The Issue Fact Issues Did Petitioner, Flo-Ronke, Inc. (Flo-Ronke), fail to timely pay a fine imposed by Final Order of the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency)? Did the Agency reject attempts by Flo-Ronke to timely pay the fine in full by a single payment without conditions? Did Flo-Ronke attempt to pay the fine untimely in full by a single payment without conditions? If so, did the Agency reject the proffered payment? Did Flo-Ronke employ an individual in a position that required background screening who had a disqualifying criminal conviction? Law Issues Which party bears the burden of proof? What is the standard of proof? Do the facts support denying re-licensure of Flo-Ronke? Are untimely efforts to pay the fine in full with a single payment mitigating factors? If so, how should the factors be weighed?
Findings Of Fact Flo-Ronke is an Assisted Living Facility (ALF). An ALF is a building, part of a building, or a residential facility that provides “housing, meals, and one or more personal services for a period exceeding 24 hours to one or more adults who are not relatives of the owner or administrator.” § 429.02(5), Fla. Stat. (2015).1/ The Agency licenses and regulates ALFs. §§ 429.04 and 429.07, Fla. Stat. Flo-Ronke is subject to the Agency’s licensure requirements and is licensed by it. By Notice of Intent to Deny Renewal Application dated December 2, 2014, the Agency denied Flo-Ronke’s application to renew its license on the grounds that Flo-Ronke “failed to comply with the criminal background screening requirements by employing a caretaker who was not eligible to work in the facility.” On January 8, 2015, the Agency amended the Notice of Intent to Deny. On January 21, 2015, the Agency issued a Second Amended Notice of Intent to Intent to Deny for Renewal. This notice is the subject of this proceeding. The second amended notice asserts two bases for denial. One is the originally asserted background screening violation. The other is Flo-Ronke’s failure to pay an outstanding fine in AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514. Payment of the Fine In AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514, the Agency’s Administrative Complaint charged Flo-Ronke with four deficiencies involving insects, cleanliness, medication administration, and inadequate staffing. Originally, Flo-Ronke requested an evidentiary hearing before DOAH (DOAH Case No. 14-1939). Later, Flo-Ronke, through its owner Ms. Akintola, agreed there were no disputed issues of facts and stipulated to returning the matter to the Agency for an informal hearing. The Agency provided Flo-Ronke an opportunity for a hearing. No representative of Flo-Ronke appeared at the hearing. The Agency issued a Final Order on November 5, 2014, upholding the Administrative Complaint and imposing a $13,500 fine. The Agency’s Final Order included instructions on how to make the payment, advised that the payment was due within 30 days of the Final Order, and cautioned that interest would be imposed on overdue amounts. The Final Order included a Notice of Right to Judicial Review. On behalf of Flo-Ronke, Ms. Akintola appealed the Final Order pro se. The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of a decision if it is appealed. Flo-Ronke did not seek a stay of the Final Order. Consequently, the obligation to pay the fine was effective as of the date of the Final Order. The First District Court of Appeal rendered an Order requiring Flo-Ronke to obtain counsel for the appeal because a corporation cannot be represented by an employee or officer. Flo-Ronke did not obtain counsel or respond to the court’s Order. On January 16, 2015, the court dismissed Flo-Ronke’s appeal. On April 9, 2015, Flo-Ronke, represented by the same counsel as in this proceeding, moved to re-open the appellate case. On April 17, 2015, the court denied the motion. It also denied Flo-Ronke’s subsequent motion seeking reconsideration, clarification, a written opinion, and a stay. From the date that the Agency entered the Final Order imposing the fine in DOAH Case No. 14-1939 (AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514) to the date of the final hearing, Flo-Ronke did not pay the fine. Starting around February 2015, attorney Scott Flint tried, on Flo-Ronke’s behalf, to arrange a payment plan for the fine. He discussed the proposal with Agency Attorney Edwin Selby. Mr. Flint linked the discussions to resolving a separate investigation of Flo-Ronke that the Agency was conducting. Mr. Flint never offered unconditional payment of the fine on behalf of Flo-Ronke. Mr. Flint testified that at some point during conversations about the two cases, Mr. Selby said the Agency would not accept full payment if it was offered. Mr. Selby testified that he did not make this statement. Mr. Selby’s testimony is more credible in this instance, as it is in other instances when Mr. Selby’s testimony differed from Mr. Flint’s. One reason Mr. Selby’s testimony is more credible is that on February 11, 2015, after the time Mr. Flint says Mr. Selby made the statement, Mr. Flint wrote Mr. Selby a letter proposing an installment plan for paying the fine. The letter did not mention the alleged statement that the Agency would not accept payment. The proposal and the failure to mention the alleged refusal are inconsistent with the assertion that Mr. Selby said payment would not be accepted. Also, Mr. Flint hedged his testimony about the alleged refusals, noting that lawyers say many things during negotiations. Mr. Selby’s testimony about conversations after the February 11 letter is also more credible. Mr. Selby never said that the Agency would not accept full payment if it were tendered. The clear and convincing evidence proves that from the date the Agency entered the Final Order to the date of the final hearing, Flo-Ronke never tendered full and complete payment of the fine to the Agency. Flo-Ronke, despite its assertions during pre-hearing motion practice, did not offer any evidence that could be reasonably be interpreted as proving that Flo-Ronke tendered full payment of the fine or that the Agency refused the payment. Even Mr. Flint’s testimony, if fully credited, is not evidence that Flo-Ronke tendered full payment or that the Agency refused full payment. Background Screening At all relevant times, Florida law required level two background screening of any person seeking employment with a provider whose responsibilities may require him to provide personal care or other services directly to clients or who will have access to the client living area. § 408.809(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). Individuals who have disqualifying offenses may not hold positions where they provide services to clients or will have access to client living areas. Florida law also requires re-screening