The Issue The dispute in this case arises out of Respondent's attempt to collect alleged salary overpayments from Petitioner, a former state employee who allegedly continued to be paid wages after resigning her position with Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Having determined, for the reasons set forth below, that the Department lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant claim for "money had and received" against its former employee, the undersigned declines to make findings of fact, as such would be a nullity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing this administrative proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2005, 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 4th day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was discriminated against through an adverse employment decision by the Respondent, because of the Petitioner's age.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was hired by the Respondent on or about April 27, 1998, as a salesperson. When the Petitioner was hired he was 77 years of age. He is currently 84 years of age. Apparently the principal reason the Petitioner was hired was because of his substantial business contacts and principal client, which was Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. The Petitioner had sold food, principally seafood, to Winn Dixie for a substantial period of time. The Petitioner worked for a division of the Respondent known as the Great Fish Company. The Great Fish Company began operations in October of 1998. Mr. Carter, the president of Great Fish Company was the Petitioner's supervisor. During his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner worked from his home. He sold seafood to customers, principally Winn Dixie, for which he was primarily paid on a commission basis. During his term of employment his compensation plan was periodically changed by the Respondent. Some of those changes financially benefited the Petitioner in some years and other changes served to reduce his commission or compensation. During the term of the Petitioner's employment with the Respondent, the Respondent also periodically changed the compensation plans of other employees of the Respondent; some of those changes involved reductions of their compensation plans and some involved increases. This depended upon the sales volume of those individual employees or the revenue situation of the company overall. In or about June of 2003, the Respondent changed the Petitioner's compensation plan. This change did not benefit the Petitioner but represented a reduction in compensation. This change to his compensation plan, however, was based upon legitimate business and financial reasons and was non- discriminatory, because it was based upon a down-turn in business, sales, and revenue for the company. Around the same period of time, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that he believed he was underpaid on earned commissions. Because of this the Respondent performed an audit of the Petitioner's commissions to determine if indeed he had been underpaid. The results of that audit did not establish that the Petitioner had been underpaid but rather that he had been overpaid by approximately $9,000.00 dollars. The audit results were provided to the Petitioner and the Petitioner disputed the results. The Petitioner never complained during his employment to any employees of the Respondent or supervisors suggesting that any employees or supervisors had discriminated against him or retaliated against him because of his age or because of his dispute concerning compensation, during his term of employment. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was singled-out or treated less favorably than other employees, including other employees of different ages, in terms of his compensation or other employment conditions. Indeed, there was no persuasive evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner was treated less favorably in any way than other employees of the Respondent, regardless of their ages. There apparently came a time after June of 2003 and during 2004 when the Petitioner earned very little or no commissions from the Respondent. His employment was never actually terminated by the Respondent. The Petitioner rather either voluntarily quit his employment sometime prior to the final hearing or his sales opportunities dropped off so that, essentially, he was earning little or no compensation from the Respondent, while working out of his home in accordance with their arrangement. This down-turn in business apparently had a great deal to do with the severe financial circumstances his principal customer, Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., found itself in during this same period of time. In any event, the reduction in the Petitioner's commissions and compensation was not shown to be due to any effort or intent by the Respondent to single him out because of his age and reduce his compensation in some effort to force him to resign or retire. The reduction in his compensation was for the business reason of a decrease in revenues generated by the Petitioner himself or being experienced by the company as a whole, necessitating reduction of not only the Petitioner's but other employee's compensation, as a matter of a prudent business practice by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wyn Samuel 130 Willow Pond Lane Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 J. Scott Hudson, Esquire 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1220 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert J. Stovash, Esquire Stovash, Case and Tingley, P.A. SunTrust Center 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1220 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Ruby D. Johnson on the basis of a handicap in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent at its Lake City, Florida, plant during 1977 or 1978. The Respondent manufactures metal parts for automobiles. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a parts assembly worker. At the time the Petitioner began employment with the Respondent, she informed the Respondent that she did not have any handicap. On June 28, 1984, the Petitioner was accidently struck on the head with a broom by another employee while at work. She was struck with the straw end of the broom. The Petitioner did not return to her job for approximately two months after being struck on the head. The Petitioner was treated by George G. Feussner, M.D. When Dr. Feussner authorized the Petitioner's return to work, he recommended that she not be required to perform any work requiring standing or leaning, climbing or operation of dangerous equipment for approximately three to four weeks. In September, 1985, the Petitioner experienced dizziness and fell while at work. In a letter dated October 2, 1985, Dr. Feussner informed the Respondent of the following: Despite and [sic] extensive evaluation of this lady, I cannot find objective findings to go along with her symptoms. I believe that she should be able to return to work at her regular job, but I still think that it would be dangerous considering her emotional dedication to her symptoms she is likely to injure herself if she works around dangerous equipment or at heights. She should therefore find a job that does not involve these activities... The Petitioner, when she tried to return to work, was not allowed to work because she had filed a workmen's compensation claim as a result of her alleged condition. This claim was being disputed by the Respondent's workmen compensation insurance carrier. On October 31, 1985, the Respondent laid off several employees with seniority equal to or greater than the Petitioner's seniority. Employees were laid off because of a lack of work. The Petitioner would have been laid off also, but was not because of the disputed claim over workmen's compensation. In November, 1985, the Petitioner's workmen compensation claim was denied. At that time the Petitioner was informed that she was also being laid off. In October, 1986, the Respondent began recalling the employees it had laid off in November, 1985. The Petitioner was not recalled, however, because of the restrictions on the Petitioner's ability to work. The Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice with the Commission in October, 1986. On November 13, 1987, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby D. Johnson 1802 North Georgia Street Lake City, Florida 32055 William B. Hatfield Supervisor of Human Relations ITT Thompson Industries - Metal Division Post Office Box 928 Valdosta, Georgia 31603-0928 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1025 =================================================================
