The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Motel 6, discriminated against Petitioner, Emanuel Sessions, a/k/a Emanuel Glenn, by refusing to rent him a room at the Motel 6, Number 0791 (Motel), based on his race, African-American.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. The Motel is part of a national public lodging establishment chain, which is in the business of renting rooms to consumers. The Motel is located in Orange County, Florida, where the alleged act of discrimination arose. On October 25, 2010, and for six consecutive nights, Petitioner was a guest at the Motel, registered under the name of Emanuel Glenn.1/ There were no allegations of discrimination reported between October 25, 2010, and October 31, 2010.2/ The only allegation of discrimination occurred on November 1, 2010, when Petitioner was denied a room at the Motel. On October 31, 2010, Petitioner secured room 124 at the Motel. This room was on the ground floor, facing the parking lot. During his testimony, Petitioner failed to recollect that he had stayed at the Motel for the five nights prior to October 31, 2010. Petitioner could not recall when he stayed at the Motel, claiming it was over a year ago, and he did not know; yet, he was adamant that, on November 1, 2010, the Motel would not rent him a room. The evidence was overwhelming that Petitioner had stayed at the Motel for six consecutive nights, beginning on October 25, 2010. On October 31, 2010, the Motel's manager-on-duty was Emile Saleeb (Mr. Saleeb).3/ Late on October 31, 2010, Petitioner went to the Motel lobby and complained to Mr. Saleeb about a security guard questioning Petitioner as he sat in his car in the Motel's parking lot. Petitioner acted in an aggressive and offensive manner and used profanity towards Mr. Saleeb while at least one and up to three other Motel guests were present in the lobby. Mr. Saleeb felt Petitioner caused a disturbance in the Motel's lobby, which could be categorized as aggravated misconduct on the part of a Motel guest. Mr. Saleeb had concerns for the safety and welfare of the Motel's guests as well as its employees. The Motel has a policy that anyone causing a disturbance or engaged in aggravated misconduct on the property will be placed on the do not rent (DNR) list.4/ Mr. Saleeb has the authority to place someone on the DNR list for the Motel. Based on his encounter with Petitioner on October 31, 2010, Mr. Saleeb put Petitioner's name on the Motel's DNR list. Mr. Saleeb's testimony was credible. The following evening, on November 1, 2010, Petitioner attempted to rent another room at the Motel. At that time, Petitioner was told he would not be able to rent a room as he had been placed on the Motel's DNR list. No testimony, credible or otherwise, was offered that Petitioner was told that the refusal to rent a room to him was based on his race. Petitioner jumped to the conclusion that he had been discriminated against because of his race. He believed he had been denied a room at the Motel because he is African-American. He filed a complaint with the Commission about the incident. In his complaint, Petitioner said that he "was told that I couldn't rent a room at Motel 6 on November 1, 2010 because of my skin color, and I have proof wich [sic] is my witness that was there with me." However, this complaint information conflicts with the information that Petitioner provided to the Motel's guest relations department on November 2, 2010. In the guest relations contact report, it was recorded that: GST states last night, he tried to c/i to prop & was told by GSR that he cannot rent there. GST sd he asked why & was told it is based on past experience. GST asked GSR to elaborate & GSR said he had no further information. GST sd the last time he was at prop he had a room with his partner. GST sd he went to sit in his car right outside the rm to made a call to get a better signal. While he was sitting in the car, a police officer came up to the car & opened the door & asked him why he was sitting in his car & did he have a room there. GST sd he told the officer that he did have the room right in front of the car & was making a call from the car because there was a better signal. The officer told GST he had to go back inside his room. GST sd other people were outside their rooms. GST sd when he C/O he told GSR about the officer being rude & opening his car door. GST sd he does not understand any of this. GST said there is no reason for him to not be able to rent at property. GST said he was told he cannot rent there last night about 11 p.m. & the man at the F/D was named Nabeel. Petitioner did not present any witnesses to testify despite repeated opportunities to do so. According to Robert Wade (Mr. Wade), the general manager of the Motel, his primary concern is for the safety and welfare of all the guests on his property, as well as for the safety and welfare of his employees. Mr. Wade confirmed that he is in the business of renting rooms in order to make money; the more money the business brings in, the more his bonus (and the bonuses of his employees) will be. Thus, he wants to rent rooms to customers; however, he must be able to maintain the property in a manner that customers will want to stay at the property. Mr. Wade receives a security report every day from the security officer who was on duty the previous night. Based on this security report, Mr. Wade knows if there are broken lights on the property that need to be fixed, parking lot issues to be addressed or other maintenance issues that should be resolved to ensure the property is well maintained. Additionally, he reviews the security report to review any incidents involving Motel guests or other activities. Upon receipt of the security officer's report of October 31, 2010, Mr. Wade became aware of an incident in the parking lot involving Petitioner. Mr. Wade interviewed Mr. Saleeb and the security officer, Willie Wilson, in order to understand the circumstances. A day later, Mr. Wade was contacted by the Motel's guest relations office regarding a complaint that Petitioner had lodged on November 2, 2011. Based on his own investigation into the facts and circumstances regarding Petitioner being placed on the Motel's DNR list, Mr. Wade determined that it was in the best interest of the Motel that Petitioner be on the Motel's DNR list. Mr. Wade's testimony is credible. There are other Motel guests who are on the DNR list for similar and other reasons. Those guests who are put on the Motel's DNR list based on an infraction of a Motel policy are banned from the property for one year. However, guests whose names are provided by law enforcement for the Motel's DNR list are banned for up to three years. Neither of Petitioner's names is currently on the Motel's DNR list. During the hearing as the facts were presented, Petitioner did not appear to grasp the concept that his placement on the DNR list was a result of his encounter with the security officer in the parking lot which resulted in his loud, aggressive, and disruptive behavior in the Motel lobby in front of Mr. Saleeb and other Motel guests. Petitioner had stayed at the Motel for six consecutive nights. Unfortunately on the sixth night, Petitioner engaged in behavior that caused a disturbance, and he was placed on the DNR list. Petitioner contacted the Motel's guest relations department on November 2, 2010, to complain about his inability to rent a room at the Motel on November 1, 2010. During that November 2, 2010, telephone conversation, Petitioner specifically recalled his issue with the Motel security officer. Yet during the hearing, Petitioner evaded questions about any contact with the security officer, claiming he "might have come across a security guard." Petitioner did not answer questions in a concise manner and evaded answering some questions all together. Thus, his testimony is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Emanuel Sessions in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 December, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has forfeited his rights and benefits under the Florida Retirement System (FRS) pursuant to Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the hearing, on the stipulations of the parties, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following factual findings are made: Respondent is charged with managing, governing, and administering the FRS. The FRS is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. The Duval County School Board (DCSB) employed Petitioner as a teacher at Ribault High School. As a teacher, Petitioner was subject to the Code of Ethics of the Education Profession in Florida found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.001. Petitioner also was subject to the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006. Petitioner’s employment with the DCSB began on or about August 19, 1986. By reason of this employment, Petitioner was enrolled in the FRS as a Regular Class member. On or about December 7, 2001, Petitioner was arrested in connection with Officer David Coarsey's sworn information, which provided as follows in relevant part: On 12-07-01, Lt. Remolde called the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Sex Crimes Office and stated that a student at Ribault High School had reported to the principal, Mr. Ken Brockington, that she had penile/vaginal intercourse with this suspect. On 12-07-01, I arrived at Ribault High School and interviewed the victim. She stated that approximately three weeks ago, she went to the suspect’s classroom at his request after school hours. The suspect asked the victim to help him with some of his work. While she was there, the suspect put his arm around the victim and began rubbing her waist. The suspect then began talking to the victim about sex. The suspect then put his hand up the victim’s skirt and inserted his finger in her vagina. The suspect also pulled the victim’s shirt and bra down and “sucked” on her breast. The victim said that she did not attempt to stop the suspect. The victim then told the suspect, “I don't think we should do this”, and she walked out of the room. Approximately one week later, the suspect asked the victim to come back to his classroom after school. When the victim arrived at the room, the suspect began “rubbing” on the victim’s body. The victim stated that the suspect retrieved a condom from a “grey file cabinet” and then sat down in a chair. The suspect pulled his penis out and the victim put the condom on his penis. The victim pulled her shorts down and sat on the suspect’s lap, at which time the suspect put his penis in the victim’s vagina. After having penile/vaginal intercourse with the suspect for