there is a difference in the seriousness of her offense and Jay Butts' offense? A Absolutely. Q Hers was more serious? A Yes. As a result of the Notice, a grievance hearing took place on August 26, 2002, in the director's office. Wayne Mangum, who at that time was the union steward, Mr. Burris, and Petitioner were there, as well as the director, Dr. Caligiuri. During the meeting, Petitioner explained her position. At some point in the meeting, Dr. Caligiuri made a comment to the effect that 80 years ago women could not vote.4/ Petitioner found that comment to be discriminatory toward women. When asked whether Dr. Caligiuri's demeanor in that meeting was aggressive or not cordial, Mr. Mangum replied that his demeanor was "uncordial." In any event, Dr. Caligiuri's comment was offensive and inappropriate. During the August 26, 2002, meeting, Mr. Burris instructed Petitioner to discontinue striking the word "within" from the form used when giving an animal owner a time frame within which to bring in an animal to be impounded. She had not been instructed regarding that previously. Mr. Burris received a copy of a warning form dated August 28, 2002, on which Petitioner had crossed out the word "within" contrary to his instructions. He took no action at the time since he thought it might have been a "slip of the pen." He then received another warning form dated September 9, 2002, regarding a dog bite which Petitioner had again altered by crossing out the word "within." Petitioner had written on the form that the warning had been posted. Posting is a procedure officers follow when the animal owner cannot be found. The notice is posted on the door of the residence for the owner to find upon returning home. Based upon his telephone call to the dog's owner and the information on the form, Mr. Burris was of the belief that the form had not been posted, and that Petitioner's indication on the form that it had been posted was inaccurate. Mr. Burris met with Petitioner regarding this incident. Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that she spoke to the dog's owner, but was intimidated and confused when questioned by Mr. Burris about whether or not she had spoken to the owner. Petitioner contends that she did not lie to Mr. Burris, that initially the owner did not come to the door but later did come to the door. According to Petitioner, she simply neglected to cross out the word "posted" or ask the owner to sign the form. On September 18, 2002, Mr. Burris signed and provided a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action to Petitioner which proposed her termination from employment. The stated reasons for the proposed action were willful negligence in the performance of assigned duties or negligence which would endanger the employee, other employee, or the public; deliberate falsification and or destruction of county records; and refusal to perform assigned duties or to comply with written or verbal instruction of a higher level supervisor. The Notice referenced the August 28, 2002, warning notice with the word "within" crossed out; the September 10, 2002, warning notice with the word "within" crossed out; the written word "posted" on a warning when she had personally spoken to the dog's owner; and the meeting on August 26, 2002, which resulted in her three-day suspension. The Notice concluded: This is the same type of circumstance concerning the same written instruction after meeting with Blanca and her union rep. This time Blanca was untruthful in her statements, even after I gave her three opportunities to tell me that she had personally spoken to the dog owner. By writing "posted" on the notice which indicates the owner was not home, she falsified a county document. Blanca hand delivered the notice to the dog owner and did not impound the dog when she had the opportunity. Petitioner was terminated from her employment with Respondent effective October 2, 2002. There is no evidence in the record that Petitioner complained to anyone that she felt she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender or national origin. The only evidence presented regarding her national origin was Petitioner's brief testimony: Q Were there any other Hispanics employed at animal services during the time frame that Mr. Burris was there? A No. Do you feel that your national origin had something to do with the way Mr. Burris treated you? A Certainly just—basically I felt that I was treated differently, yeah.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Did Respondent, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission), correctly deny the application of Petitioner, Phillip Robbins, for a Public Exhibition of Conditional and/or Prohibited Species Permit (CSP)?
