The Issue The issue is whether the termination of Respondent, Otis Paul Whatley, was in accordance with the personnel procedures established by the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority.
Findings Of Fact ECUA was created in 1981 pursuant to Chapter 81-376, Laws of Florida. By law, it provides utility services throughout Escambia County, Florida. Mr. Whatley was employed by ECUA. On October 31, 2001, Mr. Whatley signed an acknowledgement that he received the ECUA Employee Handbook. The ECUA Employee Handbook is a summary of benefits, policies, procedures, and rules, which are more fully set forth in ECUA's Human Resources Policy Manual. While on the ECUA Rotation Schedule Standby List on Sunday, July 26, 2009, Mr. Whatley, and his co-worker Jonathan Wheat, were required to be available to make repairs when summoned by ECUA customers. Mr. Whatley submitted a Daily Overtime Report dated July 26, 2009, which indicated that he worked on that day from 9:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. at 926 Lake Terrace, in Pensacola, Florida. The overtime report further stated that he worked from 10:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. at 1283 La Paz Street, in Pensacola. He further asserted that he worked at 402 West Lloyd Street, from 6:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. According to the Global Positioning System (GPS) installed on the ECUA truck assigned to Mr. Whatley, he did not depart his residence at the time he claimed to be working at 926 Lake Terrace or at 1283 La Paz Street. Moreover, the evidence provided by the GPS indicated that he was at the 402 West Lloyd Street for four hours rather than the five claimed as overtime. Mr. Whatley's co-worker, Jonathon Wheat, did work at 926 Lake Terrace and at 1283 La Paz Street, but he worked alone. Mr. Wheat joined in Mr. Whatley's prevarication with regard to the quantity of time expended at 402 West Lloyd Street. Mr. Wheat confessed to his prevarication when confronted. Mr. Whatley lied about his whereabouts when initially confronted, but eventually admitted that his timesheet contained false entries. It is found as a fact that Mr. Whatley, on his time sheet for July 26, 2009, claimed one hour and a half overtime for work at 926 Lake Terrace, one-half-hour overtime for work or at 1283 La Paz Street, and an hour more overtime than actually worked at 402 West Lloyd Street. None of the forgoing periods were worked by Mr. Whatley. Accordingly, these entries on his time sheet were false.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Executive Director of the Emerald Coast Utility Authority, based on the findings of fact found herein, impose such penalty on Otis Paul Whatley, as he or she determines to be appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Whatley 8655 Ramblewood Place Pensacola, Florida 32514 John E. Griffin, Esquire Carson & Adkins 2930 Wellington Circle, North, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Stephen E. Sorrell, Executive Director Emerald Coast Utilities Authority 9255 Sturdevant Street Post Office Box 15311 Pensacola, Florida 32514-0311
The Issue Did Respondent, Ricoh Americas Corporation, (Ricoh), discriminate against Petitioner, Tamara Gleason (Ms. Gleason), because of her gender by demoting her? Did Ricoh retaliate against Ms. Gleason for complaining about gender discrimination?
Findings Of Fact Ricoh is in the business of selling and servicing document imaging and output equipment, including copiers, fax machines, printers, and related supplies and services such as software, paper, and toner. Ricoh has locations across the United States. Ms. Gleason worked for Ricoh from August 2008 until she resigned on March 31, 2010. She worked in its East Florida Marketplace. That area covers the eastern part of Florida from Jacksonville to Miami. In 2008, and at all times relevant to this proceeding, Al Hines (Mr. Hines) was the East Florida Marketplace manager. His responsibilities included supervising sales personnel and meeting sales quotas. Mr. Hines has worked for Ricoh in various positions for over 31 years. He is based in Ricoh's Maitland, Florida, office near Orlando. In 2008, the organizational structure of the East Florida Marketplace consisted of two group sales managers, one in Central Florida and one in South Florida. These group sales managers reported directly to the Marketplace Manager Mr. Hines. They oversaw sales managers who in turn supervised the various account executives. Also, one sales manager in Jacksonville reported directly to Mr. Hines. The group sales managers and sales managers were responsible for supervising the sales personnel, consisting of major account executives, senior account executives, and account executives. Ricoh assigned major account executives to work with specific large client accounts. Senior account executives were more experienced sales representatives. Senior account executives and account executives were assigned territories. Daytona Beach or a series of zip codes are examples of territories. Ricoh also assigned "vertical markets" for a specific industry, such as "faith-based" institutions to an Account Executive. Ms. Gleason applied and interviewed for an account executive position in the central Florida area of the East Florida Marketplace in August 2008. Mr. Hines, General Sales Manager Cecil Harrelson, and Sales Manager Anthony Arritt interviewed Ms. Gleason. On her resume and in her interview, Ms. Gleason represented that she had 20 years of experience as a sales representative in the office equipment field. Her resume stated that she was "[p]roficient in all areas relating to sales and leasing of copiers, printers, scanners, fax machines and various software solutions. Consistently exceeded sales quota." After the interview, Mr. Hines decided to hire Ms. Gleason for Mr. Harrelson's team. Ricoh hired Ms. Gleason as a senior account executive on August 11, 2008. Mr. Hines initially assigned her to work in the vertical "faith-based" market. In September 2008, a sales manager position for the Daytona Beach/Melbourne territories, overseen by Mr. Hines, opened. Three males applied for the position. Ms. Gleason did not apply. Mr. Hines asked Ms. Gleason if she would be interested in being considered for promotion to sales manager. Although Ms. Gleason had no prior management experience and had only worked for Ricoh for two months, Mr. Hines believed that she would be good in the position and asked her to consider it. Ms. Gleason accepted Mr. Hines' proposal. On September 30, 2008, Mr. Hines promoted her to sales manager. Ricoh provided Ms. Gleason manager training. In April and May of 2009, Ricoh restructured its sales positions. Ricoh changed group sales manager positions to strategic account sales manager positions. It removed all major account executives from teams supervised by sales managers and placed them on the teams supervised by the strategic account sales managers. In central Florida, the reorganization resulted in Cecil Harrelson being moved from general sales manager to strategic account sales manager. The major account executives on Ms. Gleason's team (Mary Cobb, David Norman, and Patrick Mull) and Arritt's team (Todd Anderson and Lynn Kent) were moved onto the new team supervised by Harrelson. All of the major account executives in the East Florida Market supervised by Mr. Hines were transferred to strategic account sales manager teams. On average, the sales managers in the East Florida Marketplace each lost two major account executives due to the reorganization. Mr. Hines required all of the sales managers to hire new sales personnel to bring the number of sales personnel on their teams to expected levels. This is known as maintaining "headcount." Ms. Gleason knew of this requirement. Also it was not new. The responsibility to maintain headcount pre-existed the reorganization. From the time of her hire until early 2009, around the time that the Company reorganized its sales positions, Ms. Gleason had no issues with Mr. Hines or complaints about his management. As a sales manager, Ms. Gleason bore responsibility for supervising a team of sales personnel and for ensuring that her team members met their monthly sales quotas. In addition, Ms. Gleason was responsible for maintaining the headcount on her team. Mr. Hines assigned monthly sales quotas for sales managers. He based the quotas on the types of sales representatives on each team. The monthly quota for major account executives was $75,000. For senior account executives, the monthly quota was $40,000. The monthly quota for account executives was $30,000. Mr. Hines conducted bi-monthly two-day sales meetings with all of the sales managers and office administrators to discuss their sales progress. Managers were expected to discuss their completed and forecast sales. Mr. Hines required managers to stand before the group to report on their progress and discuss any issues with quotas or goals based on month-to-date, quarter-to-date, and year-to-date expectations. Mr. Hines also considered "sales in the pipeline," or anticipated sales, to help determine sales trends for the next 90 days and in evaluating sales personnel. In addition, Mr. Hines conducted weekly sales calls with the sales managers to review their sales progress. During the calls, sales managers were to identify which sales they believed had a strong, "95 percent chance," of closing. Mr. Hines also discussed the performance of each individual sales representative on a manager's team during the calls. The discussions included examination of reasons for non-performance. Around the time of the reorganization, Mr. Hines transferred Senior Account Executive Tina Vargas in the Ocala territory from Mr. Arritt's team to Ms. Gleason's team. Mr. Hines made this transfer, in part, to help Ms. Gleason achieve her headcount and sales quotas. At the time of the transfer, Vargas expected to complete a large, one-time $320,000 sale on which she had been working. Mr. Hines anticipated that this sale would help Ms. Gleason achieve her sales quotas. Ms. Vargas was not located in the Daytona Beach/Melbourne territory. But Mr. Hines expected that Ms. Vargas would require minimal supervision because she was an experienced sales representative. Other managers also supervised sales representatives in multiple or large territories. For example, Cecil Harrelson supervised sales representatives in four areas. They were Orlando, Melbourne, Daytona, and Gainesville. Sales Manager Derrick Stephenson supervised a substantially larger geographic area than Ms. Gleason. His area reached from Key West to West Palm Beach. After the reorganization, Ms. Gleason's sales productivity declined. She also was not maintaining her headcount. The other Sales Managers experienced the same problems initially. But they recovered from the changes. Ms. Gleason never did. For the seven-month period of April through October, Ms. Gleason's record of attaining her quota was as follows: April - 35% or $70,867 in sales May - 196% or $385,452 in sales (Due to Ms. Vargas joining the team with a pending sale; 23% without Ms. Vargas.) June - 31% or $61,136 in sales July - 8% or $12,948 in sales August - 12% or $19,521 in sales September - 11% or $18,261 in sales October - 23% or $36,811 in sales During that same period, Ms. Gleason was the lowest performing sales manager in July (19 points less than the next lowest), August (14 points less than the next lowest), September (33 points less than the next lowest), and October (6 points less than the next lowest). She was the second lowest in June when Mr. Comancho was the lowest with 25% attainment compared to Ms. Gleason's 31%. The attainment percentages for all of the sales managers varied. Each had good months and bad months. After April and May, Ms. Gleason, however, had only bad months. For the months June through October, Ms. Gleason was the only sales manager who did not achieve 50% attainment at least twice, with two exceptions. They exceptions were Mr. Comancho and Mr. Rodham. Mr. Comancho chose to return to an account executive position after Mr. Hines spoke to him about his performance. Mr. Rodham joined Ricoh in October and attained 52% of quota that month. In addition to steadily failing to meet 50% of her quota, Ms. Gleason failed to maintain a full