a short period of time, the victim stood up and the suspect masturbated until he ejaculated. On 12-07-01, the victim met the suspect in the “Book Room”. The suspect pulled the victim’s shirt and bra down and “sucked” on her breast. The suspect then pulled his penis out of his pants and asked the victim to masturbate him. The victim masturbated the suspect until he ejaculated. The victim wiped the suspect’s semen off of her hands with a paper towel and threw it in the trash can in the “Book Room”. The victim then left the room and reported the incident to a substitute teacher, Mr. Carlos Bowers (12-25- 59, 3701 Winton Dr., B/M), who in turn, reported it to the principal, Mr. Brockington. The victim stated to me that all of the sexual encounters with the suspect were consensual. I retrieved the trash bag that contained the above mentioned paper towel from the “Book Room” and put it in the JSO Property Room. The suspect was transported to the JSO Sex Crimes Office by Officer D.W. Holsey #6044 and I transported the victim to the Sex Crimes Office. I contacted the victim’s mother and asked her to come to the JSO Sex Crimes Office. When she arrived, she transported the victim to the Child Crisis Center for a medical exam (swabs of the victim’s breasts). I advised the suspect of his constitutional rights and asked him to sign the rights form. The suspect signed the form and agreed to speak to me and Det. Romano #7527 about the allegations. The suspect admitted to having penile/vaginal intercourse with victim one time, “sucking” on the victim’s breast on two different occasions, and rubbing on her vagina once. The suspect stated that all of the sexual encounters happened at the school. The suspect stated, “It was a huge mistake, my life is fucked”. The suspect gave a written statement in regards to having penile/vaginal intercourse with the victim. The suspect was arrested and transported to the PTDF. The information reported in the sworn information truly and accurately recounts the events that occurred and to which Petitioner admitted. The arrest and booking report is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, in the case styled and numbered State of Florida v. Arthur John Marsland, Jr., Case No. 2002-599-CFA. Petitioner resigned his employment with the DCSB on or about December 27, 2001, effective on or about January 15, 2002. By reason of his employment with DCSB, Petitioner earned approximately 15.80 years of service credit in the FRS. On or about February 14, 2002, Petitioner was charged, by amended information, in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, in case number 2002-599-CFA, with (a) one count of sexual battery, a second-degree felony, in violation of Section 794.011(8)(b), Florida Statutes; and (b) one count of lewd or lascivious molestation, a second-degree felony, in violation of Section 800.04(5)(c)2., Florida Statutes. The amended information provided in relevant part: HARRY.L. SHORSTEIN, State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, in and for Duval County, charges that ARTHUR JOHN MARSLAND, JR, on or between the 1st day of November, 2001 and the 7th day of December, 2001, in the County of Duval and the State of Florida, did, while in a position of familial or custodial authority, engage in an act which constitutes Sexual Battery with * * * a person 12 years of age or older, but less than 18 years of age, by placing his penis in or upon the vagina of * * * contrary to the provisions of Section 794.011(8)(b), Florida Statutes. SECOND COUNT And for the second count of this information, your informant further charges that ARTHUR JOHN MARSLAND, JR., a person 18 years of age or older, on or between the 1st day of November, 2001 and the 7th day. Of December, 2001, in the County of Duval and the State of Florida, did in a lewd or lascivious manner force or entice * * * a child l2 years of age or older, but less than 16 years of age, to touch the genital area or clothing covering the genital area of Defendant, contrary to the provisions of Section 800.04(5)(c)2, Florida Statutes. The amended information is filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, in the case styled and numbered State of Florida v. Arthur John Marsland, Jr., Case No. 2002-599-CFA. The victim of the alleged crimes was a student at the school where Petitioner taught. The alleged crimes took place in Petitioner's classroom or in the book room at the school where Petitioner taught. On or about April 8, 2002, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the second count of the amended information. Petitioner pled guilty because he was in fact guilty. Petitioner made the plea freely and voluntarily. On or about April 29, 2002, judgment was entered on Petitioner’s guilty plea. He was adjudicated guilty. The judgment and corrected order of sex offender probation are filed in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, in the case styled and numbered State of Florida v. Arthur John Marsland, Jr., Case No. 2002-599-CFA. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that, but for his job position as a teacher, he “probably [would] not” have had an opportunity to have sexual relations with a student in the school’s classroom or book room. Petitioner also admitted that having sexual relations with one of his students was “obviously not” one of his duties and responsibilities as a teacher. Petitioner wrote three letters of apology in connection with the matter. He apologized in writing to the victim, to his spouse, and the DCSB. On or about September 27, 2002, Charlie Crist, as Commissioner of Education, filed an Administrative Complaint, before the Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida, in case number 02-0681-RT. The complaint sought disciplinary action against Petitioner’s educator’s certificate. The Administrative Complaint charged Petitioner in part with the following statutory and rule violations: STATUTORY VIOLATIONS COUNT 1: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. COUNT 2: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has been convicted of a misdemeanor, felony, or other criminal charge, other than a minor traffic violation. COUNT 3: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent, upon investigation, has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. COUNT 4: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(i), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida prescribed by State Board of Education. COUNT 5: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Section 231.2615(1)(j), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent has otherwise violated the provisions of law, the penalty for which is the revocation of the teaching certificate. COUNT 6: Section 231.2615(2), Florida Statutes, provides that the plea of guilty in any court or a decision of guilty by any court is prima facie proof of grounds for the revocation of the certificate. RULE VIOLATIONS COUNT 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B- 1.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to have his primary professional concern always be for the student and for the development of the student’s potential and has failed to seek to exercise the best judgment and integrity. COUNT 8: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B- 1.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, in the Respondent has failed to be aware of the importance of maintaining the respect and confidence of his colleagues, of students, of parents, and of other members of the community and that Respondent has failed to achieve and sustain the highest degree of ethical conduct. COUNT 9: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student’s mental health and/or physical safety. COUNT 10: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. COUNT 11: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B- 1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code, in that Respondent has exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. The Administrative Complaint is filed with the Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida in case number 02-0681-RT. In consideration of the Administrative Complaint, the Education Practices Commission entered a Final Order permanently revoking Petitioner’s educator’s certificate. The Final Order is filed with the Education Practices Commission of the State of Florida in case number 02-0681-RT. On or about October 20, 2003, Petitioner applied for early service retirement. Petitioner’s effective date of retirement was established as November 1, 2003. By certified letter dated May 2, 2008, Respondent notified Petitioner of the intended action to forfeit his FRS rights and benefits as a result of his guilty plea. The Division suspended payment of Petitioner’s monthly retirement benefits in May 2008. Petitioner had received approximately $41,309.56 in FRS retirement benefits from November 2003 through April 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner was convicted of a specified offense pursuant to Section 112.3173, Florida Statutes, and directing the forfeiture of his FRS rights and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey M. Christian, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Arthur J. Marsland, Jr. 1856 B Hereford Road Middleburg, Florida 32068-3104 Sarabeth Snuggs, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee,, Florida 32315-9000 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On June 21, 1991, petitioner, Department of Transportation (DOT), issued a notice to show cause alleging that a sign owned by respondent, Florida Roadmaster Inn Services Corporation (respondent or corporation), was in violation of the law because respondent had not obtained a permit. The sign is located north of the southbound exit ramp at the intersection of State Road 143 and Interstate Highway 75 (I-75) in Jennings, Florida, which is the first exit on I-75 after entering the State. The parties have stipulated that the structure meets the definition of a sign, I-75 is a part of the federal interstate system, the sign is within 660 feet of I-75, and on the date the notice to show cause was issued respondent did not have a permit from petitioner to erect the sign. The facts giving rise to this dispute are somewhat lengthy and are set forth in the following findings. The sign poles on which the sign is attached were erected in the northwestern quadrant of the intersection on an undisclosed date in 1988 by Victor J. Patel, who is the nephew of Dr. Arvind B. Patel, the secretary of and a 50% shareholder in the corporation. 