The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Emergency Rule 53ER99-48, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, whether it was promulgated pursuant to a true emergency and whether certain agency statements contained in letters promulgated by the agency constitute an unadopted rule, in purported violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia as a "not-for-profit" corporation. It is registered to do business in the State of Florida. NALP is an association of six member companies. It became organized following the passage of a change to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax code enacted on October 21, 1998. That provision, I.R.C. Section 451(h), the so called "transitional rule" provided that if state lotteries offered to "cash-out" previous prize winners on a limited basis, then the tax payer would not be subject to the so called "constructive receipt doctrine." NALP's members purchase large lottery payment streams in every state that has a lottery, including Florida. The winners assign their right to the annual payments in return for a lesser amount than their payments would total over, in Florida, the twenty-year time span for pay-outs, in return for receiving the immediate cash lump-sum. In Florida this is accomplished pursuant to Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999). One of NALP's main purposes is to protect the interests of its member companies through monitoring and participating in the formulation of federal legislation as well in rulemaking before various state agencies including the Florida department, as well as to provide educational materials and functions for members and for the various state lottery agencies. Each of the member companies owns at least one Florida Lottery prize and in the aggregate they own dozens of Florida large lottery prize payment streams worth over fifty million dollars. The Respondent is the Florida Department of The Lottery (Respondent or Department). It is a state agency authorized under Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, to organize, regulate and administer the operation of the state lottery and to properly account for, deposit in trust and invest lottery ticket sale proceeds and to pay related prizes from funds received from ticket sales and through investments of such lottery department revenues, all pursuant to Chapter 24, Florida Statutes, and related rules. Petitioner's Standing: The Petitioner has standing to pursue its challenge to the rule and agency statements in this case. Each of its members owns Florida lottery prizes. That is, by operation of assignment under Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes, they have assumed the interests of the actual lottery prize winners who have assigned their prizes to the members of NALP by assignment agreements enacted pursuant to the terms of this statute. The prize winners (winning ticket holders) received discounted amounts, lump-sum settlements, in lieu of prizes paid in equal annual installments over twenty years. Therefore, each of the companies who are members of NALP and hold assignment rights to the lottery prizes, are eligible for the lottery's one-time, cash-out opportunity under the subject Emergency Rule 53ER99-48, Florida Administrative Code. The Emergency Rule applies by its own terms to the Petitioner's members, as they are assignees of the prizes involved. Through the Emergency Rule as well, the Department, in effect, is competing for the same clientele, that is, past lottery prize winners who won the lottery during the relevant time period, and the same cash flow from the prize winners' annual payments as are all of the Petitioner's members by virtue of the above-referenced assignment statute. The only real difference is that the Department, by the terms of the rule, does not have to comply with the extensive "Consumer Protection" provisions of the statute which include court proceedings, explicit disclosures of purchase price and discount rate and the ultimate mandate of court orders on proposed assignments, all of which is required by Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes, of private assignment companies. In short, the Petitioner has established a sufficient substantial interest "injury and fact" which occurs within the zone of interest carved out by the lottery prize payment, revenue investment and trust fund management scheme established by Chapter 24, Florida Statutes. Emergency Rule 53ER99-48 and Agency statements Purported To be Rules. Prior to October of 1998, all large lottery prize winners could receive their prize only in equal annual installments over a period of twenty years. They were not given the choice of an immediate lump-sum, cash settlement. This was because, under the federal tax law prevailing at the time, the ability to make a choice of receiving a lump-sum prize award or payments over time automatically triggered the "constructive receipt doctrine" which thereupon allowed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assume the taxpayer had constructive receipt over the entire prize money and therefore, owed income tax on the entire prize in one year. However, assignments of prize payment streams to private investment companies for a cash lump-sum settlement in return were allowed through the aegis of state circuit court orders without violating the constructive receipt doctrine. Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999), was enacted to provide for such assignments to third-party, private investment companies with court approval. On October 21, 1998, Congress passed an amendment to Section 451(h) of the I.R.C., henceforth called the "transitional rule." This amendment provided that if state lotteries offered, on a limited basis, to "cash-out" past prize winners, the taxpayer would not be subject to the constructive receipt doctrine for IRS tax purposes. This federal tax exception provision is only effective for a limited period of time, however, from July 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000. This change in the federal tax law does not itself authorize the Department to do anything, rather it only changes the tax consequences to individual tax payers who are lottery winners. When change in the tax code allowing state lotteries to cash-out past winners became known, Mr. Shapiro, General Counsel for a NALP member company, met with attorneys for the Florida Department in 1998 to discuss the Florida Lottery's intentions following passage of Section 451(h) (the amendment in question). In November of 1998, the Department began its examination of the federal transition rule in order to determine whether it would adopt a rule regarding cash-outs of past prize winners. There is no federal or state requirement that the Department adopt such a rule. There is no testimony of any need created by changing market conditions to adopt such a rule. The NALP sent information regarding the transition rule including memoranda and legal analysis to all the state lotteries in January of 1999. Many months elapsed during which time the Department was apparently contemplating whether or not to adopt a rule accommodating the above-referenced federal tax law change. On September 13 and September 28, 1999, letters were issued by the Department which offered a cash-out option and announced a methodology available to all previous large lottery prize winners as an alternative to the normal twenty-year, equal annual installment method of payment of prizes. These letters were sent to all eligible winners and predated the issuance of the Emergency Rule adopted by the Department and under consideration in this case. Even though the Emergency Rule was adopted after the mailing of the letters, the Department still takes the position that it relied on the letters as supplemental to the terms of the offers contained in the Emergency Rule itself. Thereafter, and almost one year after it first considered adopting a rule to accommodate the advent of the federal transitional rule, and almost a month after the first cash-out option letter went to previous lottery winners, the Department, on October 8, 1999, published its Emergency Rule 53ER99-48, entitled "Florida Lottery Prize Payment Option Election." That rule provides in pertinent part as follows: From October 1, 1999 through November 30, 1999, the Florida Lottery is providing a one-time opportunity for eligible prize winners to elect to voluntarily cash out their remaining annual installment payments and receive a single lump-sum cash payment. In order to be eligible for this opportunity, the prize winner must have won a Florida Lottery prize before October 22, 1998, which is payable over a period of at least ten years, and the prize winner must not have assigned the prize to another person or entity pursuant to Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999). * * * All prize winners who elect to cash out will be paid in one lump-sum cash payment and the payment shall be calculated as follows: For all prizes, other than WIN FOR LIFE prizes, the lump-sum payment amount will be the accreted value of the Lottery's investment (original cost plus accrued interest) as determined on a date certain (the "trade date"), unless the market value of the investment is less than the accreted value determined on the trade date. In that case, the market value of the investment will be paid. If a prize winner elects to cash out, the Lottery's investment will be liquidated. . . . According to department witnesses, the delays in adopting the subject Emergency Rule were attributable to changes in the executive administration of the state due to the 1998 election of the Governor and concomitant changes in the person of the Secretary of the Lottery as well as changes in the prize payment process for new lottery winners (as opposed to past lottery winners), embodied in Rule 53-28.007, Florida Administrative Code (not here under challenge). The Department conceded that it did not make the promulgation of the Emergency Rule its highest priority and took almost a year, from October 21, 1998 to October 8, 1999, for adoption of the rule even as an Emergency Rule. No market conditions were described in the evidence which would have prevented the adoption of a regular rule proposed in the normal fashion rather than an Emergency Rule. No evidence propounded by the Department explains