every five years after employment. § 408.809(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Agency surveyor, Laura Manville, surveyed Flo-Ronke and its records on September 2, 2014. At that time, F.M. was employed there. Flo-Ronke employed F.M. since at least 2009. F.M.’s duties included caring for residents. In addition, even when performing non-caretaking duties, such as grounds-keeping and maintenance, F.M. had unsupervised access to the residents and their living area. F.M. was adjudicated guilty of a disqualifying sex offense on October 28, 1999. Flo-Ronke’s records did not document the required level 2 background screening of F.M. when reviewed on September 2, 2014. At that time, Ms. Manville told Ms. Akintola of the deficiency and that F.M. was not eligible to work at the ALF. This was not the first time the Agency advised Ms. Akintola of the deficiency. By letter dated October 2, 2009, the Agency advised that background screening of F.M. had revealed he had a disqualifying criminal offense. It advised Flo-Ronke that it must either terminate the employment of F.M. or obtain an exemption from disqualification. Flo-Ronke did neither. Ms. Manville conducted a follow-up survey on September 10, 2014. Despite the notice given on September 2, 2014, F.M. was still present at the facility performing grounds work and had access to client living areas. Ms. Akintola presented testimony and a single document attempting to prove that F.M. passed background screening in 2010. The document appears to show a determination of no background screening violation in 2010. Why it differs from other documents from 2009 and after 2010 is not explained. The circumstances surrounding the document are somewhat mysterious. It does not appear in the Agency files. On September 2, 2014, Ms. Akintola did not mention it. On that day, she said she thought F.M. did not need to satisfy screening requirements because he had worked for so long at Flo-Ronke. More importantly, the issue is whether F.M. was employed in 2014 in violation of the background screening requirements. The clear and convincing evidence, including evidence of the conviction in the background screening database, the continued employment of F.M. after September 2, 2014, and the letter of October 2, 2009, proves that in 2014 F.M. had a disqualifying offense and did not have an exemption from the disqualification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the application of Flo-Ronke, Inc., for renewal of its ALF license. Jurisdiction over the Motion for Fees and Costs is retained for further appropriate proceedings once the prevailing party has been determined. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015, 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 30th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's application for licensure as a public adjuster, despite his having pleaded guilty to (and been convicted of) a felony involving moral turpitude (conspiracy to commit mail fraud), which conviction was not disclosed on Petitioner's application.
Findings Of Fact On August 29, 2005, Petitioner Alex Niznik ("Niznik") completed an online application for licensure as a Resident Public Property and Casualty Insurance Adjuster and submitted the form electronically to Respondent Department of Financial Services ("Department" or "DFS"). The application contained 18 "screening questions" that called for a "yes" or "no" answer. Focusing primarily on matters bearing on character and fitness, these questions sought to elicit personal information about the applicant's background. One question, for example, asked: "Have you held a resident insurance license in another state during the last three years?" Another inquired: "Have you ever had an application for a license declined or denied by this or any other insurance regulatory body?" The instant dispute arose from the eighth screening question, which asked: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony or crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Niznik answered, "no." At the end of the application, just above his electronic signature, Niznik checked a box manifesting agreement with the following declaration: Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and that the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of the Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application . . . . Despite having declared that his responses were true, Niznik's answer to the question of whether he had a criminal record was false. In fact, contrary to his denial of past criminal convictions, Niznik had pleaded guilty, about nine years earlier, to the felony charge of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, which is an offense against the United States. Following this guilty plea, the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on July 25, 1996, had entered a judgment of conviction against Niznik, sentencing him to three years of probation and imposing a $50 fine. DFS discovered Niznik's conviction before granting him a license. Based on Niznik's criminal record and his failure to disclose its existence, DFS denied Niznik's application. DFS's decision was communicated to Niznik though a Notice of Denial dated July 27, 2006. Niznik was informed that he would not be eligible to reapply until after 17 years had elapsed, starting from the date of his conviction. Niznik timely requested an administrative hearing to determine his substantial interest in obtaining a license. Determinations of Ultimate Fact Because conspiracy to commit mail fraud is a felony that involves moral turpitude, and because it is undisputed that Niznik pleaded guilty to——and was convicted of——this federal crime, the Department is required by statute to deny Niznik's application for licensure. Pursuant to its rules, the Department must impose a waiting period on Niznik, which he is required to serve before becoming eligible to reapply. The usual waiting period for the type of crime of which Niznik was convicted is 15 years. An additional two years must be added to this, in consequence of Niznik's failure to disclose the conviction. Although Niznik failed to present persuasive evidence on any specific mitigating factors that might have given grounds to shorten the prescribed waiting period, he did persuade the undersigned that, more likely than not, he has been rehabilitated. Rehabilitation is a general mitigating factor that warrants a modest reduction of the waiting period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order (a) denying Niznik's application for licensure as a Resident Public Property and Casualty Insurance Adjuster and (b) imposing a waiting period of 16 years, from the date of his criminal conviction, which must be served before Niznik may reapply. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear this cause alleging that Respondent Employer has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact 1. Following a May 23, 2003, "Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction," by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief as more fully described below. On or about July 3, 2003, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for a disputed-fact hearing on the merits for August 25, 2003. 2. On July 17, 2003, Respondent served by mail its Motion for a Summary Final Order. 3. On August 12, 2003, Respondent served by mail its Supplemental (Second) Motion for a Summary Final Order. 4. On August 14, 2003, Respondent filed and served its Notice of Filing Supplemental Materials In Support of its (Second) Motion for Summary Final Order. 5. The foregoing pleadings and the exhibits attached thereto, together with the "Determination: No Jurisdiction," which is part of the referral package from the Florida Commission on Human Relations, suggest on their face(s) that the Commission, and derivatively, the Division of Administrative Hearings, is without jurisdiction to determine this case. 6. Petitioner did not timely respond in opposition to the Motion for Summary Final Order as permitted by Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, and in a telephonic conference call convened by the undersigned on August 19, 2003, Petitioner represented that she had never received that Motion. Petitioner offered to pick it up at Respondent's attorney's office later on August 19, 2003. 7. Petitioner had received the Supplemental (Second) Motion for Summary Final Order, but from her oral representations in the telephonic conference, it appeared that she did not open the envelope containing it. As of August 19, 2003, Petitioner still had, pursuant to rule, until August 26, 2003, to respond in writing. Also, if Respondent's supplemental materials were to be considered, Petitioner had until August 28, 2003, per rule, to respond. 8. The undersigned is without final order authority in this type of proceeding, and accordingly, the pending Motions have been treated as Motions for a Recommended Order of Dismissal. 9. On August 21, 2003, an Order Canceling Merits Hearing and Permitting Future Filings was entered. That Order provided, in pertinent part: The disputed-fact hearing is now scheduled for August 25, 2003, and all jurisdictional issues could be addressed at the commencement of that hearing, but that hearing is subject to cancellation due to Petitioner's failure to file a unilateral pre-hearing statement. Moreover, it is not cost-effective to require both parties to appear with all their witnesses, prepared for a disputed-fact hearing, when a short delay may obviate the need for such a hearing. If that hearing is cancelled, it will be possible to re-schedule this case for trial within the aspirational time frame established by the legislature, if such re- scheduling is necessary. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The disputed-fact hearing now scheduled for August 25, 2003, is hereby cancelled. 2. The pending motions will be treated as Motions for Recommended Order of Dismissal. 3. Petitioner is permitted to, and until, September 2, 2003, to file, in writing, any response in opposition to Respondent's Motion for a Summary Final Order, and Respondent's Supplemental (Second) Motion for a Summary Final Order, including the Supplemental Materials Filed August 14, 2003. 4. In her response, Petitioner should address all factual and legal arguments posed by Respondent. She may attach exhibits supporting her position. 5. In the event the undersigned requires any further oral argument or advice from the parties, another telephonic conference call will be scheduled for that purpose, and a formal notice of hearing will be issued. 6. In the event no further oral argument or advice is required, the issues presented in the motions and response will be disposed of, pursuant to Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, without hearing; and a disputed-fact hearing on the merits will be re-scheduled only if necessary and appropriate. 10. Petitioner did not file any response to dispute any legal or factual issue raised by Respondent. Petitioner did not file any response attacking the validity of any of Respondent's exhibits. Petitioner did not file any response attacking any portion of the Commission's referral package. Therefore, the filed items may be presumed to be authentic, and the pending Motions may be addressed without an evidentiary hearing. 11. Petitioner filed with the Commission a charge of discrimination against Respondent Employer. That charge was assigned FCHR Case No. 2003342, and was dismissed by the Commission on or about December 6, 2002. 12. On October 18, 2002, Petitioner filed with the Commission a second charge of discrimination, the charge of discrimination underlying the instant case. The Commission assigned the instant charge FCHR Case No. 23-00222. 13. This instant charge of discrimination herein states that Petitioner was notified on October 14, 2001, that she would be terminated by the Employer on October 18, 2001. This charge of discrimination was signed by Petitioner on October 18, 2002. Therefore, it could not have been filed with the Commission before October 18, 2002. The date of October 18, 2002, is more than 365 days after October 14, 2001. See Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes. 14. By a "Determination: No Jurisdiction" entered May 23, 2003, the Commission's Executive Director found and concluded that all jurisdictional requirements for coverage had not been met, to wit: : The Complainant was notified on October 12, 2001, that she would be terminated effective October 18, 2001, and she received a termination letter on October 14, 2001. Thus the 365-day period for filing a claim with the Commission commenced on October 12, 2001. Complainant, however, filed her complaint on October 18, 2002, which is 370 days from the date she first received notice. 6. The Commission does not have jurisdiction over the complaint because it was filed more than 365 days from the date the Complainant received notice that she would be terminated. 15. While the Director's foregoing findings/conclusions do not bind this forum's de novo proceeding, the Commission's acknowledgement that the instant charge of discrimination was not filed with it until October 18, 2002, constitutes competent evidence of that filing date and is relevant in this proceeding. 