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent terminated the Petitioner from his employment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a black male who was employed by the Respondent, City Gas Company of Florida, from June, 1966 until October 31, 1988. At all times material to this case, the Respondent had an after hours policy which prohibited its employees from working for other gas companies, contractors, self employment, or any gas related field without prior permission from the Respondent's executive office. Failure to abide by that policy would subject an employee to immediate termination. The Respondent's policy for services performed while on duty required the employee to work only on behalf of the company. Monies for services rendered by Respondent's employees while on company time were to be remitted to the Respondent's office with the appropriate paperwork within a timely manner. Normal business practice would be for a repairman to remit monies and paperwork either the afternoon of the job or the next business day if a same day return to the office would be impractical. In April, 1988, the Petitioner was given a work assignment at the home of a customer named Mrs. Rhodes. Petitioner was to turn on Mrs. Rhodes' furnace. After inspecting the unit, Petitioner advised Mrs. Rhodes that the furnace should be cleaned. Subsequently, she authorized that work and the Petitioner dismantled and cleaned the furnace while on company time. Upon completing the task, Petitioner asked for and received from Mrs. Rhodes two checks: one payable to Respondent to cover the turn on and deposit; one made payable to Petitioner personally for the cleaning of the unit. The Petitioner cashed the second check, in the amount of $25.00, and remitted the other check to the company. Sometime later, the Respondent received a complaint from Mrs. Rhodes concerning the furnace. Mr. Hixon, vice president and general manager for the company, confronted the Petitioner regarding the matter. During that conference Mr. Hixon asked Petitioner for an explanation regarding the second check which Mrs. Rhodes had reportedly paid to him. Petitioner did not admit that he had performed additional work on company time (beyond the routine turn on). Also, Petitioner did not admit that he had received monies payable to himself, and that he had cashed that second check. Bill Joynt is a white male employed by Respondent. In September, 1988, Mr. Joynt was assigned to make a service call for a customer named Mr. Cox. After installing a valve on Mr. Cox's furnace, Mr. Joynt received $80.00 cash from the customer. Later Mr. Cox contacted the Respondent to complain that the furnace was still not operating correctly. Mr. Cox advised the company that he had paid $80.00 for the repair but that he was unsatisfied with the work. Mr. Hixon contacted Mr. Joynt and confronted him as to why the $80.00 had not been remitted to the company. Mr. Joynt immediately acknowledged that he had forgotten to turn in the payment. Subsequently, Mr. Joynt turned in the $80.00 to the company. Because he readily admitted his error, the Respondent suspended Mr. Joynt for three days without pay and allowed him to return to work. Because he did not admit his error (in fact, Petitioner continued to deny it until the day of the hearing in this cause), the Respondent terminated Petitioner from his employment. Petitioner's lack of forthrightness, not his race, was his own undoing. The vacancy created by Petitioner's termination was filled under the terms of the Company's bargaining agreement with the union. A white male was entitled to and did fill the vacant position. Since leaving Respondent's employment, Petitioner has become employed by the Brevard County School Board but earns less than his prior employment afforded him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-5856 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None timely submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to the remainder of the paragraph, it is accepted that Petitioner knew all on duty work was to be done for the company; off duty work was performed by employees, including this Petitioner, with Respondent's approval and assistance. Paragraphs 3 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "repeated" paragraph 7 is accepted. With the clarification that Mr. Joynt agreed to turn the money in when he was confronted (perhaps found out), paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first sentence of paragraph 12 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The company loaned Petitioner tools and sold him appliances to install during his off duty time. His failure to the company resulted from his on duty activities in his own cause and his failure to readily admit his error when confronted. Paragraphs 13 through 16 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan K. Erlenbach 503 South Palm Avenue Titusville, Florida 32796 C. Graham Carothers Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent must repay $558.74 for alleged salary overpayment for the period between December 14, 1990 and April 26, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Allen was a career service employee with the Department who was subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Respondent was designated as the Public Assistance Specialist I who would act in a supervisory capacity during her unit supervisor's maternity leave. Respondent accepted the temporary appointment and received a higher rate of pay from the Department during the time she was filling the position, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, a career service employee who performs the duties of a higher level position for a period of time more than twenty-two workdays within any six consecutive months, is eligible to receive a promotional pay increase. This pay increase should be granted in accordance with the Personnel Rules of the Career Service System, beginning with the twenty-third day. This type of temporary appointment is referred to within the Career Service System as "Out of Title" work, and is located in Article 21 of the agreement. Employees being paid at a higher rate while temporarily filling a position in a higher classification are returned to their regular rate of pay when the period of employment in the higher class is ended. Originally, Respondent's "Out of Title" status and increased pay were to be effective from June 1, 1990 until the supervisor returned from maternity leave. This time period began on June 1, 1990 and ended in some respects on December 14, 1990. The supervisor returned to work on a four-day basis, Tuesdays through Thursdays, for an additional three month period. Due to some special needs of the supervisor related to the birth of her child, the Department allowed her to continue to remain at home on Mondays after she was originally due back to work from maternity leave. This arrangement continued from December 14, 1990 to March 20, 1991. During these Mondays, Respondent continued to actively perform the duties of the higher level supervisory position for eleven consecutive weeks. In addition, Respondent acted as the unit supervisor during all other days her supervisor was unavailable for work. These additional days, however, were not arranged for in advance by the supervisor before returning to work from maternity leave, as were the consecutive Mondays. On April 29,1991, a Report of Personnel Action from the Department transferred Respondent from her higher "Out of Title" pay and status to her permanent position as a Public Assistance Specialist II [a promotion received April 12, 1991]. The effective date of the action was made retroactive to December 14, 1990, the day the supervisor on maternity leave returned to her job on a four-day a week basis. Prior to her receipt of the Report of Personnel Action on April 30, 1991, Respondent was unaware that her "Out of Title" job duties and the commensurate pay increase ceased on December 14, 1990. She had been performing supervisory duties on Mondays after that date under the belief that an overlap in position was permitted to assist the supervisor with her temporary special needs involved with childbirth and the baby's care. Respondent was not advised of the amount of the overpayment of salary the Department contends she received between December 14, 1990 and April 26, 1991, until July 25, 1991. The original amount of the salary overpayment the Department sought to recover from Respondent was $558.74. After the parties stipulated that Respondent performed supervisory functions on the eleven scheduled Mondays, the Department reduced its claim for overpayment to reflect a higher salary for Respondent on those dates. This reduced the claim for overpayment by $65.03, thus making the Department's total claim $493.71.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent is to be notified by the Department of the grievance procedures that can be used for the settlement of this dispute between employer and employee, along with the time deadline she has to elect the procedure to be used for the dispute resolution. The pending case is to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and transferred to the correct forum timely elected by Respondent, without prejudice to either party. DONE and ENTERED this 27 day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 91-6197 Respondent's Recommendation of Facts are addressed as follows: Rejected. Whether overpayment occurred needs to be resolved in a different forum, based on one or more of the following: an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement; an interpretation of an overlap in position in this case; or an unfair labor practice. Accepted. See Finding of Fact #8 and Factual Stipulation #5. Rejected. Contrary to law. See Rue 3A-31.309(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17, Florida Statutes. Accepted. See Factual Stipulation #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley Esq HRS District VI Legal Office Room 500 - Fifth Floor 4000 W Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Tampa Fl 33614 Annie L Allen 6420 N 23rd St Tampa Fl 33610 John Slye Esq General Counsel Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee Fl 32399 0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee Fl 32399 0700
Conclusions This cause came on before Tom Gallagher, as Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, for consideration of and final agency action on the Recommended Order issued herein on October 4, 2003, by Administrative Law Judge J.D. Parrish. No exceptions to that Recommended Order were filed. , Having reviewed the Recommended Order and the record of this proceeding, and being otherwise apprised in all material premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made and announced by the Administrative Law Judge in the Recommended Order are adopted without exception as the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law of the agency. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Janusz Kraj shall pay to the Division of Worker's Compensation a civil penalty in the amount of $1,100, within thirty days from the date hereof, said sum to thereafter bear interest at the rate of 9% per anum until paid. IT {S$ HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the Stop Work And Penalty Assessment Order entered by the Division of Worker's Compensation is affirmed, and that Janusz Kraj shall cease all business operations unless and until he provides evidence satisfactory to the Division of Worker's Compensation of having now complied with the workers compensation law by securing the necessary worker's compensation for covered employees and, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, paid the civil penalty imposed herein. Lh DONE AND ORDERED this 3° — day of November, 2003. ST ) Sie \eouw Tom Gallag Chief Financial Officer Tomy “ay a PEF LAO
