The Issue Whether Petitioner, Belinda Traylor, complied with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.201 in her request for hearing.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 30, 2013, Petitioner filed an employment complaint of discrimination with FCHR, alleging that Disney World/Walt Disney had discriminated against her on the basis of sex and religion. On September 13, 2013, FCHR entered a Notice of Determination: No Cause (Notice), concluding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had been committed against Petitioner. In the Notice Petitioner was informed of the following: A Petition for Relief form is enclosed with Complainant's notice. It may be beneficial for Complainant to seek legal counsel prior to filing the petition. In her October Petition, Petitioner provided her name, the FCHR case number, her address and phone number, a check mark indicating "Respondent has violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as Amended," the date the form was signed, and her signature. Petitioner did not supply: Respondent's name, address, or telephone number; the "specifically described" manner in which Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992; the disputed issues of material fact, if any; or the ultimate facts alleged and entitlement to relief. On November 1, 2013, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss (Motion). The Motion set forth that Petitioner had . . . failed to supply in her petition both a statement of all disputed issues of material fact and a concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts that she contends warrant reversal or modification of the September 23, 2013 [sic] No Cause determination by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). On November 5, 2013, an Order to Show Cause was entered by the undersigned. Therein Petitioner was afforded until 5:00 p.m., November 18, 2013, to file a written statement setting forth the facts surrounding her claim of discrimination. Petitioner was told to include the information required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.201. Additionally, Petitioner was advised that a failure to file a written statement by the deadline "or a failure to set forth facts which, if proven at the hearing would show discrimination, may result in the entry of a recommended order of dismissal." On November 12, 2013, Petitioner filed the following:4/ I Belinda Trayler, am in response to justify the cause for this petition. That I was Harassed, and Abused ,also about my religious background from fellow employers. I was fired without a just cause. The days I was out were due to my legal grandson emotion. I have the legal guardianship from the courts which I will bring with me also to court. He has adhd, bipolar, anger issues. Disney did not accept these paper words. As the results of all this we are currently on welfare and living day by day. I came down in 2006 for my internship. An they asked me to stay so I remained here. I am a 53 year old single woman trying to raised to kids. An for a 53 year old woman jobs are not easy to obtain.[5/] On November 13, 2013, Respondent's Renewed Motion to Dismiss was filed. Respondent set forth as its basis for dismissal that Petitioner's response fails to comply with rule 28-106.201 and the requirements of the FCHR's Petition for Relief. Petitioner's November 12, 2013, response fails to provide the following: rule 28-106.201(2)(d), a statement of all disputed issues of material fact; rule 28-106.201(2)(e), a concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, including the specific facts the petitioner contends warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; rule 28- 106.201(2)(f), an explanation of how the alleged facts relate to the specific rules or statutes [alleged to be violated]; and rule 28-106.201(2)(g), a statement of the relief sought, stating precisely the action petitioner wishes the agency to take with respect to the agency's proposed action.
Recommendation Based on foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 26th day of November, 2013.
