The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Hispanic male. Respondent is an 860-unit apartment complex in Ocala. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a full-time maintenance technician from 2001 through September 28, 2007. His job responsibilities included performing repairs and general maintenance work on the insides of the apartments. Petitioner’s starting wage in 2001 was $9.00 per hour. He received annual raises from 2001 to 2004, at which point his wage was $11.75 per hour. Petitioner did not receive any raises from 2004 through 2007. He was still earning $11.75 per hour when he was fired on September 28, 2007. Starting in 2004, Respondent did not give raises to any maintenance technicians who were not HVAC-certified. This policy applied equally to all maintenance technicians, including non-Hispanics, and was intended to encourage them to get HVAC- certified. HVAC certification was important to Respondent because the air conditioning systems at the apartment complex were getting older and were requiring more frequent repairs. Respondent provided the necessary study materials for the HVAC certification exam and paid for the exam. Petitioner is not HVAC-certified. He took the certification exam once, but he did not pass. He did not take the exam again, even though Respondent would have paid for him to do so as it did for other maintenance technicians. HVAC certification is not required to perform all types of work on air conditioners, and Petitioner continued to do some work on the air conditioners at the apartment complex after 2004 even though he was not HVAC-certified. Petitioner was characterized as a “fair” employee who did “okay” work. His supervisor, a Hispanic male, testified that there were some jobs that he did not assign to Petitioner, that Petitioner frequently got help from other employees, and that he received a couple of complaints from other maintenance technicians about Petitioner’s work. Respondent does not have an employee handbook, and the only written policy that Respondent has is a policy prohibiting sexual and other harassment. Respondent’s executive director, Laura Smith, testified that she expected employees to use “common sense” regarding what they can and cannot do at work. Respondent utilizes a system of progressive discipline, which starts with warnings (oral, then written) and culminates in dismissal. However, the nature of the misconduct determines the severity of the discipline imposed, and a serious first offense may result in dismissal. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner was given an oral warning for “improper conduct” for visiting with a housekeeper multiple times a day for as long as 20 minutes at a time. The housekeeper also received an oral warning for this conduct. On May 15, 2007, Petitioner was given a written warning for the same “improper conduct,” i.e., wasting time by going into an apartment to visit with a housekeeper. Petitioner acknowledged receiving these warnings, but he denied engaging in the conduct upon which they were based. His denials were contradicted by the more credible testimony of his supervisor and Ms. Smith. Petitioner was fired on September 28, 2007, after a third incident of “improper conduct.” On that day, Petitioner left the apartment complex around 10 a.m. to get gas in his truck. He did not “clock out” or get permission from his supervisor before leaving the apartment complex. Petitioner was away from the apartment complex for at least 15 minutes, but likely no more than 30 minutes. Even though Respondent does not have written policies and procedures, Petitioner understood, and common sense dictates that he was supposed to get his supervisor’s approval and “clock out” before he left the complex on a personal errand. Petitioner also understood the procedure to be followed to get the 14 gallons of gas per week that Respondent provided for maintenance technicians. The procedure required the employee to get the company credit card from the bookkeeper, get the gas from a specific gas station, and then return the credit card and a signed receipt for the gas to the bookkeeper. Petitioner did not follow any aspect of this procedure on the day that he was fired. He had already gotten the 14 gallons of gas paid for by Respondent earlier in the week. Petitioner’s supervisor, a Hispanic male, compared Petitioner’s actions to “stealing from the company” because he was getting paid for time that he was not at the apartment complex working. He also expressed concern that Respondent could have been held liable if Petitioner had gotten in an accident on his way to or from getting gas because he was still “on the clock” at the time. Petitioner testified that he and other maintenance technicians routinely left the apartment complex to fill up their cars with gas without “clocking out” or getting permission from their supervisor. This testimony was corroborated only as to the 14 gallons of gas paid for each week by Respondent. There is no credible evidence that other employees routinely left the apartment complex to do personal errands without “clocking out,” and if they did, there is no credible evidence that Respondent’s managers were aware of it. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that Petitioner’s firing was motivated by his national origin. His supervisor is Hispanic, and he and Ms. Smith credibly testified that the fact that Petitioner was Hispanic played no role in her decision to fire Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he was “harassed” by Ms. Smith and that she accused him of having sex with a housekeeper in the vacant apartments. No persuasive evidence was presented to support Petitioner’s “harassment” claim, which was credibly denied by Ms. Smith. Petitioner also claimed that he was disciplined differently than similar non-Hispanic employees, namely James Stroupe, Jason Head, and Willie Hutchinson. Mr. Stroupe is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In May 2007, Mr. Stroupe was given a written warning based upon allegations that he was making explosive devices at work, and in September 2007, he was given an oral warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Head. Mr. Head is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he received a written warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Stroupe. Mr. Hutchinson is a white male, and like Petitioner, he worked as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he was arrested for DUI. Mr. Hutchinson was not disciplined by Respondent for this incident because it did not happen during working hours and it did not affect his ability to perform his job duties as maintenance technician. The grounds department (in which Mr. Stroupe and Mr. Head worked) was responsible for maintaining the landscaping around the apartment complex, whereas the maintenance department (in which Petitioner and Mr. Hutchinson worked) was responsible for maintaining the insides of the apartments. The departments had different supervisors. Petitioner was initially denied unemployment compensation by Respondent after he was fired, but he successfully appealed the denial to an Appeals Referee. Petitioner received unemployment compensation through April 2008. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner started working for Holiday Inn as a maintenance technician. He is employed full time and his wage is $11.50 per hour. Respondent placed an advertisement in the local newspaper after Petitioner was fired in order to fill his position in the maintenance department. The advertisement stated that Respondent was looking for an applicant who was HVAC-certified. Respondent hired Javier Herrera to fill the position. Mr. Herrera, like Petitioner, is a Hispanic male.
