Findings Of Fact From late 1981 to mid-1983, Respondent advertised its meat products in the Pensacola newspaper. These ads offered large quantities of beef for sale on installment plans. The ads contain intentionally confusing messages with the large print suggesting higher quality meat or lower prices than is actually offered. For example, in some of the ads the "special" giving the weight in pounds and price for four payments is immediately adjacent to language such as "plus this free. . . bonus." The description of the "special" is typically placed over or immediately adjacent to a drawing or representation of a steer. A careful reading of the fine print reveals that the "bonus" is actually included within the total weight which at first appears to be the representation of the amount of beef that will be received. The "bonus" consists not of beef, but of other types of meat. In November 1981, Leslie and Bernice Shelby responded to an advertisement offering 200 to 300 pounds of beef for approximately $150. When they attempted to make this purchase, they were dissuaded from doing so by the salesman who told them the advertised meat was of poor quality. He then questioned them as to their income and advised them they could afford better quality meat. They eventually purchased about 500 pounds of meat for 12 monthly installments totalling over $1,600. The Shelby's felt they were hurried into signing an agreement and didn't know what they were getting. Mrs. Shelby was especially upset over a $35 insurance charge that she didn't understand and didn't realize would be included in the contract price.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner find probable cause to initiate judicial proceedings against Hammond eat Market pursuant to Subsection 501.207(1), Florida Statutes (1983). DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: William P. White, Jr., Esquire Assistant State Attorney Post Office Box 12726 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Ms. Connie Hammond Hammond Meat Market 4708 North "W" Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Respondent, Tony's Prime Meats, Inc., (Tony's) is a Florida corporation which was dissolved for failure to file an annual report on August 13, 1993. The corporation is still doing business under the fictitious name of Scotti's Meats, Co., in Manatee County, Florida, at 510 7th Street East, Bradenton, Florida 34208-9020. At the time of the alleged violation, Respondent, Tony's Prime Meats, Inc. was an active and current Florida corporation. Respondent, Anthony Scotti, Jr., is a shareholder in, the registered agent for, and a corporate officer of, Tony's. Anthony Scotti, Jr. is shown on the corporate records as Anthony G. Scotti, and is a resident of Sarasota County, Florida. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the administration and enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 585, Florida Statutes. Respondents are engaged in the preparation of, and the offering for sale, animal products capable of use as human food and intended to be used as human food, pursuant to Chapter 585, Florida Statute. Tony's holds a Grant of Inspection, Number 335/P, pursuant to Section 585.74, Florida Statutes, from the Department. On June 2, 1993, meat inspection at Tony's had been withheld by Ernest Tipton, Meat Inspector with the Department, because of sanitary standards violations. At about 8:00 a.m. on June 4, 1993, Inspector Tipton visited Tony's to check on the facility. Arnie Lahtinen, an employee of Tony's who was in charge of the plant during the absence of Anthony Scotti, was present at the facility during Inspector Tipton's visit. During Inspector Tipton's visit, Lahtinen was performing plant improvement tasks in accordance with deficiencies noted when inspection had been withheld on June 2, 1993. Inspector Tipton did not observe the presence of any other employee in the establishment or observe any visible signs of meat processing occurring or observe any evidence that meat processing had been occurring prior to his visit. Inspector Tipton departed Tony's about 8:30 a.m. on June 4, 1993, but returned later in the morning around 10:00 a.m. to pick up some papers. Upon his return, Inspector Tipton observed a car parked at the facility which he identified as belonging to an employee of Tony's named Nick. However, there was no direct evidence that the car belonged to Nick or that Nick was present in the facility during the time in question on June 4, 1993. Inspector Tipton attempted to gain entry but found the facility locked. After ringing the doorbell and getting no response, Inspector Tipton then knocked on the back door but again, received no response. Since Lahtinen had been present in the facility during Inspector Tipton's earlier visit, he assumed Lahtinen was still in the facility, that meat processing was occurring in the facility, and that he was being denied access to the facility in violation of Chapter 585, Florida Statutes. Inspector Tipton determined that his best course of action was to contact his supervisor, Melody Cara. After contacting Ms. Cara, Inspector Tipton contacted the police on the advice of Ms. Cara. Upon her arrival at the facility, Ms. Cara made a similar attempt to gain