Findings Of Fact On August 10, 1990, Petitioner filed an application for licensure with the Respondent as a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern and as a Class "EE" Repossessor Intern. On January 8, 1991, Respondent notified Petitioner, in an amended denial letter, that his application for licensure had been denied. The grounds for the denial were based on Petitioner's alleged violations of Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes, on two separate occasions. On June 11, 1982, the Petitioner and Donald Olkewicz became engaged in an altercation in Pompano Beach, Florida. Petitioner fired a 12 gauge flare gun through the screened apartment window of Mr. Olkewicz and later, in the parking lot of the apartment complex, Petitioner again discharged the flare gun which resulted in injuries to the face of Mr. Olkewicz. Petitioner was not acting in self-defense. Petitioner was arrested by Officer R. D. Cracraft who detected the odor of alcohol on the Petitioner and on Mr. Olkewicz. On July 1, 1982, an Information was filed against Petitioner in the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, for the felony charges of (1) Discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling and of (2) aggravated battery. The charges contained in this Information were assigned Case No. 82-6213 CF10. On April 15, 1983, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere in Case No. 82-6213 CF10 to the charge of aggravated battery. 1/ On June 3, 1982, an order was entered by the Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, withholding adjudication of guilt on the charge of aggravated battery and placing Petitioner on probation for a period of four years. Petitioner's term of probation was terminated early due to his good behavior. On July 30, 1988, in Palm Beach County, Florida, Officer Edward T. Sileo of the Boca Raton Police Department was dispatched to Petitioner's apartment to supervise the removal of personal items by Petitioner's ex- girlfriend, Marie Rochay. Officer Sileo escorted Ms. Rochay from the parking lot to the apartment, and upon opening the door saw Petitioner standing in the hallway with a spear gun pointed at the door. Petitioner dropped the spear gun upon seeing Officer Sileo. Petitioner and Ms. Rochay began to argue and at some point Petitioner accidentally hit Officer Sileo in the chest and indicated in a profane manner that he wanted Officer Sileo to leave the premises. When Ms. Rochay began removing her clothes from a walk-in closet, Petitioner began to argue with her and attempted to keep her from leaving by physically restraining her. When Officer Sileo stepped in to separate Petitioner and Ms. Rochay Petitioner began to wrestle with Officer Sileo. Petitioner physically resisted Officer Sileo after being advised that he was under arrest. Petitioner was not acting in self-defense. There was no evidence that Petitioner was criminally prosecuted based on this incident. At the time of the formal hearing, Petitioner was employed by Marine Recovery International. Mr. Joe Dinardo, the owner, testified that he considered Petitioner to be a valuable employee, and of good moral character. Marine Recovery International is willing to sponsor Petitioner's application and to supervise him during his internship. Petitioner was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army on June 11, 1982. Petitioner is licensed by the United States Coast Guard as a Merchant Marine Officer with the designation "Master of Near Coastal Steam or Motor Vessels of Not More Than 100 Gross Tons" and is a member in good standing of the American Professional Captains Association, an organization for U.S. Coast Guard Licensed Captains. Petitioner presented several letters from individuals who know him and who consider him to be responsible, professional, and of good moral character. These letters recommend licensure for Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern and as a Class "EE" Repossessor Intern. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of June, 1991. 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 June, 1991.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities abused its discretion when denying Petitioner’s request for exemption from being disqualified to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact It is undisputed that Petitioner has an extensive criminal background. His disqualifying offenses (larceny) occurred in April 1998 and July 2009, respectively. Petitioner’s first recorded involvement, as an adult, in the criminal enterprise commenced in 1997, when, at the age of 19, he was charged with burglary. During the 12-year period between 1997 and 2009, Petitioner was arrested multiple times for criminal violations such as marijuana possession, shoplifting, and failure to appear in court. He also had multiple instances during this period where he violated the terms of his probation and was cited for motor vehicle traffic infractions. Petitioner readily acknowledges that from 1997 through July 2009, his life was in a fairly constant state of chaos, and he recognized that if he did not make a change he would likely end up in prison or dead. In or around October 2009, Petitioner started a new chapter in his life when he made the decision to become a member of the Jesus Christ Outreach Center (JCOC). Petitioner has been a committed member of JCOC as evidenced by his extensive involvement in several ministries of the church, which include working with troubled youth, coordinating church-related conferences, and serving as a praise and worship leader. Since September 2009, Petitioner has been continuously employed. In July 2012, Petitioner went to work for Sandy Park Development Center where he worked as a direct care aide for individuals with developmental disabilities. In early 2015, Petitioner went to work for the Shalimare Company in Ft. Myers, Florida, where he also provided assistance to individuals with developmental disabilities. According to the testimony of one of his co-workers, Petitioner has proven himself to be a hard- working, trustworthy, and a reliable individual. In order to provide assistance to individuals served by Shalimare, it was necessary that Petitioner pass a background screening check. On July 10, 2014, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), pursuant to a request from Shalimare, cleared Petitioner to work in positions of special trust, including those positions where services are provided directly to individuals with developmental disabilities. Petitioner believes that he has clearly and convincingly proved that he is rehabilitated because since 2009 he has not engaged in criminal activity, has maintained steady employment where he distinguished himself as being hard-working, trustworthy and reliable, and has demonstrated dedicated and unwavering commitment to his church and community. Furthermore, Petitioner also believes that his claim of rehabilitation is bolstered by the fact that since July 10, 2014, he has been authorized by AHCA to work in positions of special trust. Respondent, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, believes that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he can be trusted to work in positions of special trust as to clients under the jurisdiction of the agency. In support of its position that Respondent has not demonstrated that he is rehabilitated, APD cites discrepancies between Petitioner’s account of his criminal activity and the law enforcement records pertaining to the same, his actions of knowingly driving with a suspended driver’s license while transporting a minor, and his pattern of poor decision making as evidenced by his multiple arrests.1/ While APD commends Petitioner for the positive steps he has taken towards turning his life around, APD believes that ultimately Petitioner’s 12 years of deviant behavior are not, at this time, counterbalanced by the normalized behavior that he demonstrated during the last 7 years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for exemption. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 14th day of October, 2016.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc., and. Peter Van Wie its president, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, by placing deposited monies received from investors in savings account number 4-0011068 at the United States Federal Savings and Loan Association of Broward County, 234 East Commercial Boulevard, Lauderdale by the Sea, Florida, said savings account being in the name of Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. is 4. in violation of rule 3D-40.06(7), Florida Administrative Code (formerly Rule 3-3.06(7), Florida Administrative Code) , and thereby subjected to a possible suspension under the terms of Section 494.05(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Whether or not the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and Peter Van Wie as president, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, paid to Richard Clarke and Frederick Beck, who were not licensed pursuant to Section 494.04, Florida Statutes, certain commissions, bonuses or fees in connection with the arranging, negotiation, selling, purchasing, and planning of the mortgage loans set forth in Exhibit "A" (of the Administrative Complaint) in violation of Section 494.08(5), Florida Statutes, and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of Section 494.05(1)(g) , Florida Statutes. Whether or not the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and Peter Van Wie as president, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has charged and accepted fees and commissions in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions on the transactions set forth in Exhibit B (of the Administrative Complaint) in violation of Section 494.08(4) , Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.08(3)(4), Florida Administrative Code, (formerly Rule 3-3.08(3)(4) Florida Administrative Code) and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of Section 494.05(1)(g) Florida Statutes. Whether or not the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and Peter Van Wie as president, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, on or about March 12, 1975, received from Marie W. Neal, $14,000.00 for the purpose of investing in a promissory note and mortgage for land located in Dora Pines Development, and subsequently on April 1, 975, wrote a check to First National Resources. in the amount of $11,760.00 to pay for said promissory note and mortgage for Marie W. Neal, which on April 24, 1975, was returned by Lauderdale Beach Bank for non- sufficient funds in violation of Section 494.05(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of Section 494.05(1)(e), Florida, Statutes. Whether or not the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and Peter Van Wie as president, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has failed to obtain for Marie W. Neal, a promissory note and mortgage or remit said funds for such promissory note and mortgage to her in violation of Section 494.05(1)(e) Florida Statutes, and thereby subjected the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of Section 494.05(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and Peter Van Wie as president, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has failed to account or deliver to Marie W. Neal after demand, said funds which came to $14,000.00 which were placed with the Respondent for purposes of investing in a promissory note and mortgage for land located in Dora Pines Development which funds had come into the hands of the Respondent which were and are not the property of the Respondent in which in law and equity the Respondent is not entitled to retain, in violation of Section 494.04(1) Florida Statutes, and thereby subjected Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of Section 494.05(1)(e), Florida Statutes. Whether or not the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and Peter Van Wie as president, a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida, has failed to place, immediately upon receipt, funds in the amount of $14,000.00 received of Marie W. Neal into an escrow account, with an escrow agent located and doing business in Florida or to deposit said funds in a trust or escrow bank account maintained by the Respondent with some bank located and doing business in Florida or to deposit said funds in a trust or escrow bank account maintained by the Respondent with some bank located and doing business in Florida, in violation of Section 494.05(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and thereby subjecting the Respondent to a possible suspension under the terms of Section 494.05(1)(f), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. through the person of Peter Van Wie, its president, was a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida during the time period contemplated by the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent was issued said license on October 4, 1974. At a time when the Respondent's mortgage broker license was in effect, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and/or Peter Van Wie deposited monies received from investors in a savings account number 4-0011068, at the United Federal Savings and Loan Association of Broward County, 234 East Commercial Boulevard, Lauderdale by the Sea, Florida. This savings account was in the name of Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. While operating as Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc., Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and/or Peter Van Wie paid to Richard Clarke and Frederick Beck, who were not licensed pursuant to Section 494.04(04, Florida Statutes, certain commissions, bonuses or fees in connection with the arranging negotiation, selling, purchasing and planning of mortgage loans. These sales by Mr. Beck and Mr. Clarke are identified in the Exhibit "A to the Complaint and Petitioner's Exhibit "C" admitted into evidence during the hearing. Richard Clarke became a licensed mortgage broker in the State of Florida on December 19, 1973. Frederick Beck has never been licensed under Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. There was admitted into evidence in the course of the hearing, Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "B". The