The Issue At issue is the amount owing for reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the filing of the claim, including reasonable attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact The award provisions of the Plan 1. When it has been resolved that a claim is compensable, the administrative law judge is required to make a determination of how much compensation should be awarded. § 766.31(1), Fla. Stat. Pertinent to this case, Section 766.31(1)(c), Florida Statutes, provides for an award of the following expenses: (c) Reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the filing of a claim under ss. 766.301-766.316, including reasonable attorney's fees, which shall be subject to the approval and award of the administrative law judge. In determining an award for attorney's fees, the administrative law judge shall consider the following factors: The time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly. The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services. The time limitations imposed by the claimant or the circumstances. The nature and length of the professional relationship with the claimant. The experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing services. The contingency or certainty of a fee. Here, Mr. Gustafson's Affidavit as to Reasonable Attorney's Fees, Paralegal Fees and Expenses Incurred in Connection with the NICA claim (Petitioners' Exhibit 1) described the claim for expenses, as follows: I am seeking an award for my attorney's fees totaling $85,680.00, reflecting my reasonable time necessarily expended in pursuit of NICA benefits (285.60 hours) at the reasonable rate of $300.00 per hour. I am also seeking an award of paralegal fees totaling $10,780.00 reflecting my paralegal's reasonable time necessarily expended in pursuit of NICA benefits (107.8 hours) at the reasonable and uncontested rate of $100.00 per hour. The reasonable hourly rate reflects the complexity of the case, the contingent nature of the fee, the substantial risk of non-recovery, and the other factors set forth in section 766.31(1)(c)(1-6), Florida Statutes. The time reasonably expended in pursuit of this NICA claim is set forth supra in this Affidavit [by date and activity], as well as in Exhibit 2.[2] I am also seeking an award for expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in connection with the filing of Petitioners' claim and pursuing NICA benefits under sections 766.301 - 766.316, Florida Statutes. The total of the expenses reasonably incurred in pursuit of NICA benefits is $22,102.16. The itemized expenses incurred in pursuit of NICA benefits are attached and made a part of Exhibit 2 to this Affidavit. The expenses set forth in Exhibit 2 are an accurate accounting of the expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in pursuit of NICA benefits for Petitioners. Proof of these expenses are attached as Exhibit 3 to this Affidavit.[3] In response to Petitioners' claim, Respondent, through its expert (Respondent's Exhibit 1), initially accepted 198.8 hours of attorney time and 97.1 hours of paralegal time, as reasonably expended, and specifically identified those hours that should be deducted.4 Centex-Roony Construction Co., Inc. v. Martin County, 725 So. 2d 1255, 1259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)("Although the fee applicant has the burden of establishing its entitlement to an award of attorney's fees, . . . the opponent of the fee award has the burden of pointing out with specificity which hours should be deducted."). However, the parties further agreed that, if appropriate, any time or expense identified at hearing as associated with the notice issue should be deducted.5 Here, it should not be subject to serious debate that any time or expense associated with the notice issue should be deducted. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, 633 So. 2d 1103, 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)("Plainly, the exploration of the possibility of opting out of NICA through the 'bad faith' exception or otherwise is not, as the statute requires, work performed 'in connection with the filing of a claim . . . .'"). See also Braniff v. Galen of Florida, Inc., 669 So. 2d 1051, 1053 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)("The presence or absence of notice will neither advance nor defeat the claim of an eligible NICA claimant who has decided to invoke the NICA remedy . . .; thus, there is no reason to inquire whether proper notice was given to an individual who has decided to proceed under NICA. Notice is only relevant to the defendants' assertion of NICA exclusivity where the individual attempts to invoke a civil remedy."). Accord, O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, 757 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)("We recognize that lack of notice does not affect a claimant's ability to obtain compensation from the Plan."). The claim for attorney's fees The initial step in deriving a reasonable attorney's fee is to determine the number of hours reasonably expended to pursue the claim. Here, Petitioners claim 285.60 hours6 were dedicated to the claim, which they chose to identify in three phases: 18.7 hours claimed to investigate the claim (assemble the necessary records, consult with experts, legal research) and prepare the petition for NICA benefits (July 12, 2002 - June 17, 2005); 252.6 hours claimed following the filing of the petition through the entry of the Order on Compensability and Notice (July 28, 2006), and discussions related to that Order (June 22, 2005 - August 4, 2006); and 14.3 hours claimed identifying, calculating, and substantiating the nature and amount owing for expenses previously incurred (August 8, 2006 - September 25, 2006) Addressing first the 18.7 hours claimed for the period of July 12, 2002 - June 17, 2005, it is apparent, as noted by NICA, that the time which preceded the abatement of the civil action (5.8 hours, through "8/ /03") was dedicated to the civil lawsuit and not the NICA claim.7 However, the time was related to acquiring the medical records related to Lily's birth, which were required to file a NICA claim, and should be compensated. The hours claimed from December 2, 2003, through April 21, 2005 (3.9 hours) were, with the exception of .6 hours claimed for December 6, 2003 (.3 hours) and January 6, 2004 (.3 hours), relevant to the investigation of the claim, including the assembly of medical records and expert consultation. Finally, the hours claimed from June 9, 2005, through June 17, 2005 (9.0 hours) for research and drafting the NICA petition are reasonable and related to pursuing the claim, with the exception of time researching the notice issue and drafting that portion of the petition which raised the notice issue. Therefore, the hours claimed are reduced by 1.2 hours (.6 hours for June 9, 2005, and .6 hours for June 10, 2005) to eliminate any time associated with the notice issue.)8 Overall, 16.9 hours were reasonably attributable to pursuing the NICA claim from July 12, 2002, through June 17, 2005. Regarding the 252.6 hours of attorney time claimed for the period of June 22, 2005, through August 4, 2006, it must be resolved that the hours claimed are in many cases excessive, and do not reflect the time and labor reasonably and necessarily incurred to pursue the claim. In so concluding, it should be noted that in drafting the Order on Compensability and Notice, entered July 28, 2006, all the evidence of record was reviewed a number of times, and that in preparation of this Order the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings (all documents that were docketed) was reviewed, and the evidence offered at the hearing on compensability and notice (including depositions) re- reviewed, as necessary. Moreover, the testimony of Mr. Gustafson has been carefully weighed, and compared with the record, as were the affidavits of Mr. Hinkle and Mr. Pierce. Having done so, it is apparent that Mr. Pierce spent considerable time analyzing