1/ However, Dr. Patel acknowledged at hearing that he furnished his nephew with the capital necessary to erect the sign. At that time, a Best Western motel owned by Shree Realty, Inc., in which Dr. Patel's wife and nephew are principals, was located across the street on the south side of State Road 143 in the southwestern quadrant of the intersection and was managed by Victor. Although the motel then and now has its own sign, that sign is not visible to motorists traveling on I-75. The copy (printed message) on the sign which is in dispute here originally carried the logo of Best Western and a smaller message reading "North Florida Information Center". The smaller message was intended to advertise a small building at the foot of the sign which had also been built by Victor (with his uncle's capital) in 1988 and which was used as a tourist information center in conjunction with the motel. On an undisclosed date in 1990, Shree Realty, Inc. leased the motel to Jennings Motel Corporation (JMC), in which Bruce Haydon, J. Cary Parrish and George D. Haydon were principals. At the same time, the motel's name was changed to "Roadmaster Inn". A few months later, or around September 1990, the printed message on respondent's sign was changed to read "Roadmaster Inn" while underneath that message on a smaller sign were the words "North Fl. Tourist Inn- Fo". The issuance of the notice to show cause came about when a DOT outdoor advertising inspector, Glenel Bowden, had occasion to observe the change in the copy on the sign. After Bowden made a preliminary investigation, he concluded that the sign required a permit because it was an "off-premises sign", and because no permit tag was affixed to the sign, he recommended that a notice to show cause be issued. His recommendation was accepted, and the district administrator for outdoor advertising signed a notice to show cause on June 21, 1991. On the theory that the printed message merely reflected the name of the entity which was engaged in providing services on the premises, and thus the corporation was entitled to an exemption from permitting requirements under Subsection 479.16(1), Florida Statutes, respondent requested a hearing to contest the agency's preliminary determination. In order to qualify for an exemption of the nature sought by respondent, the owner of a sign must generally show that a business is being conducted on the premises (land) where the sign is located, the sign carries the name and is an integral part of the establishment, and the business is the only activity being conducted on the premises. In this regard, it is agreed that no other businesses are located on the premises except the questioned activities of respondent. In addition, the building in which the activity is being conducted must meet the minimum requirements of the Southern Building Code. As to this latter requirement, DOT stated at hearing that it does not contest the structural integrity of the building. However, it is DOT's position that there is no legitimate business activity being conducted on the premises by the corporation, and that the sign is actually being used to promote the motel business across the street. Respondent is a Florida corporation formed on July 3, 1990. The articles of incorporation state that the corporation's nature of business is to "engage in consulting and marketing services to the lodging industry and any other related consulting and marketing to the food, fuel and lodging industries." It also lists the location of the sign (I-75 and SR 143, Route 1, Box 222A, Jennings, Florida) as its principal place of business. The corporation has two shareholders, Dr. Patel, who resides in Hoffman Estates, Illinois (the greater Chicago area) and serves as secretary, and James T. Bounds, a self-employed business consultant who works out of his home in Ocala, Florida, and serves as president of the corporation. Both men own 50% of the shares of stock and are the only two directors. The corporation has never had any employees on its payroll. Although the corporation received a federal taxpayer identification number in 1990, a return has never been filed since the corporation has never generated any income. Likewise, it has no corporate checking or bank account nor a telephone number in its corporate name. In addition, it has no occupational license from the City of Jennings or Hamilton County. The corporate assets consist of a leasehold interest in an easement to and the property on which the sign sits, marketing aids, presentation material and brochures, all of unknown value. According to Bounds, who is identified as the corporation's registered agent at his Ocala address, his contribution to the corporation (in return for one-half of the stock) is personal services in the form of travel expenses incurred to perform "marketing services". He estimated he has contributed between $30,000 and $50,000 in the form of marketing service expenses since the inception of the corporation. On the other hand, Dr. Patel claimed a personal contribution in the corporation of approximately $30,000 to $40,000 in return for his share of the stock. This amount was derived by taking the bills Dr. Patel had paid for publications, maintenance, utilities, interest on the sign and building and the like. Because they are "good friends", Bounds and Dr. Patel have no written agreement defining each other's contributions to the corporation nor stating who is responsible for providing a particular service or paying bills. The site of the sign was chosen because of its high visibility and close proximity to I-75 on which numerous truckers and tourists enter the state. According to Bounds, who takes credit for originating the idea for the business, the purpose of the corporation is to market a service to various motels, including Roadmaster Inns, and secure agreements or contracts from truckers to use those motel facilities at a reduced rate. If successful in its endeavors, the corporation would guarantee a 20% - 30% weekly occupancy rate for the motels that use its services. As an aid in communicating with the truckers and other motorists, the corporation represents that if it prevails in this action, it intends to secure a radio license from the Federal Communications Commission and operate a special low-frequency broadcasting station at the small building to give additional information on the corporation's services to passing motorists within a five mile radius who tune in that frequency on their radios. An employee would be stationed in the building to hand out brochures and to communicate with truckers via the radio. Bounds added that the corporation is also seeking to secure a trademark on the name "Roadmaster Inns" with the U. S. Patent Office, and once obtained, the corporation will seek to market Roadmaster Inn franchises. As of the date of hearing, Bounds represented that the corporation had registered the name "Roadmaster Inn" in the states of Florida and Georgia. Bounds is responsible for the day to day management of the corporation. He acknowledged that his activities to date on behalf of the corporation consist of making "direct calls" (presumably by telephone from his home or automobile) on trucking companies at their place of business in an attempt to secure contracts for the drivers to use various motels at reduced rates. Because the corporation has no telephone, Bounds advises potential clients to contact him at his Ocala home. Except for speaking with a developer in Tampa a week prior to hearing about building a Roadmaster Inn at a Tampa development project, there were no other specifics given regarding Bounds' corporate activities. Indeed, there is no evidence that, since the corporation was formed almost two years ago, any contracts have been executed by trucking companies or other entities, that any motels have agreed to use the services of the corporation, or that any Roadmaster Inn franchises have been sold. This is confirmed by the fact that the corporation has never generated any revenue. Various brochures have been printed and distributed ostensibly on behalf of the corporation. One brochure merely advertises a Roadmaster Inn owned by Dr. Patel and located in Valdosta, Georgia, while another advertises the Roadmaster Inn in Jennings, Florida. Both carry the same "800" telephone number, which is answered by the reservationist at a Roadway Inn whose location is not of record. Neither brochure makes reference to the corporation or its services. A third brochure advertises the brand name "Roadmaster Inn" and gives a post office box in Des Plaines, Illinois as its address. According to Dr. Patel, this brochure has generated "several inquiries a week" at his office in Des Plaines. Again, however, the brochure does not carry the corporation's name and simply provides advertising for the generic name "Roadmaster Inn". It is noteworthy that no advertisement offered into evidence at hearing reflects the corporation address as the same address where the sign is erected. As noted earlier, the building at the base of the sign was once used by the Best Western motel as a "tourist information center" at which pamphelets describing various tourist attractions were handed out to motorists just entering the State. According to Bounds, the building was originally designed to accommodate one person to hand out information brochures to the public and communicate with truck drivers by CB radio from a low frequency radio tower. However, a CB radio has never been installed. The building, which was described by Bounds as being "very small" and by Bowden as being around 8' x 12' in size with a counter, display case for pamphelets and two chairs, has electricity, running water, air-conditioning, restroom facilities, and an access ramp for the handicapped. Although there has been no telephone at the building for some time, Victor Patel, the former manager of the motel, claimed that prior to July 1991 there was a telephone in the building "off and on". The easiest route from State Road 143 to the building is on a road which runs through a trailer park located off of State Road 143. However, the corporation was denied use of that road by the park's owner and consequently anyone desiring to visit the premises must use an unlighted, unmarked and unpaved "track" which runs along a fence on State Road 143. The track, which crosses a large drainage ditch, is actually an easement assigned to the corporation by Dr. Patel and is discussed in a subsequent finding. There are no signs directing members of the public on how to travel to the building. In this regard, Bounds agreed that access to the land on which the sign and building are located is not "particularly easy" for members of the public. The corporation has never had an employee since its formation. At one time, an elderly