The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food establishments in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all such establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondents Falcon 7 and Falcon 8 are licensed mobile food dispensing vehicles. Falcon 7 has license No. MFD5852560, which was initially issued on April 23, 2005; Falcon 8 has license No. MFD5852642, which was issued on October 19, 2005. Each of the Respondents serves meals and snacks to, inter alia, laborers at construction sites. On or about March 13, 2009, the Division conducted a food service inspection on Falcon 7. At that time, the food truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. One of the Food Code violations found by the inspector was Item 53b. That citation meant there was no validation of employee training on the truck. A follow-up inspection was deemed to be required. On April 10, 2009, a follow-up inspection was conducted by the Division. At that time, Item 53b was cited as a repeat offense. Also, Item 8a was cited. Item 8a refers to protection of food from contaminants and keeping food at an acceptable temperature. Notes by the inspector indicate that a further violation of Item 8a occurred because customers were allowed to serve themselves directly from food containers, and there was no fan in operation during the serving of food. On May 28, 2009, another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted. At that time, the food truck was located at 12720 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Item 8a was again cited as a deficiency. The inspector's notes indicate that food was not properly protected from contamination and that customers were being served "buffet style" from the back of the truck. The inspector noted that this was a repeat violation. A follow-up or "call-back" inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009, at which time the temperature in Orlando was unusually cold. The food truck was at the same address on Orange Blossom Trail as noted in the prior inspection. Falcon 7 was again found to have been serving food buffet style from the back of the food truck. An Item 8a violation was again noted by the inspector. Another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted on January 19, 2010, another very cold day in Orlando. At that time, the food truck was located at the same site as the last two inspections. The inspector cited the food truck for an Item 8a violation again, stating that the food was not being protected from contaminants. Dust was flying up on the back of the truck to exposed food items. An inspection of Falcon 8 was conducted on August 25, 2009, while the truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. An Item 8a violation was noted by the inspector, who found that displayed food was not properly protected from contaminants. The food truck was located under an Interstate 4 overpass and was open to flying debris. The inspector noted that customers were being served buffet style and that there was no protection of food from contamination by the customers. A follow-up inspection for Falcon 8 was conducted on August 27, 2009, at 9:12 a.m., while the food truck was located at the same site. Another Item 8a violation was cited at that time. The violation notes indicate essentially the same situation that had been cited in the initial inspection two days earlier. Less than one hour after the follow-up inspection, another inspection was conducted on Falcon 8 at the same location as the prior two inspections. There were no Item 8a citations issued during this inspection, but the food truck was found to have no water available for hand washing. The food truck employee was using a hand sanitizer to clean her hands. Respondents do not dispute the facts set forth above. However, Respondents provided mitigating facts for consideration in the assessment of any penalty that might be imposed. Those mitigating factors are as follows: The food trucks were serving an inordinately large number of workers during the dates of the inspections. The City of Orlando was constructing its new basketball arena, and there were numerous laborers involved in the project. In order to serve the workers, it was necessary for the food trucks to put their food out on tables, rather than ladle the food directly from the food warmers in the food truck. In fact, the shelves in the food trucks are so narrow that dipping food out of the warmers would be impossible. Due to the cold weather in Orlando during this time, it was impossible to keep the food at acceptable temperature levels for very long. The large number of workers washing their hands at the food trucks caused the trucks to run out of water much more quickly than normal. When the water ran out, the employees took care to sanitize their hands as well as possible. Ms. Falcon testified that the inspector's testimony concerning use of tables to serve food was erroneous. However, Sabrina Falcon was not present during the inspections, and her contradictory testimony is not reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 7, in DOAH Case No. 10-10925; and a fine of $750.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 8, in DOAH Case No. 10-10930. All fines should be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 10th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sabrina Falcon Falcon Catering Service 642 Mendoza Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Megan Demartini, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent violated food safety standards established by section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and the implementing rules as charged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Parties At all times material hereto, Richie Cheesesteak was owned and operated by Richard Fascenda, as a licensed permanent public food-service establishment located at 6191 Deltona Boulevard, Spring Hill, Florida. Mr. Fascenda holds License No. 3700896 to operate Richie Cheesesteak.1/ Mr. Fascenda is the owner/operator of Richie Cheesesteak, as well as the only cook. The Division is responsible for monitoring and inspecting licensed food-service establishments to ensure that they comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules, and the Food Code. Initial Inspection On April 16, 2013, Nick Roff, Sanitation and Safety Specialist for the Division, conducted a food-service inspection of Richie Cheesesteak. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Roff had been employed by the Division for approximately three months and was still under probation. Mr. Roff had no experience in the food- service industry prior to his employment with the Division. Mr. Roff received training from the Division in the laws relating to food service, and has become certified as a food manager. The Division additionally provides monthly in-house training which Mr. Roff has attended. During his probationary period, Mr. Roff accompanied his senior inspector on food-service establishment inspections, observing how the inspector conducted inspections, identified violations, and provided corrective actions. As part of his training, Mr. Roff was also “shadowed” by his senior inspector as Mr. Roff conducted inspections. On the date of the final hearing, Mr. Roff had conducted approximately 600 restaurant inspections. Cited Violations License and Certification On April 16, 2013, Mr. Roff prepared an Inspection Report noting a total of 13 alleged violations of the standards set forth in applicable statutes, administrative rules, and the Food Code. Respondent was cited for an expired license, a high priority violation which was remedied on-site during the inspection. Among the other violations Mr. Roff noted in his Inspection Report was Respondent?s failure to produce proof of a food manager certificate. Section 509.039 provides for a Food Manager Certification Program to ensure all managers of food-service establishments have a demonstrated knowledge of basic food protection practices. The statute further requires that “[a]ll public food-service establishments must provide the division with proof of food-service manager certification upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment.” Id. In 2008, Respondent was an assistant manager for Boyz- N-Burgers, operated by McClain Sonic?s, and was certified as a food manager at that time. On the date of inspection, Respondent could not produce a copy of his certificate and explained that the certificate would be on file with his former corporate employer. A food manager certificate expires five years after certification. A violation of section 509.039 is designated by the Division as an intermediate priority violation. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Among the violations Mr. Roff noted was that the gasket on the reach-in cooler was both torn and soiled. Food Code Rule 4-501.11(B) provides, “Equipment components such as doors, seals, hinges, fasteners, and kick plates shall be kept intact, tight, and adjusted in accordance with manufacturer?s specifications.” A torn or otherwise damaged cooler gasket can cause cross-contamination of food and prevent the storage of foods at the required temperature. Respondent?s reach-in cooler is at least 30 years old. Respondent did not testify that the gasket had ever been replaced, although he did state that it has been “siliconed over” on several occasions. Respondent admitted at final hearing that the reach-in cooler gasket was torn in one place. Respondent denied that the gasket was soiled, explaining that there might have been some food spilled on it during lunch and the inspection was conducted right after lunch. Respondent insisted that he wipes down the gasket every day. Violation of rule 4-501.11(B) is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Storage of Utensils Among the other violations observed by Mr. Roff was a knife stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment. Food Code Rule 3-304.12 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: During pauses in FOOD preparation or dispensing, FOOD preparation and dispensing UTENSILS shall be stored: * * * (C) On a clean portion of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT only if the in-use UTENSIL and the FOOD-CONTACT surface of the FOOD preparation table or cooking EQUIPMENT are cleaned and SANITIZED at a frequency specified under subsections 4-602.11 and 4-702.11. * * * (F) In a container of water if the water is maintained at a temperature of at least 57 degrees Celsius (135 degrees Fahrenheit) and the container is cleaned at a frequency specified under subparagraph 4-602.11(D)(7). Respondent admitted that a knife was stored in the crack between two pieces of kitchen equipment when Mr. Roff made his initial inspection. Violation of rule 3-304.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Improperly Marked Containers Mr. Roff also observed “cookline bottles” stored in squeeze bottles which were not labeled as to their contents. Food Code Rule 3-302.12 reads as follows: Except for containers holding FOOD that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding FOOD or FOOD ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the FOOD. Respondent keeps two bottles on the cookline, one for oil and one for vinegar. Respondent is the only cook. Respondent testified that he has the bottles marked “oil” and “vinegar” with black marker. He introduced a photograph of the bottles marked as such, but the photograph was taken subsequent to the callback inspection and is not accepted as evidence of the condition of the bottles on the day in question. Mr. Fascenda testified that during the inspection, he showed the bottles to Mr. Roff and pointed out the hand-labeling, but admitted that Mr. Roff could not see the wording because it rubs off easily. Mr. Roff testified he did not recall seeing any labeling on the bottles. Violation of rule 3-302.12 is designated by the Division as a basic violation. Mr. Roff walked through the violations with Respondent, who signed the Inspection Report on April 16, 2013. The Inspection Report noted that a follow-up inspection was required and that the violations must be corrected by June 16, 2013. Callback Inspection On June 17, 2013, Mr. Roff performed a callback inspection at Richie Cheesesteak. Mr. Roff observed that seven of the violations noted in the April 16, 2013, Inspection Report had been corrected. However, the violations detailed above –- gasket on reach-in cooler torn and soiled; knife stored between kitchen equipment; cookline bottles unlabeled; and no proof of food manager training –- were not corrected. Mr. Roff prepared a Callback Inspection Report, which was signed by Respondent. The Callback Inspection Report recommended filing an Administrative Complaint. Petitioner introduced no evidence of prior violations by Respondent of the applicable statutes, administrative rules, or the Food Code. Owner?s Response Certification Respondent maintained it would be impossible to produce his food manager certificate because it was retained by his employer in 2008. Respondent was clearly frustrated with Mr. Roff?s unwillingness to accept the explanation given at the first inspection and was indignant at being fined for lack of food manager certification following the callback inspection. Respondent?s explanation that he was previously certified but that the certificate was retained by his former employer is not a defense. The statute clearly requires production of the food manager certificate when the Division inspects the manager?s food-service establishment. Following the callback inspection, Respondent