The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Model 2000, Inc., a talent agency, violated Sections 468.402(1)(d), 468.402(1)(e), 468.402(1)(s), 468.402(t), 468.410(2), 468.410(3), 468.412(6) and 468.413(2)(e), Florida Statutes, through solicitation, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, exploitation, trick, scheme, or device, exercise of undue influence, requiring photography services as a prerequisite condition of employment, and failure to provide contracts of representation as alleged in each of the 15 separate Administrative Complaints filed in this cause.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the licensing and regulation of talent agents in Florida. Authority for the licensure and regulation is set forth in Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and associated provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. At all times relevant and material to this inquiry, Respondent, Model 2000, Inc., was owned and operated by Nancy Sniffen, a.k.a. Nancy Keogh (Sniffen), and was licensed in the State of Florida as a Talent Agency, having been issued license number TA 0000618. The last known address for Respondent is 4852 West Gandy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. At all times relevant to this case, Sniffen advertised in print, served, operated, managed, and held herself out to the public as a Talent Agent by and through Model 2000, Inc. In the Tampa Tribune daily newspaper under the headings, Classified, Employment General Section, Sniffen published the following ad and variations thereof: ACT/MODEL NOW Kids! Teens! Adults! For TV commercials, print, catalogs, movies. Get started the right way now!! Call 837-5700 for interview. No fees Model 2000 Inc. TA#681. As a direct result of the above advertisement, Renee Donaldson, Irma Avery, Charlene Mars, Gina Hughes, and Robert Mikolajczak responded to the Tampa Tribune advertisement. In the Weekly Planet, a hiring ad, similar in content to the Tampa Tribune ad, containing "Call 837-5700" was published by Model 2000, Inc. As a direct result of this advertisement in the Weekly Planet, Athena Lopez and Lisa Menuto responded. During the initial meeting between Sniffen and the witnesses herein, she made promises, guarantees, and statements known to be false when made regarding each individual's looks and their latent talents. They were told that each had great employment opportunities as models, and with her connections with several department stores, J.C. Penny, Beall's, and Dillards, and her connections with their catalog companies, each model was assured of employment. Based upon their individual looks and ethnic differences, Sniffen stated to one or more of the witnesses who testified that there was: "a high demand for ethnic models" (non-whites), "lots of job for Hispanics," "abundance for work for people with your looks," "they are looking for someone your age," and "there is a demand and need for someone like you." Sniffen intended these statement to induce individuals to rely upon her assessment and expertise as a modeling agent to secure employment. At the time Sniffen made the above statements, she knew or should have known that employment opportunities for models required more than her one-look assessment. Sniffen assured each witness that "there was a lot of work in the area"; "companies were looking for people like [sic]"; "have so much work and not enough models to fill jobs"; "I'm affiliated with J.C. Penny, Burdines, and Dillards in their casting area for hiring for photo shots"; and "Florida is number one in hiring for print work." Based upon these representations or variations thereof, Athena Lopez, Irma Avery, Charlene Mars, Fiona West (for her daughter Christy West), Lisa Menuto, Robert Mikolajaczak, Gina Hughes (for her daughter Gabriella Hughes), Tom Stanton, and Nelita Parris agreed to have their photographs taken and agreed to engage Sniffen as their respective modeling agent and representative. The record contains no evidence that Sniffen presently had or had in the past "affiliations" with any of the major chain stores or their casting departments. During the initial meeting with these witnesses, Sniffen required them, as a condition precedent to beginning their modeling career, to have photographs made. These photographs were to be taken by Sniffen's staff photographers, and from those photographs each model was required to have composite cards printed at an additional cost. Based upon the representations made by Sniffen requiring each model to have composite card photography, each witness agreed and paid Sniffen a photograph and composite card fee. The witnesses below made payments either in cash and/or by credit card to have their photographs taken by Sniffen's photographers at a location she designated. Spencer Borisoff $934.07 Tom Stanton $855.00 Athena Lopez $466.94 Lisa Menuto $693.00 Gina Hughes $1,040.82 Robert Mikolijcak $347.00 Aaliyah Womack $603.92 Charlene Mars $261.15 Irma Avery $774.90 Nelita Parris $150.00 Christy West3 $855.00 Nelita Parris $150.00 No witness hereinabove secured employment with any company as a result of the composite card photographs. Sniffen's representation as their talent agent that composite cards were a pre-employment requirement in the modeling business was untrue and knowingly made with the intent to, and in fact did, cause each witnesses to reply thereon to their determinant. Sniffen hired Anthony Guagliardo, a Florida-licensed public service photographer since 1999, as one of her three photographers to take photographs of her clients. From November 1999 to April 2000, Guagliardo worked for Sniffen taking photographs of her clients. Sniffen called the Photo Hut were he worked seeking a photographer that would assist her with photographing her clients who came in to have their composite cards made. Sniffen's initial phone conversation at Photo Hut was with another person on duty who asked other employees if anyone was interested in part-time work. After a brief conversation, Guagliardo agreed to be a photographer and began working for Model 2000, Inc. According to his testimony, Guarliardo's daily employment hours were from 9:00 a.m. to 5/6:00 p.m. daily. He worked infrequently on Saturdays and Sundays. For his photography services, he was paid $25.00 per hour. During a routine day, Guagliardo testified that as many as 20 persons would arrive to have their pictures taken, and he would take 18 shots of each client in three different poses or positions. Mr. Guagliardo testified that a bulk purchase of film reduced cost of each roll of film to $2.00 per roll. The contact sheet cost $20.00 per sheet from which 72 photographs were made. A single roll of film was needed to photograph two clients. The cost to Sniffen for one hour of the photographer's time, a roll of film, and two contact sheets averaged $65. The average amount Sniffen charged each of the 11 clients listed above for their photo-shoot was $583.00 each. During the time he was on duty, Guagliardo testified that normally two additional photographers were also working doing photo shoots for Sniffen. