Findings Of Fact Joseph Rodriguez, Respondent's President, is a licensed dealer in agricultural products under the provisions of Sections 604.15 to 604.30, Florida Statutes, and acts as a negotiating broker between the producer and the buyer. Respondent is bonded through Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, co-Respondent in this case, as required by Section 604.19, Florida Statutes. Respondent acted as broker on thirty sales of Petitioner's cabbage between May 21 and June 7, 1984. On each occasion, Respondent provided Petitioner with a written confirmation of sale which specified the buyer, the place of delivery, the amount of cabbage sold and the terms of the sale, the name of the company supplying the truck to pick up the cabbage and who was supplying the truck. On several occasions, Respondent supplied the truck. However, on all written confirmations provided by Respondent, the following appears: BROKER ARRANGES TRUCK FOR GROWER FOR CONVENIENCE PURPOSES ONLY. On June 8, 1984, Respondent contacted Petitioner's salesman, Donald Waters and ordered 150 bags of cabbage to be sold to Harvey Kaiser, Inc. Respondent was acting as a broker in this transaction between the buyer and seller. Respondent contacted Patterson Truck Brokers and ordered a truck to pick up the cabbage at Petitioner's farm on June 9 and make delivery under the terms of the sale. Petitioner could only provide 121 bags of cabbage. Respondent agreed to this lesser amount and was invoiced accordingly by Petitioner on June 9 in the amount of $272.25. The truck from Patterson Truck Brokers never arrived to pick up the cabbage. Petitioner's father, Donald A. Dunn, Jr., testified that he contacted Joseph Rodriguez on two occasions by telephone to find out where the truck was, and was told that Patterson would be sending it. Rodriguez testified that Patterson Truck Brothers had agreed to provide a truck but when they were unable, he then contacted other trucking companies, as well as other buyers, in an attempt to get a truck on June 9 or 10, or to arrange another sale of Petitioner's cabbage. However, he was not successful and the cabbage went bad. Although there was no completed sale of this cabbage and therefore he earned no brokerage fee on the transaction, Respondent paid Petitioner one-third of the invoice amount for this cabbage, $86.21, on July 23, 1984, as an act of "good faith" and in recognition of the good business relationship they had. He also informed Petitioner that Patterson Truck Brothers and Donald Waters had each also agreed to pay one-third and Petitioner should contact them for payment. Petitioner contends that it should be Respondent's responsibility to pay the entire amount still owing, $172.43. Acting as a broker, Respondent earns no commission for making arrangements to supply a truck for the convenience of the seller. He invoices the buyer, collects the total amount due from the buyer, remits the freight charge to the shipping company, and pays the seller minus his brokerage fee.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture issue a Final Order dismissing the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 30th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Rodriguez President Golden Touch Corporation 950 Colorado Avenue Stuart, FL 33497 The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company 151 Farmington Avenue Hartford, CT 06115 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee FL 32301 Donald A. Dunn, III Route 2, Box 68 Sanford, FL 32771 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Dionaris Cabrera, (hereinafter "Petitioner Cabrera") the sole stock holder of Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation, was correctly assessed a penalty for violating the workers' compensation laws of Florida, during the period of 2006 through 2008. Whether Petitioner, Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., (hereinafter "the old corporation") is responsible for providing workers' compensation coverage for its alleged employees, and whether the old corporation was properly noticed of the violation. Whether Petitioners or either one of them, are in violation of the Workers' Compensation Act during the relevant time period due to the failure to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees. Whether Florida Sunset Shuttles and Charters, Inc., (hereinafter "the new corporation") is a successor entity of Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., or Dionaris Cabrera, d/b/a Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and/or Florida Administrative Code Chapter 69L-6. Whether the Stop-Work Orders and amended penalties issued to Petitioner Cabrera and the old corporation were properly applied to the new corporation. Whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (hereinafter "Respondent") is estopped from imposing a penalty on the new corporation due to a prior determination made by the investigator assigned to the file in 2006 and the detrimental reliance upon representations made to Ruben Cabrera and Jennifer Crain, who were representing the old corporation in the proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. PARTIES INVOLVED AND RESPONDENT'S ACTIONS Petitioner Cabrera is the sole owner and director of Petitioner Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., (the old corporation) a Florida Corporation. She founded the company in 2005. At the time of the hearing and at the time of the imposition of the Stop-Work Order, she was residing outside the United