why regular rulemaking would not have been practicable in this matter and in dealing with the subject matter of the Emergency Rule. No reason stated by the Department at hearing will support a factual finding of any emergency existing which required the promulgation of the prize payment option election as an Emergency Rule rather than in a regularly proposed and enacted rule proposed in accordance with Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. In fact, the Internal Revenue Code transition rule option which gave rise to the purported Emergency Rule is valid through December 31, 2000, almost thirteen months after actual promulgation of the Emergency Rule. Any urgency perceived by the Department at this point was not shown to be anything other than a sense of urgency in the perceived need to adopt the past prize winner cash pay-out "Emergency Rule" caused by the Department's own delay since October 21, 1998, in promulgating a rule on the subject, emergency or otherwise. While this delay might be for legitimate, understandable reasons, the fact remains that the delay was the Departments' own responsibility and does not militate in favor of a finding that there is any emergency necessitating the adoption of an emergency rule because of changes in market conditions or for other reasons. Once a large lottery drawing produces a winner or winners and a monetary prize, the Department transfers the prize funds to the State Board of Administration (SBA) for investment pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, and in accordance with a Trust Agreement executed between the Department and the SBA. The Department and the SBA hold those past funds in trust pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, for the benefit of that Lottery prize winner so that the winner will be assured of receiving the prize payments in equal amounts over a twenty-year period. Under the statutorily required payments system, when a prize is awarded, the Department and the SBA calculate the amount of money needed to purchase U.S. Treasury Securities (Treasury Strips) which will generate enough funds to meet the prize payment requirements for each year of the pay-out period. The investment is then done in a manner designed to preserve capital and to ensure the integrity of the lottery disbursement system by eliminating risk of payment of funds when due and to produce annual sums of money over the required term of investments. Once the prize monies are in the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust fund, the prize is deemed awarded and paid by the Department. Thereafter, the annual payments to the lottery winner are a matter of privity between that winner and the trust fund. Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, was enacted at a time when only annual payments were statutorily authorized. Section 24.120, Florida Statutes, has not been amended since new lottery winners (post October 1998) were given the choice of annual payments or a lump-sum payment pursuant to Rule 53-28.007, Florida Administrative Code. Moreover, money for those lump-sum prize payments pursuant to that rule do not get deposited into the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust fund, but are always deposited in the trust fund called the Administrative Trust Fund pursuant to Section 24.120(1), Florida Statutes. They are not deposited in the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust because that trust was designed by the Legislature to provide investment instruments securing only equal annual installment prize payments. The Emergency Rule 53ER99-48 does not actually effectuate payment of a prize. Rather, it has the effect of changing Lottery prizes already first awarded and already transferred to the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust fund. Winners of large Lottery prizes prior to October 1998, were entitled to equal annual prize payments over a twenty-year period. The Department's Emergency Rule has the effect of changing that prize to allow a single cash payment of the funds produced from the sale of the investment held and designed by the Legislature to fund only the annual prize payments. The Department thereby would instruct the SBA to liquidate the "Treasury Strips" held in trust for the benefit of the Lottery prize winner and designed to secure payment of equal annual installments to the prize winner over twenty-years, in order to fund the lump-sum payment provided for under the Emergency Rule at issue. The Emergency Rule allows the Department to sell the trust investment which supports the twenty-year pay-out of a prize, on a "trade date" before the required term of the investments lapses. The "trade date", while it might presumably be the date of sale of the trust investment which supported installment payments of the prize in question, is not clearly defined in the rule as to what the trade date is or how it is determined. The Department would then pay the prize winner the lesser of the "market value" or the "accreted value." This lump- sum amount is not the same as the total amount of the installments the prize winner would be entitled to over the entire twenty-year period calculated as the winner's entitlement when the prize is initially awarded. The lump-sum also does not represent the liquidated value of the investment held in trust for the winner. If the accreted value is less than the market value on the trade date then the lottery winner would only get the accreted value and the Department would get the balance, presumably the difference between accreted value and market value. Thus, through this Emergency Rule the Department proposes to sell the investments before the required term lapses and potentially pay the winner only a portion of that money, thus retaining additional proceeds for the Lottery. The Emergency Rule does not specify how the Department would determine what the winner's share would be under the lump-sum arrangement, nor how much the Department would keep after payment of the lump-sum amount when the supporting investments in the trust are liquidated for a given prize winner. In this connection the Emergency Rule does not clearly define certain critical terms necessary for a lay person to be able to understand the cash-out offer from the Department. The terms include "accreted value", "original cost" and "accrued interest." Accreted value is described as being the difference in the sum of the original cost of the investment and the accrued interest earned thereon. How one determines "original cost" and "accrued interest" is not specified in the rule, however. While financial experts might easily determine how to define those terms and determine the relevant sums attributable to them, the rule is vague in these particulars in terms of adequately defining how these critical terms relate to the amount a lottery prize winner could expect from a lump-sum pay-out and in providing such a prize winner a clear understanding of how the lump-sum is calculated. Thus the rule has not been shown to be engendered by a true emergency and, in the particulars referenced last above, it is vague. Agency statements Defined As A Rule: On September 13 and 28, 1999, the Department issued letters to previous lottery prize winners setting forth the terms and conditions concerning the formulae and method in which the pricing, timing and other terms and conditions of cash pay-outs would be determined. Those letters pre-dated the promulgation of the subject Emergency Rule. Several of the Petitioner's member companies received the cash-out offer letters similar to those attached to the Petitioner's petition. The letter stated, in pertinent part: If you elect to cash out, however, you will receive a single, smaller lump-sum payment. This amount will be the accreted value of the Lottery's investment (original cost plus accrued interest) as determined on a date certain (the "trade date"), unless the market value of the investment is less than the accreted value determined on the trade date. In that case, you will receive the market value of the investment. . . . The Department's letters thus contain a formula for determining the amount of the cash-out offer. That formula is not disclosed or contained in the Emergency Rule, even though it purports to apply to all previous lottery winners eligible under the rule. Be that as it may, the Respondent has asserted in its Proposed Final Order that the Petitioner's challenge to the letters as agency statements amounting to a rule is now moot with the enactment of the subject Emergency Rule. This appears to amount to a recession by the Department from reliance on the statements and content of those letters in defining and implementing its cash pay-out program for previous Lottery winners. Nevertheless, in the context of resolving all issues raised by the Petitioner, the question of those letters having the quality of an unpromulgated rule will be addressed below. The Department has cited Sections 24.105(10)(j), 24.115(1) and 24.109(1), Florida Statutes, as the source of its rule-making authority. Section 24.105(10)(j), Florida Statutes, provides the Department with authority to adopt rules concerning the manner of payment of prizes to holders of winning tickets and such other matters necessary or desirable for the efficient or economical operation of the lottery or for the convenience of the public. See also Section 24.105(10)(e), Florida Statutes. Section 24.105(10)(j), Florida Statutes, however, does not specifically authorize cash pay-outs to previous lottery winners already determined to be eligible to receive payment as holders of winning tickets and who have already received awards of payments in equal annual installments pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. Section 24.115(1), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department to adopt rules "to effect payment of . . . prizes." However, the payment of prizes to the relevant past winners was effected when the Department made its initial one-year payment to the pertinent prize winners and then paid the remaining cash represented by the winning tickets to the SBA in the trust established by the Legislature for the lottery winners, for investment in securities supportive of equal annual installment payments to the winners pursuant to the trust arrangement established in Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. Section 24.109(1), Florida Statutes, while it authorizes the Department to adopt emergency rules in general when such emergency rulemaking power " . . . is necessary for the preservation of the rights and welfare of the people in order to provide additional funds to benefit the public . . . " does not specifically authorize any particular emergency rule subject matter, including cash pay-outs to prior Lottery winners already determined eligible to receive prize payments in equal annual installments pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. The Department, pursuant to Section 24.104(2), Florida Statutes, and Section 24.121(2), Florida Statutes, has a mandate "to maximize revenues consistent with the dignity of the state and the welfare of its citizens" in order to provide, among other things, improvement of the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund each year. The Department has not shown any specific authority to adopt a rule which changes a prize previously awarded, even though it might create new revenues as a result of the difference between lump-sum awarded to a past winner and the accreted value of the investment supportive of the prize, or the market value as the case may be. There is no specific authority to have such funds previously invested to support annual installment payments of prize money being diverted from the trust fund set up by the Legislature by Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, instead of, for instance, the "Administrative Trust Fund," constituted under Section 24.120(1), Florida Statutes. These findings in conjunction with the reasons given in the Conclusions of Law below show that the Department exceeded its rulemaking authority in enacting the Emergency Rule and the agency statements at issue. Enlargement Modification or Contravention of the Implemented Law: Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides for a payment of prizes on a deferred basis and for the safe investment of the prize monies set aside in the trust fund under that section for payment of deferred prize payments. That section also provides for production of equal annual sums of money over the required term of the investment (twenty years). The Emergency Rule and the agency statements at issue depart from the terms of the trust relationship set up by the Legislature through Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, by changing the prize awarded to allow the early liquidation of prize monies invested on behalf of the prize winners in the trust fund constituted under that section. Such a change in the prize awarded and manner of award is not authorized by the terms of that statute. The Emergency Rule and agency statements thus enlarge, modify and contravene Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, by departing from the terms of the trust created by the Florida Legislature designed to ensure a safe investment of lottery monies so as to produce annual prize payments over twenty years. The Emergency Rule, by allowing a liquidation of trust investments before the statutorily required term and by allowing the trustee of the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust (the Department) to intentionally profit from liquidation of the trust investments and concomitant change in the prize awarded departs from the conditions of the Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes, trust, and the purposes for which it was established. In the enactment of this rule, the Department stands in the position of a trustee varying the terms of a trust in terms of the benefits to be afforded the beneficiary of that trust and the method of calculation and payment. While the beneficiary (the prize winner) in the trust analogy might agree with that course of action, the settlor has not assented to variance from the terms of the trust arrangement. The Florida Legislature is in a position analogous to the settlor of the trust created pursuant to Section 24.120(2), Florida Statutes. Since that law, implemented purportedly by the Emergency Rule and agency statements, does not itself provide authority for the change in the award of prizes and methods of paying prizes embodied in the rule and in the agency statements, it would appear that the settlor, the Legislature, must first assent to the new arrangement (ipso facto by an amendment to the statute). Moreover, it should be pointed out that the new arrangement contemplated by the Emergency Rule would be accomplished without any disclosure to a lottery winner of the discount rate or dollar amount that the state would retain, in the sense that the terms in the rule of "trade date," "market value," "original cost" plus accrued interest or "accreted value" are not adequately defined on the face of the rule. They are thus amenable to varying interpretations, leading potentially to ad hoc policy decisions by the agency or necessitating further illumination by the agency through an additional rule enactment, thus rendering the rule, in the sense of the employment of these terms and any disclosure to the lottery winner, vague. There are various "consumer protection" standards set forth in Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999), which are directed to the third-party assignment arrangement whereby lottery winners may assign their right to the annual installment payments of their prizes to third-party entities and thus obtain from those entities a discounted, lump-sum payment of a prize. Those standards or restrictions include oversight by a circuit court and include the necessity of approval of the assignments and lump-sum payments through third-party entities by an appropriate circuit court order. They also include a provision allowing the prize winner a three-day cancellation period opportunity. The Emergency Rule and agency statements at issue in this case modify, contravene or depart from the provisions of that law because the Department in the so-called emergency cash pay-out provision in the subject rule is not required to adhere to the "consumer protection restrictions" mandated by Section 24.1153, Florida Statutes (1999). Although the end result of what the Department proposes by the Emergency Rule achieves a lump-sum, cash payment to the lottery winner, unlike the arrangement to be set up by the Emergency Rule, the "cash-out" assignment arrangement authorized by Section 24.1152, Florida Statutes, was mandated by the Legislature. The Emergency Rule is potentially arbitrary and capricious (meaning not adequately supported by facts or enacted without adequate support as to reason or rationale) 1/ The impetus for the Emergency Rule, as found above was a change in the Internal Revenue Code concerning the "constructive receipt doctrine". The relevant I.R.C. provision Section 451(h), contains the "qualified prize option" test. The Emergency Rule purports to meet that test but does not. A qualified prize option must contain three things: (1) A clear statement that it is only an offer; (2) A statement of the offer methodology; and (3) A disclosure of the discount rate that makes equivalent the present value of the prize previously awarded and the Department's new offer (lump-sum pay-out). The Emergency Rule does not adequately disclose the methodology of the offer since critical terms enabling a lay prize winner to understand the offer are not clearly defined, as referenced in the Findings of Fact above. The Emergency Rule does not require, on its face, any disclosure of the discount or amount of the prize valued as of an identified date. In its Executive Summary regarding its decision to adopt the Emergency Rule, the Department stated that it would meet the requirements of Section 451(h), by providing full and clear disclosure "as described in the Federal Tax Conference Report on Section 451(h)." The rule has the potential of being arbitrary and capricious in its operation since it does not in fact meet the qualified prize option test in the I.R.C. provision by clearly disclosing the discount rate or the methodology used in arriving at the offer, even though it purports to disclose those matters. Agency statements As Rules: The agency statements, the letters mailed to each prior prize winner contain financial information specific to each individual prize winner but they also contain general formulae to be applied by the Department to all eligible winners in cashing out prizes under the Emergency Rule. Thus the letters expand the cash-out procedure by providing cash-out formulae and other critical conditions beyond those which are stated and disclosed in the rule itself. This is necessary information for the prize winners to make decisions on accepting the Department offers but was not adopted as a rule and is not contained in the Emergency Rule. It is meant by the Department to apply to the entire universe of eligible prior prize winners.