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 16th day of September, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2008.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against due to her age, with regard to her termination from employment on June 19, 1996, and, collaterally, whether her claim is barred by the doctrine collateral estoppel because of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law entered by a hearing officer in an unemployment compensation appeals proceeding also related to her termination from employment.
Findings Of Fact Roberta McCabe, the Petitioner, was employed by the Respondent, Woodland Towers, Inc., as a dining room manager from October 22, 1991, through June 19, 1996. During her employment with Woodland Towers that entity employed more than fifteen employees. Ms. McCabe's initial date of employment was August 19, 1991, but she began her capacity as dining room manager on October 22, 1991. She served in that capacity until her termination date of June 19, 1996. She was terminated on that date against her will. Ms. McCabe was born on June 3, 1935, and at the time of her termination she was sixty-one years of age. After her termination, on June 21, 1996, the Petitioner filed a claim against Woodland Towers with the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Unemployment Compensation. In that claim she first raised the issue that she had been discharged due to her age. That claim was filed, of course, before a different state agency, with a different jurisdiction, although the parties were the same. The legal issues were not established to be the same, however, with the exception that in that case, as in this one, the Petitioner raised the question of discharge due to age discrimination. The statutory standards for liability for unemployment compensation, however, were not shown to be co-extensive and identical to those statutory standards and statutory-based legal issues which prevail in the instant case before a different state agency. While the issue of age discrimination may have been the reason offered by the Petitioner in the employment compensation case for her separation from employment, as opposed to what was ultimately found (discharge for misconduct) that legal concept was not shown to have the same definition under the Unemployment Compensation statutes involved in that proceeding, nor was it shown that those statutes support the same or similar actions and remedies as does Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, under which the instant proceeding arises. Therefore it cannot be determined that the legal issues or, for that matter the factual issues in the instant proceeding, are substantially identical to those extant in the unemployment compensation proceeding. In any event, Ms. McCabe timely filed a charge involving age discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, on or about August 26, 1996. The matter ultimately came on for hearing before the undersigned judge. Ms. McCabe testified at hearing that the only act of discrimination she contends occurred with regard to her termination from employment, on June 19, 1996, occurred on that date and involved discrimination on account of her age. She did not, however, establish that anyone at Woodland Towers ever actually made any discriminatory comments or remarks regarding her age. Ms. McCabe essentially inferred from her status as an older employee, and the fact that she was terminated, the conclusion that Woodland Towers had terminated her on account of her age. She offered no testimony other than her own to support her claim of age discrimination. Conversely, Eleanor Gustavsson and Sidney Roberts both testified that age had nothing to do with their decision to terminate her. Their testimony was unrebutted by the Petitioner. The testimony supporting Petitioner's position that age discrimination or animus resulted in her termination is based solely on the Petitioner's own testimony, chiefly involving her conjectural position, without corroborating evidence, that Woodland Towers intended to terminate her because of her years of seniority which resulted in higher pay and benefits and that therefore, resultingly, her age, with attendant higher pay and benefits, in her position, caused her to be terminated in a discriminatory way, predicated upon her age. Moreover, the Petitioner failed to describe any other co-employee who committed a similar infraction but who was treated more favorably than the Petitioner and did not show that there was any other employee of a younger age who was treated more favorably after committing a similar infraction. The Petitioner did produce the testimony of two fellow employees and offered to produce others to testify that another employee was rude and hostile to the Petitioner. This is insufficient, however, to establish that she was discriminated against because of her age. It was not shown that that employee was in a supervisory position over the Petitioner and merely being rude and hostile to a fellow employee does not rise to the level of Ms. McCabe's infraction. It is therefore unpersuasive to show that Ms. McCabe was the subject of disparate treatment because of her age. Uncontradicted evidence was presented at hearing which establishes that the Petitioner was allowing employees under her supervision, in her capacity as dining room manager, to report for duty before normal working hours and begin work without compensation for the extra time. It was established that she was aware of and indeed responsible for these employees "working off the clock" or before "punching-in." The evidence establishes that she was aware that this was contrary to federal law and Woodland Towers' policy. She was also aware that she was responsible for supervising those offending employees and enforcing the law and policy concerning hours of employment. The Petitioner took full responsibility for the law and employment policy violation in this regard and admitted during the hearing that her actions violated Woodland Towers' employment hours policy. Additionally, Woodland Towers presented credible evidence that Ms. McCabe was terminated solely for reasons of violation of that federal law and policy concerning hours of employment. Woodland Towers' evidence establishes that her age was not the reason for her termination, but rather that her violation of federal law and employment policy concerning the working hours of her employees was that reason. That showing was not rebutted.