entry by ringing the door bell and knocking on the door but there was no response. Anthony Scotti arrived at the facility shortly after Ms. Cara and the police officer, and immediately unlocked the facility to allow Ms. Cara, Inspector Tipton and the police officer entry into the facility. When Inspector Tipton, Ms. Cara, Scotti and the police officer entered the facility, one of them turned the lights on in the lobby area and just a short time later Ms. Cara turned the lights on in the processing room. As Scotti and Ms. Cara were entering the processing room, Lahtinen came out of the processing room. The record does not reflect whether Lahtinen heard the door bell ring or the knocking on the door on either occasion and, if he did, why he did not respond. Other than Lahtinen, no other employees were observed in the facility at this time. Upon entering the lobby area, the police officer found a knife and an apron upon which there was a substance that resembled blood. No analysis of the substance on the apron and knife was conducted and the material was never identified as blood. The tables and the floors in the processing room were wet as if they had been washed. However, there was no direct evidence that meat processing had been occurring before the entry. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Inspector Tipton or Ms. Cara were intentionally denied entry into Tony's facility, or that meat processing had been occurring in Tony's establishment during the time in question on June 4, 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order dismissing both Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the request for attorney's fees and costs be denied without prejudice to the Respondents filing a petition under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day June, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7087 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner, Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: The following proposed findings of fact* are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(4); 4(6); 5(5); 6(7); 7(7,8); 8(9); 9(10,11); and 10(12). Proposed finding of fact 11 is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed findings of fact 4 - 8 indicate that Inspector Blevons was present at the Respondents' facility on June 4, 1993, when in fact it was Inspector Tipton. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 8 indicate that the parties were denied access which is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 10 indicates a bloody knife and apron were found on the premises. While a knife and apron with a substance appearing to be blood was found, it was never established that the substance was blood. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact: The following proposed findings of fact* are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(4); 4(6); 5(5,6); 6(7); 7(7,9); 8(10); 9(10-12)); 11(10); 12(14)and 13(11). Proposed finding of fact 10 is neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed findings of fact 4,5,6,7 & 9 indicate that Inspector Blevons was present at the Respondents' facility on June 4, 1993, when in fact it was Inspector Tipton. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Isadore F. Rommes, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Thomas M. Fitzgibbons, Esquire SouthTrust Bank Plaza 1800 Second Street, Suite 775 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Richard Tritschler, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondents are indebted to Petitioner for produce sold by Petitioner to Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., and, if so, the amount of the indebtedness.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc. (Mo-Bo) is a dealer in agricultural products within the meaning of Section 605.15, Florida Statutes. 1/ Mo-Bo is licensed by the Florida Department of Agriculture as a dealer in agricultural products pursuant to Section 604.19, Florida Statutes. Section 604.20, Florida Statutes requires that as a condition of being licensed, an applicant for licensure as a dealer in agricultural products must post a surety bond in the amount of at least $3,000 or in such greater amount as the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services may require. Respondent, Armor Insurance Company, is Mo-Bo's surety company. Petitioner, a producer of agricultural products, sold to Mo-Bo certain produce in December 1994 and January 1995. For each of the transactions set forth below, Mo-Bo has failed to pay to Petitioner the contract price, despite timely demand for payment. As evidenced by Invoice 56222, Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on December 6, 1994, a quantity of cucumbers for the sum of $772.50. As evidenced by Invoice 56233, Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on December 9, 1994, a quantity of produce for the contract price of $3,776.00. This total represents the following: a quantity of xlarge (sic) peppers for the sum of $2,240.00, a quantity of super select cucumbers for the sum of $1,440.00, a quantity of fancy eggplants for the sum of $96.00, and a quantity of snowpeas for the sum of $480.00. As evidenced by Invoice 56242, Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on