16. Attached to Respondent's first Motion for Summary Final Order is a copy of the instant charge of discrimination which shows the Commission's "October 18, 2002," date stamp. Also attached thereto is a Disciplinary Action Report dated October 12, 2001, which shows that Petitioner saw the report but refused to sign it on the same date of October 12, 2001. This report is, in effect, a notice of termination to take effect on October 18, 2001. Another exhibit to this pleading is Petitioner's October 12, 2001, written request to the Employer for a pre-termination hearing. All of these items indicate that Petitioner had notice on October 12, 2001, that she would be terminated, effective October 18, 2001. 17. No one has explained what effect a pre-termination hearing would have had on the planned termination date. No evidence that a pre-termination hearing was ever held has been presented. 18. Petitioner was effectively terminated by Respondent on October 18, 2001. 19. A "Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction," entered by the Clerk of the Commission on May 23, 2003, provided: The parties are advised that the Complainant may request that a formal, post- investigative proceeding be conducted. The Request for Hearing/Petition for Relief must be filed within 35 days of the date of mailing of this Notice and should be in compliance with the provision of Rule 60Y- 5.008 and Chapter 60Y-4, Florida Administrative Code. A Petition for Relief form in enclosed. If you elect to file a Petition for Relief, it may be beneficial to seek legal counsel prior to filing the Petition. This action will not become final until time has expired for Complainant to file a Request for Petition for Relief. Failure of Complainant to timely file a petition for relief will result in dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 60Y-5.006, Florida Administrative Code. 20. Accordingly, the last date for filing a Petiton for Relief on the instant charge was June 27, 2003, per Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes, and 60Y-5.008, Florida Administrative Code. 21. Petitioner FAXED her Petition for Relief to the Commission. Petitioner's FAX cover sheet indicated that, Ms. Razavi, I am faxing this again, since I'm not aware that you have rec'd it yet. I first sent it on Thurs. 26th to a different fax #. The young lady sitting in for Barbar gave me this one. Thanks. 22. On July 1, 2003, the Commission date-stamped receipt of the foregoing cover letter and the Petition for Relief, which it transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings on the same date. 23. An Affidavit of Violet D. Crawford, Clerk of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, states that Petitioner's Petition for Relief was received by way of facsimile to the Commission on June 30, 2003, but that it was clocked-in on July 1, 2003.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Michelle Burt, pro se 2121 West Pensacola Street, PMB 538 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 For Respondent: William Haselden, Esquire City of Tallahassee 300 South Adams Street, Box A-5 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
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 dismissing this cause for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Lahn alan ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 23rd day of September, 2003. 12 COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Michelle Burt 2121 West Pensacola Street, PMB 538 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Haselden, Esquire City of Tallahassee 300 South Adams Street, Box A-5 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, The Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, and Rule 22I- 6.035, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner herein, Jules G. Minkes was the Respondent in a license disciplinary proceeding styled Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, DOAH Case No. 88-3749. That underlying case was resolved by a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal served by the Department of Professional Regulation attorney on December 9, 1988. It was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on the same date. On December 16, 1988, the undersigned entered an Order providing in pertinent part, "This cause came on for consideration upon Petitioner's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which, by operation of law, dismisses this cause and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is accordingly CLOSED." On February 13, 1989 the Petition and Affidavit for attorney's fees, together with supporting documents and a Memorandum in support of the petition were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was served by mail on February 10, 1989. It does not specifically request an evidentiary hearing. This fees and cost cause was subsequently styled as Minkes v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, DOAH Case No. 89-0792F. On February 28, 1989, Respondent filed an Answer which was "sworn and subscribed" by the DPR attorney. The Answer constitutes a general denial of all allegations and demands "strict proof" of the attorney's fees and costs set forth by Petitioner's pleadings, but contains no itemized counter-affidavit challenging the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs claimed by Petitioner as contemplated by Rule 22I-6.035(4) and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The answer also alleges substantial justification for the underlying action and "special circumstances" which would render unjust any award of fees and costs. These latter two allegations are made without any particularity as to what constitutes the "justification" or the "special circumstances." The Answer makes no specific request for evidentiary hearing beyond the demand for "strict proof" of "whether and/or to what extent" fees and costs were incurred by Petitioner. No counter-affidavit or request for evidentiary hearing has been filed to date. See, Rule 22I-6.035(4), (5) Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that respondent Charles Moore was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on October 2, 1968, and was issued Certificate Number 10-2-68-G. Prologue Christina Marie Hechler and his girlfriend Teresa Hammic worked at "the first rest area before you get to Lake Buena Vista exit" (T.21) in July of 1984. One day that July, they were talking before work, when Mr. Moore, whom neither knew at the time, approached and "made some . . . different little suggestions . . . He wanted . . . [the young women] to have sex together while he watched." (T.22) Their conversation over, Mr. Moore left with Ms. Hechler's telephone number. In addition to performing her duties at the rest area, Ms. Hechler worked as a confidential informant under the direction of Russell Bernard Permaul, at the time assigned to the Narcotics Section of the Orange County Sheriff Department's Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation. Ms. Hechler, who spent time with Mr. Permaul socially as well as professionally, told him on May 3, 1985 that "she knew of someone that did the