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 Whether Respondent's pronouncement that special restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958, that have not remained in "continuous operation" are thereby (as a result of their lack of "continuous operation") rendered invalid pursuant to Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, and therefore not subject to delinquent renewal pursuant to Section 561.27, Florida Statutes (Challenged Statement) is a rule that violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: There are various types of DABT-issued licenses authorizing the retail sale of alcoholic beverages. Among them are quota licenses, SRX licenses, and SR licenses. All three of these licenses allow the licensee to sell liquor, as well as beer and wine. Quota licenses, as their name suggests, are limited in number. The number of quota licenses available in each county is based upon that county's population. SRX and SR licenses are "special" licenses authorizing the retail sale of beer, wine, and liquor by restaurants. There are no restrictions on the number of these "special" licenses that may be in effect (countywide or statewide) at any one time. SRX licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued in or after 1958.2 SR licenses are "special restaurant" licenses that were originally issued prior to 1958. For restaurants originally licensed after April 18, 1972, at least 51 percent of the licensed restaurant's total gross revenues must be from the retail sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages.3 Restaurants for which an SR license has been obtained, on the other hand, do not have to derive any set percentage or amount of their total gross revenues from the retail sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages. DABT-issued alcoholic beverage licenses are subject to annual renewal.4 License holders who have not timely renewed their licenses, but wish to remain licensed, may file an Application for Delinquent Renewal (on DABT Form 6015). Until recently, it was DABT's longstanding policy and practice to routinely grant applications for the delinquent renewal of SR and other alcoholic beverage licenses, regardless of the reason for the delinquency. DABT still routinely grants applications to delinquently renew alcoholic beverage licenses other than SR licenses, but it now has a "new policy" in place with respect to applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses. The "new policy" is to deny all such applications based upon these SR licenses' not having been in "continuous operation," action that, according to DABT, is dictated by operation of Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, a statutory provision DABT now claims it had previously misinterpreted when it was routinely granting these applications. Relying on Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes, to blanketly deny all applications for the delinquent renewal of SR licenses was the idea of Eileen Klinger, the head of DABT's Bureau of Licensing. She directed her licensing staff to implement the "new policy" after being told by agency attorneys that this "was the appropriate thing [from a legal perspective] to do." As applicants applying to delinquently renew their SR licenses (which were both originally issued in 1956), Petitioners are substantially affected by DABT's "new policy" that SR licenses cannot be delinquently renewed because they have not been in "continuous operation," as that term is used in Section 561.20(5), Florida Statutes. Their applications for the delinquent renewal of their licenses would have been approved had the status quo been maintained and this "new policy" not been implemented. Abkey filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 2005) on February 21, 2007. On the application form, Abkey gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was sold. Lost our lease." On April 2, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Abkey's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 2005, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. Amy Cat filed its application (on DABT Form 6015) for the delinquent renewal of its SR license (which had been due for renewal on March 31, 1999) on December 6, 2006. On the application form, Amy Cat gave the following "explanation for not having renewed during the renewal period": "Building was closed." On June 8, 2007, DABT issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Amy Cat's application. DABT's notice gave the following reason for its intended action: The request for delinquent renewal of this license is denied. Florida Statute 561.20(5) exempted restaurant licenses issued prior to January 1, 1958 from operating under the provisions in 561.20(4) as long as the place of business was in continuous operation. This business failed to renew its license on or before March 31, 1999, therefore it did not comply with the requirements and is no longer valid. SR licenses will not be allowed to be moved from the location where the license was originally issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Rule 7A-3.15(1), Florida Administrative Code, and that its special license be suspended for three days. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Grapevine Restaurant No. One, Inc. d/b/a Grapevine Restaurant 4320 14th Street West Bradenton, Florida Howard M. Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Did Respondent, El Tucanazo Bar & Grill, Inc. (El Tucanazo), violate section 561.29(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by failing to produce records of all monthly purchases and sales of alcoholic beverages within ten days of a written request for them? (Count 1) Did El Tucanazo violate Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(3)(a) because it did not derive at least 51 percent of its total gross revenue from retail sales of food and non-alcoholic beverages? (Count 2) Did El Tucanazo fail to meet the minimum qualification requirements of section 561.20(2)(a)4. for holding its license by serving intoxicating beverages after food service hours ended? (Count 3) Did El Tucanazo fail to satisfy the requirement of rule 61A-3.0141(3)(d) to discontinue selling alcoholic beverages when service of full course meals had been stopped? (Count 4) Did El Tucanazo violate the requirement of section 561.33(2) that a licensee must give Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (Department), 30 days' written notice of changing the name of the licensed place of business? (Count 5) If any of the violations charged occurred, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: El Tucanazo holds Florida alcoholic beverage license BEV3910423, Type SRX. This is a business selling food, non- alcoholic beverages, and alcoholic beverages. At all times material to this matter, Daniel Camargo has been the owner and president of El Tucanazo. Mr. Camargo opened El Tucanazo in 2010. At first, El Tucanazo operated under the authority of a license that permitted only sales of beer and wine. Approximately two years after opening, Mr. Camargo changed the El Tucanazo license to a type SRX. This type permits the sale of all alcoholic beverages, including liquor. Florida statutes and rules of the Department permit liquor sales under this license if the licensee satisfies a number of criteria broadly crafted to ensure that alcohol sales are an adjunct to food sales at a full-service restaurant. The Department maintains that El Tucanazo's licensed premises are only the area inside of the building. It produced only hearsay evidence to prove this contention. That is not sufficient to support a finding of fact. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)1., which establishes criteria for holders of SRX licenses, specifically provides that the required square footage of licensed premises "shall not include any space contained in an uncovered or not permanently covered area adjacent to the premises." Rule 61A-3.0141(2)(a)2. requires the premises’ square footage to "be contiguous and under the management and control of a single licensed restaurant establishment." Consequently, the licensed premises of El Tucanazo could not have included a food service or preparation area in the parking lot. About a year or a year and one-half after opening, Mr. Camargo began operating El Tucanazo under the fictitious name "Club 674." He registered the fictitious name with county authorities. He did not inform the Department of the change. El Tucanazo is open from roughly 6:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., Fridays and Saturdays. El Tucanazo employs a security company to provide guards to protect the business during the nights that it is open. Tacos are the only food served at El Tucanazo. The tacos are made of tortillas, meat, onions, cilantro, cheese and a sauce. Customers may add lettuce and pico de gallo, a condiment made of tomatoes, pepper, and onions. El Tucanazo also serves alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. Department agents, Bryan Brummett and Casey Simon, began an investigation of El Tucanazo in response to a complaint from the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. They inspected El Tucanazo on August 15, 2014. At 8:00 p.m., El Tucanazo was not open. When they returned at 10:30 p.m., it was open. El Tucanazo was charging an entrance fee. Pre-poured tequila shots were lined up on the bar available to customers. Mr. Camargo claimed that he gave three-to-four free shots of tequila to each customer. He said he did this several times a month. There were also several bottles of liquor at the bar. Customers were consuming alcoholic beverages. The tables and chairs were arranged along the sides of the room with a large open space. The evidence does not prove whether the seating was sufficient or insufficient to serve 150 persons "full course meals" at tables at one time. The establishment was arranged as a dance hall, not a restaurant. A disc jockey was present to provide music. There was no food for sale or available inside El Tucanazo for customers. There