States, most likely in the Dominican Republic. At the time of the issuance of the first Stop-Work Order, the old corporation was administratively dissolved for failure to file its annual report. During the relevant time period, there is no evidence that Petitioner Cabrera was actively controlling day-to-day operations of either the old corporation or the new corporation. Ruben Cabrera and Jennifer Crain were employed by the old corporation, with Ruben Cabrera being the manager and Jennifer Crain being his assistant. Ruben Cabrera also held himself out as an officer of the old corporation. Ruben Cabrera and Jennifer Crain were not directors of the old corporation. Ruben Cabrera had managed the business operations of the old corporation since its creation in 2005. On November 13, 2007, Respondent's investigator, Lisette Sierra (Sierra), conducted a compliance check at the old corporation's worksite, located at 851 East Donegan Avenue, Kissimmee, Florida, to verify compliance with the workers' compensation statutes. Upon arrival at the worksite, Sierra observed that it consisted of a fenced lot with a trailer and several parked buses. At the worksite, Sierra personally spoke with Jennifer Crain and Ruben Cabrera. Petitioner Cabrera was not present. On and after November 13, 2007, Petitioner Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., did not carry workers' compensation for anyone associated with the corporation. On November 13, 2007, Respondent issued a Division of Workers' Compensation Request for Business Records to the old corporation. Although two documents were tendered, the records requested were not produced within the 5 business day time period specified in the request. On November 28, 2007, Respondent issued a second Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (hereinafter "Request") directed to Petitioners, Cabrera and Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc. The Request required Petitioners or either of them, to produce records related to bus drivers who performed services for the company during the specified period. On the same date, Respondent issued a "Stop-Work Order" to Petitioner Cabrera and the old corporation for failure to meet the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Insurance Code, ordering Petitioner Cabrera and the old corporation to cease all business operations and assessing a $1,000.00 daily penalty against Petitioner Cabrera and the old corporation, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(d), Florida Statutes, for failure to comply. The Stop-Work Order and Request was posted on the work site on November 28, 2007. On November 30, 2007, Sierra was unable to serve the Stop-Work Order on the old corporation, via its registered agent or an officer. She served the Stop-Work Order and the Request by hand delivery on Jennifer Crain, Assistant Manager, at the company offices. On December 10, 2007, Respondent issued a subsequent Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. It was served on a representative of counsel for all of the Petitioners. The parties named on the first and second Stop-Work Order were "Dionaris Cabrera, d/b/a Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., and Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., a Dissolved Florida Corporation." Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., was found to be an administratively dissolved corporation at the time the Stop-Work Orders were issued. The old corporation continued to operate its business in violation of both Stop-Work Orders issued by Respondent. On December 17, 2007, Respondent issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment directed to Petitioner Cabrera and the old corporation, amending the penalty assessed to $346,349.58, pursuant to the formula listed in Sections 440.107 and 440.10, Florida Statutes. Since no business records were received from either Petitioner in response to the Request, the penalty was calculated by imputing the old corporation's gross payroll. After unsuccessful attempts to serve either Petitioner Cabrera or the old corporation, Respondent served the Amended Order, dated December 17, 2007, on an alleged employee of Petitioner Cabrera and/or the old corporation, name unknown, at the company offices on January 3, 2008. Petitioner Cabrera is the mother of Ruben Cabrera, the company manager. She is the sole stockholder, corporate officer, and registered agent listed for Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., in the Florida Secretary of State's records. There has not been any contact with Petitioner Cabrera during the course of Respondent's investigation. It appears that Petitioner Cabrera does not live in or around Orlando, Florida. According to Ruben Cabrera, Petitioner Cabrera was living in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, during the entire course of their investigation and this proceeding. Ruben Cabrera was the manager who operated the old corporation from its company offices in Kissimmee. He entered into arrangements to provide shuttle bus services for guests to tourist destinations with several hotels in the Kissimmee/Orlando area. While negotiating and signing these contracts with hotels, he held himself out to be an officer of the old corporation. It was unclear from the evidence when the old corporation closed business operations, but it appears to have done so prior to January 1, 2008. On November 30, 2007, Ruben Cabrera incorporated the new corporation. He was named the sole owner, corporate