Findings Of Fact Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution creates the Commission. It charges the Commission to "exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life, and … exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, … ." Chapter 379, Florida Statutes (2020),1 implements the constitutional grant of authority. The Commission adopted Florida Administrative Code Chapters 68-1 and 68-5 to fulfill its constitutional and statutory duties. 1 All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2020 codification, unless noted otherwise. Mr. Robbins operates a business that he calls Pan-Terra Exotics. He owns a Burmese python and has for over 25 years. From 2012 through 2017, Mr. Robbins sought and obtained the license required to possess the python, License to Possess Class II Wildlife for Exhibition or Public Sale (ESC). He also held and still holds a License to Possess Venomous Reptiles (VRC) that is not involved in this dispute. Mr. Robbins developed a pattern of letting his licenses lapse before applying to renew them. Mr. Robbins' 2015 ESC expired October 3, 2016. Mr. Robbins applied to renew it on October 11, 2016. The Commission issued the license November 2, 2016. Mr. Robbins' 2016 ESC expired October 3, 2017. Mr. Robbins applied to renew it November 8, 2017. The Commission issued the license November 14, 2017. It expired October 3, 2018. The ESCs which Mr. Robbins had held authorized him to possess his Burmese python. Mr. Robbins did not apply for, and consequently did not hold, an ESC after October 3, 2018. On March 11, 2020, Mr. Robbins applied for an ESC and VRC. The Commission issued the VRC on June 12, 2020. It did not issue the ESC. Mr. Robbins followed up on the ESC application with telephone calls and emails. By letter dated July 2, 2020, the Commission denied Mr. Robbins' ESC application. In pertinent part, the Notice of Denial stated: On July 1, 2020, FWC Executive Order 20-19 was signed, effectively altering regulation of species previously listed as Conditional Reptiles. EO 20-19 states in part: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission … hereby establishes special regulations to take effect July 1, 2020, in order to conform with Laws of Florida that amends Section 379.372, Florida Statutes. This statute regulates certain high-risk nonnative invasive reptiles in Florida, particularly those listed as Conditional, Prohibited, Venomous, and Reptiles of Concern. These regulations are necessary due to ecological, economic and human health and safety concerns related to potential impacts of nonnative reptiles in Florida. The regulations below apply to the following species of reptile: a. Burmese or Indian python (Python molurus) A person, party, firm, association, or corporation may not keep, possess, import into the state, sell, barter, trade, or breed the above species except for educational, research, or eradication or control purposes. Facilities that meet the requirements for the possession of Prohibited species as described in Rule 68-5.007, F.A.C. may apply for an FWC Conditional/Prohibited/Nonnative Species Permit for these uses. The Captive Wildlife Program is no longer issuing authorizations for Conditional reptiles on the ESC license and applicants may no longer apply for an ESC license for the purpose of possessing Conditional, Prohibited, or Reptiles of Concern. For these reasons, your application is denied. The letter went on to give instructions on how to apply online for a CSP "under new regulations, … ." Mr. Robbins did not seek review of that decision. On July 14, 2020, Mr. Robbins applied for a CSP. He followed up on his application. On August 5, 2020, he submitted another application, this one typewritten. He also submitted a completed Critical Incident/Disaster Plan form, a power point file on Burmese pythons, and an image of his Facebook page along with it. As part of the application review process, Commission Investigator Robert O'Horo inspected Mr. Robbins' facility, which was the garage at his residence. There were no exterior signs indicating that the home was a place where a python, other reptiles, or any animals were on display or available for viewing. The python cage was located in Mr. Robbins' garage. There were no signs on the cage or in the garage providing information about the python, such as a description of its natural element or its diet. Mr. Robbins did not provide signs that may have been used but were not displayed at the time because he had paused his operation. Mr. Robbins also did not provide brochures or other printed materials with information about the python or other reptiles. There were no seating areas in the garage. The garage contained many objects one would expect to see in a garage such as weights, a weight bench, and a motorcycle. No area of the garage was cleared out and set up as a presentation area. In short, there was nothing indicating that the garage was being used or had been used as a location for exhibition of a python. Pan-Terra Exotics maintains a scanty Facebook page. That is the only marketing or outreach evidence in the record. On August 10, 2020, the page had two pictures of a snake, presumably the python. The page directed people to contact Pan-Terra on Messenger. It contained only the following description of the business: "We offer personalized tours of multiple facilities covering a wide range of exotic, endangered, beautiful animals. Our education and community outreach is second to none. We also import, export, sell, trade and breed exotic animals." There is no mention of exhibitions at Mr. Robbins' home. The Facebook page also advised that Pan-Terra was temporarily closed. Mr. Robbins explained that the minimal information on his Facebook page, as well as the absence of seating, educational materials, display materials, or signs in his garage were due to his license being lapsed and COVID concerns. Because of this, at the time of the inspection he was not operating his business. But Mr. Robbins, who bears the burden of proof in this matter, did not offer any evidence demonstrating