Findings Of Fact The petition herein was filed by Petitioner with PERC on February 12, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated April 23, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The Sheriff of Sarasota County is an officer who holds his position by virtue of Article VIII, Section 1(d) of the Constitution of the State of Florida. The duties, responsibilities, and powers of the Sheriff's Department are delineated in Florida Statutes, Ch. 30. There are no special statutes which alter the provisions of Ch. 30 with respect to the Sheriff of Sarasota County. The Petitioner is an association which is seeking to represent a group of public employees concerning matters relating to their employment relationship with the Sheriff's Department. The Petitioner has been certified by PERC to serve as the bargaining representative for employees of the City of Sarasota, Florida. The Petitioner requested recognition as the bargaining agent of the unit of employees described in the petition. The Sheriff's Department did not respond to the request. (Stipulation, Transcript of Record, Page 6). 1/ There is no contractual bar for holding an election in this case. (Stipulation, TR 6). There is no collective bargaining history which would affect the issues in this case. (Stipulation TR, 6, 7). PERC has previously determined chat the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. The parties stipulated that probationary personnel employed by the Sheriff's Department, and special deputies who are not regularly salaried employees of the Sheriff's Department should be excluded from any collective bargaining unit ultimately certified by PERC as appropriate in this case. The organizational structure of the Sheriff's Department is accurately depicted in an organizational chart which was received in evidence as Hearing Officer's Exhibit 5. The Sheriff is the chief executive officer of the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department is divided into six divisions. There are six sworn law enforcement personnel in the Research, Development, and Training Division. The Division is headed by a Lieutenant. A Corporal serves in this division for two days weekly in the Crime Prevention office. There are four officers in the division. The Sheriff's Staff is headed by the Sheriff. There are no sworn law enforcement personnel in this division. There are five sworn law enforcement personnel in the Detention Division. The Division is headed by a Captain. One sergeant and three patrolmen serve in the division. Two of the patrolmen serve as process servers. The Sergeant supervises the activities of the patrolmen and answers to the Captain. There are approximately 78 sworn law enforcement personnel in the Patrol Division. A Captain is in charge of the Division. There are five lieutenants, seven sergeants, and seven corporals. There are five sworn law enforcement personnel in the Administration Division. The Division is headed by a Captain and includes one lieutenant, one corporal, and two patrolmen. There are sixteen sworn officers in the Investigative Division. The Division is headed by a Captain, and includes two sergeants and three corporals. The Sheriff is ultimately responsible for hiring, firing, suspending, and transferring employees of the Sheriff's Department. Captains serve as heads of four of the Department's divisions. The Captain is responsible for the functioning of his division, and for the assignment and training of personnel who serve under him. Captains are the second highest ranking officers in the Department, and answer directly to the Sheriff. Captains normally work a standard day shift. Lieutenants are in charge of the shifts in the Patrol Division. The lieutenants answer to the Patrol Division Captain. The Lieutenant in the Administration Division is in charge of the Purchasing Office and answers to the Administration Division Captain. The Lieutenant in the Research, Development and Training Division is in charge of the Division and answers directly to the Sheriff. Lieutenants who work the day shift work primarily in the central office. In the four to midnight and midnight shifts the Lieutenant works primarily in a patrol car. Lieutenants are responsible for scheduling the men on their shifts, and for inspecting the men. Lieutenants will serve as acting captain during all times when no captain is on duty. The uniform worn by lieutenants and captains includes a white shirt with the appropriate bars worn on the shoulder. Personnel with the rank of sergeant or below wear uniforms which have light green shirts with patches on the arms. Each of the captains in the Department has use of a department motor vehicle. Some but not all lieutenants and sergeants have use of automobiles. The Sergeants are directly responsible for supervising deputies on patrol. Sergeants are generally responsible for supervising fewer employees than Lieutenants supervise, and Sergeants do not perform regular office functions. Corporals generally serve as backup units for the road deputies. The Sheriff seeks recommendations from each level of the chain of command for personnel action including hiring, firing, transfer, suspension, and other disciplinary action. An advisory committee, which consists of sergeants, corporals, and deputies, makes recommendations respecting hiring of new employees. The Sheriff also utilizes an advisory committee to make recommendations respecting promotions. The Sheriff typically follows the recommendations of Captains respecting personnel administration. Typically the Captains recommendations will be based upon the Lieutenant's recommendations which will be based upon the Sergeant's recommendations. Each division and each department within each division submits proposed budgets to the Administrative Captain. The Administrative Captain and the Sheriff together prepare a proposed budget for the Sheriff's Department. Final budget approval must come from the County Commission. The Sheriff has the various appeal routes set out in Florida Statutes Ch. 30 in the event the County Commission does not approve his proposed budget. Only the Sheriff can expend funds on behalf of the Sheriff's Department. Staff meetings are conducted by the Sheriff on an as-needed basis. Captains and Lieutenants regularly serve on the Sheriff's staff. No personnel below the rank of lieutenant regularly serve on the staff. Other officers are invited to participate in the staff meetings when matters affecting their area of responsibility are involved. The Sheriff receives input at the staff meeting respecting new policies. The Sheriff is ultimately responsible for making decisions respecting new policies, but he does seek the advice of the staff. In the event that the Sheriff's Department engages in the collective bargaining process, no final plans have been formulated respecting which personnel would serve on any negotiating team. The Sheriff intends to do his own negotiating and has not determined whether he will utilize the services of any assistants. ENTERED this 9 day of July, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for employment approximately September 1, 1981, and was hired on October 7, 1981, effective October 11, 1981. Hire dates were set by Respondent based upon the first day of work. Petitioner was terminated simultaneously with her husband on November 17, 1981. Larry G. Chivers, Petitioner's husband, was hired by Respondent on September 7, 1981, as a tractor--trailer driver, sharing driving with several other drivers until October 11, 1983. Thereafter, until he was terminated, he drove exclusively with Petitioner. Respondent claimed Mr. Chivers was initially hired as a "casual" driver and did not go on permanent status until his wife was hired. While