the hours claimed for reasonableness, and Mr. Hinkle did not. It is further apparent that when one critically evaluates the hours claimed, they are excessive, and that for the period of June 22, 2005, through August 4, 2006, no more than 188.25 hours of attorney time was reasonably and necessarily expended in pursing the claim.9 The 14.3 hours of attorney time claimed for the period of August 8, 2006, through September 25, 2006, was reasonable and necessary.10 Therefore, the total time and labor reasonably expended to pursue the claim was 219.45 hours. The next consideration in establishing a reasonable fee is the determination of the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services, when the fee basis is hourly billing for time worked. Carreras, 633 So. 2d at 1108. Here, Petitioners' expert, Mr. Hinkle, opined that "the customary charge in this community for an attorney of Mr. Gustafson's ability is no less than $300 per hour." However, in Mr. Gustafson's Affidavit as to Reasonable Attorney's Fees, Paralegal Fees and Expenses Incurred in Connection with the NICA Claim (Petitioners' Exhibit 1), he describes his claim to a rate of $300.00 per hour as an enhanced rate, which "reflects the complexity of the case, the contingent nature of the fee, the substantial risk of non-recovery, and the other factors set forth in section 766.31(1)(c)(1-6), Florida Statutes." The parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation and Mr. Gustafson's testimony at hearing were of a similar nature. (Transcript, pages 78-81, and 96) Stated otherwise, absent enhancement, Mr. Gustafson was of the opinion that a reasonable fee for his services was less than $300.00 per hour.11 In contrast, Respondent's expert, Mr. Pierce, described "a range of hourly rates for this type of work between $75.00 an hour and $190.00 an hour," and that, given "the level of experience of Petitioners" counsel and his education," "$150.00 an hour was a reasonable rate for Mr. Gustafson's time.12 Here, given the nature of the expertise and legal skills required, for what may be described as a moderately complex case, the proof supports the conclusion that the "market rate" (a rate actually being charged to paying clients) is $170.00 an hour. A reasonable fee under the methodology established by Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) and Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, supra, is determined by multiplying the hours reasonable expended by the reasonable hourly rate. The results produce the "lodestar figure" which, if appropriate, may be adjusted because of the remaining factors contained in Section 766.31(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Applying such methodology to the facts of this case produces a "lodestar figure of $37,306.50 (219.45 hours x $170.00 per hour). Upon consideration of the facts of this case, and the remaining criteria established at Section 766.31(1)(c), Florida Statutes, there is reason, based on the contingency nature of Mr. Gustafson's fee arrangement with Petitioners, to adjust the "lodestar figure."13 Given the nature of the claim, the risk of non-recovery was significant and warrants an adjustment of the fee award to $48,498.45 (an enhancement of thirty percent). The claim for paralegal fees Pertinent to the claim for paralegal fees, the affidavit of Mr. Gustafson (Petitioners' Exhibit 1) seeks compensation for 107.80 hours of paralegal time expended by Bonnie Stark between October 24, 2005, and September 25, 2006. Respondent disputed only 10.7 hours of Ms. Stark's time, and the parties stipulated that an hourly rate of $100.00 was reasonable for paralegal time. The affidavit of Mr. Pierce (Respondent's Exhibit 1) identified the following time entries which he resolved should be excluded as a matter of law because they included a conference between Mr. Gustafson and Ms. Stark, which Mr. Pierce felt was "duplicate time" and not recoverable under Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, 633 So. 2d at 1110: 2/5/06 -4.0 (block billing with an unreimbursible conference - see Carreras) 5/12/06 -.3 (Unreimbursible conference - see Carreras) 5/17/06 -5.1 (block billing with an unreimbursible conference - see Carreras) 8/23/06 -.5 (Unreimbursible conference - see Carreras) 8/31/06 -.3 (Unreimbursible conference - see Carreras) 9/20/06 -.5 (Unreimbursible conference - see Carreras) However, communication between counsel and paralegal, regarding her duties, is not comparable to "duplicate time involved in communications between co-counsel," as proscribed by Carreras. Moreover, the discussions in this case were not excessive. Accordingly, it is resolved that 107.8 hours of paralegal time was reasonably expended, which at the agreed rate of $100.00 per hour produces an award of $10,780.00. The claim for other expenses Finally, Petitioners' counsel incurred certain expenses in his representation of Petitioners for which he seeks recovery. Such costs total $22,352.19,14 and NICA disputed $11,310.59 of those expenses.15 The disputed expenses were identified as follows: DISCOVERY DOCUMENTS AND OTHER NICA PETITION EXPENSES: Research Book: "Maternal-Fetal $51.60 Medicine: Principles and Practice Westlaw charges-legal research on NICA issues of compensability, notice, elements of claim, elements of damage, service, filing 197.14 Postage charges since 6/16/05, date of filing Petition for Benefits 75.96 Federal Express charges since 6/16/05 date of filing of Petition for Benefits 246.56 Facsimile transmittal charges since 6/16/05, date of filing of Petition for Benefits 214.00 Postage charges incurred in preparing NICA award and obtaining NICA award support documentation 7.59[16] Phone charges incurred in preparing NICA award and obtaining NICA award support documentation 179.88[17] Fax charges incurred in preparing NICA award and obtaining NICA award support documentation 62.56[18] AT&T Teleconference charge 127.52 Total $1,162.81 EXPERT WITNESS EXPENSES AND FEES Dr. Andrea Morrison's Expert Witness Fees[19] 12/17/02 Initial Fee $2,000.00 4/25/05 Review of records in preparation of expert opinions 600.00 (2 hours @ $300/hour) 3/27/06 Review medical records in preparation of expert opinions 900.00 (3 hours @ $300/hour) 5/2/06 Preparation for deposition including review of medical records (6 hours @ $500/hour) 3,000.00 Total $6,500.00 Dr. Mary Edwards-Brown's Expert Witness Fees[20] 1/13/03 Review of records and conference (1 hour) $350.00 4/26/06 File review in preparation of expert opinions (1 hour @ $400/hour) 400.00 4/13/06 File review and pre-depo conference in preparation of expert 1,000.00 opinions for deposition (2.5 hours @ $400/hour) Total $1,750.00 DEPOSITION COSTS Robin Batdorf taken on 5/23/06 (original and 1 copy of transcript) 32 pages @ 4.50/page $ 144.00 Exhibits: 6 pages at .50/page 3.00 Court Reporter's per diem 55.00 Total $ 202.00 TRAVEL AND RELATED EXPENSES FOR COUNSEL (JWG) 2/1/06 Attorney expenses for trip to $233.72 Daytona Beach for deposition of Tammy Linton(meals and mileage) 2/2/06-2/3/06 Attorney expenses for 490.45 travel from Daytona Beach to Jacksonville for deposition of Michael Linton, and return to Tallahassee (meals, mileage and lodging) 4/11/06 Attorney expenses for travel from Houston to Los Angeles for meeting with Dr. Morrison 750.83 Total $1,475.00 TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR PETITIONERS 5/30/06 Lodging expense for Tammy Linton (one night stay in Tallahassee for attendance at Final Hearing 5/30/06) $110.39 5/30/06 Lodging expense for Michael Linton (one night stay in Tallahassee for attendance at Final Hearing 5/30/06) 110.39 Total $220.78 In the parties' Pre-Hearing Stipulation, NICA addressed its dispute regarding such expenses, as follows: As to the expenses incurred with respect to their NICA claim, the Petitioners must offer proof substantiating such expenses. Absent such proof, it would be speculative to concede they were reasonable in amount or necessarily incurred in pursing this claim. Moreover, the