The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her interracial personal relationships by creating a racially hostile work environment and causing her constructive termination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was involved in an interracial personal relationship with a black man who was the father of Petitioner's child. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent owned and operated several Taco Bell franchise restaurants in and around Santa Rosa County, Florida. Respondent employed approximately 190 people. Respondent hired Petitioner as a crew member in its Milton, Florida, restaurant on January 7, 1998. Petitioner's duties included operating the cash register and cleaning the dining room and restrooms. Respondent trained Petitioner to perform her assignments. Respondent showed Petitioner how to operate the cash register, wipe the tables, mop the floors, restock the condiments, clean the toilets, and replace paper supplies in the restroom. Respondent provided Petitioner with the necessary cleaning supplies, including but not limited to mop, broom, wiping cloths, cleaning solutions, disposable gloves, toilet brush, etc. Petitioner knew where Respondent stored these supplies. She knew it was her job to clean the bathroom before her shift ended so that the facilities would be clean for the next crew. Respondent also informed Petitioner about Respondent's policy against discrimination in the workplace. This policy, which tracked the language of Florida law and Taco Bell operating manuals, was posted on a bulletin board. Telephone numbers of the general manager, the district manager, and the operating officer/owner were also posted next to the telephone in the event that an employee needed to complain about working conditions. These numbers were visible from the door of the office. Additionally, the toll free number of the national franchise company was posted through out the store so that the public or employees could call in complaints. Respondent informed Petitioner that she would be on probation for three months. After three months, employees were eligible for a small raise if they were performing their jobs successfully. Respondent gave Petitioner the first of a series of training booklets that employees could study to learn more about the business. The first booklet contained the basic information that a food service worker needed to know, including the company's policy against discrimination. After studying each booklet, the employee would take a test. If the employee passed the test, he or she could progress to the next booklet. The training booklets were designed to prepare employees for supervisory and management positions. Petitioner never took the test for the first booklet. Petitioner rode to and from work every day with her shift supervisor, Ms. Ileane McCray, a black female. Petitioner and Ms. McCray lived in the same housing complex and worked the morning shift together. Ms. McCray was not prejudiced against interracial personal relationships; her own daughter was involved in an interracial personal relationship with a white man. Ms. McCray was responsible, in part, for introducing Petitioner to Dawn Young, the general manager of the Milton restaurant and the daughter of the owner/operator. Ms. McCray told Ms. Young that Petitioner's boyfriend was in jail and that Petitioner needed a job. Ms. Young interviewed Petitioner and made the decision to hire her. On July 18, 1998, Ms. McCray directed Petitioner to clean a restroom that had been vandalized by smearing feces on the walls. Petitioner refused to clean the restroom and left the premises without telling anyone. She never returned to work. After Petitioner walked off the job, she took a trip to visit family in the State of Washington. Upon her return, Petitioner visited Ms. McCray's home and showed her family pictures from the trip to the northwest. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. McCray or Ms. Young ever made derogatory comments to Petitioner regarding her interracial personal relationship or her interracial child. Petitioner's testimony in that regard is not credible. On the other hand, Ms. McCray's testimony that she did not make derogatory remarks about interracial couples was persuasive. Under Respondent's chain of command, an employee who had a problem with a supervisor could contact the general manager and so forth up the line. Employees also could approach the owner/operating officer directly because he visited the Milton restaurant almost every day. Before Petitioner quit her job, Petitioner never complained to Ms. Young or anyone else about Ms. McCray's making racially hostile comments. Petitioner never called the district manager or the operating officer/owner to complain. The latter visited in the store almost everyday that it was open. Petitioner never called the national toll-free number. Petitioner worked for Respondent approximately six months. During that time, Respondent failed to call or show up for work on one occasion. Ms. Young and Petitioner signed an employee consultation memorandum on April 30, 1998, indicating that Petitioner would be terminated if she failed to call or show up for work again. Respondent was paying Petitioner $5.15 per hour in wages when she quit her job in July 1998. Petitioner did not return to work until November 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Whether Golden Corral discriminated against Mark Turner on the basis of his race at Respondent's restaurant or place of public accommodation, and, if so, what the relief should be.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the undersigned makes the following findings of material facts: At the time of the incident, Turner was a 56-year-old African-American. He is married and has a six-year-old daughter. He worked for General Motors for 30 years on the assembly line and also worked as a line coordinator. In 2011, he retired and purchased a condominium in Homestead, Florida, where he lives with his wife and daughter. After he retired, he purchased and now rents several condominium units in Columbia, South America. He visited the Golden Corral restaurant approximately one time each month with his family. The Golden Corral restaurant offers a buffet to its patrons. However, there is a "No Sharing" policy posted on a placard in the lobby. See Resp.'s Ex. 2. The sign states the following: Please, no sharing. In the interest of keeping our food prices as reasonable as possible, we ask that you please not share food from the Golden Corral buffet. To-go meals from the buffet are available for purchase. Ask your server. On an unspecified date in October 2014, a customer complained to the staff, that another customer (later identified as Turner) was taking food from the buffet and putting it in plastic Tupperware containers. The complaining customer was a female African-American. Based on this information, Feliciano watched Turner approach the buffet and put items of food in a