The Issue May Petitioner, Polk County School Board (Board), terminate the employment of Respondent, Stephen Brown, as an instructional employee based upon the conduct alleged in the letter from Assistant Superintendent Dennis F. Dunn, dated January 24, 2013, asserting that Mr. Brown engaged in serious misconduct, providing just cause to terminate his employment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Board employed Mr. Brown as a classroom teacher through a Professional Services Contract. By letter dated January 24, 2013, Assistant Superintendent Dennis Dunn advised Mr. Brown that Polk County School Superintendent John Stewart intended to recommend his termination to the Board for improper use of the "Board issued laptop computer due to pornography and sexually inappropriate images" found on the computer. Mr. Brown has been a teacher for 18 years. Ten of those years, including 2012, Mr. Brown taught at the Board's Inwood Elementary School (Inwood). This was not the first time the school took action against Mr. Brown. On March 31, 2011, Inwood Principal Amy Heiser-Meyers gave Mr. Brown a letter confirming a verbal warning that she gave him during a conference that day. The letter stated: When redirecting or addressing a student's behavior, refrain from getting into their face and also refrain from making inappropriate comments and actions that are disparaging and harmful to the student's mental health. As the authority figure in the classroom, it is not appropriate to use your body and physical proximity to intimidate the student. Your actions towards the student violated the Code of Ethics and The Principles of Professional Conduct of The Education Profession in Florida: State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006 FAC (a)(e)[sic]. The letter also advised that the conference was a first step of the progressive discipline outlined in the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement and cautioned that further discipline, up to and including termination, might be imposed for additional "unacceptable behaviors." On April 23, 2012, Principal Heiser-Meyers delivered Mr. Brown a letter confirming a discussion during a conference that day. This letter was "not to be construed as disciplinary in nature, but rather as a letter of concern." It addressed the importance of meeting deadlines and processing paperwork, specifically not having student award certificates ready in time for a scheduled lunch awards presentation. In a June 6, 2012, letter, Ms. Heiser-Meyers confirmed a verbal warning that Mr. Brown violated "The Principles of Professional Conduct of the Education Profession in Florida [sic] (a) Shall make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental and/or physical health and/or safety. AND (e) Shall not intentionally expose a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement." Principal Heiser-Meyers' letter stated that she conducted the conference "pursuant to Section 4.4-1 of the Teacher Collective Bargaining Agreement" and that it was the first step of progressive discipline outlined in that section. It also cautioned that continued "unacceptable behaviors" could result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. On June 4, 2012, and on August 31, 2012, Mr. Brown signed the Board's Employee Equipment Use Contract for a laptop computer assigned to him. The contract included these conditions: I AGREE TO RETURN THE ABOVE EQUIPMENT IN THE SAME CONDITION IT WAS IN UPON CHECKOUT AND AGREE TO PAY FOR REPLACEMENT DUE TO LOSS OR DAMAGE BEYOND REPAIR THAT MAY OCCUR WHILE IT IS ASSIGNED TO ME. REPLACEMENT COST IS CONSIDERED THE COST TO PURCHASE NEW EQUIPMENT. I AGREE TO USE THE EQUIPMENT FOR SCHOOL BOARD PURPOSES ONLY, AND UNDERSTAND THAT I WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INJURY OR DAMAGES CAUSED BY ANY INAPPROPRIATE OR UNAUTHORIZED USE OF THIS EQUIPMENT. I WILL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY REPAIRS RESULTING FROM NORMAL AND ORDINARY USE OF SUCH EQUIPMENT. Mr. Brown took his school-issued laptop computer home around November 30, 2012. He used it to search for information about cash advance loans he could obtain to repair his automobile. While Mr. Brown was searching for loan information, a red screen displaying the title "FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation" appeared. The screen advised that the computer had been locked and stated that Mr. Brown was subject to several federal criminal charges, including possession of child pornography and gambling, unless he paid $200.00 within 48 hours to a designated account. Mr. Brown shut down his computer. He tried restarting and shutting down the computer a few times to see if the message would go away and the computer would operate. Mr. Brown then called the FBI office to report the incident. The individual to whom Mr. Brown spoke told Mr. Brown that he was describing a frequently reported virus and that he would need professional help removing it. Mr. Brown took the laptop to the office supply store, Staples, the following day to obtain its virus removal service. He paid for the service and purchased an extended warranty for $199.00. Mr. Brown took the computer to Staples, instead of to the school's information technology office, because he thought that, since the virus appeared while he was using the computer for personal purposes, the terms of equipment-use contract made him responsible for repairs. Mr. Brown did not report the problem to the school's technology office. Staples was unable to service the computer for three days. When Staples did service the computer, it removed the virus. But the Staples technicians could not repair damage to the hard drive and replaced it. The technicians also re- configured the laptop's original hard drive as an external hard drive with Mr. Brown's documents and other files on it. While Mr. Brown's laptop awaited service at Staples, he tried to use the school computer of his colleague, Penny Humphrey. Ms. Humphrey reported his efforts to the school's computer network manager, Marilyn Layton. Ms. Layton reported the issue to the principal, who advised school board investigator Barry Marbutt that he was concerned Mr. Brown might have inappropriate material on his laptop. Mr. Marbutt interviewed Mr. Brown, who told him of the FBI virus and the repairs by Staples. Mr. Marbutt took Mr. Brown's laptop. Mr. Marbutt later learned from a Staples representative about the old hard drive being reconfigured as an external drive. He then obtained the external drive from Mr. Brown. Sid Lee, senior manager of the Board's electronic equipment repair and support department, examined Mr. Brown's laptop and software to determine if the computer held any inappropriate material. Mr. Lee did not conduct any tests or analyses to determine if Mr. Brown's report of a virus was accurate. The computer and associated external hard drive contained over 200 pornographic images, admitted as Exhibit 6. They were located at the address “D/Documents and Settings\stephen.brown\Local Settings/Temporary Internet Files\content.IE5," which is also referred to as the browser cache. The parties stipulate that the images are pornographic. Many of the images depict sexual violence. Many depict scenes with several participants, bound females, or hooded or masked participants. None of the images, or the identifiable sources for them, match data sets of known or suspected child pornography, including the DHS-ICE Child Exploitation Hash set and data sets obtained from the FBI, state, and local law enforcement agencies. All of the images are generated by small files. The size of the files is consistent with the images being either "popup" or "thumbnail" images. A "pop-up" is a pop-up window on a computer screen.1/ A "thumbnail" is "a miniature computer graphic sometimes hyperlinked to a full-size version" of an image.2/ The files occur in a few clusters in the Internet browser cache of the laptop. On July 19, 2012, approximately 113 of the pornographic images were among 171 images downloaded into the laptop's browser cache between 1:54:06 p.m. and 1:57:11 p.m., a period of three minutes and five seconds. This means that they downloaded extremely quickly. For instance, Exhibit 6 shows that at 1:56:23 p.m., four images downloaded. At 1:56:24 p.m., six images downloaded. The average download rate for the time period was 1.08 seconds per image. This rate is not consistent with a person manually browsing the Internet. Seven of the images are plainly advertisements for pornographic websites or DVDs. Twenty have watermarks on them depicting several different website addresses. During the July 19, 2012, time period, when the files were downloaded, there were no contemporaneous log-ins to other websites, such as to an email service, Facebook, bank accounts, or news sites. During the July 19, 2012, time period one or more pop-ups attempted unsuccessfully to download malicious software. The analysis of the computer, however, showed frequent log-ins to Facebook at other times and days. The typical pattern of computer users is to perform more than one function or go to more than one website when logging on to the internet. On August 20, 2013, a single pornographic video was downloaded. There were no contemporaneous log-ins to other websites, such as to an email service, Facebook, bank accounts, or news sites at the same time. On November 29, 2012, 225 image files were downloaded between 3:59:44 p.m. and 4:12:26 p.m., a period of 12 minutes and 42 seconds. This indicates that the images downloaded quickly, at an average rate of one image per 3.4 seconds. This rate is not consistent with a person manually browsing the internet. At least 101 of the images were pornographic. As with the July 19, 2012, time period, there were no contemporaneous log-ins to other websites at the same time. The images included 12 advertisements for penis enlargement techniques or substances and 14 advertisements for services facilitating sexual encounters with local females. There were also images with website address watermarks; but the watermarks are not legible. Staples technicians determined the laptop was infected with the malware virus, “Reveton," also known as the "FBI virus." The virus has the ability to start a computer, access the Internet, visit websites, and download images without the computer owner's knowledge or participation. Using these abilities, the virus's masters can and do remotely operate enterprises that include "click jacking" and "ransoms." In "click jacking," the virus causes the host computer to activate, log on to the Internet and quickly visit websites to click on advertisements, including pop-ups. This generates revenue for the site hosting the advertisement or pop-up, since compensation is by "click." In "ransoms" the virus locks up the computer and displays a message like the one Mr. Brown's laptop received demanding payment and threatening law enforcement action, unless the computer operator sends a payment in a manner and to a recipient described in the "ransom note." Several indicators make it as likely as not that the pornographic images found in