headcount for the same period of time. No male sales managers in Ricoh's East Florida Marketplace had similar deficiencies in meeting sales quota. There is no evidence that any male sales managers in Ricoh's East Florida Marketplace had similar failures to maintain headcount. There is no evidence of sales manager productivity or headcount maintenance for any of Ricoh's other markets. Ms. Gleason tried to improve her headcount by hiring additional sales personnel. She conducted a job fair with the assistance of Ricoh's recruiter. They identified 19 applicants for further consideration and second interviews. Mr. Hines reviewed and rejected all 19. They did not meet his requirement for applicants to have outside sales experience and a history of working on a commission basis. Ms. Gleason was aware of Mr. Hines' requirements. But she interpreted them more loosely than he did. Mr. Hines helped Ms. Gleason's efforts to improve her headcount by transferring four sales representatives to her team. At Ms. Gleason's request, Mr. Hines also reconsidered his rejection of one candidate, Susan Lafue, and permitted Ms. Gleason to hire her. Still Ms. Gleason was unable to reach the expected headcount. David Herrick, one of the individuals who Mr. Hines assigned to Ms. Gleason's team, had already been counseled about poor performance. Mr. Hines directed Ms. Gleason to work with Mr. Herrick until he sold something. This was a common practice with newer sales representatives. Mr. Herrick had also been assigned to male sales managers. Mr. Hines asked Ms. Gleason and Mr. Herrick to bring him business cards from their sales visits. He often did this to verify sales efforts. After Mr. Hines reviewed the cards, he threw them in the trash. But he first confirmed that Ms. Gleason had the information she needed from the cards. Mr. Hines often threw cards away after reviewing them to prevent sales representatives providing the same card multiple times. Ricoh's Human Resources Policy establishes a series of steps for disciplinary action. The first is to provide an employee a verbal warning. The next two steps are written warnings before taking disciplinary action. Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a verbal warning about her performance. He spoke to her about improving sales production and headcount. Ms. Gleason's performance did not improve despite her efforts. Later, Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a written warning in a counseling document dated August 31, 2009. The document stated that her performance had not been acceptable. The counseling memorandum directed Ms. Gleason to reach 65% of her quota. It also said that she was expected to maintain a minimum of seven people on her team and work in the field with her sales representatives at least four days a week. Finally the memorandum advised that failure to perform as directed would result in "being moved to sales territory." Around the end of August 2009, Mr. Hines began counseling Israel Camacho, a male, about his performance. Mr. Comancho decided to return to an account executive position. In September Ms. Gleason achieved 11% of her quota. She also did not maintain her headcount. September 24, 2009, Mr. Hines gave Ms. Gleason a second written counseling memorandum. It too said that her performance was unacceptable. The memorandum required her to produce 80% of her quota and maintain a minimum of seven people on her team. It also cautioned that failure to meet the requirements would result in "being moved to sales territory." Ms. Gleason acknowledges that she understood that if she did not perform to the expected levels that she could be demoted. After the written warning of September 24, 2009, Ms. Gleason's performance continued to be unacceptable. For October, Ms. Gleason had $23,811 in sales for a total attainment of 23% of quota. Again, she did not maintain her team's headcount. Sometime during the June through October period, Mr. Hines criticized Ms. Gleason's management style, saying that she "coddled" her personnel too much. He also directed her to read the book "Who Moved My Cheese" and discuss it with him and consider changing her management style. Mr. Hines often recommended management books to all managers, male or female. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Gleason is the only person he required to read a recommended book and discuss it with him. Mr. Hines' comments and the reading requirement were efforts to help Ms. Gleason improve her performance and management. During the June through October period, Ms. Gleason yawned during a manager meeting. She maintains that Mr. Hines' statement about her yawn differed from the words he spoke to a male manager who fell asleep in a meeting. The differences, she argues, demonstrated gender discrimination. They did not. In each instance Mr. Hines sarcastically commented on the manager's behavior in front of other employees. He made no gender references. And the comments were similar. Sometime during the June through October period Mr. Hines also assigned Ms. Gleason to serve in an "Ambassador" role. "Ambassadors" were part of a Ricoh initiative to develop ways to improve the customer experience. There is no evidence that males were not also required to serve as "Ambassadors." And there is no persuasive evidence that this assignment was anything other than another effort to improve Ms. Gleason's management performance. Also during the June through October period Ms. Gleason proposed hosting a team building event at a bowling alley. Someone in management advised her that the event could not be an official company sponsored event because the bowling alley served alcohol. Again, there is no evidence that males were subjected to different requirements or that the requirement was related to Ms. Gleason's gender. During this same period, Ms. Gleason received written and oral communications from co-workers commenting on her difficulties meeting Mr. Hines' expectations. They observed that she was having a hard time and that they had seen Mr. Hines treat others similarly before discharging them. Nothing indicates that the others were female. These comments amount to typical office chatter and indicate nothing more than what the counseling documents said: Mr. Hines was unhappy with Ms. Gleason's performance and was going to take adverse action if it did not improve. On November 12, 2009, Ms. Gleason sent an email to Rhonda McIntyre, Regional Human Resources Manager. Ms. Gleason spoke to Ms. McIntyre that same day about her concerns about Hines' management style. Ms. Gleason said she was afraid that she may lose her job and that she was being set up for failure. Ms. McIntyre asked Ms. Gleason to send her concerns in writing. Ms. Gleason did so on November 13, 2009. Ms. Gleason's e-mail raised several issues about Mr. Hines' management. But Ms. Gleason did not state in her email or her conversations that she was being discriminated against or treated differently because of her gender. Ms. Gleason never complained about gender discrimination to any Ricoh representative at any time. On December 1, 2009, Mr. Hines demoted Ms. Gleason from sales manager to senior account executive. He assigned her to work on Mr. Arritt's team. Ms. Gleason had no issues with Mr. Arritt and no objection to being assigned to his team. Mr. Hines has demoted male sales managers to account executive positions for failure to attain quotas or otherwise perform at expected levels. The male employees include Ed Whipper, Kim Hughes, and Michael Kohler. In addition, Mr. Comancho was the subject of counseling before he chose to return to an account executive position. After Mr. Hines demoted Ms. Gleason, he promoted Diego Pugliese, a male, to sales manager. He assigned Mr. Pugliese the same territory that Ms. Gleason had. When Mr. Hines assigned Ms. Gleason to Mr. Arritt's team, Mr. Hines instructed Mr. Arritt to give Ms. Gleason two territories with substantial "machines in field" (MIF) to buttress Ms. Gleason's opportunity to succeed in her new position. Mr. Arritt assigned Ms. Gleason the two territories that records indicated had the most MIF. Ms. Gleason asserts that the preceding account executives maintained the records for the area poorly and that the new territories had no greater MIF than other areas. That fact does not indicate any intent to discriminate against Ms. Gleason on account of her gender. In January 2010, after Ms. Gleason's demotion, Mr. Harrelson invited Ms. Gleason to attend a non-company sponsored, employees' poker party. She had been invited to other employee poker parties and attended some. Mr. Harrelson withdrew the invitation saying that Mr. Hines was attending and that Mr. Harrelson thought Ms. Gleason's presence would be uncomfortable. Mr. Harrelson did not say that Mr. Hines had made this statement. And Mr. Harrelson was not Ms. Gleason's supervisor. Nothing about the exchange indicates that Ms. Gleason's gender had anything to do with withdrawal of the invitation. The incident seems to be based upon the natural observation that Mr. Hines might be uncomfortable socializing with someone he had recently demoted. After her demotion, Ms. Gleason asked Mr. Arritt to go with her on a "big hit" sales call. Ms. Gleason claims that Mr. Arritt told her that Mr. Hines told him not to go on sales calls with her. That may have been Mr. Arritt's interpretation of what Mr. Hines said. Mr. Hines had told Mr. Arritt that because Ms. Gleason was an experienced sales representative Mr. Arritt should focus his efforts on the less experienced sales representatives on his team. This was a reasonable observation. There is no evidence indicating that Mr. Hines treated Ms. Gleason differently in this situation than he had similarly experienced males. Ms. Gleason brought this issue to Ms. McIntyre's attention. The issue was resolved. Mr. Hines told Mr. Arritt that if Ms. Gleason wanted more assistance then Mr. Arritt should attend meetings with Gleason and provide any other assistance she believed she needed. Ms. Gleason had no other issues with Mr. Hines during the remainder of her employment. On March 31, 2010, Ms. Gleason submitted a memorandum stating that she was resigning "effective immediately." There is no evidence of derogatory or harassing comments by Mr. Hines or any other Ricoh representative toward Ms. Gleason referring to gender. There is no evidence of sexually suggestive comments or actions by a Ricoh representative. There also is no evidence of physically intimidating or harassing actions by any Ricoh representative.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny the Petition of Tamara A. Gleason in FCHR Case Number 2010-01263. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2011, 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 18th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kimberly A. Gilmour, Esquire 4179 Davie Road, Suite 101 Davie, Florida 33314 David A. Young, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the challenged portions of Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined by Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Respondent The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of building and maintaining the state’s transportation system. Each year the Department lets out hundreds of road and bridge construction projects totaling over one billion dollars. The projects range from sidewalk improvements to major bridge construction. Accordingly, there is a wide range of expertise and qualifications necessary for the different kinds of projects let by the Department in Florida. Section 337.14(1), Florida Statutes, requires any person desiring to bid on any Department construction contract in excess of $250,000 to first be certified by the Department as qualified to perform the work to be let. Pursuant to Section 337.164, Florida Statutes, the Department qualifies contractors to preserve the integrity of the public contracting process, to ensure an open and competitive environment for the benefit of the taxpayers, and to ensure a quality project in terms of public works. Pursuant to Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, persons seeking to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000 must first file an application for a Certificate of Qualification with the Department. The statute specifically authorizes the Department to enact rules addressing the qualification of persons to bid on contracts in excess of $250,000, including requirements with respect to competency, responsibility, equipment, past record, experience, financial resources, and organizational personnel of the applicant. Gregory Xanders is the State Construction Engineer. His duties include setting policy and reviewing contractor responsibility and qualifications under Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code. In conjunction with reviewing a contractor’s qualifications, the State Construction Engineer’s Office receives input from other personnel, including contract managers in the field, the Department General Counsel’s Office, the Department Inspector General’s Office, and other cities and counties who may work with the contractor. The State Construction Engineer’s Office also reviews any intended decision to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification with the Assistant Secretary of the Department. When the State Construction Engineer’s Office makes a preliminary determination that a contractor’s Certificate of Qualification should be suspended, revoked, or denied, the contractor is notified and informed of its rights to an administrative hearing to contest the intended decision under Section 120.569, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner MBI is a company which engages in road building and asphalt paving. Since the early 1980s MBI has been qualified to bid on and awarded several Department projects. Approximately 80 percent of MBI's workload involves Department projects. Pursuant to Department rules, MBI annually submits an application to renew or obtain an updated Certificate of Qualification in order to continue bidding and performing Department projects. In 1997, MBI was denied qualification to bid on Department projects for approximately ten months. However, MBI was subsequently qualified by the Department during calendar year 1999. On or about March 31, 2000, MBI filed an Application for Qualification with the Department. By letter dated May 18, 2000, the Department gave MBI notice of its intent to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification, and stated that any subsequent application would not be considered for a period of two years. The Department’s letter advised MBI that the denial of the application constituted "a determination of non-responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract" for the same period. Specifically, the letter provided: Please be advised that pursuant to Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14- 22, Florida Administrative Code, it is the intent of the Department of Transportation (hereinafter Department) to deny Mitchell Brothers, Inc.’s (hereinafter Mitchell Brothers) Application for Qualification dated March 31, 2000. This denial shall preclude consideration of any subsequently submitted Application for Qualification for a period of two (2) years. Additionally, this denial shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and shall prohibit Mitchell Brothers from acting as a material supplier, contractor, or consultant on any Department contract during the period Mitchell Brothers is not qualified by the Department. The Department’s Notice of Intent denied MBI’s Application based upon a determination that MBI had demonstrated "a pattern of exorbitant and false, deceptive or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in claims for payment," and "a lack of management expertise and continuity." By Petition for Formal Hearing dated May 30, 2000, MBI challenged the Department’s Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. MBI’s Petition for Formal Hearing was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 00-2431. On September 18, 2000, the Department served on MBI a Modified Notice of Intent to Deny MBI’s application. The Modified Notice gave additional grounds for the Department’s decision to deny MBI’s Application for Qualification. Among the additional grounds for denying MBI’s Application were the following: MBI submitted false, deceptive, fraudulent, erroneous or unreasonable statements, certifications, or materials in its claims for payment to the Department, the City of Tallahassee, the Leon County School Board, and other owners; MBI submitted claims or statements for services not performed or expenses not incurred; MBI failed to avoid, diminish or otherwise mitigate the effects of construction delays; and MBI failed to reasonably cooperate with the Department’s efforts to investigate the accuracy of MBI’s delay claims and statements. On October 13, 2000, MBI filed it’s Petition Seeking Administrative Determination that Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority (DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX). Specifically, in paragraph 11 of its Petition, MBI alleges that the Rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes specific provisions of the law implemented, and that the Rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. MBI later alleged that the Department had also exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority. A three-week final hearing was scheduled to commence in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on October 26, 2000. Shortly prior to hearing, Petitioner filed a Motion to consolidate DOAH Case Nos. 99-2431 and 00-4234RX. The Department opposed the motion based on their counsel's inability to be adequately prepared for the 00-4234RX rule challenge proceeding. In lieu, the parties agreed to temporarily break from the 00-2431 hearing during the second week and commence the rule challenge. However, on the morning of October 26, 2000, MBI filed a Notice of its Withdrawal of its Petition for Formal Hearing in DOAH Case No. 00-2431. Consequently, DOAH Case No. 00-4234RX was scheduled for hearing on November 14, 2000. Based on MBI’s Notice of Withdrawal of its Petition, an Order Closing File was entered in DOAH Case No. 00-2431 on November 1, 2000. On November 2, 2000, the Department entered a Clerk’s Order of Dismissal of MBI’s Petition challenging the denial of its Application for Qualification. "Good Cause" Defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, provides: For reasons other than delinquency in progress, the department, for good cause, may determine any contractor not having a certificate of qualification nonresponsible for a specified period of time or may deny, suspend, or revoke any certificate of qualification. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, circumstances in which a contractor or the contractor’s official representative: Makes or submits to the department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements or materials in any bid proposal to the department, any application for a certificate of qualification, any certification of payment pursuant to s. 337.11(10), or any administrative or judicial proceeding; Becomes insolvent or is the subject of a bankruptcy petition; Fails to comply with contract requirements, in terms of payment or performance record, or to timely furnish contract documents as required by the contract or by any state or federal statute or regulation; Wrongfully employs or otherwise provides compensation to any employee or officer of the department, or willfully offers an employee or officer of the department any pecuniary or other benefit with the intent to influence the employee or officer’s official action or judgment; Is an affiliate of a contractor who has been determined nonresponsible or whose certificate of qualification has been suspended or revoked and the affiliate is dependent upon such contractor for personnel, equipment, bonding capacity, or finances; Fails to register, pursuant to chapter 320, motor vehicles that he or she operates in this state. Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke an Application for Qualification based upon a determination of "good cause." "Good cause" is defined by six examples specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, but the statute further provides that "good cause includes, but is not limited to" the six circumstances specified in the statute. "Good Cause" Defined in the Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled: "Suspension, Revocation, or Denial of Qualification." Subsection (1) of this Rule provides in pertinent part: (1) The Department will, for good cause, as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, suspend, revoke, or deny any contractor’s qualification to bid. A suspension, revocation, or denial for good cause pursuant to this rule shall prohibit the contractor from bidding on any Department construction contract for which prequalification is required by Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, and shall constitute a determination of non- responsibility to bid on any other construction or maintenance contract and from acting as a material supplier, subcontractor, or consultant on any Department contract or project during the period of suspension, revocation, or denial. As provided in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, such good cause shall include, but shall not be limited to, the provisions of paragraphs (a) through (e) below. When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), F.A.C., as well as Department contractor certification activities. (a) The contractor’s Certificate of Qualification shall be denied or revoked for at least one year when it is determined by the Department that any of the following has occurred: One of the circumstances specified under Section 337.16(2)(a), (b) or (d), Florida Statutes, has occurred. Affiliated contractors submitted more than one proposal for the same work. In this event the Certificate of Qualification of all of the affiliated bidders will be revoked or denied. All bids of affiliated bidders will be rejected. The contractor made or submitted to the Department false, deceptive, or fraudulent statements, certifications, or materials in any claim for payment or any information required by any Department contract. The contractor defaulted on any Department contract or the contract surety took over any Department contract from the contractor. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes the Department to deny, suspend, or revoke a contractor’s qualification to bid based on a determination of "good cause" as that term is defined in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes. The term is defined by examples contained in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and in the Rule, but it is not exhaustive. In addition to the list of examples of "good cause" specified in Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14- 22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, the Department consistently considers other criteria contained in Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, which relate to the qualifications of a contractor. Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, requires the Department to consider a contractor’s equipment, past record, experience, financial resources and organizational personnel. Other factors considered are contained in Rule 14-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, which addresses the rating of the applicant, work performance record, quality of work performed, history of payment, timeliness of completing projects, cooperative attitude, contract litigation, claims, defaults, integrity, and responsibility. Both Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, provide the industry with sufficient guidance as to the criteria for "good cause." Responsibility A contractor bidding on projects of less than $250,000 is presumed to be responsible unless one of the circumstances specified in Rule 14-22.0141, Florida Administrative Code, occurs, in which case the contractor may be deemed "non- responsible." In addition to being "qualified," a contractor seeking to bid on projects over $250,000 must also be deemed to be "responsible." By statute, a contractor must be "responsible" as a prerequisite to being "qualified." Section 337.14(3), Florida Statutes, provides: (3) Upon the receipt of an application for certification, the department shall examine it, verify its statements when necessary, and determine whether the applicant is competent, is responsible, and possesses the necessary financial resources to perform the desired work. The Department must consider the responsibility of the contractor during the review of its Application for Qualification. If a contractor’s qualification has been denied, suspended, or revoked for "good cause," then the contractor is deemed to be non-responsible and not allowed to bid on any project. Under Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, the Department may determine the time period in which a contractor is deemed to be non-responsible. Period of Disqualification As to the period of disqualification, Section 337.16(2), Florida Statutes, and Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provide a framework of guidelines and, in some instances, detailed timeframes relating to specific circumstances. For example, Section 337.165(2)(b)1, Florida Statutes, specifically requires the Department to deny or revoke a contractor's certification for a period of 36 months when the Department determines that the contractor has been convicted of a contract crime. This statute provides a frame of reference for the Department in establishing the period of disqualification. Within the framework provided by Chapter 337, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 14-22, Florida Administrative Code, the Department considers a period of disqualification ranging from 0 to 36 months. Rule 14-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, states that when a Certificate of Qualification is denied or revoked for any of the specified reasons in Rule 14-22.012(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the denial or revocation is "for at least one year." This revocation period only provides a lower limit. Rule 14-22.012(1), Florida Administrative Code, further provides: "When a specific period of revocation, denial, or suspension is not specified by this rule, the period shall be based on the criteria of Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Department contractor certification activities." Rule 14-22.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides that a contractor will be "ineligible to bid on Department contracts for a period of time based on the seriousness of the deficiency." Rule 14022.0141(4), Florida Administrative Code, provides examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency. Under the Rule, the examples of factors affecting the seriousness of the deficiency include impacts on project schedule, cost, quality of work, unsafe conditions allowed to exist, complaints from the public, delay or interference with the bidding process, and the potential for repetition. It is not possible to codify in a rule the precise time period of disqualification for every single instance. Because the facts and circumstances supporting a determination of "good cause" vary, it is impracticable to compile an exhaustive list for each instance.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Wade Raulerson Pontiac,1/ committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009),2/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race by subjecting him to different terms and conditions than similarly situated employees outside of his protected classification, or by reducing Petitioner’s wages and ultimately discharging Petitioner from his employment in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct.
Findings Of Fact Wade Raulerson Honda and Wade Raulerson Pontiac are each an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. They are subsidiary companies of Morgan Auto Group, a Tampa-based company that owns eight car dealerships in Gainesville, Ocala, and the Tampa Bay area. On March 7, 2008, Petitioner, a black male, commenced employment at Wade Raulerson Honda as a detailer. In April 2008, Petitioner was promoted to detail manager. As Detail Manager, Petitioner earned a salary of $950 per week, or $49,400 per year. At the time he was hired, Petitioner received from Morgan Auto Group an “Associate Manual,” essentially an employee handbook setting forth, among other things, the parent company’s policy promoting equal employment opportunity and prohibiting discrimination or harassment based on age, sex, disability, race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, or “any other non-merit factor.” The Associate Manual also set forth a conflict resolution process for any employee complaints or grievances, including those of harassment, discrimination, or denial of equal employment opportunity. The employee was to first discuss the problem with his supervisor or department manager. If the response at the first step was not timely or satisfactory, the employee could then submit his complaint to the general manager of the dealership, or to the HR manager for the parent company. There were three employees in the Detail Department of Wade Raulerson Honda. As detail manager, Petitioner supervised the other two employees, Berton Curtis, who was black, and Matthew Luchenburg, who was white. Mr. Curtis worked for $8.50 per hour, and Mr. Luchenburg was paid $8.00 per hour. The work performed by Petitioner was termed “detailing” and was performed to prepare used cars for the showroom and sales lot. Petitioner pressure washed the engine, buffed and waxed the car, and shampooed the interior. He examined every detail of the interior and exterior of the used car to ensure that it was clean and ready to show on the lot. The bulk of the work performed by the other two employees was termed “cleaning” or “washing” and was performed on new cars and used cars already on the showroom floor. They vacuumed and dusted the interior, then ran the car through the car wash. Their work was much less exacting and time consuming than the detailing work performed by Petitioner. The evidence presented at hearing established that Mr. Curtis performed some “detailing” work, but that the great majority of the detailing performed on the premises of Wade Raulerson Honda was performed by Petitioner. In addition to paying Petitioner for detailing work, Wade Raulerson Honda also paid an outside vendor $125 per car to perform detailing on used cars. Wade Raulerson Honda also sent some of its used cars to be detailed at Wade Raulerson Pontiac for a fee. These outside sources were used because the volume of used cars was more than Petitioner could handle alone, not due to any dissatisfaction with Petitioner’s job performance. Respondent stipulated that Petitioner’s job performance was very good throughout his employment. In late 2008 and into 2009, the poor economy was especially hard on retail automobile sales. By June 2009, business was off by 40 percent at Wade Raulerson Honda, and management looked for any way possible to cut costs. Wade Raulerson Honda was organized under the headings of “fixed operations” and “variable operations.” Fixed operations comprised the Parts Department and the Service Department, which included the Detail Department. Variable operations included the Sales and the Finance and Insurance Departments. Dan Schmidt, then the general manager of Wade Raulerson Honda, explained that fixed operations are easier to control, and that when business turns down, they are the most obvious place to cut expenses. In June 2009, Mr. Schmidt, in consultation with Tom Yonkers, his Fixed Operations Director, decided to close the Detail Department and to send his used cars to Wade Raulerson Pontiac’s larger detailing facility. Petitioner’s Detail Manager position was eliminated altogether. Mr. Curtis and Mr. Luchenburg were reassigned to new positions in which they performed their washing duties as well as lot cleanup, mowing and edging, and sundry other duties that allowed Mr. Schmidt to make further cuts in maintenance and janitorial expenses. Mr. Schmidt also laid off service advisors and two lube technicians. Mr. Schmidt testified that Petitioner was a good employee, and “good employees are very hard to come by.” Mr. Schmidt sought ways to retain Petitioner’s services. He offered Petitioner a non-management position that would have essentially involved performing the type of work being done by Mr. Curtis and Mr. Luchenburg, but at a rate of $600 per week, significantly more than the other two men were paid. Petitioner declined the offer, saying he could not take such a large cut in salary. Mr. Yonkers contacted his fixed operations director counterpart at Wade Raulerson Pontiac, Charles Jones, to inquire whether Mr. Jones had any openings appropriate for Petitioner. Mr. Jones already had three detailers and was paying them $13 an hour. Two of these employees, including the detail manager, were black. Mr. Jones agreed to meet with Petitioner and to try and make a space for him. Mr. Jones testified that he was interested in grooming Petitioner for the detail manager position. He understood that Petitioner had been making around $900 per week at Wade Raulerson Honda, and believed that a productive Detail Manager would be worth that much money. On or about June 12, 2009, Petitioner met with Mr. Jones at Wade Raulerson Pontiac. They discussed the position that Mr. Jones had in mind for Petitioner and talked about money. Mr. Jones made a tentative offer to Petitioner of $17 per hour with a guarantee of 55 hours per week. He gave Petitioner a “Morgan Auto Group Pay Plan” form filled in with those terms. The form contained signature spaces to be completed by the employee, the employee’s manager, and the general manager of the dealership. Mr. Jones told Petitioner that the offer was not considered binding until all three parties had signed the pay plan. This form was never signed by management of Wade Raulerson Pontiac. Mr. Jones testified that he reported the $17 per hour offer to Mr. Dalessio, who would not agree to pay Petitioner any more money than his current detailers were receiving. Mr. Dalessio believed it was unfair to his current employees to bring in a new man at a significantly higher wage than they were making. A second Morgan Auto Group Pay Plan was prepared for Petitioner, with a pay rate of $13 per hour and no guarantee as to the number of hours per week. Petitioner initially declined this offer. On June 16, 2009, Petitioner was given a transfer notice by Wade Raulerson Honda, stating that he was transferring to Wade Raulerson Pontiac due to the closure of the Honda’s dealership’s Detail Department, “with time served and benefits not lost.” The notice also stated that Petitioner’s future wages were to be negotiated at Wade Raulerson Pontiac, not at Wade Raulerson Honda. On June 16, 2009, Petitioner happened to meet Morgan Auto Group’s HR manager, Jason Hillman, in the parking lot of the Honda dealership. Petitioner showed Mr. Hillman the $17 offer sheet and asked to discuss the matter with him. Mr. Hillman agreed to meet with Petitioner at the Pontiac dealership. They went separately to Wade Raulerson Pontiac and met with Mr. Dalessio to discuss the situation. Mr. Hillman explained that the $17 offer was not binding and that the $13 offer was the only offer on the table for Petitioner. Mr. Hillman stated, not very diplomatically, that the $17 offer sheet was “not worth the paper it was written on.” Petitioner became upset and asked Mr. Hillman to fire him so that he could collect unemployment. Mr. Hillman explained that he could not fire Petitioner because he had not yet accepted the offer from Wade Raulerson Pontiac. He further explained that if Petitioner declined the offer, he would be considered to have been laid off from Wade Raulerson Honda and that the company would not oppose his claim for unemployment benefits. Petitioner eventually accepted the $13 per hour offer from Wade Raulerson Pontiac. He worked and was paid for 12 hours over the course of two days, at the rate of $13 per hour. On June 19, 2009, Mr. Jones met with Petitioner to have him formally sign the $13 per hour pay plan. At that time, Petitioner told Mr. Jones that he could not work for those wages. He left the dealership and did not return to work. Petitioner was not fired from his position. Petitioner alleged that, subsequent to his leaving Wade Raulerson Pontiac, the dealership hired a white detailer named “Joe” at a rate of $15 per hour. However, evidence presented at the hearing established that Wade Raulerson