obtained a Food Manager Certificate, which was introduced at final hearing. Reach-in Cooler Gasket Respondent argued that if the gasket was not functioning, the reach-in cooler would not be maintaining the appropriate temperature, which it was when tested upon inspection. Respondent?s argument is not a defense. Keeping food at the proper temperature is only one of the aims of the rule. The other is to prevent cross-contamination of food in the cooler with substances on the gasket, whether they are foods spilled thereon or bacteria growing in a torn gasket. Respondent further argues that cross-contamination is not an issue since he is the sole operator and cook. Cross- contamination of foods in the reach-in cooler is not a function of how many different employees use the cooler, but rather the condition in which it is kept. Respondent testified that, since the callback inspection, he “siliconed over” the gasket to seal it and improve its appearance. He produced before and after photographs of the gasket at final hearing. Neither picture is evidence of the condition of the gasket upon inspection,since they were taken approximately two weeks before the hearing. If anything, the “before” picture tends to support the Division?s case that the gasket was torn and soiled upon inspection. Storage of Utensils Respondent admitted that a knife was stored between two pieces of kitchen equipment on the date of the first inspection. But, he maintained that was an accident and he does not regularly store knives that way. Improperly Marked Containers Respondent first argued that his oil and vinegar bottles were labeled, although in marker, and he should not be held in violation. The evidence shows that the labels were unrecognizable when the inspections occurred. Respondent next argued that the following facts should be taken into consideration when determining whether he violated the rule. First, there are only two bottles –- oil and vinegar. Accidental mixing of their contents would not create a health hazard or threat. Second, Respondent is the only cook, so mixing the contents is unlikely. Third, the cookline is separated from the cleaning area. Thus the likelihood of mixing the contents of the cookline bottles with bleach or another cleaning product is minimal. While Respondent?s arguments are no defense, they may be considered mitigating factors.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent Richie Cheesesteak violated section 509.039 and Food Code Rules 3-302.12, 3-304.12, 4- 501.11, and 4-601.11, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent Richie Cheesesteak in the amount of $800, payable to the Division within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2013.
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 3582 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and holding food service license number 1621408. On October 17, 2012, and December 17, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Maor Avizohar, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Avizohar noticed several items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Avizohar and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that, as of December 17, 2012, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent's facility: (1) an employee handwash station incapable of providing water at a temperature of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-202.12; and (2) the storage of in-use utensils in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-304.12(F).3/ The deficiency relating to the lack of hot water at the handwash station is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: finding Respondent guilty of Counts One and Two, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; and ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $300, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer 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 13th day of August, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 23, 2011, and if so, whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to section 20.165 and chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a Florida corporation named Stugotz, Inc., doing business as Joey's On Beach. The corporation is wholly owned by Joseph Di Meglio. Respondent holds a public food establishment license issued by the Department. Respondent's business address is 2521 Thomas Drive, Unit A, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408. Inspector Smith has been employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist for approximately five years. She has received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, is a certified food manager, and performs approximately 1,000 inspections each year for the Department. Formerly, Inspector Smith was a restaurant manager for 15 years. On March 2, 2011, Inspector Smith performed a food service inspection of Joey's On Beach located at 2521 Thomas Drive, Unit A, Panama City Beach, Florida 32408. During the inspection, Inspector Smith prepared and signed an inspection report on her electronic personal data assistant setting forth violations she allegedly encountered during the inspection. Ann Marie Di Meglio, the wife of the owner of Joey's On Beach, was present during the inspection and signed the report on the electronic device. According to the inspection report, the March 2, 2011 inspection of Joey's On Beach occurred at 11:11 a.m. Joey's On Beach opens at 11:00 a.m. The inspection occurred during active food preparation. Inspector Smith made the Respondent aware that all violations noted during the inspection needed to be corrected by May 2, 2011. All of the pages of the three-page March 2, 2011, inspection report are prefaced with the heading "FOOD SERVICE INSPECTION REPORT LEGAL NOTICE" with the warning that "Failure to comply with this Notice may initiate an administrative complaint that may result in suspension or revocation of your license and fines." The third page of the March 2nd report set forth alleged violations as follows: Warning(s) 12A-09-1: Observed food employee wearing jewelry other than a plain ring on their hands/arms while preparing food. 22-25-1: Observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head. 08A-28-11: Observed bag if [sic] bread crumbs on foor [sic] in walkin cooler. 08A-29-1: Observed sauce and bread crumbs uncoverd [sic] in walkin cooler. 02-22-1: Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked. Sausage 08A-23-1: Observed shell eggs over sausage in walkin cooler 08A-28-1: Observed jug of oil stored on the floor. 53B-08-1: No proof of required employee training provided. All public food service establishments must provide the division with proof of employee training upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment. This violation must be corrected by: 5/2/11. 