the laptop's cache were downloaded as the result of the FBI virus, rather than any action by Mr. Brown. Those indicators are: (a) there were no contemporaneous log-ons to any other websites; (b) the rapid speed at which the images downloaded; c) the fact that all of the images were small "thumbnail" or "popup" sized files; (d) there was no evidence of full-sized image files; and (e) Mr. Brown in his testimony and during the investigation has consistently denied using the computer to access pornographic images. In addition, the fact that Mr. Brown contacted the FBI indicates lack of apprehension about the consequences of contacting law enforcement authorities. Mr. Brown's decision to seek assistance from Staples was reasonable in light of the District's strict equipment use policies and the fact that the problem occurred when Mr. Brown was using the computer for personal reasons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Polk County School Board, rescind the termination of Respondent, Stephen Brown, and award him back pay and full benefits for the period during which he was suspended, which began January 20, 2013, when Mr. Brown requested a hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 21st day of August, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent, City of Tampa Parks and Recreation (City or Respondent), has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2019)1; and, if so, what remedy should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The final hearing was officially convened at 9:18 a.m. on August 19, 2020. Mr. Bradshaw declined to provide any evidence to support his discrimination allegations as set forth in either the Petition or original Complaint.4 After Mr. Bradshaw’s fourth refusal to provide his testimony, the undersigned asked the following: “I am understanding that you are not going to proceed at this time. I should say at this hearing; is that correct, sir?” Mr. Bradshaw responded: “Yes. At this hearing. Yes, you’re correct.” Respondent’s counsel and a City of Tampa Parks and Recreation representative appeared via Zoom Conference technology at the final hearing. 3 When the undersigned asked Mr. Bradshaw if he had any objections to the deposition being admitted into evidence, his response was: “that basically it’s nothing going on. There’s no opening statement, there or closing, and so the deposition shouldn’t have anything to do with this hearing.” The objection is illogical as the deposition was taken for “the purposes of discovery, for use at trial, or for such other purposes as are permitted under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.” 4 After the undersigned administered the oath, Mr. Bradshaw was asked four different times to provide his testimony. See tr. at: pg. 16, lines 17 through 19; pg. 18, lines 17 through 19; pg. 19, lines 16 through 20; and pg. 21, line 25 through pg. 22, line 5. At the start of the hearing, several persons were in the Zoom Conference waiting room. After the undersigned determined that Petitioner was not going to provide any testimony or evidence, the eight persons remaining in the Zoom Conference waiting room were admitted into the proceeding. Each person was identified as a witness for Respondent. The undersigned confirmed with each witness that their testimony would not be needed as the hearing had been completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Lorenzo Bradshaw, did not prove that the City of Tampa Parks and Recreation committed any unlawful employment practices, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2020, 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 9th day of September, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Lorenzo Bradshaw 505 Gay Road Seffner, Florida 33584 Thomas Martin Gonzalez, Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a claim by petitioner, William C. Eagle (petitioner or Eagle), that in February 1994 he was denied employment as a delivery helper by respondent, S. R. Perrott, Inc., on account of a real or perceived handicap. According to the complaint, at the time the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, petitioner was suffering from a "soft tissue injury" from a "work related accident with his former employer." Because the evidence shows that in February 1994 petitioner did not enjoy in some measure the full and normal use of his physical facilities, he was a handicapped person, at least temporarily, within the meaning of the law. A preliminary investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Respondent is a beer distributor in Ormond Beach, Florida. Whether respondent employs "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" so as to be subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, is not of record. In February 1994, petitioner learned of an opening for a delivery helper at respondent's plant. The position required that the employee unload beer kegs weighing 167 pounds from a delivery truck onto a dolly and then push the dolly into the business establishment. At that point, the employee would have to bend over and lift the keg off of the dolly to a waist-high position and place it in the desired location. Empty kegs would then be loaded onto the dolly and taken back to the truck and loaded. Since a truck would typically make up to 30 to 40 stops per day, the helper was required to engage in repetitious bending, twisting and lifting of heavy objects. After filing an application with respondent, petitioner was interviewed by respondent's general manager, Gary Connors, on February 23, 1994. During the interview, petitioner failed to disclose that he had suffered a back injury on a previous job, he was receiving worker's compensation benefits, he was then being treated by a doctor, and because of the injury, he was, at least arguably and temporarily, a handicapped individual. Without these undisclosed facts, Connors believed Eagle was qualified for the job and told him to report to work the next morning as a delivery helper. Like every other applicant, however, Eagle was also told that the job was contingent on his successfully passing a pre- employment physical examination. On the same morning that petitioner began work, or February 24, 1994, Connors contacted the office of Dr. James W. Bennett, a local chiropractic physician who conducted employment physicals for respondent, to set up an appointment for Eagle. During his telephone conversation with Dr. Bennett, Connors learned that Eagle was being treated by Dr. Bennett for a back injury suffered on his previous job, and that he had been examined by Dr. Bennett on February 14, 1994, or ten days earlier. Dr. Bennett accordingly saw no need to re-examine Eagle, and he advised Connors that Eagle could aggravate "an existing, active injury," and that he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Based on this information, Connors immediately spoke with the plant manager, Richard Shaffer, and instructed him to recall Eagle from his route and terminate his employment. In making this employment decision, Connors was not motivated by discriminatory animus, but rather he made the decision solely because of Eagle's inability to pass a pre-employment physical examination, a prerequisite for employment for all job applicants. Indeed, at that time, while Connors knew that Eagle had a pre-existing back injury through conversations with Dr. Bennett, he neither knew, or had reason to believe, that the injury constituted a handicap under the law. Shaffer recalled Eagle from his route and discharged him around noon on February 24, 1994. Since Shaffer did not know the reason for the termination, he told Eagle to check back in a few days and he would find out the specific reason for his discharge. A few days later, Eagle returned and met with Connors who told him that he was discharged because he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Several months later, Eagle filed his charge of discrimination. At hearing, Eagle denied that he was handicapped and asserted that as of February 1994 he "felt fine" physically. Indeed, he described in some detail the type of heavy manual labor he had performed with another employer up to the time he applied for the position. He also contended that the injury was minor and would not interfere with a delivery helper's tasks. But testimony from Dr. Bennett established that as of February 24, 1994, Eagle had "a current, precarious injury," namely, moderate chronic lumbar sprain strain, that work restrictions with his former employer had been recommended, and that Eagle was "highly likely" to worsen that injury should he engage in the job activities required of a delivery helper. This testimony was not credibly contradicted. Although Eagle was later discharged from Dr. Bennett's care on April 1, 1994, Eagle could not pass the pre-employment physical examination on February 24, 1994, when the employment decision was made, and thus he did not qualify for the job. Eagle further suggested at hearing that, assuming he was handicapped, respondent failed to take reasonable steps to accommodate his disability. But Eagle made no request for accommodation either at the time he sought the position or after he learned the reason for his termination. Even if Eagle had requested accommodation, respondent had no positions in the business that did not require some heavy lifting except for a secretarial slot, for which Eagle was not qualified. Moreover, respondent's general manager did not know, or even believe, that Eagle was handicapped and thus may have required accommodation. Then, too, in order to accommodate Eagle, respondent would have had to make fundamental alterations in its work program or even create a new job. Eagle did not rebut this showing at hearing, and he failed to respond with any evidence regarding his individual capabilities and suggestions for possible accommodations by respondent within the restrictions imposed by Dr. Bennett. There is no evidence regarding the compensation Eagle would have received as a delivery helper. The record also fails to establish his compensation since that time, and thus there is no basis on which to make a finding as to lost wages. Whether petitioner seeks reinstatement as a delivery helper is also not of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition for relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1788 Petitioner: Petitioner filed an "order" with nine unnumbered paragraphs containing a mixture of proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5 and 8. 6-8. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 9. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence or a conclusion of law. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Daniel Williams, Esquire P. O. Box 1007 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Winston K. Borkowski, Esquire P. O. Box 1725 Ormond Beach, Florida 32175 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Levita Parker, was subject to a discriminatory practice by Respondent, Orange County Public Schools (Orange County), in violation of the sections 760.10 and 112.3187, Florida Statutes1/; and, if so, what remedy is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female, who, at all times relevant to the discrimination allegation was (and is currently) employed by the Orange County Public Schools. Petitioner has been employed by Orange County for approximately 18 years. She is under contract as a “classroom teacher,” however she has been working as a behavioral specialist for the last 11 years. Petitioner is certified to teach Exceptional Student Education (ESE), Business Education and Education Leadership. Petitioner, along with the school principal and others, attended a “brain storming meeting” on October 5, 2016.4/ During that meeting, options were discussed on how to address the August 2016 resignation and departure of an ESE teacher. Many options were discussed, and later the assistant principal sent Petitioner an email directing her to assume responsibility for two classes on the following Monday. Petitioner refused to teach the two classes. In November 2016, Petitioner was presented with a “Directive.” In part, the directive provides: Under certain circumstances it becomes necessary to provide written clarification or guidance regarding the expectations of the district. Such letters are referred to as directives, and are not disciplinary in nature. (Emphasis added). Petitioner did not lose any pay for her failure to teach the two classes. For school years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, Petitioner received “effective” or “highly effective” evaluations. Petitioner failed to identify the alleged protective whistleblowing action in which she participated. Petitioner failed to identify a causal connection between whatever the alleged protected activity was and the alleged adverse employment action. Petitioner failed to present any credible evidence that Respondent discriminated against her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2017, 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 31st day of July, 2017.
The Issue Whether Com-Jet Corporation (Respondent) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act by unlawfully discriminating against Gladys V. Fleites (Petitioner or Ms. Fleites) on the basis of her alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact Com-Jet Corporation repairs airplanes through its division Aircraft Systems (Respondent). Petitioner was employed as an aircraft mechanic by Respondent between June 30, 2008, and April 8, 2011. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Osvaldo Guillam was also employed by Respondent and was described as Petitioner's common law husband or significant other. Mr. Guillam and Petitioner were hourly employees. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent's policy was to require each hourly employee to punch-in his or her time card when the employee arrived at work and to punch-out his or her time card when the employee left work. If an employee could not punch his or her time card because of a physical limitation, the employee was to have a supervisor punch the card for him or her. In February 2011, Melanie Alonso, Respondent's director of human relations, discovered that Mr. Guillam was punching-in and punching-out Petitioner's time card. On February 9, 2011, Ms. Alonso met with Mr. Guillam and Petitioner and told them that each employee was required to punch-in and punch-out his or her own time card. Ms. Alonso told them that one employee could not punch another employee's time card. Petitioner admitted to violating the time card policy and apologized for having done so. At no time did Petitioner indicate that she could not punch her time card due to a physical limitation. Later that day, Ms. Alonso met with all of Respondent's hourly employees and reiterated the company policy pertaining to time cards. Petitioner has had a problem with her left ankle since a fall in 2001. At the times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner experienced pain while walking and had difficulty standing or bending. Petitioner worked at a table in a seated position. Petitioner did not have a noticeable limp. While Petitioner wore an elastic band on her ankle, that band was covered because Petitioner wore pants to work with a sock over the band. Respondent's management did not know that Petitioner had difficulty with her ankle. Petitioner was scheduled to undergo arthroscopic surgery on her left ankle on March 31, 2011. In conjunction with that surgery, Petitioner requested eight days of leave, which was all the annual leave she had. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what Petitioner told Respondent's management about the leave. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner did not tell Respondent's management that she was scheduled to have surgery on her left ankle. The ankle surgery was postponed due to an insurance coverage issue. After finding another surgeon, Petitioner rescheduled the surgery. Respondent's work area has security cameras that monitor activities in the work area. Ms. Alonso reviewed the videos from those cameras after a vacuum cleaner was stolen from the work area in April 2011. During the course of that review, Ms. Alonso observed that Mr. Guillam was punching-in and punching-out two time cards. On April 8, 2011, Ms. Alonso confronted Petitioner and Mr. Guillam. Both admitted that Mr. Guillam had been punching Petitioner's time card. Ms. Alonso terminated the employment of Mr. Guillam and Petitioner on April 8, 2011, for violating the company's time card policy. There was no evidence that Ms. Alonso knew of Petitioner's ankle problems when she terminated her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss with prejudice the Petition for Relief filed against Com-Jet Corporation by Gladys V. Fleites. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Anthony Joseph Perez, Esquire Law Office of Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, PA Suite 214 730 Northwest 107th Avenue Miami, Florida 33172 Paul F. Penichet, Esquire Paul F. Penichet, P.A. Suite 907, Biscayne Building 19 West Flagler Street Coral Gables, Florida 33130-4400 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a teacher, knowingly possessed the pornographic images found on a floppy disk in his classroom and also in his school-issued computer. If Respondent engaged in any such wrongdoing, it will be necessary to determine what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against his educator certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the EPC enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Respondent Mark Aaron Leslie. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2011.
The Issue Should Respondent be terminated from the Polk County School System based on the allegations contained in the letter from Gene Reynolds, Superintendent of Schools (Superintendent), Polk County, Florida, dated March 15, 1999?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner Polk County School Board is the county agency responsible for providing public primary, secondary, and adult education in Polk County, Florida, and to facilitate that responsibility the Board hires certified teachers for classroom and administrative activity. Respondent is employed by the Board as an elementary classroom teacher, a position he has held since March 8, 1993. During the 1998-99 school year, Respondent was employed as a kindergarten classroom teacher at Eastside Elementary School, located in Haines City, Florida. During his employment as a classroom teacher with the Board, Respondent has received satisfactory evaluations. Prior to the events giving rise to this proceeding, Respondent has had no disciplinary problems during his employment as a classroom teacher with the Board. In January 1999, Respondent missed three days of school as a result of an ankle injury. While Respondent was absent, a substitute teacher taught his classes. While looking for a video tape to show the class, the substitute teacher discovered what appeared to be a pornographic video tape in the cabinet next to the video cassette recorder where other video tapes used in the classroom were stored. The substitute teacher removed the video tape and delivered it to Josephine Howard, principal of Eastside Elementary School. The video tape contains explicit, graphic, hard-core pornographic sequences of adult men engaged in explicit sexual acts. Respondent purchased the video tape at a local video store and brought it to Eastside Elementary School for purposes of viewing the tape when students or other persons were not present. Respondent stored the video tape in the classroom in an unlocked cabinet next to the video cassette recorder with other video tapes used for educational purposes Respondent did not desire or intend to allow students to view the video tape. However, since the video tape was stored in an unlocked cabinet, students did have access to the video tape and could have inadvertently viewed the video tape. This incident has not been reported in any newspaper, including those covering the Polk County area, nor has there been any coverage by any radio or television station, including those covering the Polk County area. Other than the incident being brought to the attention of the Board for disciplinary purposes and the news release of the Board's action, the incident has not been made public. In fact, there has been a concerted effort by the Board, the Superintendent's office, and the office of the principal at Eastside Elementary School to prevent this matter from becoming public until after final action by the Board. Since the public is not generally aware of this matter, there has been no outcry of public, parental, or student demand for Respondent's dismissal. Likewise, there has been no demand by any parent that their child not be placed in Respondent's class. Although there has been no public "airing" of this incident, there has been an inquiry by at least one newspaper for the facts of this incident after final action by the Board. Therefore, it appears that there will be a public "airing" of the facts of this incident upon final action by the Board. Respondent has received numerous awards for his teaching technique and work in education. Additionally, Respondent has the support of his friends, associates, and fellow church members. Josephine Howard has taught or held positions as principal or as an assistant principal in the public schools in Haines City, Florida for approximately 30 and one half years. Sixteen and one half of those years have been as either a principal or as an assistant principal. Josephine Howard has lived in Haines City, Florida for approximately 34 years. Josephine Howard, based on her knowledge of, and experience with, the staff at Eastside Elementary School, and her knowledge of, and experience with, the community of Haines City and Petitioner's serious conduct of storing the video tape in a cabinet where persons other than school personnel would have access to such video tape, creating the possibility for children of such sensitive age to be exposed to the contents of the video tape, is of the opinion that upon this matter becoming public knowledge, Petitioner's effectiveness as a teacher at Eastside Elementary School, as well as other schools within the community of Haines City, would be impaired. Dennis Dunn has been employed by the Polk County School Board for 30 years, holding positions as a teacher (in elementary school, junior high school, and high school), assistant principal, principal (in junior high school and high school), deputy superintendent, and assistant superintendent for personnel. Mr. Dunn's work with the Polk County School System has brought him in touch with not only the community of Haines City, but all of the communities within Polk County, Florida Dennis Dunn, based on his knowledge of, and experience with, the staff of the several public schools in Polk County and his knowledge of, and experience with, the several communities that make up Polk County and Petitioner's serious conduct of storing the video tape in a cabinet where persons other than school personnel would have access to such video tape, creating the possibility for children of such sensitive age to be exposed to the contents of the video tape, is of the opinion that upon this matter becoming public knowledge, Petitioner's effectiveness as a teacher within all of Polk County would be impaired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Petitioner committed misconduct in office, that just cause for dismissal has been shown, and that Petitioner's contract of employment with the Board is terminated. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald H. Wilson, Jr., Esquire Boswell & Dunlap, LLP Post Office Drawer 30 Bartow, Florida 33831 Phillip E. Kuhn, Esquire 1533 Tomahawk Trail, South Lakeland, Florida 33813 Mark S. Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 2595 Tampa Road, Suite J Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Mr. Glenn Reynolds Superintendent of Schools Polk County School Board 1915 South Floral Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830-0391 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether by showing the movies "Death Wish II", "First Blood", and "Police Academy", or portions of those movies, to respondent's fourth grade students, respondent violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B- 1.06(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact STIPULATED FACTS: Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 367043 covering the areas of Elementary Education, English and Reading. At all times material hereto, the respondent was employed as a fourth grade teacher at Woodland Elementary School in the Pasco County School District. During the 1983-84 school year, the respondent permitted his fourth grade class to view the movie "Death Wish II", an "R" rated movie. Subsequently, the respondent's principal instructed the respondent that in the future, no films could be shown to the respondent's students without first obtaining a specific permission of the principal. Following the showing of "Death Wish II", the principal adopted a new policy for the 1984-85 teacher handbook which stated, "No video movies are to be shown in the classroom without special permission from the principal." The new policy requiring special permission from the principal was discussed and explained to all teachers at a faculty meeting on or about August 20, 1984. The respondent was in attendance at the meeting. On June 3, 1985, the respondent permitted his fourth grade class to view approximately forty-three minutes of the movie "First Blood" at which time he stopped the movie due to his concern over the escalating violence depicted in the movie. The respondent also permitted his fourth grade students to view the movie "Police Academy". The respondent did not obtain special permission from his principal to show those movies to his students. The movies contained scenes involving violence, nudity, profanity and implied sexual acts. DEATH WISH II At the end of the 1983-84 school year, the respondent's fourth grade class joined Mr. Younglove's sixth grade class to watch video movies in Mr. Younglove's classroom. The movie "Death Wish II" was shown. The movie was on a video disc that did not have a rating on it. However, Mr. Younglove had a card which contained numbers indicating when the movie would have to be stopped to edit certain parts of the movie by fast forwarding. Mr. Younglove operated the video equipment and fast forwarded the movie at certain times. There was insufficient evidence to determine what specific portions of the movie "Death Wish II" had been edited by fast forwarding. Prior to allowing his students to view the movie "Death Wish II", the respondent had not seen the movie himself and had taken no steps to personally determine the movie's rating. Further, respondent, was not familiar with the theme, plot or story line of the movie other than believing that "it had something to do with the bad guys getting it from the good guys for a change". "Death Wish II" is an extremely violent movie containing graphic rape scenes, numerous scenes of cold-blooded murder committed by the movie's "hero", and vulgar language. Prior to the first rape scene, which occurs within the first ten minutes of the movie, it is apparent that the movie is not suitable for fourth graders. From the build-up to the rape scene, it is fairly obvious what is going to occur. The entire theme of the movie is inappropriate. It suggests that the criminal justice system does not work, that it is acceptable to obstruct the police in their investigation of a crime, and that it is justifiable for a victim of a crime to seek his own revenge by systematically executing the perpetrators of the crime. Mr. Kelley, the Guidance Counselor at Woodland, succinctly summarized the movie by stating, "it is totally inappropriate for showing not only nine and ten-year-olds, but I would say it's inappropriate for most human beings." Subsequent to the showing of "Death Wish II", Mr. Stevens, a parent of one of respondent's students, called Mr. Renninger, the principal, about the showing of the movie. Mr. Renninger called respondent into his office and discussed the matter with him. Mr. Renninger told respondent that an "R" rated movie was not acceptable to show elementary students, and that in the future, respondent could not show any video movies to the students without first obtaining the principal's permission. Respondent talked to Mr. Stevens and was very apologetic about the showing of the movie. TEACHER'S HANDBOOK-PAGE 42B Prior to the opening of the 1984-1985 school year, the teachers at Woodland Elementary School, including respondent, attended a faculty meeting at which time revisions to the teacher handbook were discussed. Page 42B, entitled "Responsibilities of Teachers - Lesson Plan", was specifically discussed. Page 42B contains the following language: All films, filmstrips and VCRs tapes MUST be listed in your lesson plans. No video movies are to be shown in the classroom at any time without special permission from the principal. The requirement that teachers obtain special permission from the principal prior to showing any video movie was added to the handbook as a result of the showing of "Death Wish II". "POLICE ACADEMY" AND "FIRST BLOOD" On June 3, 1985, at the end of the 1984-85 school year, respondent's fourth grade class once again joined Mr. Younglove's sixth grade class to view video movies. It was the end of the school year, and the movies were not intended to have any educational value but were simply to entertain the students. The teachers were not required to submit lesson plans for that period of time. On the Friday immediately preceding Monday, June 3, 1985, Mr. Younglove told respondent that he had obtained authorization from the assistant principal to show "P" and PG" rated films to his classroom. Mr. Younglove had received permission slips signed by the student's parents indicating that "P" and "PG" film would be shown. The respondent also sent permission slips to the parents of his students. Respondent was advised that the movies would be brought in by the students. When respondent's students arrived at Mr. Younglove's classroom, the movie "First Blood" was in progress. Mr. Younglove informed respondent that the movie had been edited for television and was "all right". However, at some point thereafter, Mr. Younglove left the classroom leaving respondent to monitor the combined classes. As the movie continued, respondent became concerned by the escalating violence in the movie and therefore ordered the film stopped. The video tape was then rewound to the beginning of the tape to the movie "Police Academy". Prior to permitting his students to view "First Blood", the respondent had not seen the movie himself and was not familiar with its plot, theme or story line. Neither respondent nor Mr. Younglove had received special permission from the principal or assistant principal to show the movie "First Blood". The portion of "First Blood" shown to respondent's class contained profanity and physical violence and, as admitted by respondent, was not appropriate for viewing by fourth grade students. Mr. Younglove was still absent from the room when the movie "Police Academy" began. The respondent did not know the movie's rating but questioned Mr. Younglove about the rating when Mr. Younglove returned to the classroom. Mr. Younglove informed respondent that it was rated "PG". Prior to permitting his students to view the movie, respondent was not familiar with the movie's theme, plot or story line, although he assumed that it was a comedy because he had seen "Police Academy II" advertised on T.V. The movie "Police Academy" contains numerous profanities and vulgarities which are regularly spaced throughout the movie. The movie contains female nudity and two implied sex scenes. Although the movie was stopped and fast forwarded, apparently on two occasions when nudity had been observed, the students viewed all of "Police Academy" except for approximately two minutes and 30 seconds when it was fast forwarded and the screen was blank. As admitted by respondent, the movie "Police Academy" is not appropriate for viewing by 10-year old children. Indeed, the movie is so filled with inappropriate language and activity that it would be impossible to edit out all the objectionable material and have much of the movie left. During the showing of "First Blood" and "Police Academy", there was considerable activity going on in the classroom. Students were going in and out of the classroom to get drinks of water. Several students were practicing karate, having just recently seen the movie "Karate Kid". Others were listening to music on cassette tape recorders. Some students were playing "finger break", and some students were crawling around under the tables. The noise level in the classroom was fairly loud, and many students were paying little attention to the movie. On the Wednesday following the showing of the film, respondent called the mother of one of his students who had been upset about the movies being shown to her daughter. During the conversation, the parent advised respondent that the movies were "R" rated. This was the