cost of postage (or Federal Express), research and copying (generally considered as part of office overhead) and the cost of travel (including "air, hotel, meals") are generally not taxable. Finally, with respect to expert witnesses, only a reasonable fee for deposition testimony and costs of preparation of any court ordered report are taxable. See Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions. Notably, while issues were raised about the necessity and reasonableness of the experts' fees, Petitioners failed to offer expert testimony regarding the services performed and the reasonable value of those services, as required to support an award for expert witness fees. Pertinent to an award of expenses, the Statewide Uniform Guidelines for Taxation of Costs in Civil Actions, effective January 1, 2006, provide: Purpose and Application. These guidelines are advisory only. The taxation of costs in any particular proceeding is within the broad discretion of the trial court. The trial court should exercise that discretion in a manner that is consistent with the policy of reducing the overall costs of litigation and of keeping such costs as low as justice will permit . . . . Litigation Costs That Should Be Taxed. * * * Expert Witnesses A reasonable fee for deposition and/or trial testimony, and the costs of preparation of any court ordered report. Litigation Costs That May Be Taxed as Costs. * * * B. Reasonable Travel Expenses * * * Reasonable travel expenses of witnesses. Litigation Costs That Should Not Be Taxed as Costs. A. The Cost of Long distance Telephone Calls with Witnesses, both Expert and Non- Expert (including conferences concerning scheduling of depositions or requesting witnesses to attend trial). * * * Travel Time Travel time of attorney(s). Travel time of expert(s). Travel Expenses of Attorney(s) Also pertinent to an award of expenses are the following decisions: Miller v. Hayman, 766 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(recognizing that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, travel expenses for attorney to attend depositions should not be taxed as costs); Department of Transportation v. Skidmore, 720 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(recognizing that postage, long distance calls, fax transmissions, delivery service, and computer research are overhead and not properly taxable as costs); Lafferty v. Lafferty, 413 So. 2d 170, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)("[U]pon specific objection to the setting of an expert witness fee without an evidentiary hearing, the prevailing party will have to present testimony concerning the necessity and reasonableness of the fee."); Gray v. Bradbury, 668 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)("The prevailing party's burden, at an evidentiary cost hearing, to recover an expert witness fee is 'to present testimony concerning the necessity and reasonableness of the fee.'"); Powell v. Lorenza, 629 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)(recognizing that evidence to support an award for expert witness fees must come from witnesses qualified in the areas concerned); Gray v. Bradbury, supra, page 298 (Testimony of "a trial attorney and an insurance casualty claim manager, who were not shown to have proficiency in the various fields of expertise at issue (ranging from accident reconstruction to neurosurgery)," was not competent to support an award for expert witness fees.); Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Carreras, 633 So. 2d 1103, 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)("[T]he exploration of the possibility of opting out of NICA through the 'bad faith' exception or otherwise is not, as the statute requires, work performed 'in connection with the filing of a claim. '"). Here, it must be resolved that Petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to the disputed expenses. Consequently, Petitioners' recovery is limited to $11,041.60 ($22,352.19 - 11,310.59).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was a producer of agricultural products in the State of Florida as defined in Section 604.15(5), Florida Statutes (1985). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed dealer in agricultural products as defined by Section 604.15(1), Florida Statutes (1985), and bonded by Respondent Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers). At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent Travelers was authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The complaint filed by Petitioner was filed timely in accordance with Section 604.21(1), Florida Statutes. From November 5, 1987, through June 10, 1988, Respondent purchased from Petitioner 71 dozen squash, 375 dozen collard greens, 247 dozen mustard greens and 147 dozen turnip greens for a total price of $7,386.00. All produce was delivered between November 5, 1987 and June 10, 1988. No payments have been made by Respondent for the above produce. Respondent has not denied receiving the produce nor did Respondent complain about the produce's quality or condition upon delivery. Respondent owes $7,386.00 to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be ordered to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $7,386.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that if Respondent fails to timely pay the Petitioner as ordered, then Respondent Travelers be ordered to pay the Department as required by Section 604.21, Florida Statutes (1985) and that the Department reimburse the Petitioner in accordance with Section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 18th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: C. L. Norman Route 2, Box 2160 Starke, Florida 32091 David Norman Norman's Country Market, Inc. 515 Northwest 23rd Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32069 Traveler Indemnity Company Attention Breet A. Ragland 988 Woodcock Road Suite 102 Orlando, Florida 32803 Doyle Conner, Commissioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mallory Horne, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr. Attorney at Law Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 559.929(3), Florida Statutes (2019), Petitioner has been injured by the fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, financial failure, or any other violation of chapter 559, part XI, by Respondent Travbuzz, Inc. (Respondent), for prearranged travel services and, if so, the extent to which Respondent is indebted to Petitioner on account of the injury.
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides prearranged travel services for individuals or groups. Having relocated from New Jersey to Miami, Florida, evidently in 2018, Respondent has been registered at all material times with the Department as a "seller of travel" within the meaning of the Act and holds registration number ST-41461. With Respondent as the principal, the Surety issued a Sellers of Travel Surety Bond bearing bond number 10076529 in the amount of $25,000, effective from June 22, 2018, until duly cancelled (Bond). On November 12, 2019, Petitioner, a resident of San Diego, California, purchased from Respondent one ticket for himself and one ticket for his daughter on the Palace on Wheels: A Week in Wonderland Tour (POWAWIWT) with a departure date of April 1, 2020. Earnestly described by Respondent's principal as a "cruise ship on wheels," the POWAWIWT provides one week's transportation, accommodations, and meals for travelers seeking to visit several of India's cultural and historical landmarks without the inconvenience of changing hotels, finding restaurants, arranging intercity transportation, or, it seems, obtaining refunds for trips that never take place. The purchase price for two POWAWIWT tickets was $8600.40. Additionally, Petitioner purchased from Respondent a guided side trip at one location for $75. At the time of the purchase of the two POWAWIWT tickets, Respondent charged Petitioner's credit card for the required downpayment of $1911.20 