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 argument of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by the Petitioner herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert W. Lloyd, Esquire Cobb, Cole and Bell Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Roberta McCabe 701 North Ocean Street Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2013)1/, by failing to obtain workers? compensation insurance coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers secure the payment of workers? compensation insurance coverage, pursuant to chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for their employees. Respondent is a Florida-limited liability company engaged in business operations for the time period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Mark Markisen is the managing member of Respondent listed with the State of Florida, Division of Corporations. On March 15, 2013, Jack Gumph, an investigator with the Department, conducted a random on-site compliance inspection of a construction site for a single family residence. Gumph determined that the general contractor for the job was Gulf Shore Homes and that it had subcontracted with Tradewinds Design for certain work inside the home. As Gumph interviewed the different workers present on the worksite, he spoke with Mark and Brett Markisen, who informed him that they worked for Tradewinds Design. Gumph observed Brett Markisen installing a wine cabinet in the home. Gumph confirmed through the Department?s online records that Gulf Shores Homes and Tradewinds Design had current workers? compensation insurance coverage on March 15, 2013. Based on this initial information, Gumph left the worksite. On March 19, 2013, Gumph subsequently learned from a conversation with Mark Markisen that Mark and Brett Markisen were not employees of Tradewinds Design. Rather, Tradewinds had subcontracted with Respondent, Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., to build and install the wine cabinets. Mark Markisen stated that he was the managing member of Cabinetry by Design of Collier County, L.L.C., and that he had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. Gumph confirmed that Mark Markisen had selected to be exempt from workers? compensation insurance coverage. However, because Respondent did not have worker?s compensation coverage for Brett Markisen, the Department issued a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013, and Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation on April 8, 2013. Mark Markisen possessed an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Brett Markisen did not possess an exemption from the workers? compensation insurance coverage requirement during the penalty period. Brett Markisen was employed by Respondent throughout the penalty period. During the penalty period, Brett Markisen received approximately $187,000.00 from Respondent. The amount of this money attributed to wages is unclear, based on the fact that Mark Markisen indicated that some of the payments reflected loans, not wages. Respondent was an “employer” as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. On March 15, 2013, Brett Markisen was Respondent?s “employee” working on the installation of cabinets in the single family residence.2/ On March 15, 2013, Respondent failed to provide workers? compensation insurance coverage for Brett Markisen. Respondent also failed to provide coverage during the penalty period of March 16, 2010, through March 15, 2013. Therefore, the Department properly entered a Stop-Work Order on March 19, 2013. Respondent failed to provide sufficient business records in order to establish a payroll. Therefore, the Department correctly imputed payroll against Respondent. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment used the proper class code for the calculation of the penalty, concerning the installation of cabinets, and correctly followed the procedure set out in section 440.107(7)(d)1, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, assessing a penalty against Respondent in the amount of $21,436.61. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Brian’s Painting and Wall Papering, Inc., conducted operations in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage, meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007),1 in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a corporation domiciled in Florida and engaged in the construction industry, providing painting and wallpapering services to private residences in Florida. On December 4, 2007, Investigator Ira Bender conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance check of a new home construction site located at 4009 Twenty-second Street, Southwest, in Lehigh Acres, Florida. Investigator Bender observed two men painting. He later identified the two men as Larry Zoelner and Brian Zack, who were later determined to be Petitioner’s employees. Investigator Bender continued the investigation of Petitioner, utilizing the Respondent’s Compliance and Coverage Automated System (“CCAS”) database that contained all workers’ compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured and lists all the workers’ compensation exemptions in the State of Florida. Based on his search of CCAS, Investigator Bender determined that for the period, December 3, 2004, through December 4, 2007 (“assessed penalty period”), Petitioner did not have a State of Florida workers’ compensation insurance policy or a valid, current exemption for any of Petitioner’s employees, including Zoelner and Zack. Based on his search of CCAS, he also determined that Petitioner did not have a State of Florida workers’ compensation insurance policy or a valid, current exemption for Brian Galvin, Petitioner’s owner and operator, for the assessed penalty period. Galvin admitted that he did not have an exemption prior to December 4, 2007. Section 440.05, Florida Statutes, allows a corporate officer to apply for a construction certificate exemption from workers’ compensation benefits or compensation. Only the named individual