The Issue Whether the University can require that Mr. Haywood repay $7,487.52?
Findings Of Fact Jim C. Haywood is a Certified Public Accountant and has several years experience in financial and administrative positions. Mr. Haywood has earned a Masters in Accounting Degree. From 1959 through April, 1968, Mr. Haywood served as the Director of Financing and Accounting for the Florida Board of Regents. From April, 1968, through September, 1969, Mr. Haywood served as the Associate Director of Planning and Evaluation and the Budget Administrator for the State University System under the Florida Board of Regents. From September, 1969, through August, 1970, Mr. Haywood served as Comptroller of the University. From August, 1969, through January, 1986, Mr. Haywood served as Dean, Associate Vice President or Vice President and as head of administrative affairs at the University. Mr. Haywood was employed by the University from September 1, 1969, through August 30, 1987. Mr. Haywood is familiar with the policies of the Florida Board of Regents concerning accrued annual leave and the payment therefore upon retirement. In August and September of 1987, Mr. Haywood refamiliarized himself with these policies. Mr. Haywood retired from the University in August of 1987. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Haywood met with Art Cozart, University Classification and Pay Coordinator. Mr. Cozart provided Mr. Haywood with a certificate (hereinafter referred to as the "Certificate") which described the amount of accrued annual and sick leave Mr. Haywood was entitled to payment for upon his retirement. The Certificate provided, in pertinent part, the following: This is to certify that Mr. Jim C. Haywood, S.S.#252-52-7270, has a leave balance with the University of North Florida as follows: Annual Leave: 352.0 hours $7,458.96 Sick Leave: 2,328.50 hours $14,599.62 The stated amount will be laid upon termination of service with the University. [Emphasis added]. The total amount to "be paid upon termination of service" according to the certificate is $22,058.58. This is the gross amount of pay attributable to Mr. Haywood's accrued leave. The actual amount Mr. Haywood was entitled to receive, the net amount payable, was $22,058.58 less twenty percent federal income tax withholding. The Certificate does not, however, distinguish between the gross amount of pay and the net amount which Mr. Haywood was to receive. Nor did Mr. Haywood and Mr. Cozart discuss whether the amounts on the Certificate were gross amounts or net amounts to be paid to Mr. Haywood. Mr. Haywood was provided a Leave Payment Clearance Form dated September 14, 1987, indicating that Mr. Haywood was entitled to payment for only 240 hours of annual leave. Mr. Haywood used the Certificate to obtain a thirty-day loan of $22,893.00 from a private institution. Mr. Haywood borrowed this amount because of the amount listed on the Certificate. Mr. Haywood intended to use the money he received for his accrued leave to repay this loan. Mr. Haywood intended to use this money for living expenses between his retirement and the time when his retirement benefits were to begin. On September 25, 1987, Mr. Haywood received two checks from the Florida Office of Comptroller. One check was in the amount of $5,939.15 and the other was in the amount of $5,990.02. There was no indication on the checks as to what they were in payment for. On October 8, 1987, Mr. Haywood received a check from the Florida Office of Comptroller in the amount of $11,831.00. There was no indication on the check indicating what the payment was for. The total amount of the three checks received by Mr. Haywood on September 25, 1987, and October 8, 1987, was $23,760.17. The total amount Mr. Haywood received was consistent with what Mr. Haywood expected to receive because it was similar to the amount listed on the Certificate. What Mr. Haywood expected, however, was the gross amount he was entitled to before federal income tax withholding. The amount of the three checks Mr. Haywood received, however, was the net amount payable on a gross amount of $29,764.00. One of the two checks received by Mr. Haywood on September 25, 1987, constituted the net amount owed to Mr. Haywood for annual leave. The other check received on September 25, 1987, was an overpayment of accrued annual leave. This overpayment was made in error by the University. Mr. Haywood was paid twice for annual leave. The evidence failed to prove why there was a discrepancy in the amounts of the two checks or which check constituted the overpayment. The W-2 form provided to Mr. Haywood for the 1987 tax year included the amount of gross income for which Mr. Haywood received an overpayment. Mr. Haywood therefore, included $7,487.52 in his gross taxable income for federal income tax purposes for 1987, attributable to the overpayment of accrued annual leave he received. As a result of the inclusion of the overpayment in Mr. Haywood's taxable income, approximately $2,665.00 of federal income taxes attributable to the $7,487.52 of gross income and its effect on taxable income were paid by Mr. Haywood. Mr. Haywood has not filed an amended federal income tax return for 1987. Nor has Mr. Haywood communicated with the Internal Revenue Service concerning this matter. Mr. Haywood has not been provided with an amended W-2. In April of 1988, the University determined that Mr. Haywood had been overpaid for accrued annual leave. On May 3, 1988, the University notified Mr. Haywood of the overpayment of accrued annual leave and demanded reimbursement. On May 12, 1988, Mr. Haywood disputed the amount of the overpayment and requested an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Mr. Haywood has not repaid any amount of the overpayment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the University's demand for repayment of $7,487.52, from Mr. Haywood be denied until the University determines from the Department of Banking and Finance the amount of the gross overpayment which should be refunded by Mr. Haywood. It is further RECOMMENDED that, once the University determines from the Department of Banking and Finance what amount of the gross overpayment should be refunded, the University should demand payment of the refund from Mr. Haywood and Mr. Haywood should pay the refund to the University. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1989, 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 3rd day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Norman R. Haltiwanger Director, Office of Human Resources University of North Florida 4567 St. Johns Bluff Road South Jacksonville, Florida 32216 John E. Duvall, Esquire Post Office Box 41566 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Stephen K. Moonly, Esquire Suite 2501, Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 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 University's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 4-6 and 8. 2-3 Hereby accepted. 4 11. 5 16. 6 See 23. 7 21. 8 22. 9 17. 10 See 18. 11-12 19. Irrelevant. Speculative. Argument and not totally correct. 15 23. Hereby accepted. 1-7. The eighth, ninth and tenth sentences are irrelevant. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Haywood's testimony did not lack credibility. 19 9. 20 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Certificate did not indicate that Mr. Haywood was entitled to payment for only 240 hours of annual leave. 21-22 12. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 11. Not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant and not supported by the weight of the evidence. Irrelevant. 27-28 Hereby accepted. 29-31 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection See 6. See 9. 3-4 16. 5 21. 6 22. 7 23. 8 8. 9 20.