Tupperware container. This was also being done by a female identified as Turner's wife. During the first incident, Feliciano took Turner aside to a private room, explained what he had observed, and asked him to leave the property. It was Feliciano's testimony that Turner did not deny taking food. He also told him he was expelled from the restaurant. Feliciano testified that Turner was a frequent guest, and, so, Feliciano was able to positively identify him as the person violating the no sharing policy. When Turner and his family left the restaurant, Feliciano noticed that he was carrying re-usable, grocery-type bags with him capable of storing Tupperware containers. Several weeks later, Feliciano observed Turner in line attempting to enter the restaurant. Feliciano approached Turner and reminded him that he had been expelled and instructed him to leave the premises. This was done without incident. Apparently, there was video surveillance available which would have captured some or all of the incidences in question. However, no photographs or video surveillance were offered into evidence by either party. Feliciano had worked at this restaurant for approximately ten and one-half years. The company grants fairly wide discretion to its managers to take action against customers who violate rules. That discretion ranges from calling the police to expelling patrons under appropriate circumstances. The president and CEO of Golden Corral testified that the company offered general training to staff members related to problem customers. He related that there was "lots of training books and videos" given to general managers and staff regarding how to handle problematic customers and patrons. However, there was no training offered on specific adverse situations. The company does offer "discrimination training" to its staff and general managers during meetings and company conferences. A company named Speilman1/ out of Winston Salem, North Carolina, provided this training. The president spoke with Turner on the telephone. He told Turner he concurred with the general manager's decision to expel him. During the course of this telephone discussion, Turner did not deny taking food and asked if he could come back to the restaurant "if he stopped." (The context of this comment was if he stopped violating the no sharing policy.) Upon further inquiry, the president testified that he was absolutely sure that Turner told him this. Feliciano testified that Golden Corral serves people of all races and backgrounds. He stated that the "no sharing" policy was prominently displayed at the restaurant. The customer, who complained about Turner's conduct, said that she watched him fill Tupperware containers with chicken and ribs. She mentioned that this was very upsetting to her. Feliciano also checked the plates being removed from Turner's table and saw that there was "residue" of chicken and/or ribs on the plate, but no empty bones on the plate. (He concluded that since no bones had been left on the plate, this confirmed that the plates had been used to carry food back to the table and then placed in a container or bag.) Feliciano stated that Golden Corral did not deny services to Turner because of his race. He gave an example when two Hispanic women had been expelled for the same conduct. The undersigned reviewed Respondent's Exhibit 4, entitled Investigative Memorandum FCHR number 201500480. The investigation conducted by FCHR appears to be thorough and comprehensive. All parties were interviewed, affidavits were collected, and a witness was interviewed. This is a de novo proceeding. Based upon the evidence presented, there does not appear to be any basis to dispute the investigative findings and recommendations of the agency, and the evidence presented during the final hearing before the undersigned was consistent with the information collected by FCHR during its investigation.
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 Turner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 November, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Optical Shop (Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01– and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner, Janice Jennings (Petitioner), to discrimination in employment and by discharging Petitioner in retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to Respondent’s discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent is a corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Respondent operates an optical shop in a Veteran’s Administration (V.A.) Hospital located in Lake City, Florida. At its Lake City location, Respondent fills prescriptions written by eye physicians at the V.A. Hospital, assists patients with choosing frames, and fits patients with their prescription eye glasses. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is fast-paced, with a constant stream of patients, averaging 50-to-60 patients a day. If the optical shop is running behind schedule, it is problematic because often physicians at the V.A. Hospital are waiting to see the patients served by the optical shop. In 2009, Petitioner interviewed for a position at Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City, Florida. During her interview, Petitioner advised Respondent that she had competent computer skills and significant experience working in an office environment and with eye doctors. On May 27, 2009, Respondent hired Petitioner as a part- time clerk at the optical shop. Petitioner was terminated prior to working 90 days for Respondent. When Petitioner was hired, two full-time employees worked at the optical shop: office supervisor, Jean Hartup, and optician, Kathleen Denton. Ms. Hartup has been employed with Respondent for approximately five years. Ms. Denton has been with the optical shop for approximately two and a-half years. As office supervisor, Ms. Hartup can be distant with employees and “hard” at times. She can also be “direct” when speaking to employees. Ms. Hartup demonstrates these traits with all of the employees at the optical shop. Ms. Hartup has written up Ms. Denton in the past and the two have had personality conflicts. Both Ms. Hartup and Ms. Denton assisted with training Petitioner. Evidence indicated that Petitioner received adequate training to perform the tasks she was assigned to perform as a clerk. She often had to be re-trained on the same tasks. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is a very small room, approximately ten-feet by ten-feet square inside the V.A. Hospital. There are two small desks in the shop and it is very crowded. Petitioner was aware of the small working environment at the time she accepted employment with Respondent as a part- time clerk. Past and present employees at the optical shop have had to share desk space. Sometimes work has to be performed in the hallway because of the small office space. All new hires for Respondent are subjected to a 90-day probationary period. As explained in Respondent’s “Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits,” of which Petitioner was aware: There will be a 90-day probationary period during which time the employer may terminate the employee at any time for any reason or for no reason regardless of any other provision of these policies. Sick leave and personal days are accrued but cannot be used during this period. Respondent’s Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits also provides: [Respondent] does not and will not tolerate any employee discriminating against their work peers for any reason i.e., race, color, religion, sex, national origin or handicap. Any known verifiable discrimination will be grounds for immediate termination. Once on the job, Petitioner was not proficient on the computer and, despite repeated training, failed to show any improvement and was slow in performing her job duties. Because of this, service to patients at the optical shop slowed down and the optical shop was frequently behind, resulting in physicians having to wait for patients being served by the optical shop. Ms. Hartup became frustrated with Petitioner’s unsatisfactory job performance and the resulting delays. In addition, Petitioner began to show a lack of interest in her job and even stated that she “didn’t really need a job; she just wanted to be out of the house.” Despite repeated training and opportunities to improve her work performance, Petitioner failed to improve. Petitioner was given a notebook with information from the American Board of Opticians for review but she failed to read it or return it to Respondent. Prior to the end of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner called Respondent’s corporate headquarters in Mississippi and spoke to Mary Walker. Petitioner complained to Ms. Walker that Ms. Hartup was being too hard, was impatient, and was expecting too much of her. Petitioner did not raise concerns with Ms. Walker that she was being discriminated against based on her race, or that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment because of her race. In fact, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever complained of race discrimination or a hostile work environment based on race discrimination while she was still employed by Respondent. During that first telephone conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Walker suggested to Petitioner that she should talk to Ms. Hartup about the problems. Petitioner assured Ms. Walker that she would. Two days later, Ms. Walker called Ms. Hartup and inquired whether Petitioner had discussed her concerns with Ms. Hartup. Petitioner, however, had not spoken to Ms. Hartup about her complaint. Ms. Walker gave Ms. Hartup the authority to run the optical shop at Lake City, including making hiring and firing decisions. Ms. Walker did not discipline Ms. Hartup because of Petitioner’s complaints. Rather, Ms. Walker told Ms. Hartup to handle the situation regarding Petitioner’s complaints. Ms. Hartup then met with Petitioner and they spoke about Petitioner’s concerns that Ms. Hartup was being too harsh and about Petitioner’s poor work performance. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Hartup felt the situation had been resolved. Petitioner subsequently advised both Ms. Denton, as well as Ms. Walker at Respondent’s headquarters, that the conversation with Ms. Hartup had gone well and that their issues had been resolved. Petitioner’s work performance, however, did not improve. Prior to the end of her 90-day probationary period of employment, Respondent terminated Petitioner from employment for poor work performance, for failing to reach her capabilities as an employee, and because her poor work performance was a detriment to Respondent’s Lake City optical shop. Petitioner testified that, from her point of view, she truly felt as though she had been discriminated against because of her race. That testimony, however, was without further support and was unpersuasive, especially in view of the fact that there is no evidence that Petitioner ever mentioned to anyone during her employment with Respondent that she believed she was being discriminated against. There was otherwise no evidence presented at the final hearing that would support a finding that Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaint against Ms. Hartup. Further, the evidence produced at final hearing does not support a finding that either the manner in which Petitioner was treated during her employment with Respondent, or her termination from that employment, was based on Petitioner’s race. Respondent filled the position of part-time clerk left vacant after Petitioner’s termination by hiring a Native- American male.
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 and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 July, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position as a delivery person with the Respondent on or about September 28, 1991, on the basis of his race (Black), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Portion-Trol Foods, Inc., d/b/a Mother Butler Pies, is in the business of manufacturing and delivering pies to Denny's Restaurants, and is an employer under the Florida Human Relations Act of 1977, as amended. Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Respondent on June 26, 1990. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a delivery person, whose primary duty was delivering Respondent's pies to restaurants throughout the Central Florida area, which he did in 1990 and 1991. Petitioner's direct supervisor was Percival Gordon, a black male. Petitioner, like all other employees working under direct supervision, had been informed on several occasions regarding how to properly work and interact with restaurant personnel when delivering pies to the restaurants. Petitioner displayed no patience while interacting with restaurant personnel when he delivered pies. Beginning in early 1991, Petitioner began to act rudely and abrasively toward restaurant personnel with which he interacted when delivering pies to their restaurants. This improper conduct by Petitioner included being very loud and verbal in front of restaurant customers. He offended a restaurant hostess, a restaurant unit aide, and restaurant managers with his objectionable agressive behavior. He spoke rudely to everybody, and used profanity toward restaurant managers while in the restaurants. On one occasion he removed pies from a restaurant cursing, and destroyed customer pies by placing the pies on top of another in the hands of a restaurant cook. Petitioner's supervisor gave him verbal reprimands regarding his conduct in April and May, 1991. As supervisor of delivery persons, it was a job duty to routinely visit the restaurants to which the delivery persons he supervised delivered pies. During these visits Petitioner's supervisor would talk to the restaurant manager and other restaurant personnel in an effort to obtain feedback regarding the job performance of the delivery persons