on the application is exempt from carrying workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Petitioner was not in possession of a current, valid construction industry exemption for its corporate officer, Galvin, during the three-year search period. To be eligible for the exemption in the construction industry, an employer must pay a $50 processing fee and file a “notice of election to be exempt” application with Respondent for each corporate officer and have that application processed and approved by it. 7. Subsections 440.107(3) and 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, authorized Respondent to issue SWOs to employers unable to provide proof of workers’ compensation coverage, including proof of a current, valid workers’ compensation exemption. Failure to provide such proof is deemed “an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare . . .” § 440.107(7)(a), Fla. Stat. Based on the lack of worker’s compensation coverage and a current, valid workers’ compensation exemption for its employees, including Galvin, Respondent issued a SWO on Petitioner on December 4, 2007. The SWO ordered Petitioner to cease all business operations for all worksites in the State of Florida. On the day the SWO was issued, Investigator Bender also served Petitioner with a “Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation,” for the purpose of enabling Respondent to determine a penalty under Subsection 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, Investigator Bender requested business records from Petitioner for the assessed penalty period. The requested records included payroll documents, copies of certificates of exemptions, employee leasing records, and other business records. Investigator Bender was satisfied that the records produced by Petitioner were an adequate response to the business records request. Based on Investigator Bender’s review of the business records, he determined that Galvin was dually-employed during the assessed period. Dual employment occurs when an employee is paid remuneration by two different employers. Galvin was simultaneously employed by SouthEast Personnel Leasing, Inc., as a painter and by Petitioner as its chief operating officer. In calculating the assessed penalty, Investigator Bender only took into account Petitioner’s payroll. It was determined that the payroll from the leasing company demonstrated secured payment of workers’ compensation coverage for the two painters and for Galvin, when he was operating as a painter. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L- 6.035, Investigator Bender included “dividends” paid by Petitioner to Galvin during the assessed penalty period, in calculating Petitioner’s total payroll amount used in the calculation of the assessed penalty. Galvin argued that dividends paid to him by Petitioner should be excluded from the calculation. However, the dividends that Petitioner paid to Galvin constituted unsecured payment for workers’ compensation coverage, in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code. Through the use of the produced records, Respondent calculated a penalty for the assessed period. The Amended Order, which assessed a penalty of $45,363.76, was issued and served to Petitioner on December 13, 2007. Based on business records Investigator Bender received from SouthEast Personnel Leasing, Inc., on December 17, 2007, Investigator Bender determined that the classification code assigned for Galvin should be changed from 5474 to 5606. Classification code 5474 represented the designation for a painter while classification code 5606 represented the designation for a manager. In the course of his investigation, Investigator Bender also deleted Charlie Galvin after he determined Charlie Galvin was not Petitioner’s employee. Investigator Bender assigned the new class code to the type of work performed by Galvin while working as a manger for Petitioner, utilizing the SCOPES Manual. He multiplied the class code’s assigned approved manual rate with the payroll per $100, and then multiplied all by 1.5. Consequently, the 2nd Amended Order, which was issued and served to Petitioner on December 18, 2007, assessed a penalty in the amount of $19,943.08. The recalculated penalty, as calculated, was consistent with the method in which the investigator had calculated the previous penalties.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, as follows: Petitioner failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees, including its corporate officer, as required by statute; and Petitioner be assessed a penalty of $19,943.08. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2008 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 2008
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Ruby D. Johnson on the basis of a handicap in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent at its Lake City, Florida, plant during 1977 or 1978. The Respondent manufactures metal parts for automobiles. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a parts assembly worker. At the time the Petitioner began employment with the Respondent, she informed the Respondent that she did not have any handicap. On June 28, 1984, the Petitioner was accidently struck on the head with a broom by another employee while at work. She was struck with the straw end of the broom. The Petitioner did not return to her job for approximately two months after being struck on the head. The Petitioner was treated by George G. Feussner, M.D. When Dr. Feussner authorized the Petitioner's return to work, he recommended that she not be required to perform any work requiring standing or leaning, climbing or operation of dangerous equipment for approximately three to four weeks. In September, 1985, the Petitioner experienced dizziness and fell while at work. In a letter dated October 2, 1985, Dr. Feussner informed the Respondent of the following: Despite and [sic] extensive evaluation of this lady, I cannot find objective findings to go along with her symptoms. I believe that she should be able to return to work at her regular job, but I still think that it would be dangerous considering her emotional dedication to her symptoms she is likely to injure herself if she works around dangerous equipment or at heights. She should therefore find a job that does not involve these activities... The Petitioner, when she tried to return to work, was not allowed to work because she had filed a workmen's compensation claim as a result of her alleged condition. This claim was being disputed by the Respondent's workmen compensation insurance carrier. On October 31, 1985, the Respondent laid off several employees with seniority equal to or greater than the Petitioner's seniority. Employees were laid off because of a lack of work. The