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for signing an affidavit allegedly adverse to Respondent and for testifying on behalf of another employee in a proceeding filed under Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer as defined in the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent employed Petitioner at Respondent's place of business located in Tallahassee, Florida. On March 29, 1990, Petitioner and Respondent's representative signed an Employment Agreement in which Petitioner agreed, inter alia, that during his employment, he would refrain from: (1) performing services for any person, during business hours, or at any other time, when said services were not authorized by Respondent; (2) soliciting work for or accepting any business from any customer of the company on behalf himself or for any others. On March 30, 1990, Petitioner and Respondent's representative signed a Sales Employee Compensation Plan in which Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner a starting salary of $1,200 per month as a guarantee against commission on sales for the first three months. Thereafter, Respondent's salary of $1,200 per month was to be a draw against commission on sales. Petitioner had to sell a minimum of $8,000 per month to earn his draw. Pursuant to the Sales Employee Compensation Plan, Petitioner earned a percent of sales, ranging from 10 percent to 20 percent, depending on the type of service Petitioner sold. He received commissions after the work was completed and the customer paid for the service. For example, Petitioner earned 15 percent of the annualized value of all pest control work, termite work, or special onetime service that he sold. He earned 20 percent of the initial month's service charge on all annual pest control service that he sold provided that he performed the start-up. Respondent paid Petitioner 20 percent of the total value of all real estate inspections (certification or clearance letter) that Petitioner performed. Under the Sales Employee Compensation Plan, Petitioner elected to receive 2.5 percent of monthly net commissionable sales, or $150, whichever was greater, as a gasoline allowance and to furnish his own transportation. However, Respondent's former branch manager gave Petitioner a gasoline credit card and told Petitioner to put the gasoline allowance in his pocket. The record indicates that the former branch manager acted beyond the scope of his authority in this regard. Upon employment, Respondent's former branch manager gave Petitioner a key to the office. Petitioner also received a pest control kit with which to perform the initial pest control treatment after selling a service contract. Respondent gave Petitioner a voice-pager so that he could stay in touch with the office and respond quickly to "office" leads. No other employee had the benefit of a voice-pager. In May of 1990, Petitioner successfully completed a training course in pest control. That September, he completed a course in termite control. On or about January 14, 1991, Petitioner became qualified to prepare wood infestation reports. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was allowed to sell Respondent's services in north Florida and south Georgia. There were two kinds of sales leads. Petitioner could develop his own "creative" leads and sell anywhere within the sales territory of the Tallahassee branch office. Respondent's office manager logged all incoming "phone" or "office" leads and distributed them to the salesmen based on a geographic division of the sales territory. Petitioner lived in south Georgia; therefore, the office manager gave him all "office" leads originating in Georgia and on the east side of Tallahassee. Contrary to Petitioner's testimony, neither the office manager nor any other supervisor ever discriminated against Petitioner by withholding leads from him or by taking the best leads for themselves or another salesman. On or about September 16, 1991, Petitioner sold a customer a termite protection contract instead of a termite service contract on a very expensive home without Respondent's approval. This incident resulted in the preparation of a written Disciplinary Action Report (DAR) which states that Petitioner would be terminated if he could not follow Respondent's policy governing sales of termite protection and service contracts. Respondent's testimony that he signed this DAR under the threat of violence not credible. On February 26, 1992, Petitioner signed an affidavit relating to the employment relationship between Norm Arrington and Respondent. Mr. Arrington had been a salesman for Respondent and Petitioner's coworker. On March 9, 1992, Petitioner performed a wood-destroying organism inspection on residential property in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner issued a Form 1145 (October '89) Wood Destroying Organisms Inspection Report without identifying visible and accessible evidence of and damage caused by subterranean termites on the exterior of the structure. The Florida Department of Agriculture fined Petitioner $300 dollars for failing to report evidence of termite damage. Respondent paid this fine on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner failed to report to work on September 12, 1992, for a sales meeting. He claimed he had an emergency but did not call in to explain his absence. Respondent wrote a DAR dated September 14, 1992, warning Petitioner that he would be suspended without pay for three days or terminated if he repeated this type of conduct. Petitioner presented contradictory record evidence concerning his reason for missing the sales meeting: (a) family medical emergency; and (b) mechanical problem with vehicle. Until October of 1992, Petitioner was successful in meeting or exceeding his minimum quota of $8,000 in sales revenue on an averaged monthly basis. One month he earned an award for being Respondent's top salesman statewide. However, in November of 1992, Petitioner's monthly sales revenues dropped below an acceptable level for an experienced salesman. Thereafter, Petitioner was in overdraw status, averaging between $3,000 and $4,000 per month in sales. Except for the month of February, 1993, Petitioner never again met his monthly minimum quota. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner's father owned a construction company. Respondent occasionally hired Petitioner's father to perform termite repair work. Respondent always hired outside contractors to do repair work for customers because of the liability involved and to prevent giving the impression that Terminix, Inc. was in the construction business. Petitioner was also trained as a carpenter. Petitioner admits that, during the months of his highest sales, he solicited and received "building" leads from Respondent's customers. As a result of these leads, Petitioner performed carpentry work, such as building cabinets or repairing damaged woodwork, for Respondent's customers. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent authorized this outside employment is not persuasive. In February of 1993, Tim Carey was Respondent's sales manager. He attended an out-of-town divisional sales meeting and returned to Tallahassee with motivational material to share with his staff. In the material was a poster which stated, "If you don't know where you going . . . you'll probably end up someplace else." Mr. Carey gave a copy of the poster to all salesmen including Petitioner sometime before Petitioner gave testimony adverse to Respondent. Petitioner's testimony that Mr. Carey gave the poster to Petitioner alone as a means of retaliation is not persuasive. On March 22, 1993, Petitioner testified by deposition on behalf of Norm Arrington in an unrelated age discrimination case. Around the end of March or the first of April, 1993, Tim Carey became Respondent's sales manager-in-charge. Respondent's Tallahassee branch did not have a branch manager at that time. Mr. Carey was responsible for all operations under the direct supervision of Ralph Potter, Respondent's regional manager. Mr. Carey officially became branch manager before Respondent terminated Petitioner on June 30, 1993. One of Mr. Carey's first acts as sales manager-in-charge was to change the locks to the office and the pesticide storage room. Petitioner signed a statement that he received a key to the office on March 31, 1993. However, Mr. Carey did not reissue an office key to Petitioner or any other sales representatives because they, unlike route technicians, did not work after normal business hours. Petitioner's testimony that his key was taken away as a discriminatory act is not persuasive. The undersigned also rejects Petitioner's testimony that the office was locked during office hours so that he was unable to use the phone. Mr. Carey also took Petitioner's company gasoline credit card because Petitioner was not entitled to use the card and receive a gasoline allowance too. This action was to enforce company policy, and not to retaliate against Petitioner. Soon after Mr. Carey became sales manager-in-charge, he and the office manager began receiving calls from customers wanting to know when Petitioner was going to finish their carpentry work. Sales meetings were interrupted at times by calls on Petitioner's voice-pager with inquiries about unfinished jobs. On one occasion, Petitioner came to the office at noon with paint on his hands which had been clean earlier that morning. On another occasion Mr. Carey could hear saws operating in the background when Petitioner called the office during business hours. Mr. Carey gave Petitioner repeated verbal warnings not to solicit outside employment or perform outside work for Respondent's customers. After each verbal reprimand, Petitioner would promise that he would stop and that it would not happen again. Mr. Carey eventually took Petitioner's voice-pager away and replaced it with a tone beeper like the ones used by other employees. The purpose of this action was to reduce overhead expenses and alleviate problems with Petitioner abusing the privilege of having a voice-pager. Petitioner could no longer receive direct messages relating to his construction business. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent discriminated against him by taking his voice-pager is contrary to more persuasive testimony. In April or May of 1993, Petitioner performed unauthorized work for one of Respondent's customers who sent one check to pay for a termite inspection and for Petitioner's carpentry work. In order to balance the office books, Respondent deposited the customer's check and wrote a separate company check made payable to Petitioner. Respondent again warned Petitioner not to perform unauthorized work for the company's customers. On May 17, 1993, Respondent prepared another DAR reprimanding Petitioner for two incidents. The first involved Petitioner's issuance of a clearance letter for Ms. Fortune's residence even though Petitioner had identified wood rot on the premises. Petitioner claimed he knew Ms. Fortune and issued the clearance letter based on her promise that she would repair the damage. A subsequent inspection revealed that the customer had not made the repairs. The second incident covered by the May 17, 1993, DAR involved one of Respondent's national relocation customers, Prudential Relocation. Petitioner prepared a wood destroying organism report for the customer without inspecting the inside of the structure. Respondent was responsible for repairing wood rot damage on the house. Petitioner violated Respondent's policy regardless of whether he wrote "exterior only" on the report. Neither party signed the May 17, 1993, DAR. However, Mr. Carey discussed both incidents with Petitioner and warned him that he would be suspended or discharged if: (a) Petitioner gave a clearance letter without inspecting the interior of the structure; and (b) Petitioner issued a clearance letter on a structure with water damage. On another occasion, Petitioner informed Mr. Carey that someone had stollen his pest control kit out of the back of his truck. Petitioner filed a police report on the missing pesticide kit. Several days later, a lady, who was not Respondent's customer, reported that Petitioner left the service equipment at her home after using it to treat her residence. Respondent recovered the missing equipment and did not return it to Petitioner. From that time on, a service technician performed Petitioner's initial pesticide treatments. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent took his pest control kit as a retaliatory act is rejected. Petitioner was not allowed to use the service equipment again because: (a) He left registered material in an unsupervised location; (b) He used the equipment to service a non-customer's property; and (c) He could schedule the start-ups for his new customers through the office. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent took the pest control equipment away and deliberately delayed the start-up service or failed to service on Petitioner's new accounts is not persuasive. On June 8, 1993, Ralph Potter and Tim Carey had a conference with Petitioner. The result of the meeting was a DAR signed by Mr. Potter and Mr. Carey. During the conference, the parties discussed: (a) Petitioner's poor performance for the first week of June, 1993, in which he created only $90 in revenues; (b) Petitioner's poor attitude; and (c) Petitioner's work ethic. Mr. Potter advised Petitioner that he would thereafter be expected to produce $2,500 per week in sales. Petitioner was counseled not to make negative comments, not to perform outside jobs on company time, and not to solicit from or do any work for Respondent's customers. The DAR listed suspension without pay or termination as future corrective action, if required. Petitioner refused to sign the June 8, 1993, DAR. Petitioner's attitude created problems as follows: (1) Mr. Carey had to ask Petitioner to leave a sales meeting because of his negative comments; (2) Petitioner disagreed with Mr. Carey over the proper way to complete required daily written sales reports; (3) Mr. Carey had to ask Petitioner to leave the office by 9:00 a.m. for his first appointment of the day; and (4) Petitioner resented not being allowed to answer the office phone even though company policy dictated that only the office manager, sales manager, or branch manager could answer the phone. Petitioner's testimony that Respondent offered him a job which would have reduced his income significantly is rejected as contrary to more persuasive evidence. Likewise, the undersigned rejects Petitioner's testimony that Ralph Potter physically attacked Petitioner in the men's room during an out-of-town meeting. Respondent discharged Petitioner on June 30, 1993. Petitioner's termination was the result of his unsatisfactory job performance and his failure to follow his supervisors' instructions. There is no persuasive competent substantial evidence to indicate that Respondent retaliated against Petitioner because he participated in a discrimination suit on behalf of a co-worker. To the contrary, Petitioner's employment record presents a history of problems with his supervisors. When Tim Carey became sales manager-in-charge, he and Ralph Potter warned Petitioner repeatedly that, regardless of his past working conditions, Petitioner would be expected to follow company policies. Petitioner's refusal to heed their advice and to increase his productivity resulted in job separation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned recommends that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of August, 1995. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 August, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3 Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 1-6. 4-5 Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 9 & 14. Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 11 & 18. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10, 13, 25, & 30. Accepted in Findings of Fact 12 except the administrative case involved only one incident. Accepted as modified in Findings of Fact 25-27. Accepted in Findings of Fact 10. Accepted in Findings of Fact 9 regarding leads. However, Petitioner never received a new key from Mr. Carey. Accepted in Findings of Fact 28 & 29. 13-14 Accepted but unnecessary to resolution of case. Accepted. See Findings of Fact 11, 33, & 34. Not a finding of fact. More of a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda G. Miklowitz, Esquire Post Office Box 14922 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4922 James M. Nicholas, Esquire Post Office Box 814 Melbourne, Florida 32902 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner, because of his race, was given different terms and conditions of employment by being denied training, being unfairly disciplined, retaliated against, terminated, and, if those allegations are proven, what remedy is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Jimmy O. Gathers, filed a Petition for Relief asserting that he was wrongfully terminated from his position with the Respondent employer and, before termination, was subjected to inadequate and improper training, inadequate work materials, was unfairly disciplined, and was ultimately retaliated against and terminated, all because of his race (African-American). The cause was set for hearing on the Petition for Relief for January 22, 2008, at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, hearing room two, 2401 State Avenue, Suite 100, Panama City, Florida, at 10:00 a.m. Central Time. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Petitioner's last known address of record at 621 Maine Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401, notifying the Petitioner of the hearing on the above date, time, and place. There was no communication from the Petitioner by motion, letter, telephonically, or otherwise indicating that the Petitioner had any difficulty which might prevent his attending the hearing at the noticed date, time, and place. Upon convening the hearing, the Petition failed to appear. A substantial period of time was allowed to elapse, nearly one hour, in which the undersigned and the Respondent and Respondent's witnesses waited for the Petitioner to appear to put on his case. Additionally, various persons in attendance, Respondent's counsel and employees or personnel of the Respondent were requested and did observe within the building at the hearing site and in the immediate environs of the building to see if the Petitioner was observed in the vicinity of the hearing site. The Petitioner was not observed in the environs of the hearing site and never appeared at the hearing during the additional time allowed him for his appearance. Finally, after waiting a substantial period of time, as referenced above, it was determined that the Petitioner had not appeared to prosecute his claim and, since the Petitioner bears the burden of proof in this proceeding, it was determined that it was unnecessary for the Respondent to adduce any evidence in support of its position in this case and the hearing was adjourned. In excess of one month has elapsed since the hearing date, and there has been no communication from the Petitioner with the undersigned, and no indication from the Respondent that any communication from the Petitioner has been received by the Respondent, which might explain the Petitioner's absence from the noticed hearing.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the subject petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 5th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Kristen Allman, Esquire Oagletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, Florida 33062 Jimmy O. Gathers 621 Marine Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401
The Issue Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, that Florida employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a Florida for-profit corporation organized on July 28, 2015, and engaged in the business of roofing and storm damage restoration. The company was formed, and initially conducted business, in Tallahassee, Florida, but expanded to the Panama City area in 2016. Traci Fisher is Respondent’s President and Registered Agent, with a mailing address of 1004 Kenilworth, Tallahassee, Florida 32312. DOAH Case No. 17-0879 On May 4, 2016, Department Compliance Investigator Jesse Holman, conducted a routine workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 374 Brown Place in Crestview, Florida. Mr. Holman observed four men removing shingles from the roof of a residential structure at that address. Mr. Holman first interviewed a worker who identified himself as Dustin Hansel and reported that he and the other three workers on site were a new crew for Respondent, the permit for the job had not yet been pulled, and the workers were not aware of the rate of pay for the job. Mr. Hansel telephoned Respondent’s sales manager, Dillon Robinson, who then spoke directly with Mr. Holman via telephone. Mr. Robinson informed Mr. Holman that Respondent obtained workers’ compensation coverage through Payroll Management Inc. (PMI), an employee-leasing company. Mr. Holman identified the three remaining workers at the jobsite as Milton Trice, Winston Perrotta, and Kerrigan Ireland. Mr. Holman contacted PMI and