over which he had supervision. On June 5, 1991, Petitioner's supervisor visited two restaurants as part of his job duties. During these visits, management personnel of the restaurants approached Petitioner's supervisor, and voiced a complaint regarding Petitioner and a specific incident where Petitioner had delivered the wrong pies to each of the restaurants, and Petitioner's response to them. Petitioner's response was abusive and inappropriate in both instances. Both management persons told Petitioner's supervisor that due to Petitioner's inappropriate conduct, they did not want to see him back in their restaurant anymore. After being informed of these two most recent acts of improper conduct by Petitioner toward those individuals to whom he delivered pies, Petitioner was issued a written counseling review on June 8, 1991, which summarized the facts regarding these incidents of improper conduct. In this written counseling review, it was explained to Petitioner that he had already been issued several verbal warnings regarding his negative attitude and use of abusive, profane language toward restaurant personnel with which he interacted. Petitioner was warned that if such an incident occurred again, further disciplinary action would be taken against Petitioner. Respondent's Bakery Plant Manager reviewed the counseling review form issued to Petitioner, and prepared a memorandum which he gave to Petitioner. In this memorandum, it was reiterated to Petitioner that if there were "any further occurrences [sic] of the type of poor behavior described that it will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination. You need to understand that this is very serious, and up to you to correct immediately." Despite the above-mentioned warnings from his supervisor, Petitioner continued to conduct himself inappropriately when interacting with restaurant personnel to whom he delivered pies. In September 1991, Petitioner engaged in another act of improper conduct. On this occasion Petitioner was delivering pies to a restaurant in Apopka, Florida. On this occasion, Petitioner first spoke with a cook on duty at the time. Petitioner told the cook that he had permission from Respondent's main office "to destroy or get rid of pies out of the case that don't [sic] supposed to be there." Petitioner did not at any time during his employment with Respondent have permission from Respondent's main office to remove customer's pies from restaurants and throw them away. Petitioner began to remove the customer's pies from the restaurant and stack them one on top of the other, into the hands of the cook. Petitioner then took the pies out of the cook's hands and put them in a tub used for bussing the tables of the restaurant. After verifying the incident, the General Manager spoke with Petitioner via telephone about the incident. During the conversation Petitioner got angry with the manager, and slammed down the phone. After receiving a report regarding this most recent incident, Petitioner's supervisor went to the restaurant in Apopka, and conducted a complete investigation into what took place. The supervisor and the Baker Plant Manager evaluated this most recent incident of improper conduct by the Petitioner, in light of his prior employment history with Respondent, and decided to terminate Petitioner based upon his continued improper conduct. Their decision was based upon the fact that Petitioner had received numerous warnings regarding his inappropriate conduct, and had failed to respond in a positive manner to any of these warnings. Petitioner offered only three unsubstantiated allegations as to why he believed he was terminated based upon his race. First, Petitioner alleged that when white delivery drivers employed by Respondent delivered pies to various restaurants, restaurant personnel would not make them wait as long as they would make him wait. However, Petitioner admitted that the restaurant managers and personnel, who he claimed kept him waiting longer than other white drivers, were not the managers of Respondent, Mother Butler Pies, but rather of Denny's Restaurants. Second, Petitioner alleged that he believed that he was terminated by Respondent based upon his race, because he was issued shirts with different people's names on it, which his wife had to stitch his name onto for identification purposes. Third, Petitioner claimed that he believed he was terminated based on his race due to an alleged incident in which a restaurant manager started a fight with Petitioner and subsequently Respondent did not want Petitioner "to go into the store to make a delivery because he [the restaurant manager] was having a problem with the employee. He [the restaurant manager] took it out on me". Petitioner admitted that the restaurant management personnel with whom he had problems were not the managers of Respondent, Mother Butler Pies. Petitioner offered testimony concerning his damages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0320 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 8(in part), 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19(in part), 21, 22, 24, 25 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or a comment on the evidence: paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(in part), 9, 10, 13, 17, 19(in part), 20, 23 COPIES FURNISHED: Veerasammy Mangali (pro se) 5642 Pendleton Drive Orlando, Florida 32839 William Curphey, Esquire 205 Brush Street Tampa, Florida 33601 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether or not on November 1, 1975, the Respondent, in its licensed premises, failed to have food covered in a refrigerator in violation of Rule 7C- 4.01(2)(a)(b)(c), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on November 1, 1975, Respondent, in its licensed premises failed to provide soap and towels in the employees' restroom, in violation of Rule 7C-4.01(5)(e)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on November 1, 1975, the Respondent, in its licensed premises failed to clean the hood over a stove, in violation of Rule 7C- 4.01(4)(a)(7), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on November 1, 1975, the Respondent, in its licensed premises failed to clean can openers, in violation of Rule 7C-4.01(4)(f)(1), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on November 1, 1975, the Respondent, in its licensed premises failed to repair holes in a wall and where needed, in violation of Rule 7C-4.01(6)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on November 1, 1975, the Respondent, in its licensed premises failed to clean its floors in hard to get places in violation of Rule 7C-4.01(6)(a)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not on November 1, 1975, the Respondent, in its licensed premises failed to clean an ice machine that makes ice cubes, in violation of Rule 7C-4.01(4)(f)(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, A & A Select Restaurants, Inc., t/a Spanish Pavilion Restaurant, is licensed with