his work did not change, with the exception of his new partner, his status with the company changed significantly since casual drivers accrued no seniority nor did the alleged 30 work day probationary period begin to run. Since Petitioner and her husband were fired a few hours after completing their work on their thirtieth day of work together and since probationary employees were given no recourse when fired, Mr. Chivers' status was important to him in any challenge to his discharge. The evidence was conflicting as to whether the Chivers were ever informed of their probationary status or if such status was intended by their employer. However, regardless of status at the time of firing, Respondent could not have lawfully discharged Petitioner because of her sex or marital status. See Subsection 23.167(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1981). The Chivers reported directly to Mr. Dennis O'Neal, Supervisor of Terminal Operations, Caribbean Air Express (CAX) a division of Westinghouse located at Sanford, Florida. O'Neal was responsible for driving assignments for CAX, which obtained its drivers from Respondent. Although O'Neal had no authority to hire or fire drivers, he made recommendations directly to Mr. Robert Adair, Manager of Personnel Relations for Respondent, who had such authority. On November 16 or 17, 1981, O'Neal recommended to Adair that the Chivers be fired and Adair instructed O'Neal to terminate them. Petitioner was the only female driver ever hired by Respondent and her hiring presented special problems. Although it was assumed that she would drive with her husband on a team basis, company policy required that she drive with any available driver in the event her husband was not available. Petitioner, her husband, Adair and O'Neal acknowledged that some drivers had indicated they would refuse to drive with a woman. Such refusal to drive was grounds for discharge under company policy and Respondent so advised at least one driver who raised this issue. Respondent urges a finding that Petitioner was guilty of "unsatisfactory performance" and was fired for that reason. See Petitioner's proposed findings numbered 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. Although the evidence establishes that the Chivers were unable to report their precise location on one trip during a scheduled call-in, and that on several trips they made excessive stops, their overall job performance met company standards. Their trip times were somewhat below the company average, but were not the slowest. There were no allegations against them of misconduct, unsafe practices or mishandling of company equipment or cargo. Therefore, "unsatisfactory performance" as a proffered basis for discharge is rejected. Respondent's primary grounds for discharging the Chivers involved their attitude. This reason was given to them at the time of firing along with the unsatisfactory performance assertion. Specifically, they were told that they did not have a "Westinghouse attitude." The Chivers made frequent complaints about the condition of their equipment to their supervisor, Dennis O'Neal. Although these complaints and "write-ups" had at least some validity, O'Neal resented their frequency. On their last trip from Sanford, Florida, to Irwin, Pennsylvania, where Robert Adair was located, the Chivers called on Adair to voice a number of grievances. Mr. Chivers did most of the talking, but Petitioner was present and indicated by her participation that she agreed with the complaints her husband presented. The Chivers complained that other teams were getting the longer, better paying routes and that the dispatcher was not following a first-in, first-out policy. They also accused another team which they met on the highway of being off-route and speeding. The Chivers further complained about their employing company and its practices to other drivers, dock workers, dispatchers and customers. In one case a dock foreman, Mr. Rick Scheaffer, asked O'Neal to keep Petitioner off his dock because of her griping. Petitioner contends that most of the complaining which her employer found unacceptable originated with her husband, and that his complaints were unfairly attributed to her. This argument must be rejected since Petitioner was present at virtually all times when her husbands complained to Adair or O'Neal. These supervisors reasonably understood all complaints to be hers as well as those of her husband by her participation and assent. The parties sought to develop evidence on the basis which drivers were hired and fired. Since Petitioner was the only female driver ever hired by the company (which is now out of business) the relevance of company practices is somewhat limited. Although the company tried to hire drivers as teams whenever possible, it did not fire them together unless both team members were guilty of the same misconduct or both were unacceptable workers. Respondent hired Petitioner in the face of opposition from its then exclusively male driving pool. Their concerns involved possible domestic relation problems which could arise if a married male driver was dispatched on an out of state trip with Petitioner. Respondent's refusal to give in to such pressure is inconsistent with Petitioner's claim that a month and a half later she was fired because of her sex and marital status.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Human Relations Commission issue a Final Order dismissing petitioner's complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Ransford C. Pyle, Esquire 621 East Washington Street Suite 7 Orlando, Florida 32801 Barnett Q. Brooks, Esquire Westinghouse Building Gateway Center Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15222 T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1984. Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Human Relations Commission Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact On May 23, 2005, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a ready-mix concrete truck driver at Respondent’s Gainesville plant. Petitioner was a good employee. He had a clean driving record, and he did not have any disciplinary problems while working for Respondent. On or about July 27, 2007, Petitioner had a “mild” heart attack and was placed on medical leave by Respondent. In September 2007, Petitioner was released by his personal physician to return to work. Thereafter, Petitioner returned to work for a couple of days and began the process of being recertified for his driving duties. He reviewed safety materials and videos and did “ride- alongs” with other drivers. Before Petitioner could return to his driving duties, he was required by federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations to pass a physical and be certified as “physically qualified.” Recertification is required every 24 months and after an injury that impairs the driver’s ability to perform his/her normal duties, such as the heart attack suffered by Petitioner. Petitioner understood that he could not return to his job as a ready-mix concrete truck driver until he passed a physical and received his DOT certification. On September 12, 2007, Respondent sent Petitioner to a DOT-approved physician in Ocala for his physical. Petitioner did not pass the physical. The DOT-approved physician expressed concerns about Petitioner’s cardiac surgery, possible sleep apnea (based upon a questionnaire filled out by Petitioner), and blood pressure issues. There is no credible evidence that Respondent influenced the DOT-approved physician’s decision in any way. Petitioner’s suspicion that Respondent had something to do with the decision is unfounded. Petitioner’s personal physician disagreed with the concerns expressed by the DOT-approved