secured a copy of Respondent’s then-active employee roster. None of the workers at the jobsite, including Mr. Hansel, were included on Respondent’s employee roster. Upon inquiry, Mr. Holman was informed that PMI had no pending employee applications for Respondent. Mr. Holman consulted the Department’s Coverage Compliance Automated System (CCAS) and found Respondent had no workers’ compensation insurance policy and no active exemptions. During Mr. Holman’s onsite investigation, the workers left the jobsite. Mr. Holman could not immediately reach Ms. Fisher, but did speak with her husband, Tim Fisher. Mr. Fisher informed Mr. Holman that the crew was on their way to the PMI Fort Walton office to be enrolled on Respondent’s employee roster. On May 5, 2016, based on his investigation, and after consultation with his supervisor, Mr. Holman issued Respondent Stop-Work Order (SWO) 16-148-1A, along with a Business Records Request (BRR) for records covering the audit period of July 27, 2015 through May 4, 2016. Later that day, Mr. Holman spoke to Ms. Fisher, who informed him the crew did not have permission to begin the work on that date, as she had not yet pulled the permit for the reroof. Ms. Fisher further explained that the crewmembers had been instructed to complete applications with PMI prior to departing Tallahassee for Crestview. Ms. Fisher confirmed the crewmembers were completing applications at PMI Fort Walton that same day. Mr. Holman met with Ms. Fisher the following day and personally served SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Fisher delivered to Mr. Holman an updated employee roster from PMI which included Mr. Hansel, Mr. Perrotta, and Mr. Ireland; a letter documenting Mr. Trice was not employed by Respondent; and a $1000 check as downpayment on the penalty. Respondent initially submitted business records in response to the BRR on May 23 and 25, 2017. DOAH Case No. 17-1558 On June 8, 2016, Mr. Holman conducted a random workers’ compensation compliance inspection at 532 Rising Star Drive in Crestview. The single-family home at that address was undergoing renovations and Mr. Holman observed three men on the roof removing shingles. None of the men on the roof spoke English, but a fourth man, who identified himself as Jose Manuel Mejia, appeared and stated he worked for Respondent, and that all the workers onsite were paid through PMI at a rate of $10.00 per hour. Mr. Mejia admitted that one of the worker’s onsite, Emelio Lopez, was not enrolled with PMI and explained that Mr. Mejia brought him to the worksite that day because he knew Mr. Lopez to be a good worker. The remaining workers onsite were identified as Juan Mencho and Ramon Gonzalez, both from Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Mejia produced some PMI paystubs for himself and Mr. Mencho. Mr. Mejia stated that he and his crews also received reimbursement checks directly from Respondent for gas, rentals, materials, and the like. Mr. Holman contacted PMI, who produced Respondent’s then-active employee roster. Mr. Mejia and Mr. Mencho were on the roster, but neither Mr. Gonzalez nor Mr. Lopez was included. Mr. Holman next contacted Ms. Fisher, who identified Mr. Mejia as a subcontractor, but was not familiar with any of the other men Mr. Holman encountered at the worksite. Mr. Holman consulted via telephone with his supervisor, who instructed him to issue an SWO to Respondent for failing to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. Mr. Holman issued SWO 16-198-1A by posting the worksite on June 8, 2016. Department Facilitator Don Hurst, personally served Ms. Fisher with SWO 16-198-1A in Tallahassee that same day. SWO 16-148-1A Penalty Calculation1/ Department Penalty Auditor Eunika Jackson, was assigned to calculate the penalties associated with the SWOs issued to Respondent. On June 8, 2016, Ms. Jackson began calculating the penalty associated with SWO 16-148-1A. Ms. Jackson reviewed the documents submitted by Respondent in response to the BRR. The documents included Respondent’s Wells Fargo bank statements, check images, and PMI payroll register for the audit period.2/ Based on a review of the records, Ms. Jackson identified the following individuals as Respondent’s employees because they received direct payment from Respondent at times during the audit period: David Rosinsky, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Tommy Miller, and David Shields. Ms. Jackson determined periods of non-compliance for these employees based on the dates they received payments from Respondent and were not covered for workers’ compensation via PMI employment roster, separate policy, or corporate officer exemption. Ms. Jackson deemed payments to each of the individuals as gross payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. Based upon Ms. Fisher’s deposition testimony, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) class code 5551, Roofing, to Mr. Miller; NCCI class code 5474, Painting, to Mr. Rosinsky; NCCI class code 8742, Sales, to Mr. Bell and Mr. Robinson; and NCCI class code 8810, clerical office employee, to Mr. Shields. Utilizing the statutory formula for penalty calculation, Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $191.28 associated with these five “employees.” Ms. Jackson next calculated the penalty for Dustin Hansel, Kerrigan Ireland, Milton Trice, and Winston Perrotta, the workers identified at the jobsite as employees on May 4, 2016. The Department maintains that the business records submitted by Respondent were insufficient to determine Respondent’s payroll to these “employees,” thus, Ms. Jackson used the statutory formula to impute payroll to these workers. Ms. Jackson calculated a penalty of $14,970.12 against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation insurance for each of these four “employees” during the audit period. The total penalty associated with these four “employees” is $59,880.48. Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty of $60,072.96 to be imposed against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A. Business Records In compliance with the Department’s BRR, Respondent submitted additional business records on several occasions-- March 21, May 3 and 31, June 7, and August 15 and 24, 2017--in order to establish its complete payroll for the audit period. While the Department admits that the final documents submitted do establish Respondent’s complete payroll, the Department did not issue amended penalty assessment based on those records in either case. The Department maintains Respondent did not timely submit records, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028(4), which allows an employer 20 business days after service of the first amended order of penalty assessment to submit sufficient records to establish payroll. All business records submitted by Respondent were admitted in evidence and included as part of the record. The undersigned is not limited to the record before the Department at the time the amended penalty assessments were imposed, but must determine a recommendation in a de novo proceeding. The undersigned has relied upon the complete record in arriving at the decision in this case. Penalty Calculation for Ireland, Trice, and Perrotta For purposes of workers’ compensation insurance coverage, an “employee” is “any person who receives remuneration from an employer” for work or services performed under a contract. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Respondent did not issue a single check to Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta are not included on any PMI leasing roster included in the record for the audit period. The uncontroverted evidence, including the credible and unrefuted testimony of each person with knowledge, established that Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta were newly hired for the job in Crestview on May 4, 2016, and began working that day prior to submitting applications at PMI, despite Ms. Fisher’s directions otherwise. Petitioner did not prove that either Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, or Mr. Perrotta was Respondent’s employee at any time during the audit period. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $44,911.26 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Ireland, Mr. Trice, and Mr. Perrotta during the audit period. Penalty Calculation for Hansel Ms. Fisher testified that Mr. Hansel has owned several businesses with which Respondent has conducted business over the years. Originally, Mr. Hansel owned a dumpster rental business, now owned by his father. Mr. Hansel also owned an independent landscaping company with which Respondent occasionally transacted business. When Respondent expanded business into the Panama City area, Ms. Fisher hired Mr. Hansel as a crew chief to supervise new crews in the area. The job on May 4, 2016, was his first roofing job. A review of Respondent’s records reveals Respondent issued the following checks to Mr. Hansel during the audit period: December 4, 2015, in the amount of $360, $300 of which was for “dumpster rental” and the remaining $60 for “sod”; May 4, 2016, in the amount of $200 for “sod repair”; May 6, 2016, in the amount of $925 as reimbursement for travel expenses; May 9, 2016, in the amount of $1,011.50 (with no memo); and May 21, 2016, in the amount of $100 for “7845 Preservation.” Mr. Hansel was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster beginning on May 13, 2016. Petitioner proved that Mr. Hansel was Respondent’s employee at times during the audit period. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent’s records were insufficient to determine payroll to Mr. Hansel during the audit period, which would have required an imputed penalty. Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty of $14,970.42 against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Mr. Hansel during the audit period. Sod repair by Mr. Hansel is a service performed for Respondent during the audit period. Reimbursement of travel expenses is specifically included in the definition of payroll for purposes of calculating the penalty. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L- 6.035(1)(f) (“Expense reimbursements, including reimbursements for travel” are included as remuneration to employees “to the extent that the employer’s business records and receipts do not confirm that the expense incurred as a valid business expense.”). Dumpster rental is neither work performed on behalf of, nor service provided to, Respondent during the audit period. The correct uninsured payroll amount attributable to Mr. Hansel is $2,296.50. Petitioner correctly applied NCCI class code 5551, Roofing, to work performed by Mr. Hansel based on the observation of Mr. Holman at the worksite on May 4, 2016. With respect to Mr. Hansel’s services for sod and sod repair, Petitioner did not correctly apply NCCI class code 5551. Petitioner did not introduce competent substantial evidence of the applicable NCCI class code and premium amount for landscaping services performed during the audit period.3/ Uninsured payroll attributable to Mr. Hansel for roofing services during the audit period is $2,036.50. The approved manual rate for workers’ compensation insurance for NCCI class code 5551 during the period of non- compliance--May 9 and 21, 2016--is $18.60. The premium amount Respondent would have paid to provide workers’ compensation insurance for Mr. Hansel is $378.79 (One percent of Mr. Hansel’s gross payroll during the non-compliance period--$20.36--multiplied by $18.60). The penalty for Respondent’s failure to secure worker’s compensation coverage insurance for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is calculated as two times the amount Respondent would have paid in premium for the non- compliance period. The correct penalty for Respondent’s failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Hansel during the period of non-compliance is $757.58. Penalty Calculation for Salesmen Independent contractors not engaged in the construction industry are not employees for purposes of enforcing workers’ compensation insurance requirements. See § 440.02(15)(d)1., Fla. Stat. Sales is a non-construction industry occupation. The Department calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to the following persons identified by Ms. Fisher as independent salesmen: Dylan Robinson, Kevin Miller, Marc Medley, Mike Rucker, Colby Fisher, David Jones, Jarod Bell, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. Section 440.02(15)(d)1. provides that an individual may be an independent contractor, rather than an employee, as follows: In order to meet the definition of independent contractor, at least four of the following criteria must be met: The independent contractor maintains a separate business with his or her own work facility, truck, equipment, materials, or similar accommodations; The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number, unless the independent contractor is a sole proprietor who is not required to obtain a federal employer identification number under state or federal regulations; The independent contractor receives compensation for services rendered or work performed and such compensation is paid to a business rather than to an individual; The independent contractor holds one or more bank accounts in the name of the business entity for purposes of paying business expenses or other expenses related to services rendered or work performed for compensation; The independent contractor performs work or is able to perform work for any entity in addition to or besides the employer at his or her own election without the necessity of completing an employment application or process; or The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services rendered on a competitive-bid basis or completion of a task or a set of tasks as defined by a contractual agreement, unless such contractual agreement expressly states that an employment relationship exists. If four of the criteria listed in sub- subparagraph a. do not exist, an individual may still be presumed to be an independent contractor and not an employee based on full consideration of the nature of the individual situation with regard to satisfying any of the following conditions: The independent contractor performs or agrees to perform specific services or work for a specific amount of money and controls the means of performing the services or work. The independent contractor incurs the principal expenses related to the service or work that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the work or services that he or she performs or agrees to perform. The independent contractor receives compensation for work or services performed for a commission or on a per-job basis and not on any other basis. The independent contractor may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing work or services. The independent contractor has continuing or recurring business liabilities or obligations. The success or failure of the independent contractor’s business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures. Ms. Fisher testified that each of the above-named salesmen sold roofing jobs for her at various times during the audit period on a commission-only basis. The contractors inspect homeowner roofs, draft schematics, use their own equipment (e.g., drones), incur all of their own expenses, and handle the insurance filing for the homeowner’s insurance to pay on the claim. Ms. Fisher further testified that each of the salesmen also sells for other roofing contractors in the Tallahassee area. She pays the salesmen on a per-job basis. Ms. Fisher does not compensate the salesmen for the time involved in inspecting a roof, preparing schematics, or making the sale. Nor does Ms. Fisher reimburse the salesmen for travel to sales jobsites. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was credible, persuasive, and uncontroverted. Respondent introduced in evidence four “Independent Contractor Checklists” allegedly completed by Mr. Robinson, Mr. Medley, Mr. Fisher, and Mr. Flynn. Each form checklist follows the format of section 440.02(15)(d)1., listing the criteria set forth in subparagraphs a. and b. The forms indicate that they each meet all the criteria listed in subparagraph b.: they perform, or agree to perform services for a specific amount of money and control the means of performing the service; they incur the principal expenses related to the service performed; they are responsible for satisfactory completion of the services performed; they receive compensation for the services performed on a per-job or commission basis; they may realize a profit or suffer a loss in connection with performing the services; they have continuing and recurring business liabilities or obligations; and the success or failure of their business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.4/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Petitioner conceded the nine men identified by Respondent as independent sales contractors “would not be considered employees of Respondent” because the “salesmen would seem to meet the majority of [the] requirements [of section 440.02(15)(d)1.b.].” Respondent issued Dylan Robinson, Mark Medley, Colby Fisher, Matt Flynn, Kevin Miller, Mike Rucker, Jarod Bell, David Jones, and Todd Zulauf an IRS FORM 1099-MISC for income paid during the 2016 tax year. Respondent did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the above-named salesmen were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. For SWO 16-148-1A, Respondent did not correctly calculate the penalty because Respondent included a penalty associated with Petitioner’s failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage for Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell. Penalty in the amount of $20.70 associated with Dylan Robinson and Jarod Bell should not be included in the total penalty. The correct penalty amount for SWO 16-148-1A, based on records submitted by Respondent on or before March 20, 2016, is $929.16. Draft Revised Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment The additional records submitted by Respondent revealed payments made to persons during the audit period who were not included in the Department’s Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department and Respondent disagreed at hearing whether the payments qualified as payroll. At hearing, Petitioner submitted a draft revised second amended penalty calculation for SWO 16-148-1A based on all records received from Respondent. The revised penalty is in the amount of $61,453.50. Ms. Jackson populated the spreadsheet with the name of every individual to whom a check was written on Respondent’s business bank account during the audit period, removing only those payments to individuals and entities which, to Petitioner’s knowledge, were not Respondent’s employees. Respondent’s calculations in the revised penalty suffer from some of the same errors as in the second amended penalty calculation--they include individuals Petitioner did not prove were Respondent’s employees, as well as payments which were not uninsured payroll. For the reasons explained herein, Petitioner did not prove that salesmen David Jones, Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, Mike Rucker, Tim Fischer, and Colby Fisher were Respondent’s employees during the audit period. Respondent did not accurately calculate the penalty associated with those persons. Respondent made payments to David Shields during the audit period, which the Department argues should be included as payroll. The Department included payments to Mr. Shields in its draft revised second amended order of penalty assessment and assigned NCCI class code “8810” for clerical work. Mr. Shields is a licensed professional roofing contractor who acts as “qualifier” for Respondent’s business. A qualifier is a licensed professional who