officer, and registered agent. The principal place of business was the same as the worksite of the old corporation, and the addresses of the registered agent and corporation's sole officer were the same as well. On January 30, 2008, Respondent served a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (hereinafter "2nd Amended Order") directed to Petitioner Cabrera and the old corporation, on Jennifer Crain, Assistant Manager, at the company office, assessing a $406,349.58 penalty on these two Petitioners. The increase in penalty was due to the allegation that the old corporation continued to operate in violation of the Stop-Work Order. In addition, none of the parties listed on the Penalty Worksheet, attached to the 2nd Amended Order, had current, valid exemptions from workers' compensation coverage. An exemption from workers' compensation allows the exemption holder to be exempt from having to secure the payment of workers' compensation on behalf of himself or herself. None of the persons used to calculate the penalty had workers' compensation exemptions. The penalty period began on November 20, 2006, because a prior investigation by Respondent found the old corporation to be in compliance only up to that date. Utilizing the Scopes Manual published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance and adopted by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021, as guidance, Respondent determined that Petitioner Cabrera and/or the old corporation's activities involved clerical workers and bus drivers. Thus, she assigned the class codes 8810 and 7382, respectively, to the old corporation's activities. On January 30, 2008, Respondent also served an Order Applying Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Successor Corporation or Business Entity (hereinafter "Order Applying") on the new corporation. The Order Applying transferred the effect of the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order issued to the old corporation to the new corporation, based on the allegation that the new corporation was a successor corporation, pursuant to Subsection 440.107(7)(b), Florida Statutes. Ruben Cabrera, the owner/operator, transferred ownership and control of the new corporation to Jennifer Crain on January 9, 2008. Jennifer Crain became the registered agent, sole owner, and officer of the new corporation. It hired some of the drivers who previously worked for the old corporation and put them on salary under the new corporation. The new corporation leased new vehicles and served some of the same routes as the old corporation from the same company location. The new corporation properly carried workers' compensation insurance when served with the Order Applying. Therefore, the new corporation was in compliance with Subsection 440.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, at the time Jennifer Crain took over ownership and control of the new corporation. COMPANY OPERATIONS Drivers for the old corporation submitted applications for employment to the company, prior to being hired. However, drivers signed contracts with the old corporation which stated that they were independent contractors and not employees, and no deductions were taken out their pay. 1099 Forms were issued at the end of the year. Drivers for the old corporation did not pay insurance on the vehicles they used for business purposes. Drivers for the old corporation were not responsible for the expenditures associated with repair or maintenance of the vehicles used by the drivers for business purposes. The corporation paid for the insurance. Drivers for the old corporation did not pay any fees or charges to the company for use of the vehicles. Drivers for the old corporation paid their own admission fees for entry into amusement parks, or other incidental expenses. Drivers for the old corporation wore black pants and a white shirt as a standard uniform. Drivers for the old corporation were paid according to the length of time for which they worked each day. Drivers for the old corporation did not own the vehicles they used for business purposes. They did not pay the old corporation for use of the vehicles in carrying out the contracts of the old corporation. The vehicles were leased under contract by the old corporation. Drivers for the old corporation did not individually contract with hotels for services, but carried out the contracts entered into by the old corporation. The old corporation did not submit any invoices for services rendered by its drivers. There is no evidence that the drivers maintained separate businesses. Payments to drivers were made to individuals rather than to their "businesses." Drivers for the old corporation were paid by the full day or half day, according to the span of time they worked. Ruben Cabrera entered into contracts with clients of the old corporation. He signed the contracts as either manager or as president of the old corporation. Drivers for the old corporation regularly visited the old corporation's clients to pick-up or drop-off passengers in the course of their employment. The old corporation's contract with at least one hotel refers to the old corporation's drivers as "employees." On June 16, 2008, Respondent issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment directed to Petitioner Cabrera and the old corporation, reducing the fine assessed to them to $131,504.60. The penalty was reduced after Respondent received the old corporation's business records and was able to use them to calculate a penalty. The old corporation received payment for its services from multiple businesses in the Kissimmee/Orlando area. The old corporation's records do not specify who, if any, of the drivers paid by the old corporation are independent contractors. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served at the DOAH on counsel for the parties. Following a hearing, the Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment was granted by the undersigned ALJ, and this matter proceeded to final hearing. PRIOR INVESTIGATION BY RESPONDENT On September 12, 2006, Respondent initiated an investigation into the alleged violation of the workers' compensation laws of Florida by Petitioner, Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc. The investigating agent for Respondent, Ray Reynolds (Reynolds), issued a Stop-Work Order on September 15, 2006, for failure to obtain coverage for its employees. It is alleged that in a meeting with Ruben Cabrera, his attorney at the time, and Jennifer Crain, held on September 15, 2006, Reynolds reviewed the contracts with the drivers, and, apparently based on those facts alone, agreed that the bus drivers who worked for Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., were independent contractors. He advised the parties of such findings. However, on September 19, 2006, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued assessing the corporation a penalty of $2,084.09 for the violation. Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc. did not challenge the findings of Respondent that a violation had occurred, and voluntarily paid the fine for failing to provide coverage for those employees named. It also produced proof of workers' compensation coverage for nine employees, which included Ruben Cabrera and Jennifer Crain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order dismissing the "Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment" directed to Dionaris Cabrera, d/b/a Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc.; The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order upholding the "Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment" and its successor orders directed against Petitioner Florida Sunset Shuttle, Inc., a dissolved Florida corporation; and that The Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, enter a final order upholding the "Order Applying Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Successor Corporation or Business Entity" against Florida Sunset Shuttles and Charters, Inc., and imposing a penalty of $131,604.60. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of December, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Hayward Trucking, Inc. for certification as a minority business enterprise be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 11th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Pursuant to section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes (2015), the issue is whether Respondent has unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in employment for opposing unlawful employment discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is black and originally from Trinidad. He appears to be at least 50 years of age. Petitioner failed to prove that he is a Seventh-Day Adventist, but this omission is immaterial for the reasons set forth below. At all material times, Respondent has employed Petitioner as a Heavy Equipment Operator. Several years ago, after, on three occasions, Respondent declined to promote Petitioner to Pipefitter Supervisor. Petitioner complained to Respondent and later to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation that Respondent had hired for this position three persons who lacked a Water Distribution Level III license and instead improperly used Petitioner's license to satisfy a requirement of the agency for the employment of a person holding such a license. It may be inferred that Respondent did not welcome these complaints, regardless of their merits. Petitioner's proof as to his attempts to secure a position as a Pipefitter Supervisor is sketchy, but, regardless of any evidentiary shortcomings, it appears that, at the time, he opposed Respondent's actions, not as actions of unlawful employment discrimination, but as a violation of an agency rule and improper use of Petitioner's license. The sole potentially retaliatory act identified by Petitioner occurred, several years later, when, in April 2015, Respondent refused to sustain Petitioner's appeal of a reprimand that he received for causing $25 worth of damage to a third party's mailbox while operating heavy equipment within the scope of his duties as a Heavy Equipment Operator. However, the evidence fails to prove that the refusal to sustain the appeal was retaliatory. Petitioner did not deny that his operation of heavy equipment damaged the mailbox. Although $25 is a modest amount of damage, heavy equipment is inherently dangerous and its negligent operation may require punishment, even when the damage is slight, in order to deter future negligence that might result in more serious damage or loss of life. Petitioner unpersuasively links the denied appeal of the ensuing reprimand to his job-related complaints several years earlier. Even if Petitioner had established that these complaints constituted opposition to unlawful employment discrimination, which he did not, Petitioner cannot link the evidently reasonable punishment of a reprimand for negligent operation of heavy equipment, years later, to Respondent's decisions not to promote him to Pipefitter Supervisor. As it is, Petitioner proved only that he is a member of several protected classes; several years ago, he complained that Respondent hired unqualified persons as Pipefitter Supervisors and used Petitioner's license to satisfy a state agency's rule; several years later, while operating heavy equipment for Respondent, Petitioner damaged a mailbox; and, as a consequence, Respondent reprimanded Petitioner and denied his appeal of the reprimand.