The Issue Whether it is in the public interest to place Petitioners, Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc., on the State of Florida Convicted Vendor List maintained by Respondent, State of Florida Department of Management Services (the Department) Section 287.133, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the facts, as follows: On August 19, 1993, Petitioner was convicted of the commission of a public entity crime as defined within subsection 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Petitioner pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to two counts of filing false claims in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 287. The conviction related to time charging irregularities on two subcontracts to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. On February 25, 1994, Petitioner properly reported this conviction in its proposal to the Lee County Board of Commissioners. At the time the plea was entered, Petitioner paid to the United States $1,638,000. This included a $1,000,000 criminal fine, and $488,000 in civil damages, and $150,000 to reimburse EPA’s Office of the Inspector General for the costs of the investigation. The government estimated that the amount of improper charges was approximately $200,000. Petitioner’s cooperation with the EPA included voluntarily providing a wide array of information to EPA. Employees from Petitioner’s Finance and Contracts Department met with EPA investigators and auditors to explain Petitioner’s accounting system. Petitioner assisted EPA by making employees available for interviews. Petitioner voluntarily provided documents and other information to EPA. Petitioner fully cooperated with the Department of Management Services in connection with its investigation initiated pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. Petitioner provided information as requested. No other persons or affiliates were charged with public entity crimes in relation to these matters. As a responsible government contractor, Petitioner has taken steps to prevent actions like those that formed the basis for its guilty plea from recurring. These steps and the ethical history of the company are listed in the stipulation and settlement agreement attached as Appendix A and are incorporated herein. Petitioner properly reported its plea to the Lee County Board of Commissioners and provided additional, extensive information concerning its guilty plea and related matters to the Respondent on April 5, 1994 and June 23, 1995. Petitioner’s presence in the market adds to competition in Florida markets for the transportation and consulting in solving state/public sector problems and in implementing their solutions. Petitioner’s commercial freight practice is the foremost management consultant to port authorities in the United States. Petitioner’s depth of knowledge and understanding of port operations, management, and planning have made Petitioner the consultant of choice to port authorities throughout the country. Specific projects are outlined in the stipulation and settlement agreement and are incorporated herein. In addition, Petitioner, due to its over 80 years of experience in both public and private sector (including Florida), can provide a broad perspective on solving state/public sector problems and in implementing their solutions in areas including law enforcement, systems integration and health care. Petitioner has a long history of providing service to the communities in which it works. Again specific instances of community service are referenced in the stipulation and settlement agreement and are incorporated herein.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), should pay Petitioners' attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, for initiating DOAH Case No. 12-2074.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 2011, John and Kimberly Whitt (Whitts) filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging disability discrimination. FCHR conducted an investigation of the complaint. During the investigation, the investigator obtained statements and documents from both parties. The investigator's final investigative report (Determination, found within Respondent's Exhibit 1) detailed the investigation. The Determination dated December 21, 2011, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred in violation of 804(f)(3)(A) of the Fair Housing Act, as amended." On March 2, 2012, FCHR issued a Legal Concurrence: Cause. The Legal Concurrence, drafted by FCHR's senior attorney, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that Respondents [Association] discriminated against Complainants [the Whitts] in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b) and (f)(2)(A) and section 760.23(2) and (8)(a), Florida Statutes." On March 5, 2012, FCHR's executive director executed the Notice of Determination (Cause), charging that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Association had engaged in a discriminatory housing practice. The Whitts elected to have FCHR represent them to seek relief in an administrative proceeding against the Association. On June 14, 2012, FCHR filed a Petition for Relief (Relief Petition) with DOAH seeking an order prohibiting the Association from engaging in any unlawful housing practices, and granting damages. The final hearing in the underlying case was held before the undersigned on December 12, 2012. The undersigned entered a Recommended Order on February 15, 2013, recommending the dismissal of the Relief Petition filed on behalf of the Whitts. On May 2, 2013, FCHR entered a Final Order dismissing the petition for relief filed on behalf of the Whitts. The Association was the prevailing party in the underlying case. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation that does not have any employees. The Association relies solely on volunteers to run its operations. It has never had a net worth of two million dollars or more. The Association was represented by counsel and co- counsel in both proceedings. In the Fees Petition, the Association alleged it had incurred $75,657.00 in legal fees. At hearing, the Association provided a document which reflected that $5,945.00 in fees should not have been attributed to the instant case, thus setting the amount the Association was seeking at $69,712.00. However, the Association acknowledged that section 57.111(4)(d) 2., Florida Statutes, limited the recovery of attorney's fees and costs to $50,000. FCHR is a "state agency" for the purposes of this proceeding. See §§ 120.57(1) and 57.111(3)(f), Fla. Stat.
The Issue Whether the Motions for Rule Challenge Proceedings (referred to as Petition(s)) filed in each of the above-cited cases meet the requirements both in form and substance, pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004); Whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), has inherent authority to reconsider a Final Order it has issued; and Whether FCHR should adopt a rule which would permit the granting of a motion to reconsider a Final Order.