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Sniffen advertised to attract customers, each of whom she required payment for photographs upon her representations that composite photograph cards were a pre-employment requirement for modeling. The evidence sufficiently demonstrates that Sniffen had no honest intent; her singular purpose was financial gain, and her means was the photography/composite card requirement. Once monies were paid, few of the witnesses were able to contact Sniffen and none secured modeling employment through Sniffen's efforts. The models, believing Sniffen's assurances that composite card photographs were necessary for securing employment in modeling, later came to realize Sniffen's intent was only to secure payment for the photo sessions. Sniffen's continued refusals to answer phone calls, to communicate with the witnesses after composite card payments were made, and the lack of leads and/or contacts from potential employers demonstrated her single-minded purpose not to assist them as their modeling agent. They were intentionally misled by Sniffen's false promises. The Agency proved the allegations in the following Administrative Complaints: DOAH 02-2982 - Spencer Borisoff DOAH 02-2983 - Tom Stanton DOAH 02-2984 - Athena Lopez DOAH 02-2985 - Lisa Menuto DOAH 02-2988 - Gina Hughes DOAH 02-2990 - Robert Mikolkczak DOAH 02-2992 - Aaliyah Womack DOAH 02-2993 - Charlene Mars DOAH 02-2994 - Irma Avery DOAH 02-2995 - Nelita Parris DOAH 02-2996 - Christy West The Agency presented no evidence concerning the administrative complaints below and have not met its required burden of proof. DOAH 02-2986 - Bilan Evans DOAH 02-2987 - Louis Kelbs DOAH 02-2989 - John Greene DOAH 02-2991 - Van Saint Meyer
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found, the evidence admitted, and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the following Administrative Complaints: DOAH Case No 02-2986; DOAH Case No. 02-2987; DOAH Case No. 02-2989; and DOAH Case No. 02-2991. It is further Recommended that: Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent in violation of Section 468.413(2), (3) and (4), Florida Statutes, and impose the following penalties: Require Respondent to make restitution to the Complainants below within 60 days: Case Nos. Complainants Amount DOAH 02-2982 Spencer Borisoff $934.07 DOAH 02-2983 Tom Stanton $855.00 DOAH 02-2984 Athena Lopez $466.94 DOAH 02-2985 Lisa Menuto $693.02 DOAH 02-2988 Gina Hughes $1,040.82 DOAH 02-2990 Robert Mikolkczak $347.00 DOAH 02-2992 Aaliyah Womack $603.92 DOAH 02-2993 Charlene Mars $261.15 DOAH 02-2994 Irma Avery $774.90 DOAH 02-2995 Nelita Parris $150.00 DOAH 02-2996 Christy West $855.00 Impose a fine in the amount of $1,000 for each of the following Administrative Complaints: DOAH Case No. 02-2982; DOAH Case No. 02-2983; DOAH Case No. 02-2984; DOAH Case No. 02-2985; DOAH Case No. 02-2988; DOAH Case No. 02-2990; DOAH Case No. 02-2992; DOAH Case No. 02-2993; DOAH Case No. 02-2994; DOAH Case No. 02-2995; and DOAH Case No. 02-2996, for a total of $11,000 in fines. Permanent revocation of Respondent's license. Should Respondent fail to timely comply with full payment of the restitutions and the fines as herein ordered, the Agency pursue those sanctions as provided in Sections 468.413(2) and 468.413(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 January, 2003.
The Issue The remaining issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, should impose an administrative fine on the Respondent, Tight-Grip International, Inc. (Tight-Grip).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Tight-Grip International, Inc., sells a chemical designed to prevent hard mineral surfaces from being slippery when wet. Tight- Grip sells the product through distributors. Together with the product itself, it sells kits to enable and help its distributors to sell the product to the ultimate consumers. The kit includes materials needed to install the product, form contracts, brochures, a training video and a training manual. It also includes a license to use the trademark "Tight-Grip," which Tight-Grip had registered with the federal government on or about April 15, 1991. The training manual is devoted largely to the actual application of the product, but it also includes a section entitled "How To Land Business." It essentially provides instruction and hints to the distributor on how to sell the product to potential customers. It describes "The Flyer Method," "The Curiosity Method," "The Door Prize Method," "The Free Sample Method," and "The Referral Method" for "landing" residential business. It then describes the "strictly confidential" "trade secret secret" "Method #5" for "landing" commercial business, to be used, in conjunction with "rote training cards," only for training "licensed dealers." Tight-Grip sells its product and solicits distributors in various ways, including participation in trade shows. It utilizes an advertising brochure entitled "There's a Revolution Under Foot 21 Century Technology TODAY." Part of the brochure offers the following answers to "Frequently Asked Questions": Q. How do I market TIGHT-GRIP? A. The public already knows that hard mineral surfaces are treacherous when wet. What they don't know is that there is a solution. TIGHT-GRIP has developed a number of successful methods to bring this fact to their attention. Direct mail, cold calling, telemarketing, trade shows, and organizations all work when implemented correctly. When asked by prospective distributors how one markets the Tight-Grip product, Tight-Grip representatives respond that "it sells itself, you just have to demonstrate it." In addition, prospective distributors are told that the company provides marketing training in its training manuals and provides advertising brochures. Prospective distributors are not told that the company provides "a sales program or a marketing program." It is found that Tight-Grip does not offer its distributors a "sales program" or a "marketing