the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, under license no. 23-13152R, and was so licensed on November 1, 1975. On the morning of November 1, 1975, an inspector with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, arrived at the Spanish Pavilion Restaurant, owned by A & A Select Restaurants, Inc., for the purpose of inspecting the restaurant. This restaurant is located at 8880 S.W. 24th Street, Miami, Florida. The time of the inspection was between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 11:00 A.M. of November 1, 1975. The inspection was conducted by Robert J. Barrett. The food in the walk- in refrigerator was uncovered and was positioned in such a way that food in the containers might fall into other containers, thereby contaminating the adjacent food. The employees' bathroom which contained a sink and toilet, did not have soap or a towel in the bathroom or in the immediate vicinity of the bathroom. The filter and hood over one of the stoves had an accumulation of grease and dirt, which had been collecting over a period of time. One of the can openers had an accumulation of dirt and grease on the opener-wheel. There was a hole of approximately 4" in diameter through the east wall adjacent to one of the ice machines. This ice machine was in operation. The neighborhood in which the restaurant is located is one with a high rodent population. The floors in the corners adjacent to the work tables and stoves were not clean. One of the ice machines had slime in the area where the formed cubes were ejected.
Recommendation It was indicated in the course of the hearing that the Respondent had been inspected by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants on February 17, 1975, and the floors were found to be unclean, the food uncovered in a similar manner, the sink by the broiler unclean and the sink by one of the work tables unclean. It was further indicated in the course of the hearing that the follow-up inspection of November 3, 1975, revealed that those matters found in the November 1, 1975, inspection had been corrected. Based upon these aggravating and mitigating factors it is recommended that Respondent be fined in the amount of $250. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Manuel Miranda, Owner Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire 8880 Southwest 24th Street Division of Beverage Miami, Florida 33155 The Johns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a restaurant, unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner, who is African-American, by refusing to serve her because of her race.
Findings Of Fact At approximately 2:25 p.m., on July 2, 2003, Petitioner, an African-American resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered the premises of a Denny’s Restaurant located at 14697 Duval Road, Jacksonville, Florida, to eat a meal. Petitioner had spent the previous night in Gainesville, Florida, and had interviewed for a position with the City of Gainesville that morning before driving to Jacksonville to fly home to Minneapolis. Petitioner approached the wait stand and waited approximately three minutes to be seated. Petitioner noticed only five guests in the restaurant at the time she was seated, all of whom were Caucasian. Petitioner was seated close to a Caucasian family of four and a single Caucasian male seated at another table. Petitioner did not claim that she had been segregated in the restaurant, and admitted that she had been seated close to tables with customers of other races. Immediately after being seated, Petitioner asked the hostess for a cup of hot water with lemons, which was promptly delivered to her by the hostess. Petitioner was treated respectfully by the hostess. After the hostess left, Petitioner drank her beverage while she reviewed the menu and waited to be greeted by her server and to have her order taken. Although there appeared to be three servers in the restaurant at the time of Petitioner’s visit, only one appeared to be serving. The others appeared to be completing their “side work,” that is, restocking and end-of-shift cleaning duties. The only person actually serving customers during Petitioner’s visit was Rhonda Nicks, a Caucasian woman. The restaurant was short staffed during this period due to a shift change and another server’s failure to show for her shift. While she waited to be served, Petitioner observed that two Caucasian women entered the restaurant, were seated, and were promptly served by Ms. Nicks who appeared to be the only server in the restaurant. Petitioner next observed as a Caucasian man and woman entered the restaurant, were seated, then promptly had their drink and food orders taken and served by Ms. Nicks. After waiting 20-25 minutes, and not having her food order taken, or even being acknowledged by the server, Petitioner went to the cashier’s stand where she was met by Audrey Howard, an African-American employee of the restaurant, who asked Petitioner if she wanted to see a manager. Petitioner replied that she did want to see a manager, and one was summoned. After waiting a few minutes, Petitioner was greeted by a Caucasian manager who identified himself as Mike Kinnaman. After speaking with Petitioner, Mr. Kinnaman offered to immediately put in Petitioner’s food order, to even cook the meal himself, and to provide the meal at no charge. Petitioner refused Mr. Kinnaman’s offer, stating that she had to return her rental car at the airport, then catch a flight. Mr. Kinnaman then offered Petitioner a business card on which he wrote “1 free entrée, 1 free beverage, 1 free dessert . . . Unit #1789." Mr. Kinnaman told Petitioner that she could use the card for a free meal at another time. This offer was made based upon the manager’s belief that Petitioner did not have time to eat and needed to leave for the airport. After speaking with the manager, Petitioner left the restaurant at approximately 3:00 p.m. She drove the short distance to the airport, removed her luggage and belongings from the rental car, turned in the car, and received her receipt which showed that she had turned in the car at the airport Hertz location at 3:20 p.m. Although Petitioner told the Respondent’s manager that she had to leave to catch a flight, the evidence showed that Petitioner’s flight was not scheduled to leave for another four hours. Petitioner’s rental car receipt documented the fact that she had a two-day rental and could have kept the car for almost another full day. Petitioner was in no jeopardy of incurring additional rental car charges or of missing her flight when she hurried from the restaurant at 3:00 p.m. Although Petitioner observed only nine other customers in the restaurant while she waited to be served, Respondent’s records and the testimony of Audrey Howard, a former cook at Respondent’s restaurant, 24 customers were served in the restaurant between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on the day of Petitioner’s visit. Although Petitioner testified