first time that respondent learned of the rating of the films. RESPONDENT'S CONDUCT By allowing fourth grade students to view the movies, "Death Wish II", "Police Academy", and "First Blood", the respondent showed a complete lack of judgment. After the first several minutes of both "Police Academy" and "Death Wish II", it becomes quite apparent that the movies are not suitable for 9 and 10-year olds. Respondent's belief that the movies were rated "PG" does not in any way justify the respondent's behavior in permitting his class to continue to view movies that are totally inappropriate for that age group. After the incident involving "Death Wish II", respondent had been specifically told that he had to obtain permission from the principal prior to showing any video movies. He was also aware of the written policy which requires this. Nevertheless, he allowed his fourth grade class to view "Police Academy" based on Mr. Younglove's representation that the movie was rated "PG" and that the assistant Principal had given permission for "PG" rated movies to be shown, neither of which representation, as it turned out, was accurate. RESPONDENT'S EFFECTIVENESS AS A TEACHER Respondent began teaching in the Pasco County School System in the 1974-75 school year. Since that time, he has received evaluations indicating that he has been a "satisfactory" or "effective" teacher every year except for his first evaluation as a first year teacher, which indicated that he needed improvement in every area listed, and an evaluation for the period of August, 1978, to February, 1979, which indicated that his performance was unsatisfactory in three of the five categories listed. Since the 1979 evaluation, the respondent has been evaluated as satisfactory in every school year. At the hearing, the parents of several of respondent's students testified that respondent had been a good teacher for their child and that they would not hesitate to have respondent teach another one of their children even though they were aware of the content of the movies that were shown in the classroom. Letters from the parents of 19 other students who had respondent as a teacher supported the opinion of the five parents who had testified on behalf of respondent that respondent was a good teacher. Respondent has maintained a good rapport with both his students and their parents, and he has been very effective in improving some of his students' academic skills. Dr. John Long, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, believes that respondent's effectiveness as a teacher has been seriously affected by his conduct, but not so seriously reduced that respondent could not have taught again in Pasco County on a probationary status at a school other than Woodland. Dr. John S. Joyce, the Director of Personnel, believes that respondent's effectiveness as a teacher had been drastically reduced as a Pasco County teacher in that respondent's action in showing inappropriate movies for a second year in a row indicates that respondent is either insubordinate or defective in judgment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings off Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is concluded that respondent has violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. However, in considering the appropriate penalty, respondent's improper conduct should be balanced with his satisfactory performance as a teacher over the last six years and the positive effect he has had on many of his students. It is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that respondent has violated Section 231.28(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-1.06(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and suspending respondent's certificate for one (1) year. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1802 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. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.-2. Accepted in paragraph 1. 3.-4. Rejected as unnecessary though accepted as true. Indicated in Background as to who the individuals are. Accepted in paragraph 1. Accepted as inferred in paragraph 7. Accepted in paragraph 5. 8.-9. Accepted generally paragraph 6. Rejected as immaterial in that studies do not relate to the effect of a single incident. Accepted generally in paragraph 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Accepted generally as set forth in paragraph 4. Rejected as based solely on hearsay evidence. Accepted generally in paragraph 7. 16.-17. Accepted in paragraph 8. Accepted in paragraphs 9, 11 and 13. Accepted in paragraphs 3 and 11. Accepted in paragraph 17. Accepted in paragraph 11. Accepted generally in paragraphs 3 and 11. 23.-25. Accepted generally in paragraph 12. 26.-28. Accepted in paragraph 13. 29-38. To the degree these are not a synopsis of the testimony, they are accepted generally in paragraph 14. Rejected as immaterial. Accepted generally in paragraphs 17 and 20. Rejected as specific finding as cumulative. Rejected as specific finding as unnecessary since no contrary finding was made. Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-3. Accepted generally in paragraph 4, portions not included rejected as immaterial or not supported by competent evidence. 4. Accepted to the degree stated in paragraph 4, that there was no competent evidence to determine which portions had been edited. 5-6. Accepted generally in paragraph 7 and by omission of a contrary finding. Accepted generally in paragraph 8; next to last sentence rejected as not supported by competent evidence and as immaterial. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 9. 9.-10. Accepted generally in paragraph 10. 11.-12. Accepted in paragraphs 11 and 15. 13.-15. Accepted generally in paragraphs 11, 13, and 14. 16.-18. Rejected as specific findings as immaterial and merely as recitation of testimony, although generally accepted in paragraphs 14 and 15. 19. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 16. 20.-23. Rejected as immaterial. 24-25. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraph 20. 26. Accepted generally in paragraph 18. 27.-28. Accepted generally in paragraph 19, although the numbers not accepted since there was no indication on several letters that the individuals were parents or, if parents, when their child was in respondent's class. 29.-40. Accepted to the degree relevant in paragraphs 19 and 7. Parental comments were considered in mitigation of penalty as stated in conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder P.O. Box 1694 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Thomas W. Young, III 208 West Pensacola Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karen Barr Wilde Education Practices Commission Executive Director Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with numerous violations of Part VII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes (1989), which are the statutory provisions regulating the talent agency business.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a talent agency in the State of Florida, having been issued license number TA 0000015. Respondent's last known address is 2803 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite #204, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been married to Bill Daniels, a photographer, whose office is in the same building as the Respondent's agency. The Respondent and Bill Daniels share living quarters, expenses, profits from each other's incomes, and a joint personal checking account. At all times material hereto, Art Feldman (who is also sometimes known as "Art Field"), under the Respondent's direction, regularly spoke to, interviewed, and took money from artists who sought work through T.J. Norris Co., Inc. At all times material hereto, the Respondent and Art Feldman recommended only Bill Daniels as a photographer to the artists seeking to register with the Respondent. At all times material hereto, the Respondent, as well as Art Feldman and Ed Russell (who was another of Respondent's employees), were authorized by Bill Daniels to collect funds from and issue receipts to talent registered with the Respondent for photographic services and to obtain Bill Daniels picture releases from talent. The Bill Daniels receipts reflected that the Respondent "does not guarantee work or casting." At all times material hereto, Bill Daniels, at no charge to the Respondent, would make up photos from proofs of talent registered with the Respondent, a service Mr. Daniels did not provide to other talent agencies. Bill Daniels gave the Respondent the photography negatives of talent registered with Respondent. Facts regarding Counts One, Two, and Three -- Laurie Wells On or about February 2, 1988, Laurie Wells, after seeing Respondent's advertisement, took her daughter, Jena, to the Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling and/or acting work for her daughter, who was three years old at the time. The Respondent and Art Feldman told Ms. Wells that Jena would be perfect for an upcoming television series starring Zsa Zsa Gabor. The Respondent and Art Feldman both told Ms. Wells that she would not be able to use her own photographs of Jena, but would need to have a portfolio of photographs taken by Bill Daniels before Jena could be submitted for consideration for a role in the television series. Ms. Wells paid Mr. Feldman three hundred twenty- five dollars to register her daughter with the agency and to have photographs taken by Bill Daniels. Nevertheless, Jena was never called for casting for the television series and Jena never received any work through Respondent's agency. Ms. Wells never received a copy of the contract she signed with the Respondent's agency. At the time she was dealing with the Respondent's agency, Ms. Wells was a beginner in the talent industry. The photographs that Ms. Wells brought with her to her first meeting with the Respondent and Mr. Feldman were current photographs of Jena. The photographs that Ms. Wells brought with her to that first meeting were later used by other talent agencies from which Jena obtained work. Even though the Respondent and Mr. Feldman never guaranteed any work for Jena, they both made statements implying that there was lots of work available and that Jena would be perfect for some of that work. Facts regarding Counts Four, Five, and Six -- Donna Thomas On or about March 29, 1988, Donna Thomas, as a result of one of Respondent's advertisements, took her four-year-old granddaughter, Tami, to Respondent's agency to procure modeling work for Tami. Ms. Thomas spoke with both Art Feldman and with the Respondent. The Respondent told Ms. Thomas that her granddaughter was one of the most beautiful little girls they had had in the agency for a long time. The Respondent went on to state that she could definitely get Tami all kinds of work, but before they could do so Tami would have to have some pictures made. The Respondent also suggested that the pictures should be made as soon as possible. It was suggested to Ms. Thomas that she should have the photographs done by Bill Daniels. Ms. Thomas was not told of any other options for obtaining