program." Nor is it found that Tight-Grip has a "sales program" or a "marketing program." Tight-Grip has participated in between four and six trade shows in Florida. One such trade show occurred on January 16, 1994. The usual representations were made to a Department representative. The Department decided that Tight-Grip was representing that it provides "a sales program or a marketing program" and that it was offering to sell business opportunities without an advertising identification number and, in all likelihood, was selling business opportunities although it had no approved disclosure statement to give prospective buyers, in violation of the law. Having been notified by the Department that it was in violation of the law, Tight-Grip filed registration materials with the Department on or about March 8, 1994, in order to continue to solicit prospective Tight-Grip distributors, and contract with them, without the risk of additional violations. (Tight-Grip always has maintained that it does not sell "business opportunities" and is not required to have an advertising identification number or to provide prospective buyers with an approved disclosure statement.) On or about March 10, 1994, the Department filed a Complaint to require Tight-Grip to cease and desist from allegedly violating the law by offering to sell business opportunities without an advertising identification number and by selling business opportunities although it had no approved disclosure statement to give prospective buyers. The Complaint also sought to impose an administrative fine. In order to continue to solicit prospective Tight-Grip distributors, and contract with them, without the risk of additional violations, Tight-Grip filed registration materials with the Department on or about March 8, 1994. (Tight-Grip continues to maintain that it does not sell "business opportunities" and is not required to have an advertising identification number or to provide prospective buyers with an approved disclosure statement.) On or about March 23, 1994, the Department approved the materials and issued Tight-Grip an advertising identification number. Tight-Grip entered into approximately 100 distributorship agreements before receiving an advertising identification number. It did not provide those distributors with an approved disclosure statement. The evidence was not clear as to how many of the distributors are in Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing the Complaint. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of July, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1860 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found and as conclusion of law that it was a "business opportunity." Also, rejected as contrary to facts found that Tom represented that "each investment included a sales/marketing training program." (Rather, found that he said training included instruction on how to sell and market the product.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 5.-7. Accepted and incorporated. Conclusion of law. Contrary to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 11.-12. Accepted and incorporated. 13. Conclusion of law and contrary to facts found that Florida law required disclosure statements to be provided. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Subordinate and argument. In part, conclusion of law. Rejected that Harris's was "the only credible testimony before the hearing officer." In part, accepted and subordinate to facts found. In part, subordinate to facts found (there is no "sales or marketing program.") In part, subordinate to facts contrary to those found (that Tight- Grip "only provides some demonstration and promotional materials.") Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay S. Levenstein, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Thomas E. Parnell, Esquire 508 W. Fletcher Avenue, Suite #105 Tampa, Florida 33612 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Did the Respondents offer to sell a business opportunity without filing a disclosure statement with the Department and without providing prospective purchasers a disclosure statement at least three working days prior to the receipt of any consideration for the signing of a business opportunity contract contrary to Section 559.80, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact On March 5, 1994, Star Vision was in attendance at a trade show in Jacksonville, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 3,5) Upon investigating Star Vision's activities at the show, the Department's representatives, Bob James and Bill Bassett, found Star Vision to be offering for sale a business opportunity as defined by Chapter 559, Part VIII, Florida Statutes. (Petitioner's Exhibits 3,5) Star Vision offered to sell a business opportunity representing that one could become a "licensee" upon paying $600. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5) Star Vision had not file a copy of the required disclosure statement with the Department prior to making the offering above. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2,3) Granhan and Bray were given a letter notifying them of the filing requirements together with a business opportunity registration package. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2,3) On March 12,1994, Star Vision attended another trade show in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4) Upon investigating Star Vision's activities at the show, the Department's representative, James R. Kelly, found Star Vision to be offering for sale a business opportunity. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4) Star Vision represented the following while offering to sell a business opportunity: The regular price of the opportunity was $1,495 but they were running a special of $495 for anyone signing up at the show; and Purchasers would receive training tapes and other training that teaches how to market and sell the product. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4) The Department received a consumer complaint against STAR VISION from Mr. Alan Drake. Upon purchasing a business opportunity from Star Vision, Mr. Drake was provided with audio and video tapes which instruct purchasers how to sell and market the product. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1) Upon selling him a business opportunity, Star Vision did not provide Mr. Drake with a disclosure statement, and has never registered with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ordering that: Respondents to cease and desist selling business opportunities in the State of Florida, Imposing an administrative fine of $5,000 for each violation, in accordance with Section 559.813(2), Florida Statutes, against Terry Granhan and Mike Bray d/b/a Star Vision Direct Cable in the amount of $15,000. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 30th day of November, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Jay S. Levenstein, Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Terry Granhan and Mike Bray Star Vision Direct Cable, Inc. 9050 Highway 64, Suite 115 Memphis, TN 38002 Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Department of Corrections, by advertisement in a Jackson County, Florida newspaper on March 27, March 30 and April 6, 1988, sought bids for the provision of office space for the Department's offices in Marianna. The bid specifications, including, as pertinent hereto; minimum square footage, a requirement that Energy Performance Index calculations and certification thereof by an architect or engineer be shown, and the requirement that all parking spaces be on site, was made available to potential bidders on March 28. A pre-proposal conference of potential bidders was held on March 31 to explain and clarify the specifications. Bids were submitted by the two Petitioners, and the bids were opened on April 14, 1988. On or about April 19 or 20, Wendell Beall and Robert Sandall evaluated the bid proposals and made a preliminary determination that the Rainbow bid was non-responsive in three areas. It was determined that the required square footage depicted on the Rainbow bid was inadequate; the parking provision was inadequate in that not enough "on-site" spaces were shown on the bid; and the Energy Performance Index calculations and certification by an architect or engineer was not supplied. On April 21, 1988, the lease committee, chaired by Thomas Young, met and reviewed both bid packages submitted by the Petitioners and affirmed Mr. Beall and Mr. Sandall's findings, with the result that the agency decided to award the contract to Brooks. The bid specifications required a minimum of 12,756 net square feet of rentable office space. Only 11,862 square feet could be identified as net rentable square footage on the Rainbow bid's floor plan, as calculated in compliance with the "standard method of space measurement." This square footage calculation was consistent with the actual measurements of the building made by Mr. Beall himself. The Brooks' bid depicted an adequate amount of square footage in compliance with the specifications. Mr. Beall calculated the net rentable interior square footage by utilizing the standard method of space measurement provided for in the rules of the Department of General Services and, after deducting nonusable, nonrentable space under that standard, rule mandated method, he arrived at the net rentable office space figure of 11,862 square feet. Rainbow at no time has presented any conflicting measurement or alleged any specific errors in Mr. Beall's calculations. Item A-10 of the bid specifications requires a floor plan to be submitted showing the present configurations of the building, with measurements that equate to the required net rentable square footage. This means that the minimum square footage must be shown in the floor plan attached and submitted with the bid specifications, even if the building may contain more square footage. The Department supplied a specific number of offices of various sizes and a required configuration no floor plan in order to depict work units that should be constructed and/or arranged together, as part of the specifications in the Invitation to Bid documents. The purpose of this agency floor plan was to give potential bidders a guide to calculate the cost of remodeling existing space to meet the agency's needs so that those potential bidders could amortize that cost as part of the rental amount involved. Therefore, the proposed floor plan included in a bidder's package should not vary substantially from the final plan used to actually remodel the leased space in accordance with the agency's requirements. Accordingly, the only submittal of plans which is permissible subsequent to the bid opening, as contemplated by the bid specifications, are the final plans developed by a successful bidder in consultation with the agency after the bid award. No floor plan may be unilaterally submitted by a bidder after the bid opening since that would constitute an illegal amendment of the bid. Only a floor plan done in consultation with the agency in order to make final adjustments so that all office space and other related space will comply with the agency's precise requirements may be done after the bid is actually awarded, and this must be based upon the floor plan originally submitted in the bid itself in conformance with the bid specifications regarding office layout, square footage and the like. The Rainbow bid simply contained an inadequate amount of square footage necessary to be a responsive bid in this regard. An additional bid specification at issue concerns the requirement of 77 exclusive use, on-site parking spaces. The Rainbow bid only made provision for 27 on-site exclusive parking spaces, with the remaining 50 spaces of the required 77 being off the proposed building site, approximately 155 feet away, without sidewalk access to the proposed office building. The Brooks' bid incorporated all required parking spaces on the site, as required by the specifications. The Rainbow bid was non-responsive concerning the parking space specification as well. Mr. Beall prepared the bidding documents as Budget Manager for the Department of Corrections' Region I. He was the person designated in the bidding documents to answer any questions requiring clarification by prospective bidders before bids were prepared and submitted. Mr. Beall established that the intent of the agency with regard to this parking space requirement was to require all 77 parking spaces to be on-site. No bidder or prospective bidder asked any questions of Mr. Beall concerning this specification prior to the submittal of any of the bids. Mr. Brooks, however, did consult with Mr. Beall on the question of the Energy Performance Index specification item before he submitted his bid. Mr. Brooks is a former physics and advanced mathematics teacher with some 20 years experience in construction. He has been a licensed general contractor and master builder for residential, commercial and industrial types of construction for 11 years. He typically designs and draws his own