that she was the only African-American customer in the restaurant, Ms. Howard recalled a table of two African-American patrons who were served during the time period when Petitioner was in the restaurant. She specifically recalled these patrons because the gentleman returned his omelet to the kitchen, asking for more cheese. During her time in the restaurant, Petitioner observed only five employees. Respondent’s records demonstrate that 14 hourly employees were in the restaurant between 2:25 and 3:00 p.m. From where she was seated in the restaurant, it is likely that Petitioner could not see every customer and employee in the restaurant. Petitioner never attempted to call a server over to her table, nor did she ask the hostess to either take her order or ask a server to provide her with service while she waited. Petitioner did not complain to the manager that she had been discriminated against. She complained that she had received poor service. Respondent requires training for all of its employees on diversity and discrimination issues before they are allowed to work for Respondent. Every server who testified at hearing had specifically undergone diversity and discrimination training. Although Respondent has a history of past discrimination against African-Americans as evidenced by a consent decree entered into by the company with the United States Justice Department, it has since received national awards and recognition for its strides in the areas of discrimination and diversity. Respondent takes claims of discrimination very seriously, and has a zero tolerance standard for acts of discrimination by its employees. Respondent’s managers are required to report all claims of racial discrimination to a 1-800 hotline. No call was made by the manager in this case because he did not believe that a claim of discrimination had been made by Petitioner when she claimed she had received poor service. Petitioner offered no evidence that she had suffered damages as a result of the poor service she received at the restaurant.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Ms. McAdory's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 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, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan S. Erdelyi, Esquire Marks Gray, P.A. Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Charlene McAdory 417 Oliver Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of sex (sexual harassment), national origin, and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Evelyn Martinez is a female and Hispanic of Puerto Rican origin. Ms. Martinez began working at the Boca Diner on May 29, 2000, as a waitress. At all times material hereto, Ms. Martinez was an employee of Boca Diner. Boca Diner does not dispute that it is an employer within the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. The hours of operation of Boca Diner were from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Boca Diner was open for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. The majority of the persons who were servers at Boca Diner were females; only a few were males. At all times material hereto, even though other waitresses of Hispanic descent were employed by Boca Diner, Ms. Martinez was the only Hispanic waitress of Puerto Rican origin. Ms. Martinez had prior experience as a waitress before beginning her employment with Boca Diner. At Boca Diner, Ms. Martinez worked mostly evening shifts, reporting to work around 3 or 4 p.m. She worked five to six days a week. During the week after July 4, 2000, an employee of Boca Diner by the name of Rick made a remark to Ms. Martinez that she considered sexual. He stated to her that she had nice breasts. Ms. Martinez told Rick not to make the remark again and walked away. No dispute exists that the remark was a sexual remark. Rick was a server but was not a full-time server, only part-time. His usual working hours were around 4-9 p.m. Ms. Martinez reported the incident, regarding the remark by Rick, to Boca Diner's owner and manager, John Pelekanos.1 Mr. Pelekanos indicated to her that all the other waitresses tolerated such remarks from Rick and that she should also. Ms. Martinez stated to Mr. Pelekanos that she was not going to "take" such remarks from Rick. No evidence was presented to show that Boca Diner had a sexual harassment policy. Rick made no further sexual remarks to Ms. Martinez after she reported him to Mr. Pelekanos. After reporting the incident to Mr. Pelekanos, Ms. Martinez's working schedule changed. Instead of working five to six days a week, she now worked two days.2 However, Ms. Martinez was able to obtain two additional days from other workers by them agreeing for her to work their days. Boca Diner contends that Ms. Martinez's workdays were reduced because of the slowness of business in the summer; however, Boca Diner only reduced her workdays. The undersigned considers it reasonable to reduce the number of working hours of waitresses due to a slowness of business, but considers it unreasonable to reduce the workdays of only one waitress, i.e., Ms. Martinez, by three to four days, but none of the other waitresses, because of the slowness of business. Before reporting the remark by Rick, Ms. Martinez felt harassed by and hostility from the other waitresses. The other waitresses "hassled" her for not properly performing the "side work," which consisted of setting-up the salad bar, and filling bottles of mayonnaise, ketchup, etc. After Ms. Martinez reported the remark by Rick, the hassling escalated. Additionally, Rick began to constantly tell Ms. Martinez to quickly do her work. Ms. Martinez did not inform the floor manager, Alex Lazarus, how the other waitresses or Rick were hassling her. She did not approach Mr. Lazarus because she considered him to be verbally abusive to her and other employees. Additionally, after Ms. Martinez reported the remark by Rick, on July 15, 2000, she was assigned to a different serving section at Boca Diner. Her new serving section was section one, which was the number one section and the busiest and most demanding section at Boca Diner.3 When she placed her orders, the orders were completed late. As a result, customers were complaining. Boca Diner contends that customers were complaining about Ms. Martinez before she was moved to section one. It is not reasonable to move a waitress, about whom customers are already complaining, to a busier and more demanding section of the restaurant. At the end of her shift on July 15, 2000, she was fired by the floor manager, Alex Lazarus. No dispute exists that Mr. Lazarus had the authority to fire Ms. Martinez. Mr. Pelekanos was not in the country when Ms. Martinez was fired. No dispute was presented that Boca Diner does have the right to fire waitresses or waiters who are not performing adequately or who are performing poorly. No evidence was presented as to whether Boca Diner had employed other Hispanic waitresses of Puerto Rican origin prior to