photographs. Ms. Thomas paid the Respondent two hundred fifty-five dollars to register Tami with the agency and to have photographs of Tami taken by Bill Daniels. The Respondent's agency never procured any work for Tami; the agency never even called about any work opportunities for Tami. At the time of her dealings with the Respondent's agency, Ms. Thomas was a beginner or novice to the talent industry. The evidence in this case is unclear as to whether the Respondent did or did not provide a copy of a contact to Ms. Thomas or to Tami's parents. Facts regarding Counts Sixteen, Seventeen, and Eighteen--Mr. and Mrs. Waldron On or about April 21, 1988, Mrs. Waldron, after seeing one of the Respondent's advertisements, took her son Richard to the Respondent to procure work for him in modeling or acting. Art Feldman told Mrs. Waldron that her son Richard was absolutely beautiful and was exactly what the agency was looking for. Feldman went on to say that he received calls every day from people who are looking for children just like Richard for movies, commercials, catalogs, and newspaper ads. Mr. Feldman went on to say that photographs had to be taken before the agency could do any work for Richard; that without a portfolio there was absolutely nothing the agency could do for Richard. Feldman urged Mrs. Waldron to use Bill Daniels for the photographs and described Bill Daniels as a "resident photographer" who did all of the agency's portfolios and who could get the photos done faster than other photographers. Mrs. Waldron signed a contract with the Respondent's agency and paid the Respondent three hundred fifty-five dollars to register Richard with the agency and have Richard's photographs taken by Bill Daniels. Mrs. Waldron never received a copy of the contract she signed with the Respondent. Richard did not procure work through the Respondent for over a year. When contacted about the lack of work, Art Feldman insisted that updated photographs be taken. When Mrs. Waldron refused new photographs until Richard obtained work, Richard was suddenly called for work as an extra on a movie called "Chains of Gold." Subsequently, Mrs. Waldron asked about other work for Richard, but Art Feldman said it was unavailable until more photographs were taken. At the time of her dealings with the Respondent, Mrs. Waldron was a beginner to the talent industry. Facts regarding Counts Twenty-two, Twenty-three, and Twenty-four--Marie Strong On or about July 11, 1988, Mrs. Marie Strong took her six-month-old son, Caleb, to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring work for Caleb in modeling and/or acting. Mrs. Strong met with Art Feldman who told her he could obtain work right away for Caleb, because there were several catalogs coming out within the next week or two that needed children Caleb's age. Feldman also told her that in order to do that she needed to get a professional portfolio taken right away by the agency's photographer, Bill Daniels. Feldman urged Mrs. Strong to pay a deposit on the photographs that very day and dissuaded her from taking time to discuss the matter with her husband. Mrs. Strong paid a deposit in the amount of one hundred thirty dollars the first day and returned the next day with the balance of one hundred ninety- five dollars. The photographs of her son Caleb were taken that day by Bill Daniels. Mrs. Strong was not told of any options to have the photographs taken by some other photographer. The Respondent's agency never procured any work for Mrs. Strong's son. The Respondent's agency never provided Mrs. Strong with a copy of a contract. At the time of their dealings with the Respondent, Mrs. Strong and her son were novices or beginners to the talent industry. Facts regarding Counts Twenty-five, Twenty-six, and Twenty-seven--Kory Bielski On or about September 8, 1988, after seeing Respondent's advertisement and calling for an appointment, Kory Bielski went to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling and/or acting work. Mr. Bielski met with Art Feldman. Mr. Feldman told Mr. Bielski there was a lot of work he might be good for and that he wanted Mr. Bielski to sign up with the agency and get started. However, Mr. Feldman told Mr. Bielski that he had to have photographs taken before they would do anything. Mr. Feldman told Mr. Bielski that the agency had a photographer it worked with, and referred him to Bill Daniels. Mr. Feldman did not mention that Mr. Bielski could go to another photographer. Mr. Bielski paid Mr. Feldman a total of $425.00 to pay for the agency's registration fee and for photographs to be taken by Bill Daniels. The only work Mr. Bielski received through the Respondent's agency was two days of work as an extra in a movie. Mr. Bielski signed a contract with the Respondent's agency, but he was never given a copy of the contract. Facts regarding Counts Twenty-eight, Twenty-nine, and Thirty--Brian Cossack On or about October 14, 1988, in response to a newspaper advertisement, Brian Cossack went to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring voice-over work. Mr. Cossack met first with Art Feldman. Even though Mr. Cossack's primary interest was in obtaining voice-over work (in which the physical appearance of the artist is irrelevant), Mr. Feldman told him he would be perfect for a role in an upcoming horror film and that he would also be given TV commercial work. When Mr. Cossack said he had very little on-camera experience and did not feel prepared to take on a role of that type, Mr. Feldman continued to insist that he would be a shoe-in for the role. Mr. Feldman called the Respondent into the room and the Respondent also expressed assurances that Mr. Cossack would be perfect for movie and TV work. The Respondent went on to say that she would pay half of the cost of Mr. Cossack's photography session. After mentioning that he was relying on their assurances, Mr. Cossack paid $30.00 to register with the Respondent's agency and agreed to pay $300.00 for photographs to be taken by the photographer recommended by the Respondent. Mr. Cossack paid $100.00 towards the photographs on the first day. A few headshots were taken that day. A few days later, Mr. Cossack returned, paid the $200.00 balance, and some more photographs were taken. Mr. Cossack never received any of the photographs. Mr. Cossack gave both checks for the photographs to Mr. Feldman. The only work Mr. Cossack obtained through the Respondent's agency was work as an extra in a movie. He worked one day as an extra and declined an opportunity to work a second day as an extra. There is no clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent's agency failed to provide Mr. Cossack with a copy of a contract. Facts regarding Counts Thirty-three and Thirty-four--Chaim Kohl On or about December 28, 1988, Chaim Kohl took his four-year-old son, Roy, to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling work for Roy. At that time Mr. Kohl was a beginner to the talent industry. Mr. Kohl met with Art Feldman and told Mr. Feldman that he wanted the agency to teach his son how to be a model and to obtain work for his son as a model. Mr. Feldman told Mr. Kohl that Mr. Kohl would have to have photographs of his son taken by Bill Daniels if he wanted the Respondent's agency to represent him. Mr. Feldman also said that as soon as the photographs were ready there would be lots of castings because the agency had lots of work with huge clients. Mr. Kohl agreed to have the photographs taken and ultimately paid $30.00 to register his son with the Respondent's agency and $300.00 for the photography session with Bill Daniels. Mr. Kohl's son never received any work through the Respondent's agency; he was never even called for any castings. Facts regarding Counts Thirty-five and Thirty-six--Harriet and Jim Nabors During February of 1989, Jim and Harriet Nabors went to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling and/or acting work. At that time Mr. and Mrs. Nabors were both beginners to the talent industry. They went to Respondent's agency more or less on a lark, in response to one of the Respondent's newspaper advertisements. Mr. and Mrs. Nabors met with Art Feldman. Mr. Feldman told them that before any work could be sought for them, they would have to have photographs taken by Bill Daniels, who he described as being the agency photographer. No other photographic options were given. Mr. and Mrs. Nabors paid $30.00 each to register with Respondent's agency. Mrs. Nabors paid an additional $395.00 for photographs. Mr. Nabors paid $410.00 for photographs and $300.00 for four acting lessons. All of the checks were delivered to Mr. Feldman. Neither Mr. Nabors nor Mrs. Nabors received any work through the Respondent's agency. They received very few calls advising them of work opportunities. When Mrs. Nabors called about opportunities, she was told that business was slow. Facts regarding Counts Thirty-nine and Forty--Michelle Barton On or about September 7, 1989, Michelle Barton took her son, Nicholas, to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling work for Nicholas. At that time Nicholas was almost a year old and Ms. Barton was a beginner to the talent industry. Ms. Barton met with Art Feldman and told him she wanted to obtain modeling work for her son. The son had red hair. Mr. Feldman said there was a big need for children with red hair and specifically mentioned that there would be casting opportunities during the next month. Mr. Feldman also told Ms. Barton that she would have to have a portfolio of photographs of Nicholas taken by Bill Daniels, who was described to her as the agency photographer or as a photographer affiliated with the Respondent's agency. She was not told of any other photographic options. Ms. Barton paid $30.00 to register her son with the Respondent's agency and paid $295.00 to have photographs taken by Bill Daniels. She later paid an additional $25.00 to obtain two extra photographic prints. Ms. Barton delivered all of the checks to Mr. Feldman. Ms. Barton never received any work for her son through the Respondent's agency. Ms. Barton later registered her son with another agency. The only photographs she sent to that agency were snap shots. The second agency called her on several casting opportunities. Facts regarding Count Forty-one--Marilyn Moore On or about March 21, 1990, after seeing the Respondent's advertisement in the telephone book, Marilyn Moore took her thirteen-month-old daughter, Jaime, to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling work for Jaime. At that time Ms. Moore was a beginner to the talent industry. Ms. Moore met with Art Feldman and told him she wanted to obtain modeling work for her daughter. She had with her a small color photograph of the child that had been taken approximately a month earlier by Olan Mills. Mr. Feldman told Ms. Moore that he definitely thought her daughter had potential as a model, but that first she would have to be registered with the agency and they would need more photographs of the child. Mr. Feldman also told her that he had a photographer who could take the photographs. Ms. Moore asked if they could use the