32-16-1: Hand wash sink lacking proper hand drying provisions. Corrected on site. 09-04-1: Observed bare hand contact of ready-to-eat food by employees and establishment has no approved Alternative Operating Procedure in effect. Corrected On Site. On May 3, 2011, Inspector Smith performed a callback inspection of Joey's On Beach. According to the report, the inspection was performed at 10:18 a.m. Respondent had not yet opened for business and the callback inspection was conducted during active food preparation. During the callback inspection, Inspector Smith did not discuss specifics of the case with the owner, Joseph Di Meglio, because, according to Inspector Smith, inspectors are "not allowed to discuss the case at an inspection." Inspector Smith prepared and signed a two-page report for the May 3rd callback inspection on her electronic personal data assistant indicating that some of the violations noted on the March 2, 2011, inspection report had not been corrected. Mr. Di Meglio signed the May 3, 2011, inspection report. Both pages of the May 3 inspection report had the same "Legal Notice" as the earlier report, stating "Failure to comply with this Notice may initiate an administrative complaint that may result in suspension or revocation of your license and fines." Alleged uncorrected violations recommended for an administrative complaint were noted on the May 3 inspection report as follows: The following item(s) have been recommended for Administrative Complaint: Violation 53B-08-1 No proof of required employee training provided. All public food service establishments must provide the division with proof of employee training upon request, including, but not limited to, at the time of any division inspection of the establishment. This violation must be corrected by: 5/2/11. At callback no training provided for Ann Marie. Violation 22-25-1 Observed buildup of soiled material on mixer head. Violation 08A-29-1 Observed sauce and breadcrumbs uncovered in walkin cooler Violation 08A-28-1 Observed bag if [sic] breadcrumbs on floor in walkin cooler Violation 02-22-1 Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked, sausage, and at callback sausage and meat balls not date marked in walkin cooler The Administrative Complaint in this case charged Respondent with the same five alleged violations recommended in the May 3rd callback inspection report, in the following order (Counts 1 through 5): (1) Observed ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food prepared on site and held more than 24 hours with not properly date marked in walk-in cooler [referencing 02-22-1, and citing 3-501.17(A), Food Code]; (2) Observed bag of bread crumbs on floor in walk-in cooler [referencing 08A-28-1, and citing 3-305.11, Food Code]; (3) Observed sauce and break [sic] crumbs uncovered in walk-in cooler [referencing 08A-29-1, and citing 3-302.11A)(4), Food Code]; (4) Observed build up of soiled material on mixer head [referencing 22-25-1, and citing 4-601.11(A), Food Code]; and (5) Observed no proof of required training provided, at call back no training provided for Ann Marie [referencing 53B-08-1, and citing 509.049, Florida Statutes]. At the final hearing, the Department announced that Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, alleging a lack of training in violation of section 509.049, Florida Statutes, had been dropped because Mr. Di Meglio had established to the Department's satisfaction that Respondent's employees were properly trained. The Department presented some evidence in support of the remaining allegations. As discussed below, however, the Department only met its burden of persuasion as to Count 2 alleging that breadcrumbs were improperly stored in an open container on the floor of the walk-in cooler. As to Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint, at the final hearing, Inspector Smith referred to both inspection reports and observed that the reports indicated that Respondent had failed to properly date mark ready-to-eat potentially hazardous food (sausage and meatballs) held on site for more than 24 hours in the walk-in cooler. She explained that such failure was a critical violation because food must be date- marked to indicate the day it was prepared, and the day that it expires. She further explained that potential hazardous foods, such as precooked sausage and meatballs, are only good for seven days from the date prepared. Respondent's witness, Ann Marie Di Meglio, works at the restaurant and was there when the first inspection took place. Her husband, Mr. Di Meglio, was not. According to Ms. Di Meglio, it is Respondent's procedure to date-mark the containers in the walk-in cooler. She further testified that at the time of the inspection, there was active preparation, and it is hard to keep things covered during active preparation. Mr. Di Meglio, through his testimony, further explained that they date-marked the covers of the sausage and other prepared foods in the cooler, but remove the lids to gain access to the food during active preparation. He testified that there were labels on the lids of the sausage and meatball containers at the time of the inspections, but that the lids had been set aside because of preparation. Inspector Smith suggested that she would have cited the sausage and meatball containers for being open, but could not recall whether they were open or not. She did not see the labels on the lids. There were no photographs or specific descriptions of the containers or observations by Inspector Smith. During the final hearing, when asked whether there were dates on the lids of the containers, Inspector Smith testified, "I can't answer that because I'm not there. I didn't write anything about it being uncovered." Based upon the explanations provided by the Di Meglios, the timing of the inspections, the lack of specific recollection by Inspector Smith, and considering that the Department has the burden of persuasion, it is found that the Department did not prove that Respondent failed to properly date its containers of potentially hazardous foods as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint. As to Count 2, Inspector Smith stated in both the March 2 and May 3, 2011, inspection reports that she observed an open bag of breadcrumbs stored on the floor in Respondent's walk-in cooler. Storage of breadcrumbs on the floor in an open container is a critical violation because when food is stored on the floor, it can become contaminated by exposure to wastewater or germs from walking back and forth outside to the bathroom. While perhaps an open container could be explained by the fact that there was active food preparation, no excuse or explanation was offered as why an open bag of breadcrumbs was found on the floor during both inspections. Respondent's witnesses