that at any time his home and garage were set up to offer public tours or information. He did not, present earlier images of his Facebook page at a more active time. He did not present examples of brochures or other educational materials used before he ceased operations. He did not offer signs removed because of the pause in operations. He did not offer photographs of the exterior or interior of his home and garage that showed use of the garage to exhibit the python. Mr. Robbins did not offer other evidence that might indicate use of his python in an educational exhibition. Examples of evidence that might have indicated such use include receipts or other records showing individuals or groups paid for an exhibition, the power point presentation referred to in his email and testimony, calendars showing scheduled days and times for tours, photos of the facility, or thank you notes from individuals or groups who had attended exhibitions. Mr. Robbins did not testify persuasively about exhibition of the python in his garage. He spoke generally about ad hoc visits from a few interested people. Mr. Robbins testified more persuasively about taking his reptiles to various locations and meetings. But the testimony was very general, did not clearly indicate that the python was among the reptiles, and did not provide information about when he took the reptiles to various locations and meetings. He also offered no corroborating testimony from other witnesses. The only evidence offered to corroborate his claim of traveling to locations to exhibit the python was hearsay, a single letter generally describing "educational" outreach programs. Furthermore, the visits described do not amount to "scheduled tours or general admission …" in a "permanent, fixed facility."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, issue a final order denying the Conditional/Prohibited/ Nonnative Species Permit application of Petitioner, Phillip Robbins. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Rhonda E. Parnell, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2021. Phillip A. Robbins 1146 Navajo Avenue Lehigh Acres, Florida 33936 Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white male. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from 1988 to April 2008. He initially worked as a dump truck driver. He was promoted to park ranger in 1993. Petitioner worked as a park ranger at the Coldwater Horse Stable (Coldwater) from 1999 to January 2006. His job duties included maintaining the facilities at the park, collecting park fees, and interacting with the people using the park. Petitioner utilized prison inmates as laborers to build fences and perform other maintenance work at the park. He was the only park ranger at Coldwater certified to supervise inmates at the time. On November 28, 2005, Petitioner was given a Memorandum of Supervision (MOS) by his supervisor for "sleeping on the job, including times when prison inmates were assigned to [his] supervision." Petitioner disputed that he was sleeping on the job, even though he testified that he was only getting three hours of sleep at night because he was working two jobs at the time. Petitioner decided to stop supervising inmates around the time that he received the MOS. Inmate supervision was voluntary for park rangers at the time. Ben Wolcott, the administrator responsible for operations at Coldwater and several other parks, was not happy with Petitioner's decision not to supervise inmates because he felt that it would reduce the amount of work that would get done at the park. Petitioner testified that there were female park rangers at Coldwater who could have supervised inmates, but that Mr. Wolcott would not allow it. However, as Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony, park rangers were not required to supervise inmates, and Petitioner was the only park ranger at Coldwater certified to supervise inmates at the time. In January 2006, Petitioner was reassigned to Krul Recreation Area (Krul), and the park ranger at Krul was reassigned to Coldwater because he was willing to supervise inmates. Petitioner's job duties and salary were not affected by this reassignment. Krul and Coldwater are both located within the Blackwater River State Forest, but according to Petitioner, Krul was approximately 14 miles farther away from his home than was Coldwater. Petitioner did not file a grievance or any other type of formal complaint regarding his reassignment to Krul or the preferential treatment allegedly given to female park rangers with respect to inmate supervision until February 2008,1 when he filed his complaint with FCHR. On November 30, 2007, Petitioner received a MOS because he was observed by Mr. Wolcott studying for his boat captain's exam while he was on duty, even though according to Mr. Wolcott, there was "plenty of work to do" in the park at the time. Petitioner did not dispute that he was studying for his boat captain's exam while he was on duty, but he claimed that there was no work for him to do at the time because it was raining. However, Mr. Wolcott credibly testified that it had not been raining for at least 30 minutes prior to the time that he observed Petitioner studying. Petitioner received "very good" performance evaluations in 2006 and 2007. His 2008 evaluation was lower, but it still reflected that Petitioner was "consistently meeting expectations." Petitioner quit his job as a park ranger effective April 21, 2008. He started working as a boat captain trainee for Cal Dive International the following day. Petitioner is earning approximately $56,000 per year as a boat captain trainee, which is $30,000 more than he was making as a park ranger. There is no credible evidence that the November 2007 MOS was related in any way to the November 2005 MOS or to Petitioner's decision to not supervise inmates. Respondent's personnel director, Elaine Cooper, credibly testified that a MOS is considered counseling, not disciplinary action. Consistent with this testimony, Respondent's Disciplinary Policy and Employee Standard of Conduct explains that a MOS is to be used to document "[m]inor violations that do not warrant disciplinary action."