Findings Of Fact On September 20, 1977, Victor Sosa, at the time an employee of petitioner, and Leroy Patten, then as now a field agent for the Department of Commerce, visited respondent's premises. A Mr. Chavez told the investigators that Jose Isidro Guillamo, respondent's sole corporate officer, was not on the premises and could not be reached. In response to Mr. Patten's questions, Mr. Chavez said he was ignorant of details about respondent's workmen's compensation insurance. Mr. Sosa asked Mr. Chavez to produce invoices reflecting purchases of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Chavez replied that most of the invoices were at an accountant's office, but joined Mr. Sosa in looking for invoices behind a counter at which customers sat. In the course of the search, Mr. Sosa noticed a clipboard hanging from a nail. The clipboard contained guest checks used as lottery slips. Nearby drawers yielded paper napkins similar employed. The search never uncovered any invoices on the premises. At no time did petitioner give respondent permission to store invoices off the premises. On September 20, 1977, and continuously until March 20, 1978, respondent did not maintain in force workmen's compensation insurance for its employees. On September 20, 1977, no notice of workmen's compensation insurance coverage was posted on the premises.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for thirty days and thereafter until respondent shall secure compensation for its employees in accordance with Section 440.38 (1), Florida Statutes (1977). DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis E. LaRosa, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 La Dominicana Corporation d/b/a La Dominicana Restaurant c/o Jose Isidro Guillama and Mario Cartas 1416 San Marco Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Findings Of Fact Leroy Wise, Jr.'s Mother purchased lottery ticket number 1888-3620-9444 (hereinafter referred to as the "Ticket") on approximately July 6, 1989. The Ticket was a Fantasy 5 ticket with four correct numbers. The Ticket winnings amounted to $805.00. Mr. Wise took his Mother to the Department of the Lottery's offices in Tallahassee, Florida on July 10, 1989. Mr. Wise's Mother did not have proper identification required by the Department of the Lottery to cash in the Ticket. Therefore, she allowed Mr. Wise to present the ticket for collection because Mr. Wise had proper identification. On July 10, 1989, Mr. Wise completed a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form (hereinafter referred to as the "Form") and submitted the Form and the Ticket to the Lottery. On the back of the Ticket Mr. Wise listed his name and address on the spaces provided for the person claiming the prize and signed the Ticket. Mr. Wise listed his name, Social Security Number, address and phone number on the Form. Mr. Wise signed the Form as the "Claimant." In a letter dated July 10, 1989, the DHRS notified the Lottery that Mr. Wise owed $4,690.00 in Title IV-D child support arrearages as of July 10, 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued providing for payment of the $805.00 prize attributable to the Ticket owed by Mr. Wise as child support arrearages as of the date of the Final Order to DHRS. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 February, 1990. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-4 2 6. 3 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Petitioner's did not offer any evidence at the formal hearing concerning these proposed findings of fact. Mr. Wise's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph Number in Recommended Order Sentence in Letter of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1, 13-20 Not proposed findings of fact. 2-3 6. 4-6, 11-12 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 7-10 Not relevant to this proceeding. Copies Furnished To: Jo Ann Levin Senior Attorney Office of Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Louisa E. Hargrett Senior Attorney Department of the Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chriss Walker Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Leroy Wise, Jr. 1526-A Patrick Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Department of Revenue should retain and apply the Petitioner’s $800.00 lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact Department of Revenue and Department of Lottery are the agencies of the State of Florida charged with the duty to enforce statutes which provide for the seizure of lottery prize winnings to satisfy past-due child support debt. On or about April 30, 2001, Johnson made a claim to a lottery prize in the amount of $800.00. The DOR notified the DOL that Johnson was indebted to the state for court-ordered child support through the court depository, in the amount of $10,626.79. Pursuant to Subsection 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioner’s entire lottery prize was transferred to DOR by DOL. Petitioner was given written notice on April 30, 2001, of the DOR’s intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to partially satisfy his unpaid child support debt. Pursuant to a Final Judgment of Paternity and Income Deduction dated September 13, 1989, Petitioner is subject to a lawful order requiring him to pay child support. Johnson has failed to discharge his child support obligations pursuant to that judgment, and as of December 8, 1995, Johnson's arrears were $10,626.79. DOR intends to apply the Petitioner’s lottery prize in the amount of $800.00 to partially satisfy his past-due child support debt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order retaining Johnson's $800.00 lottery prize to be applied to reduce the accrued arrearage on Johnson's child support obligation. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 11th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William Johnson 2815 Northwest 95th Street Miami, Florida 33147 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David Griffin, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case concerns the application of Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes, to a claim for payment filed by a person who owes a child support arrearage but who did not purchase the lottery ticket presented for payment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing, I make the following relevant findings of fact. On November 2, 1992, Petitioner, Joseph Judah, Jr., the husband of Petitioner, Diana Judah, presented for payment at the DOL's office in St. Petersburg, a lotto ticket which had been purchased by his wife and which had a prize value of $4,989.50. Mr. Judah placed his name, address and signature on the back of the ticket and completed and signed the winner claim form. Additionally, he presented, as proof of identification, his driver's license and social security card. Pursuant to procedures set forth in Chapter 53-4, Florida Administrative Code, on November 3, 1992, DHRS certified to DOL that Mr. Judah owed $13,302.00 in child support arrearages as of that date. DOL transmitted the prize amount to the Office of the Comptroller and applied the entire amount of $4,989.50 to Mr. Judah's child support arrearages. Mr. Judah was notified that the lottery prize would be applied to his outstanding child support arrearages which prompted him to timely request an administrative hearing. It is undisputed that Mrs. Judah purchased a winning lotto ticket with her money and she is not personally responsible for the support of Mr. Judah's child from a prior marriage. At all times material hereto, DOL had in effect Rule No. 53ER87-43, Florida Administrative Code, entitled "Procedure for Awarding Prizes". That rule provides, in pertinent part, that: (6) Until such time as a name is imprinted or placed upon the back portion of the lottery ticket in the designated area, a lottery ticket shall be owned by the physical possessor of such ticket. When a name is placed on the rear of the ticket in the designated place, the person whose name appears in that area shall be the owner of the ticket and shall be entitled to any prize attributable thereto.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Banking and Finance, Office of the Comptroller, issue a Final Order in this case providing for payment to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of the entire $4,989.50 prize money originally claimed by Petitioner, Joseph Judah, Jr. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 14th day of July, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, Esq. General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Carrole R. Ward, Esquire 12029 Majestic Boulevard, Suite 7 Bayonet Point, Florida 34667 Karen M. Camechis, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Suite 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Louisa H. Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery Capitol Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4011
The Issue Should Petitioner have $8,812.78 deducted from his lottery prize of $19,091.96 to meet his child support obligation? See Section 24.115(4), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact In the case of Glenda Carey vs. James P. Carey, in the Circuit Court in and for Gadsden County, Florida, Case No. 91-24, related to the dissolution of their marriage, a final judgment was entered which obligated Petitioner to pay child support to his minor son. Over time Petitioner failed to faithfully meet the child support obligation. By April 23, 1997, the amount of arrearage for child support was $8,485.13. Petitioner had owed a similar amount on September 9, 1996. On September 9, 1996, Petitioner made a claim for a lottery prize with the Lottery in the amount of $19,091.96, which he had won through participation in a lottery game. Being mindful of the existence of the overdue child support payments that have been referred to, the Lottery transmitted $8,812.78 of that lottery prize of $19,091.96, to the DOR, Child Support Enforcement Section, and notified Petitioner of that decision by correspondence dated October 2, 1996. Petitioner contested that decision by requesting a formal hearing on October 18, 1996. The proper amount of child support for which Petitioner is obligated effective September 9, 1996, when he claimed his lottery prize and April 23, 1997, the concluding hearing date, was $8,485.13. Consequently, Petitioner is entitled to an additional $327.65 in prize money over and above the prize money already received.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which upholds payment of $8,485.13 in past due child support and remits to the Petitioner $327.65 in additional lottery prize winnings. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Carey 2528 Centerville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James P. Carey 720 Thomas Street Key West, Florida 33040 Chriss Walker, Esquire Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner won $2,500 in Florida Lottery prize. By Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County Family Law Division, Case Number 86-3999, dated June 20, 1986, the Petitioner was ordered to pay $100 weekly for the support of three minor children. By Order on Arrears in the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Putnam County, Case Number 91-6412-FD-57, dated November 7, 1996, the court found the following facts: Respondent was ordered to pay $100.00 per week for the support of his 3 children by the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County. Respondent never made a payment on this obligation. Arrears totaling $33,200.00 accrued until this Court's order in November 1992. This Court reduced the support obligation to $35.00 per week effective November 9, 1992, in view of two of the three children reaching the age of majority. Support was suspended effective July 1, 1996 Based on the calculation of unpaid support which was somewhat offset by Social Security benefits paid to the mother of the children, the court calculated the total arrears as $22,509. The Order on Arrears concludes that the "Department of Revenue may apply funds withheld from the [Petitioner's] lottery winnings in satisfaction" of the unpaid child support.