Pontiac hired a detail technician named Joe Halliday on July 13, 2009, at a rate of $13 per hour, the same rate offered to Petitioner. Petitioner offered no evidence to establish that the terms and conditions of his employment were different than those of similarly situated persons outside of his protected classification, or that his wages were reduced or he was terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner ever complained or even mentioned harassment or discrimination on the basis of race to any member of management at Wade Raulerson Honda or Wade Raulerson Pontiac.3/ Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Wade Raulerson Honda or Wade Raulerson Pontiac discriminated against him because of his race, subjected him to harassment because of his race, or retaliated against him in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Wade Raulerson Honda for closing its Detail Department, or by Wade Raulerson Pontiac for declining to hire Petitioner at a salary nearly equal to the amount he made as detail manager at Wade Raulerson Honda. Petitioner disputed the company’s claim that the Detail Department at Wade Raulerson Honda was itself losing money, but failed to establish that the company’s decision to make large cuts in fixed operations expenses was anything other than a rational business decision necessitated by a severe decline in sales revenue. The evidence established that Petitioner was considered a good employee and that the Wade Raulerson dealerships made every good faith effort, consistent with the economic realities of the retail automobile sales business as of June 2009, to retain Petitioner’s services during the economic downturn. The discussions between the parties turned on money, not race. Petitioner simply decided that he could not work for the amount that Wade Raulerson Pontiac offered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Wade Raulerson Honda and Wade Raulerson Pontiac did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2010.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Margie Ann Sims, was unlawfully terminated (by Respondent), Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner is forty eight (48) years old. She commenced work for Respondent, Niagara Wires, a subsidiary of Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., located in Quincy, Florida during 1965 as an Accounts Payable Clerk. Petitioner was terminated on August 5, 1983, as a result of a reduction in staff and unsatisfactory work performance.1 During Petitioner's job tenure, she held various accounting and secretarial positions. Petitioner's initial duties were that of an accounting clerk and she later progressed to Assistant Chief Accountant. She later served as Corporate Bookkeeper and Secretary. Throughout her employment, her job duties were very broad and encompassed many areas of responsibility including overseeing accounts receivable, billings, payroll, bank statements, journal entries, wire transfers and financial statements. During 1975, Respondent's corporate office was moved to Quincy, Florida and Petitioner handled accounting and secretarial duties for the corporate office, dealt with banks making fund transfers, loan balancing and note arrangements; managed financial consolidation of Respondent's eight companies on a quarterly basis; maintained all pension plan records for Respondent's fourteen pension plans which included calculations of pension benefits, submission of wages and credited service to actuaries in preparation of various pension reports. Petitioner's other duties involved maintenance of company minute books, typing, submission and maintenance of files for all letters of credit issued; keeping patent and trademark files and assisted with telecopy, switchboard and TWX. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1976, Petitioner worked directly for Respondent's corporate secretary/treasurer, Robert Worrall. The assignment occurred as a result of a recommendation by Respondent's manufacturing manager, Don Anderson. Petitioner was considered the best of the three employees available to work for Worrall. Thereafter, several changes were made in Respondent's corporate makeup including the addition of the Lockport Felt Division in 1977. As a result, additional employees were placed in the accounting department and Petitioner's duties became more secretarial and clerical in nature than accounting. This situation remained unchanged until Petitioner's termination in 1983. Although Petitioner worked directly for Worrall, she was also expected to perform secretarial and clerical work for others in the accounting department, specifically including Harry Kurtz, Vice-President of Finance, Bruce Kennedy, Controller and Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager. While Petitioner's primary responsibility was to complete Worrall's work, she was also expected to perform work for other accountants and fiscal employees in the accounting department as she was the only trained employee in the accounting department available for typing duties. (TR 35, 106, 133-134, 117-119, 138, 142 and 153). Respondent has not maintained a formal policy concerning employee discipline or warnings for salaried employees, as Petitioner. (Testimony of Cairns and Worrall, TR 19, 46-47, 60 and 77). Commencing in 1980, Worrall became unhappy with Petitioner's work performance. This unhappiness took the form of counseling with Petitioner during year-end annual reviews and included the following deficiencies: "away from her work station when needed; too much time spent socializing with others; unwilling to work; pushing work back on Worrall; untimeliness and failing to timely complete work as assigned." (TR 85, 110, 116- 117). Like Worrall, other employees in the accounting department for whom Petitioner worked were dissatisfied with her performance during the years 1980-1983. Harry Kurtz, Vice- President of Finance, experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality including errors in typing and formatting, misspelled words and inaccurate numbers to the point where he did not want her (Petitioner) to perform his (Kurtz) work. He was thus forced to seek assistance from persons outside the accounting department, including Pat Simmons who replaced Petitioner, to perform his work. Kurtz related these problems to Worrall. (TR 128, 129-133, 131 and 136). Bruce Kennedy, Controller, experienced similar problems with Petitioner's work quality. He noted Petitioner frequently misspelled words and transposed numbers. Kennedy experienced problems concerning timeliness and the invalid excuses by Petitioner for failing to complete assigned work as scheduled. (TR 137-139). Based on Petitioner's poor work quality, Kennedy went outside the accounting department to get assistance in performing his clerical and secretarial duties. Kennedy informed Worrall of his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's work. Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager, also experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality in regards to accuracy and neatness. Burnett related an incident where Petitioner used so much "white-out" to make corrections that numbers on ledger sheets were not legible. Burnett also experienced problems with Petitioner in getting work returned timely. He also found it necessary to go outside the accounting_ department to solicit the assistance of Pat Simmons to perform his work. Burnett related to Worrall his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance. (TR 128, 150). Linda Jaudzimas is presently employed with Niagara Wire Weaving Employees Credit Union. She has held that position since approximately May of 1980. During the years 1978 through May of 1980, Jaudzimas was employed as an accounting clerk in the corporate accounting office for Niagara Lockport Industries. During that time period, she worked directly with Petitioner and Worrall. Jaudzimas described Petitioner and Worrall as having a very good work relationship and that Worrall depended upon Petitioner a lot. However, since May of 1980, Jaudzimas had only limited contact with Petitioner The typical degree of contact would be only to "pick up reports; I would get information from pensions for time reporting periods." (TR 54 and 58). Don Anderson is presently employed as the Manufacturing Manager for Respondent. Anderson has been in Respondent's employ since 1971. From 1971 through January 1, 1974, Anderson was Respondent's Chief Accountant. Anderson had no direct knowledge concerning Petitioner's work performance since January of 1974. Anderson corroborated Cairns and Worrall's testimony that Respondent had no formal policy concerning disciplinary action taken against salaried employees, as Petitioner. (TR 60). Respondent conducted informal evaluations of salaried employees, including Petitioner, at the end of each year in conjunction with salary increases. During Petitioner's 1981 work performance evaluation, Worrall discussed his concerns with Petitioner including the fact that she spent too much time talking to other people; that he always had to look for her and she pushed work back on him. Petitioner's time away from her work station and her negative attitude toward the company's insurance program were items of discussion. (TR 17; 84-88). An entire list of Worrall's concerns respecting Petitioner's job performance were placed in her personnel file during the 1981 annual performance review. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Petitioner recalls Worrall using that list during their meetings. (TR 36). Petitioner's performance did not improve during the following year and Worrall expressed the same concerns to her during her annual work performance review during 1982. (TR 115-116). Petitioner received "good" salary increases during the late 70's however, due to her poor performance from 1980-1982, Worrall recommended that she receive only the minimum cost of living increases for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983. In mid 1983, Respondent made a decision to reorganize its corporate offices by moving the sales office of Niagara Lockport from Quincy to Starkeville, Mississippi and by making a change in the research and development department. Pat Simmons, age 41, was secretary for the vice-present of research and development. Worrall was familiar with Ms. Simmons and her work having seen it first hand. Additionally, she was highly recommended by her then supervisors. Finally, she had performed work considered to be "high quality" by other employees in the accounting department including Kurtz, Kennedy and Burnett. When Simmons became available due to the reorganization, Worrall decided to replace Petitioner with Simmons. Petitioner's job had become primarily secretarial and clerical in nature and Worrall desired a competent executive secretary to replace her. (TR 88 90, 92, 94, 121-122, 127). Petitioner was 45 years of age at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 3). Petitioner's duties were assumed by Simmons (95 percent) and Elaine Hall (5 percent) who was retained since she- possessed requisite accounting skills. Hall was able to complete the cash report in two hours, a job that had taken Petitioner the better part of a day to perform. (TR 86). As a result of the reorganization, two other employees, Loretta Hood (mid 30's) and Virginia Jeffcoat (mid 50's) were terminated. Petitioner was terminated in August, 1983 for the reasons that her performance was not satisfactory and a qualified person (Simmons) had become available due to Respondent's corporate reorganization and staff reduction. This was told to Petitioner at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 2; TR 68, 93). Subsequent to her termination, Petitioner requested that Worrall write her a letter of recommendation. Worrall complied, however, Petitioner was not pleased and asked him to write a second one giving him an example to follow (Respondent's Exhibit 7). Petitioner wanted a "good" letter of recommendation so that she could easily obtain another job. In writing the recommendation, Worrall followed his policy of not commenting on negatives but merely set out the type of work Petitioner performed. Petitioner was still unsatisfied with Worrall's second letter and she therefore asked the Respondent's President, Malcolm Cairns, to write a letter of recommendation for her. As with Worrall, Petitioner participated in the drafting of the letter for Cairns by providing him with an example. (TR 22, 23 and 70). Cairns did not include anything negative in the letter so that it would be easier for Petitioner to obtain another job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner was not terminated due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983) and that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Seliger, Esquire 229 E. Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Swift, Currie, NcGhee and Hiers, P.A., by Victor A. Cavanough 771 Spring Street, N.W. Post Office Box 54247 Atlanta, Georgia 30379-2401 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240/ Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Green Cay Corporation, acts as a sales agent in selling vegetables primarily for producers in Dade and Broward Counties. Its principal offices are at 700 Northwest Twelfth Terrace, Pompano Beach, Florida. Respondent Sanco Distributors, Inc., acts as a broker for supermarket chains and consequently purchases produce from agents such as Green Cay for further resale to wholesalers and distributors. On the morning of February 7, 1983, Sandy Geraci, president of respondent, telephone petitioner's general manager, Harold Rabin, to inquire about the availability of peppers and other produce. After agreeing on the price and amount, Geraci sent a truck to petitioner's warehouse that same evening which picked up the following produce: 300 boxes of peppers at $28.25 per box, 14 boxes of cucumbers at $13.25 per box, 20 boxes of "Fcy Zucs" at $8.25 per box, 40 boxes of "Med Zucs" at $5.25 per box, and 300 boxes of extra- large peppers at $28.25 per box. The total charge on the invoice was $14,685.50. Before accepting the shipment, Gareci made a cursory inspection of the produce and found it to be acceptable. The shipment was picked up F.O.B. Pompano Beach, which meant Sanco took title to the produce once it was loaded on the truck. Two hundred boxes of peppers were initially delivered to Califf Company in Columbus, Ohio, on February 9 or 10. At around 4:00 a.m. on February 10, Sanco's truck arrived at the loading dock of Walter Gailey and Sons in Cleveland, Ohio, to deliver the remaining 300 boxes of peppers. After the truck was unloaded, it departed the city to make further deliveries. There was no inspection of the peppers by Gailey before they were unloaded or when they were first placed in his warehouse. Sometime later that morning, a United States Department of Agriculture inspector examined a load of peppers on Gailey's dock and noted that "[d]amage by bruising occurring throughout pack ranges from 12 percent to 16 percent, average 14 percent. No decay." However, it was not conclusively shown that the peppers inspected were those delivered by Sanco. The report also noted that "[g]rade defects average 4 percent, consisting of mechanical damage and pulled calix." A pulled calix means the pepper has no stem. The report concluded in part that the boxes met "quality requirements but fail[ed] to grade U.S. No. 1. account of condition." Gailey contacted Geraci by telephone on the morning of February 10 to complain about the peppers. Geraci then telephone Rabin. After being read the results of the inspection report, Rabin asked Geraci to try to make a settlement with Gailey and to offer a $3.00 per box allowance on the peppers. When Gailey was told of this offer by Geraci, he apparently refused. Geraci then offered to move the peppers to Chicago, but Rabin declined this offer since they had already been unloaded and placed in refrigeration. He feared that if they were reloaded and the refrigeration changed again, the perishable items might spoil by the time they reached Chicago. Geraci interpreted Rabin's refusal to move the produce to another destination to mean that he should sell the peppers at the best price available. He thereafter sent Rabin a telegram on February 11, 1983, stating in pertinent part as follows: USDA Inspection ordered at 7 AM February 10, 1983 shows "damage by bruising ranges from 12-16 percent average 14 percent failed to grade US#1" and regards to invoice #009950 dated February 7, 1983 500 large peppers your offer of $3.00 is not acceptable. You have the option to take pepper elsewhere but refused. Peppers will be sold for your account and will forward government inspection account sales plus 25 cents brokerage account will be charged. After receiving the above telegram, Rabin sent a reply telegram to Geraci the same date stating as follows: Reference your Western Union wire of February 11, terms not acceptable. We are turning this matter over to USDA for their consideration. We also intend turning this matter over to the Florida Department of Agriculture reference your bond. On February 11, 1983, the Califf Company in Columbus, Ohio, contacted Geraci concerning the 20 boxes of peppers he had delivered the previous day. Califf claimed its shipment was also bruised and wanted the $3.00 allowance offered to Gailey. Sanco agreed to this discount. After taking the 300 boxes of peppers on a consignment basis, Walter Gailey and Sons eventually sold the peppers for $10.50 per box on the average. Gailey then rebated $3,150 to Sanco, who in turn remitted that amount to Green Cay. The "account sale" given by Gailey to Sanco to evidence the above sale was not in accordance with normal trade procedures. The invoice reflected only the gross amount received for all 300 boxes ($3,150) at an average cost of $10.50 per box. It did not identify the sales price for each individual box, the freight charges, commission, or handling charges, if any. Such itemization is normally shown on the document. Some 2,000 boxes of peppers were sold by petitioner on February 7 and shipped to various buyers. There were no other complaints of bruised peppers received by Green Cay other than those that were delivered to Gailey and Califf.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent repay $4,425 to petitioner for goods sold by petitioner to respondent on February 7, 1983. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October 1983 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harold Rabin, General Manager Green Cay Corporation 700 Northwest 12th Terrace Pompano Beach, Florida 33060 Michael J. Cohen, Esquire 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Suite 101 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Glenn A. Bissett, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Division of Marketing Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what remedy should be ordered?
Findings Of Fact Bonita Sneiderman, a/k/a Bonita Mattingly (Ms. Mattingly), is a Caucasian female born March 17, 1953. At the time of the events complained about in this proceeding, Ms. Mattingly was 53 years old. Ms. Mattingly was then known as Ms. Sneiderman and was single. Ms. Mattingly married and changed her name shortly before the hearing in this case. Dillards, Inc., is a corporation that operates a chain of department stores, referred to as Dillards. In many of the Dillards stores, there are styling salons. The Dillards department store at the Orange Park Mall in Orange Park, Florida is referred to as Store #232. During the time period relevant to this case, Susan Konstantatos was the Salon Manager of the salon at Store #232. On July 26, 2005, Ms. Konstantatos attended a manager's meeting, in which she received and discussed new policies for the salons. One such policy dealt with the schedules for salon employees and stated that all new hires would work five-day, full-time schedules. This policy, however, did not necessarily apply to employees already employed at the salons. For example, employees that worked in the Iveys salon before Dillards took over what used to be the Iveys store were considered to be "grandfathered in." Dillards honored whatever scheduling terms the employees had negotiated when taking their positions with Iveys. George Craywick, Cynthia Anderson and Marie Cox were three such salon employees. In September 2005, Ms. Mattingly applied for and received a position as a hair stylist in Dillards Store #232. Her application for employment with the store indicates that she applied for a full-time position. The application also indicates that she was hired for a full-time position. On September 21, 2005, Petitioner attended a new employee orientation session and signed the new employee orientation sheet, acknowledging that she had received orientation on Respondent's Associate Work Rules and Attendance Policy. Petitioner also signed an Associate Acknowledgment Form indicating that she received and understood Respondent's Associate Work Rules and General Policies. The Associate Work Rules and General Policies for Dillards reiterated the importance of attendance and provided notice that a "no show" would not be tolerated and would result in termination of employment. Among the stylists' job duties was an activity called "instant eventing." Instant eventing was an activity designed to generate interest in using the salon's services. Stylists could choose the type of instant eventing they would perform, such as handing out business cards, setting up a paraffin wax table and offering demonstrations, or setting up a color table with hair color swatches. Petitioner's chosen method of instant eventing involved setting up the paraffin wax demonstration. Instant eventing not only created interest in the salon, but hopefully helped new stylists to establish a following for their services. Stylists were expected to participate in instant eventing when they had no appointments. As a consequence, the more customers a stylist had, the less time he or she had to devote to instant eventing and the less stylists were expected to participate in the activity. Petitioner complains that George Craywick was not required to instant event and claims that she never saw him participate in any instant eventing activity. Mr. Craywick had more customers than any other stylist working at the Dillards salon. As a result of the number of repeat customers he served, he did not have the need for or the opportunity to engage in the same amount of instant eventing that Petitioner had. There is evidence that Mr. Craywick participated in a color table as an instant event, but it is unclear whether his participation in this activity was during the time that Petitioner was employed. Petitioner admitted that while she never saw Mr. Craywick participate in instant eventing, she had no knowledge as to whether he participated at times when she was not working with him. During May 2006, all of the salon's stylists at Store #232 were scheduled to work five days per week and one Sunday per month. When an employee worked on Sunday, Ms. Konstantatos attempted to schedule another day off for the employee during that week. Often the day off would be Monday, but the coverage needs of the salon would control. Mr. Craywick often worked on his scheduled days off at Ms. Konstantatos' request to ensure overage for the salon. Others sometimes did the same. Petitioner was scheduled to work Sunday, May 7, 2006. On or about May 1, 2006, Ms. Konstantatos checked the posted schedule and saw that Petitioner's name had been crossed off the schedule for Monday, May 8, 2006. Ms. Konstantatos had not removed Petitioner from the schedule and assumed that Petitioner had crossed her name off because she was working Sunday. Ms. Konstantatos needed Petitioner to work Monday, May 8, 2006, in order to ensure that the salon was adequately staffed. Petitioner had not worked the previous Monday. Ms. Konstantatos left Petitioner a note stating that Petitioner needed to work on Monday, May 8, 2006. After receiving the note, Petitioner called Ms. Konstantatos on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, and told her she could not work on Monday because she had made arrangements to go out of town that day. Petitioner's regular day off is Tuesday. Ms. Konstantatos advised that she needed Petitioner to work Monday to make sure that there was proper coverage for the salon, but that she could give Petitioner Wednesday off so that her days off would be consecutive. Petitioner insisted that she could not work on Monday, May 8, 2006. Ms. Konstantatos informed her that if she did not work on Monday, she would be considered to have abandoned her job and her employment would be terminated. Whether or not she worked on Monday, May 8, 2006, remained Petitioner's choice. Petitioner worked Thursday through Saturday, May 4-6, 2006. On Saturday evening, Petitioner packed up her belongings and left a note indicating that she had arranged for someone else to cover her shift on Sunday and would not be at work on Monday. She never returned to work because she considered herself to have been fired. On May 11, 2007, Respondent terminated Respondent for job abandonment. Between September 2005 and May 2006, Respondent terminated several other salon employees for job abandonment or excessive absenteeism. Those employees were both male and female, married and single. Their ages ranged from 21 to 35. After Petitioner's termination, Ms. Konstantatos hired Debra Doss as a stylist. At the time she was hired, Ms. Doss was a 49-year-old single female.