December 12, 1994, a quantity of fancy eggplants for the sum of $1,600.00. As evidenced by Invoice 56248, Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on December 13, 1994, a quantity of produce for the contract price of $5,216.00. This total represents the following: a quantity of xlarge (sic) peppers for the sum of $2,560.00, a quantity of super select cucumbers for the sum of $2,560.00, and a quantity of fancy eggplants for the sum of $96.00. As evidenced by Invoice 56254 Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on December 16, 1994, a quantity of produce for the contract price of $2,223.75. This total represents the following: a quantity of sun tan peppers for the sum of $723.75 and a quantity of select cucumbers for the sum of $1,500.00. As evidenced by Invoice 56262 Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on December 20, 1994, a quantity of produce for the contract price of $2,800.00. This total represents the following: a quantity of super select cucumbers for the sum of $2,500.00 and a quantity of fancy zucchini for the sum of $300.00. As evidenced by Invoice 86530A Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on January 6, 1995, a quantity of xtra (sic) fancy zucchini for the sum of $1,000.00. As evidenced by Invoice 56286 Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on January 6, 1995, a quantity of xtra (sic) fancy zucchini for the sum of $1,000.00. As evidenced by Invoice 86540A Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on January 6, 1995, a quantity of xtra (sic) fancy zucchini for the sum of $200.00. As evidenced by Invoice 56290 Petitioner sold to Mo-Bo on January 11, 1995, a quantity of xtra (sic) fancy zucchini for the sum of $2,400.00. Mo-Bo is indebted to Petitioner in the total amount of $20,988.25 for the transactions evidenced by Invoices 56222, 56233, 56242, 56248, 56254, 56262, 86530A, 56286, 86540A, and 56290.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions contained herein and orders Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., to pay to Petitioner the sum of $20,988.25. The final order should also order Armor Insurance Company to pay this amount, up to its maximum liability under its bond, if Mo-Bo Enterprises, Inc., does not pay this amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Respondent violated Sections and 585.80, Florida Statutes, by selling or offering to sell animal products that were adulterated, misbranded, or uninspected, and, if so, a determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the business of selling meat products at its location at 4267 Northwest 12th Street, Lauderhill, Florida 33313, and holds Food Permit No. 55402, pursuant to Section 500.12, Florida Statutes. On January 12, 1993, a United States Department of Agriculture Compliance Officer performed an inspection at Respondent's facility. During this inspection, the Compliance Officer examined and placed under detention approximately 327 pounds of uninspected meat product, consisting of the following: two pig carcasses, one cow head, singed cow feet, beef lungs, and goat tripe. None of the products bore any marks of inspection. With the exception of the two pig carcasses, 1/ all of the uninspected meat product was being offered for sale to retail customers. Beef lungs, or "lite," may not be sold as human food under any circumstances in the State of Florida. The goat tripe, or stomachs, were adulterated with ingesta, which is the contents of the stomach at the time the animal is slaughtered. Some of the beef lungs were darkly colored which, in the opinion of the Compliance Officer, was because they were either old or had been left unrefrigerated for some period of time. One of the pig carcasses was unclean and bruised, and was therefore condemned. The other carcass was released to Mr. Richard Gray after it was determined by the Compliance Officer that, despite the lack of proper labeling, the pig carcasses were being held for the personal use of Mr. Gray. On February 12, 1993, a Department Compliance Officer performed a second inspection at Respondent's facility. At this time, the Compliance Officer examined and detained approximately 65 pounds of uninspected meat products, consisting of the following: goat feet (hide on), goat intestines, goat tripe, and beef lungs. None of the products bore marks of inspection, nor were they marked as "Not for Sale." The goat feet and beef lungs were adulterated with ingesta and were generally dirty. The products detained during the February 12, 1993, inspection, were delivered to Respondent's facility on January 19, 1993, as part of the same purchase of meat products as the items found by the USDA Compliance Officer on January 12, 1993. The Florida meat inspection program requires an animal to be inspected both before and after slaughter. Antemortem inspection is necessary to determine the general health of the animal, while postmortem inspection may reveal pathological conditions and diseases. The tissue is also examined for evidence of abscess, parasites, and arthritic conditions, as well as drug residues. These steps must be taken to safeguard the consumer from exposure to contaminated and diseased meat products. By means of the Department's letter dated May 29, 1991, Respondent has previously received a formal notice of warning concerning a separate violation of the same statutory prohibition, namely the sale and offer for sale of adulterated and misbranded cow and goat feet.