did not otherwise address the improper storage of breadcrumbs on the floor as alleged in Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint. As to Count 3 relating to the open containers of breadcrumbs and sauce, it is found that Respondent's explanation of active food preparation was reasonable given the timing of the inspections. In other words, the Department failed to prove that Respondent was storing foods in open containers because it is found that the containers were only opened temporarily during active food preparation.3/ As to Count 4, relating to an alleged dirty mixer head, the inspection reports for both the March 2 and May 3, 2011, inspections indicate there was a "buildup of soiled material on mixer head." While Ms. Di Meglio testified that she did not know if there was something on the mixer head at the time of the inspections, she testified that the mixer is cleaned every day, and that the material on the mixer head, if any, was not old. Rather, she explained, she had used the mixer around 10:00 a.m. the very morning of the first inspection to make dough and cut cheese. Ms. Di Meglio further explained that Respondent's mixer is very old and has some discoloration. And, while admitting that there may have been some dust or flour on the mixer from recent use, both she and her husband denied that there was any soil on the mixer or the mixer head. Inspector Smith's testimony regarding the state of the mixer, and the brief descriptions in the inspection reports referring to "soiled material" on the mixer head, without more, provided less than clear and convincing evidence of a violation. While Inspector Smith testified that she would not cite the equipment as being dirty if it was soiled with everyday use dirt, she was unable to definitively recall her observations. When questioned about the mixer head at the final hearing, Inspector Smith observed: I just noted that it was extremely2/ soiled when I was there at the initial inspection and at the callback. Not the top, but the mixer head being - - that goes over the unit, from what I can remember. When further asked to explain the difference between "soiled" and "dusty," Inspector Smith testified: It was all food debris with - - I mean, I just remember it just being soiled. It was over a year ago. I can't describe in detail what was on it. I would not cite it unless it was old food debris, or it was mold-like substance maybe with a combination. I don't cite everyday dirt. Considering Inspector Smith's less than specific recall, Respondent's explanation, and the Department's lack of specific details or photographs contrary to the testimony of Respondent's employees, it is found that the Department failed to prove the violation alleged in Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint. While the inspection reports were accepted into evidence as corroborative hearsay, it is found that, under the facts and circumstances, they are documents prepared in anticipation of litigation.4/ Specifically, the reports contain warnings and requirements of compliance, with specific mention of the fact that failure to comply may "initiate a complaint." Moreover, the evidence showed that the investigator could not discuss the allegations with Respondent's owner because inspectors are "not allowed to discuss the case at an inspection." Even if the inspection reports were not merely hearsay, their lack of detail when compared to the recollections of Respondent's employees regarding operations and the state of affairs during the inspections, was insufficient to meet the Department's burden of persuasion necessary to prove Counts 1, 3, and 4 of the Administrative Complaint. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint alleging improper storage of bread crumbs on the floor, however, was uncontroverted, and the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's improper storage of bread crumbs was a critical violation.5/
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order which dismisses Counts 1, 3, 4, and 5 and confirms Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint, and imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $250 for Respondent's critical violation of Rule 3-305.11, relating to improper storage of breadcrumbs discovered during the inspections conducted on March 2 and May 3, 2011. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 13th day of July, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner demonstrated that she was terminated from employment by Respondent, Florida Department of Health- Volusia (Respondent or FDOH-Volusia), as the result of an unlawful employment practice based on her identification with a protected class, or as retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a provider of health services in Volusia County, Florida. Among the programs administered by FDOH-Volusia is the Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC). WIC is a federally-funded nutrition program, which provides healthy foods, nutrition education and counseling, breastfeeding support, and referrals for health care and community services. At all times relevant to this proceeding, FDOH-Volusia operated WIC health clinics in Daytona Beach, New Smyrna Beach, Orange City, and Pierson. Petitioner began working for FDOH-Volusia in June 2010, as a nutrition program director. In her capacity as nutrition program director, Petitioner was responsible for certain management activities of WIC. The State of Florida maintains close supervision of WIC. FDOH-Volusia is required to provide an annual Nutrition Plan (the Plan) to the State. The Plan is a report of WIC operations, sites, hours of operation, various objectives, local agency plans for increasing participation, local agency disaster plan, and staffing. As nutrition program director, Petitioner is responsible for preparing the Plan, and submitting it for revisions and/or final approval by FDOH-Volusia’s administrator. Ms. Boswell became the administrator of FDOH-Volusia on or about April 1, 2016. Dr. Husband, who is African-American, became Petitioner’s direct supervisor beginning in July 2016. As Petitioner’s direct supervisor, Dr. Husband provided oversight of WIC. In 2016, FDOH-Volusia consolidated its Deland and Deltona WIC offices into the office in Orange City. Petitioner was very involved in the move and was, during the period of the move, reassigned from her primary duties in Daytona Beach to duties in Orange City. By all accounts, the move went well. On September 23, 2016, Ms. Boswell requested that Petitioner meet with her and Dr. Husband to discuss the draft Plan provided by Petitioner on September 21, 2016, and for Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband to provide comments, suggestions, and revisions to the Plan, which was due for submission to the State of Florida on September 30, 2016. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the steps necessary to get the Plan in final form for submission. At the onset of the September 23, 2016, meeting, Ms. Boswell complimented Petitioner and her staff for getting DOH-Volusia’s new Orange City location “up and going.” Petitioner responded that “it’s good to hear something positive after so much negative.” The comment was directed at Dr. Husband, who Petitioner thought had been negative towards various aspects of her job performance. Petitioner’s comment led to tensions between Petitioner and Dr. Husband. Both said, at one time or another during the meeting, words to the effect of “don’t speak to me like that.” Ms. Boswell became a little uncomfortable with the interaction between the two. During the September 23, 2016, meeting, a number of deficiencies in the draft Plan were identified, including grammatical and syntax errors, discussion that did not align with the corresponding graphs, and a lack of data to support the Plan conclusions. Dr. Husband gave guidance and feedback on the Plan. Ms. Boswell indicated that, but for Petitioner’s comment regarding Dr. Husband’s negativity, the meeting was otherwise professional. At the hearing, Petitioner explained that Dr. Husband made other negative comments to her at various times, stating that at a meeting with the director of nursing regarding WIC work schedules, Dr. Husband said “we’re not going to nitpick”; and that on another occasion during a discussion on the difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff at base salary, Dr. Husband said to Petitioner “that’s the way you designed it.” According to Petitioner, Dr. Husband made similar comments to other of her direct reports. Dr. Husband testified at the hearing that she thought -- before and after the September 23, 2016, meeting -- that Petitioner was insubordinate, disrespectful to employees and supervisors, and rude. Petitioner would take meeting notes in red ink when she perceived instances of “negativity” and “unacceptable behavior” from her direct supervisor, which she described as her “red flag system.” Petitioner argued that since she “spoke up and spoke out” during the September 23, 2016, meeting, she has been the subject of retaliation by Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband. She expressed her belief that Ms. Boswell was upset that Petitioner criticized Dr. Husband because Dr. Husband was Ms. Boswell’s direct report, i.e., that Petitioner’s criticism “was a reflection on her.” On or about October 5, 2016, Petitioner was informed that her duty station was being changed from Daytona Beach to New Smyrna Beach. Petitioner testified that she posed four questions to Dr. Husband as to the reasons for the transfer and that, in her opinion, Dr. Husband’s responses did not justify the action. Petitioner felt that as the WIC nutrition program director, she should be in Daytona Beach, the largest administrative office. Thus, Petitioner could think of no reason for the move other than retaliation for her criticism of Dr. Husband. Ms. Boswell testified credibly that the reason for Petitioner’s transfer was that New Smyrna Beach was reopening WIC services at the office. In light of how well things went with the opening of the Orange City office, she wanted Petitioner to go to New Smyrna Beach to make sure that location was up and running. She testified that the reassignment was not a punishment, rather, “that was her job” to make sure WIC was running well. Her testimony is credited. In addition to the fact that Dr. Boswell had perfectly legitimate reasons for having Petitioner cover the New Smyrna Beach office, it is clear that Petitioner suffered no adverse employment action as a result. Petitioner lives between Daytona Beach and New Smyrna Beach, and the New Smyrna Beach office is no further from her home than the Daytona Beach office. Petitioner’s pay was not changed, her title was not changed, and her benefits were not changed.1/ More to the point, Petitioner neither pled nor proved that the change in duty station had anything to do with discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; that it was taken because Petitioner opposed any practice engaged in by FDOH-Volusia based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; or that it was based on Petitioner having made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding conduct based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. On or about October 18, 2016, Petitioner received a Documented Counseling and Performance Notification (Documented Counseling) from Dr. Husband. The Documented Counseling included a number of deficiencies in performance, and several corrective measures. The deficiencies included: that Petitioner failed to monitor and spend allocated WIC funding during the 2015-16 fiscal year; that the Plan submitted by Petitioner was rejected by the administrator for lack of detail, grammatical errors, and poor work product, and when the Plan was finally completed it was discovered that Petitioner’s staff performed the majority of the work; that the WIC participation rate (65 percent) was significantly less than the program goal (85 percent); and that Petitioner failed to support efforts to refer WIC clients to the dental hygienist at the Orange City location. The Documented Counseling also reflected that Petitioner had been disrespectful to Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband. Petitioner refused to sign the Documented Counseling to acknowledge her receipt. Petitioner provided excuses for the deficiencies noted, e.g., she used most of the allocated WIC funding; the draft Plan was mostly complete, and she had never before been required to submit a draft nine days before its final submission date; she was only required to increase WIC participation by four percent per year; it was not in the WIC scope of work to facilitate clients to get dental services, just to refer them; she objected to co-location of the dental hygienist in the WIC office and, in any event, referrals were not the responsibility of management, only staff. None of Petitioner’s explanations were convincing. Rather, the testimony of Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband that the Documented Counseling was completely performance-based and had nothing to do with the September 23, 2016, meeting, was compelling and is accepted. More to the point, Petitioner neither pled nor proved that the Documented Counseling had anything to do with discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; that it was taken because Petitioner opposed any practice engaged in by FDOH-Volusia based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; or that it was based on Petitioner having made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding conduct