physician, and after Petitioner underwent a series of tests, it was determined that he did not have sleep apnea. On November 9, 2007, Respondent laid Petitioner off based upon his “failure to meet job qualifications.” Petitioner was 48 years old at the time of the lay- off. There is no credible evidence that Petitioner’s age or medical condition played any role in Respondent’s decision to lay Petitioner off. Rather, the decision was based solely upon Petitioner’s failure to have the DOT certification that was required for him to drive a ready-mix concrete truck. Respondent gave Petitioner ample time to obtain his DOT certification before it laid him off. Approximately two months passed between the time that Petitioner was cleared to return to work by his personal physician and the time that he was laid off for not having his DOT certification. Petitioner did not obtain his DOT certification until some point in January 2008. Petitioner was treated no differently by Respondent than other drivers -- both older and younger than Petitioner -- who lost their DOT certification. Like Petitioner, those drivers were fired because they did not meet the applicable job qualifications. Petitioner testified that he was told that he would be rehired when he got his DOT certification. This testimony is corroborated by the comment on the Employee Separation Notice for Petitioner, which stated “Jesse has been unable to get his DOT card/when he does he will be rehired.” By the time Petitioner obtained his DOT certification in January 2008, Respondent’s business had declined due to the slow-down in the economy and the building industry, and it did not have any work for Petitioner. Respondent laid off three drivers at its Gainesville plant in December 2007, and it laid off an additional five drivers at the plant in February 2008 because of the decline in its business. Six of the eight drivers who were laid-off were younger than Petitioner. After these lay-offs, there were still three drivers employed at Respondent’s Gainesville plant who had less seniority than Petitioner, but in order to rehire Petitioner, Respondent would have had to fire one of those drivers. There were also a number of drivers still employed at Respondent’s Gainesville plant who were older and had more seniority than Petitioner. Respondent’s decision not to fire one of the other drivers in order to re-hire Petitioner was reasonable under the circumstances. And, more importantly, there is no credible evidence that this decision was motivated in any way by Petitioner’s age or a perceived disability based upon his heart attack. Respondent has not hired any drivers at its Gainesville plant since the lay-offs described above. Petitioner has not worked since he was laid off by Respondent. He testified that he has tried to find another truck-driving job, but that like Respondent, most companies are not hiring drivers because of the slow-down in the economy and the building industry. Petitioner would likely still be employed by Respondent if he had obtained his DOT certification before Respondent started laying off drivers because Petitioner was a good employee with more seniority than all but one of the drivers who were laid off in December 2007 and February 2008. Petitioner believes that Respondent could have put him to work in the warehouse or on the yard until he obtained his DOT certification and could return to driving duties. However, the record does not reflect whether any positions were available in the warehouse or on the yard or whether Petitioner was qualified for those positions. Petitioner testified that he was told by other employees that they overheard Respondent’s managers stating that they did not intend to return Petitioner to his driving duties because his heart attack made him a “high risk driver.” No evidence was presented to corroborate this hearsay-based testimony. Petitioner also testified that a supervisor made a critical comment to him regarding his use of a cane immediately after he returned to work. The supervisor denied making the comment, and even if the comment was made, there is no credible evidence that it was anything more than an isolated comment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to the issues herein, petitioner Davis was an automotive equipment repair foreman at respondent's Pinellas County Maintenance plant. In addition to this employment, petitioner also had a pecuniary interest in the Sunshine Speedway in St. Petersburg. A steel pole was located on private property belonging to Sunshine Speedway. Because persons and/or vehicles had been injured by this pole, petitioner and a heavy equipment operator employed by respondent decided to remove it. They went to respondent's maintenance yard at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. after their hours of employment, got a crane truck belonging to respondent, drove it to the Speedway, removed the steel pole to another area and returned the truck to the maintenance yard after dark. Petitioner neither asked for nor received permission to use respondent's equipment for this purpose. At a time when petitioner was leasing the Sunshine Speedway, and during his hours of employment with respondent, he filled a dump truck belonging to respondent with limerock or scrap materials. After his hours of employment with respondent, petitioner drove this truck to the Speedway and dumped its contents near the entranceway for the purpose of making a culvert or crossover. While there was some evidence that petitioner had the permission of his immediate supervisor, Mr. William Dasher, to use the respondent's scrap culvert material, petitioner admitted that no one gave him the authority to improve the entranceway to the Speedway or to use the respondent's truck for this purpose. As a result of the facts described in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, respondent found that petitioner had violated state rules and regulations and departmental policies with regard to the unauthorized use of state equipment outside of his regular assigned duties and responsibilities and for other than state purposes. The disciplinary action taken was demotion of petitioner from automotive equipment repair foreman at Pinellas Maintenance to automotive equipment mechanic II and reassignment to Tampa Maintenance. Petitioner thereafter appealed this disciplinary demotion and reassignment to the Career Service Commission. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing, and the undersigned was designated to conduct the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Commission affirm the demotion and reassignment of petitioner inasmuch as the same was based upon good cause and was in accordance with established rules and regulations. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Horace E. Davis Post Office Box 375 Pinellas Park, Florida 33565 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Phillip Bennett, Esquire Department of Administration Department of Transportation Room 530 Carlton Building Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact On October 1, 1978, Respondent initiated its Young Adult Conservation Corps program (YACC) at its Everglades Youth Camp. This facility is located in Palm Beach County on the J. W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area. It has traditionally served as a summer camp for children ages 8 through 14. The YACC was an experimental program funded by the Federal Government and was intended to train hard-core unemployed young people, ages 16 to 23. The enrollees in the program were required to live at the camp, which is located in a remote and isolated area. Petitioner was hired on a temporary basis to serve as a "houseparent." In this capacity, Petitioner was assigned responsibility for the enrollees conduct after the work day. He was to provide guidance during the evening hours and insure that enrollees observed the nightly curfew. Respondent received unconfirmed reports that Petitioner was fraternizing with a female enrollee and warned him that such conduct as unacceptable by letter dated December 7, 1978. Petitioner, who was single and about the same age as the enrollees, was not successful in maintaining the degree of enrollee discipline sought by Respondent. Because Petitioner's difficulty in maintaining the desired atmosphere resulted, in part, from his youth and marital status, Respondent determined that he should be replaced by an older, married couple. This was essentially a policy decision. However, Respondent had also decided to fire Petitioner because of his increasingly poor attitude toward his job and his inability to control the enrollees. By memorandum dated January 5, 1979, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was discharged based on the policy decision to fill houseparent positions with married couples. No reference was made to Respondent's performance in this memorandum.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of an unlawful employment practice as charged in these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott William Katz, Esquire 3959 Lake Worth Road Lake Worth, Florida 33461 G. Kenneth Gilleland, Esquire 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Colonel Robert M. Brantly Executive Director Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Herbert W. Mize is a compliance officer for the Petitioner, the Department of Labor and Employment Security. On January 14, 1986, Mr. Mize was performing field checks in Hillsborough County. He arrived at a citrus grove, staying on the outside due to the canker problem. Ten to fifteen workers were up on ladders among the citrus trees. The Petitioner, Marvin James, was driving a vehicle loading up citrus. Mr. Mize asked Mr. James who was crew leader on the job at that time. Mr. James stated that he was the crew leader. A 1977 Dodge van was parked nearby. Mr. James told Mr. Mize that it was his van and that he drove workers to work that day in his van. The same 1977 Dodge van had previously been insured by Mr. James by the U.S. Fire Insurance Company, but Mr. James did not have insurance on the 1977 Dodge van on January 14, 1986. P. Ex. 4, 5, and 6. Mr. Mize gave a notice of noncompliance to Mr. James, and Mr. James acknowledged that he had seen it by signing it at the bottom. P. Ex. 3. Relevant to this case, Mr. James was informed by Mr. Mize that he was in noncompliance with state law by failure to carry and exhibit proper certificate of registration as a farm labor contractor and by failure to obtain adequate vehicle insurance. Id. Mr. James testified that he was very familiar with the law requiring farm labor contractor registration and vehicle insurance to transport workers since he had been a crew leader since 1978. Mr. James testified that on January 14, 1987, he was working for Carl Junior Mears, but only to load citrus, and that he did not transport workers in his van and did not supervise workers in the grove. His testimony is rejected as not credible for the following reasons: Mr. James testified that he was "under his van working" when Mr. Mize came up. He gave no explanation why he was working on his van instead of loading citrus as he testified at another point. Mr. Mears admitted that Mr. James did direct and supervise workers in the grove from time to time, and also admitted that Mr. James "sent" workers to him. Both of the worker witnesses presented by Mr. James testified that they had known James for a number of years, which indicates that they have had some sort of formal working relationship with him. If Mr. James in fact had told Mr. Mize that he was not the crew leader, it would have been logical for Mr. Mize to have then asked "well, who is the crew leader?" But Mr. James insisted that he did not tell Mr. Mize where the crew leader was because Mr. James said Mr. Mize did not ask. This is not believable. Mr. James testified that Mr. Mears was the crew leader, and that he was available in the grove on January 14, 1986. Considering the fact that Mr. James was familiar with the requirements of the law, if it were true that Mr. Mears was present in the grove, it would logically be expected that Mr. James would have tried to be helpful and would have voluntarily told Mr. Mize who Mr. Mears was and where he was even if Mr. Mize had somehow failed to ask. It is particularly unbelievable that Mr. James would not have, on his own, told Mr. Mize where Mr. Mears was located since Mr. James admitted that Mr. Mize that day cited him for crew leader violations, and Mr. James signed the citation. P. Ex. 3. The demeanor of Mr. Mize indicated credibility, while the demeanor of Mr. James indicated a lack of credibility. Mr. Mears paid Mr. James for his services as a crew leader. On January 14, 1986, Mr. James drove workers to the citrus groves in his 1977 Dodge van and he was supervising them as a crew leader, both for pay from Mr. Mears. Mr. James was not registered on January 14, 1986 as a crew leader, and did not have insurance on the 1977 Dodge van he used to transport workers.
Recommendation For these reasons it is recommended that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter its final order finding that the Respondent, Marvin James, on January 14, 1986, violated section 450.30(1), Fla. Stat., by failing to have a certificate of registration in full force and effect and in his possession and violated section 450.33(5), Fla. Stat., by failing to have a policy of insurance on his 1977 Dodge van used to transport farmworkers, and assessing a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000). DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 13th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1704 The following are rulings upon findings of fact by number or paragraph number as proposed by the parties which have been rejected. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: None. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: Paragraph 2: Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 7. Paragraph 3: Rejected for the reasons stated in fending of fact 7. Paragraph 4: Mr. Mize had no need to talk to workers in the grove since Mr. James admitted he was the crew leader, and did not tell Mr. Mize then that Mr. Mears was the crew leader. Paragraph 5: Mr. Mize testified that he saw workers on ladders, and made it clear that his number was only an estimate. Paragraph 6: Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 7. Paragraph 7: Rejected for lack of testimony in the record as to these facts. Paragraph 8: Rejected in the conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Kenneth Hart, Esquire General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 131 Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Marvin James 1501 Island Avenue Dade City, Florida 33525 Moses E. Williams, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Montgomery Building, Room 117 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