plans, including those submitted with the bid at issue. He spent approximately 100 hours of his time on preparation of this bid. Mr. Brooks had previously been awarded a rid by the Department of Corrections on which he simply invalid the item concerning the Energy Performance Index (EPI) specification. That item was found to be responsive by the Department, and the bid was awarded to Mr. Brooks. On a subsequent bid on a different job, Mr. Brooks again merely initialed the EPI specification, which he intended to mean that he would perform the job at issue such that the EPI requirements would be met. He was not awarded the bid on that particular job, but upon his informally notifying the Department of Corrections that he might protest the decision to award the bid to a different bidder, the Department personnel advised him that they might choose to raise the issue of his responsiveness to the EPI specification in that situation. With this history in mind, Mr. Brooks, before submitting his bid, contacted Mr. Beall to inquire as to what would be considered an appropriate response to the EPI specification on the bidding documents. The EPI has been calculated by Mr. Brooks on numerous projects in the past, and he is capable of calculating it as to this project. He found, however, that it would be impossible to calculate a precise and accurate EPI specification response, because he would not have the final floor plan from which to calculate it, with all the information that would give him concerning room configurations, size, location and size of windows, size and type of heating and air-conditioning equipment and many other factors. Mr. Brooks could, however, give his certification that the energy performance requirement would be met, once the final plans were completed in conjunction with discussion with the agency after award of the bid, which comports with standard agency policy and practice. Because he was concerned that any energy performance calculations he might supply would not necessarily be accurate in the final analysis, in relation to the final "to be constructed" plans, Mr. Brooks contacted Mr. Beall to obtain his guidance about what would be considered a proper response to this specification item. Mr. Beall advised him that a letter certifying that he would comply with the specification as to this issue would be an appropriate alternative to simply initialing the specification. The same opinion was also voiced at the lease committee meeting. Mr. Beall's advice to Mr. Brooks in this regard was based upon advice given him by Mr. Edwin Johnson of the Department of General Services and was based upon past agency policy concerning treatment of this issue on previous bids considered by the lease committee. Previous bids had indeed been accepted in the form submitted by Mr. Brooks and had not been found to be nonresponsive as to the EPI issue. Thus, Mr. Brooks, in addition to initialing the specification concerning the EPI, also supplied the referenced letter certifying that he would comply with that specification and agency requirement. Rainbow, on the other hand, merely initialed that item in the specification and bidding document. Thus, the Brooks' bid is the more responsive on the issue of the EPI than the Rainbow bid. The bid award to Brooks was posted on May 2, and on May 4, Rainbow filed a Notice of Protest of she award which was received by the Department, timely on May 5. Shortly after that date, counsel for Rainbow requested that the Department's representatives and counsel meet with him and Mr. Jett, his client, of Rainbow Properties, to discuss the agency's award to Brooks and rejection of Rainbow's bid. On May 10, 1988, the Department's regional representatives and its counsel met with Mr. Jett of Rainbow Properties and his attorney, Mr. Barley. Mr. Jett used this opportunity to explain how he felt that the Rainbow bid had complied with the bid specifications in the three specific areas discussed above. The Department's counsel explained on that occasion that the bid could not be amended after opening and posting of the bids. Mr. Jett's bid had only shown 11,862 square feet identifiable as rentable space in the floor plan submitted with the bid, although 12,756 square feet were required by the bid specifications. Additionally, as discussed above, of the 77 required on-site parking spaces, only 27 were provided on site with 50 of them being off site, with Rainbow not establishing that it had ownership or right of control to the off site spaces. Additionally, as discussed above, there was the problem of no calculations or assurances being provided regarding the EPI specification, it merely having been initialed in Rainbow's bid submittal. At the May 10 meeting, Mr. Jett was given the opportunity to explain how his bid complied with the specifications at issue and to discuss how he felt the Department had misinterpreted his response or made an error in measuring or calculating the square footage available in his building. He provided no alternative calculations or measurements of the building, however, which would depict more than the 11,862 square feet measured by the Department's staff or which would show that measurement was incorrect. He was reminded that the only possible information he could legally provide the agency after the opening of bids was in the nature of minor clarification concerning how he had calculated the square footage. He was instructed that he could not revise his plans in order to establish that more square footage was available because that would be an illegal amendment of his bid after the bids were open and posted. At the May 10 meeting Mr. Jett also maintained that the Department had allowed for other than on site parking; however, but the bidding document or Invitation to Bid only contained one blank, and only one subsection on the bidding form, for the bidders to indicate 77 spaces designated as on site spaces. Mr. Jett maintained that since the Department had provided option "(A)" under this on-site parking specification item, that he was therefore free to add other options. Using that logic, however, it would also appear that he could have submitted a bid depicting spaces literally on the other side of town and still had a responsive bid. That clearly is not the correct interpretation of that specification. He also maintained that the EPI was impossible to calculate at the time of bidding, in view of the fact that final plans were not available to support the ultimate calculation. In any event, at the conclusion of this meeting, Department