Ms. Martinez's employment. No evidence was presented as to whether Boca Diner had fired other waitresses and, if so, for what reason(s). As to Ms. Martinez's income while she worked at Boca Diner, no time records were provided by Boca Diner. Boca Diner failed to retain her time records. Further, Boca Diner had no documentation regarding Ms. Martinez's employment with it. Boca Diner gave no reasonable explanation for its failure to retain time records or other documentation regarding Ms. Martinez's employment with it. Boca Diner did not provide any testimony regarding monetary remuneration to Ms. Martinez for being a waitress at Boca Diner. Ms. Martinez did not provide any pay records or federal income tax returns regarding her employment with Boca Diner. However, she did provide a handwritten statement showing her income at Boca Diner for the time that she worked at Boca Diner4 and gave testimony regarding her income at Boca Diner subsequent to her termination. Her testimony is found to be credible. At the time Ms. Martinez was employed at Boca Diner, her base pay was $40.00 every two weeks, resulting in her base pay being $80.00 per month. Ms. Martinez handwritten document indicated that she received $300.00 from May 29 through June 4, 2000; $325.00 from June 5 through 11, 2000; $325.00 from June 12 through 18, 2000; $325.00 from June 19 through 25, 2000; $300.00 from June 26 through July 2, 2000; $250.00 from July 3 through 9, 2000; and $225.00 from July 10 through 15, 2000; totaling seven weeks and $2,050.00. The evidence did not demonstrate whether the base pay was included in her income. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's total income at Boca Diner included the base pay of $40.00 every two weeks or $80.00 per month. Ms. Martinez testified that she received $1,275.00 in tips for a month. Reducing her four-week income by her base pay indicates that she received $1,195.00 in tips for the four-week period: May 29 through June 4, 2000, at $280.00 in tips; June 5 through 11, 2000, at $305.00 in tips; June 12 through 18, 2000, at $305.00 in tips; June 19 through 25, 2000, at $305.00 in tips. Reducing the remaining three-week period by her base pay indicates that she received $715.00 in tips for the three-week period: June 26 through July 2, 2000, at $280.00 in tips; July 3 through 9, 2000, at $230.00 in tips; and July 10 through 15, 2000, at $205.00 in tips. As a result, the total amount of tips that Ms. Martinez received for the time period that she was employed at Boca Diner totaled $1,910.00. Consequently, it is reasonable and an inference is drawn that she received $1,910.00 in tips for the seven-week period. After her termination, Ms. Martinez borrowed money in July and August 2000 from family to pay her monthly obligations, which included rent, food, gas, insurance, and incidentals. She estimates that she borrowed from $600.00 to $800.00. After her termination, Ms. Martinez was hired on August 26, 2000, as "counter-help" at a dry cleaners. She was paid $6.00 an hour and worked less than 30 hours a week. Ms. Martinez worked for two weeks at the dry cleaners. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's income was $348.00, using 29 hours a week at $6.00 an hour. Afterwards Ms. Martinez was hired part-time as a waitress at a restaurant. She received $100.00 per week, including tips. Ms. Martinez worked at the restaurant for three weeks. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's income was $300.00, using $100.00 per week for three weeks. Ms. Martinez was subsequently hired as a waitress at another restaurant. She received $50.00 per week, including tips. Ms. Martinez worked at the restaurant for two weeks. An inference is drawn that Ms. Martinez's income was $100.00, using $50.00 per week for two weeks. On October 26, 2000, Ms. Martinez began working at RTA Catering, a restaurant. She was receiving $2,000.00 per month. According to Ms. Martinez, at that time, her income was comparable or equal to her income at Boca Diner and she saw no need to go further into her employment history. After her termination and prior to receiving employment at RTA, Ms. Martinez' income was $748.00. The total number of weeks from July 15, 2000, the date of Ms. Martinez's termination, to October 26, 2000, the date of her comparable employment, is 15 weeks.
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: Finding that Boca Diner discriminated against Evelyn Martinez on the basis of retaliation. Ordering Boca Diner to cease the discriminatory practice. Ordering Boca Diner to pay Evelyn Martinez back pay in the amount of $4,033.25. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL 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 October, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in Petitioner’s Public Accommodations Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on September 6, 2007, and if so, what relief should be provided.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American woman living in the Jacksonville area. She is married to Wayne Benedict and is the mother of Bryan Benedict. On July 23, 2007, Petitioner went to Wal-Mart to do the family’s grocery shopping. Her son, Bryan, and his friend, Adarious Pickens, also African-American, were with her. When she arrived at Wal-Mart, she proceeded to the deli counter, where she usually begins her shopping trip. On the day in question, the numbering system in the deli was broken. When operating, the numbering system dispenses tickets with numbers on them which determine which customers arrived first and who receives service first. At the time Petitioner approached the deli counter, three Caucasian customers were present and waiting for service. After the three Caucasian customers were served, another Caucasian customer approached the deli counter and was waited upon. Because Petitioner believed that the last Caucasian customer had been served out of turn, Petitioner left the deli area to find a manager. After learning that the manager had gone for the day, she was directed to a person who was “team lead.” She complained to the team lead who apologized to Petitioner. After speaking to the team lead, Petitioner then returned to the deli department and asked one of the deli associates, Jeanne Thornton, to identify the other deli associate. Ms. Thornton identified the other associate as “Trish.” Petitioner again left the deli area. At the time of this incident, Ms. Thornton and Trish were the only two Wal-Mart associates were working at the deli counter. Petitioner acknowledges that the deli appeared to be short-staffed, as she typically sees three or four associates working behind the deli counter. Several minutes later, Petitioner returned to the deli counter and requested service. Prior to this time, Petitioner waited for service, which was not forthcoming, but did not verbally request service. Ms. Thornton then waited on Petitioner, who left the deli area after she was given the food items she requested. Ms. Thornton