The Issue Did Respondent engage in unlawful employment practices against Petitioner on the basis of race, and if so, what remedies are available to redress the wrong? Sections 760.10 and 760.11, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner meets the definition of "person" in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes, entitled to assert claims for relief under the Florida Civil Rights Act. It was not disputed that Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Based upon the record it is inferred that Respondent is an employer subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act in the conduct of its employment practices. Respondent is a corporation with three shareholders who each have a one-third interest in the business. In the corporation the shareholders are Vehad Ghagvini and his brothers. Vehad Ghagvini is the president of the corporation and responsible for the day-to-day operation. Vicki Goodman serves as the Human Resources Administrator for the company and is responsible for matters associated with claims of discrimination by company employees. At times relevant Larry Smith was a supervisor for Respondent. On two separate occasions Petitioner worked for Respondent. The first occasion was from November 8, 1999, through June 7, 2000. His position with the company was that of a laborer. When he separated from employment on June 7, 2000, it was based upon his own decision. At that time it was indicated in his personnel record that Petitioner would be subject to being rehired and it was commented that Petitioner was considered to be a hard worker and reliable. The personnel records show the signature of Larry Smith as supervisor when Petitioner terminated his employment with Respondent on June 7, 2000. Petitioner returned to employment with Respondent in October 2000, and was involuntarily terminated on December 5, 2000, from his position of a laborer. According to the papers describing his separation from employment on December 5, 2000, he was terminated for "failure to attend job responsibilities; excessive absences on Saturdays." The form indicated that his work evaluation was poor. It was indicated that Respondent did not intend to rehire Petitioner beyond that date. Other comments in the discharge indicated that Petitioner "was a reliable and diligent worker during previous employment with the company but failed to work to same standards this time around." Petitioner was required to work on Saturday. He did not work on October 7, 2000, a Saturday, the Saturday of the week of October 9, 2000, the Saturday of the week of October 23, 2000, the Saturday of the week of October 30, 2000, the Saturday of the week of November 13, 2000, and Saturday, December 2, 2000. During this time frame Petitioner worked as a service truck operator with duties that included fueling Respondent's equipment on road construction jobs that were ongoing on the Saturday dates that Petitioner missed. Before his termination Petitioner had been counseled on October 17, 2000, and in November 2000 concerning his absences on Saturdays. Petitioner's testimony that he was only required to work on Saturday on a voluntary basis and that meant that he only needed to work one Saturday in his more recent employment is not accepted. Attached to Respondent's Exhibit numbered 5 is an EEO summary from Respondent pointing out that employees of various races had been subject to termination in a pattern that does not discriminate based upon race. Petitioner's termination on December 5, 2000, is in keeping with that practice. Petitioner has portrayed his dismissal from employment with Respondent as originating with his mistreatment by his supervisor, Larry Smith, not his absence from the job. As Petitioner describes it, about a week or two before he was terminated in December 2000, Larry Smith approached Petitioner and told Petitioner that he did not want Petitioner having conversations with females on the job. Petitioner is an African-American. At that time there were two Caucasian females working at the same location Petitioner worked. In particular, one of the females on the job asked Petitioner to take her position directing traffic on the roadway while she went to the restroom. Before she returned Mr. Smith pulled up and saw Petitioner holding the flag for directing traffic. Mr. Smith asked Petitioner why he was holding the flag. Petitioner explained that he was helping the female employee while she went to the restroom by directing traffic until she returned. Later Mr. Smith came back and told Petitioner that he did not want Petitioner having conversations with that female employee. Petitioner surmised that the reason that Mr. Smith had for Petitioner not speaking to the female employee was in relation to the difference in their races, Petitioner's race and that of the female employee. This opinion was reinforced in Petitioner's mind because a similar conversation about not speaking to the female employee occurred three times. Mr. Smith stated his position in such a manner as to have his comments pertain to both female employees on the job. Mr. Smith's remarks were not stated in a manner where he literally said that he did not wish Petitioner to speak to the female employees because Petitioner was an African- American or Black and that the other persons were Caucasian or White. Another incident described by Petitioner was one in which an African-American employee of Don Olsen Tire Company came to repair a tire on a piece of equipment belonging to Respondent. One of the female employees asked for a ride with that individual in his truck back to another location where her van was located. Petitioner, the Don Olsen truck driver, and the female employee rode in the tire repair truck. This was observed by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith approached the female employee and told her that he did not appreciate that she was disrespecting him and his wife by being in the truck with two black guys. Later that day, a Friday, Mr. Smith approached Petitioner and stated that he did not want Petitioner having a conversation or anything to do with females on the job. The following Monday Petitioner was terminated. Petitioner believes that he was terminated because of the circumstances with the female employees of another race that have been described. Mr. Smith also told the Don Olsen employee that he did not want that individual back on the job site fixing anything because the white female employee had been in that individual's truck. There was no showing that Petitioner made Respondent's upper level managers aware of Mr. Smith's comments concerning conversations which Petitioner had with Caucasian females on the job. According to company records, at one time Petitioner had been informed by Respondent concerning the procedures for making complaints about employment practices related to issues of alleged discrimination. At the time that Petitioner was terminated, Mr. Smith pulled up beside him on the job site and commented to the effect "I don't need you no more." That was the only reason given at a subsequent time when Petitioner spoke to Mr. Ghagvini concerning Petitioner's termination. Mr. Ghagvini said that he had heard from Superintendent Smith and that he was going to leave it at that. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning his claim that Whites were allowed to stand around and talk and that black employees were not allowed to do so, or that black employees were in any manner worked harder than white employees. Notwithstanding the prospect that Mr. Smith's motives when telling Petitioner not to speak to female employees on the job was racially motivated, the reason for Petitioner's dismissal was in relation to his failure to attend his duties on Saturday at various times. That explanation was not created as a pretext to divert attention from racial discrimination. After his termination from Respondent, Petitioner filed for unemployment and received those unemployment payments until his eligibility ran out. In that time period he looked for jobs. Eventually Petitioner obtained a position as a pipe layer with Sayaler Utility. He began employment with that company in October 2002, and the employment was continuing at the time of the hearing. Petitioner receives $8.00 an hour for his work and works on an average 35 hours a week. When he was dismissed from his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was receiving $8.50 an hour and was working an average of 35 hours a week.