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Petitioner, Kimberly Wysong, is entitled to approval of her application to add authorization for the family giraffidae to her license to possess Class I and/or Class II wildlife for exhibition or public sale.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Petitioner currently holds a license to handle certain Class I and/or Class II animals, e.g., Class I baboons and Class II primates. She is currently employed by Jerry Holly, and along with other full-time and part-time employees, takes care of a number of exotic animals. The Agency is responsible for determining if applicants meet the criteria for issuance of a license, permit or other authorization to possess giraffidae under Florida Administrative Code Rules 68A-6.002(3), 68A-6.0011 and 68A-6.022. The Application On January 25, 2017, the Petitioner wrote to the Agency requesting to add giraffidae to her license. The application included two letters of recommendation and a spreadsheet detailing 1,003 hours spent working with a giraffe owned by Rhudy Holly. The information that the Petitioner sent to the Agency is the type of information she and others in her industry typically submit when requesting authorization to handle other animals. In response to a request for additional information, the Petitioner provided clarification of her hours and a copy of her current license. The spreadsheet documented hours spent with the giraffe between October 19, 2015, and January 23, 2017. The documented time averaged six hours per day and showed that the time was spent doing a combination of enrichment, cleaning, husbandry/handling, and feeding. The Petitioner testified that she noted her hours on a daily basis and then entered the hours into an Excel spreadsheet at the end of each week. For the first two weeks, the Petitioner started working with the giraffe under the supervision of its owner, Rhudy Holly. Mr. Holly has had his license to handle giraffes for at least five years and started working with them around 2007. Mr. Holly taught the Petitioner how to take care of the giraffe. He went over the basics until he was comfortable that she understood the giraffe’s behavior and mannerisms and she could safely handle the giraffe. He checked on her progress periodically. He also has an employee who works with the giraffe who was also available to the Petitioner for any questions or help with the giraffe. The Petitioner described a typical day working with the giraffe. In the mornings, she spent about two and a half hours cleaning the feed area, then gathering and loading fresh feed. Cleaning the feed area requires shifting the giraffe out of the barn to his outdoor enclosure. Coaxing the giraffe to leave the barn and go outside can take up to 45 minutes because the giraffe is a shy and skittish animal and cannot be rushed. Once the giraffe is outside, the Petitioner cleans the feed area including his troth and buckets and then refills them. She then coaxes the giraffe to come back into the barn using cut branches (“browses”), romaine lettuce or various fruits. Mr. Holly testified that two and a half hours was typical for these activities when you are learning how to handle and take care of the giraffe. At midday, the Petitioner returned for about two hours to clean the feed area of the barn again and also to pressure wash the barn. Mr. Holly testified that the barn is large and two hours was not an unusual amount of time to spend on these activities. In the afternoon, the Petitioner returned for about one and a half hours to clean and shift the giraffe back into the barn. Each visit included enrichment. Enrichment consisted of spending time interacting with the giraffe, which can include stimulation and entertainment using branches, treats, and even spoons hung on the fence for play. The Petitioner was able to devote an average of six hours per day to taking care of the giraffe because she has a full-time employee who helps take care of the primates and a part-time employee who helps with cage repairs and maintenance. The Denial On May 26, 2017, the Agency issued its Notice of Denial. It stated that because the Petitioner’s current job is full-time, “it does not appear that [she] had time to obtain the required experience hours for giraffidae.” The denial went on to state that the Agency “has reason to believe that six hours per day is an unreasonable amount of time to spend caring for one giraffe and therefore, that these hours have been falsified.” Furthermore, the denial stated that the Petitioner “in a conversation with FWC Investigator Steven McDaniel . . . stated [she] spent about