personnel informed Mr. Jett and his counsel that would inform him of its decision within a few days. The Department did not inform Mr. Jett that he would be permitted to amend his bid after obtaining professional help and redrawing his blueprint in an effort to show that the minimum square footage was available. Indeed, Rainbow and Mr. Jett did obtain the services of an architect and drew a new floor plan which it offered as PR-1 at the hearing. If the floor plan originally attached to Rainbow's bid, consisting of Exhibit PR-2 in evidence, is compared with the blueprint submitted by the architect after the meeting with the Department representatives on May 10, it can be discerned that the blueprint is not a mere refinement or clarification of the initial floor plan, but rather that major modifications have been made to the initial floor plan submitted with the bid. These consist of walls which have been moved, small rooms in some areas which have been eliminated, restrooms which have been deleted and an existing spiral staircase area which was eliminated, and a hallway enclosed, in order to add additional rentable square footage where new offices could be added. Thus, this blueprint offered at hearing was not a mere refinement or clarification of the original floor plan submitted with the Rainbow bid, but rather sufficiently different from original floor plan as to constitute a material amendment or modification to the bid. It therefore cannot be considered. The floor plan submitted with the bid was nonconforming to the bid specifications as to the square footage item and Rainbow cannot be permitted to rectify and correct that with the architect's new blueprint and floor plan offered at the time of the hearing. 1/ In short, insufficient square footage was depicted and that is not a minor waivable irregularity. Soon after this May 10 meeting, the Department changed its position, decided that both bids were not responsive and rejected them. Its alleged basis for doing so was that the Brooks bid was nonresponsive as to the energy performance index criteria and that the Rainbow bid was nonresponsive as to that criteria, as well as to those concerning minimum square footage and on-site parking availability; the same as the original grounds for rejecting Rainbow's bid. Timely formal protests of that second agency action were filed by both Brooks and Rainbow. In that connection, Rainbow's formal written protest of the original award to Brooks, which was announced and noticed on May 2, 1988, was untimely. The formal written protest must be filed within ten days of the notice of protest. Rainbow's original notice of protest was filed with the agency on May 5 and the formal written protest was not filed until May 17. Rainbow, in conjunction with its filing, filed a motion for leave to late-file the formal protest with the agency on the basis that it had mistakenly filed the formal protest with the Division of Administrative Hearings. That petition was filed with the Division on May 16th. The deadline for filing the formal protest was May 15th. Petitioner Rainbow, however, did not learn of the second intended agency action until May 16th, however, and may have been somewhat misled about the necessity of filing its formal protest by May 15th because of the informal discussion of May 10th. It is also true, however, that the informal meeting was improper, as discussed herein and was called at the behest of Rainbow without assurance that the filing time was tolled.
Recommendation In consideration of the above findings of fact and evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor RECOMMENDED that the petition of Rainbow Properties, a Florida general partnership, should be denied and dismissed for the reasons found and concluded above, and that the petition of C. Leon Brooks be GRANTED and that the subject bid be awarded to C. Leon Brooks. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether the talent agency license held by Respondent should be disciplined for exercising undue influence on an artist for financial gain, and failing to provide clients with copies of contracts which list the services to be provided and fees to be charged and which state that the agency is regulated by the Department.
Findings Of Fact Jane Daniels has been licensed as a talent agency in the State of Florida, doing business as T.J. Norris Co., Inc., and holds license TA-0000015. Ms. Daniels is married to Bill Daniels, a photographer. Their offices are in Fort Lauderdale. Each has a separate entrance, but the suite of offices connect internally. Terri Bjorklund took her infant son, Glenn, to the T.J. Norris agency in February, 1988, responding to one of the advertisements seeking babies and toddlers for advertising work during the Christmas season. Ms. Bjorklund showed Art Feldman, an employee of the T.J. Norris agency, two 8x10 photographs and a photo card bearing three smaller pictures of her son during her interview. Mr. Feldman told Ms. Bjorklund that the pictures of the baby "belong in the garbage," and made the baby "look like an amputee." Mr. Feldman told Ms. Bjorklund that she needed a professional photographic portfolio for her son to obtain work, and he suggested a photographer right in the building who was, in fact, Bill Daniels. Ms. Bjorklund paid $170 to the T.J. Norris agency; $30 was a registration, and $140 was a down payment on the photographic portfolio, which would cost $295. Ms. Bjorklund was told that the balance due on the portfolio could be paid from work the agency obtained for the baby. Ms. Bjorklund was not able to pay any more money for the photographs because her husband had been hurt in a motorcycle accident, was not able to work, and the family was on food stamps. She emphasized that if she could not "work off the balance" through work obtained for the baby, she did not want to pay the $140 that day. Based upon Ms. Daniels' assurances about the payment arrangement, Ms. Bjorklund had the photographs taken by Bill Daniels. When Ms. Bjorklund called the T.J. Norris agency on several occasions to see if there was work available for her son, she was told that no work would be found until Ms. Bjorklund paid off the balance of the portfolio in full. When Ms. Bjorklund stated that she intended to complain to the Department of Professional Regulation or to a local television station because their agreement was not being honored, she was given appointments to take the baby to castings. These were always cancelled, except for one, where the part required the child to speak; this was