Petitioner would have been laid off also, but was not because of the disputed claim over workmen's compensation. In November, 1985, the Petitioner's workmen compensation claim was denied. At that time the Petitioner was informed that she was also being laid off. In October, 1986, the Respondent began recalling the employees it had laid off in November, 1985. The Petitioner was not recalled, however, because of the restrictions on the Petitioner's ability to work. The Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice with the Commission in October, 1986. On November 13, 1987, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 7th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby D. Johnson 1802 North Georgia Street Lake City, Florida 32055 William B. Hatfield Supervisor of Human Relations ITT Thompson Industries - Metal Division Post Office Box 928 Valdosta, Georgia 31603-0928 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1025 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Axiom Construction Design Corporation (Axiom), failed to provide workers' compensation coverage, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Section 440.107(3) mandates, in relevant part, that employers in Florida must secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. At all times relevant, Axiom was a small Florida corporation engaged in the construction industry, principally installing drywall. Axiom’s principal office is located at 1067 Walt Williams Road, Lakeland, Florida. Mr. Pratt is Axiom’s owner, sole corporate officer, and registered agent. On July 23, 2014, Randall Durham conducted a job site workers’ compensation compliance investigation (Compliance Investigation). Mr. Durham spoke with Mr. Pratt at a job site at 109 Cattleman Road, the new Sarasota mall. Mr. Pratt and Al Lappohn were working the job site at the new mall. Mr. Pratt had a workers’ compensation policy in place with Southeast Personnel Leasing. Mr. Lappohn did not have an exemption from workers’ compensation coverage, and he was not covered by Axiom’s Southeast Personnel Leasing policy. On July 23, 2014, Mr. Pratt, as Axiom’s representative, was hand-served a Stop-Work Order1/ and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (Request). This Request encompassed all of Axiom’s payroll documents, account documents, disbursements, workers’ compensation coverage policies, and professional employer organization records from January 4, 2013, through July 23, 2014. Mr. Pratt provided the certificates of liabilities, payroll and tax records for 2013, and additional business records to the Department. These records were given to Mr. Knopke to calculate the penalty. In reviewing the records, Mr. Knopke determined that Mr. Pratt, Mr. Lappohn and Frank Cutts were employees of Axiom, and that Axiom did not provide workers’ compensation coverage for them. Mr. Cutts worked for Axiom at a Family Dollar Store build-out in Orlando in early 2014. Mr. Cutts swept up after the drywall was installed in the store, and was paid $125. Axiom conceded it owed the workers’ compensation penalty based on the work Mr. Lappohn and Mr. Cutts performed. The business records provided that during the audit period Mr. Pratt had dual employment, payment being paid outside of leasing. Dual employment is when a business has a leasing policy and there is extraneous payroll that is paid outside of the leasing policy. Payments received outside of a leasing policy are considered unsecured payroll for the purposes of calculating a penalty against an employer. Mr. Knopke included Mr. Pratt’s outside distributions in the penalty calculation. The “Scopes Manual” is published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), the nation’s most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers’ compensation. The manual contains certain codes related to the construction industry and trades considered to be within that industry. The installation of drywall, wallboard, sheetrock, plasterboard or cement board is considered to be “construction” under the relevant codes in the manual. The manual, with its codes and classifications, is relied upon in the insurance industry and has been adopted by the Department in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021. Mr. Knopke, using the manual, determined the appropriate classification code for Respondent’s employees was 5445. Mr. Knopke applied the correct rates and used the methodology found in section 440.107(7)(d)1., and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to calculate the penalty assessment. Based upon the testimony and exhibits, the 3rd Amended Penalty Assessment in the amount of $20,221.62 is accurate and correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, issue a final order upholding the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $20,221.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Randall Lee Southerland, conducted operations in the construction industry in the State of Florida without obtaining workers’ compensation coverage, meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2007),1 in violation of Subsection 440.107(2), Florida Statutes. If so, what penalty should be assessed by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2007), and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers’ compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. Respondent is a sole proprietor, allegedly engaged in the construction industry, providing tile and grouting services and carpet removal to private residences in Florida. On November 30, 2007, Eric Duncan and Alison Pasternak, both of whom are workers’ compensation investigators for Petitioner, were conducting random compliance checks in Lee County. Investigator Duncan noticed two men working outside of a residence in Cape Coral, one using a power saw and the other mixing a substance in a bucket. Investigators Duncan and Pasternak decided to conduct a compliance check of these two men to ensure they were workers’ compensation coverage compliant. The two men identified themselves as Randall Lee Southerland and Tim Weaver. Weaver produced his Exemption Certificate for workers’ compensation coverage. No further action was taken in regards to that investigation. Southerland was observed mixing the substance, which was later determined to be tiling grout. Southerland did not have a workers’ compensation insurance policy, a coverage exemption certificate, nor was he employed via a leasing agency. After consulting with his supervisor, Investigator Duncan issued SWO No. 07-364-D7 to Respondent along with a Business Records Request for the time-period of December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2007. Respondent provided records to Petitioner shortly thereafter, and, subsequently, a