same work [he] did that was involved in cocaine." (T.45) On May 6, 1985, she told Mr. Permaul the man she had referred to three days earlier was Mr. Moore, and that, at unspecified times and places, she "was present when he snorted cocaine, and that he had offered cocaine to her and a friend for unknown sexual acts." (T.45) On May 16, 1985, Ms. Hechler gave Mr. Permaul a foil packet containing cocaine. At hearing, she testified that Mr. Moore brought the packet to her at her grandmother's house but neither fingerprints nor anything else, aside from her testimony, linked Moore to the cocaine. Ms. Hechler's grandmother was unable to pick respondent out of a "photo lineup." (T.36). Mr. Permaul did not feel Ms. Hechler's information "was reliable enough . . . to come out and arrest." (T.60) The First Investigation But Mr. Permaul apprised his superiors of the situation, and they authorized him to begin an investigation. To this end, he enlisted a female police officer from Kissimmee and arranged for Ms. Hechler to introduce her to Mr. Moore outside "the Triple X Movie Theater on Orange Blossom Trail," (T.47) on Friday, May 17, 1985. Ms. Hechler worked at the theater at the time. A listening device in Ms. Hechler's pocketbook malfunctioned, so no recording was made of what turned out, in any event, to be a very short meeting. The next day, Ms. Hechler later told Mr. Permaul, she sought out Mr. Moore on her own, who told her that the woman she had been with the day before was a deputy sheriff. He also reportedly told her "that if anybody from . . . Department Internal Affairs . . . contacted her . . . to tell them that she has no idea what's going on (T.49) At this point the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation "didn't feel there would be any merit to proceeding with a criminal investigation any further." (T.88) Along with Mr. Permaul, Tony Randall Scoggins, a sergeant with the Orlando Police Department who was supervisor in charge of internal affairs investigators, had watched while Ms. Bechler introduced the undercover female law enforcement officer to respondent Moore at the Fairvilla Triple X Theater. Moore was employed by the Orlando Police Department at the time, and the Orlando Police Department wanted to determine whether he should continue as a police sergeant. After the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation decided not "to do anything more with it right now," (T.88) Sgt. Scoggins turned the matter over to Lt. William Kennedy of the Orlando Police Department to pursue a criminal investigation "before he got into the thing administratively." (T.92). The Second Investigation On September 3, 1985, Lt. Kennedy and Sgt. Jacobs assigned Agent Gary Rowell and Carey Farney, then a narcotics agent attached to the Orlando Police Department's special investigations division, to conduct a criminal investigation of respondent Moore. Sgt. Scoggins introduced them to Ms. Hechler, whom they instructed to telephone Sgt. Moore, even though she had not been in touch with him for four or five months. She made several telephone calls from various pay telephones, which the investigators tape recorded. Sgt. Moore "was suspicious that [Ms. Hechler] was possibly working [as a confidential informant.] He mentioned the MBI. It was like he wanted to talk to her, but he wasn't quite sure [whether] she was safe or not. (T.67) There were no specific offers to sell or provide cocaine during these conversations. Meanwhile Agent Farney approached Carol Lee Jones, who worked as a horse arrest officer for the Department of Corrections, to participate in an undercover "operation directed against Sgt. Moore." Allegedly, Sgt. Moore was interested in having a menage a trois arrangement with Chistina Hechler . . . . [Ms. Jones] was to be the third person. And in exchange for the sex act there would be an exchange of cocaine. (T.8) The "initial game plan was to have Carol Jones go undercover with Christine Hechler, and . . . see if Sgt. Moore would deliver cocaine ultimately to Carol Jones." (T.65) Ms. Hechler agreed to introduce Ms. Jones to Sgt. Moore, in furtherance of this plan. Sgt. Moore told Ms. Hechler he "would be working at the Howard Johnson's" (T.70) on Saturday night, September 14, 1985. September 14-15, 1985 Agent Farney rented a customized van in which he, Lt. Kennedy and Sgt. Jacobs followed Ms. Hechler and Ms. Jones to Howard Johnson's on September 14, 1985, or maybe a little past midnight on the morning of the 15th. Before setting out, they had furnished the women transmitters "the size of a cigarette pack, maybe a little smaller" (T.73) or bugs which they concealed on their persons or in their purses. The women parked their car and went into the motel's lounge in search of respondent Moore. The policemen parked behind the motel, out of view, with receivers and tape recorders ready to monitor any transmissions from the "bugs." Eventually Mr. Moore, dressed in full Orlando Police Department regalia, left the lounge to follow the women into the parking lot, where he and Ms. Hechler joked about her being an undercover agent. Agent Farney, listening from the van "believe[d] Christina and Charlie Moore were doing most of the talking. When they get outside Charlie Moore asks her, "[D]o you have a bug in your purse?" [Agent Farney] couldn't' understand what her answer was And then he asked her, "[D]o you want to buy some cocaine?" And she says, [Y]eah" or "[Y]es," or something to that [e]ffect. He asked her again, "Do you want to buy some coke?" . . . [H]e said "coke" both times [Farney believed, on reflection) . . The second time he said, "Do you want to buy some coke?," and she says, "Yeah, I sure do." And then they're giggling as they're walking along talking. Basically it's Christina and Charlie Moore doing the talking now. And for whatever reason Christina didn't pursue the coke issue, and then they make arrangements to get together later on . . . another date. And . . . [the women] get in their car and leave. (T.77) At least in the opinion of Agent Farney, this conversation did not give probable cause to believe that Sgt. Moore had been guilty of a crime, including, "[s]ome sort of solicitation to commit a crime" (T.85-86), so as to justify either his arrest or the filing of charges with the state's attorney's office. (T.84) Epilogue On September 24, 1985, Ms. Hechler accused respondent Moore of perpetrating a sexual battery on her person, and the Chief of Police immediately suspended Sgt. Moore. Administrative proceedings eventuated in disciplinary action on account of the alleged battery, but concluded with a finding that no drug offense was established. No criminal prosecution was instituted on either charge.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Ideal Security Services, Inc. (“Respondent or Ideal”), retaliated against Petitioner, John Mercurio (“Petitioner”), for exercising his right to file a complaint on an alleged unlawful employment practice pursuant to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2019).1/