columns that are shown on the pages of the exhibit running horizontally represent in succession: the date, name of the investor, whether or not the investor was a Florida resident, the amount of the mortgage, the amount of commission paid, whether the note was in the file of the Respondent, whether or not the mortgage was in the file of the Respondent, whether or not the title insurance policy on real estate was in the file, the interest rate return for the investor, whether or not the arrangement was for interest only or interest and principal, and the name of the broker/developer. The facts which surrounded the transaction shown in Petitioner's Composite Exhibit "B" are as follows: An investor would be in contact with Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. concerning the purchase of certain promissory notes and mortgage for land which were being offered by a developer/mortgagor. The investor made out a check to Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. using the acronym PVWI, Inc. The money for purchasing the promissory note and mortgage was then held in the escrow account until Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. received the promissory note and mortgage through an intermediary acting in behalf of the developer. The money that had been received from the investor stayed in the escrow account until the receipt of the promissory note and mortgage and then was removed in the entire amount and placed in the Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. operating account. A percentage of the investment principal would then be deducted from the amount which had been placed in the operating account and the amount remaining after the percentage had been deducted would be forwarded to the intermediary, who would make a further dispersion of the proceeds to the developer. The percentage to be deducted from the investment principal amount was determined by prior negotiations between the intermediary, and Peter Van Wie investments, Inc. These percentage amounts deducted from the investment principal were characterized by the Respondent in the course of the hearing, as being a discount allowed by the intermediary for sales of the promissory notes and mortgages to the Respondent. This characterization by the Respondent is rejected and these percentage amounts are found to be fees or commissions charged by the Respondent, which are in excess of the maximum allowable fees or commissions on transactions, in that they are in excess of the amounts allowed under Section 494.08(4)) Florida Statutes, and Rule 3D-40.08(3)(4), Florida Administrative Code, (formerly Rule 3-3.08(3)(4), Florida Administrative Code). In connection with other allegations found in the Administrative Complaint, it has been shown that on March 12, 1975, the Respondent received from one Marie W. Neal, $14,000.00 for the purpose of investing in a promissory note and mortgage for land located in Dora Pines Development. Peter Van Wie, on April 18, 1975, wrote a check to First National Resources in the amount of $11,760.00 to pay for the promissory note and mortgage for Marie W. Neal. On April 24, 1975, the check that had been written to First National Reserves was returned by the Lauderdale Beach Bank, for non-sufficient funds. The Respondent's explanation of the reason for the non-sufficient funds is found in his Answer to the Administrative Complaint in paragraph 6. It is not clear from the record whether Marie W. Neal ever physically received a promissory note and mortgage; however, a promissory note and mortgage deed have been recorded in Lake County, Florida, in her favor. There was no proof that the person, Marie W. Neal, ever asked that the Respondent remit such funds she had paid for the promissory note and mortgage. Furthermore, there is no evidence to the effect that the Respondent failed to deliver to to Marie W. Neal after demand, the said $14,000.00 which came into the Respondent's hands, or which had been placed in the escrow account of the Respondent and from which the non-sufficient funds check had been written to First National Resources. By an exhibit attached to the Answer of the Respondent, it is shown that the $14,000.00 was placed in the escrow account so designated at the United Federal Savings and Loan Association of Broward County, 234 East Commercial Boulevard, Lauderdale by the Sea, Florida, on March 13, 1975.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the license of the Respondent, Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. and Peter Van Wie as president, a licensed mortgage broker in Florida, be suspended for a period of one year in view of the violations which have been proven in the course of the hearing. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of July, 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: R. Terry Rigsby, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Peter Van Wie, President Peter Van Wie Investments, Inc. 16 Winnebago Road Sea Ranch Lakes, Florida B. Paul Pettie 2314 E. Atlantic Boulevard Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE, DIVISION OF FINANCE, Petitioner, vs. Administration Proceeding Number 75-21 DOF-MB PETER VAN WIE INVESTMENTS, INC., Case No. 75-1512 and PETER VAN WIE, PRESIDENT, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue in this cause is whether Respondent engaged in unlawful employment practices of discrimination against Petitioner, for the reason of her being a female, by denying her management training during her employment tenure and by subsequently terminating her employment, in violation of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2003).1
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the demeanor and candor of each witness while testifying; documentary materials received in evidence; evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes; and stipulations of the parties, the following relevant and material facts, arrived at impartially based solely upon testimony and information presented at the final hearing, are objectively determined: Petitioner, Kelly McKean, is a Caucasian female and, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, was an employee at one of Respondent's, Econo Auto Painting, Inc., business locations, located at 1822 West Memorial Boulevard, Lakeland, Florida, from February 12, 2001, until she was terminated on June 23, 2003. Petitioner had approximately six years of non-continuous employment at several of Respondent's business locations before beginning her employment at the above Lakeland business site. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a "taper," the person who is responsible for taping cars after body repairs and before painting. The taping of cars consisted of aligning strips of tape to specific areas of each automobile to prevent the taped area from being painted by the painter. Petitioner was an "aggrieved person" as defined by Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The evidence of record establishes the fact that during all times pertinent, Respondent's Lakeland location employed nine employees comprised of: two females and seven males (five Caucasians/three Hispanics/one African American). Of the nine employees, one Caucasian female and one African American male were in managerial positions. Both were employed through contractual services of Selective HR Services (SHRS), an independent contractor and co-employer of Petitioner. Respondent is an automobile body shop business specializing in automobile body repairs and painting the exterior of cars and, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, was an "employer" as defined by Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. During all times pertinent to this proceeding, SHRS was responsible for providing human resources management services for Respondent's employees.4 At all time pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent hired the shop managers for its several auto body repair shops through SHRS. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Respondent promote employees to management positions from within. At no time pertinent to this proceeding did Respondent permit, offer, or have in place a management training program for the training and promotions of employees from within the ranks of its shop employees to management positions within the company. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, and, on Monday, June 23, 2003, Marquez Green was the shop manager and Ron Link was the assistant manager of Respondent's Lakeland branch body shop during Petitioner's last term of employment at that location. Basis for Petitioner's Termination Several weeks preceding her termination, on June 23, 2003, the assistant shop manager, Mr. Link, noticed and personally discussed with Petitioner her repeated improper taping of some cars in the assembly line processes. Mr. Link spoke with Petitioner about this problem particularly stressing the fact that each car not properly taped required repainting which resulted in a slowdown of the repair, sanding, taping, and repainting process. It was made clear to Petitioner that repainting due to improper taping was causing the shop to lose profit. During the days following notice of the problem regarding incorrectly taped cars, Petitioner failed and/or refused to improve her work habits. The lack of improvement by Petitioner of her work habit of taping cars apparently became of some concern with management, in view of Petitioner's experience and over seven years of service as a taper with Respondent's business. Added to this disturbing trend, some time later, both the shop manager and assistant manager observed Petitioner in the manager's office reading business documents. Management confronted Petitioner with this violation of its policy that "none management" personnel were not allowed to read/review business documents. Petitioner gave an excuse for her conduct stating that the prior manager permitted her to review office documents when she was caught up with her work. Other than her statement, Petitioner failed to provide the identity or the testimony of the prior manager who allegedly granted her permission to review office documents when she had completed her work assignments before the end of the day. Petitioner presented no corroborating evidence in support of her assertion of prior managerial permission for her to review office documents. Petitioner's allegation of "prior permissive authority" was thus not credible. Mr. Green gave undisputed testimony that during a third occasion, he observed Petitioner and a non-employee male friend of Petitioner walking and talking in the work area restricted to employees only. Mr. Green approached the couple and immediately brought the rule infraction of no non-employees within the restricted work area to Petitioner's attention, ending by instructing Petitioner to tell her male friend to leave the restricted workshop area immediately. Under these circumstances, and in the presence of a non-employee, Petitioner said to her shop manager: "He'll leave when I want him to leave." Following Petitioner's refusal to obey the shop manager's direct order accompanied by her disrespectful comment, Mr. Green moved to call the local police, and only then did Petitioner's male friend leave the premises. Mr. Green subsequently discussed this matter, as well as the profit loss due to improper taping of cars, with Mr. Link, and they jointly decided not to take disciplinary action against Petitioner at that time. Notice of Termination On Monday, June 23, 2003, Petitioner reported to work at approximately 7:35 a.m. and five hours later, at approximately 12:35 p.m., she had completely taped all nine cars in the shop for repair and painting that day. Petitioner sought out Mr. Link, inquiring what he would have her do next; assist other employees in the shop or go to lunch? Mr. Link instructed Petitioner to go home for the remainder of the day. After her departure, Mr. Link and Mr. Green discussed Petitioner's continuing hurried work habits, her attitude toward management when given a direct order, and her unauthorized presence in the manager's office reviewing business documents. Management considered the following: (1) Petitioner's continued episodes of improper taping was causing an increase in cost and a decrease in profits, (2) Petitioner's negative attitude toward management, and (3) Petitioner's unauthorized presence in the manager's office looking at managerial business documents. Management determined that the above conduct was sufficient basis for her termination as an employee. In the afternoon of June 23, 2003, Mr. Link, with authorization from Mr. Green, telephoned Petitioner and informed her that she was terminated because of her repeated and costly taping errors and her failure to correct those errors. The telephonic notice of termination was followed by a written termination letter with check marks beside the boxes "refusal to perform job duties" and "unable to perform job."5 This document formed the factual basis for Petitioner's termination as an employee. Background and Employer's Policy On February 12, 2001, before she began working at Respondent's Lakeland job site, but while she was working for Respondent at another job site, Petitioner executed an Employment Acknowledgement packet containing the policy(s) and procedures she agreed to follow in the event there occurred any employment disputes, including any type of discrimination. Petitioner also agreed to resolve employment disputes through use of SHRS' Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure. Prior Complaints Made by Petitioner While working at Respondent's Longwood, Florida, job site, but before working at the Lakeland job site, Petitioner made one verbal complaint of sexual harassment to Betty Branham, SHRS compliance supervisor, regarding sexual comments regarding her buttocks made by male co-workers. The record does not contain evidence whether this complaint was pursued or dismissed. Petitioner neither made complaints nor did she make any reports of sexual harassment or discrimination, gender or otherwise, at the Lakeland job site during her February 12, 2001, to June 23, 2003, employment tenure there. Petitioner did not file a report with SHRS claiming discrimination because of her gender and/or because she was denied management training opportunities and