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 10th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bonita Y. Mattingly 2040 Wells Road, Apartment 2-E Orange Park, Florida 32073 Grant D. Petersen, Esquire Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provisions of Petitioner’s Human Resources Manual and Employee Handbook (“the Manual”) on April 20 and May 30, 2018, as charged in the agency action letter dated June 25, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 2001-324, Laws of Florida, declared the Escambia County Utilities Authority an independent special district with transferred assets and enumerated powers. Chapter 2004-398, Laws of Florida, changed the Escambia County Utilities Authority’s name to ECUA. By law, ECUA provides utility services throughout Escambia County, Florida, and has the power to appoint, remove and suspend its employees, and fix their compensation within the guidelines of Escambia County Civil Services Rules. ECUA’s mission statement specifies that the Board and employees of ECUA “are committed to providing the highest quality service” and that “ECUA will always provide cost-effective services.” ECUA has adopted standards set forth in the Manual in order to govern employee conduct. During all times relevant to the instant case, Mr. Reiter was a utilities service worker assigned to ECUA’s patch services division (“the patch crew”); and he acknowledged on January 4, 2017, that a copy of the Manual was available to him. The patch crew consists of eight people who normally work from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., with a 30-minute lunch break and two 15-minute breaks. A significant part of the patch crew’s work involves filling holes left after other ECUA employees have performed utility work. Mr. Reiter drives a truck that delivers sod, asphalt, and/or dirt to work areas. He begins and ends each workday at an ECUA facility on Sturdevant Street in Pensacola, Florida. ECUA’s management received information from an anonymous source alleging that the patch crew was loafing and abusing ECUA’s overtime policy. As a result, ECUA retained a private investigator, Terry Willette, to surveil the patch crew and videotape their daily activities. From April of 2018 to some point in June of 2018, Mr. Willette routinely surveilled the patch crew for 4 to 12 hours a day. Findings Regarding the Allegations from April 20, 2018 On April 20, 2018, Mr. Willette observed Mr. Reiter and a coworker leaving an ECUA facility in an ECUA truck at 4:00 p.m. and arriving at Woerner Turf on Creighton Road in Pensacola at 4:16 p.m. The preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Mr. Reiter deliberately extended his workday by taking a circuitous route from the ECUA facility to Woerner Turf. After picking up sod, Mr. Reiter and his coworker left Woerner Turf at 4:38 p.m. and arrived at Intendencia Street in downtown Pensacola at 5:16 p.m. At this point, Mr. Willette received a call to follow another ECUA employee and discontinued his surveillance of Mr. Reiter. There was conflicting testimony regarding the shortest possible route that Mr. Reiter could have taken upon leaving Woerner Turf. Given that Mr. Reiter was driving to downtown Pensacola just before “rush hour” on a Friday afternoon, 38 minutes is not an unreasonable amount of time to drive from Creighton Road to Intendencia Street in downtown Pensacola. The preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that Mr. Reiter deliberately extended his workday by taking a circuitous route from Woerner Turf to the worksite on Intendencia Street. A “daily overtime report” for April 20, 2018, indicates Mr. Reiter worked from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. and claimed three hours of overtime. To whatever extent that ECUA takes issue with the total amount of overtime claimed by Mr. Reiter on April 20, 2018, there is no evidence as to what work Mr. Reiter performed after Mr. Willette discontinued his surveillance of Mr. Reiter shortly after 5:16 p.m. that day, and thus there is no support for a finding that Mr. Reiter dragged out his workday or artificially increased his overtime hours on that date. Findings Regarding the Allegations from May 30, 2018 On May 30, 2018, Mr. Willette photographed Mr. Reiter taking PVC pipe belonging to ECUA and placing it in his personal vehicle. Mr. Reiter acknowledged during his direct testimony that he took the PVC pipe without authorization from a supervisor. He testified that the PVC pipe was “spent material” and that such material is always discarded. Mr. Reiter testified that he ultimately returned the PVC pipe in question. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Reiter took the PVC pipe without authorization.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Executive Director of the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority find that Michael J. Reiter violated: Section B-13 A (4), conduct unbecoming an ECUA employee; Section B-13 A (27), theft or stealing; and Section B-13 A (33), violation of ECUA rules or guidelines or state or federal law. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2018, 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 25th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Sections 489.129(1)(i), (l), (m) and (o); 489.119(2); 489.1195(1)(a); and 489.1425(1), Florida Statutes, for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the state, pursuant to license number CG C008922. Respondent's license is currently inactive. Respondent has been a contractor for nearly 30 years, and has never been subject to disciplinary action against his license until this proceeding. Respondent was licensed as the licensed qualifying agent for ECE from January 1998 through February 2001, for a fee of $400.00 per month. As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of ECE's contracting activities, in accordance with Section 489.1195(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which states: "All primary qualifying agents for a business organization are jointly and equally responsible for supervision of all operations of the business organization; for all field work at all sites; and for financial matters, both for the organization in general and for each specific job." Respondent did not obtain a certificate of authority for ECE. On November 16, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $15,577.00 with Carl and Darlene Weinzierl to install aluminum siding at their residence in Terra Ceia, Florida. The contract specified that ECE would use Reynolds brand siding in the construction. ECE actually used an inferior grade of aluminum siding. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to the Weinzierls their rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund. Such notice is required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE represented to the Weinzierls that they would receive a mortgage to pay for the aluminum siding and to consolidate their other debts at an interest rate of 6.5 percent. The actual interest rate on the mortgage was 18 percent. On December 14, 1998, ECE commenced work on the Weinzierls' house. ECE never completed the work. On January 22, 1999, ECE filed a lien against the Weinzierls' property in the amount of $15,577.00. Respondent had no knowledge of the project on the Weinzierls' house, of the mortgage arrangement made by ECE, or of the lien filed by ECE against the Weinzierls' property. On November 5, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $3,624.00 with Barbara Lewis to install soffit and fascia at her residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Ms. Lewis her rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE represented to Ms. Lewis that she would receive financing to pay for the soffit and fascia at an interest rate of 11 percent. The actual interest rate of the financing was 18 percent. ECE performed the work on Ms. Lewis' house in one day. Respondent had no knowledge of the project at Ms. Lewis' house or of the financing arrangement made by ECE. On August 16, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $13,250.00 with John Maxwell to install aluminum siding at his residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Mr. Maxwell his rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced work at Mr. Maxwell's house on August 18, 1998, and completed the project on August 27, 1998. On August 31, 1998, ECE recorded at the Manatee County Circuit Court a mortgage on Mr. Maxwell's property in the amount of $13,427.55 for the installation of aluminum siding. Mr. Maxwell had signed no documents to place a mortgage on his property, and received a satisfaction of mortgage on May 19, 1999. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed at Mr. Maxwell's house or of the mortgage recorded by ECE. On October 10, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $3,663.00 with Richard Lanois and Beverly Carroll to install soffit and fascia on their residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Mr. Lanois and Ms. Carroll their rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced work at the house on October 13, 1998, and completed the project on October 15, 1998. ECE recorded a financing statement to obtain a lien on the property of Mr. Lanois and Ms. Carroll with the Manatee County Circuit Court on October 22, 1998. Neither Mr. Lanois nor Ms. Carroll had signed the financing statement that ECE filed at the court. Respondent had no knowledge of the project at the residence of Mr. Lanois and Ms. Carroll, or of the financing statement filed by ECE to obtain a lien on their property. On December 2, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $5,739.00 with Paul and Linda Porter to install Reynolds brand thermal double pane windows at their residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to the Porters their rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced work at the Porters' house on December 5, 1998, and completed the project on December 17, 1998. ECE installed BetterBilt brand windows rather than Reynolds windows, without the Porters' approval. On December 17, 1998, ECE recorded at the Manatee County Circuit Court a mortgage on the Porters residence in the amount of $5,775.80. The Porters had signed no documents to allow this mortgage to be placed on their property. Respondent had no knowledge of the project at the Porters' residence or of the mortgage recorded by ECE on the Porters' residence. On November 2, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $6,426.00 with William C. Roach to install Reynolds thermal double pane windows on his residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Mr. Roach his rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced work at the Roach residence on November 2, 1998, and completed the project on November 3, 1998. ECE installed BetterBilt brand windows instead of Reynolds windows, without Mr. Roach's permission. ECE represented that Mr. Roach would receive financing to consolidate the cost of the windows, his mortgage, and his credit card debt. In fact, Mr. Roach received financing only for the cost of the windows. Respondent had no knowledge of the project at Mr. Roach's residence or of the financing arrangement that ECE entered into with Mr. Roach. On November 28, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $3,635.90 with Carol Lipp to install Reynolds brand soffit and fascia on her residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Ms. Lipp her rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced work at Ms. Lipp's residence on November 30, 1998, and completed the project on December 7, 1998. ECE recorded a financing statement with the Manatee County Circuit Court in order to obtain a lien against Ms. Lipp's property. Ms. Lipp had not signed the financing statement. Respondent had no knowledge of the project at Ms. Lipp's residence or of the financing statement filed by ECE on Ms. Lipp's residence. On January 22, 1999, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $13,504.00 with Shirley G. Bradley to install 11 Reynolds thermal double pane windows and to enclose the lanai and front entry of her residence in Englewood, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Ms. Bradley her rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced work at Ms. Bradley's residence on January 25, 1999, and completed the project on February 9, 1999. ECE installed BetterBilt brand windows instead of Reynolds windows, without Ms. Bradley's permission. ECE represented to Ms. Bradley that she would receive financing for the project at an interest rate of 16 percent. In fact, ECE obtained a loan for Ms. Bradley at an interest rate of 21 percent. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed at Ms. Bradley's residence or of the financing arrangement between ECE and Ms. Bradley. On October 13, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $6,511.10 with George Haight to install Reynolds thermal double pane windows on his residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Mr. Haight his rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE installed BetterBilt brand windows instead of Reynolds windows, without Mr. Haight's permission. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed at Mr. Haight's residence. On December 7, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $15,216.00 with Shirley Behen to install Reynolds thermal double pane windows on her residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Ms. Behen her rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE represented to Ms. Behen that she would receive financing for the windows that would also consolidate her roof payments and credit card debt. ECE provided none of the promised financing. ECE installed BetterBilt brand windows instead of Reynolds windows, without Ms. Behen's permission. On December 15, 1998, ECE recorded a mortgage on Ms. Behen's residence with the Manatee County Circuit Court in the amount of $10,713.95. Ms. Behen had not signed any document to secure a second mortgage on her property. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed at Ms. Behen's residence or of the mortgage filed on her property by ECE. On November 17, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $7,845.00 with Debby and Wally Keefe to install Reynolds thermal double pane windows on their residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to the Keefes their rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE represented to the Keefes that they would receive a mortgage to pay for the windows and consolidate their credit card debt at a rate of 6.5 percent. In fact, ECE provided a mortgage with an actual interest rate of 18 percent. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed at the Keefes' residence or of the mortgage arrangement between the Keefes and ECE. On September 29, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $8,531.00 with Joe and Laura Poulin to install vinyl siding on their three duplexes in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to the Poulins their rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE recorded a financing statement with the Manatee County Circuit Court, obtaining a lien against the Poulins' property. The Poulins did not sign the financing statement. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed at the Poulins' residence or of the financing statement filed by ECE. In August 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $8,307.00 with Darwin and Joyce Wilson to install 17 Reynolds thermal double pane windows on their residence in Sarasota, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to the Wilsons their rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced the project on September 5, 1998, and completed the project on September 7, 1998. ECE installed BetterBilt brand windows instead of Reynolds windows, without the Wilsons' permission. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed at the Wilsons' residence. Also in August 1998, ECE entered into another contract with the Wilsons, in the amount of $14,000.00, to install Reynolds vinyl siding on their residence. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to the Wilsons their rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE began installing the vinyl siding on October 15, 1998, and completed the project on November 15, 1998. ECE represented to the Wilsons that they would receive a new first mortgage that would include the price of the windows, the siding, their house payment, and their credit card debt. In fact, ECE provided no such mortgage. Respondent had no knowledge of the second project to be completed at the Wilsons' residence. On October 7, 1998, ECE entered into a contract in the amount of $5,171.00 with Derek Campagna to install vinyl siding and fascia on his residence in Bradenton, Florida. The contract did not contain a notice explaining to Mr. Campagna his rights under the Construction Industry Recovery Fund, as required by Section 489.1425, Florida Statutes. ECE commenced work on October 8, 1998, and completed the project on October 10, 1998. On or about January 5, 1999, ECE filed a lien against Mr. Campagna's property in the amount of $5,171.40. Respondent had no knowledge of the project to be completed on Mr. Campagna's residence or of the lien filed by ECE. The misrepresentation of the actual interest rate to be charged for financing the above projects was the commission of fraud or deceit in contracting by ECE and its representatives. The installation of BetterBilt windows in those houses the owners of which had contracted for Reynolds windows constituted the commission of fraud or deceit in contracting by ECE and its representatives. Respondent was unaware of ECE's fraudulent activities in the Bradenton/Sarasota area at the time they were occurring. Respondent believed that ECE did business exclusively in Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin counties on the east coast of Florida. Respondent submitted the proper forms for the relevant permits and actively supervised ECE's construction work on the east coast of Florida. There was no evidence that ECE used Respondent's license to obtain permits for the projects it undertook in the Bradenton/Sarasota area. The evidence established that ECE pulled no permits at all for those projects. From all the evidence presented at the hearing, the inference may fairly be drawn that ECE purposely kept Respondent in the dark concerning its activities in the Bradenton/Sarasota area. Respondent first learned of ECE's activities in Bradenton/Sarasota through a telephone conversation with a friend, Peter Green. Mr. Green was a mortgage broker, and told Respondent that he was trying to secure financing for some of the ECE clients named above. Mr. Green told Respondent that some of these clients were very upset with ECE, and asked Respondent if he was aware of the problems. Respondent told Mr. Green that he was unaware ECE was doing any work on the west coast of Florida. Mr. Green gave Respondent the phone number of Darlene Weinzierl, one of the disgruntled ECE customers. Following her own bad experience with ECE, Ms. Weinzierl had undertaken an investigation of the company. She searched courthouse records for liens filed by ECE and contacted all the individuals whose names she found. Ms. Weinzierl heard "horror stories." A woman who could barely speak English told her that ECE had slapped siding over rotting woodwork, sent her a bill for $20,000, then filed a lien on her house. Another woman told Ms. Weinzierl that when she attempted to cancel her contract, the ECE salesman showed up at her door accompanied by a man ostentatiously wearing a gun in a shoulder holster. Other customers told Ms. Weinzierl that ECE had forged mortgages on their property. Ms. Weinzierl's hearsay testimony is unsupported by other competent substantial evidence and therefore cannot be relied on for the truth of the statements contained therein. However, it is undisputed that Ms. Weinzierl later conveyed this information to Respondent. Respondent telephoned Ms. Weinzierl on January 23, 1999. Ms. Weinzierl conveyed to Respondent everything she had learned about ECE. The next day, Respondent spoke with James Pizzo, Jr., one of the principals of ECE. Mr. Pizzo told Respondent that he had a very aggressive salesman who "had made a lot of promises to people," but that he was in the process of responding to the complaints and correcting the situation. Respondent asked Mr. Pizzo why ECE was doing business on the west coast of Florida. Mr. Pizzo replied that ECE's telemarketing effort had saturated the east coast, and he believed there was a fresh market on the west coast. Because he had worked with Mr. Pizzo for over a year and had a good working relationship with ECE, Respondent took at face value Mr. Pizzo's promise to correct the problems. Respondent took no action on his own, and continued to act as the qualifying agent for ECE. Respondent did not visit any of the west coast job sites or make any independent effort to contact ECE's victims. FDLE commenced a RICO investigation of ECE in the spring of 1999. Special Agent Charles Leonard, the FDLE investigator, first interviewed Respondent on May 10, 1999. Respondent was never a target of the investigation, and cooperated fully. Respondent did not sever his relationship with ECE until February 2001. By this time, 14 complaints had been filed against ECE by customers in the Bradenton/Sarasota area, and ECE had taken no action to address the situation beyond ceasing to do business in the area. In mitigation of his failure to take any action for two years after he became aware of ECE's fraudulent practices, Respondent pointed to the precarious state of his health. In January 2000, Respondent's car was stopped on I-95 when it was rear-ended by a truck traveling at 50 to 60 miles per hour. Respondent received a concussion and suffered excruciating headaches. His neurologist ordered an MRI and found a brain tumor. The tumor could not be removed entirely. Respondent is also a diabetic. Respondent continues to have headaches so severe that he requires trigger point injections of pain medication and epidural injections in his neck and upper spine every few months. He regularly takes Tylenol III with codeine. He requires an MRI every six months to monitor his brain tumor. Prior to his brain surgery, Respondent managed his diabetes through oral medication; however, since the surgery he has needed three injections of insulin daily. At the same time he severed his relationship with ECE, Respondent notified Petitioner that he was transferring his license to inactive status. Respondent no longer actively practices contracting. However, his current position as a construction project manager for the Broward County School Board requires that he hold at least an inactive general contractor's license. Respondent credibly testified that if he were to lose his current job, and the health insurance that goes with it, he could not pay his medical bills.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(l) and (m), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for three years from the date that Respondent re-activates his license, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000.00, and requiring Respondent to pay costs of Petitioner’s investigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 E. Cole Fitzgerald, III, Esquire Fitzgerald, Hawkins, Mayans & Cook Post Office Box 3795 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