Findings Of Fact Ideal is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). While the exact number of employees is not reflected in this record, the evidence established that Ideal employs greater than 15 employees. Ideal provides security officers to different locations for access control and on-site patrol. Petitioner worked for Respondent as a security officer from June 20, 2018, through February 7, 2019. At the time he was hired by Ideal, Petitioner was informed in writing of the company’s “Interchange” practice, which provides: Although employees generally are hired to work at one specific client location or facility, the company (Ideal Services, Inc.) uses its Guard Force INTERCHANGEABLY to meet its needs: In case of cancellation of any accounts, reduction or increase in hours provided, or an employee who may request a transfer. Also Ideal Services, Inc. wishes to point out that they DO NOT guarantee a full 40 hour work week. Overtime is given to employees depending on where the overtime will occur and the availability of employees to work an assignment. Ideal Services, Inc. wishes to also point out that hourly pay rates will depend on job placement as some client assigned jobs will carry higher pay rates than others. It is therefore Ideal Services, Inc.’s policy to inform all individuals who are applying for employment that Ideal Services, Inc. DOES NOT HIRE for only one site at one set pay rate . . . because both of these are subject to change. On the date he was hired, Petitioner signed a copy of the above policy statement, acknowledging that he had read and understood its contents. Petitioner’s first assignment was to provide security at a Krispy Kreme Donuts retail location, an assignment which carried a pay rate of $9.50 per hour. In July 2018, Petitioner was assigned to several other locations, in addition to the Krispy Kreme location. Those new locations were at Daytona Beach Housing Authority apartments, including the Maley, Windsor, and Trails apartment complexes. The public housing assignments carried a pay rate of $8.50 per hour. As of August 2018, Petitioner was no longer assigned to the Krispy Kreme location, but rather was working exclusively at the public housing locations. In December 2018, another Ideal security guard was newly assigned to the same public housing complex as Petitioner. It was clear to Petitioner that this individual was a racist based on his words and actions. While standing next to Petitioner, the new security officer referred to the building residents as "monkeys." It was clear to Petitioner that this remark was made in reference to the African-American residents of the complex. Dan Montrose, the senior security officer and Petitioner’s partner, was also within earshot when the newly assigned officer made the derogatory remark. Petitioner was stunned by the racist comment, especially since Mr. Montrose’s wife is an African-American female. Petitioner also testified that on another occasion, the new officer posted a picture of a Caucasian baby on the common area's fridge with an arrow that said, "Dan" on it, as well as a black finger/arm covering the baby's mouth which said, "Dan's wife." While Petitioner’s first impulse was to report the above racist incidents to his employer, at the request of Officer Montrose he did not immediately do so. However, while the exact date of the conversation is not of record, sometime in the second or third week of December 2018, Petitioner reported the “monkey remark” to Ideal’s Manager and CFO, Diane Cox. Ms. Cox assured Petitioner that she would discuss the racist comment with the offending security guard. Ms. Cox testified that the offending security guard was given a verbal warning for his inappropriate comment, but was not otherwise disciplined because he had worked for the company for many years without incident. When Ms. Cox spoke with the offending security guard about his inappropriate remark, she did not raise the issue of the racist picture that had been posted on the common area refrigerator. According to the testimony of Ms. Cox, this is because she had not been informed by anyone about the existence of the picture, and first became aware of it when she read Petitioner’s Complaint. Ms. Cox testified that had she been informed of the racist picture, disciplinary action would have been taken against the offending employee. Again, while the exact date is not of record, sometime in late December 2018, Petitioner requested a copy of his payroll records from Ms. Cox. While gathering the records for Petitioner, Ms. Cox discovered that Petitioner’s rate of pay had erroneously not been reduced from $9.50 per hour to $8.50 per hour when he was transferred from the Krispy Kreme location to the public housing locations. Upon discovering this accounting error, Ms. Cox informed Petitioner that effective immediately his rate of pay while on duty at the public housing locations would be adjusted to $8.50 per hour, but that Ideal would not be attempting to recoup the overpayments that had been made over the previous months, since the error had been theirs. Respondent offered in evidence payroll records which demonstrated that all Ideal security guards assigned to the public housing locations were paid at the rate of $8.50 per hour. At about the same time as Petitioner’s downward rate adjustment, another Ideal security guard requested that he be assigned an additional eight-hour shift in order to bring him to 40 hours per week. In an attempt to accommodate this request, Ms. Cox contacted several of the Ideal security guards, including Petitioner, to inquire as to whether any wished to relinquish an eight-hour shift. Petitioner advised Ms. Cox that he did not want to give up an eight-hour shift, and that request was honored by Ideal. The timing of Petitioner’s reporting of the racist remarks to Ms. Cox; Petitioner being informed that his hourly rate was being reduced; and Petitioner being invited to give up a work shift; is unfortunate. Because of the temporal proximity of these events, it is understandable that Petitioner concluded that the reduction in his pay rate and attempted reduction in his assigned hours were in retaliation of his reporting the racist remarks. However, the evidence does not prove a causal link between Petitioner's complaint and the adverse action he suffered. Rather, the credible testimony of Ms. Cox established legitimate nonretaliatory reasons for how Petitioner was treated, and there is no evidence that the reasons articulated by Ms. Cox were a pretext for retaliation. Petitioner failed to persuasively prove any incidents of retaliation.