certifies plans for permit applications submitted by another business. Respondent pays Mr. Shields a flat fee per permit application qualified by him. The record evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Shields provides clerical services to Respondent. Mr. Shields provides some sort of professional services to Respondent, and is likely an independent contractor providing his own materials and supplies, maintaining his own business accounts, and liable for his own business success. Assuming Mr. Shields were Respondent’s employee, the Department introduced no evidence of an appropriate NCCI class code for Mr. Shields’ services. The Department did not prove that payments to Mr. Shields should be included as Respondent’s uninsured payroll during the audit period. Respondent paid Susan Swain a total of $258 during the audit period for clerical work. Ms. Fisher maintained Ms. Swain’s work was casual at first, and the payments reflect a time when she worked on-again, off-again, handling the paperwork for restoration insurance claims. Later, Ms. Swain came to work for Respondent full-time and was added to the PMI leasing roster. Section 440.02(15)(d)5. provides that a person “whose employment is both casual and not in the course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of the employer” is not an employee. The statute defines “casual” employment as work that is anticipated to be completed in 10 working days or less and at a total labor cost of less than $500. See § 440.02(5), Fla. Stat. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department argues Ms. Swain’s wages should be included as payroll because the “testimony regarding Ms. Swain does not suggest that she was employed for less than 10 days[.]” However, it was the Department’s burden to prove that Ms. Swain was a statutory employee. The Department did not prove that Ms. Swain’s wages should be included within Respondent’s uninsured payroll. The largest portion of the penalty assessed by the Department, as well as in the draft revised second amended penalty assessment, against Respondent is in connection with various roofers who were employed by Respondent at times during the audit period. Each of the roofers was included on Respondent’s PMI leasing roster, but received checks directly from Respondent in addition to PMI payroll checks. The Department included all the direct payments to those roofers as payroll for purposes of calculating a penalty in this case. As Ms. Fisher explained, the company bids a reroof on a per job basis--usually a per square foot price. Ms. Fisher adds each roofing contractor’s name to the PMI leasing roster to ensure that each roofer is covered by workers’ compensation insurance for the duration of the job. When the job is completed (which is a matter of just a few days), the contractor reports to Ms. Fisher what amount of the contract price was spent on materials, supplies, or other non-labor costs. Ms. Fisher cuts a check to the contractor for that amount and authorizes PMI to issue payroll checks for the “labor cost” (the difference between the contract price and the non-labor costs). Ms. Fisher refers to this process as “back-charging” the contractors for their materials, maintenance, tools, and other non-labor costs. The Department is correct that the direct payments are payroll to the roofing contractors. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.035(1)(b) and (h) (remuneration includes “payments, including cash payments, made to employees by or on behalf of the employer” and “payments or allowances made by or on behalf of the employer for tools or equipment used by employees in their work or operations for the employer.”). The Department would be correct to include these payments in the penalty calculation if they represented uninsured payroll. However, the evidence supports a finding that the direct payments to the roofing contractors were made for the same jobs on which Respondent secured workers’ compensation coverage through PMI. The roofing contractors were covered for workers’ compensation throughout the job, even though they may have received partial payment for the job outside of the PMI payroll checks.5/ The direct payments were not for separate reroofs on which the roofers were not otherwise insured. The Department did not correctly calculate penalties associated with the following roofing contractors: Donald Tontigh, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Aaron Kilpatrick, Gustavo Tobias, Jose Mejia, and Tommy Miller. Ms. Fisher also received cash payments from Respondent during the audit period. These payments were made in addition to her payroll through PMI. Ms. Fisher described these payments as “cash tickets,” which were paid outside of her PMI payroll to reimburse her for investments made in the company. For purposes of calculating the penalty in this case, these “cash tickets” are clearly payroll, as that term is to be calculated pursuant to rule 69L-6.035. Similar to the issue with the roofing contractors, the question is whether the payments represent uninsured payroll. Ms. Fisher did not hold a corporate officer exemption at any time relevant hereto. Ms. Fisher testified that she was covered through PMI payroll leasing. In contrast to the roofing contractors, Ms. Fisher’s direct payments do not directly coincide with any particular job or specific time frame during which Ms. Fisher was covered for workers’ compensation insurance through PMI. The evidence was insufficient to determine that the amounts were insured payroll. The Department properly calculated a penalty associated with payroll attributable to Ms. Fisher. Respondent made one payment of $75 to Donald Martin during the audit period. The Department calculated a penalty of $27.90 associated with this payment to Mr. Martin. Ms. Fisher explained that Mr. Martin was a down-on-his-luck guy who came by the office one day complaining that Mr. Hansel owed him some money. Ms. Fisher offered to put him on a roofing crew and wrote him the $75 check to help him out. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. Mr. Martin was never hired by Respondent, put on any roofing crew, or added to the PMI leasing roster. Mr. Martin was not Respondent’s employee because he did not receive remuneration for the “performance of any work or service while engaged in any employment under any appointment or contract for hire” with Respondent. § 440.02(15)(a), Fla. Stat. Cale Dierking works for Respondent full-time in a clerical position. During the audit period, Respondent paid Mr. Dierking directly by check for $1,306.14. This payment was made outside of Mr. Dierking’s PMI payroll checks. Ms. Fisher testified that she paid Mr. Dierking directly on one occasion when “PMI’s payroll got stuck in Memphis, I believe it was a snow-in situation where payroll checks didn’t come.” Rather than ask her employee to go without a timely paycheck, she advanced his payroll. Ms. Fisher’s testimony was both credible and unrefuted. The payment to Mr. Dierking is clearly payroll. However, Mr. Dierking was covered for workers’ compensation through PMI for the period during which the check was issued. Thus, there is no evidence that it was uninsured payroll. The Department did not correctly calculate a penalty associated with payments to Mr. Dierking. The correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-148- 1A is $770.60. Penalty Calculation for SWO 16-198-1A Ms. Jackson calculated a total penalty against Respondent in connection with SWO 16-198-1A in the amount of $19,115.84, as reflected in the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. The Department correctly imputed penalty against Respondent in the amount of $91.68 each for uninsured payroll to Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Lopez. The evidence supported a finding that these workers were Respondent’s statutory employees on June 8, 2016, and were not enrolled on the PMI leasing roster. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with salesmen Dylan Robinson, Jarod Bell, Kevin Miller, Mark Medley, Matt Flynn, and Todd Zulauf. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty associated with roofing contractors Abraham Martinez- Antonio, Edwin Kinsey, Dustin Hansel, Efrian Molina-Agustin, Jose Mejia, Joseph Howard, Keith Mills, Samuel Pedro, and Tommy Miller. The Department did not correctly calculate the penalty against Respondent associated with Mr. Shields, Respondent’s qualifier. Based on a review of Respondent’s complete “untimely” records, the Department discovered direct payments made to additional employees not included on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent made a direct payment to Ethan Burch in the amount of $602.50 during the audit period. Ethan Burch is one of Respondent’s full-time clerical employees. The evidence is insufficient to determine whether the payment of $602.50 was insured or uninsured payroll. As such, the Department did not prove it correctly calculated the penalty associated with Mr. Burch. Respondent also made a direct payment to Chelsea Hansel in the amount of $965 during the audit period. Ms. Hansel is another clerical employee. Ms. Hansel’s PMI enrollment was delayed due to some background investigation. Respondent paid Ms. Hansel for work she completed prior to enrollment. The direct payment to Ms. Hansel constitutes uninsured payroll. The Department correctly calculated the penalty associated with the payment to Chelsea Hansel. The correct penalty amount to be imposed against Respondent for failure to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees (Gonzalez, Lopez, and Chelsea Hansel) during the audit period in connection with SWO 16-198-1A is $187.80.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and, in DOAH Case No. 17-0879, assessing a penalty of $770.60; and in DOAH Case No. 17-1558, assessing a penalty of $187.80. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 24th day of January, 2018.