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed on September 16, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Robert E. Meale Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) William X. Candela, Esquire Dade County Attorney's Office 111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128 (eServed) Selwyn Don Titus Apartment 601 14030 Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33181 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of employment discrimination against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born in Spain and is of Hispanic origin. At all material times, he has been employed by Respondent. Since 1992, he has been employed as a truck driver. At the time of the incident described below, Respondent was a Waste Truck Driver. His job was to drive a 66,000-pound truck in Miami to collect garbage from the utility customers. On February 28, 2006, Petitioner was operating his truck along Northwest 54th Street. This is a major east-west arterial through central Dade County. At the location of the incident, this busy road contains five lanes of traffic. Leaving a strip mall, from which he had just collected garbage, Petitioner drove the truck across this arterial, crossing double-yellow lines in the middle, in order to save time in driving to the next pick-up location. Petitioner was not at an intersection and knew that the double-yellow lines meant that his maneuver was illegal. Petitioner "explains" that he chose to do this maneuver at the urging of the Waste Collectors riding on the back of the truck and with the knowledge that other truck drivers had done it too. Unable to clear all of the lanes at one time, Petitioner was forced to stop the truck around the middle of the highway at an angle closer to perpendicular than parallel to the direction of the traffic flowing around him. A collision resulted when a passenger car tried to pass the garbage truck on the left at the same time that Petitioner moved his truck forward to try to complete his maneuver. After an investigation, Petitioner's supervisor, who is black, decided to demote him to Waste Collector, which resulted in a small decrease in pay, but presumably less-preferred tasks involving more direct contact with solid waste. The supervisor weighed Petitioner's substantial experience with Respondent as a driver against the facts that he could have prevented this accident, even though he did not receive a citation, and that he has had five other preventable accidents while driving Respondent's vehicles. Respondent had previously required Petitioner to take good-driving courses on three occasions due to avoidable accidents. He had also been given progressive discipline for his driving mishaps, culminating in an eight-day suspension for his last accident, which was in December 2004. Petitioner claimed to his supervisor that he had done nothing wrong, that he had not violated any rules, and that everyone drives like he did. The supervisor was unfavorably impressed by his failure to accept responsibility for the accident and his nonchalant attitude. The supervisor legitimately concluded that this attitude combined with Petitioner's driving history unreasonably raised the risk of additional accidents caused by Petitioner. Petitioner's attempt to show disparate treatment was unpersuasive. Either similar discipline was imposed for a similar number of similar offenses, supervising personnel were different, or the similarity of past offenses could not be determined. Petitioner's supervisor testified that she did not demote him because he is Hispanic, and this testimony is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Eric A. Rodriguez, Esquire Office of Dade County Attorney 111 Northwest First Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1930 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is guilty of operating an overweight, unregistered commercial vehicle and, if so, the amount of the penalty.
Findings Of Fact On November 3, 1997, Petitioner was operating a U-Haul truck on County Road 951 in Collier County. Respondent's weight and safety officer pulled over the vehicle for a routine inspection. Petitioner was in the moving business and was transporting a third party's household goods from Chicago, Illinois, to Naples, Florida. Petitioner produced an Ohio- apportioned registration, which had expired on May 31, 1997. However, Petitioner had no log book concerning his driving activity. Respondent's weight and safety officer weighed the vehicle, which was a laden straight truck, and found that it weighed 13,400 pounds. Respondent's law enforcement officer thus issued Load Report Citation Number 090045M and collected $170 for the overweight load and Safety Report Number 085886 and collected $100 for the failure to maintain a log book.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's request for a refund of the penalties in the amount of $270 already collected from him. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kelly A. Bennett Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Christopher W. Campbell 14751 South Homan Number 5 Midlothian, Illinois 60445 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Attn: Diedre Grubbs Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: In 1985, petitioner Linder Truck Center, Inc. (Linder) purchased Lakeland Frame and Axle, which was then a General Motors Corporation (GMC) Truck dealer in Lakeland, Florida. In July of 1985, Linder entered into a Dealer Sales and Service Agreement with GMC, and thereafter, entered into a replacement Agreement effective November 1, 1985. Under the terms of the Dealer Agreement and various addenda, Linder was granted a non-exclusive right to buy, sell and service certain specified light duty, medium duty and heavy duty trucks marketed by GMC. The provisions of the Agreement between Linder and GMC provide that GMC may discontinue any product at any time and its only obligation is to manufacture and deliver to the dealer accepted orders which the dealer does not elect to cancel. The Dealer Agreement and addenda delineate Linder's areas of primary responsibility (APRs) for the three types of trucks. The APRs are different for light, medium and heavy duty trucks because of the different volume base for each category. Since the volume base for heavy duty trucks is smaller, the APR for such trucks is larger in order to provide the dealer with sufficient volume base to make economically viable the dealer's heavy duty marketing and after- market support. On or about November 1, 1985, GMC certified to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) that Linder was authorized as a dealer to sell and service new motor vehicles commonly known and designated as GMC Trucks. On or about September 10, 1986, GMC notified all its truck dealers of the anticipated creation by AB Volvo and GMC of a joint venture company which would manufacture and distribute heavy duty trucks. On or about November 7, 1986, Linder received from GMC four Motor Vehicle Addenda to the Dealer Sales and Service Agreement which superseded prior addenda. At the same time, GMC delivered a letter informing Linder that GMC had agreed to form a joint venture with AB Volvo which would manufacture, assemble and distribute heavy duty trucks in the United States, and that GMC would discontinue and no longer distribute or market heavy duty trucks in the United States. The letter also stated that it was anticipated that Linder's Heavy Duty Motor Vehicle Addendum would be cancelled no later than December 31, 1987. This same letter was sent to all GMC truck dealers. By letter dated December 23, 1986, GMC notified Linder that GMC would cease offering heavy duty trucks for sale in North America on December 31, 1987, and that, consequently, the current Heavy Duty Motor Vehicle Addendum would expire on that date. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles was likewise informed of this action. During the period ending December 31, 1987, GMC manufactured and distributed three heavy duty truck products: the Brigadier, the Astro and the General. Prior to the early 1980's, GMC held a relatively strong position in the heavy duty truck industry, with its market share being in excess of 16 percent. Its share of the market for heavy duty trucks declined precipitously to 8 percent thereafter and the manufacture and sale of its heavy duty truck models became increasingly unprofitable for GMC. It balanced the alternative of completely liquidating its hard assets formerly devoted to the manufacture and distribution on its heavy duty truck models against that of utilizing those assets as contribution with another manufacturer in a joint venture operation. Considering that it then had approximately 170,000 heavy duty trucks on the road and desiring to assure coverage and availability of service parts, GMC determined to contribute its heavy duty truck assets and other assets to form a joint venture with AB Volvo, to be known as the Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation. As it did with Linder, GMC provided to all its heavy duty truck dealers approximately a year's notice of the joint venture agreement with Volvo, as well as notice that GMC would cease offering heavy duty truck products for sale in North America on December 31, 1987. It also notified its dealers that a priority for the joint venture would be the selection of a dealer network to sell and service the joint venture's products. GMC's heavy duty truck dealers were advised that not all would obtain a dealer agreement for heavy duty trucks from the joint venture. At the time of the joint venture, Volvo had approximately 200 to 210 dealers for heavy duty trucks, and GMC had approximately 350 heavy truck dealers. In January of 1988, approximately 240 dealerships were awarded on behalf of the joint venture. While Linder actively sought to be selected as a Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation dealer, it was notified by letter dated July 30, 1987, from Volvo GM that it had not been selected as a joint venture dealer. There was no evidence adduced at the hearing to establish how many of the dealerships awarded by the joint venture were formerly GMC or formerly Volvo heavy duty truck dealers. Likewise, there was no evidence as to whether or not a dealership was awarded for Linder's former area of primary responsibility for the sale and/or service of heavy duty trucks. Pursuant to the joint venture agreement, GMC owns a 24% stock interest in Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, and the remaining 