noticed that Petitioner was angry and upset. The deli counter in question is at least 30 feet long. The deli contains both a cold food section and a hot food section. In addition, there is a lower shelf where items are for sale, which do not require the assistance of deli associates. On any given day, associates are assigned to work in either the hot or cold food sections. At the time Petitioner approached the deli counter, Trish was assigned to the deli’s hot food section, and Ms. Thornton was in the midst of filling a large cold food order. When a deli associate is assigned to cook food in the deli department’s hot food section, it is that person’s responsibility to perform duties related to the hot food. According to Ms. Thornton, “when the food comes up, it has to be temped, logged, and put in the hot bar.” These duties of an associate assigned to the hot food section of the deli take priority over helping customers. If the hot food is not properly temped, logged, and put in the hot bar, the hot food must be thrown away. On those occasions when the numbering system is not working, the deli associates rely on customers to tell them who should be waited on next. This is, in part, because the associates often turn their backs to the customers at the deli counter while they are cutting meat, etc. Food items sold from the deli counter are not intended for on-site consumption. Petitioner did not intend to consume the items purchased from the deli on the premises of Wal-Mart. No employee of Respondent made any racially derogatory or racially related comments to Petitioner. Other than Petitioner’s firm belief that she was overlooked in favor of Caucasian customers, no evidence was presented that the actions of Respondent’s associates were racially motivated.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that dismisses Petitioner's claim of public accommodation discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Barbara J. Staros 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 19th day of November, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent in January, 1986, as a dishwasher at $4.00 per hour. Because of his good work and dependability, Petitioner received periodic increases in his rate of pay, and in May, 1987, he became head dishwasher at $6.00 per hour. Respondent's owners also own certain apartments located next to their restaurant, and since Petitioner had been a dependable employee, he was given the additional responsibility of showing these apartments when anyone wanted to rent one that was vacant. He also performed repair and maintenance work on the apartments Petitioner was allowed to take time off from his job as head dishwasher to show vacant apartments, and was periodically assigned work to do on the apartments when he was not working at the restaurant. Petitioner agreed to, and was readily willing to perform these additional duties for which he was allowed to live in one of these apartments for $15.00 per week, rather than the normal rate of $65.00 per week. Beginning in October, 1987, Petitioner began to call in sick to his job at Respondent on a regular basis. Between the week of October 18, 1987, and his termination on January 12, 1988, he did not work a full forty hour week. This was during Respondent's busy time when business was especially heavy, and was a great inconvenience to other staff and the owners of Respondent. Frequently, Petitioner gave virtually no notice of his absence. Due to his repeated absences, and his lack of dependability, Respondent terminated Petitioner on January 12, 1988. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed a complaint of discrimination with the City of Clearwater, Office of Community Relations. Petitioner introduced no evidence in support of his allegation of discrimination based upon race. He alleges that a white woman was hired to replace him, but he did not identify her, or in any way corroborate his charge. Respondent disputed this allegation, and denied that Petitioner's discharge was due to anything but his repeated absences and increasing lack of responsibility. There is absolutely no evidence that Petitioner was terminated based upon racial considerations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the City of Clearwater, Office of Community Relations, enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 1988. DONALD D. CONN 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 8th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Amyer Jones 1343 San Remo Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Richard R. Logsdon, Esquire 1423 South Ft. Harrison Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Miles Lance, Esquire Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Ronald McElrath, Director Office Of Community Relations Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a restaurateur, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners, who are African-Americans, by refusing to serve them based upon race.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 7, 2001, Petitioners Veronica King and Walter King (the “Kings”), who were then on vacation in Miami Beach, Florida, decided to eat dinner at La Playa de Varadero Restaurant (“La Playa”), a Cuban restaurant near their hotel.2 They entered the restaurant some time between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. Though the dining room was full of patrons, there were a few empty tables. The Kings seated themselves. The Kings reviewed the menus that were on the table and conversed with one another. They waited for a server, but none came promptly. After waiting about 10 or 15 minutes, Mrs. King signaled a waitress, who came to their table and took their drink and food orders.3 The waitress brought the Kings their drinks without delay. The food, however, did not appear, and the Kings grew increasingly impatient and irritated. It seemed to the Kings, who are African-Americans, that other customers——none of whom was black——were being served ahead of them.4 After about a half an hour or so, having yet to be brought food, the Kings decided to leave without eating. On the way out of the restaurant, the Kings paid the cashier for their drinks. They complained to the cashier about the slow service and expressed to her their dissatisfaction at having waited so long, and in vain, for their meals.5 The Kings perceived that the cashier and other employees, including their waitress who was standing within earshot, were indifferent to the Kings’ distress. Ultimate Factual Determinations At the material time, La Playa was a “public food service establishment” within the reach of Section 509.092, Florida Statutes, and hence subject to liability for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that La Playa refused to serve, or otherwise unlawfully discriminated against, the Kings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Kings’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 19th day of February, 2003.