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 Ideal Security Services, Inc. did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 16th day of January, 2020.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Cassondra Davis, suffered an adverse employment action as a result of unlawful discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made. Petitioner, Cassondra Davis, is a female African- American. At all times material, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Department of Corrections, at Brevard Correctional Institution (Department). Petitioner's last day of actual work at the Department was April 10, 1996. Susan Blais, Personnel Manager at Brevard Correction Institution during the relevant time frame, testified that because of medical problems, Petitioner was unable to return to work after April 10, 1996, until her physician released her to return to work. Petitioner never presented a medical return-to-work release. Instead, she utilized her entitlement to Family Medical Leave Act leave. Once this leave was exhausted, rather than terminate Petitioner, the Department wrote to her physician, Dr. F. F. Matuk, on September 16, 1996, requesting a diagnosis of Davis' condition, as well as an opinion as to whether she could perform the duties of a correctional officer as outlined in a job description enclosed with the request for opinion. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Dr. Matuk responded to the Department by letter dated September 20, 1996, stating that Petitioner had several work restrictions, including no weight manipulation over 20 to 30 pounds, avoidance of driving over 30 to 40 minutes, avoidance of neck extension, and allowances for extended periods of rest. He did not believe that Petitioner was able to perform the duties of a correctional officer but stated that she would most likely be able to perform a sedentary desk job. (Respondent's Exhibit 2) Susan Blais testified that no such desk jobs were available at that time. Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation to the Department in July 1997, wherein she attributed the resignation to medical reasons. (Respondent's Exhibit 3)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 26th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Coleman, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cassondra A. Davis 1009 Cannes Drive Poinciana, Florida 34759-3918 Cassondra A. Davis 1216 Pua Lane, No. 107 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-3821 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners, Judith C. Cleary and Charles B. Houck (Petitioners or Ms. Cleary and Mr. Houck), are entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Respondent, Department of Financial Services (Respondent or the Department), pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The underlying proceedings were initiated by Respondent on February 22, 2010, by the issuance of substantively identical Administrative Complaints against Petitioners. Petitioners timely requested administrative hearings to contest the charges against them, and the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings where they were consolidated for hearing. Count 1 of each Administrative Complaint charged Petitioners with willfully misrepresenting and or omitting material information in order to induce Mr. and Mrs. Nagle to cash in another annuity they held in order to purchase an annuity sold by Petitioners. Included in the alleged misrepresentations or material omissions were: misrepresenting that there would be no surrender charges to withdraw the entire amount of the new annuity after one year, when in fact there would be a 15 percent surrender charge; falsely representing that the annuity would earn the Nagles ten to 20 percent returns; and (3) misrepresenting the suitability of the Nagles to purchase the annuity by misrepresenting the Nagles' net worth and by misrepresenting the Nagles' investment objective as long-term, in a form Petitioners submitted to the insurance company issuing the annuity. Count 2 of each Administrative Complaint charged Petitioners with similar conduct in order to induce the Nagles' son, Robert, to purchase an annuity. Included in the alleged misrepresentations or material omissions were: misrepresenting that there would be no surrender charges to withdraw the entire amount of the new annuity after one year, when, in fact, there would be a 15 percent surrender charge; and falsely representing that the annuity would earn Robert Nagle ten to 20 percent annual returns. Petitioners do not dispute that if the allegations charged in the Administrative Complaint had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, then Respondent would have established the statutory violations alleged as the predicate for taking disciplinary action against Petitioners' insurance agent licenses. Petitioners also acknowledge that Respondent initiated the disciplinary actions against them on the basis of two complaint letters received by Mrs. Phyllis Nagle, the attestation of Mrs. Nagle to the material allegations in an affidavit, and a corroborating complaint letter by Mrs. Nagle's son, Robert Nagle. After a full evidentiary hearing, a Recommended Order issued in the underlying disciplinary actions determined that the more credible evidence failed to establish the allegations in the Administrative Complaints. In particular, the undersigned weighed the credibility of testimony by Robert Nagle and by Petitioners at the final hearing, as well as deposition testimony by both Mr. and Mrs. Nagle. The question posed in this case, however, is not whether credibility judgments caused the Department to ultimately not prevail in its charges against Petitioners. Instead, the question here is whether Respondent had a reasonable basis, in law and in fact, at the time it initiated the underlying disciplinary actions. In this regard, Petitioners contend that the Department's investigation file contained documents from the insurance company issuing the annuities that contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaints. Petitioners point to three documents in particular. The first document was a customer survey response submitted by Mrs. Nagle to the insurance company after she purchased the annuity from Petitioners. Her completion of the survey form indicated that she knew that "[s]urrender charges are imposed on premature full withdrawal"; that she considered the "annuity to be a long-term investment"; that she did "not intend to use these funds to meet current expenses"; and that Petitioners reviewed her "financial status . . . and other pertinent information to determine whether this annuity purchase" was suitable to her. The other document claimed to contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaints was the Nagles' annual statement showing a yield of 5.66 percent, which was different than the 2.6 percent yield claimed by Mrs. Nagle in her complaint letters or affidavit. Finally, Petitioners point to statements of understanding signed by the Nagles, showing the surrender charges that would be imposed for early withdrawals. None of these documents conclusively refute the charges in the Administrative Complaint. For example, with respect to surrender charges, the Nagles' complaints assert that Petitioners represented that there would be no surrender charges for a withdrawal after one year. Mrs. Nagle's survey form only acknowledged that there would be surrender charges for "premature" withdrawal. It certainly would have been possible to reconcile these two concepts in that Mrs. Nagle may have been thinking that "premature" withdrawal, as used in the survey form, was a withdrawal in less than one year. The response in the survey form to the "surrender charge" question does not conclusively contradict Mrs. Nagle's complaint and affidavit, nor does it conclusively contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Similarly, the responses in the survey form about suitability do not conclusively contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. The annual statement likewise does not conclusively contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, even though the yield shown is somewhat different from the yield Mrs. Nagle referred to in her complaint. Whether the yield was actually 2.6 percent or 5.66 percent, the material allegations in the Administrative Complaint were that Petitioners misrepresented that the yield would be 10 to 20 percent per year. These allegations and the complaints on which they were based, were not so plainly lacking in credibility that no reasonable agency would have proceeded with charges. Finally, the signed statements of understanding showing that surrender charges would be imposed for early withdrawals do not contradict the Nagles' complaints or the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Although the undersigned ultimately found against the credibility of the Nagles' complaints, those complaints were that Petitioners made oral representations assuring the Nagles that there would be no surrender charges after one year, even though the policy forms themselves said otherwise. The ultimate lack of credibility of the complaining witnesses' testimony was not so clear that no reasonable agency would have prosecuted the claims. In short, Respondent had a reasonable basis in law and in fact, following a reasonable investigation, to make the allegations and to charge the statutory violations it did in the Administrative Complaints. The documentation gathered in the investigation did not conclusively contradict the factual allegations, and the credibility of the complainants was not so obviously lacking that no reasonable agency would have made the allegations in the Administrative Complaints. And it is beyond dispute that if those factual allegations had been proven, the charged statutory violations would have been established. Thus, it cannot be said that Respondent's action in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against Petitioners was unreasonable governmental action.