useless because the child was only 8 months old. The application filed with the T.J. Norris agency disclosed the child's age. Ms. Bjorklund ultimately took her son to other talent agencies, and obtained work for her son through them. In obtaining this work, Ms. Bjorklund used the card with the pictures Mr. Feldman had derided. Those photographs were adequate for use in obtaining bookings for a young child. Expensive photographic portfolios are not ordinarily done for young children because they change quickly as they grow. Ms. Bjorklund never received a copy of the contract she signed with the T.J. Norris agency when she paid the $30 registration fee at the agency. Jonathan Ferrara went to the talent agency on July 12, 1988. He submitted head shots and resumes in order to obtain modeling or acting work through the T.J. Norris Agency. Mr. Ferrara uses the stage name Mark Love. Mr. Ferrara was interviewed by Art Feldman, an employee of the T.J. Norris Agency. Mr. Ferrara never received a copy of the contract with the agency, although he had paid a $30 registration fee, and an additional $15 to make a master card, which is sent to movie companies for use in casting. Jodi Lewine went to the T.J. Norris Agency to obtain modeling or acting work on August 5, 1988. She had no prior experience. She was interviewed by Art Feldman, who told her she would have to have photographs taken before the agency could solicit work for her. Feldman suggested that the photographs be taken by the photographer whose studio was in the same building, the studio of Bill Daniels. Mr. Feldman never told Ms. Lewine that she could have photographs taken by another photographer, but there is no evidence that he required Ms. Lewine to have the work done by Mr. Daniels. (Tr. 43, 1. 16-19, and Tr. 49, 1. 9) Models do not ordinarily acquire portfolios of photographs until after they have worked on several jobs through collecting the photographs taken on those jobs. Ms. Lewine never received a copy of the contract which she signed with the T.J. Norris Agency.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Professional Regulation finding T.J. Norris Co., Inc., to have violated Section 468.402(1)(t), on two occasions and Section 468.410(3), on three occasions, and imposing an administrative fine of $2,000. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 April, 1990.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Sport Clips, Inc., is Petitioner’s “employer” under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, chapter 760, Florida Statutes (“FCRA”).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: SCI is a Texas corporation, whose sole office is located at 110 Sport Clips Way, Georgetown, Texas, 78628. SCI’s Chief Executive Officer at the time of the alleged discriminatory events was Gordon B. Logan. SCI is the owner of the “Sport Clips” trademarks and business system. It licenses the Sport Clips trademarks and business system to independent business people. Each Sport Clips franchisee signs a franchise agreement under which SCI licenses its trademarks and the franchisee agrees to abide by certain operating rules that protect the Sport Clips trademarks and brand. In addition, each franchisee pays to SCI a royalty and advertising fee, as well as other fees. Sport Clips is a sports-themed hair-cutting salon which provides customers with haircuts, shampoo, and beard trims. There are approximately 1,800 Sport Clips franchise stores and an additional 75 Sport Clips stores owned and operated by SCI. SCI provides operating rules to its franchisees in a confidential operating manual.2 The operating manual does not cover employment policies, employee compensation, or employee benefits. These employment matters are determined by the individual franchisee. Instead, the operating manual focuses on business operations. According to Gordon Logan, CEO of SCI, the company trademark “[is] the essence of the business. You have to have a trademark and protect that trademark in order to have a viable system, one that franchisees can present in a consistent manner and the public knows what to expect when they come into a franchise business using that trademark.” The purpose of the procedures and specifications in the operating manual is to protect the Sport Clips trademark and brand. If SCI failed to enforce its trademark and brand standards, it could lose the right to use the trademark. Further, it ensures that the public’s expectations are met 2 Neither party introduced a copy of the confidential operating manual into evidence at the hearing and therefore it is not part of the record of this case. no matter which store they visit in the country, and protects the franchisees’ investments in the franchise. The procedures and specifications set forth in SCI’s franchise agreement and operating manual, including requiring franchisees to participate in specific training, use Sport Clips uniforms, and use a particular point of sales system, are typical of the franchise industry. JV-SC is a Florida Limited Liability Company managed by Drew C. Hopper. JV-SC’s sole corporate office is located at 708 Main Street, Houston, Texas. No SCI officer, employee, or representative holds any position with JV-SC, nor does any JV-SC officer, employee, or representative hold any position with SCI. Likewise, SCI has no ownership interest in any of Mr. Hopper’s Sport Clips stores or business entities, and Mr. Hopper and his business entities have no ownership interest in SCI. Over the last 21 years, Mr. Hopper has been involved in approximately 30 Sport Clips stores as a franchisee. Through JV-SC, Mr. Hopper operates eight Sport Clips franchise stores for profit in North Central Florida, including two locations in Gainesville. Mr. Hopper hired Ms. Kelley to manage the day-to-day operations of the Gainesville stores, and Ms. Kelley hired Ms. Turner, with Mr. Hopper’s approval, to manage and cut hair at one of JV-SC’s Gainesville stores. JV-SC has a franchise agreement with SCI with regard to the Gainesville location managed by Ms. Turner (“Franchise Agreement”). Under the Franchise Agreement, SCI granted JV-SC “a non-exclusive and personal license to operate one unit of the Franchised Business in strict conformity with the Franchisor’s standards and specifications” at 2231 Northwest 13th Street, Suite 20, Gainesville, Florida 32608 (“13th Street Location”). Ms. Kelley and Ms. Turner were responsible for recruiting and hiring hair stylists at the 13th Street Location. Ms. Turner was responsible for supervising the stylists at the 13th Street