for both tickets. By personal check dated January 6, 2020, Petitioner timely paid the balance due for both tickets of $6689.20. By personal check dated February 19, 2020, Petitioner paid the $75 charge for the side trip. The credit card issuer duly debited Petitioner's account and credited Respondent's account for the charged amount, and Respondent obtained the funds represented by both checks. Petitioner later disputed the credit card charges, and the credit card company debited the $1911.20 amount in dispute from Respondent's account. Although Petitioner claimed that his account had not been credited for this amount, as of the evening prior to the hearing, Respondent's credit for these charges had not been restored, so the $1911.20 still seems to be in the possession of the credit card issuer. Despite availing himself of the remedy available under the Act, Petitioner has not authorized the credit card issuer to restore to Respondent's account the credit for the $1911.20. This case is a byproduct of the emerging Covid-19 pandemic, which, as discussed below, caused RTDC to cancel Petitioner's April 1 POWAWIWT. According to Respondent, RTDC has refused to refund Petitioner's payment of $8600.40 gross or about $8000 after deducting Respondent's 7% commission.1 Although Respondent's principal deflects the blame to RTDC for its no-refund policy and to Petitioner for supposedly waffling on the relief that he sought for the cancelled trip, Respondent quietly has declined to refund its commission of approximately $600, as well as the additional $75 payment, although the failure to refund the $75 may be explained by Petitioner's failure to address this negligible amount until he prepared the Prehearing Statement in this case. 1 Respondent's principal testified that Respondent discounted the price of the April 1 POWAWIWT by reducing its standard 17% commission, which would approximate $1460, to 7%, for a 10% discount, or about $860, leaving a net commission of about $600. Respondent's factual defenses to Petitioner's refund claim include the several defenses set forth above and a new defense asserted for the first time at the hearing: Petitioner cancelled his POWAWIWT before RTDC cancelled his POWAWIWT, so Petitioner was never entitled to a refund under the terms of the Contract. This defense oddly finds more support in Petitioner's allegation that he demanded a refund before RTDC cancelled the April 1 POWAWIWT than in Respondent's allegation that Petitioner did not demand a refund until the March 13 email, in which he reported that RTDC had cancelled the April 1 POWAWIWT.2 Regardless, this new defense is no more supported by the facts than Respondent's previously stated defenses. Respondent's who-cancelled-first defense is based on emails and telephone calls. Petitioner's emails portray his consistent efforts to obtain a refund for the trip, but only after RTDC had cancelled the April 1 POWAWIWT. The lone email of Respondent's principal serves to reveal Respondent's inability to respond meaningfully to Petitioner's efforts to protect his travel purchase and raises the possibility of bad faith on the part of Respondent's principal. On March 9, Petitioner emailed Respondent's principal a Times of India news article that reported that RTDC had cancelled the March POWAWIWTs, but not the April 1 POWAWIWT. This email does not seek to cancel the April 1 POWAWIWT, but expresses concern that RTDC will cancel the trip. On March 13, Petitioner emailed Respondent's principal a Times of India news article that reported that RTDC had cancelled the remaining POWAWIWTs through April. This email complains that RTDC had not 2 This oddity is unsurprising given the patter of each witness's testimony. Respondent's principal peppered his testimony with false apologies while, in a reassuring tone, he gently deferred and deflected blame and patiently, but mistakenly, insisted that the Contract did not require him to refund monies paid for a train trip that never took place. Petitioner frenetically rebutted each factual defense while somehow missing the salient points that he had paid for a POWAWIWT that never took place, Respondent refused to refund Petitioner's payment, and the Contract calls for a refund. Although a retired appellate attorney for the state of California, Petitioner seems to have grounded his early demands for a refund on natural law, because he appears not to have discovered one of the crucial contractual provisions, as discussed below, until he prepared the Prehearing Statement responded to Petitioner's requests for information, requests advice as to his available options, and asks for some assurance that Petitioner would not lose his payments of $8600 for the train tour plus an unspecified amount "for post trip activities" that are also unspecified. On March 15, Petitioner emailed Respondent's principal a news article in The Hindu that reported that another operator of train tours in India was paying refunds for cancelled trips and all tourist visas into India had been cancelled through April 15. This email implores Respondent to do the right thing and immediately refund the money paid for the cancelled trip. A few hours later, Petitioner emailed Respondent's principal an India West news article that reported that India was now in a complete lockdown and the Indian government had cancelled all nondiplomatic visas. This email asks Respondent's principal to keep Petitioner informed on what RTDC was going to do and expresses hope that RTDC issues refunds. On March 19, Respondent's principal emailed Petitioner that "we are reaching some agreement with our ground operator for the train and this is what is being finalized." The statement clearly discloses no agreement, but, at best, an expectation of an agreement. The email describes the expected agreement to allow Petitioner to take a POWAWIWT during the following season from September 2020 through April 2021, but requires Petitioner to select travel dates within six days and pay whatever fare is in effect at the time of the trip. Respondent's principal never explained why Petitioner had only six days to accept an "offer" that RTDC had not yet authorized its agent to make, might not authorize within the six-day deadline, and might not ever authorize. Respondent's demand for a near-immediate acceptance of a nonexistent offer of a trip at market price was unreasonable and suggests that Respondent's principal was merely trying to induce Petitioner to make an offer in the form of an acceptance, so the principal might have greater bargaining leverage with RTDC. On March 23, Petitioner emailed Respondent's principal, noting a series of unanswered emails and phone calls from Petitioner to the principal since the receipt of the March 19 "offer." Asking for clarification of the terms of the "offer," Petitioner's email concedes that it appears that Petitioner's money is lost and asks merely that Respondent show him the courtesy of calling him, confirming his fear, and providing a full explanation of what happened. Later that day, an employee of Respondent emailed Petitioner and informed him that the principal was suffering from a respiratory disorder and was unable to talk, so that future communications needed to be by email. Petitioner received no more emails from Respondent's principal, who, having returned to the United States after taking a POWAWIWT in early March, was later diagnosed with Covid. The telephone calls are undocumented. The credibility of Respondent's principal started to leave the tracks with the March 19 email of an illusory "offer" with an immediate deadline for acceptance. A month later, in responding to the disputed credit card charge, the credibility of Respondent's principal derailed completely, as he attempted to resecure the $1911.20 credit with material misrepresentations of what had taken place in an email dated April 21 to the credit card issuer. The email claims that Petitioner never cancelled the trip, so he was a "no-show"--a Kafkaesque claim that implies a