The Issue Whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) correctly determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claim of unlawful employment discrimination because the complaint was received more than 365 days after the date of the alleged violation?
Findings Of Fact AAR Corp. (AAR) is an aviation support company which provides maintenance, repair, and overhaul services to air carriers at various facilities through the United States. AAR uses its own employees in addition to utilizing employees from its temporary staffing company, AMS. When AAR’s business increases, it increases its workforce by adding workers from AMS. When AAR experiences a downturn in business, it similarly reduces its workforce, typically, by reducing workers from AMS through layoffs. Business is usually slow for AAR and AMS during the peak airline travel times, including summer and the winter holidays. Business of AAR and AMS is also affected by AAR's contracts with major airline carriers for scheduled and non-scheduled maintenance to aircraft. Magri was hired by AMS on October 27, 2011, as a Sheet Metal mechanic at the AAR Miami International Airport facility. She began work January 16, 2012, and at all times material hereto, worked as an Interior Mechanic for AMS. Magri's last day physically working for AMS was October 10, 2013. In 2013, Pedro Estrada (Estrada) became Magri's immediate supervisor. According to Magri, Estrada frequently subjected Magri to sexual jokes, graphic comments about her body, and requests for sexual favors.2/ At the end of September or beginning of October 2013, Estrada came up behind Magri and placed his penis against her buttocks in a sexual manner. Shortly after making a sexual harassment complaint about her supervisor in September 2013, Magri was given a disciplinary memo for poor performance on October 4, 2013. Although there is no prior record of written discipline against Magri, this memo notified her that this was a "final warning" and any future violations could result in termination. On October 10, 2013, Magri was sent home by her then immediate supervisor, Plamen Ilonov (Ilonov), Manager of Interior, allegedly due to a lack of work. Approximately eight other AMS workers were laid off for the same reason on that date. AMS employees were aware of a likely work slowdown at that time because US Airways cancelled its contract with AAR in the fall of 2013 due to US Airways impending merger with American Airlines. However, neither Magri, nor her co-workers, were told by Human Resources or their supervisors, the anticipated duration of the layoff. In fact, it was common practice for AMS employees to be laid off and then returned to work within a week to a month due to the workflow fluctuations. This happened to Magri for a month in 2012. Laid off employees, including Magri, were directed to regularly call or text their supervisor to see when work was available. AMS had no system of notifying employees whether a layoff would be long or short term. When a layoff was anticipated to be long term, the AMS worker was removed from the Human Resources payroll system and internal paperwork was generated indicating termination, however, the employee was not notified of their status other than "lay off." At the time of an anticipated long-term layoff, the AMS Human Resources Department also deactivated the worker's security badge that would provide access to the facility. However, the employee was not asked to return the badge, nor was the employee advised that the badge was inactive. When she was sent home on October 10, Magri was instructed by Ilonov to check with him regarding when she might be returned to the work schedule. At this time she was not aware a decision was made that she would likely be laid off more than a month. For the next two weeks, Magri called and sent text messages to Ilonov looking for clarification as to when she might be returned to work. Magri sent a text message to Ilonov on October 11 asking "Why me." Ilonov responded that 10 people were affected, not just Magri. Magri asked, "Plamen do you think its [sic] layoff will take long time?" On October 12, after receiving no response, Magri texted Ilonov, "Good morning, Plamen, do you think I have to take out my tool box?" Ilonov replied, "Good morning, it is possible. I don't see much next 2-3 months." In a telephone conversation this same week, Ilonov indicated to Magri that work might be available October 21 if United Airlines planes arrived for service. Based on this, Magri had a legitimate expectation that she would be returned to the schedule. On October 20, Magri sent a text to Ilonov stating, "Do you don't [sic] know how long? I'm very scared without work." Ilonov did not reply. During this week, several employees were called to return to work. Ilonov did not return Magri to work because he only called back those he considered his "best" workers. On October 24, Magri sent several text messages to Ilonov seeking an explanation of when she might return to work or why she wasn't called back. Ilonov responded that he was calling whoever he thought he needed, and "We are really slowing down, and soon more changes." On October 25, Magri went to the facility to speak directly with Ilonov. During this meeting he made it clear to Magri for the first time that it was not his decision whether to put her back on the schedule, and that he did not think the "higher ups" wanted her to return. He told her he could not tell her anything further and that she would need to contact the Maintenance Manager, Luiz Gonzalez (Gonzalez). This was the first time Magri realized that this would not be a short-term layoff. At some point shortly thereafter, Magri spoke to Gonzalez by telephone, who told her she needed to look for alternative employment. Respondent maintains two conflicting factual assertions. Respondent contends the decision to terminate Magri's employment was made on October 10, 2013, as evidenced by its internal removal of Magri from the payroll system and the deactivation of her employee security badge (neither of which Magri was aware). Alternatively, Respondent claims there was no decision to terminate Magri and that she remains eligible for rehire. Regardless of whether Magri's separation from employment was a termination or long-term layoff, the earliest Magri knew or should have known that she suffered adverse action was October 24, 2013, when she became aware that although some of her co-workers were being immediately called back to work, she was not. Accordingly, Magri's charge, filed on October 16, 2014, which is 357 days from the alleged violation, was timely with regard to her claim of sex discrimination and retaliation arising from her termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations decline jurisdiction of Petitioner's charge of sexual harassment, which allegedly occurred prior to October 10, 2013, and take jurisdiction of Petitioner's charge of sex discrimination and retaliation arising from her separation from employment on October 24, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 29th day of February, 2016.