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Office of Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, enter a Final Order transferring the Petitioner's lottery prize winnings to the Department of Revenue as partial satisfaction of the Petitioner's unpaid child support obligation. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Robert F. Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Ken Hart General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Marcia Mann, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriot Drive 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 John I. Chandler, Pro Se 6216 50th Street Tampa, Florida 33610 Josephine A. Schultz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance The Fletcher Building, Suite 526 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Chris Walker, Esquire Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent, the Florida Department of the Lottery, discriminated against the Petitioner, Oscar Jacobs, on account of his race in denying him equal opportunity for training, compensation, use of new equipment, time off from work, leave, retention and advancement?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Oscar Jacobs, is an Afro-American. His race is black. The Respondent, the Florida Department of the Lottery (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. District 2 of the Department. In the fall of 1987 the Department created a district office in Panama City, Florida. The Panama City office of the Department was part of District 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "District"). The District consisted of Bay, Calhoun, Gulf, Jackson, Holmes and Washington Counties. Steve Sumner was hired as the District Manager for the District in October of 1987. Mr. Sumner hired the staff of the District in November of 1987. The District had the following type of positions: District Manager. The District Manager was in charge of the District office and was the immediate supervisor of the employees in the District. Among other things, the District Manager was responsible for: (1) the assignment of the geographic areas LSRs were responsible for including the designation of retailers located therein that the LSRs were to service; (2) the approval of leave; and (3) the assignment of vans. Lottery Sales Representative II (hereinafter referred to as an "LSR II"). LSR IIs were responsible for inventorying lottery ticket stock sold at retail locations, settling accounts with retailers for all lottery tickets sold, ordering lottery ticket books, reviewing settlement calculations, training retailers, completing paperwork necessary for retailers to become a lottery outlet, completing paperwork upon the termination of a retailer as a lottery outlet, ensuring that retailers operated within Department rules, soliciting, conducting and monitoring retailer promotions and recruiting new retail accounts. See Petitioner's exhibit 4 for a complete description of an LSR II's job description. Lottery Sales Representative I (hereinafter referred to as an "LSR I"). LSR Is were responsible for delivering lottery tickets, picking up redemption envelopes from retailers and comparing them with issuance/settlement forms, assisting retailers, maintaining paperwork and daily activity reports and filling in for, and assisting, LSR IIs. See Petitioner's exhibit 4 for a complete description of an LSR I's job description. Each LSR I was assigned to work with one particular LSR II. Storekeepers. Storekeepers were responsible for receiving, verifying and sorting incoming orders for lottery tickets, receiving and verifying ticket redemption envelopes and ticket returns, and insuring that materials were distributed. See Petitioner's exhibit 4 for a complete description of a Storekeeper's job description. A Receptionist. An Accountant I. An Administrative Assistant I. Clerical positions. Relevant History of Mr. Jacobs' Employment at the District. In November of 1987, Mr. Sumner hired three LSR IIs (Sandra Doll, Linda Gray and Debra Chason). All three are white. Mr. Sumner also hired two LSR Is. On November 15, 1987, Mr. Sumner hired the Mr. Jacobs as an LSR I. John Stevens was the other LSR I. Mr. Stevens is white. Danny Edwards was hired in 1987 as the Storekeeper, and Mary Jane Silcox was hired as an Administrative Assistant. Mr. Edwards and Ms. Silcox are white. At the time that Mr. Jacobs was hired, he was married. Mr. Jacobs' wife's race is white. Although Mr. Jacobs subsequently separated and eventually obtained a divorce from his wife, Mr. Sumner was not aware of these events until sometime after he had hired Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Sumner was responsible for evaluating Mr. Jacobs' performance. For the fiscal years November 16, 1987 to November 16, 1988, November 16, 1988 to November 16, 1989 and November 1989 to November 1990, Mr. Sumners rated Mr. Jacobs' performance with an overall rating of "Exceeds At Least One Standard." The possible ratings, from lowest to highest, were "Below Standards," "Achieves Standards," "Exceeds at Least One Standard," "Exceeds Most Standards," and "Sustained Superior Performance." In April of 1988, Mr. Edwards was promoted by Mr. Sumner from Storekeeper to LSR I. In May of 1988, Larry Kissinger was hired by Mr. Sumner as the Storekeeper. Mr. Sumner also hired Hannah Davis as an LSR I. Mr. Kissinger and Ms. Davis are white. In March of 1990, one of the LSR IIs, Sandra Doll, went on maternity leave. Mr. Sumner selected Mr. Jacobs to fill the LSR II position of Ms. Doll during her absence. Mr. Jacobs was selected out of the three LSR Is then working for the District. Mr. Sumner arranged for Mr. Jacobs to receive a 10 percent increase in pay. The increase in pay was to be payable while Mr. Jacobs temporarily filled the LSR II position. At about the same time that Ms. Doll went on maternity leave, another LSR II, Ms. Gray, resigned. Mr. Sumner assigned Ms. Gray's duties jointly to one of the other LSR Is, Ms. Davis, and the Storekeeper, Mr. Kissinger. Ms. Davis and Mr. Kissinger did not receive any increase in pay for their services. During the time that Mr. Jacobs served as a temporary LSR II, he performed satisfactorily, with assistance from other District staff. Prior to August of 1990, Ms. Doll resigned. In August of 1990, Mr. Sumner decided to promote Mr. Jacobs permanently to the position of LSR II. The Department's Personnel Office, however, informed Mr. Sumner that Mr. Jacobs did not appear to meet the minimum qualifications for the position. Therefore, Mr. Sumner assisted Mr. Jacobs to supplement his resume by expanding the description of his prior sales experience in order for Mr. Jacobs to meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Jacobs was subsequently determined to be qualified and Mr. Sumner's decision to promote Mr. Jacobs was accepted. Mr. Jacobs' salary was reduced to the amount he had been paid before he was given the temporary 10 percent increase. Mr. Sumner recommended, and Mr. Jacobs received, a permanent 7 percent increase, the maximum pay increase he could be awarded upon his permanent promotion to LSR II. As of August of 1990, Mr. Jacobs became the highest paid LSR II in the District. Mr. Jacobs remained the highest paid LSR II while he was employed as an LSR II and as an LMR. Mr. Kissinger, the Storekeeper, was promoted in August of 1990 to fill the LSR I position vacated by Mr. Jacobs. Ms. Davis was promoted in September of 1990 to fill the other LSR II position. Ms. Silcox, the Administrative Assistant, was promoted to fill Ms. Davis' LSR I position in September of 1990. Charles Frederick, whose race is black, was hired by Mr. Sumner in February of 1991, as the Storekeeper. In December of 1990, Mr. Jacobs remarried. The woman that Mr. Jacobs married in December of 1990 was white. From the time that Mr. Sumner hired Mr. Jacobs until approximately May of 1991, Mr. Sumner was satisfied with Mr. Jacobs' performance. In March of 1989 Mr. Sumner nominated Mr. Jacobs to the Department as the District employee of the month. In approximately May of 1991, however, Mr. Sumner began to lose faith in Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs believes that Mr. Sumner's attitude toward him began to change in 1991 and he attributes this change to the fact that he had married a white woman in December of 1990. Mr. Jacobs' belief is not, however, supported by the record. In light of the fact that Mr. Jacobs was married to a white woman when Mr. Sumner initially hired him and during at least part of the time that Mr. Sumner found Mr. Jacobs' performance to be satisfactory, Mr. Jacobs' belief is unfounded. A more logical explanation for the change in the relationship of Mr. Sumner and Mr. Jacobs is Mr. Jacobs' decline in performance and Mr. Sumner's criticism of Mr. Jacobs' performance as an LSR II. After being promoted to the permanent LSR II position, Mr. Sumner found Mr. Jacobs' performance to be lacking. In September of 1990, Mr. Sumner wrote four critical memorandums to Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs, based upon these memoranda and other comments from Mr. Sumner, began to believe that Mr. Sumner was treating him unfairly. This combination of lesser performance and criticism at least contributed to the rift between Mr. Sumner and Mr. Jacobs. By approximately May of 1991 Mr. Sumner concluded that Mr. Jacobs' performance had noticeably deteriorated and he seemed to lose interest in his job. In September of 1991 Mr. Jacobs and his wife became foster parents of two infants. The infants both suffered from severe medical problems. Mr. Jacobs' relationship with Mr. Sumner became more strained as a result of the stress on Mr. Jacobs caused by the children's condition. In the summer of 1991, a new sales director for the District was hired by the Department. SEE 23. For the November, 1990 to November, 1991 fiscal year, Mr. Sumner evaluated Mr. Jacobs' performance as "Achieves Standards." This rating was one rating lower than the previous ratings Mr. Jacobs had received from Mr. Sumner. The rating was for Mr. Jacobs' first full year as an LSR II and reflected the drop in his performance as an LSR II. The following comment, among others, was made by Mr. Sumner on the evaluation: Over the past years Jake has been an enthusiastic and productive worker. This previous year has seen a deterioration of skills that he is normally capable of doing. I feel this maybe [sic] in part to environmental pressures outside of work. Many changes have been made to improve work environment, yet employee doesn't appear to enjoy his work. This change became more evident after first full year as an LSR II. Petitioner's exhibit 11. At the time of the 1990-1991 evaluation of Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Sumner was not aware that changes in the number of LSR positions in the District would be made by the Department in 1992. Effective January 1, 1992, the Department eliminated the LSR I and LSR II classifications. A single classification, Lottery Marketing Representative (hereinafter referred to as "LMR"), was created. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sumner was involved in the decision to make this change. Mr. Jacobs, Ms. Chason and Ms. Gray were reclassified from LSR II to LMR. Mr. Edwards, Mr. Kissinger and Ms. Silcox were reclassified from LSR I to LMR. In March of 1992 Mr. Sumner was notified by the Department that the sales staff of the District was being reorganized. As a consequence, the District LMR positions were to be reduced from six positions to four. As a part of the reorganization, the District was to receive one new position: a Telemarketing Representative, a newly created employee classification. As a result of the reorganization, Mr. Sumner was faced with reclassifying/demoting one LMR and possibly terminating one LMR. Mr. Sumner was only given two weeks to make the changes. In order to minimize the impact of the reorganization on employees of the District, Mr. Sumner successfully convinced the Department to locate the new Telemarketing Representative position at the District office. Mr. Sumner informed the LMRs of the reorganization and sought volunteers to take the Telemarketing Representative position in a meeting of all LMRs. Ms. Silcox subsequently volunteered to take the Telemarketing Representative position. At the time that Mr. Sumner was deciding how to comply with the Department's reorganization, the Administrative Assistant position in the District became vacant. Ms. Silcox subsequently agreed to take the Administrative Assistant position when Mr. Sumner asked her to. As a result of Ms. Silcox taking the Administrative Assistant position, Mr. Sumner did not have to terminate any LMR. The person in the other LMR position eliminated could move into the Telemarketing Representative position. Mr. Sumner spoke to the remaining four LMRs seeking a volunteer to take the Telemarketing Representative position. Mr. Edwards indicated that he would consider taking the position but delayed a decision over night. Mr. Jacobs did the same. Ultimately, none of the remaining five LMRs volunteered to take the Telemarketing Representative position. Mr. Sumner was required to select one of the five LMRs (Ms. Chason, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Gray, Mr. Jacobs or Mr. Kissinger) to be placed in the Telemarketing Representative position. Mr. Sumner decided that Mr. Jacobs should be reassigned/demoted to the Telemarketing Representative position. Mr. Jacobs was informed of the decision and was given the choice of accepting the Telemarketing Representative position with no reduction in salary or moving to Gainesville or Tampa as an LMR. Mr. Jacobs elected to take the Telemarketing Representative position so that he would not have to move. Mr. Jacobs was placed in the Telemarketing Representative position and continued to be paid the same salary he was receiving as an LMR. Mr. Jacobs received no reduction in pay or benefits. The Basis for Mr. Sumner's Decision to Reassign/Demote Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Sumner's decision to place Mr. Jacobs in the Telemarketing Representative position was based on his perception of the performance of the four other remaining LMRs (after Ms. Silcox had agreed to take the Administrative Assistant position) under Mr. Sumner's supervision compared to Mr. Jacobs' performance. Mr. Sumner took into account the past performance of each of the five LMRs and their progress in the various positions they had held under Mr. Sumner's supervision. Mr. Sumner did not base his decision on or consider seniority. Mr. Sumner selected Mr. Jacobs based upon the decline in Mr. Jacobs' performance since being promoted to LSR II, and his perception of the relatively slower development of Mr. Jacobs' abilities as an LSR II when compared with the other LMRs. All of the LMRs (while employed in the various positions under Mr. Sumner's supervision) had experienced problems in their performance and had been criticized by Mr. Sumner. There were no exceptions. Except for Mr. Jacobs, all of the LMRs had received consistently high evaluations of "Exceeds at Least One Standard" or "Exceeds Most Standards" each year while under Mr. Sumner's supervision. These ratings were based on their overall performance and the evidence failed to prove that the ratings were not reasonable. Only the rating given to Mr. Jacobs for his last evaluation period prior to his assignment to the Telemarketing Representative position had declined below those ratings. Two of the five LMRs had held LSR positions for a shorter period of time than Mr. Jacobs: Mr. Edwards: Storekeeper from 1987 to April of 1988, LSR I from April of 1988 to January of 1992, and LMR from January of 1992; and Mr. Kissinger: Storekeeper from May of 1988 to August of 1990, LSR I from August of 1990 to January of 1992 and LMR from January of 1992. Mr. Edwards and and Mr. Kissinger were not selected to be placed in the Telemarketing Representative position because of their consistently high evaluations and because they had both continued to progress and improve in their performance consistently after being employed in the District. Mr. Jacobs had not continued to progress and improve. The Impact of Routes on Mr. Jacobs' Performance. In the fall of 1987, the District was divided into three geographic areas (hereinafter referred to as "Routes"), by Mr. Sumner. Each LSR II was assigned to one of the three Routes and was responsible for servicing the retailers located therein. Each of the three Routes contained a part of Panama City, the largest city in the District, and a part of the rural areas of the District. Ms. Doll was assigned the eastern portion of the District, Ms. Gray was assigned the western portion and Ms. Chason was assigned the rest. Mr. Jacobs was assigned to work with Ms. Chason on the Route assigned to her. When Ms. Doll left the District and Mr. Jacobs was temporarily assigned to replace her, Mr. Jacobs took over Ms. Doll's Route plus a part of Ms. Gray's Route. Mr. Jacobs satisfactorily performed his duties as an LSR I on Ms. Chason's Route and while temporarily replacing Ms. Doll as an LSR II on Ms. Doll's Route. These Routes did not adversely affect Mr. Jacobs' performance. In September of 1990, when Mr. Jacobs was permanently promoted to LSR II and Ms. Davis was promoted to an LSR II position, the Routes were restructured by Mr. Sumner. Mr. Jacobs continued to serve the eastern portion of the District previously serviced by Ms. Doll and by him as a temporary LSR II, Ms. Chason was assigned Panama City Beach and the accounts along part of the Florida border with Georgia and Alabama, and Ms. Davis was assigned the western portion of the District. All three Routes continued to include portions of the greater Panama City area (Lynn Haven, Parker, Callaway and Springfield). The accounts on Panama City Beach were more productive during the summer months. The accounts along the Florida border also tended to be more productive. Ms. Chason was assigned these more productive accounts because she had evidenced greater skills in sales/marketing than the other LSR IIs. Not because she was white. The Routes were not totally restructured again until the January, 1992 consolidation of LSR positions. Prior to January of 1992 changes were, however, made to the Routes. These changes were made because of frequent changes in retailers participating in lottery sales and, on a few occasions, when Mr. Sumner was requested to make changes by the LSR IIs, including Mr. Jacobs. The Route assigned to Mr. Jacobs in September of 1990 was more rural than the other Routes and Mr. Jacobs was required, on average, to drive more miles than the other LSR IIs. The last relevant restructuring of Routes took place in January of 1992 after the consolidation of LSR I and II positions. At that time, the three Routes served by the LSR IIs were divided essentially in half, creating six Routes, one for each LMR. Each LSR II was allowed to select the half of the Route he or she was previously responsible for and the other half was assigned to the LSR I that had previously been assigned to the Route. Immediately prior to January of 1992, Mr. Jacobs was assisted by Ms. Silcox. When their Route was divided, Mr. Jacobs selected the half of the Route he desired and Ms. Silcox was assigned the other half. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sumner's evaluation of Mr. Jacobs was unfairly affected by the Route he was assigned to or that Mr. Sumner treated Mr. Jacobs unfairly in the assignment of Routes based upon his race. Sales figures contained on evaluations performed by Mr. Sumner were not always seen by Mr. Sumner when he completed an evaluation. In at least one year, those figures were added to the evaluation after Mr. Sumner completed his part of the evaluation. The suggestion that Mr. Jacobs' Route adversely impacted his evaluations was contradicted by the fact that for three years, Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Chason, who allegedly had the most favorable Route, received the same overall evaluation: "Exceeds at Least One Standard." In the first full year that Mr. Jacobs served as an LSR II, although his overall evaluation declined, the "Other Category," which included Route statistics, on Mr. Jacobs' evaluation was rated "Exceeds at Least One Standard." The suggestion that some LSRs were able to dictate their Routes was also not supported by the evidence. All of the LSRs had some input into the Routes that they handled. For example, Mr. Jacobs and Ms. Davis both requested the assignment of retailers near the Florida border. These requests were honored by Mr. Sumner. Mr. Jacobs was assigned Bascom and Malone, Florida, and Ms. Davis was assigned Campbellton, Florida. Mr. Jacobs accepted the new accounts despite the fact that the mileage he was required to travel increased. All of the LSRs were also allowed to choose between half of their prior Routes in 1992. These incidents did not prove that white LSRs were allowed to select their Routes. Sales generated in each Route had minimal impact on Mr. Sumner's evaluation of Mr. Jacobs or the other LSR's performance. No sales quotas were established and LSRs were not compensated on the basis of their sales during the period of time relevant to this proceeding. While sales had to be taken into account to some extent, performance was evaluated based upon each person's general marketing skills and efforts. Sales goals were established during the summer of 1991 by the new sales director. Each LSR was assigned a sales quota based upon a percentage increase from their last year sales figures. If an LSR failed to meet the quota, there was no consequence. Employees were commended if they did achieve their quota. LSRs were given quotas of new retailers they were to attempt to add each month. All LSR Is were given a quota of one new retailer and all LSR IIs were given a quota of two new retailers. Recruitment of retailers was not necessarily a product of the length of a Route. See Petitioner's exhibit 36. The evidence failed to prove that the Routes assigned to Mr. Jacobs adversely impacted Mr. Sumner's evaluation of his ability to recruit. Based upon the weight of the evidence, Mr. Jacobs failed to prove that the assignment of Routes was made in a discriminatory manner or that Mr. Jacobs' Routes adversely affected his performance because of difficulty caused by the Routes in meeting sales or recruitment quotas. Leave Policies. Mr. Sumner's policy concerning requests for annual leave made was that District employees should request approval at least two weeks in advance of when the employee intended to be off work. The two week notice policy was well known to all employees, including Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Sumner issued several memoranda setting out the policy. Mr. Sumner also notified employees that a telephone call was all that was necessary to take annual leave if there was an emergency. Mr. Sumner's policy concerning giving two weeks notice was not strictly adhered to or enforced. Mr. Sumner recognized there were reasonable circumstances when an employee was not able to request permission to take annual leave two weeks or more in advance. As long as an employee made a reasonable effort and the operation of District would not, in Mr. Sumner's opinion, be harmed by an employee's absence, Mr. Sumner approved leave even when two weeks notice was not given. The two week notice requirement was waived for virtually every employee, including Mr. Jacobs. On one occasion Mr. Sumner denied a request by Mr. Jacobs for annual leave. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sumner denied the request without just cause or based upon Mr. Jacobs' race. During the period between April of 1990 and April of 1992, Mr. Sumner approved approximately 400 hours of leave, annual and sick, for Mr. Jacobs. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Jacobs was treated differently because of his race with regard to leave requests he made while employed by the Department. Part of the leave taken by Mr. Jacobs was attributable to the illness of his two foster care infants. Mr. Jacobs had taken time off on numerous occasions due to their poor health. Mr. Jacobs had been required to take annual leave, rather than sick leave, for the infants because the Department's personnel office had informed Mr. Sumner and Mr. Jacobs that State leave policies did not allow sick leave for foster care children. Mr. Sumner did not strictly enforce the notice policy for annual leave when Mr. Jacobs took annual leave for the foster care children. Nor did Mr. Sumner give Mr. Jacobs any reasonable reason to expect that Mr. Sumner would not approve the use of annual leave when the children were ill because Mr. Jacobs had not given two weeks advance notice. Nor was it reasonable for Mr. Jacobs to not realize that a simple telephone call to the office to inform the office of an emergency with the children would not be sufficient. Between March 17, 1992 and March 18, 1992, one of Mr. Jacobs' foster care infants became extremely ill. This was not the first time that the child had experienced the type of problem experienced at that time, but the problem was more severe. Although Mr. Jacobs could have simply telephoned the office the next morning and reported that there was an emergency, Mr. Jacobs reported to work. Mrs. Jacobs took the infant to a hospital where it was to be determined whether the child would be admitted to the hospital. After arriving at the office, Mr. Jacobs, who was visibly shaken, spoke with Mr. Sumner. What took place during that discussion was disputed by Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Sumner. Mr. Jacobs testified that Mr. Sumner was clearly informed that he wanted to go to the hospital to be with the child but was told he had to attend to his Route first. Mr. Sumner testified that Mr. Jacobs did not specifically request time off, that he had indicated he might be require to go to the hospital sometime during the day, and that Mr. Sumner told Mr. Jacobs to service his five biggest accounts scheduled for that day and then take the rest of the day off even if it was not necessary for him to go to the hospital. Shortly after the conversation between Mr. Sumner and Mr. Jacobs, and after Mr. Jacobs had left on his Route, the child died. Mr. Jacobs was informed at his first stop and he left for the hospital. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it is concluded that Mr. Jacobs, who was tired from the events of the night before and under a great deal of stress because of his concern for the child, was not denied approval of leave by Mr. Sumner to immediately go to the hospital and was not told that he had to complete his Route. At most, there appears to have been an unfortunate miscommunication between Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Sumner about the urgency of the situation. Mr. Sumner's belief that the matter was not as urgent as it turned out to be was supported by the fact that the infants had experienced similar difficulties in the past; the fact that the child had not been taken to the hospital earlier; the fact that Mr. Jacobs had come to the office that morning instead of telephoning; and the fact that Mr. Mr. Jacobs did not insist on going to the hospital immediately. Assignment of Department Vehicles. LSRs were assigned Department vehicles, (vans) for use in servicing Routes. In approximately November of 1987, the District was temporarily assigned one less van than needed. Mr. Jacobs volunteered to drive his personal vehicle, for which he was reimbursed by the State. Mr. Jacobs drove his personal vehicle until approximately December 24, 1987, when he received a new van. Other LSRs were required to use their personal vehicles on occasion, for which they were also reimbursed by the State. Pursuant to a replacement schedule instituted by the Department, 1/3 of all vans were to be replaced every year. In this way, every van would be used a maximum of three years. This schedule was based upon estimates of the time necessary for vans to have accumulated sufficient mileage (80,000 miles) to warrant replacement. To insure that a van was ready for replacement at the end of three years, it was Department policy to assign vans with lower mileage after a year or two years use to high mileage drivers. In November of 1991, five vans in the District exceeded 80,000 miles and were to be replaced with new vans. The District, however, only received three new vans. The other two vans were replaced with two lower mileage vans scheduled to be replaced the next fiscal year. Consistent with Department policy Mr. Sumner was suppose to assign the new vans to persons who drove less miles and the older vans should have been assigned to persons who drove greater miles. In November of 1991, the mileage driven in the previous year by each LSR was as follows: Silcox 16,327 miles Chason 16,426 miles Davis 21,000 miles Jacobs 23,717 miles Edwards 24,000 miles Kissinger 30,000 miles Pursuant to Department policy, the new vans should have been assigned to Ms. Silcox, Ms. Chason and Ms. Davis. The new vans, however, were assigned to Ms. Chason, Ms. Davis and Mr. Kissinger. The vans assigned to Ms. Chason and Ms. Davis were assigned consistent with Department policy. Ms. Silcox, Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Edwards were assigned older vans. The assignment of an older van to Ms. Silcox was inconsistent with Department policy. The assignment of older vans with less mileage to Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Edwards was consistent with Department policy. Had Department policy been followed completely and the third new van had been assigned to Ms. Silcox and not Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Jacobs would still not have received a new van. Mr. Sumner asked Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Edwards if they would drive to another district to pick up two vans. Mr. Sumner indicated that one of the new vans would be assigned to one of them if they agreed. They agreed, and Mr. Sumner awarded a new van to Mr. Kissinger. Mr. Sumner did not give Mr. Jacobs or Ms. Wilcox the opportunity to pick up the two vans located in another district. Marketing Promotions. LSRs, as part of their marketing responsibility, could conduct various types of promotions at retailers intended to increase sales of lottery tickets. LSRs were expected to conduct promotions. Quotas were assigned to each LSR II. They were expected to conduct one promotion per month. Promotions generally did not require much of a financial investment by the retailer and smaller retailers were generally as interested in conducting