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Sections 500.04 and 585.80(2), Florida Statutes, by offering for sale uninspected animal products and adulterated animal products on January 12, 1993; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Sections 500.04 and 585.80(2), Florida Statutes, by offering for sale uninspected animal products and adulterated animal products on February 12, 1993; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for each of the two violations mentioned above, for a grand total of $2,000.00 in administrative fines. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May 1994.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I hereby make the following findings of fact: On February 27, 1984, the premises operated by Tony's Sea, Inc., were inspected by two inspectors of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. On that date the inspectors observed, among other things, four boxes of frozen lobster tails which had been processed and packed by Tony's Sea, Inc. The four boxes of frozen lobster tails which came to the attention of the inspectors were sealed and labeled. The label on each box stated that the net weight of the contents was ten pounds. None of the labels contained the name of a dealer or responsible firm, nor did the name of a dealer or responsible firm appear elsewhere on the boxes. The inspectors removed the ice from the frozen lobster tails in each of the four subject boxes and weighed the lobster tails without ice. The net weight of the frozen lobster tails was approximately six pounds per box. The Administrative Complaint served on the Respondent contained the following opening paragraph: You are hereby notified that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services intends to take disciplinary sanction authorized by Section 500.121, F.S., and seeks to impose an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of certain laws of the state applicable to food processors and certain rules of the department.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order ordering the Respondent, Tony's Sea, Inc., to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, such fine to be paid within 15 days of the issuance of the Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Antonio Martinez-Malo President, Tony's Sea, Inc., 7716 N.W. 76 Avenue Medley, Florida 33166 Frank A. Graham, Jr., Esquire Resident Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 512, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle A. Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Modley is a resident of Shalimar, Florida. He is an African-American male, who at the time of the hearing was 35 years of age. At the time of the hearing, he was employed by Winn Dixie, Inc., as a meat cutter. The Fresh Market is in the grocery business, operates many stores, and is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. The Fresh Market operates a store in Destin, Florida. On November 8, 2006, Mr. Modley applied for a "meat/seafood" position in the Destin store. Mr. Modley had previous experience in similar positions at Publix and Sam's Club. This position required Mr. Modley to process meat and seafood to be sold at retail and to provide customer service. The application submitted by Mr. Modley had upon it a question that stated, "Have you been convicted of a crime in the past 10 years?" Mr. Modley typed in "No." The application also had upon it the following statement, in pertinent part: "I certify that the facts set forth in my application for employment are true and complete. I understand that, if employed, false statements on this application shall be considered sufficient cause for dismissal. I authorize The Fresh Market, Inc. to verify all statements contained in this application and to make any necessary reference checks except as limited above for my present employer." The Fresh Market employed Mr. Modley as a meat cutter subsequent to his application. Mr. Modley was aware at the inception of his employment on January 19, 2007, that a person from the southern part of the state would soon arrive and assume the position of meat manager. Mr. Modley assumed, without any foundation whatsoever, that he was next in line to become meat manager. Saul Zaute, an experienced meat manager, who had been working for The Fresh Market in South Florida, assumed the position of meat manager shortly after Mr. Modley began working as a meat cutter. After 90 days of employment, Mr. Modley became eligible for certain fringe benefits. During an open enrollment period for insurance benefits, Mr. Modley sought insurance coverage for his wife and his "domestic partner." On May 7, 2007, Mr. Modley completed and signed a Declaration of Domestic Partnership Form declaring "under penalty of perjury" that he and his "domestic partner" were "not married to anyone" and that he and his "domestic partner" met all criteria for "domestic partnership." On this application he did not mention his wife. Following