individual, Roy Cammeron, spent several hours per day for almost a year manning the booth. Despite Dr. Patel's suggestion to the contrary, 2/ it may be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Cammeron was an employee of the motel since the building key was kept at the motel and Cammeron was required to pick up and return the key after each visit to the building, he was supervised by the motel's manager, Victor J. Patel, who monitored Cammeron's activities, and Cammeron maintained constant communications with Victor by walkie-talkie. Also, Victor stated that one of Cammeron's duties was to hand out motel brochures. Besides Cammeron, Bounds contended that on undisclosed occasions he visited the building "usually" twice a week for unspecified purposes. However, he conceded that business on behalf of the corporation is conducted out of his home. At hearing, Dr. Patel denied that he has any ownership interest in the Roadmaster Inn which is located across the street from the corporation's sign. However, the corporation which owns the motel and leases the same to JMC uses the same address in Hoffman Estates, Illinois as does Dr. Patel, and Dr. Patel testified that he participated on behalf of Shree Realty, Inc. in its negotiations with JMC for the lease of the property in 1990 and for a promissory note later executed by two JMC principals in favor of Shree Realty on November 27, 1991. These considerations and further testimony given by Dr. Patel (see, for example, page 119 of transcript) support a finding that Dr. Patel either owns or exercises control over the motel. The land on which the sign and building are located is actually owned by Willie and Martha Butler who reside in Jennings. On July 22, 1988, they leased for a period of twenty years the land and an easement for access to the property to Victor L. Patel. 3/ The lease authorized Victor to construct a sign. The following day, Victor leased for a period of 48 months his interest in the land and easement to his uncle, who then furnished Victor with $80,000 to construct the sign and small building a short time later. By an undated and unwitnessed typed addendum to the lease, but presumably after July 3, 1990, Dr. Patel purportedly assigned his rights in the lease to the corporation. According to Bruce Haydon, who represented he is president of JMC, that entity has no proprietary interest in the sign. However, under the terms of its lease with Shree Realty, Inc., JMC is obligated to pay the electric bill for the illuminated sign and the monthly lease payments owed the Butlers under the real property lease originally executed by the Butlers and Victor Patel in July 1988. Although the lease was not offered into evidence, these terms were confirmed by Dr. Patel. The corporation does not directly receive the JMC payments. However, even though there is no formal agreement between JMC and the corporation, by making these payments, JMC effectively relieves the corporation (as the leaseholder) of the responsibility of paying the sign's electric bill and the cost of the easement to its premises. The lease provides further that if the sign is removed as a result of a proceeding such as this, there will be no reduction in the amount of lease payments owed by JWC. At hearing, Haydon also contended that Dr. Patel orally agreed that if the motel acquires an Econo Lodge franchise, as it now plans to do, and changes its name from Roadmaster Inn to Econo Lodge, Dr. Patel will change the copy on the sign to "Econo Lodge". Dr. Patel denied this assertion. It should be noted that Dr. Patel (presumably on behalf of Shree Realty, Inc.) is now embroiled with Haydon and JMC in a "major" lawsuit over a substantial amount of money. Before erecting the sign, Dr. Patel spoke with Bowden, the DOT sign inspector. Bowden advised him that there must be a business conducted on the premises where the sign was erected in order for the sign to be legal. However, Bowden would not commit this advice to writing, and he told Dr. Patel that DOT would have to "evaluate" the matter once the sign was erected in order to see if it was legal. Thus, there were no representations by DOT to respondent regarding the type of activities necessary for respondent to obtain an exemption, there was no later change in position by DOT, and therefore respondent could not have relied on such representations to its detriment. Based on the foregoing matters, it is found that there were no meaningful business activities conducted by the corporation on the premises where the sign is located either on or before June 19, 1991, when the notice to show cause was issued, or from that time forward to the date of final hearing. To the extent any activities have been conducted on behalf of the corporation, these have been conducted at such places as Ocala, Florida, and Des Plaines, Illinois. Therefore, it is found that the sign and its message are not an integral part of a business being conducted on the premises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying respondent's request for an exemption and ordering the removal of respondent's sign located at State Road 143 and I-75 in Jennings, Florida. DONE AND ORDERED this 24th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 24th day of March, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner, a 52 year-old male, on the basis of sex and age in its promotional practices.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Raymond Balaguer, is a 52 year-old male. He is a law enforcement officer with the title of Special Agent with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He has held that position in the Jacksonville District Office for approximately the last thirty (30) years. The Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Agency), is the governmental agency charged with the regulation and enforcement of Chapters 561, 562 and 563, Florida Statutes. At all times material, the Agency was the employer of the Petitioner and Special Agent Elizabeth Doyle. Elizabeth Doyle is a 39 year-old female. At all times pertinent, she was a law enforcement officer with the title of Special Agent with the Agency. In May of 1994, the Agency considered applications for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant for the Jacksonville District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Pursuant to Department of Management Services rules and the Police Benevolent Association contract, all candidates for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant were required to take and pass a law enforcement sergeant's written examination in order to be eligible for the class. The Agency's procedure was to select an interview panel to interview those candidates achieving the five highest numerical scores on the written law enforcement sergeant's examination who have applied for a vacant position in the specific county. Immediately after the interviews, the panel considered and discussed the applicants' test scores, interviews, and personnel files. The panel recommended to the Division's Director the most suitable candidate for promotion to the open position. The Petitioner, a male at age 52, applied for promotion to the position of law enforcement sergeant in the Jacksonville District Office. The Petitioner received a score of 74 percent on the written law enforcement sergeant's exam. The Petitioner had 26 1/2 years of experience with the Division, and significant formal education to include a Master's degree. Petitioner had additional administrative experience as a warrant officer in the active Marine Reserve. The Petitioner had served on a state wide Department Committee to study licensing policy and procedure. The Petitioner has completed all required in-service training. Special Agent Doyle, a female at age 39, applied for promotion to the same vacant position of law enforcement sergeant in the Jacksonville District Office. Special Agent Doyle received a score of 85 percent on the law enforcement sergeant's exam. She had six years of experience with the Department. She received the highest written examination score of the candidates who applied for and interviewed for the Jacksonville position. She did not have a baccalaureate degree. The Department has traditionally emphasized formal education as a basis for promotion. Special Agent Doyle and the Petitioner and three other candidates were interviewed by the same interview panel composed of the three Bureau Chiefs in the Division and two Captains. The panel asked all of the candidates the same questions relating to a law enforcement sergeant's duties. Special Agent Doyle filed a resume of her accomplishments with the panel. The Petitioner was not advised of the opportunity to file a resume with the panel and did not do so. Special Agent Doyle had a very strong interview, and answered the questions put to her in a manner that impressed the panel while the Petitioner's interview was unremarkable. The panel considered the applicants' test scores, interviews and personnel files. There was no consideration of the candidates' formal education. The panel discussed the five candidates for promotion to the Jacksonville District Office law enforcement sergeant position. The panel considered Special Agent Doyle's resume. The panel unanimously determined Special Agent Doyle was the most suitable candidate for the promotion. The panel forwarded its unanimous recommendation to the Division's Director to promote Special Agent Doyle. The Division Director promoted Special Agent Doyle to the position of sergeant for the Jacksonville District Office in the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Special Agent Doyle was considered "highly motivated" because of seeking a position as training officer. Licensing is an integral part of the duties of a law enforcement sergeant. Special Agent Doyle was considered skilled in licensing as a result of being a training officer and her scores on the examination and interview. The Petitioner's supervisor of 11 years, who interviewed both Special Agent Doyle and the Petitioner, found the Petitioner was not as skilled in licensing as Special Agent Doyle not because his answers were wrong, but because they reflected a management style or approach which was less compatible with his than was Special Agent Doyle's management style. No direct evidence was presented that anyone suggested the selection of Special Agent Doyle to the members of the interviewing panel or attempted to influence the panel's selection of Special Agent Doyle. Evidence was received that the Agency was not under any court or commission order to employee minorities. The supervisor testified that another member of the panel stated that promotion of Doyle would help the Department meet its equal opportunity goals regarding the promotion of minorities. In June of 1994 at the time of Special Agent Doyle's promotion, the Agency employed 19 sergeants. Of that number, 17 were males and two were female. Of those 17 sergeants, nine were age 40 or older when they were promoted, and four of the nine were age 50 or older when they were promoted. Sgt. Doyle was subsequently discharged for reasons relating to her conduct.