photographer she already had, and Mr. Feldman replied that the agency really needed eight-by-ten black and white photographs and that the agency photographer was in the next room and could do the photographs right then and there for a fee. Ms. Moore asked Mr. Feldman if she could use another photographer and Mr. Feldman replied that it was best to use the agency's photographer because they had worked together before and the agency photographer knew exactly what they needed. Ms. Moore registered her daughter with the Respondent's agency and wrote a $30.00 check to pay the registration fee. She left the payee's name blank on the check and delivered the check to Mr. Feldman. Someone later stamped the check with the name Bill Daniels as payee. Ms. Moore did not agree to have the agency's photographer take any photographs of her child and she declined the request that she make another appointment with the Respondent's agency. Later that same day, Ms. Moore stopped payment on the $30.00 check she had delivered to Mr. Feldman. A couple of days later, before he knew that payment had been stopped on the check, Mr. Feldman called Ms. Moore on the telephone and told her she could use her own photographs. Facts regarding Counts Forty-two, Forty-three, and Forty-four--Sonia Watson On or about December 7, 1988, after seeing the Respondent's advertisement in a newspaper, Sonia Watson took her eight-month-old daughter, Jessica, to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling work. At that time Mrs. Watson and her infant daughter were beginners to the talent industry. Because she was a beginner, Mrs. Watson went to the Respondent's agency primarily for the purpose of obtaining information. Mrs. Watson met with Art Feldman. Mr. Feldman was very encouraging about the modeling prospects for Mrs. Watson's child and he told Mrs. Watson the agency would have no problem finding jobs for her daughter and that Mrs. Watson should not worry about the money for the agency's service or for the photographs because she would be able to make it back easily. Mr. Feldman told Mrs. Watson she would have to pay a $30.00 registration fee, a $15.00 fee for a "portfolio" photograph, and a $300.00 fee for photographs and for hiring the agency to find jobs for her daughter. During the first visit Mrs. Watson paid the $30.00 registration fee and the $15.00 "portfolio" fee. She later made an appointment to have the photographs taken and paid half of the money for the photographs. Thereafter, half of the photographs were taken by Bill Daniels, who was described by Mr. Feldman as "our photographer." About two months later, Mrs. Watson returned and paid the remaining half of the money for the photographs and Bill Daniels took the other half of the photographs. Mrs. Watson paid all of the money to Mr. Feldman. Mrs. Watson was supposed to receive five 8 x 10 photographs of her child. The photographs were never provided to her. Mrs. Watson signed a contract after she paid all of the money. She did not receive a copy of the contract she signed. Before agreeing to have Bill Daniels take her child's photographs, Mrs. Watson had found a photographer who would do a photographic "portfolio" of her daughter for $90.00 or $95.00. When she told Mr. Feldman about that possibility, Mr. Feldman advised against it and told her she should use the agency's photographer because the photographer knew the companies the agency dealt with, knew the positions and things the companies were looking for, and, also, that the $300.00 fee included hiring him as her agent. Mrs. Watson's child never received any work through the Respondent's agency. Facts regarding Counts Fifty and Fifty-one--Mr. and Mrs. Trent On or about August 12, 1989, after seeing the Respondent's advertisement in a newspaper, Mr. V. G. Trent took his two daughters, Gayle and Shirene, to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling work for Gayle and Shirene. At that time, Mr. Trent and his two daughters were all beginners to the talent industry. The Trents met with Art Feldman. Mr. Feldman said that, because of their tall and exotic looks, the two girls would be working in no time. Mr. Feldman told them that they would need photographs and that the agency would take the photographs for them. Mr. Trent was not advised of any other options regarding the photographs. Mr. Feldman told Mr. Trent it would be in the best interest of the girls for the agency to take the photographs because the agency would be representing the girls and the agency would know what pictures to select. Mr. Trent agreed to Mr. Feldman's suggestions regarding the photographs and agreed to pay $760.00 to have both girls registered with the Respondent's agency and to have both girls photographed by Bill Daniels. The registration was $30.00 for each girl and the photography was $350.00 for each girl. During the first visit Mr. Trent paid a down payment towards the $760.00 and the balance was paid by his wife during a subsequent visit. Neither of Mr. Trent's daughters ever received any work through the Respondent's agency. Facts regarding Counts Fifty-four and Fifty-five--Helena Jackson On or about February 25, 1988, Helena Jackson, also known as Helena Steiner-Hornsteyn, and her teenage daughter, Annika, went to Respondent's agency for the purpose of procuring modeling and/or acting work for Annika. Following conversations with Art Feldman and the Respondent, Mrs. Jackson and her daughter ultimately paid to register with the Respondent's agency and to have photographs taken by Bill Daniels. There is no clear and convincing evidence as to what representations were made to Mrs. Jackson and her daughter by Mr. Feldman or the Respondent. Facts regarding photography needs of beginners In the opinion of experts in the talent agency business, beginning talent should spend as little as possible for photographs until they learn more about the business, decide whether they like the business, or begin to receive regular bookings. In the case of infants and children up to the age of about 10 or 12 years of age, it is sufficient for beginning talent to use snapshots that have been enlarged up to about 5 x 7 inches. An adequate supply of such enlargements can be obtained for approximately $40.00. Everyone in the talent industry is aware of the fact that babies and young children change in appearance quite rapidly and they are not expected to submit professional photographs for castings. In the opinion of experts in the talent agency business, it is sufficient for beginning talent to limit their photography expense to obtaining an 8 x 10 glossy headshot. As one expert explained, ". . . to go beyond an 8 x 10 glossy headshot, to me, is ridiculous. And, I think is a waste of money." A photo session limited to headshots is available from Bill Daniels for $125.00 and is available for less from other photographers in the area of the Respondent's agency. In the opinion of experts in the talent agency business, inexperienced talent are very susceptible to suggestions made by talent agents and have a tendency to follow agents' suggestions due to their inexperience. Because of this tendency, it constitutes undue influence for a talent agent to recommend a specific photographer to a beginning talent without also advising the talent that there are other less expensive alternatives available. Allegations on which no evidence was submitted In DOAH Case No. 90-5328 there is no competent substantial evidence of the Respondent's conduct alleged in either Count One or Count Two, both concerning Elizabeth Kingsley. In DOAH Case No. 90-4799 there is no competent substantial evidence of the facts alleged in any of the following counts: Count Seven, concerning Sarah (Tina) Polansky Count Eight, concerning Sarah (Tina) Polansky Count Nine, concerning Sarah (Tina) Polansky Count Ten, concerning Tracy Wilson Count Eleven, concerning Tracy Wilson Count Twelve, concerning Tracy Wilson Count Thirteen, concerning Michael Pry Count Fourteen, concerning Michael Pry Count Fifteen, concerning Michael Pry Count Nineteen, concerning Julie Lane Count Twenty, concerning Julie Lane Count Twenty-one, concerning Julie Lane Count Thirty-one, concerning Michelle Morrill Count Thirty-two, concerning Michelle Morrill Count Thirty-seven, concerning Kathryn Bischoff Count Thirty-eight, concerning Kathryn Bischoff Count Forty-five, concerning Marilyn Abbey Count Forty-six, concerning Marilyn Abbey Count Forty-seven, concerning Gary Janis Count Forty-eight, concerning Gary Janis Count Forty-nine, concerning Carol Mulchay Count Fifty-two, concerning August Yamond Count Fifty-three, concerning August Yamond Count Fifty-six, concerning Marie Tortu Count Fifty-seven, concerning Marie Tortu Count Fifty-eight, concerning Ilandie Joseph Count Fifty-nine, concerning Marcia Burke Count Sixty, concerning Marcia Burke The Respondent has prior violations of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. In DPR Case Number 102652, the Respondent entered a Settlement Stipulation agreeing to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred dollars for a violation of Section 468.412(6), Florida Statutes (1988), regarding advertising by a talent agency. In DPR Case Numbers 0110491 and 0106073, DOAH Case Number 89-5521, the Respondent was found to have violated Section 468.410(3), Florida Statutes, on three (3) counts and Section 468.402(1)(t), Florida Statues, on two (2) counts. The Respondent was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of two thousand dollars.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case to the following effect: In Case No. 90-5328, dismissing all charges in the Administrative Complaint for failure of proof. In Case No. 90-4799, dismissing the charges set forth in the following counts of the Administrative Complaint for failure of proof: Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Twelve, Thirteen, Fourteen, Fifteen, Nineteen, Twenty, Twenty-one, Thirty, Thirty-one, Thirty-two, Thirty-seven, Thirty-eight, Forty-five, Forty-six, Forty-seven, Forty- eight, Forty-nine, Fifty-two, Fifty-three, Fifty-four, Fifty-five, Fifty-six, Fifty-seven, Fifty-eight, Fifty-nine, and Sixty. In Case No. 90-4799, finding the Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 468.402(1)(s), Florida Statutes (1989), as charged in the following counts of the Administrative Complaint: Counts One, Four, Sixteen, Twenty-two, Twenty-five, Twenty-eight, Thirty-three, Thirty- five, Thirty-nine, Forty-one, Forty-two, and Fifty. In Case No. 90-4799, finding the Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 468.402(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1989), as charged in the following counts of the Administrative Complaint: Counts Two, Five, Seventeen, Twenty-three, Twenty-six, Twenty-nine, Thirty-four, Thirty- six, Forty, Forty-three, and Fifty-one. In Case No. 90-4799, finding the Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 468.402(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), as charged in the following counts of the Administrative Complaint: Counts Three, Eighteen, Twenty- four, Twenty-seven, and Forty-four. In Case No. 90-4799, imposing the following penalties for the violations described above: An administrative fine in the amount of $400.00 for each of the 28 violations found above, for a total of administrative fines in the amount of $11,200.00. Revocation of the Respondent's license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of March 1993. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 1st day of March 1993. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. The following general observations are made in order to facilitate an understanding on the basis for the findings of fact that have been made as well as the basis for the findings of fact that have been rejected. There is no great dispute about most of the basic facts in these cases. There is quite a bit of dispute about numerous details, as well as disputes about what inferences should be drawn from the facts. In resolving these differences I have, for the most part, been more persuaded by the versions described by the Petitioner's witnesses than by the versions described by the Respondent and her witnesses. In resolving such differences I have especially considered such matters as any motive or bias of each witness, the apparent candor or lack of candor of each witness, the extent to which the testimony of each witness appeared to be logical or illogical, and the extent to which the evidence of each witness appeared to be consistent or inconsistent with other evidence in these cases. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting conclusions of law, rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10: Accepted. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted in substance, but with some details corrected. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, and 16: Accepted. Paragraph 17: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 18: First sentence accepted; second sentence rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 19: Accepted. Paragraph 20: Accepted. Paragraphs 21 and 22: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 23, 24 and 25: Accepted. Paragraph 26: First sentence rejected as unnecessary details. Second sentence accepted. Paragraph 27: Accepted. Paragraph 28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Accepted. Paragraph 30: Accepted. Paragraph 31: Rejected as containing numerous inaccurate details. Some somewhat similar findings have been made. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35 First sentence accepted. First half of second sentence rejected as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Second half of second sentence accepted. Paragraphs 36, 37, and 38: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 39 and 40: Accepted. Paragraph 41: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 42: Accepted. Paragraph 43: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 44: Accepted Paragraph 45: Accepted. Paragraph 46: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 47: Rejected as not fully supported by the evidence and as, in any event, subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 48: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54: Accepted. Paragraph 55: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 56 and 57: Accepted. Paragraphs 58 and 59: Accepted that Mrs. Jackson paid to register herself and her daughter and to have Bill Daniels photograph her and her daughter. The remainder of these paragraphs are rejected as irrelevant details or as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mrs. Jackson was a difficult witness, both on direct examination and on cross-examination. She was often argumentative, unresponsive, rambling, and disjointed during her testimony. Her testimony was far from clear and was not convincing. Paragraphs 60, 61, and 62: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 63: Rejected as not fully supported by the record and as, in any event, irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 64: Accepted in substance, with additional details. Findings proposed by Respondent: With regard to the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, it is first noted that the Respondent's proposals are virtually impossible to address with specificity because, for the most part, they are comprised of summaries of testimony (testimony both favorable and unfavorable to the Respondent), rather than being statements of the specific facts the Respondent wishes to have found. In this regard it is perhaps sufficient to note that most of the Respondent's summaries of the testimony are essentially accurate summaries of the testimony at hearing, even where the summaries contain assertions that conflict with each other. As noted above, I have resolved most of those conflicts in favor of the versions put forth by the Petitioner's witnesses. Inasmuch as the Respondent has chosen to summarize testimony rather than make proposals of specific facts to be found, it would serve no useful purpose to embark upon a line-by-line discussion of all of the summaries. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Gregory F. Esposito, Esquire Suite 9 8000 Wiles Road Coral Springs, Florida 33065 Anna Polk, Executive Director Board of Talent Agencies Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment discrimination practices alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. At all times pertinent to this case, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an equipment operator in the golf course maintenance department. Respondent has been employed by Respondent for approximately 20 years. Respondent is a golf and country club.1/ Respondent's employment policies are contained in its "Employee Handbook."2/ The Employee Handbook provides that a "[v]iolation of any of the rules or policies set forth in this Handbook may lead to discipline, up to and including immediate discharge." Respondent's Employee Handbook contains a section on absenteeism and tardiness, which provides in pertinent part as follows: Excessive absenteeism or tardiness can result in discipline up to and including discharge. If you are going to be late or absent from work for any reason, you must personally notify your Supervisor as far in advance as possible (but no later than 2 hours before your scheduled start time) so proper arrangements can be made to handle your work during your absence. Of course, some situations may arise in which prior notice cannot be given. In those cases we expect you to notify your Supervisor as soon as possible. Leaving a message, sending a text, or having someone else call on your behalf, does not qualify as notifying your Supervisor- you must personally contact your Supervisor. If you are required to leave work early, you must also personally contact your Supervisor and obtain his/her permission. Absences of more than one day should be reported daily, unless you have made other arrangements with your Supervisor or the Human Resources Office. (emphasis in original). * * * Although an employee may be terminated at any time for failing to report to work without contacting the Club, if an employee fails to report for work or call in for three (3) consecutive calendar days they will be considered to have abandoned their job and will be terminated. Respondent's Employee Handbook also contains a provision concerning workplace violence. Employees are notified that, "[v]iolations of this policy may result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment." The workplace violence policy provides in pertinent part: The Club has a zero tolerance policy regarding violent acts or threats of violence against our employees, applicants, members, vendors, or other third parties. We do not allow fighting or threatening words or conduct. We also do not allow the possession of weapons of any kind on the Club's premises, except as required by law. No employee should commit or threaten to commit any violent act against a co-worker, applicant, member, vendor, or other third party. This includes discussions of the use of the dangerous weapons, even in a joking manner. May 3, 2013, Incident On May 3, 2013, Petitioner was not at work, but rather, performing work for a resident in the community. Petitioner's vehicle was apparently parked on the wrong side of the road. Mike Jones, a security guard, advised Petitioner to move his vehicle or he was going to receive a ticket. Petitioner informed Mr. Jones that he was not going to receive a ticket, and followed Mr. Jones back to the guard gate. Thereafter, Petitioner and Mr. Jones became engaged in "some words." According to Petitioner, after the verbal altercation he left the guard gate. On May 4, 2013, Petitioner presented to work and performed his duties. The following day, May 5, 2013, Petitioner was arrested for the May 3, 2013, incident and charged with battery on a security officer. Petitioner testified that the arrest occurred in Mike Ballard's office.3/ Mr. Ballard was Petitioner's superintendent at some point in his employment. Beth Sandham, Respondent's Human Resources Director, was not present at the time of arrest. Petitioner remained in custody throughout May 6, 2013. When Petitioner did not appear for work on May 6, 2013, Ms. Sandham credibly testified that the Human Resources department, as well as his supervisors, attempted to contact Petitioner. After several attempts to reach him by phone, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner via Federal Express.4/ Petitioner testified that he contacted his supervisor on May 6, 2013, and was advised that he had been terminated. Petitioner contends that his termination was racial in origin because Respondent did not obtain his account of the altercation prior to his termination. On this point, Petitioner testified as follows: That why I say this is a racist thing because they listen to what their two security guards say, but they never gave me the chance to explain myself. On May 6, 2013, Ms. Sandham terminated Petitioner's employment on the grounds of failing to report to work and the alleged violent behavior. As an additional basis for alleging racial discrimination, Petitioner testified that Mike Ballard was a racist. Specifically, Petitioner testified that on one occasion he overheard Mr. Ballard advise another employee, Jeff Beneclas, to "[t]ell that nigger mind his own f***en business." Petitioner explained that Mr. Ballard was referring to him. Mr. Beneclas was terminated on June 25, 2010. Addressing this allegation, Ms. Sandham explained that, if the alleged statement had been made over Respondent's radio system, said statement would have been heard by the tennis department, the golf professionals, facilities maintenance, the superintendents, and golf course maintenance. Ms. Sandham credibly testified that neither Petitioner nor any other employee notified her of such a statement or made a complaint. Additionally, Ms. Sandham credibly testified that Petitioner never made a complaint to her regarding Mr. Ballard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief against Wycliffe Golf and Country Club. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 16th day of April, 2015.