were no customers consuming food inside El Tucanazo. There was a food service and preparation area outside the premises. It was rudimentary, consisting of basically a stack of bricks with a cooktop on them. The cooking equipment outside was warm and showed signs of use and food preparation. A few people were eating outside. In contrast, the kitchen inside the licensed premises did not show signs of food preparation. It was dark and empty. No food was being prepared. None of the cooking surfaces showed signs of use. None were hot. There was no food odor. Freezers contained nothing but ice. The coolers did not contain food items. Save for a single wrapper from a package of meat and a spent food container, the kitchen waste cans contained nothing indicating recent food preparation. The clear and convincing credible evidence proves no one had prepared food in the kitchen on the day of the inspection or the recent past. Mr. Camargo's explanation for the condition of the kitchen was not credible, was contradictory, and was in conflict with observed facts. He said that he prepared food around 6:00 p.m., usually finishing in half-an-hour to an hour. He said the food was then kept warm for nine hours until El Tucanazo closed. Mr. Camargo also said El Tucanazo stopped serving food inside around 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. and that he took the remaining food outside to be sold. Mr. Camargo also said that meat being grilled outside was El Tucanazo's food offering. The agents arrived around 8:00 p.m., well before 10:30 p.m., and there was no food being served or even available inside. If Mr. Camargo had been telling the truth about food preparation, prepared food, kept warm, would have been available in the premises. Inside and outside there was no sign of lettuce, tomatoes, cilantro, or other vegetables or fruits. The agents asked Mr. Camargo to provide evidence of vegetables and other items used in El Tucanazo's food offering. He produced none. At the conclusion of the August 15, 2014, inspection, Agent Brummett issued a Record of Inspection to El Tucanazo. It required El Tucanazo to provide: (1) all food and alcohol sales receipts; (2) all invoices for food and alcohol purchases; (3) all employee records; (4) all account invoices for utilities; and (5) all checking account information for the months April through July 2014. El Tucanazo timely produced all of the requested records that it maintained for the time period to the Department's auditing unit. El Tucanazo is a cash only business. It uses one cash register for food sales and one for alcohol sales. It keeps only handwritten receipts or "guest checks." Multiple orders are recorded on a "guest check" until it is full. These handwritten receipts are the only sales records El Tucanazo keeps. They are not dated. Once a week Josefina Mondragon arranges the receipts. She totals the information by month and uses them for regular business purposes including reporting sales for sales tax purposes and calculating the tax due. These summaries are admissible as evidence under the Records Of Regularly Conducted Business Activity hearsay exemption created by section 90.803(6)(a), Florida Statutes. This is an accurate sample of a summary: April 1-30, 2014 FOOD SALES $3,529.00 ALCOHOL SALES $1,899.00 TOTAL SALES $5,428.00 TOTAL TAX SALES $379.96 LATE SALES [tax fee] $50.00 El Tucanazo maintained similar summaries for the months April, May, June, and July of 2014. The summaries do not report any sales of non-alcoholic beverages. The underlying documents were not placed in evidence. This made it impossible to test the accuracy of the summaries on this record. The underlying documents were available to the Department, however, if it had chosen to test the accuracy of the summaries. Examples of the guest checks from which Ms. Mondragon prepared her summaries were admitted into evidence. Without Ms. Mondragon to explain the notations on the checks, they cannot be used to determine the amount of food sales. In addition, because they are undated, they do not indicate the month of the food and alcohol sales recorded. The guest checks provided do not indicate any sales of non-alcoholic beverages. The only alcohol sales that they indicate are beer sales, despite the fact that El Tucanazo offers spirits for sale and had bottles available on August 15, 2014, when the agents conducted their inspection. The clear and convincing evidence proves that El Tucanazo does not maintain clear records of all gross retail sales of food, non-alcoholic beverages, and alcoholic beverages. El Tucanazo keeps the receipts for food and beverage purchases. They show purchases of, in addition to the taco ingredients described above, orange juice, Sprite, chicken breasts, tuna, celery, broccoli, eggs, Cheetos, Fritos, pizza, corn, breakfast cereal, chocolate milk, turkey, sliced ham, chewing gum, shrimp, other seafood, milk, Red Bull, and lemon juice. None of these items are items that El Tucanazo claims to sell. The receipts lead to one of two conclusions. The