opportunities for promotion into management. Other Employees Terminated by Respondent During the early hours of June 24, 2003, one day after Petitioner's termination, Mr. Link terminated a male employee, Edward Burgess. Mr. Burgess was a "sander," and he was terminated for "refusal to perform job duties" and "unable to perform job." According to Mr. Link, Mr. Burgess was "taking two-to-three times longer than what he should to sand cars." During the evening hours of June 24, 2003, Mr. Green terminated another male employee, Mr. Link. Mr. Link was terminated, as he recalled, "because another male employee made accusations that while walking behind him Mr. Link bumped into his rear and made sexual gestures." Mr. Link admitted he could not recall, that is, he could not confirm, argue or deny, the other party's versions of what actually occurred and what was said at the time of his bumping into the other employee. The unnamed other employee did not testify. Petitioner, through the testimony of witnesses, of record, and exhibits admitted into evidence, failed to produce a scintilla of substantial and competent evidence to establish: that she was subjected to an adverse job action when, in fact, she was terminated for poor job performance and disrespectful conduct toward management on June 23, 2003; that because of her gender, female, she was treated differently than similarly situated male employees, who were not terminated after violation of work place policy(s); and (3) that she was qualified for the job as managerial trainee but was denied an opportunity for employee managerial training which was provided by her employer to other employees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief and the Charge of Discrimination filed in this cause by Petitioner, Kelly McKean. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact In his application to sit for the real estate salesman's examination Petitioner listed his criminal record accurately. In 1975 Petitioner, while working as an executive with Florida Farm Workers Council, endorsed and cashed checks that had been forwarded with the weekly payroll checks-and made payable to non-existent workers as payees. At the time, Petitioner was running for mayor of Belle Glade and used the money to pay advertising bills associated with his campaign. Some of these checks were cashed in Hendry County and some in Palm Beach County. As a result he was brought to trial in both Palm Beach County and Hendry County. At these trials he pleaded guilty and made restitution of the money taken. In Palm Beach County he was sentenced to 90 days in jail and placed on probation for 4 years. He served 28 days of that sentence and was paroled. In Hendry County he was sentenced to 5 years probation. The probationary period in Palm Beach County was terminated on 14 May 1979 (Exhibit 3) and the probation period in Hendry County was terminated shortly thereafter. Immediately following his conviction Petitioner was employed by Brevard Employment and Training Organization doing work similar to that he had done while employed by Florida Farm Workers Council and he has received several promotions to more responsible positions since his employment there began. His responsibilities include the supervision of federally funded programs for migrant and youth workers amounting to several hundred thousand dollars per year. Petitioner is married and the father of three children. He was formerly a member of the police force in Belle Glade. He has been engaged in programs affecting low income workers for approximately 10 years and enjoys a good reputation in the community in which he lives and works. He is a member of the Mount Zion Church Belle Glade where he is a lay minister and serves as Sunday School superintendent. Reverend Robinson, who was pastor of Petitioner's Church in Belle Glade in 1975, and Reverend Thigpen, who replaced Robinson in 1977, both attested to Petitioner's good reputation in the community and opined that Petitioner was morally qualified for licensure as a real estate salesman. The Executive Director of the United Way in Broward County has known Petitioner for five years and he averred that Petitioner's reputation in Broward County was very good, that Petitioner worked for him for two months as a loaned executive in Broward County's fund raising drive, and that in his opinion Petitioner would represent no danger to the public if licensed. Petitioner's present supervisor also testified on behalf of Petitioner. Petitioner holds a responsible position in Broward Employment and Training Organization and the supervisor was aware of Petitioner's criminal record at the time Petitioner was hired. This witness also expressed his belief that Petitioner's licensure would present no danger to the public. As a reference on his application Petitioner listed the individual who was his supervisor at Florida Farm Workers Council in 1975 when Petitioner acquired his criminal record.
The Issue May Petitioner be granted an exemption to work in a position of special trust?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was arrested and charged with battery on a spouse under Section 784.03(1)(a), F.S., on April 11, 1992. The incident arose when Petitioner's husband approached her in a threatening manner. The two had been having marital problems. Although he had never hit her, Petitioner's husband was threatening to hit her on this occasion. Petitioner was afraid. She attempted to escape and tried to telephone her pastor for advice. In the meantime, while she was telephoning, her husband approached her again and she hit him on the right side of the head with the telephone receiver. There is no evidence to suggest Petitioner's husband was a minor at the time. Petitioner's husband sustained bruises, and the side of his head was swollen. Petitioner was arrested and jailed. She spent two weeks in jail because she was unable to post bond. Her husband attempted to withdraw the charges. Adjudication was withheld. Petitioner was formerly employed by Vistakon, a cleaning service, but she left that employment in 1993 due to disability arising from an arthritic hip. Petitioner and her husband finally separated February 1, 1996, and there is no reason to believe the 1992 incident will be repeated. Although she and her husband have remained married, Petitioner has been involved in no further violent incidents since 1992, nor has she had any involvement with law enforcement in that period. Petitioner presently is taking classes toward completion of her GED certificate. Petitioner is an active member of the True Way Bible Deliverance Church. She sporadically cares for children of friends and children in Sunday School. She hopes to qualify for a child care license someday.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption to work in a position of special trust. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-1745 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., upon the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's three unnumbered paragraphs are accepted in substance, without the argumentation. Respondent's nine proposed findings of fact are accepted as slightly modified to more accurately reflect the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Ethel R. Denson 6951 West Virginia Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Roger L.D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Ste. 