Location. Employees in JV-SC’s corporate office in Houston also handled human resources functions for JV-SC. Mr. Hopper ultimately decided what to pay stylists on behalf of JV-SC. JV-SC set employee expectations and Ms. Kelley and Ms. Turner were responsible for handling employee misconduct and firing decisions at the 13th Street Location. Ms. Kelley and Ms. Turner were also responsible for ensuring that the 13th Street Location was properly equipped with necessary tools and inventory. Mr. Boyd was a hair stylist at the 13th Street Location. He was hired by Ms. Turner on August 30, 2017, and his rate of pay was set by JV-SC at $10 per hour. When he was hired, he completed a new hire form which states in bold print at the top: “JV-SC Investments LLC DBA Sport Clips FL901.” Mr. Boyd’s employment was terminated less than three months after he was hired by Ms. Turner for a violation of JV-SC policy related to a customer complaint. SCI had no involvement in Mr. Boyd’s hiring or termination of employment. During his employment, Mr. Boyd’s work schedule was established by Ms. Turner and his benefits, including holidays, vacation pay, and health insurance, were determined by JV-SC. If Mr. Boyd was going to be late or absent from work, he needed to contact Ms. Turner. Ms. Turner supervised Mr. Boyd’s appearance and conduct while on duty at the 13th Street Location and she conducted his performance reviews. SCI has never exercised control over Mr. Boyd, including his working hours, pay, and vacation benefits. Mr. Boyd’s personnel records were created and maintained by JV-SC and the records repeatedly identify JV-SC as Mr. Boyd’s employer. Mr. Boyd’s paychecks and W-2 were issued by JV-SC and make no reference to SCI. Likewise, Ms. Turner and Ms. Kelley were hired and paid by JV-SC and JV-SC created and maintained their personnel records. SCI has no employment records indicating that Mr. Boyd, Ms. Turner, or Ms. Kelley were ever employed by SCI. JV-SC had an employee handbook based on a template it received from SCI. The handbook was modified by JV-SC and could be modified by JV-SC at any time. Indeed, SCI expressly advised JV-SC to modify the form handbook to ensure it complied with local laws and to reflect the business practices of JV-SC. The employee handbook identifies JV-SC in bold red print on the front cover and provides “Sport Clips stores are independently owned and operated franchises. Team Members working in franchised stores are employed by the franchisee (Team Leader) and are not employed by Sport Clips, Inc.” JV-SC’s employee handbook was provided to its employees, including Mr. Boyd. JV-SC’s employee handbook required Mr. Boyd to report complaints of discrimination to his manager, Ms. Turner, or if he had a complaint concerning her, to Mr. Hopper at JV-SC. Under section XVI of the Franchise Agreement, JV-SC “acknowledges and agrees that [JV-SC] is an independent business person and independent contractor.” Further, this section provides in relevant part: Nothing in the Agreement is intended to make either party an agent, legal representative, subsidiary, joint venturer, partner, employee or servant of the other for any purpose whatsoever. During the term of this Agreement, [JV-SC] shall hold itself out to the public as an independent contractor operating the Franchised Business pursuant to a license from [SCI] and as an authorized user of the System and the Proprietary marks which are owned by [SCI]. [JV-SC] agrees to take such affirmative action as may be necessary to do so, including exhibiting to customers a sign provided by [SCI] in a conspicuous place on the premises of the Franchised Business. In compliance with this section of the Franchise Agreement, JV-SC posted at its 13th Street Location a sign in the front of the store which states: “This Sport Clips store is owned and operated by JV-SC Investments, LLC an independent Sport Clips franchisee.” With regard to JV-SC’s employees, the Franchise Agreement provides that “[SCI] shall not have the power to hire, manage, compensate or fire [JV-SC’s] employees and it is expressly agreed that [SCI] has no employment relationship with [JV-SC’s] employees.” The Franchise Agreement further provides: Franchisees are responsible for hiring, managing and compensating their employees within the laws of any jurisdiction in which they operate and are encouraged to consult their own legal counsel to ensure their compliance with all applicable laws. Franchisee and Franchisor recognize that Franchisor neither dictates nor controls labor and employment matters for the Franchisee or the Franchisee’s employees. Over the last 21 years, SCI has never told Mr. Hopper “who to hire, how to hire, how much [he] should hire them for, how much [he] should pay [employees]. It’s always been up to [him].” With regard to JV-SC’s funds and store premises, the Franchise Agreement provides “[e]xcept as herein expressly provided, [SCI] may not control or have access to [JV-SC’s] funds or the premises of the Franchised Business, or in any other way exercise dominion or control over the Franchised Business.” SCI has no control or ownership interest over JV-SC’s bank accounts, set up by Mr. Hopper; SCI is only authorized to withdraw from the accounts the specific royalties and fees set forth in the Franchise Agreement. Proceeds from the sales at the 13th Street Location are deposited into JV-SC’s bank account. SCI does not lease or own the property at the 13th Street Location or any of the 23 locations Mr. Hopper franchises from SCI. JV-SC leases the property from a third party. SCI does not own any real estate in common with or lease any property to Mr. Hopper or his related business entities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner failed to prove that Sport Clips, Inc. is an “employer” pursuant to section 760.02(7), Florida Statute, and dismissing the Petitions for Relief filed in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Robert W. Bauer, Esquire Bauer Law Group, P.A. Suite B 3721 Northwest 40th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32606 (eServed) Deborah L. Taylor, Esquire SportsClips, Inc. Suite 1200 3730 Kirby Drive Houston, Texas 77098 Stephanie M. Marchman, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. Suite 106 720 Southwest 2nd Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601-6250 (eServed) Maria Perez Youngblood, Esquire Law Office of Robert W. Bauer, P.A. Suite B 3721 Northwest 40th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32606 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