first is that Mr. Camargo was wrong when he testified with certainty about the food items sold at El Tucanazo. The second is that the receipts combine home and business purchases with no way on this record to reasonably distinguish one from the other. In either scenario, the clear and convincing evidence proved that El Tucanazo did not maintain clear records of all purchases of food and non-alcoholic beverages. The only records El Tucanazo maintains of its alcohol purchases are the stubs from its checkbook and receipts from its beer wholesaler, Pepin Distributing Company. For the period April through July 2014, check stubs show that El Tucanazo made nine purchases from Pepin. The receipts indicate only seven purchases. The fact that these records cannot be reconciled is clear and convincing evidence that El Tucanazo does not maintain clear records of all its alcoholic beverage purchases. El Tucanazo purchases liquor from a distributor whose name includes "Southern." There is no record of purchases from “Southern” or that El Tucanazo otherwise purchased liquor during the April through June period. This is inconsistent with Mr. Camargo's testimony that El Tucanazo ran specials several times per month offering customers three-to-four shots, each free of charge, and the presence of liquor bottles at the bar. The absence of purchase records combined with the Mr. Camargo's testimony and the presence of liquor bottles at El Tucanazo is clear and convincing evidence that El Tucanazo does not maintain clear records of all its alcoholic beverage purchases.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, impose a $2,000 penalty and revoke the license of Respondent, El Tucanazo Bar and Grill, Inc., without prejudice to El Tucanazo obtaining any other type of license, but with prejudice to El Tucanazo obtaining the same type of special license for five years for Counts 3 and 4 and impose a $500 penalty on El Tucanazo for Count 5. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Great Southern Café is a restaurant located in Seaside, Florida. The restaurant is owned by James Shirley. As owner, Mr. Shirley did not generally involve himself in personnel decisions at the Café. Such decisions and the day-to- day management of the restaurant were the responsibility of the general manager, who at the time period relevant to this case was William “Billy” McConnell. Petitioner Janet D. Mayes is female. Petitioner has ADD, ADHD, OCD, and general anxiety disorder. She has been diagnosed with these conditions for 20 years and they are all controlled through medication. More importantly, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner’s disorders interfered with her ability to work or significantly impacted any other major life activity. Indeed, Petitioner has worked in the restaurant business for about 30 years and has held a variety of different positions during that time, often working long hours. Since her disorders did not interfere with any of Petitioner’s major life activities, the evidence did not demonstrate that such disorders were disabilities or handicaps for purposes of employment discrimination. Sometime around March 2012, Petitioner interviewed for employment with Respondent. She was initially hired as a hostess for the restaurant by the then general manager, Jim Ruby. Shortly thereafter, Mr. McConnell, who was then assistant manager, replaced Mr. Ruby as general manager. At the time, Mr. McConnell had 35-40 years of experience as a restaurant manager in Alabama and Florida and had managed the predecessor restaurant to Great Southern Café known as “Shades.” Mr. McConnell’s management philosophy was to be patient with employees, to train them in the right way, and to ask employees to do their best. He would give employees the benefit of the doubt, and when disciplinary action was necessary, would sit down and talk with the employee to build confidence in them. Mr. McConnell’s disciplinary style was informal and it was not his general practice to issue formal written discipline to employees. Mr. McConnell liked Petitioner’s work ethic and thought she did a good job as hostess. Under Mr. McConnell’s management, Petitioner was promoted by Mr. McConnell to relief manager in May of 2012. In August 2012, she was again promoted by Mr. McConnell to full manager. Mr. McConnell did not know about, nor was he provided with any documentation regarding, Petitioner’s disorders. Indeed, the evidence showed that Petitioner’s disorders were not so obvious that anyone who encountered her necessarily would have known about those disorders. There was no evidence that Petitioner ever sought any kind of accommodation from Respondent for her disorders. Since Mr. McConnell worked only the day shift and Petitioner usually worked nights, their paths did not often cross at work. However, the evidence demonstrated that Mr. McConnell occasionally used the term “bitch” to refer to Petitioner. The evidence also demonstrated that he did so not in a malicious or discriminatory way, but in a joking manner because of