duty to report for a trip that, undisclosed in the email, the sponsor had cancelled over two weeks prior to departure. The email states that, at the beginning of March, Petitioner called and said he did not feel comfortable taking the trip, but the trains were still running and "'Cancel for Fear'" was not an allowable reason for waiving a cancellation fee--perhaps true, but irrelevant. The email encloses a copy of the principal's March 19 email, states that Petitioner did not accept this "offer," and concludes that "[s]ince [Petitioner] did not cancel or inform us of the decision for travel before the travel date, the charge is valid as per the terms and conditions." The email cites a provision of the Contract addressing no-shows and, despite the absence of any mention of RTDC's cancellation of the trip due to the pandemic, adds a seemingly obscure reference to another provision of the Contract addressing acts of God, medical epidemics, quarantines, or other causes beyond Respondent's control for the cancellation of a trip. Notably, the email omits mention of the provisions of the Contract, described below, clearly calling for a refund. On balance, it is impossible to credit the testimony of Respondent's principal that, in telephone calls, Petitioner cancelled the trip before RTDC cancelled the trip or, more generally, that Petitioner could not settle on an acceptable remedy, and his indecisiveness prevented Respondent's principal from negotiating a settlement with RTDC--an assertion that, even if proved, would be irrelevant. Notwithstanding resolute attempts by Respondent's principal to misdirect attention from these unavoidable facts, Petitioner has paid for a train tour that never took place, RTDC cancelled the tour, and Petitioner never cancelled his tickets. The question is therefore whether, in its Contract, Respondent successfully transferred the risk of loss to Petitioner for a trip cancelled by the tour sponsor due to the pandemic. Analysis of this issue necessitates consideration of several provisions of the Contract that, despite its prolixity, is initially remarkable for two omissions: Respondent's Seller of Travel registration number3 and the name of RTDC as the sponsor of the POWAWIWT. Respondent claims that Petitioner caused his injury by declining to purchase travel insurance. The cover page of the Contract contains a section 3 Section 559.928(5) requires a seller of travel to include in each consumer contract the following: "[Name of seller of travel] is registered with the State of Florida as a Seller of Travel. Registration No. [X]." Even absent any mention of a statute, this disclosure provides a consumer with some means to learn of the somewhat obscure Act, the seller's statutory responsibilities, and the relief that may be available to a consumer for a seller's failure to discharge these responsibilities. Petitioner testified only that he somehow learned of the Act, but never said how. The record does not permit a finding that the omission of the statutory disclosure was purposeful, so as to conceal from the consumer the existence of the Act, or was a product of guileless ineptitude. called "Travel Insurance." This section provides an opportunity to purchase travel insurance from an entity "recommended by [Respondent]." The options are to check a box to purchase from Respondent's recommended entity or to check a box that states the traveler undertakes to obtain travel insurance independently, but this provision adds that, if travel insurance is not obtained, the consumer "absolve[s Respondent, t]he tour operator and the travel agent of all possible liabilities which may arise due to my failure to obtain adequate insurance coverage." Respondent offered no proof that its recommended travel insurance or other available travel insurance would pay for the cancellation of the April 1 POWAWIWT due to the pandemic, so Petitioner's choice not to purchase travel insurance is irrelevant. Additionally, the clear provisions of the Contract, discussed below, requiring a refund for a trip cancelled by the sponsor rebut Respondent's labored effort to apply the travel insurance provision to shift to the customer the risk of loss posed by a cancellation of the trip by the sponsor--a risk that might be better addressed by Respondent's purchase of commercial business interruption insurance. Respondent claims that the trip was cancelled by RTDC too close to the departure date to entitle Petitioner to any refund. The Contract contains a section called "Cancellation Fees." This section provides for increasing cancellation fees based on the proximity of the cancellation to the trip departure date. The Contract provides a 10% cancellation fee "if cancelled" more than 90 days prior to departure, 20% cancellation fee "if cancelled" between 89 and 35 days prior to departure, and 100% cancellation fee "if cancelled" within 34 days prior to departure. The Contract fails to specify if this provision applies to cancellations at the instance of the consumer or the trip sponsor, but the graduated fee reflects the greater value of a trip cancelled well in advance of the trip departure date, so that the trip can be resold. Obviously, a trip cancelled by a sponsor cannot be resold, so the cancellation fee provision applies only to a cancellation by a customer and does not shield Respondent from liability in this case. Lastly, Respondent relies on a section of the Contract called "Responsibility--Limitation of Liability." Provisions in this section warn that Respondent acts as an agent for a trip sponsor, such as the railroad, from which Respondent purchases the travel services. Although Respondent makes every effort to select the best providers of travel services, Respondent does not control their operations and thus CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR OTHER CLAIM which may occur as a result of any and/or all of the following: the wrongful, negligent or arbitrary acts or omissions on the part of the independent supplier, agent, its employees or others who are not under the direct control or supervision of [Respondent]; [or] * * * (3) loss, injury or damage to person, property or otherwise, resulting directly or indirectly from any Acts of God, dangers incident to … medical epidemics, quarantines, … delays or cancellations or alterations in itinerary due to schedule changes, or from any causes beyond [Respondent's] control. … In case of overbooking, [Respondent] will only be liable for refund [sic] the charged amount to the guest. [Respondent] shall in no event be responsible or liable for any direct, indirect, consequential, incidental, special or punitive damages arising from your interaction with any retailer/vendor, and [Respondent] expressly disclaims any responsibility or liability for any resulting loss or damage. The "Responsibility--Limitation of Liability" provisions are general disclaimers of liability for various forms of damages arising out of the acts and omissions of third parties or forces outside the control of Respondent, such as the pandemic. These provisions represent a prudent attempt to avoid liability for damages, such as the lost opportunity to visit a gravely ill relative who has since died, that may amount to many multiples of the price paid for a trip. Complementing these general provisions limiting Respondent's liability, other provisions limit Respondent's liability to the payment of a refund of the purchase price of a trip cancelled by the sponsor. The section immediately following the "Responsibility--Limitation of Liability" section is the "Reservation of Rights" section, which provides: "The company [i.e., Respondent] reserves the right to cancel any tour without notice before the tour and refund the money in full and is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages to the guest due to such action." As noted above, the Contract omits any mention of Respondent's principal, so as to Respondent in the place of its undisclosed principal; thus, a provision referring to a