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter its Final Order directing that: The Agency cease and desist from gender discrimination; and The Agency promote the Petitioner to sergeant in the Jacksonville office. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Balaguer 4860 Brighton Drive Jacksonville, FL 32217-4712 William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the American Legion Post No. 4 on March 17, 1967 and remained so employed through November 15, 1972. During this period, American Legion Post No. 4 was under contract with the Polk County Tax Collector to sell automobile tags, hunting and fishing licenses, boat registrations, etc., as an agent of the Tax Collector; and to remit funds so collected to the Tax Collector. Although these collections were remitted to the Tax Collector, in many instances checks from American Legion Post No. 4 were made payable to the Department of Motor Vehicles. The contract between the Tax Collector and American Legion Post No. 4 was a five year contract which was renewed for an additional five years on June 1, 1972. At this time, Petitioner was the manager of the tax collection agency run by American Legion Post No. 4. Irregularities in the operation of this tag agency led to an FBI investigation which culminated in the Tax Collector cancelling the contract with American Legion Post No. 4 on November 15, 1972. Effective November 16, 1972, the former employees at the American Legion tag agency, including Petitioner, were employed by the Polk County Tax Collector and enrolled in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). While employed by American Legion Post No. 4, neither Petitioner, nor her employer, contributed to a retirement system; and Petitioner was not entitled to leave benefits prescribed for state or county employees.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petition of Betty Lou Brown for retirement credit for the period 1967 through 1972 while she was employed by the American Legion Post No. 4 be denied. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty Lou Brown 2290 South Hunt Point Crystal River, FL 32629 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street Cedars Executive Center Building C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 A. J. McMullian III Director Division of Retirement 2639 North Monroe Street Cedars Executive Center Building C Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 John A. Pieno Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue The issues in this cause are those as set forth in the attached copy of the administrative complaint, which is made a part of this recommended order for purposes of setting out the issues to be considered.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Real Estate Commission, is an agency of the State of Florida, and has filed this administrative complaint as Petitioner against the licensee, United Jax Rentals, Inc., a registered corporate broker which holds license number 069690; Thomas J. Capobianco, a registered broker and active firm member of United Jax Rentals, Inc., who holds license nos. 0157568, 0157767, 0168549, 0168551 and 0169691; Bruce K. Lammert, who holds license no. 0177625 as a salesman; Richard L. Levinger, who holds license no. 0175791, as a salesman; Deborah K. Parnell, who holds license no. 0177268, as a salesman and Rose J. Vines, who holds license no. 0139543, as a salesman. This action is for the suspension or revocation or other discipline of the above named Respondents who are holders of the referenced licenses. The administrative complaint contains 27 counts which are more specifically detailed in the attached copy of the administrative complaint. Count one of the administrative complaint is an allegation against United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Thomas J Capobianco for matters pertaining to transactions between United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Reaves L. Mathison and Nancy A. Mathison. To prove the material facts found in the allegation which is count one, the Petitioner offered as evidence the depositions of Trenner J. Thompkins and Kathleen E. McDavid. These depositions are found as Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, denied admission as evidence. The reason for the denial of the depositions was based, upon the fact that the depositions are a heresy report of a conversation between the Mathisons and representatives of United Jax Rentals, Inc., as made by the witnesses Thompkins and McDavid. Because these depositions are the only testimony offered to prove the allegations of count one and are not offered for the purpose of supplementing competent evidence, they may not be relied upon to arrive at conclusions about material disputes in fact. This prohibition is set out in Chapter 120.58, Florida Statutes. Therefore, there has been insufficient proof to establish any violations as alleged in count one of the administrative complaint. Count two accuses Thomas J. Capobianco and United Jax Rentals, Inc. of violating Sections 475.25(1)(d) and (2), Florida Statutes. This violation is alleged to have occurred when the Respondent Thomas J. Capobianco submitted an application to be the corporate broker for United Jax Rentals, Inc., in October, 1976. Through that application, Capobianco listed the residence of the President of the corporation, who at that time was John MacDermott, as being 1642 North Main Street, Jacksonville, Florida. In fact that address was the business address of the corporation, United Jax Rentals, Inc. as opposed to the residence address of John MacDermott. Although this is a misstatement, it is not the type of misstatement which when considered in view of the truth of the matter, should have caused the rejection of the application. Therefore, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there is any violation of Sections 477.25(1)(d) and (2), Florida Statutes. (The matters set out in the application may be found as part of Petitioners Composite Exhibit 3, which is admitted into evidence.) Count three pertains to a certain transaction between United Jax Rentals, Inc. and J.P. and Anna Williams. Mrs. Williams testified that she had contacted Rose J. Vines, one of the employees of United Jax Rentals, Inc. Mrs. Williams explained to Ms. Vines that she had a house for rent and after discussion was entered into, Ms. Vines advised her what she considered to be a reasonable rental price that should be placed. That amount of rental was $250. Mrs. Williams testified that Ms. Vines stated that there would be no charged by the United Jax Rentals, Inc. for renting Mrs. Williams' house. A tenant was found and a contract was entered into with that tenant. A copy of the contract may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 5, admitted into evidence. (The contract was with one David Ebanks who had paid United Jax Rentals, Inc. for finding him a place to live.) The Petitioner's Exhibit 9, admitted into evidence, shows the disbursement of certain funds collected from Ebanks and reflects a $250 commission in behalf of United Jax Rentals, Inc. The signature on that form is that of Richard L. Levinger an employee of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and a Respondent in this cause. Mrs. Williams also indicated that someone named Bruce took Mr. Ebanks to see the property prior to the rental contract being consummated. Beyond this testimony, no information was given about the involvement of United Jax Rentals, Inc., Thomas J. Capobianco or other members of the firm as alleged in the action clause of the count. In the absence of more specific information which tended to describe the involvement of United Jax Rentals, Inc., Thomas J Capobianco, Bruce K. Lammert, and Richard L. Levinger, the Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing of a violation of Section 475(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, or Rule 21V-10.13, Florida Administrative Code. No testimony was offered on the allegations set forth in count four, consequently no proof of violations of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, has been established. Count five alleges that one Delores Logan paid an agent of the Respondent United Jax Rentals, Inc. $50 as a fee to find a rental property for her. The terms of the agreement between the representative of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Ms. Logan may be found in the Petitioner's Exhibit 19, admitted into evidence. One of the special conditions of that agreement was that the property must fit the requirements of Ms. Logan or $45 of the $50 fee would be refunded. The particular requirement was that the dwelling be a single level home. Testimony shows that the property was actually for the benefit of one of her sisters; however, that is not a factor so crucial in nature that it would cause the proof of the allegation to fail. The contract document also gave the appearance that the refund should have been rendered by September 15, 1977. It was hard to determine from the testimony whether that condition was absolute; nonetheless, it is apparent that Ms. Logan had requested the refund in and around the month of September, 1977 and was not afforded the refund until November, 1977. Ms. Logan dealt with someone at the United Jax Rentals, Inc. office whom she referred to as being "Larry". "Larry" gave her three addresses and she went to the first one and discovered someone was already residing there. She went to another address on that list of three or four addresses and found the house was a two-story house. The third location of the group of listings was also a two-story house and was thus unsatisfactory. She went back to United Jax Rentals, Inc. and got another list and one of the addresses on Crestwood, Jacksonville, Florida, was found to be occupied. She went to a second place on the second list which was located at 16th Street and evidently did not find that listing to be satisfactory. After having no success with the two initial lists which were given to her by "Larry" she spoke to a person identified as "Bruce". "Bruce" said that he would get her a house, in the sense of giving her more listings. After a discussion, she demanded a refund from Bruce