Petitioner’s actions that he witnessed or that were described to him. Petitioner conceded that it was “like it was a joke” when Mr. McConnell referred to her as a “bitch.” There was no testimony that Mr. McConnell used this term on repeated occasions so that its use rose to the level of harassment or that he used it to belittle or demean Petitioner. Sometime in April 2013, the Café catered a very large event known as “JazzFest.” Petitioner assisted Mr. McConnell in the planning and execution of this event for the Café. Her husband, William, who had been unemployed, was hired to help in food preparation at the event. In general, JazzFest was stressful for all those who worked the event. Both Mr. McConnell and Petitioner worked many extra hours at the festival. During the course of JazzFest, Mr. McConnell, as manager, permitted the employees to get food from the banquet line since they had been working all day without breaks for nutrition. Petitioner and her husband loudly and inappropriately berated Mr. McConnell in public and in front of other employees about allowing employees to get food from the banquet line. Mr. Shirley witnessed the confrontation and considered the display to be an inappropriate method by Petitioner to communicate her disagreement regarding Mr. McConnell’s management decision. Mr. McConnell also observed that during JazzFest, Petitioner was “too pushy” and “too bossy” with the staff without having any good reason for such treatment of employees. Additionally, Mr. McConnell observed that Petitioner was “not herself” and “wound up a little too tight” during JazzFest. Further, Mr. McConnell was aware that Petitioner had some recent personal stressors, such as her husband having issues with unemployment and one of her sons being arrested and incarcerated. He believed Petitioner’s behavior was due to the pressures in her family life combined with the pressure from working Jazzfest. Therefore, Mr. McConnell decided to give Petitioner a week off, with pay, for rest and relaxation. He hoped that Petitioner would come back refreshed and ready for the busy beach season after her break. Mr. Shirley knew of and supported the time off for Petitioner and hoped that Petitioner’s time away from work would ease some of the undercurrent of negative feelings that had built up between Petitioner and some of the employees. After Petitioner returned from her week off, Mr. McConnell received reports from some of his employees that Petitioner was being unreasonable, raising her voice and losing her temper “numerous” times. He also received reports that Petitioner was “hard to work for,” and “a bully.” In addition, owner James Shirley received some complaints from employees that Petitioner was “going off on people.” Indeed, her treatment of the employees had gotten to the point that several employees no longer wished to work with her. These employees were considered good employees and were part of the restaurant team. The evidence showed that it is very important for restaurant staff to function as a team and that maintaining good working relationships among team members is one important component of a good functioning restaurant. Mr. McConnell spoke to Petitioner about the subject of the complaints and asked why she was pushing the staff so hard and creating a bad environment. Petitioner said she would try to do better. During this conversation, Mr. McConnell did not remember asking Petitioner whether her meds were “out of whack,” but he has stated this to other people as a figure of speech in the manner of “get your act together.” The evidence did not show that Mr. McConnell’s use of the phrase was discriminatory, harassing or demonstrative of any knowledge of Petitioner’s alleged disability or perception of the same. After his talk with Petitioner, things improved for a couple of days. However, Mr. McConnell received more and similar complaints about Petitioner from the same employees who previously complained about her, with some indicating they would quit if Petitioner continued to work at the restaurant. Mr. McConnell feared that if something was not done about Petitioner some of his good team employees would leave and he would not be able to run the restaurant. The better evidence demonstrated that Mr. McConnell met with Petitioner and offered her two weeks’ severance pay. He spoke with her about her inability to get along with the employees and function as a team member at the restaurant. The meeting lasted about 20-30 minutes. Ultimately, Petitioner refused the severance pay, handed over her keys, and left. There was no credible or substantial evidence that Petitioner’s termination was based on disability, perceived or otherwise. Similarly, there was no credible or substantial evidence that Petitioner’s termination was based on her sex. Although Petitioner asserted harassment from Mr. McConnell, no evidence to support this claim was adduced at the hearing. Respondent hired and promoted Petitioner to a manager position, allowed Petitioner to hire her husband and son (and at least one