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by FCHR dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief in all respects. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 14th day of February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lonnie Jennings Post Office Box 782 Greenville, Florida 32331 Vehad Ghagvini, President Vicki Goodman, Personnel Representative Sandco, Inc. 2811 Industrial Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, P.A.T. Auto Transport, Inc., committed the violations alleged in the relevant Stop-Work Order and the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Workers' Compensation coverage requirements embodied in Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2008), whereby Florida employers must secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage and benefits for their employees. See § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. The Respondent, P.A.T., is a corporation conducting a trucking business, headquartered in Pensacola, Florida. The Respondent's services include transporting motor vehicles using a fleet of some 61 highway tractors and associated auto transport trailers. Michelle Newcomer is an investigator employed by the Petitioner. Her duties include conducting inspections and investigations of businesses who may be workers' compensation employers, to determine if they are required to have workers' compensation coverage under Florida law, and the extent and compliance of that coverage. Ms. Newcomer conducted an inspection of the Respondent at 6732 Rambler Drive in Pensacola, Florida, on March 18, 2009. She determined that two companies, or businesses, operated at that address, the Respondent and MNT Enterprises (MNT). MNT had a workers' compensation policy covering its employees and was statutorily compliant. Ms. Newcomer also investigated the Respondent and learned that the principal stockholder, George Hedges, was exempt from coverage. She inquired about the status of the truck drivers working for the company and was told by Tracie Hedges that they were independent contractors. She was unable to witness any violations occurring at that time and concluded the investigation. Later, in April 2009, she received information that led her to believe that the Respondent's truck drivers were employees and not independent contractors. She had an opportunity to see a pay stub for a truck driver who had worked for the company who had been injured and had a workers' compensation issue. She noticed that the pay stub reflected that Federal Income Tax withholding had been deducted, along with various other deductions, such as Social Security and Medicare. She felt this might be indicative of an employee relationship, rather than the drivers being independent contractors. She returned to the Respondent's address later that month and issued a written Request for Production of Business Records to the Respondent and to an associated company called TK131. She issued a Stop-Work Order for the Respondent due to its purported failure to comply with workers' compensation coverage requirements for employees. The Respondent did provide the required business records. She reviewed the records provided to her and was able to ascertain that the Respondent employed more than four employees. Additionally, she learned that, although the Respondent, through a leasing arrangement for its office employees, had workers' compensation coverage for them, the 59 drivers and corporate officers did not appear to be covered by workers' compensation insurance. Thereafter, the Stop-Work Order was amended to include the purported failure to secure payment of workers' compensation coverage as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. That resulted in a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment. The Department also issued a Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment to DTS, LLC, which included the predecessor company, Darts Transport. The Stop-Work Order and Penalty Assessment issued to DTS was later revoked, however. The Department takes the position that the Respondent, P.A.T., paid its drivers through the entity known as "DTS", or directly with P.A.T. checks during the audit period, and that the number of drivers paid for their services was more than four employees and closer to 59 drivers for the 61 tractor-trailers owned by the Respondent. The Department does concede that a small number of the drivers were clearly owner-operators and no longer contends that they were employees. The Department thus contends that at no time pertinent hereto did the Respondent have a workers' compensation policy or an employee leasing arrangement in place by which workers' compensation coverage was provided for the drivers. The original Order of Penalty Assessment covered the period April 22, 2006, through April 22, 2009. The 4th Amended Order of Penalty Assessments for those dates, which is at issue in this case, also included a $108,000 fine for the Respondent's working in violation of a Stop-Work Order. The total fine assessed and sought by the Petitioner is $1,564,707.91. The Department maintains that the drivers working for the company are employees and therefore should have been covered with workers' compensation insurance, but the Respondent disputes that claim, asserting that the drivers are independent contractors and therefore do not need to be covered by workers' compensation insurance. The Petitioner maintains that office workers employed by the Respondent were required to be covered by workers' compensation insurance as well. The Respondent maintains that these were covered through coverage obtained from an employee leasing company, through an employee leasing program. The Department also maintains that three employees, as corporate officers, were not properly qualified to be exempt. The Respondent maintains that the required Exemption Request forms were properly delivered to the Department and therefore it complied with the law in obtaining exemptions from workers' compensation coverage. Finally, the Department maintains that certain named individuals were employees of the Respondent and should have been covered by workers' compensation coverage or insurance, but the Respondent maintains that these employees, who essentially performed incidental, non-recurring tasks for the Respondent, were not employees and did not have to be covered by such insurance. Moreover, the Respondent claims that it has a contingent liability insurance policy in place which served as a policy of workers' compensation insurance and for this reason it is compliant also. The parties agree that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035 defines "payroll" as the basis for calculating a penalty. Payroll can include any of ten variations of payments from or through an employer to or on behalf of an employee. These include the payment of traditional wages and also bonuses, un-repaid loans to employees, expense reimbursements that are not documented on the employer's business records, payments binding an employer to a third party on behalf of an employee for services rendered by the employee, among others. Investigator Newcomer relied on Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(a) to define payroll for the office workers and truck drivers paid directly from the Respondent's account. The drivers were paid from the P.A.T. account from July 16, 2008, through April 22, 2009. Investigator Newcomer opined that the drivers' payroll prior to July 16, 2008, could not be included on the Penalty