half of the documented experience hours sitting and observing the giraffe.” The denial states that “observation time” cannot be claimed to meet the experience requirements of the rule. The Petitioner and Mr. Holly testified that there were no chairs at the giraffe’s barn and enclosure for “sitting.” In addition, Mr. Holly testified that references to observation was time spent using branches and other treats for enrichment, to learn and understand the giraffe’s “body language and behavior,” and “was also a way for them to sort of build a bond.” In his opinion these activities were part of husbandry, i.e., “everything that goes into taking care of that giraffe.” The Agency did not offer any contrary factual or expert testimony regarding husbandry of giraffes. The Petitioner testified persuasively that she expended the time required to obtain her experience hours, that she did not falsify the hours submitted in her application, and that she did not spend half of her hours just sitting and observing the giraffe. Investigator McDaniels’ testimony showed that the Agency only made a cursory attempt to verify the Petitioner’s hours. The Agency did not contact Mr. Holly, although he wrote a letter of recommendation as part of the Petitioner’s application; and Investigator McDaniel did not actually observe the Petitioner’s interactions with the giraffe.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that FWC enter a final order granting the Petitioner’s request to add giraffidae to her license to possess Class I and/or Class II wildlife for exhibition or public sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 February 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: William John Cook, Esquire Barker and Cook, P.A. Suite 1040 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Tyler N. Parks, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Bridget Kelly McDonnell, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Eugene Nichols "Nick" Wiley II, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Harold G. "Bud" Vielhauer, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent's proposed award of a contract to Intervenor is contrary to statutes, rules, policies, or the bid specifications, pursuant to Section 120.57(3)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 14, 2003, Respondent advertised for bids by way of an invitation to bid (ITB) for Contract Number E3C42, Maintenance Financial Project Number 40952917201. This would be a "Push Button" contract for the replacement of damaged guardrails along various roadways in Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Pursuant to this Contract, the successful bidder would respond upon notice, and repair or replace guardrails, or take other measures to ensure safety of the traveling public. The bid solicitation and contract were issued pursuant to Section 337.11, Florida Statutes. All bidders had to certify compliance with Florida Statutes and other applicable law, and all contractors were held to strict compliance with all legal requirements. There were no protests to the terms and conditions of the bid solicitation. The instant challenge does not allege non-compliance with the statutes or terms of the ITB generally. The challenge is whether award of the bid to Intervenor, as a non-profit corporation, is "contrary to competition." This maintenance contract does not require that the contractor be pre-qualified pursuant to Section 334.14, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code. Four bidders responded to the solicitation, with the apparent low bidder being Intervenor, and the apparent second low bidder being Petitioner. Respondent posted its intended award of the contract to Intervenor, and Petitioner timely filed a protest that initiated this proceeding. Intervenor is a not-for-profit corporation created under the provisions of Chapter 617, Florida Statutes. As such, pursuant to Sections 617.0301 and 617.2001, Florida Statutes, Intervenor can engage in any lawful purpose not for pecuniary profit. As a not-for-profit corporation, Intervenor may receive certain tax breaks and other economic advantages not enjoyed by a for-profit corporation. Petitioner is a for-profit corporation. No evidence exists that Intervenor is not capable and responsible to perform the work. Intervenor is qualified to contract with Respondent for the performance of work related to the construction and maintenance of transportation-related facilities by youths enrolled in youth work experience programs, pursuant to Section 334.351, Florida Statutes. Respondent spends appropriations under this section, and Intervenor is the recipient of such contracts. However, the instant contract will not be let under Section 334.351, Florida Statutes, but pursuant to Section 337.11, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the protest filed by Petitioner be dismissed and Respondent shall award the subject contract to Intervenor. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 24th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John C. Bottcher, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Brant Hargrove, Esquire Law Office of Brant Hargrove 2984 Wellington Circle, West Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Timothy Patrick Driscoll, Esquire Timothy Patrick Driscoll, P.A. 101 First Avenue South, Suite 340 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