promotions as larger retailers. The evidence failed to prove that the Route assigned to Mr. Jacobs adversely affected his ability to conduct promotions. The evidence also failed to prove that Mr. Sumner's evaluations of Mr. Jacobs' performance while supervised by Mr. Sumner were adversely impacted by a lack of promotions caused by Mr. Jacobs' Route. Mr. Sumner believed that Mr. Jacobs performed a sufficient quantity of promotions but that he was slow about doing them. Conducting some promotions required overtime. Overtime, however, was required to be requested and approved in writing. Approval of overtime came from the Department and not Mr. Sumner. Mr. Jacobs was aware of this requirement. In December of 1991, Mr. Jacobs requested permission to conduct a promotion which involved the giving away of coffee mugs with the Department logo on them to each customer that bought a minimum number of lottery tickets. This promotion did not involve overtime and none was requested by Mr. Jacobs. Mr. Jacobs claimed that the promotion was changed to one that would require overtime, and that he was told by Mr. Sumner that approval would be obtained from the Department. The weight of the evidence failed to support this claim. In August of 1991, Ms. Chason sought approval to conduct a promotion at a seafood festival to be held in October of that year. The festival required overtime for two employees plus Ms. Chason. Ms. Chason asked for volunteers and accepted the first two persons. Mr. Jacobs did not volunteer and, consequently, was not one of the two persons selected by Ms. Chason. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sumner was involved in the failure to select Mr. Jacobs, that the failure to select Mr. Jacobs was somehow unfair or that Mr. Jacobs was not selected by Ms. Chason because of his race. Mr. Jacobs also claimed that he was not given credit for two new retailers he obtained because the forms signing up the retailers were lost. The evidence, however, proved that, although the retailers were lost as Department customers, Mr. Jacobs was given credit for signing them up by Mr. Sumner. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sumner was involved with the loss of the forms signing up the retailers or that they were lost to cause Mr. Jacobs to fail to meet his quota for new retailers. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Sumner or the Department awarded bonuses or that Mr. Jacobs was denied bonuses because of his race. Miscellaneous Charges. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Jacobs was denied training provided to white employees because of his race. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Jacobs was denied the use of new equipment provided to white employees because of his race. Mr. Jacobs' Charge of Discrimination. Mr. Jacobs filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Mr. Jacbos alleged that he had been discriminated against based upon his race. On March 29, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Mr. Jacobs filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission requesting a formal administrative hearing. In the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission Mr. Jacobs alleged, in response to questions 3, 4 and 5 on the Petition for Relief, the following: Respondent has violated the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, in the manner specifically described below: My supervisor, Steve Sumner has systematically and intentionally denied me equal opportunities because of my race (black) for training, compensation, use of new equipment, time off from work, leave and retention and advancement in my position as an LSR. See the attached charge of discrimination incorporated herein. The disputed issues of material fact, if any, are as listed below: Mr. Sumner allowed every other LSR (all who are white) to pick their own routes which were the best routes, leaving the most difficult to me. He has also allowed other LSR's to work for bonuses during promotions but has not allowed me to do so. Mr. Sumner has misplaced some new applications for lottery retailers that I obtained so that my quotas of achievement would be lower. Mr. Sumner retained a coworker in the LSR position when he had been promoted to LSR long after me. Mr. Sumner denied my taking leave when one of my foster children was critically ill and the child died while I was at work. The ultimate facts alleged and entitlement to relief are as listed below: I wish to have a formal post-investigative proceeding. I wish to be reinstated in my LSR position with seniority back to the date of my demotion or receive adequate compensation for the harms I have suffered and reasonable attorneys fees and costs. I am a member of a protected class and Mr. Sumner has singled me out for arbitrary and negative treatment based on my race (black). All the responses Mr. Sumner has provided are pretextual or simply not true. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Mr. Jacobs. At the commencement of the proceeding, Mr. Jacobs indicated that he was seeking a "general injunction", an apology from the Department, monetary compensation for damages in the form of payment for pain and suffering, attorney fees and reinstatement as an LSR II. Alleged Race Discrimination. The evidence in this case failed to prove that any action of Mr. Sumner or the Department was based upon Mr. Jacobs' race. He was not held to any standard or requirement based upon his race and he was not treated in a manner different from the treatment afforded employees of other races. The evidence proved that Mr. Sumner had hired Mr. Jacobs, that Mr. Sumner had given him high evaluations for the first three years he worked, he had temporarily promoted Mr. Jacobs to a higher position with a temporary increase in pay not afforded white employees, he had promoted him with a permanent increase in pay which made Mr. Jacobs the highest paid employee in his class at the District, and he had assisted Mr. Jacobs in insuring that he was qualified for the promotion. Only after Mr. Jacobs' performance began to decline did Mr. Sumner take actions which were somewhat adverse to Mr. Jacobs. Those actions did not take place until after three years of working together. The reasons for taking those actions were reasonably explained by Mr. Sumner and the Department. Mr. Jacobs was unable to explain the foundation for his belief that Mr. Sumner began treating him differently in 1991 on the basis of his race.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Revenue should intercept and apply Petitioner’s lottery prize to reduce an outstanding arrearage for child support.
Findings Of Fact On January 25, 2002, Molina signed a Florida Lottery Winner Claim Form and transmitted it to DOL to redeem a lottery prize in excess of $600. Thereafter, shouldering its legal responsibility, DOR notified DOL that Molina was in arrears on a child support obligation that DOR was enforcing. On or around January 30, 2002, DOR notified Molina of its intent to intercept his lottery prize and apply it to satisfy or reduce an unpaid child support debt. Molina’s child support obligation is payable to the Central Depository of the Clerk of the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court pursuant to an order issued by a judge of that circuit on March 28, 1996. Molina owes in excess of $20,000 in unpaid child support.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED (if this has not been done already) that the Department of the Lottery transmit Molina’s lottery prize to the Department of Revenue. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order directing that Molina’s lottery prize be applied to satisfy or reduce the accrued arrearage on his child support obligation and providing that the balance of the prize, if any, be paid to Molina. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Pablo Y. Molina 10815 Northwest 50th Street Apartment 303 Miami, Florida 33178 Chriss Walker, Esquire Child Support Enforcement Department of Revenue Post Office Box 8030 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8030 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Zingale, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 J. Bruce Hoffmann, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 David Griffin, Secretary Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ken Hart, General Counsel Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondents hold license 23-3237 COP and at all times here relevant were so licensed. On 7 November, 1977, Respondent, Juan Rodriguez, sold less than five grams of marijuana to Rocco Delio, an undercover policeman, on the licensed premises. Delio paid Rodriguez $11 for the marijuana and two beers. When arrested in December 1977 on a warrant charging him with the sale of marijuana, Rodriguez had an old lottery ticket in his possession as well as a list of numbers which the arresting officers thought to be lottery numbers. Rodriguez testified that the lottery ticket was an old one he bad obtained in Puerto Rico and that he had forgotten the ticket was in his wallet. He further identified the list of numbers as measurements he had taken for a building. Rodriguez denied ever selling any lottery tickets. At his trial on the charge of possession and sale of marijuana and possession of lottery paraphernalia Rodriguez pleaded guilty, upon the advice of counsel, to unlawful sale of marijuana, and adjudication of guilt was withheld. (Exhibit 1). Rodriguez testified that he paid a $300 fine and was told by his attorney that the plea and subsequent withholding adjudication of guilt would not affect his business. At this hearing Rodriguez denied selling marijuana to the policeman who had testified to the contrary. The Petitioner's witness is deemed a much more credible witness and it was this testimony, plus the guilty plea entered in Circuit Court that resulted in the finding that Respondent possessed and sold marijuana on the licensed premises. No evidence was submitted with respect to Counts 3, 4 and 7 of the Notice to Show Cause. The admissions of Respondent with respect to the facts alleged in Counts 5 and 6 were rebutted by Respondent's testimony, which was not contradicted by Petitioner's witness, that the lottery ticket was old and that the list of numbers found on Rodriguez' person was not a list of lottery numbers.