open enrollment periods, the Fresh Market's Benefits Department conducts a review of all applications for domestic partner benefits to ensure that the applicants meet the criteria specified on the Declaration of Domestic Partnership Form. The employee assigned to accomplish this was Martha Holt. Ms. Holt worked in Greensboro, North Carolina, and she was not acquainted with Mr. Modley. Ms. Holt reviewed the 14 domestic partner applications received during open enrollment by The Fresh Market. She did this by conducting a public records search on the internet. Ms. Holt noted the first application for insurance benefits listed a spouse. Ms. Holt was unable to find any record of Mr. Modley having divorced his wife. While searching for information that might illuminate Mr. Modley's marital status, Ms. Holt discovered that he had a criminal history. This became important because of Mr. Modley's assertion on his employment application that he had not been convicted of a crime in the past 10 years. It is noted at this point that Mr. Modley had not been convicted of any crime because judgment was withheld on his several criminal cases. When a judge withholds adjudication, the defendant has not been convicted, even though he may have been found guilty. Ms. Holt relayed the discovery of Mr. Modley's criminal history to her supervisor who informed Bill Bailey, Vice President of Human Resources for The Fresh Market, and Christine Caldwell, Regional Human Resources Coordinator. Mr. Bailey conducted his own Internet research and discovered that Mr. Modley was serving a two-year supervised probation for a felony, which was committed on November 30, 2005. Mr. Bailey erroneously concluded that Mr. Modley had falsified his application for employment. At the request of Mr. Bailey, District Manager Debbie Smart asked Mr. Modley directly if he had been convicted of a felony. Mr. Modley denied having any felony convictions. Mr. Modley, while not exactly dissembling, was not being helpful in illuminating this conundrum. A more honest answer would have informed Ms. Smart that he had been found guilty of several felonies, but had never been adjudicated and, therefore, convicted. Subsequent to Ms. Smart's request, on August 23, 2007, Mr. Modley signed a consent form authorizing The Fresh Market to employ an outside agency to conduct a more detailed criminal background check. The background check, conducted by an outside agency named Insight, resulted in a report indicating guilty findings with resultant sentences of 14 counts of uttering, larceny, procuring for prostitution, using false information to obtain a driver's license, and a failure to appear. Nothing in the Insight report indicates that Mr. Modley was found adjudicated of a felony. Melvin Hamilton was the regional vice-president charged with supervising the store in which Mr. Modley worked. When he was informed of the perceived discrepancy regarding Mr. Modley's job application, he decided to terminate Mr. Modley. No evidence was produced that indicated Mr. Hamilton was aware of Mr. Modley's race, and, in fact, Mr. Hamilton is an African-American. Mr. Hamilton's decision to discharge Mr. Modley was based on information that, at least in a technical sense, was incorrect. However incorrect the basis, the decision was not grounded in racial discrimination. During the time period December 2005 and February 2008, The Fresh Market terminated seven employees for falsifying their employment applications. Of those seven employees, four were white and three were African-American. When Saul Zaute left in late July 2007, The Fresh Market advertised a vacancy for the position of meat manager. This was done by a posting in the store and an advertisement in a local newspaper. This is the method normally used by The Fresh Market when seeking applicants for a position. At no time did Mr. Modley apply for the job of meat manager even though the position was advertised similarly to other positions. It appears that he continued under the erroneous belief that when he began his employment, The Fresh Market was aware that he eventually desired to be meat manager. How he came to that conclusion was not explained. The employee hired as meat manager was Gary Arnold. Mr. Arnold had many years of experience as a meat manager. Mr. Arnold had owned an operated a meat market for 17 years and had served as meat manager for two facilities totaling 19 years. The Fresh Market has an active anti-discrimination program and maintains policies and procedures to effect that program. Mr. Modley did not complain about any discrimination pursuant to those policies or in any other manner during the time he was employed by The Fresh Market.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition of Carlos T. Modley be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2008, 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 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 June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Regina Alberini Young, Esquire Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Boulevard, Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Carlos T. Modley Post Office Box 430 Shalimar, Florida 32579 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