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Ste. 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed an act of violence against, or wrongfully detained, Beatrix Shadwell and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a Class "D" Security Officer license, Number D93- 16229, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license, Number G93- 03349. On March 2, 1996, Respondent's wife telephoned the Collier County Sheriff Office from a convenience store and asked for assistance. A deputy was dispatched to the convenience store to talk to her. Respondent's wife was distraught when the deputy arrived. She said that she was afraid that something was wrong with her husband. She told the deputy that he had shot a gun when she had left the house and she was afraid that he had shot himself. In response to questioning, Respondent's wife, who had redness around her throat and small cuts on her hands, admitted that she and her husband had had an argument. The deputy accompanied Respondent's wife to her home. He searched the house without finding Respondent, although he found several guns, including some loaded. He then questioned Respondent's wife more closely. According to the deputy, Respondent's wife admitted that her husband had physically abused her by grabbing her by the throat, handcuffing her, taping her mouth closed, and putting a gun to her head and threatening to kill her. The deputy took a sworn statement to this effect by writing down what Respondent's wife said and having her sign it. Respondent's wife testified that nothing happened except that she and her husband had an argument. She claimed that her written statement is inaccurate due to her exaggerations and difficulties with English. Respondent's wife is Panamanian and has not resided in the United States for long. She speaks and understands English reasonably well, but not perfectly. While the deputy was speaking with Respondent's wife, Respondent telephoned the house. The deputy ordered him to come home and talk to the deputy. When Respondent returned home, the deputy gave him his Miranda rights and asked him about the incident. Respondent admitted pointing an unloaded weapon at his wife. Petitioner has not proved by clear and convincing evidence all of the facts contained in the statement of Respondent's wife. Her language problems raise some doubt as to the accuracy of the now-repudiated statement. However, Respondent admitted to the deputy that he pointed an empty gun at his wife. This evidence is unrebutted by other evidence because Respondent elected not to testify, and his wife did not discredit this portion of the deputy's testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Licensing, Department of State, enter a final order revoking Respondent's Class "D" and Class "G" licenses. ENTERED on October 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on October 19, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. Number 4 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 Steve Edmund Shadwell, pro se 1880 51st St. SW Naples, FL 33999
The Issue Is Respondent guilty of operating as a real estate salesperson, without being the holder of a valid and current license as a real estate salesperson, in violation of Section 475.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and thereby in violation of Section 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of Florida related to the practice of real estate. Authority for the conduct of Petitioner's duties is found in Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes; and associated rules. At present, Respondent holds a license as a real estate salesperson, license no. SL0631299, issued by Petitioner. From January 3, 1997, until February 13, 1998, Respondent was employed as an active salesperson in association with Marita Ann Dorr, Inc. (the Dorr firm), a broker corporation trading as Home Town Property Management. During that time Marita Dorr served as Respondent's employing broker. The Dorr firm was located at 109 West Lakeview Street, Lady Lake, Florida 32159. Respondent's duties during the time she was affiliated with the Dorr firm was that of an independent contractor real estate salesperson engaged in the sale of real estate at Sandlewood Condominiums, in Wildwood, Florida. In that time period, Respondent was also acting as the manager of Sandlewood Condominiums, which involved bookkeeping, supervision of maintenance, and serving as a receptionist. On February 13, 1998, Ms. Dorr informed Respondent that Respondent was terminated as a real estate salesperson affiliated with the Dorr firm. On that same date Ms. Dorr executed a form 400.5 which reflected the request for change of status in Respondent's license, noting that Respondent was terminated from employment with the Dorr firm. That form was received by Petitioner on February 13, 1998. In addition, Ms. Dorr wrote to Respondent on February 13, 1998, to enclose the executed form 400.5 noting the termination of Respondent's employment of the Dorr firm. On February 17, 1998, Respondent received the letter and a copy of the request for change of status of her license under form 400.5. From February 14, 1998, through March 22, 1998, Respondent did not have a current active license to practice real estate as a salesperson because Respondent was not associated with a real estate broker. Mr. Michael D. Remmel was interested in possibly purchasing a condominium unit at the Sandlewood Condominiums and had a conversation with Respondent concerning the possible purchase. His initial contact with Respondent predated her termination as a real estate salesperson affiliated with the Dorr firm. On February 17, 1998, after being told that she was terminated and receiving the letter from Ms. Dorr with the attached form 400.5, concerning the termination, Respondent again had contact with Mr. Remmel about the possible purchase of a condominium unit. Mr. Remmel initiated that purchase contract. On February 17, 1998, Mr. Remmel made an offer to purchase a unit in the Sandlewood Condominiums by executing a contract for sale and purchase as buyer. Respondent helped complete the contract form in its details by filling out the form, with the exception of Mr. Remmel's signature. The form noted that Home Town Property Management was the cooperating broker. A copy of the contract for sale and purchase is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At the time that Respondent assisted Mr. Remmel in preparing the contract for sale and purchase, Respondent acknowledged to Mr. Remmel that she had been terminated as a salesperson and that her salesperson's real estate license was no longer active. Respondent told Mr. Remmel that she would have to call Ms. Dorr and find out if she could make the offer to the listing broker for the unit Mr. Remmel wished to purchase. Before writing the contract, Respondent spoke to Ms. Dorr. In the conversation Ms. Dorr commented on the fact that the form 400.5 had already