Worksheet based upon Rule 69L- 6.035(1)(a), but rather was based on Rule 69L-6.035(1)(i). Ms. Newcomer did not rely on Rule 69L.6.035(1)(b),(d),(e),(f),(h), or (j) to define P.A.T.'s payroll. The Department included payments to various child support enforcement agencies, made on behalf of drivers, on the Penalty Worksheet, by authority of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.035(1)(c), defined as payments made to a third party on behalf of the employer for services rendered to the employer by the employee. The Department also included as payroll on the Penalty Worksheet loans made to drivers, maintaining that these have not been repaid and should be deemed as part of payroll under Rule 69L-6.035(1)(g). There is no proof that this is the case, however, because neither Ms. Newcomer nor Ms. Hedges offered any evidence to establish that there is proof that some or all of the loans remained unpaid. The Petitioner, through the testimony of Investigator Newcomer, takes the position that payments made by P.A.T. to Darts Transports or DTS,LLC are properly included on the Penalty Worksheet by authority of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L.- 6.035(1)(i). Those payments were made prior to July 16, 2008, before P.A.T. began making payments directly to drivers. The Rule provision in question, concerns payments made to an alleged non-compliant employer who has contracted with the customer, if the contract includes payment for labor and materials. If it is impossible to segregate the cost of materials from the employee payroll in such a contract, then under this Rule provision, 80 percent of the total contract price shall be presumed to be the employer's payroll, with regard to that customer and contract. The unrefuted evidence, however, establishes that the drivers in this situation were paid a flat 25 percent commission of the hauling fee charged by P.A.T., after deduction of the cost of fuel for the trucks. P.A.T.'s customers paid the fuel surcharge to P.A.T. There is no evidence that P.A.T. provided customers with any materials. Its business operation involves solely and simply the transportation of customer-owned vehicles. The Department also maintains that corporate officers Bradley Hedges and Gregory A. Hedges, as well as Teri Kimberly Forret, corporate officers of P.A.T., are non-exempt employees. It contends that under Rule 69L-6.035(2) their compensation constitutes "payroll," under the default formula in that Rule provision, for defining payroll to a corporate officer, if the ten factors under sub-section(1) of that Rule do not address the means of compensation received by those corporate officers. The quintessential question in this case, however, concerns whether the drivers are independent contractors or employees. If they are independent contractors, then there is no obligation on the part of the Respondent to ensure payment of workers' compensation benefits for them. This would mean that the Respondent cannot be adjudicated non-compliant by the Petitioner Department and payments to the drivers would not constitute payroll and would be stricken from the Penalty Worksheet calculation. Independent contractor status is defined in Section 440.02(15)(d)1.a.(I)-(VI) and b.(I)-(VII), Florida Statutes (2008). Under the former statutory provision, four of the six criteria must be met for independent contractor status to be established. Under the latter provision, any of the seven conditions named in that provision may be satisfied and independent contractor status thus established. With regard to the criteria in Section 440.02(15)(d)1.a.(I)-(VI), the preponderant weight of the evidence shows that some of the truck drivers are independent contractors with federal employer identification numbers and some are sole proprietors who are therefore not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under pertinent state or federal regulations. § 440.02(15)(d)1.a.(II), Fla. Stat. The evidence also shows, for purposes of Subsection(15)(d)1a.(V) of this statutory provision, that the drivers are permitted to work or perform work for other entities or companies needing their services, in addition to the Respondent, at the election of the driver. There is no showing that an employment application must be completed to perform such tasks for other unrelated entities. The drivers must use the unrelated company's truck for work assigned to them by such other companies or entities. They are not permitted to use P.A.T. trucks for non-P.A.T. transportation work (driving) they have agreed to perform. Moreover, all the drivers are compensated for completion of a task or set of tasks according to a flat 25 percent commission of the hauling charge imposed by P.A.T. There is no evidence that clearly shows a contractual agreement which expressly states that an employment relationship exists between the drivers and P.A.T. Even if the status and operations of the drivers referenced above does not meet four of the criteria listed in sub-subparagraph a. Subsection 440.02(d)1., they may still be presumed to be independent contractors and not employees, based upon a full consideration of the nature of their individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the conditions or criteria referenced in Section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.(I)-(VII). With regard to the first criteria under that provision, the drivers perform the services of driving for a specific amount of money in the form of a 25 percent commission. They control a substantial amount of the means of performing the services or work. The driver is asked to deliver vehicles from point A to point B for that commission. He gets paid that commission whether it takes one day or six days to accomplish the task. The driver determines the route to be driven. The driver, within the limits of the Department of Transportation rules, determines when to begin driving and when to pull over to sleep. The driver is free to decline to accept a hauling job. There is no detrimental action taken against a driver for declining to accept a given hauling job, unless it happens too frequently for satisfactory conduct of P.A.T.'s operations. The driver must provide the incidental tools and equipment, such as binding chains and maintenance tools to operate the truck and securely transport the load of vehicles he is required to transport. The driver is responsible for maintaining current driver's license qualifications and DOT physical examination requirements. The driver is responsible for paying for any necessary badges authorizing entry at maritime ports, a frequent occurrence in the transportation of foreign-manufactured vehicles. The Respondent, P.A.T., either owns or leases the trucks used by the drivers and pays for the insurance policies for the trucks. P.A.T. also pays for routine maintenance of the truck. If the driver causes damage of any sort to the truck, the driver must bear the financial responsibility for repair of the damage. The driver must also bear responsibility for any damage to the vehicles being transported on the trucks. It can thus be seen that both the Respondent and the drivers control a substantial portion, respectively, of the means of performing the services or work. Clearly, the unrefuted evidence shows that the drivers receive compensation for the work or services performed (driving services, incidental loading and unloading and protection responsibilities, with regard to the vehicular cargo), for a commission or per job basis and not on any other basis. Therefore criterion number IV, cited last above, is clearly met. Concerning criterion (II) under the last-referenced provision cited above, the drivers incur expenses for costs of their commercial driver's