Lammert, whom she later determined was the "Bruce" that she had been dealing with. This is the same Bruce Lammert who is a named Respondent in this cause. Ms. Logan subsequently located a residence by means unrelated to the service of United Jax Rentals, Inc. After considering the allegations set forth in count five in view of the overall facts in the case to include the testimony pertaining to other counts within the complaint, it is concluded that Thomas J. Capobianco as active firm member of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and United Jax Rentals, Inc. through Mr. Capobianco are both guilty of culpable negligence as set out in Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. No other violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, has been shown. No violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, has been shown. In consideration of the facts offered in the discussion of count five of the administrative complaint, it is concluded that the Petitioner has failed to show violations as alleged in count six, on the part of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Thomas J. Capobianco, such actions having been alleged to be in violation of Section 475.25(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes. Count seven alleges that Deborah K. Parnell received a commission for showing houses to Larry and Clair Wells, after the Wellses had paid $40 on September 22, 1977 to the Respondent United Jax Rentals, Inc. This is felt to be a violation of the Petitioner's laws because at the time Respondent Parnell was registered as a salesman for Rental Finders, Inc. of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The Specific allegation is that it is a violation to operate as a salesman for a person or organization not registered as your employer. Consequently this constitutes a violation, according to the Petitioner, of Section 475.42(1) Florida Statutes, and Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The rental contract between the Wellses and the landlord, H. G. Johnson may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 7 and Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. The property had been shown to the Wellses by a member of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and the contract was signed by the Wellses at a time different than that when it was signed by Mr. Johnson. Nonetheless, the testimony by Mr. Johnson demonstrated that a person, established as being Deborah Parnell, did coordinate the matters of consummating the rental contract between Johnson and the Wellses and did this work in behalf of United Jax Rentals, Inc. at a time when Parnell was registered as a salesman for Rental Finders, Inc. in Ft. Lauderdale. This registration may be found as part of Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3, admitted into evidence. Therefore, Deborah Parnell is in violation of Section 475.42(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as implemented by Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The violation by Deborah Parnell established herein, also would cause a violation on the part of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Thomas J. Capobianco of the conditions found in Section 475.42(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as implemented by 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes; in that the corporation and acting broker were employing Deborah Parnell as a real estate salesman, who is not the holder of a valid current registration certificate as salesman for United Jax Rentals, Inc. These allegations pertain to count eight. Counts nine and ten charge violations for transactions involving James Weinheimer and his wife, in their dealings with United Jax Rentals, Inc. and employees of that firm. No testimony was offered concerning the transaction with James Weinheimer and his wife and consequently there was insufficient proof to establish a violation on the part of any of the named Respondents, concerning counts nine and ten. Likewise, in discussing counts eleven and twelve, involving Joyce Elifritz, there was no testimony offered concerning the transactions between United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Joyce Elifritz. Therefore, no violation has been established pertaining to counts eleven and twelve. Counts thirteen and fourteen pertain to a transaction between Beverly Morris and United Jax Rentals, Inc. On August 31, 1977 Beverly Morris paid United Jax Rentals, Inc. in the person of one "Larry", an employee of United Jax Rentals, Inc. the amount of $50 to attempt to obtain housing for her. The contract involved in this transaction, which is a second contract drawn between the parties, is found as Petitioner's Exhibit 17, admitted into evidence. This contract entitles her to receive listings from the United Jax Rentals, Inc. for a period of one year. The contract also indicated the method by which Ms. Morris could receive listings from the Respondent United Jax Rentals, Inc. Those listings would be given upon request. Sometime in September, 1977 Ms. Morris told the Respondent to cease honoring their contract with her and refund her money. She was unable to contact "Larry", but did speak with Bruce Lammert who advised her that she could see listings under the terms of her contract. She went back to United Jax Rentals, Inc. several times to get the money back and wrote a letter, but has never received a refund. She moved into an apartment in Jacksonville, Florida, in October, 1977 after locating this rental on her own. Upon consideration of the facts and the date of the transaction, Petitioner has failed to show that the Respondent Thomas J. Capobianco as active firm member and as a responsible agent of the Respondent United Jax Rentals, Inc. is guilty of a violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes, or that the named Respondents are in violation of Section 475.25 (1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in counts thirteen and fourteen respectively. The Respondents were not directly involved in the transactions, and an examination of the contract does not demonstrate that Ms. Morris was entitled to any refund of the $50 fee. Count fifteen pertains to transactions between Jack and Solette Jones and United Jax Rentals, Inc. This involved the payment of a $40 fee on September 12, 1977 in return for guaranteeing to show five prospective rentals which would meet with the requirements expressed by the Joneses. Among those requirements was that the rental property be air conditioned. This requirement is expressed in Petitioner's Exhibit 27, admitted into evidence. The parties discussed possible locations with the representatives of United Jax Rentals, Inc. They were told that one of the houses could not be seen until the next day; however, when they saw the house it was not satisfactory because it was unair- conditioned. The second house that they looked at was out of the price range that they had indicated and also unavailable for six weeks. The next day Ms. Jones called and found that there were no listings available. She called many times after that and tried to get her money back because she had been advised by one "John" that she could receive a refund. "John", who is an employee with United Jax Rentals, Inc., said that he would have to speak to the broker about getting the refund. Mrs. Jones additionally spoke to Rick Levinger, an employee with United Jax Rentals, Inc. Finally, she received a refund after a conversation with Bruce Lammert, who worked for United Jax Rentals, Inc. The efforts by the employees of United Jax Rentals, Inc. to honor the terms of the contract were not satisfactory to the extent that it is concluded that the Petitioner has shown violations as alleged in count fifteen, on the part of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Thomas J. Capobianco, such actions having been alleged to be in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes. The violations are as to Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, only. Counts sixteen and seventeen allege violations of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, pertaining to transactions between United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Howard Peake. No testimony was given about the matter of Howard Peake, therefore counts sixteen and seventeen have not been proven. Counts eighteen and nineteen of the administrative complaint pertain to the transaction between Betty Ross and United Jax Rentals, Inc. Ms. Ross paid $35 to an employee of United Jax Rentals, Inc. whose name was "Rose". The payment of $35 was for purposes of having United Jax Rentals, Inc. locate a residence for Ms. Ross. The contract period was for one month in which the Respondent United Jax Rentals, Inc. was to find a residence for Ms. Ross. The first location address given already had someone living there. The second location on Division Street, Jacksonville, Florida, was provided by United Jax Rentals, Inc. Ms. Ross did not bother to call that address. The next day she saw the address of Division Street in the paper under a separate listing than that of United Jax Rentals, Inc. The Division Street address was not going to be vacant for a month. Consequently, Ms. Ross, on the Saturday following the initial contact with United Jax Rentals, Inc. went and demanded her money back from "Rose". The following week after the Saturday contact, Ms. Ross continued to make inquiry about having her money returned but that refund was never forthcoming from United Jax Rentals, Inc. The contact included discussions with Bruce Lammert. The contract that was signed was not produced in the hearing, nonetheless, the form of contract was one for providing listings, such as has been entered in the case of the named individuals in the previous counts. Ms. Ross finally moved in with her sister in October, 1977 and subsequently located her own apartment prior to Christmas, 1977. The Respondent United Jax Rentals, Inc. had been given two days to try to locate a residence for Ms. Ross. After a full consideration of the testimony by Ms. Ross it is concluded that only Rose J. Vines of the Respondent who are alleged to have violated Section 475.25(1)(a) and (d) Florida Statutes, as alleged in count eighteen is guilty of a violation and she only as to Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes. No showing has been made that the other Respondents did not perform their part of the contract or that they failed to deliver money which was due and owing to Betty Ross, as alleged in count nineteen pertaining to Section 475.25(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes. Count twenty pertains to