been submitted to Petitioner and Respondent acknowledged receiving the copy of the form. Ms. Dorr reminded Respondent that Respondent should not be writing or soliciting real estate business. Respondent replied that she understood that but contended that Respondent was not soliciting the business. Respondent referred to the fact that Mr. Remmel was in the office and wanted to make an offer. Respondent asked Ms. Dorr if Ms. Dorr wanted Respondent to write up the contract and put Ms. Dorr's name on the bottom of it. Ms. Dorr responded "yes." Respondent asked what date to place. Ms. Dorr said to put "today's date." Notwithstanding Ms. Dorr's remarks Respondent recognized that she had not been rehired formally by Ms. Dorr and that, in the eyes of Petitioner, Respondent's real estate salesperson license was still inactive based upon the fact that Respondent did not have a named qualifying broker. Respondent acknowledges that she should have known better than to write the contract but that she wrote the contract because Ms. Dorr told her to. The property that Mr. Remmel made an offer on was listed with Myra Paxton, the broker for Paxton Realty. During the course of the transaction that took place between Respondent and Mr. Remmel concerning the property, Respondent called Ms. Paxton on February 17, 1998, and told Ms. Paxton that a copy of the contract was being faxed to Ms. Paxton. Respondent asked Ms. Paxton if Ms. Paxton wanted to write the contract or wanted Respondent to write it. Ms. Paxton reminded Respondent that Ms. Paxton was not Respondent's broker and could not tell Respondent what Respondent should do. Respondent then called Ms. Paxton again and told Ms. Paxton that "Marita," which name is inferred as a reference to Ms. Dorr, had told Respondent to write the contract under Ms. Dorr's authority and to bring it to Ms. Dorr. On February 17, 1998, Respondent faxed Ms. Paxton a copy of the contract for sale and purchase.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Sections 475.42(1)(a) and 475.25(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and issuing a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite N-308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Kevin Palley, Esquire Kevin Palley, P.A. Suite B-2 520 Southeast Fort King Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Herbert S. Fecker, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be issued a Consumer Certificate of Exemption from Florida sales tax.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation prior to the taking of any testimony, the parties agreed that the only option upon which Petitioner seeks an exemption from sales tax is that relating its status as an administrative office of the organization. Petitioner agrees that it does not conduct regular church services within the meaning of Section 212.08(7)(o), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Construction for Worldwide Evangelism, Inc., was a non-profit corporation registered as such with the Florida Secretary of State, which has been granted exemption from Federal Income Tax under Section 501(c)3, of the Internal Revenue Code. It was established in 1991, and its purpose is to build churches in Third World countries for church mission boards and other missionary organizations, including Baptist International Missionaries, Inc. (BIMI). BIMI trains and places missionaries and provides stewardship of individual members’ funds and insurance. Petitioner also builds facilities for the Association of Baptists for Worldwide Evangelism (ABWE). BIMI and ABWE are the largest and second largest missionary sponsoring organizations in the country with each sponsoring more than 1,000 missionaries in the field. Petitioner also works with other Baptist missionary organizations which are not as large as those previously mentioned. These organizations all have the same purpose -- to spread the word of redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ. Since its inception, Petitioner has been guided in its work by its mission statement and its statement of faith. Both are taken from scripture and are included in the basic tenets of Christian faith. It was founded specifically to fulfill God’s great purpose -- to preach to the world. The missionary organizations referenced above do not build their own missions but look to churches and organizations like the Petitioner to raise funds and build facilities including churches, medical clinics, bible institutes, and other educational buildings. When the Petitioner was founded, it was obvious that funds would be needed to do this work. There are other missionary organizations around the country which build facilities as Petitioner does. The difference between these organizations and Petitioner is that Petitioner has no paid staff, and it takes a project from design conception through completion. Other organizations seem to do their projects in stages, based on the availability of volunteers to do the required work. Nothing requires Petitioner to limit approval of requests to those from recognized missionary boards. Other denominational churches make requests to Petitioner but most are turned down because the other denominations have their own funding. Petitioner tries to limit itself to “independent” churches, but it has no formal agreement, other than the Bible, with any of the recognized missionary boards. The missionary boards do not provide their own funds to Petitioner. Financial support comes from individual churches which provide money to their missionary boards which is earmarked for mission construction. Requesters need not be a particular denomination of Baptist congregation. Petitioner will talk with any organization that will agree with its Statement of Faith. However, Petitioner’s Board of Directors has the final authority to decide if a request will be granted. Need for a specific project is communicated to Petitioner through the various missionary boards operating in this country; through direct contact from missions in the field; and from individual churches which need help in organizing a project they want to do. When Petitioner receives a request, because of the volume of requests received, the Board of Directors tries to evaluate the need in the area, the requester’s doctrinal position, and the availability of resources to the local group which will do the work if approved. The Petitioner sends evaluators to the field to examine the proposed facilities. All procedures are included in its Project and Guideline Manual which details with particularity how Petitioner will do each step from evaluation, through purchasing of supplies after design, through securing and forwarding of volunteers to completion, close-down, and the return of the volunteers. Each proposed project is evaluated in accordance with the terms of the Manual. In a typical project, a determination is first made whether the applicant is an existing church which needs help. This is a requirement because Petitioner does not start churches. Once they are satisfied the applicant is an existing church, the evaluators determine how much of a project is needed and how much resources the local organization has, and then look to