based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. On or about December 16, 2016, Petitioner received an oral reprimand. The oral reprimand noted that Petitioner violated prior instruction and FDOH-Volusia written policy regarding absence from work and reporting such absences to her supervisor by telephone. The oral reprimand was documented. Petitioner refused to sign the oral reprimand documentation to acknowledge her receipt. Petitioner acknowledged that prior notice of absences is important so that FDOH-Volusia could make sure personnel were available to perform clinical services. Despite Petitioner’s prior knowledge that she would not be at work on November 28, 2016, she did not call her supervisor, Dr. Husband, until after 8:00 a.m. on November 28, 2016. She left an earlier voicemail with a direct report. The testimony of Ms. Boswell and Dr. Husband that the oral reprimand was completely performance-based and had nothing to do with the September 23, 2016, meeting, was compelling and is accepted. More to the point, Petitioner neither pled nor proved that the oral reprimand had anything to do with discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; that it was taken because Petitioner opposed any practice engaged in by FDOH-Volusia based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; or that it was based on Petitioner having made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding conduct based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. On April 12, 2017, Petitioner was required to participate in an investigatory interview to determine why she was absent from her duty station on numerous occasions between January 4, 2017, and April 10, 2017. Petitioner testified that she saw no problem in coming to work late since, if she was not scheduled for clinic duties, there was no adverse affect on staff or the clinic. Petitioner thought the investigatory interview for her failure to be at work during scheduled hours “was a bit harsh,” and felt that FDOH-Volusia was “monitoring her coming and going.” She testified that the monitoring of her “daily schedule, coming and going,” was related to the September 23, 2016, meeting. Petitioner provided information on her “tardies” to Ms. Ayers. Ms. Ayers had by then been assigned as Petitioner’s supervisor since Petitioner had, in another act of “speaking up and speaking out,” filed a formal grievance against Dr. Husband for retaliation.2/ Ms. Boswell testified convincingly that Petitioner was not authorized to unilaterally “flex” her time; that an agency cannot be run when employees alter their schedules without notice; and that Petitioner’s excessive absences from her duty station violated the Employees’ Handbook. The documentation provided by Petitioner was deemed to be insufficient to justify her absences, and did not explain why Petitioner failed to get approval from a supervisor before modifying her work schedule. Thereafter, on or about June 22, 2017, Petitioner received a written reprimand for the absences. Petitioner refused to sign the written reprimand to acknowledge her receipt. The testimony of Ms. Boswell and Ms. Ayers that the written reprimand was completely performance-based and had nothing to do with the September 23, 2016, meeting, was compelling and is accepted. More to the point, Petitioner neither pled nor proved that the written reprimand had anything to do with discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; that it was taken because Petitioner opposed any practice engaged in by FDOH-Volusia based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status; or that it was based on Petitioner having made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing regarding conduct based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. The June 22, 2017, written reprimand was the last of the retaliatory actions for the September 23, 2016, meeting alleged by Petitioner. Petitioner has alleged that the October 5, 2016, change in duty station; the October 18, 2016, Documented Counseling; the December 16, 2016, oral reprimand; the April 12, 2017, investigatory interview; and the June 22, 2017, written reprimand were all unwarranted retaliation for the statement she made during the September 23, 2016, meeting, i.e., that Dr. Husband had been negative towards her. Petitioner acknowledged that there was “some truth” in the discipline, but lots of “fluff.” To the contrary, the evidence is convincing that, if anything, FDOH-Volusia was, and remains, exceedingly lenient and accommodating to Petitioner with regard to the substantiated discipline meted out. As set forth previously, Petitioner has not been terminated or demoted, and has not suffered a pay decrease or a decrease in benefits. While her duty station was moved from Daytona Beach to New Smyrna Beach, those locations are approximately the same distance from Petitioner’s home, and she has since been moved back to Daytona Beach for “need” related reasons. Respondent in this case presented hours of compelling testimony from multiple credible witnesses regarding Petitioner’s poor management skills, poor interpersonal skills, poor leadership skills; her tense, argumentative, and disrespectful attitude; and more. The testimony was, presumably, offered to demonstrate that FDOH-Volusia had a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for the alleged adverse employment actions taken against Petitioner. The testimony and evidence was unnecessary. Not once during the course of the hearing did Petitioner allege or argue that the actions taken as described herein had anything to do with discrimination or retaliation based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. Petitioner stated that the actions taken against her were the result of her having “spoken up and spoken out” against negative comments from her supervisor, Dr. Husband. There was nothing raised in Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination, in her Petition for Relief, in her statement of position in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, in the testimony and evidence that she offered at the final hearing, or in her Proposed Recommended Order that even intimates that FDOH-Volusia committed an unlawful employment practice as established in section 760.10, Florida Statutes. As will be discussed herein, the failure to allege, argue, or prove discrimination or retaliation based on a protected class or opposition to an unlawful act constitutes a failure to meet the most basic jurisdictional element of an unlawful employment practice complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner, Lisa J. Funchess’s Petition for Relief, FCHR No. 201701356. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 17th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a restaurant, unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner, who is African-American, by refusing to serve her because of her race.