transactions between Linda Johnson and United Jax Rentals, Inc. which took place on August 21, 1977. The parties entered into an agreement between United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Linda Johnson to locate a residence for Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson Paid $40 for the service which would allow her to receive six months worth of listings from the Respondent United Jax Rentals, Inc. A copy of this contract may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 21, admitted into evidence. Ms. Johnson was of the opinion that the United Jax Rentals, Inc. would provide the services without her having to request anything from them. When no action was forthcoming by United Jax Rentals, Inc. Ms. Johnson cancelled payment of the $40 check that she had given United Jax Rentals, Inc., thus ending the transaction. There was never any attempt on the part of Ms. Johnson to avail herself of listings as provided by her rights under the contract. It is clear that there was some misunderstanding between Ms. Johnson and the representative of United Jax Rentals, Inc. on the question of what rights she did have for the payment of her $40 fee, be those rights; one, a right to receive listings; or two, to have United Jax Rentals, Inc. make the contacts under the listings. Nonetheless, there is no indication that Thomas J. Capobianco, as active firm member, or United Jax Rentals, Inc. through the person of their active firm member, were in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (d) Florida Statutes. Count twenty-one involves the October 3, 1977 transaction between Steve Mercer and United Jax Rentals, Inc. Mercer paid $40 for obtaining listings from United Jax Rentals, Inc. He was told by an employee of United Jax Rentals, Inc. whose name is "Dave" that he would be shown listings if he would wait in the office of United Jax Rentals, Inc. until "Dave" had concluded other business. Mr. Mercer did not wait and took three listings that were provided him to pursue his efforts at finding a residence. The first location was at a number that did not exist; the second location was not acceptable the third location was acceptable but it had already been rented. He talked to Bruce Lammert about the matter and asked that his money be returned. Mr. Mercer never received his money, he never was given the address of the location that first attracted him when he had seen it in the United Jax Rentals, Inc. advertisement in the paper and he was never given the opportunity to speak to the manager who might have given him a refund. The factual situation involving Steve Mercer, when considered in view of the other facts and cases reported in this recommended order, leads to the conclusion that Thomas J. Capobianco as active firm member of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and United Jax Rentals, Inc. through Mr. Capobianco are both guilty of culpable negligence as set out in Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, no other violation of Section 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, has been shown. No violation of Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes, has been shown. The facts in the Mercer transaction do not show a violation on the part of United Jax Rentals, Inc. and Thomas J. Capobianco as alleged in count twenty-two. There has been no showing under terms of the contract document or by legal determination that Mercer was entitled to a refund of the $40 fee that he had paid for the services, therefore there is no violation of Section 475.25(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes. Count twenty-three involves the transaction of August 15, 1977 between William Machalski and United Jax Rentals, Inc. This involved the efforts by United Jax Rentals, Inc. to obtain a residence location for Machalski who had paid them $40 for such service. The terms and conditions of the agreement are found in Petitioner's Exhibit 26, admitted into evidence. The firm member who had discussed this transaction and service with Machalski was a person named "Larry". Six addresses were checked by Mr. Machalski and those addresses had either been rented or were not available for a period of time, or were unfit. Mr. Machalski went back to the agency and talked to a person named "John". He also spoke later with a person named "Rick". Attempts were made to reach Mr. Capobianco but the employees in the office did not provide his telephone number. The attempts to reach Mr. Capobianco were made on the part of Clara Mitchell, the sister of Mr. Machalski. During this period, members of United Jax Rentals, Inc. indicated to Machalski and his sister that efforts would be made to get new listings. However, shortly thereafter, Mr. Machalski located a residence through another broker unrelated to United Jax Rentals, Inc. Although the employees of United Jax Rentals, Inc. have been aware of the development and problems with this service that was being offered to Mr. Machalski, when this fact pattern is considered in view of the facts and circumstances outlined in the recommended order herein, it does not demonstrate that United Jax Rentals, Inc. in the person of its active broker, Mr. Thomas J. Capobianco or other officers or directors of the corporation were, at the time of the occurrence, aware of the problem, or should have been aware of the problems, such that they would be in violation of Section 475.25(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes. Moreover, no showing has been made as alleged in count twenty-four that the contract conditions under which Mr. Machalski was being given service or by any declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction that the $40 fee should have been returned to Mr. Machalski as alleged. Consequently, no violation of Section 475.25(1)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, has been shown. The Petitioner's Composite Exhibits 22, 23, 24 and 25 are actual or copies of newspaper advertisements placed by United Jax Rentals, Inc. in October and November, 1977. As shown in Petitioner's Exhibit 25, some of the advertising placed with the Florida Times Union, a paper of general circulation in Jacksonville, Florida, listed the general location and description of property, in terms of the accommodations and gave the phone number and listed the word "Broker" only, with no name. Petitioner's Exhibit 22, admitted into evidence contained a listing in the same newspaper with the indication that the registered name was United Jax Rental Broker, Inc., not United Jax Rentals, Inc., showing the same telephone number as was shown with the advertising in Petitioner's Exhibit 25 that contained the word "Broker". The same exhibits contained advertisements in newspapers in which landlords were solicited and given a telephone number which was the number of United Jax Rentals, Inc., where again the name United Jax Rentals, Inc. is missing. This form of advertising spoken of was in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and those which did not list the broker's name were in violation of Rule 21V-10.10, Florida Administrative Code, as implemented by Section 475.25(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Count twenty-six pertains to allegations that various employees within the firm of United Jax Rentals, Inc., were guilty of operating as real estate salesmen who are not holders of valid, current registration certificates as salesmen, held with the Florida Real Estate Commission. There was no testimony to that effect that they were not the holders of valid, current registration certificates. Consequently, no violation of Section 475.42(1)(c), Florida Statutes, has been shown. County twenty-seven alleges that United Jax Rentals, Inc., Thomas J. Capobianco, Bruce K. Lammert, Richard L. Levinger, Deborah K. Parnell and Rose J. Vines are guilty of violations of Section 475.25(3), Florida Statutes. After considering the testimony in this cause it is determined that the necessary proof has been shown to find United Jax Rentals, Inc., Thomas J. Capobianco and Richard L. Levinger in violation of Section 475.25(3), Florida Statutes. There is insufficient showing to establish such a violation on the part of Bruce K. Lammert, Deborah K. Parnell and Rose J. Vines.
Recommendation It is recommended that the applicable licenses of United Jax Rentals, Inc.; Thomas J. Capobianco; Richard L. Levinger and Rose J. Vines be suspended for a period of six months. It is recommended that Deborah K. Parnell be given a letter of reprimand. (This recommendation is in keeping with the offer that has been entertained by the Florida Real Estate Commission by agreement of the parties). Finally, it is recommended that the action against Bruce K. Lammert be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32801 John S. Winnie, Esquire Post Office Box 682 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Richard L. Levinger 2243 Southeast 10th Street Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Rose J. Vines c/o United Jax Rentals, Inc. 1642 North Main Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ralph L. Leighton, age 41, holds a Class A license issued by the Department of State, authorizing him to engage in the business of operating a private investigative agency. He has also been licensed in Tennessee, and has never been convicted of a crime. The bulk of the Petitioner's investigative work has been in the area of domestic disputes. During the course of this domestic investigative work, the Petitioner was hired to do surveillance of a wife in connection with the husband's suit for divorce. Some of the facts surrounding the Petitioner's work on this case were related by a Family Conciliation Counselor for the Palm Beach County Juvenile Court, and by the wife's attorney. These facts were corroborated by the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the final judgment of dissolution, a certified copy of which was received in evidence in this proceeding. Specifically, the court found that the Petitioner's testimony at the divorce trial was totally discredited, and that the Petitioner gave "false and misleading information" to the juvenile counselor "in an attempt to discredit the wife" whom the Petitioner had under surveillance. Subsequently, the Petitioner placed an ad in a newspaper for full time and part time investigators. One of the persons who responded to this ad and was hired, testified in this proceeding. The Petitioner provided a uniform, a badge, and the work assigned was as a security guard at a local shopping mall. There were no investigative duties involved; instead, a routine patrol of the mall area was to be performed. The Petitioner himself