further evaluation against the twenty-five or so other factors for consideration. Most of this information is gathered from the applicant or a mission board either by Mr. Puleo, an electrical contractor who is president of the Petitioner organization, or by the vice-president of the organization. Once all pertinent information is on hand and the project deemed worthy, a project profile is developed. Petitioner has several projects ongoing at the same time. The initial step is to pray for guidance from God as to which project to do. Once a project is approved, an on-site inspection is conducted to develop information as to whether there is a real need for Petitioner to be involved or whether the local people can accomplish the project by themselves. This on- site inspection is usually done by a member of the Petitioner’s Board and by a committee chairperson. The on-site survey determines what is available at the site, and information is developed as to the logistics needed and the personnel required. Another part of the planning relates to the ministry to be supported. An evaluation is conducted of the on-site missionary and how well that individual operates, how long he plans to stay there, and whether he is flexible enough to work with both locals and volunteers. After this evaluation is completed, a conclusion is drawn as to whether Petitioner can take on the project and what will be needed. After prayer and consideration, a decision is made as to whether to go forward with the project. The funds to do the work and to buy the required materials come from Baptist churches across the country, businesses, other organization, and individuals. All the workers come from individual churches who support Petitioner’s program. They work on a volunteer basis without pay. When a church contacts Petitioner to have a facility built, a representative of the Petitioner goes to that church, conducts a service, and tries to enlist the financial and volunteer support of the church membership. In addition, periodically, conferences of pastors seek a presentation from Petitioner. Any funds received as a result of those presentations usually come from the specific church’s general fund and volunteers for the project from that church’s membership. In support of its fund and volunteer raising activities, Petitioner publishes a brochure regarding its activities which is widely distributed through supporting churches. It outlines how readers of the brochure can assist or seek other information. Petitioner also published a newsletter which is circulated to any volunteer who has gone on a project with it, to churches, and to others on the organization’s mailing list. This newsletter describes what is happening in the organization and what is planned. A tract is also passed out to the public by which Petitioner seeks to raise funds and attract disciples. No one who works with Petitioner is paid. All funds raised go to the cost of constructing the building, to the cost of travel and support of personnel at the building site, and to the cost of transportation of supplies. In that regard, a portion of the supplies and equipment needed for a project is often donated as is the cost of transporting that material to the job site. It should be noted that when Petitioner works on a project in a foreign country, often volunteers from that local church subsequently help with work and funds on other projects within that country. Included in every program is a devotional component. Guidelines exist which cover the duties and responsibility of the devotional committee of each work force, the chairman, and the individuals. These guidelines are prepared for each day of the program’s existence and call for a thirty minute to one hour devotional each night. Petitioner, which originated in Florida, now has branches in both Georgia and Michigan which are recognized by those states. Both the Georgia and Michigan organizations do work identical to that done by the Florida group, but everything they do is coordinated and controlled through the Petitioner’s Tampa office. Since its inception in 1991, Petitioner has built seventeen or eighteen facilities - ten or eleven were churches, two were Bible institutes, and one a radio station in the Caribbean area and South America. The average church costs between $45,000 and $50,000, although one church in Bolivia was built for $15,000 and one will be built for $20,000. Medical facilities are more expensive. The facilities constructed by Petitioner have a positive impact on the mission for which they are constructed. They tend to enhance the success of the mission and improve its local standing. Petitioner previously held a Certificate of Exemption from sales tax from the Department. Neither the Petitioner’s organization nor the statute under which certificates are granted has changed in the interim between the granting of the prior certificate and the denial of the current application for renewal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying Petitioner an exemption from sales and use tax. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark M. Schabacker, Esquire Schabacker, Simmons and Dunlap Suite 2500 100 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William B. Nickell, Esquire Department of Revenue Suite 304 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact On April 26, 1978, Petitioner was charged with speeding at the rate of 44 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour zone and with failure to have an operator's license in his possession. He pled guilty to the speeding charge on May 2, 1978, and paid a $28.50 fine on May 5, 1978. In November, 1978, Petitioner was charged with being drunk in a public place and subsequently pled guilty to that charge on December 5, 1978, and paid a fine. In January, 1979, Petitioner was charged with the offense of illegal sale of alcoholic beverage to a minor and pled guilty to this offense on February 6, 1976, being fined $50.00. In January, 1977, Petitioner was charged with the offense of harassing and also charged with being drunk in a public place and pled guilty to both these charges on February 6, 1979, being fined for each offense. In September, 1979, Petitioner was charged with driving under the influence with a blood alcohol level of .17 percent; and on September 27, 1979, pled guilty to the amended charge of reckless driving, being fined $100.00. On January 27, 1981, Petitioner was charged with being drunk in a public place and for criminal trespass; and on January 27, 1981, he pled guilty to the charge of being drunk in a public place and was sentenced to one day in jail, with credit for time already served. On April 1, 1982, Petitioner was charged with careless driving in West Palm Beach, Florida, and subsequently pled guilty to this offense, being fined $25.00.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a Final Order denying the application for licensure. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Jimmie L. Newcomb 2910 Melaleuca Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Ralph Armstead, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Room 212, 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