Findings Of Fact At approximately 2:25 p.m., on July 2, 2003, Petitioner, an African-American resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered the premises of a Denny’s Restaurant located at 14697 Duval Road, Jacksonville, Florida, to eat a meal. Petitioner had spent the previous night in Gainesville, Florida, and had interviewed for a position with the City of Gainesville that morning before driving to Jacksonville to fly home to Minneapolis. Petitioner approached the wait stand and waited approximately three minutes to be seated. Petitioner noticed only five guests in the restaurant at the time she was seated, all of whom were Caucasian. Petitioner was seated close to a Caucasian family of four and a single Caucasian male seated at another table. Petitioner did not claim that she had been segregated in the restaurant, and admitted that she had been seated close to tables with customers of other races. Immediately after being seated, Petitioner asked the hostess for a cup of hot water with lemons, which was promptly delivered to her by the hostess. Petitioner was treated respectfully by the hostess. After the hostess left, Petitioner drank her beverage while she reviewed the menu and waited to be greeted by her server and to have her order taken. Although there appeared to be three servers in the restaurant at the time of Petitioner’s visit, only one appeared to be serving. The others appeared to be completing their “side work,” that is, restocking and end-of-shift cleaning duties. The only person actually serving customers during Petitioner’s visit was Rhonda Nicks, a Caucasian woman. The restaurant was short staffed during this period due to a shift change and another server’s failure to show for her shift. While she waited to be served, Petitioner observed that two Caucasian women entered the restaurant, were seated, and were promptly served by Ms. Nicks who appeared to be the only server in the restaurant. Petitioner next observed as a Caucasian man and woman entered the restaurant, were seated, then promptly had their drink and food orders taken and served by Ms. Nicks. After waiting 20-25 minutes, and not having her food order taken, or even being acknowledged by the server, Petitioner went to the cashier’s stand where she was met by Audrey Howard, an African-American employee of the restaurant, who asked Petitioner if she wanted to see a manager. Petitioner replied that she did want to see a manager, and one was summoned. After waiting a few minutes, Petitioner was greeted by a Caucasian manager who identified himself as Mike Kinnaman. After speaking with Petitioner, Mr. Kinnaman offered to immediately put in Petitioner’s food order, to even cook the meal himself, and to provide the meal at no charge. Petitioner refused Mr. Kinnaman’s offer, stating that she had to return her rental car at the airport, then catch a flight. Mr. Kinnaman then offered Petitioner a business card on which he wrote “1 free entrée, 1 free beverage, 1 free dessert . . . Unit #1789." Mr. Kinnaman told Petitioner that she could use the card for a free meal at another time. This offer was made based upon the manager’s belief that Petitioner did not have time to eat and needed to leave for the airport. After speaking with the manager, Petitioner left the restaurant at approximately 3:00 p.m. She drove the short distance to the airport, removed her luggage and belongings from the rental car, turned in the car, and received her receipt which showed that she had turned in the car at the airport Hertz location at 3:20 p.m. Although Petitioner told the Respondent’s manager that she had to leave to catch a flight, the evidence showed that Petitioner’s flight was not scheduled to leave for another four hours. Petitioner’s rental car receipt documented the fact that she had a two-day rental and could have kept the car for almost another full day. Petitioner was in no jeopardy of incurring additional rental car charges or of missing her flight when she hurried from the restaurant at 3:00 p.m. Although Petitioner observed only nine other customers in the restaurant while she waited to be served, Respondent’s records and the testimony of Audrey Howard, a former cook at Respondent’s restaurant, 24 customers were served in the restaurant between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on the day of Petitioner’s visit. Although Petitioner testified that she was the only African-American customer in the restaurant, Ms. Howard recalled a table of two African-American patrons who were served during the time period when Petitioner was in the restaurant. She specifically recalled these patrons because the gentleman returned his omelet to the kitchen, asking for more cheese. During her time in the restaurant, Petitioner observed only five employees. Respondent’s records demonstrate that 14 hourly employees were in the restaurant between 2:25 and 3:00 p.m. From where she was seated in the restaurant, it is likely that Petitioner could not see every customer and employee in the restaurant. Petitioner never attempted to call a server over to her table, nor did she ask the hostess to either take her order or ask a server to provide her with service while she waited. Petitioner did not complain to the manager that she had been discriminated against. She complained that she had received poor service. Respondent requires training for all of its employees on diversity and discrimination issues before they are allowed to work for Respondent. Every server who testified at hearing had specifically undergone diversity and discrimination training. Although Respondent has a history of past discrimination against African-Americans as evidenced by a consent decree entered into by the company with the United States Justice Department, it has since received national awards and recognition for its strides in the areas of discrimination and diversity. Respondent takes claims of discrimination very seriously, and has a zero tolerance standard for acts of discrimination by its employees. Respondent’s managers are required to report all claims of racial discrimination to a 1-800 hotline. No call was made by the manager in this case because he did not believe that a claim of discrimination had been made by Petitioner when she claimed she had received poor service. Petitioner offered no evidence that she had suffered damages as a result of the poor service she received at the restaurant.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Ms. McAdory's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan S. Erdelyi, Esquire Marks Gray, P.A. Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Charlene McAdory 417 Oliver Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