of her son’s friends), and gave her a paid week off after JazzFest to refresh and relax from a stressful event. The evidence showed that Mr. McConnell gave Petitioner the benefit of the doubt, as he did with all his employees, and only decided to terminate her after talking with Petitioner and determining that giving her time off did nothing to eliminate the negative energy Petitioner was bringing to the job. Based on these facts, Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against her based on sex or disability when it terminated her from employment. As such, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an Order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Thirston, II, Esquire Thirston Law Firm Post Office Box 19617 Panama City Beach, Florida 32417 (eServed) Timothy Nathan Tack, Esquire Kunkel Miller and Hament 3550 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 135 Tampa, Florida 33618 (eServed) Tammy Scott Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue This case involves the issue of whether the Respondent's special restaurant license for the sale of alcoholic beverages should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for multiple violations of the beverage laws and rules relating to the operation of a licensed premises under a special restaurant license. At the formal hearing, the Respondent was represented by Mr. George Cooper, the president and 50 percent owner of the Respondent corporation. After proper inquiry, it was determined that Mr. Cooper was in fact a proper representative of the corporation. At the formal hearing, the Respondent requested an opportunity subsequent to that date to present evidence on its own behalf. The Respondent, as grounds for that motion, indicated that it had been attempting to retain counsel and had been unable to do so. It was stipulated and agreed by and between the Petitioner and the Respondent that the Petitioner would present its evidence at the formal hearing as scheduled and that following the hearing the Respondent would be given an opportunity if it desired at a subsequent hearing time and date to present its evidence. Pursuant to this stipulation, it was ordered by the Hearing Officer that the Respondent submit in writing within 10 days of July 22, 1983, a request to schedule another hearing date if the Respondent desired to present further evidence. Respondent failed to file any written pleading and failed to notify the Hearing Officer as to whether further proceedings were necessary and whether Respondent In fact intended to present further evidence. On August 25, 1983, the undersigned Hearing Officer served upon the Petitioner and Respondent an Order to Show Cause as to why a Recommended Order should not be entered upon the evidence presented by the Petitioner at the previous hearing on July 22, 1983. That Order reflected that upon failure of the parties to file a pleading showing cause as to why such a Recommended Order should not be entered that the undersigned Hearing Officer would proceed to enter a Recommended Order based on the evidence presented at the July 22, 1983, hearing. Respondent was served by mail with a copy of that order to Show Cause and failed to file any response to that Order. Therefore, this Recommended Order is being entered upon the evidence presented by the Petitioner and the cross examination of that evidence by the Respondent at the formal hearing.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was the holder of beverage license number 58-01528, SRX, Series 4COP. This license was issued to the licensed premises at 100 West Washington, Orlando, Florida. This license is a special restaurant license. On November 5, 1982, Beverage Officer James Jones, accompanied by another beverage officer, inspected the licensed premises of the Respondent. This was an SRX (special restaurant) inspection and the officers counted chairs, silverware, and dishes, and inventoried the food on the licensed premises. The count revealed 140 chairs, 46 coffee cups, 121 plates, 45 glasses, 116 knives, 53 forks, and 111 spoons. An inventory of the food on the premises revealed 55 chicken wings, 10 pounds of hamburger patties, 1 1/2 pounds of hamburger, 5 tomatoes, 1/4 pound of margarine, 1 potato, 5 loaves of bread, 1/4 slab of ribs, 30 pounds of french fries, 2 heads of lettuce, 1 1/2 pounds of potato chips, 10 carrots, 1 pound of sliced cheese, 2 1/2 spanish onions, 13 hamburger buns and 1/2 pound of diced cheese. There was no other food on the licensed premises. This inspection occurred at approximately 11:00 or 11:30 p.m. There was one bartender, one waitress, and a cook on duty. At this time, they were serving only chicken wings, hamburgers and french fries. There were no full course meals prepared or sold while the officers were at the licensed premises. There was not sufficient food at the licensed premises to serve 200 full course meals. Respondent renewed its license on September 30, 1982, and delivered a check to the District Office of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco in the amount of $1,750.00 as payment for the renewal fee. This check was deposited for payment and was returned not honored due to insufficient funds. The Respondent was notified by the Division of the returned check and failed to pay the necessary fee. The license was retrieved by the Division on November 8, 1982, and remains in the possession of the Division. At the time of renewal on September 30, 1982, the Respondent had been notified in writing of pending charges against its license which could lead to revocation or suspension of that license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED That the Respondent's beverage license be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James N. Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. George Cooper 4627 Parma Court Orlando, Florida 32811 Mr. Jack Wallace Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Post Office Box 17735 Orlando, Florida 32860
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to have the seating capacity required of a licensee in its category as alleged by the Notice to Show Cause and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, EDM of Key West, Inc., d/b/a/ Portside, was the holder of a special restaurant license issued by Petitioner, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Department of Business Regulation. This license, Series 6-COP, Number 54-00999SRX, authorizes Respondent to sell alcoholic beverages, subject to regulation by Petitioner and other authorities, in conjunction with its restaurant business. On November 16, 1988, Petitioner's law enforcement investigator, David Myers, inspected Respondent's premises to determine whether Respondent was in compliance with the regulations applicable to licensees such as Respondent. Two violations were discovered. The first was that the establishment failed to have sufficient seating for patrons under the covered portion of the premises. The second was that the establishment failed to keep adequate records of its sales of food and of its sales of alcohol as required by regulation. Official Notices were issued by Petitioner to Respondent for both violations. Investigator Myers told Respondent's dining room manager on November 16, 1988, that the establishment was required to have seating sufficient for at least 150 dining patrons under a permanent roof and that the seats located outside the roofed area could not be counted toward that requirement. This advice is consistent with Petitioner's interpretation of Rule 7A-3.014, Florida Administrative Code. Prior to December 12, 1988, Investigator Myers advised the management of Respondent that he intended to make a follow-up inspection on December 12, 1988. On December 12, 1988, there were 132 seats for dining patrons within the roofed area. Other seats for dining patrons were located in an uncovered area. Petitioner filed a Notice to Show Cause subsequent to its inspection of December 12, 1988, against Respondent alleging, in pertinent part, the following: On December 12, 1988, you, EDM OF KEY WEST INC., failed to have accommodations for service of 150 patrons at tables on your licensed premises . . . . The Notice to Show Cause did not cite Respondent for failure to keep adequate records of sales. On May 22, 1989, an inspection revealed that there was seating for only 118 dining patrons under the roofed area. On June 5, 1989, Respondent was found to be in compliance with the seating requirement. Respondent filed a timely request for hearing and therein denied the factual allegations of the charge brought against it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having failed to have accommodations for the seating of 150 dining patrons as required by Section 561.20(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes, and by Rule 7A-3.014 and Rule 7A-3.015, Florida Administrative Code, and which imposes an administrative fine of $500.00 against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 21st day of July, 1989. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Rejected in part as being unnecessary or subordinate to the findings made. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 7. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 3. 11-16. Rejected as being recitation of testimony or subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 3. 5-6. Addressed in paragraphs 4-5. Rejected in part as being unnecessary or subordinate to the findings made. 7-8. Addressed in paragraph 7. Rejected as being unnecessary to the result reached. Addressed in paragraph 3. 11-16. Rejected as being recitation of testimony or subordinate to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Hooper, Esquire Deputy General Counsel 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 James T. Hendrick, Esquire MORGAN & HENDRICK, P.A. Post Office Box 1117 Key West, Florida 33041 Leonard Ivey, Director Department of Business Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Stephen R. MacNamara, Secretary Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000