penalty assessment was calculated. The calculations of Respondent’s gross payroll was necessary since it was alleged that he worked in the construction field of tiling. Respondent disputes this classification and argues that grouting is separate from the installation of tiles and is not a classification within the construction field. Therefore, neither a workers’ compensation insurance policy, nor an exception is required. The National Counsel on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) established a codification of construction employment activities; all of which have been adopted by Petitioner and are commonly referred to as “class codes.” The NCCI class code for tiling is “5348.” It is undisputed that Respondent was doing the grout- work for the newly installed tiles. It is further undisputed that the definition of tiling, per the NCCI class code “5348,” included the finishing, setting, and installation of tiles. It was also established that loose tiles, merely laying on the floor, are not finished, nor set, until the grout is laid. Pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, the calculation of the penalty was completed on a penalty calculation worksheet. The worksheet was completed by examining the records received from Respondent and calculating the gross payroll that was paid to him. The penalty was later amended to reflect additional records provided through discovery, the evidence of the payment for the November 30, 2007, job consisting of a $500.00 check from the real estate agent. The Amended Order assessed a penalty of $1,168.68, which is the applicable amount of the premium evaded and includes the 50 percent penalty for the time period of December 1, 2004, through November 30, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Finding that Respondent failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for the sole proprietor, Randall Lee Southerland, in violation of Subsections 440.10(1)(a) and 440.38(1), Florida Statutes; and Assessing a penalty against Respondent, in the amount of $1,168.68, which is equal to 1.5 times the evaded premium based on the payroll records provided by Respondent and the applicable approved manual rate and classification code. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 3rd day of June, 2008.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from her position as a human resource assistant with Respondent because of her perceived handicap, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, a 33-year-old female, was hired by Respondent on or about February 6, 1995, as a temporary employee as a human resource assistant in the Personnel Services Department of the School Board of Orange County. Petitioner received the same training given to all new employees in her position. One employee in the department served as the primary trainer and Petitioner relied on her for training and assistance. On April 10, 1995, Petitioner was evaluated on her ability to perform in her temporary assignment. The assessment reflected satisfactory performance for the period February 6, 1995, through April 10, 1995. Petitioner demonstrated the ability to provide good telephone skills when dealing with customers. Petitioner did not notify Respondent that she was disabled or that she required a reasonable accommodation in order to perform her job. During this period, Petitioner was recommended to fill a regular position in the same department to replace an employee who had retired. Petitioner's regular position was effective May 1, 1995. As was customary, Petitioner was on probationary status for a six-month period following that appointment. The new position required Petitioner to work more independently than the temporary position had required. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner successfully completed her formal training and was responsible for her own workload and prioritized work tasks. At the time Petitioner assumed her new position all work in the area was current with no tasks pending. Shortly after her appointment to her new position, Petitioner demonstrated she was experiencing extreme difficulty in handling the detailed process that is required in order to complete tasks of the position. Petitioner received limited assistance to help her better understand the process; however, her skill level continued to deteriorate. During the period May 1, 1995, through July 14, 1995, Petitioner showed signs of stress and nervousness while at work and was late four times and took sick leave on two occasions. Petitioner did not discuss her "disability" or that she was having "psychological" problems with her supervisors. Petitioner was not regarded as having a physical or mental impairment while on probationary status. On July 14, 1995, Petitioner was terminated from her position while on probation. Petitioner was given the option of taking a probationary letter of termination or resigning. Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation. The basis for Petitioner's termination was that she was unable to effectively manage the technical aspects of the position; deterioration in her communication skills; and concern for the reasons for her absence and tardiness during her probationary period. Petitioner is not a disabled person, nor was she perceived to be disabled by her employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Kyle McNeil 523 Hicksmore Drive Apartment A Winter Park, Florida 32792 Frank Kruppenbacher, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment entered by Petitioner on July 25, 2013, and August 13, 2013, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency tasked with the responsibility of enforcing the requirement of section 440.107(3), Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees. Respondent, Mad Dog Marketing Group, Inc., is a corporation organized under chapter 607, Florida Statutes, and was registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, throughout the period of July 26, 2010, to July 25, 2013. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was engaged in the operation of a hardware store business with three locations in Florida. On July 25, 2013, based upon an anonymous referral, Tracey Gilbert, the Department's compliance investigator, commenced a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Respondent by visiting the job site, an appliance parts store at 730 West Brandon Boulevard, Brandon, Florida, and interviewing Sharon Belcher. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Belcher informed her that she had 11 employees at the time of the site visit and that she did not have workers' compensation coverage for them. Ms. Belcher showed Ms. Gilbert an application for workers' compensation insurance and said she had not taken action with it since the company wanted a $10,000 premium. She also showed Ms. Gilbert some OSHA and workplace posters, but not the typical "broken arm poster" that describes workers' compensation coverage for a place of business. Ms. Belcher then gave Ms. Gilbert a list of Respondent's 11 current employees. On her laptop computer, Ms. Gilbert consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database to determine whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage or an exemption from the requirements for coverage for its employees. CCAS is the database Ms. Gilbert routinely consults during the course of her investigations. She determined from CCAS that Respondent neither had workers' compensation coverage for her employees nor had received an exemption from such coverage from the Department. Ms. Belcher's recollection of her meeting with Ms. Gilbert differs from Ms. Gilbert's. Ms. Belcher recalled that she had applied for insurance with ADP on July 11, 2013, received the "broken arm poster," and believed she was covered at the time Ms. Belcher conducted her investigation. She offered an exhibit showing photographs of posters (but not the "broken arm poster") on the office bulletin board. She also offered an exhibit she testified was the UPS label from the tube containing the "broken arm poster." No photograph of the "broken arm poster" was produced as an exhibit. Ms. Gilbert did not contact ADP to verify whether Respondent had coverage on the date of her site visit to the Brandon store. Ms. Gilbert issued a Stop-Work Order to Respondent and a concurrent Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation at 11:20 a.m. on July 25, 2013. Ms. Belcher first submitted an application for workers' compensation coverage on July 11, 2013, but coverage was not bound on that date. Ms. Belcher submitted the paperwork to bind her insurance coverage on the afternoon of July 25, 2013, according to Mark Cristillo, an employee of ADP Insurance. Mr. Cristillo testified that he had made several attempts during the month of July 2013 to obtain the signed documents from Ms. Belcher, including an attempt as late as July 23, 2013, at 11:45 a.m. Ms. Belcher told Mr. Cristillo at that time that she had not reviewed the quote package. At 11:20 a.m., the time Ms. Gilbert's issued the Stop-Work Order on July 25, 2013, Ms. Belcher had not bound her insurance coverage. When she submitted the payment with the signed documents to ADP later that afternoon, the coverage was bound effective 12:01 a.m. on July 25, 2013. The records produced by Ms. Belcher were given to Chad Mason, one of the Department's penalty auditors, to calculate the penalty. He reviewed the records and determined the amount of gross payroll paid to Respondent's employees during the three- year penalty period preceding the investigation during which Respondent was not in compliance with the workers' compensation coverage requirements. Using Respondent's bi-weekly payroll chart, Respondent's Florida Department of Revenue UCT-6 reports, and the classification codes for each employee, Mr. Mason calculated a Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $42,251.43, based upon what Respondent would have paid in workers' compensation premiums had it been in compliance with Florida's Workers' Compensation Law. The order was issued on October 24, 2013. Mr. Mason determined that the appropriate codes for Respondent's employees were 8010 and 8810, which are hardware store employees and general clerical employees, respectively. These codes were derived from the Scopes Manual, which lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The manual is produced by NCCI, the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., the nation's most authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The parties stipulated prior to hearing that all of the individuals listed on the penalty worksheet of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" in the state of Florida of Respondent during the periods of non-compliance listed on the penalty worksheets. However, Respondent claimed that some of the employees were out-of-state and not subject to Florida law. Ms. Belcher testified that, as of July 25, 2013, three of its employees, Fred Hasselman, Douglas Strickland, and Josh Hyers, were employees of the Tennessee store and not subject to a Florida penalty. Mr. Hyers was a Florida employee prior to July 1, according to Ms. Belcher. However, all three of the employees were listed on the Florida Department of Revenue's UCT-6 form for the time period of the non-compliance. The UCT-6 form lists those employees who are subject to Florida's Unemployment Compensation Law. Mr. Mason reasonably relied upon the UCT-6 filings for the relevant time period to calculate Respondent's gross payroll in Florida. No evidence was produced to show them listed as Tennessee employees on that state's comparable tax form or any official document from outside Florida. The logical assumption is that they are Florida employees under the law. Accepting all the employees disclosed by Respondent as Florida employees led Mr. Mason to make his calculations of the penalty assessment using the appropriate codes from the Scopes Manual for hardware store and general clerical workers, 8010 and 8810. All the named employees on the Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were paid by Respondent in the amounts indicated on the penalty worksheet that accompanies that assessment during the penalty period of July 26, 2010, through July 25, 2013. Even though small discrepancies came up at the hearing regarding the classifications of some of Respondent's employees, the parties had stipulated to the accuracy of the classifications of those employees so those numbers will be accepted for purposes of this decision. Based upon the testimony at the hearing and the pre-hearing stipulations of the parties, the penalty assessment in the amount of $42,251.43 is accurate. Mr. Mason correctly applied the methodology for determining the amount of coverage required, determining that the appropriate premium for the three- year period would have been $28,167.50. When multiplied by the factor used to calculate the penalty, 1.5 times the premium, the total amount due is $42,251.43. The Department has proven by clear and convincing evidence that at the time the Stop-Work Order was issued and served on Respondent on the morning of July 25, 2013, Respondent had not secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees as required by chapter 440. On two occasions, August 2 and August 21, 2013, Ms. Gilbert returned to Respondent's Brandon location after the Stop-Work Order had been issued. The first was to serve the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and the second was to serve the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. On both occasions, the business was open in violation of the Stop-Work Order. A business under a Stop-Work Order may elect to enter into a payment plan after a ten percent down payment to keep the business open while a challenge to DOAH is under way. Respondent had not entered into such a plan. Therefore, the Department seeks $1,000 penalty for each of the days Ms. Gilbert visited the Brandon store and saw it open for business. This total additional penalty of $2,000 could have been greater had the Department further investigated whether the business remained open on other days after the Stop-Work Order had been imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order upholding the Stop-Work Order and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and assess a penalty in the amount of $42,251.43. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department fine Respondent an additional $1,000 per day for the two days Respondent did not comply with the Stop-Work Order, resulting in a total penalty of $44,251.43. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 20th day of December, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kristian Eiler Dunn, Esquire Dickens and Dunn, P.L. 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent failed to abide by the coverage requirements of the Florida Workers' Compensation Law embodied in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by not obtaining a workers' compensation insurance policy and whether the Petitioner properly assessed a penalty against the Respondent pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Investigator Pangrass conducted a random inspection of a construction site at 9 Pecan Drive Pass, Ocala, Florida, on December 18, 2002. On that occasion he observed several people working, hanging drywall. Investigator Pangrass spoke to one of the workers, Daniel Maloney, and asked him, to identify his employer. Daniel Maloney identified the Respondent as his employer. When Maloney identified him the Respondent was only 10 feet away and the noise level at the site was such that the Respondent could hear himself being identified as the employer. The Respondent did not then deny that he was Daniel Maloney's employer. Daniel Maloney stated he had worked for the Respondent full-time for two months and was paid by the hour. The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass he was unable to complete the work at the job without additional labor. Mr. Maloney assisted the Respondent by "hanging the ceiling." The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Mr. Maloney, wherein he stated, "I am the employee." The Respondent confirmed that he had a prior employment relationship with Daniel Maloney and that Daniel Maloney wanted to work with the Respondent. Another worker observed by Mr. Pangrass, Desmond Neil, told Investigator Pangrass that he worked for the Respondent part-time and was paid by the hour. The Respondent had used the services of Desmond Neil on prior occasions and stated "we do a job for Holiday the day before." The Respondent told Mr. Pangrass that he was trying to get workers' compensation for Desmond Neil. The Respondent made a statement against his own interest and said he "re-hired" Desmond Neil because Neil could not get a workers' compensation exemption. The Respondent's use of the word "re-hired" is significant because in a prior compliance matter the Respondent had employed Desmond Neil and agreed to terminate Desmond Neil's employment. The Respondent in testimony, changed his version of the facts and said that he re-hired Desmond Neil, but that Neil worked for Charles Brandon. Investigator Pangrass interviewed the Respondent. During this interview the Respondent stated he had labor expenses connected with his business. He testified he was paid by Holiday Builders and then in turn paid Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. Charles Brandon did not employ or was not the sole employer of Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002. Investigator Pangrass contacted Mr. Brandon, who stated he knew the Respondent was going to hire helpers. Mr. Brandon was not at the job-site to direct Desmond Neil or Daniel Maloney and could only be reached by phone. The Petitioner's evidence that the Respondent was the employer of Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney on December 18, 2002, instead of Mr. Brandon or some other person or entity, is the most persuasive and is accepted. The Respondent offered conflicting evidence regarding who provided money to Desmond Neil and Daniel Maloney. The Respondent offered a hearsay statement of Daniel Maloney that Holiday Builders was Daniel Maloney's employer. The Respondent said that when Holiday Builders pays him (the Respondent) he then pays his employees. The Respondent changed his testimony, however, and then said Charles Brandon gave him checks to give to the employees. (Implying that they were Brandon's employees in this version of his story.) The Respondent submitted a signed statement to the Petitioner indicating that he had no employees between 1999 and 2002, in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 10-B. The Respondent recognized the signature on that statement as being his own, but professed not to remember who wrote it or what it said. The Respondent, however, did admit to having at least one employee in 2001, directly contradicting his own statement. The Respondent also testified that the only times he used Desmond Neil's services were the two times Investigator Pangrass stopped by the Respondent's job sites. It is a trifle too coincidental that the only two times the investigator visited the job sites were the only times when the Respondent purportedly used the services of Desmond Neil. This is especially the case since Desmond Neil's testimony and even that of the Respondent himself tend to contradict that statement. Finally, the Respondent admitted that he did not have a workers' compensation policy for any employees. In summary, the evidence adduced by the Petitioner is deemed more consistent and credible and is accepted. It was thus demonstrated that the Respondent had one or more employees at the times pertinent hereto.
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 directing that the Respondent stop work and cease his operations until such time as he secures workers' compensation coverage for employees and directing that the Respondent pay a penalty in the amount of $1,100.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2003, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Berisford Champagnie 15508 Southwest 34th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34473 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