license, repair costs for any vehicle damage to the truck or to the vehicles which are being transported by the truck; any DOT fines incurred by the drivers; any badge expenses, as port entry and exit fees, must be borne by the drivers; lodging and meal expenses on the road during a haul must be borne by the drivers, without reimbursement. Concerning criterion (III), the driver is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she agrees to perform, in the operational sense, in that the driver will not be paid if the delivery of the vehicles ordered to be transported is not satisfactorily accomplished. The privity of contract, however, for a given hauling job runs between the customer and P.A.T., the Respondent, who the customer actually contracts with to have the vehicles transported. The drivers, for purposes of criteria (V), (VI), (VII), of the last-referenced statutory provision, as established by the unrefuted testimony of Ms. Hedges, stand to realize a profit, or suffer a loss, in connection with performing the transportation driving services. They have continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations aside from the expense of owning or leasing the truck, insuring the truck, or the fuel expense which they do not bear. They do, however, have recurring or continuing business liabilities or obligations which have a direct effect on whether they realize any net gain from a commission on a given hauling job. The success or failure of their business, even as sole proprietors, depends on the relationship of their receipts, under their 25 percent commission arrangement, and their expenditures for each hauling job for which they earn that commission. Drivers often complain of losing money due to vehicle repair bills, fines, towing charges, etc. Additionally, as referenced above, although when transporting loads for P.A.T., the drivers must use P.A.T. owned or leased trucks, the drivers are free, under their arrangement, to engage in hauling for other companies or customers, if they are not currently engaged in the middle of a hauling job for P.A.T. They may do so for other companies using other trucks, so long as they do not engage in such transportation services for other entities with P.A.T.'s truck. This factual arrangement tends to also militate in favor of the drivers not being employees. Many of the drivers have the standard federal tax withholdings deducted from their commission payments, as well as, in some cases, court-ordered child support payments. While this might be deemed to militate in favor of an employer/employee relationship, the unrefuted testimony of Ms. Hedges establishes that this is a service that drivers have come to P.A.T.'s management and requested, because in view of their many hours and days spent on the road, and for other reasons, involving their business management abilities, it is an assistance to them to have the tax liabilities simply withheld from their commission payments. This helps to avoid personal difficulties involving arrearages to the Internal Revenue Service. Status of Non-Driver P.A.T. Workers and Corporate Officers Persuasive testimony offered by Tracie Hedges, established that Regina Davis, Robin Hand, Stanley Warren, William Bertelsen, Cecil Hannah, Chipley Atkinson, Kristene Viverios, Katherine Flores, Laura Dunn, Amber Taylor, Amy Murphy, and Ms. Hedges herself, are office workers of P.A.T. They are covered by a policy of workers' compensation insurance through AES Leasing, a worker leasing company. Apparently the Petitioner no longer disputes this. Ms. Hedges reviewed, in her testimony, the final Penalty Worksheet concerning the status of various named persons who the Petitioner contends were employees, not covered by workers' compensation coverage. Ms. Hedges established with persuasive testimony that Arthur Nicolas was not a P.A.T. employee, but did some improvements on the office building (i.e. in the nature of carpentry). Alex Sibbach and Witt Davis did not ever work as employees for P.A.T. They may have performed some yard work or sold some equipment to P.A.T., but were never employees. She also established that Richard Burrson and Robert Marra were dump truck drivers for a company by the name of MNT Enterprises and had never been P.A.T. employees. Bradley and Gregory A. Hedges and Kimberly Forret are officers of P.A.T., or were at times pertinent to this case. The Petitioner contends that they had not established an exemption from the requirement of being covered under a policy of workers' compensation insurance. This is because of the Petitioner's contention that no corporate officer exemption had been filed or made effective. Bradley Hedges and Gregory A. Hedges are children of owners Greg and Tracie Hedges. Kimberly Forret is Tracie Hedges' sister. Ms. Forret is an office worker at P.A.T. and both Bradley and Gregory A. Hedges work at P.A.T. on a part-time basis while attending school. Ms. Hedges completed exemption forms for all three of them and delivered them to Investigator Newcomer's office on Burgess Road in Pensacola, Florida. Investigator Newcomer took the position that the exemptions for these people had not been established or filed based on her examination of agency computer records. The computer program or site failed to establish to her that the three individuals in question had established exemptions. Exemption status is triggered by compliance with Section 440.05, Florida Statutes (2008).1/ Tracie Hedges established with persuasive testimony that the exemption applications for the named three officers had been hand-delivered to the Burgess Road office of the Department of Financial Services. Janice Evers is a staff worker at that office. She testified that her research could neither confirm nor deny that the exemption applications were delivered to her office, but acknowledges their receipt by the Department. It must be concluded that the applications were delivered to the office on Burgess Road but were never forwarded to the Tallahassee office by Ms. Newcomer's or Ms.' Evers staff. Investigator Newcomer's business address is 610 East Burgess Road in Pensacola, the location where Ms. Hedges testified that the exemption applications were delivered. When the Department made a Discovery Request for Production of the Business Records of the Respondent, it required that those records be produced at that same business address in Pensacola, Florida. It is thus "an office of the Department" for purposes of Section 440.05(c), Florida Statutes (2008). Ms. Hedges established that the exemption applications were delivered during the 2005 calendar year although she was unable to provide an exact date of delivery. Ms. Evers acknowledges that fact in her testimony. The Stop-Work Order at issue in this case by statute can only date back as early as April 22, 2006. Even if the applications were delivered on December 31, 2005, the three officers in question would be exempt from workers' compensation coverage requirements prior to April 22, 2006, when the time period, or audit period, related to the Stop-Work Order began. It is determined that at least by January 30, 2006, exemptions had been established, by delivery at least 30 days prior thereto, for Bradley Hedges, Gregory Hedges, and Terri Kimberly Forret. It is found that the exemptions were shown by persuasive evidence to have been delivered during the 2005 calendar year. Inasmuch as they were "received" by the Department in 2005, then they would have become effective, by operation of law, on or before January 30, 2006, well before the effective date of the Penalty Assessment of April 22, 2006.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, dismissing the Stop-Work Order and Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2010.