cancellation of the tour by Respondent includes a cancellation of the tour by Respondent's principal. As cited by Petitioner in the Prehearing Statement, the other relevant provision is in the "Prices, Rates & Fares" section and states that, if a customer cancels, any refund to which the customer is entitled, under the above-cited cancellation fee provisions, will be dependent on then-current exchange rates, but "[i]n the event that a tour is canceled through no action of the Client, the Client will receive a full refund of US$."4 This provision entitles a consumer to: 1) a refund and 2) a refund in U.S. dollars, presumably unadjusted for currency fluctuations since the payment. At the hearing, Respondent's principal tried to construe the "US$" provision as a reference to the currency to which a consumer is entitled to be paid when a consumer cancels a trip under conditions in which the customer is entitled to a refund, but this construction ignores that the cited clause applies to 4 An identical "US$" provision is found at the end of the section called "A Note About Cancellation for All Tours/Reservations." cancellations occurring through no action of the consumer and imposes on Respondent the obligation to make a "full refund" in such cases.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Respondent to pay Petitioner the sum of $6689.20 within 30 days of the date of the order and, absent timely payment, directing the Surety to pay Petitioner the sum of $6689.20 from the Bond. 7 Perhaps the recommended and final orders in this case will persuade the credit card issuer to issue the credit for the $1911.20 to Petitioner, who is entitled to this disputed sum. But, if Respondent regains possession of this disputed sum and refuses to refund it to Petitioner, the Department may wish to consider suspending or revoking Respondent's certificate or referring the matter to the Miami-Dade County State Attorney's Office. See the preceding footnote. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Gil Gonzalez 8444 Mono Lake Drive San Diego, California 92119 (eServed) Benjamin C. Patton, Esquire McRae & Metcalf, P.A. 2612 Centennial Place Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) H. Richard Bisbee, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. 1882 Capital Circle Northeast, Suite 206 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) W. Alan Parkinson, Bureau Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Rhodes Building, R-3 2005 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6500 Tom A. Steckler, Director Division of Consumer Services Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue The issue in these cases is: a) whether the Department of Education is liable for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the Rushton case (DOAH Case No. 89-1551) and b) if so, whether such fees and costs should include those incurred in the prosecution of a rule challenge styled, Florida Education Association/United and Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Lewis Rushton is a person within the meaning of Section 760.02(5), Florida Statutes. Mr. Rushton is an individual within the meaning of Section 760.10(1). The Department of Education ("DOE") is a personwithin the meaning of Section 760.02(5). The School Board of Seminole County, Florida ("School Board"), which is also a person within the meaning of the same statute, was at all material times Mr. Rushton's "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(6). At all material times, Mr. Rushton was employed as a bus driver by the School Board, which removed him from this position on April 19, 1988. The reason for the School Board's action was that the continued service of Rushton, who was over 70 years of age, was contrary to Rule 6A-3.0141(a), Florida Administrative Code, which required mandatory retirement of bus drivers at age 70 years ("Rule"). The other Petitioners were similarly situated to Mr. Rushton. The only difference is that they were employed by different district school boards. The School Board gave Rushton the option to continue in employment as a bus monitor, which was a lower-paying job than bus driver. Rushton accepted this reassignment and experienced the resulting reduction in pay beginning the 1988-89 school year. At all material times, DOE, which promulgated the Rule, maintained standards affecting the ability of Rushton to engage in his occupation or trade within the meaning of Section 760.10(5). The Rule was part of these standards. On January 29, 1987, Rushton filed a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5616, against the School Board. The Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissed this complaint on November 11, 1988. On May 3, 1988, Rushton timely filed and prosecuted a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5703, against DOE. On September 7, 1988, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a Notice of Determination--Cause. The Notice of Determination names as the sole respondent the School Board, which had employed Mr. Rushton prior to requiring him to retire at age 70. After DOE filed a Request for Reconsideration on September 16, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued on January 12, 1989, a Notice of Redetermination--Cause. The Notice of Redetermination names DOE as the sole respondent. The Notice of Redetermination states that DOE's "assertion that [the Rule] is an established 'bona fide occupational qualification' for employment has not been upheld." The quoted statement in the Notice of Redetermination is to a final order issued December 14, 1988. The final order found the Rule to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The final order was the culmination of a Section 120.56 challenge to the Rule that had been prosecuted against DOE by two unions representing the Petitioners. This rule challenge was styled, Florida Education Association/United v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R ("Rule Challenge"). The Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association was an intervenor on the side of the petitioner in the Rule Challenge. Lorene C. Powell represented the petitioner in theRule Challenge, and Vernon T. Grizzard, of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard, and the law firm of Egan, Lev & Siwica, represented the intervenor. As the final hearing in the Rule Challenge approached, DOE requested abatements of the pending cases in which individual bus drivers had sought relief under Section 760.10. At that time, the cases of all Petitioners except Mr. Rushton were pending in the Division of Administrative Hearings. The grounds for the abatements were that the decision in the Rule Challenge "would substantially affect the outcome" of the pending individual cases. Each case was abated. The parties in the Rule Challenge stipulated that various counties, due to the Rule, had not rehired bus drivers who would have been rehired but for the fact that they had attained the age of 70 years. The parties also agreed that Sections 760.10 and 112.0444 [sic], together with cited federal law, "do not permit an age limitation on employment with the exception of where such an age limitation is based on Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The stipulated issues for determination in the Rule Challenge included "whether the 70-year old age barrier . . . is a [bona fide occupational qualification] and thus a valid exception to the state and federal ban on age discrimination based solely on chronological age." By memorandum dated January 11, 1989, DOE informed school board superintendents of the final order invalidating the Rule. By letter dated February 9, 1989, the School Boardnotified Mr. Rushton that DOE was no longer requiring enforcement of the mandatory retirement rule and he could return to work as a bus driver if he could meet certain lawful requirements. Each Petitioner was so notified by his respective school board. By Petition for Relief filed March 21, 1989, Mr. Rushton sought relief against the School Board and DOE, including a finding that mandating his retirement due to age was an unlawful employment practice, an award of back pay and associated benefits, and an award of attorneys' fees in the prosecution of the subject proceeding and such other proceedings as were necessary or appropriate to obtain the relief and apportioning the fees between the School Board and DOE. With the filing of the Petition for Relief on March 21, 1989, John Chamblee of the law firm of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard entered his appearance for Mr. Rushton. Mr. Chamblee had been retained for Mr. Rushton by his union, the Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association. On or shortly after May 1, 1989, the School Board settled with Mr. Rushton by agreeing to compensate him for back pay, interest, and other benefits constituting relief otherwise available under Section 760.10. Similar settlements between the other Petitioners and their respective school boards resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the various school boards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in the above-styled cases. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Chamblee, Jr. Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard 202 Cardy Street Tampa, FL 33606 Vernon T. Grizzard Chamblee, Miles & Grizzard 116 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie III General Counsel Carl J. Zahner Assistant General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Lorene C. Powell, Assistant General Counsel FEA/United 208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ned N. Julian, Jr. Sun Bank Building, Suite 22 Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772 Tobe Lev Egan, Lev & Siwica P.O. Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802 Norman Smith Brinson, Smith & Smith 1201 W. Emmett St. Kissimmee, FL 32741 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 this 2nd day of May, 1990. William H. Vogel, Assistant Superintendent Personnel and Administrative Services P.O. Box 1948 Kissimmee, FL 32742-1948 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue Dr. Mark H. Feldman maintained a practice in podiatry at 1101 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A widening and upgrading of Broward Boulevard resulted in a taking of a portion of the building in which Dr. Feldman maintained his practice. Because the widening of this highway was a part of a federal aid project, the doctor became eligible for certain payments to businesses as provided in the manual of Right-of-Way Bureau operating procedures and incorporated by reference into the Florida Administrative Code as Chapter 14-1. The provisions concerning payments to businesses include payment of actual reasonable expenses in moving the business and personal property, direct loss of tangible personal property in moving or discontinuing the business and actual reasonable expenses in searching for a replacement business. Further, in lieu of payment for actual moving and losses as indicated above, a fixed payment may be paid. Dr. Feldman applied for a fixed payment and was denied by the Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation based its denial on two grounds: Dr. Feldman had already received payments for reasonable expenses, direct less of personal property and discontinuing his business, and for search of a replacement business site; and Dr. Feldman was ineligible for a fixed payment because the doctor maintained a commercial enterprise with more than one establishment, which was not being acquired by the State or the United States and was engaged in the same or similar business. Dr. Feldman asserted that he accepted payment because of the representation of employees of the Department and that he did not maintain two (2) business locations.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Mark H. Feldman maintained a practice in podiatry at 1101 West Broward Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. A portion of the building in which Dr. Feldman maintained his practice was taken by the State under a construction project, which was partially federally funded, to widen Broward Boulevard. As a result of this taking, it was necessary for Dr. Feldman to move his practice. Dr. Feldman became eligible for certain payments to businesses required to move because of such construction. Dr. Feldman asserted that prior to receipt of the Department's notice, he engaged in discussions with representatives of the Department regarding his options. Dr. Feldman requested consideration for fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses, which resulted in a preliminary investigation by the Department of Transportation. This investigation revealed that in addition to maintenance of his practice at 1101 West Broward Boulevard. Dr. Feldman also was listed in the telephone directory and in the building directory as maintaining offices at 7301 North University Drive, Tamarack, Florida. This second location was not affected by any taking. Based upon this information, the Department made a determination that the doctor was not eligible for fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses because Dr. Feldman's business affected by the taking was part of a commercial enterprise having at least one other establishment which was not being acquired by the State or the United States and which was engaged in the same or similar business. See Right-of-Way Bureau Operating Procedures Manual, 4.3.7E(1)(b). Based upon this initial denial, and having received notice that he could only be guaranteed 90 days' occupancy, Dr. Feldman applied for actual expenses, which were paid. Thereafter, Dr. Feldman submitted his application for fixed payment in lieu of actual moving expenses, which was denied on the basis that he had received actual moving expenses. Approximately one year prior to the announcement by the Department of the incipient taking of the property of 1101 West Broward Boulevard, Dr. Feldman had been in practice with another podiatrist, Harry Westridge. Dr. Westridge originally maintained his practice at 1101 West Broward Boulevard. Dr. Westridge had joined Dr. Feldman's practice at 7301 North University Drive in Tamarack several years ago. In April of 1977, Dr. Westridge purchased Dr. Feldman's practice at North University Drive. As a part of their agreement, Dr. Feldman took over the lease and personal property located at 1101 West Broward Boulevard. Further, as a part of their agreement, Dr. Feldman agreed to permit Dr. Westridge to utilize his name in conjunction with the Tamarack practice. Both doctors explained that this was because Dr. Westridge was a newcomer to the area and was purchasing the "good will" in Dr. Feldman's practice, and it protected Dr. Feldman's investment if Dr. Westridge was unable to meet his obligations under the purchase agreement. However, both doctors testified that subsequent to Dr. Westridge's purchase of the practice Dr. Feldman did not maintain regular office hours at the Tamarack address, did not regularly see patients at the Tamarack address, and had seen approximately twelve (12) patients at the Tamarack address between April of 1977, and April of 1978. This included consultations and referrals to Dr. Feldman by Dr. Westridge. The nature of his surgical practice in podiatry prevented Dr. Feldman from waiting to move his practice until the Department of Transportation took his property where he was located. Further, Dr. Feldman could not afford to move his practice without assistance. Dr. Feldman only applied for payment of his actual expenses, which he received, when he was initially told he did not qualify for in-lieu of payment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department of Transportation pay Dr. Feldman a fixed payment in lieu of actual expenses and offset any amounts paid to Dr. Feldman against the fixed payment. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dr. Mark H. Feldman 6468 Racket Club Drive Lauderhill, Florida 33319 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin or race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Manuel Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") is a middle- aged white man of (in his words) "Spanish and Italian" descent who at all times relevant lived in Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent Indian River County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. ("Habitat"), is a nonprofit charitable corporation that makes interest-free loans to qualified applicants for the purchase of affordable housing, which the buyers, in return, must help build or renovate. In or around December 2018, Rodriguez submitted a "pre- screening" application for a Habitat home. By letter dated January 3, 2019, Habitat informed Rodriguez that, according to the information he had provided, he fell "within the income guidelines." This meant that Rodriguez could progress to the next step (group orientation) of the multi-step application process. As it happened, however, he did not make it all the way. In a letter dated February 19, 2019, Habitat told Rodriguez that his application could not be approved because his monthly income was insufficient to cover the estimated debt service. Rodriguez presented no evidence at hearing suggesting that Habitat had denied his application for any reason other than the one given to him, namely that "you [Rodriguez] do not earn enough to support a mortgage." Rodriguez was not satisfied with this rationale and arranged to meet with a Habitat employee named David Willis to discuss the matter. Rodriguez believes that Mr. Willis was rude and disrespectful to him. Further, Rodriguez testified that, during their conversation, Mr. Willis used the phrase, "you people." Clearly, this is a potentially offensive remark, and Rodriguez was, in fact, offended by it. When pressed, however, Rodriguez admitted that he did not consider the comment to have been a slur against Spanish or Italian people; rather, he took it as a more focused insult——against, for example, disputatious people. In any event, there is no evidence that Mr. Willis intended to disparage an ethnic or racial group. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of Habitat's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Rodriguez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus. Thus, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Habitat did not commit any prohibited act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Habitat not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Rodriguez no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of August, 2019.
The Issue At issue is whether respondent committed the offense alleged in the petitioner's "notice of intent to impose administrative fine and to issue cease and desist order" and, if so, what administrative action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, is a state agency charged, inter alia, with administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 559, Part XI, Florida Statutes, regulating "sellers of travel." Here, petitioner has charged that respondent had operated as a "seller of travel" without being registered as required by Section 559.927(2), Florida Statutes. The only proof offered to support such contention at hearing was a written inspection report prepared by James Kelly, an inspector employed by petitioner. 1/ That report recited that Mr. Kelly performed an inspection of respondent's premises on November 4, 1994, that he met with Denise Arencibia (who was later identified as respondent's vice president), and that the following events transpired: Went in undercover and asked about weekend cruises. Denise gave me a brochure for the Seaward & gave me prices at $329 per person. She can make all arrangements. They will accept a cashier's check payable to Escape Travel Services. Mr. Kelly did not, however, appear at hearing or otherwise offer testimony in this case. Consequently, for the reasons discussed in the conclusions of law, there is no competent proof of record to support a finding that respondent operated as a "seller of travel" on the date of Mr. Kelly's inspection as contended by petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered dismissing the charges against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September 1995.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from January, 1986, until March 7, 1988. Petitioner worked as a tailor and performed alterations at Respondent's store located in Altamonte Springs. In the latter half of 1987, Mr. Pease became the manager of the Altamonte Springs store and thus became Petitioner's supervisor. As had the prior manager, Mr. Pease and Petitioner worked out a schedule that did not require Petitioner to work in violation of his religious principles. However, relations between Petitioner and Mr. Pease were not good. Shortly after becoming manager, for independent business reasons, Mr. Pease decided to reduce the amount of fitting done in the store. The effect of this decision was to reduce the amount of work available for Petitioner. At about this time, Petitioner suffered an accident unrelated to employment. The accident resulted in an extended absence from work. Petitioner received his physician's approval to return to work on February 16, 1988, but failed to do so. Without prior notice, Petitioner showed up at the store on March 7, 1988, and informed Mr. Pease that Petitioner was ready to return to work. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the work schedule had already been arranged for the week. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the only days he could work were Saturday, March 12, and Sunday, March 13. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that he could not work Sundays due to his religious beliefs. Mr. Pease reiterated that no other time was available that week. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that Petitioner understood that he was being fired. Mr. Pease told him that he was not being fired; rather, he was quitting if he left Respondent's employment. Two days later, Petitioner filed for unemployment compensation benefits. He never reported to work with Respondent again. Consistent with his Petition for Relief, Petitioner offered no evidence of discrimination due to national origin. Nothing in the record suggests the existence of any such discrimination. Petitioner has also failed to prove the existence of any religious discrimination. There is no evidence that Mr. Pease refused to try to accommodate Petitioner's religious beliefs with respect to work schedules after the weekend of March 12-13. The only evidence is that when Petitioner suddenly reported to work, the only days immediately available were the weekend days. The record does not even disclose whether Mr. Pease linked the two days, so as to prevent Petitioner from working the Saturday without working the Sunday. There is nothing in the record suggesting that Mr. Pease told Petitioner that if he failed to work the coming Sunday, he would lose his job. In sum, Petitioner has left it entirely to conjecture whether Mr. Pease would have failed to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Pease was never presented with that opportunity. In addition, Petitioner has produced no evidence that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. There is no evidence of the number of employees working for Respondent at the relevant time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be dismissed. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5689 Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Adopted in substance. 4-5. (first sentence) Adopted. 5. (second sentence) Rejected as irrelevant. 6-10. Adopted. s 11. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Weceslao Lugo Palermo 7505 Armstrong Road Lockhart, FL 32810 Richard D. Pease 590 West Highway 436 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