paid the wages for the first four weeks, then another individual made the payments. Another former employee of the Petitioner testified. This individual performed security guard and patrol work for the Petitioner at a local residential area. Although not uniformed, a full 100 percent of the duties assigned was spent patrolling the area, and a badge was provided by the Petitioner, as well as an identification card. Both of these individuals were initially hired by the Petitioner, paid by the Petitioner, assigned security guard or patrol duties by the Petitioner, issued badges and in one case a uniform by the Petitioner. Since no investigative duties were assigned or performed, and the wearing of a uniform is inconsistent with the normal work of an investigator, but routine for a security guard or patrolman, there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the Petitioner was engaged in the business of providing security guards. This is not authorized by a Class A license. The Petitioner presented numerous character witnesses who testified generally that he is of good moral character, and other witnesses who had hired him as a private investigator and were satisfied with his work. The Petitioner himself denies that he has engaged in any work not authorized by his Class A license. However, this evidence is not sufficient to overcome the specific testimony of the Petitioner's two former employees, and the findings of the circuit court judge as recited in the divorce judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ralph L. Leighton for a Class B Private Guard or Patrol Agency license, be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 6 day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 6 day of November, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Earl R. Boyce, Esquire 120 South Alive Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 James V. Antista, Esquire Room 106, R.A. Gray Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this case is the question of whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner by discharging the Petitioner because of his race and/or a handicap?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, General Parcel Service of Florida, Inc., is in the business of shipping, receiving and delivering goods, primarily small packages. The Respondent's headquarters are located in Jacksonville, Florida, and it has a branch operation in Tallahassee, Florida. The Petitioner, Robert L. Johnson, was hired by the Respondent as a driver in late February or early March, 1989. Mr. Johnson worked out of the Tallahassee branch operation. Mr. Johnson was employed by the Respondent until October 24, 1989. Mr. Johnson is a black male. Between February, 1989, and June, 1989, Mr. Johnson's work was satisfactory. In July, 1989, Mr. Johnson injured his back. As a result of this back injury, Mr. Johnson was absent from work until approximately July 10, 1989. Mr. Johnson worked for approximately three weeks after returning to work in July, 1989, but was absent because of his back injury from the end of July, 1989, until approximately September 7, 1989. When Mr. Johnson returned to work in July and in September, 1989, his physician had ordered that he not lift anything which weighed more than 25 pounds. The weight limitation was the only limitation placed by Mr. Johnson's physician on the duties Mr. Johnson could perform. There was no medical restriction placed on Mr. Johnson's duty to report to work or to report on time. Beginning in June, 1989, the Tallahassee terminal manager, and Mr. Johnson's supervisor, was Harry LaNoue. The first day after Mr. Johnson returned to work in July, 1989, Mr. LaNoue had Mr. Johnson answering the telephone and doing paperwork. The second day Mr. LaNoue had Mr. Johnson washing trucks, cleaning around the premises and picking up trucks. On the third day after returning to work, in addition to the duties Mr. Johnson began performing on the second day, Mr. Johnson also began delivering packages. After Mr. Johnson's back injury, Mr. LaNoue personally selected the packages Mr. Johnson delivered. Mr. LaNoue attempted to insure that no package was given to Mr. Johnson which weighed more than 25 pounds. Mr. LaNoue also instructed Mr. Johnson that he was not to attempt to lift any package which weighed more than 25 pounds and that he should bring any packages which weighed more than 25 pounds back to the terminal. Mr. LaNoue also told Mr. Johnson that he was to keep all appointments with his physician and to return any packages which he could not deliver before any such appointment. Although Mr. Johnson testified that Mr. LaNoue tried to pressure him into performing duties which he believed he should not be performing because of his back injury, the weight of the evidence failed to support this testimony. Mr. Johnson gave no examples of such pressure which were contrary to his physician's instructions and he contradicted his testimony by admitting that Mr. LaNoue took the actions reflected in finding of fact 10. After Mr. Johnson injured his back, a couple of incidents involving Mr. Johnson's attendance occurred. Those incidents are described in Finding of Facts 13, 14 and 15. At some time after Mr. Johnson returned to work Mr. Johnson's wife telephoned and told Mr. LaNoue that Mr. Johnson would miss work because his back was sore. Mr. LaNoue asked to speak to Mr. Johnson but was told that Mr. Johnson was not available. Mr. LaNoue asked Ms. Johnson to have Mr. Johnson telephone him within an hour. Mr. Johnson did not call Mr. LaNoue. About an hour later Mr. LaNoue telephoned and spoke with Mr. Johnson. Mr. LaNoue told Mr. Johnson to go to see his physician. Mr. Johnson refused. Mr. LaNoue then told Mr. Johnson to report to work. Mr. Johnson refused. Mr. LaNoue told Mr. Johnson that it was important that he be dependable and report to work. On approximately September 14, 1989, Mr. LaNoue selected five or six packages he intended for Mr. Johnson to deliver. The packages weighed less than 25 pounds. When Mr. Johnson reported to work he told Mr. LaNoue that his back was sore. Mr. LaNoue instructed Mr. Johnson to go to see his physician. Mr. Johnson said no and walked out of the building. Mr. LaNoue telephoned the Respondent's personnel director, Ann Beeman, and reported the incident. Following this telephone call, Ms. Beeman received a telephone call from Mr. Johnson complaining about his back. She instructed Mr. Johnson to go to see his physician. Ms. Beeman informed Mr. LaNoue of her instructions to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson went to see his physician, telephoned Mr. LaNoue and told him that he had been told to return to work. No additional restrictions on Mr. Johnson's work were imposed by the physician. After seeing his physician, Mr. Johnson returned to work. The packages that had been selected for him to deliver had already been delivered. Therefore Mr. Johnson performed other duties. In October, 1989, Mr. Johnson proposed to Mr. LaNoue and Scott Douglas Paul, driver supervisor/assistant terminal manager, that he be allowed to drive a route to Valdosta, Georgia. The route involved picking up packages from a drug company located in Valdosta. The company was an important client of the Respondent. Mr. LaNoue indicated that he would give the route to Mr. Johnson. Mr. LaNoue explained to Mr. Johnson how important the client was to the Respondent and told Mr. Johnson that he must be on time and be dependable. Mr. Johnson was also reminded that it was very important that Mr. Johnson comply with the Respondent's policy that drivers call at least one hour before their assigned departure time if they would not be able to report to work on time. The departure time for the Valdosta run assigned to Mr. Johnson was 5:00 p.m. On October 24, 1989, the second day after the Valdosta run had been assigned to Mr. Johnson, Mr. Johnson called the Respondent's offices between approximately 4:30 p.m. and 4:45 p.m. Mr. Johnson spoke to Mr. Paul. Mr. Johnson told Mr. Paul that he had "family problems" but refused to tell Mr. Paul specifically what the problem was. Mr. LaNoue was in the same room with Mr. Paul during his telephone conversation with Mr. Johnson. Based upon hand signals between Mr. LaNoue and Mr. Paul, Mr. Paul told Mr. Johnson that, if he did not report to work that day, he need not bother coming to work again. Between June, 1989, when Mr. LaNoue became the Tallahassee terminal manager, and November 1, 1989, eight individuals, including Mr. Johnson, were fired by Mr. LaNoue. Four of those individuals were black (including Mr. Johnson) and four were white. The individuals fired between June, 1989, and November 1, 1989, their race and the race of the individuals, if any, who were hired to replace them are as follows: Terminated Employee Race Race of Replacement William Rodriquez White No Replacement Tom Arnold White White Randy Wansley White Black Larry Hargrove Black White Elmer McCoy Black Black John Constant White Black Robert Johnson Black Black Lester Kelly Black White Mr. Johnson is a member of two classes protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes: race (black) and handicapped (back injury). Mr. Johnson was replaced by a member of one of the protected classes: race. The weight of the evidence failed to prove whether Mr. Johnson's replacement was a member of the other protected class Mr. Johnson is a member of: handicapped. The Respondent had a nondiscriminatory, rational and business-related basis for discharging Mr. Johnson: Mr. Johnson was not dependable. Mr. Johnson failed to prove that the Respondent's reason for discharging him was a pretext.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order finding that there is no cause to conclude that the Respondent discriminated against Robert L. Johnson and dismissing Mr. Johnson's Petition. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner did not file any proposed findings of fact. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 2. 3 5. 4 7. 5 6-7. 6 9. 7 9-10. 8 7 and 10. 9 12-13. 10 14. Not relevant to this proceeding. 14. The last sentence is hearsay and no finding of fact based on this hearsay has been made. 13 14. 14 14-15. 15 16. 16 16-17. 17 16. 18 18. 19 11. 20 Hereby accepted. 21-22 19-20 and hereby accepted. 23 Hereby accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Johnson 3250 West Tennessee Street Lot 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Charles F. Henley, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 40593 Jacksonville, Florida 32203-0593 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 =================================================================