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner, Dr. Hoover, seeks to recover his attorney's fees and costs incurred in the defense of an action brought against him by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine. The issues for determination are whether Respondent, the state agency charged with regulation of the professional conduct of physicians in the State of Florida, was substantially justified with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Petitioner, a licensed physician, in DOAH Case No. 92-2202, DPR Case No. 0104601, and whether, in the absence of such substantial justification, Petitioner is entitled to the award of the amount of attorney's fees and costs sought, or whether special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, a state agency, initiated action against Dr. Hoover by filing an Administrative Complaint on May 16, 1991, in DPR Case No. 0104601 (Hoover I); Dr. Hoover by election of rights requested a formal hearing; the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and was assigned DOAH #91-4068. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Administrative Complaint, Election of Rights form) The case was set for final hearing on November 13-14, 1991. Dr. Hoover requested a continuance on October 16 because he would be unavailable to assist counsel prepare for hearing. Hearing Officer Robert Meale denied his request. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Request for Continuance, Order Denying Continuance) The Department moved for a continuance on October 29th because the primary expert witness had gone to Japan and could not return in time for the hearing or depositions by Dr. Hoover. The Hearing Officer also denied this motion. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, Order Denying Continuance) On November 5, 1991, the Department filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Without Prejudice. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Notice) The Hearing Officer closed the DOAH file on November 13, 1991. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Order) Dr. Hoover then filed a Petition for Fees and Costs on November 21, 1991, and the case was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-7526F. (DOAH Case No. 91- 7526F: Petition) After formal hearing the Petition was denied by the Hearing Officer, who on March 31, 1992, ruled that "the Department has met its burden of showing that the filing of the Administrative Complaint was substantially justified." (DOAH Case No. 91-7526: Final Order) Immediately, without returning the case to the Probable Cause Panel, the Department served the same Administrative Complaint in DPR Case #0104601 on Dr. Hoover (Hoover II). By election of right, he again requested a formal hearing. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On April 8, 1992 two cases against Dr. Hoover were referred to DOAH, DPR Case #0104601 and #110008. They were assigned DOAH Case #92-2202 and 92- 2201, respectively, and were assigned to Hearing Officer Mary Clark, who consolidated them without objection. (DOAH Case Nos. 92-2201, 92-2202) Dr. Hoover's counsel withdrew and Mr. Brooten became counsel of record on May 4, 1992. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On May 14, 1992, Dr. Hoover filed his Motion to Dismiss DOAH Case #92- 2202. After oral argument the motion was granted by the Hearing Officer on September 16, 1992. (Recommended Order of Dismissal, DOAH Case No. 92-2202) The Hearing Officer held in her Conclusions of Law that the Department of Professional Regulation had no jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint, hold it in abeyance, and refile at its convenience without a new probable cause determination. The Hearing Officer also noted that the passage of time might yield changed circumstances and a changed result. (Recommended Order of Dismissal, DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On October 12, 1992, Dr. Hoover filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs which was denied without prejudice by the Hearing Officer on October 21, 1992, on the grounds that, without a final order, he was not a prevailing small business party. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On October 4, 1992, a Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine again found probable cause in DPR Case #0104601. (Memorandum of Finding of Probable Cause, filed by DPR in DOAH Case No. 93-0168F) By Final Order filed on December 30, 1992, the Board of Medicine dismissed DPR Case #0104601 without prejudice. The Board of Medicine in its Conclusions of Law in the Final Order expounded and clarified the Board's intentions and interpretation of the governing statutes. The Board rejected the Hearing Officer's conclusions, but "in the interest of equity" determined that ". . . the disposition recommended by the Hearing Officer be ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED." (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On February 8, 1993, the Department served the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case #0104601 (Hoover III) on Dr. Hoover. (Motion to Abate, filed 3/8/93 in DOAH Case No. 92-2201). DPR Case #0104601 (Hoover III) is now pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case #93-455, on a petition for writ of prohibition by Dr. Hoover. DOAH Case #92-2201 (DPR Case #0110008) is in abeyance, at the request of the parties, awaiting determination by the appellate court on the extraordinary writ. (Order of Abeyance dated 3/17/93 in DOAH Case No. 93-2201) It is uncontroverted that DOAH Case #92-2202 was initiated by a state agency, that Dr. Hoover prevailed when the case was dismissed, and that Dr. Hoover is a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), F.S. The reasonableness of the claimed fees and costs, $10,376.22, total, is likewise uncontroverted.
The Issue Whether the Motions for Rule Challenge Proceedings (referred to as Petition(s)) filed in each of the above-cited cases meet the requirements both in form and substance, pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