76% interest is owned by Volvo North America Corporation. GMC has the option to purchase an additional 11% of the stock in 1993. GMC is a Class B stockholder, and holds 3 of the 10 seats on the Board of Directors. By majority vote of the GMC Directors, GMC does have veto powers over some 18 out of the ordinary-type decisions, such as a change in the vehicle nameplates, waivers of dividends and a sale of the company. The business of Volvo GM is to manufacture and market Class 8 vehicles (heavy duty trucks) and to sell the Volvo Line of medium duty trucks. The joint venture calls for the discontinuance by GMC of the manufacture of all heavy duty truck models, with the temporary exception of the Brigadier model. Had the Brigadier model not been manufactured during 1988, Volvo GM would not have been able to meet the demand for heavy duty trucks in 1988. That model was manufactured by GMC during 1988 under exclusive contract to the joint venture, Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, for distribution by the joint venture under its own nameplate (White GMC Brigadier) and warranty. The manufacture of the Brigadier trucks was discontinued on or about December 16, 1988. Thereafter, the joint venture will design, produce and market a completely different vehicle as a replacement to sell into the market that the Brigadier previously sold into. During 1988, GMC had no involvement in the marketing of the Brigadier heavy duty truck. The joint venture had the responsibility for everything beyond production. Approximately 4,000 Brigadiers were produced in 1988, as compared with 7,000 or 8,000 during 1986 and 1987. Linder's GMC Dealer Sales and Service Agreement continues in effect, and Linder remains an authorized dealer of General Motor's light duty and medium duty trucks.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway Safety enter a Final Order determining that GMC's cancellation or termination of petitioner's heavy duty truck addendum to its Dealers Sales and Service Agreement as of December 31, 1987, was not unfair or prohibited, and that petitioner's third amended complaint be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 13th of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 13th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX Case No. 87-5007 The parties' proposed findings of fact have been fully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, with the following exceptions: Petitioner 30 - 49. These proposed findings are accepted as factually correct with respect to the terms of the various agreements and documents, but are not included as irrelevant and immaterial to the ultimate issues in dispute. 73, 74. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 76. Rejected as an improper factual finding, and discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Respondent 10. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. 19. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley H. Eleff and Richard M. Hanchett, Esqs. Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O'Neill, P.A. 2700 Barnett Plaza Post Office Box 1102 Tampa, FL 33601 Dean Bunch, Esquire Rumberger, Kirk, Caldwell, Cabaniss, Burke & Weschler, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street Suite 900 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Room B439 Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0500
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jerry McCoy, is an African American and is a member of a class protected by Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner worked as a tanker truck driver for Florida Rock from 1980 until October, 1993. During his employment, he was assigned to Florida Rock's terminal in Panama City, Florida. Respondent, Florida Rock & Tank Lines, Inc., is a transportation company engaged in the hauling of liquid and dry bulk commodities throughout the United States. Respondent transports gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt, chemicals and other hazardous and corrosive materials. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, during his 13-year employment with Florida Rock, was generally considered a good truck driver. Over the years, Petitioner received several compliments from customers, safety bonuses and emblems, and a set of his and her watches after 10 years of maintaining a good safety record. On the other hand, Petitioner also received several customer complaints, committed some safety violations, and was banned from two customers' terminals. The trucking industry is heavily regulated. As such, Respondent must obey federal, state, county and city traffic, and transportation laws. In addition, Respondent must follow federal and state environmental laws and regulations because it transports toxic and hazardous substances. The transportation and environmental laws and regulations are strictly enforced. Minor violations can result in substantial penalties. Respondent or the driver, or both, can be fined for violations of any of these laws. To ensure compliance with the federal, state, county, and city laws, and to satisfy requirements of its customers, Respondent established a safety program. Respondent's safety policies were developed as a result of experience in tank truck transportation and, when followed by drivers, have resulted in safe loading, transportation, and unloading of products that Respondent transports. To enforce the safety program, Respondent adopted a points system. Under the points system, a driver is assessed points for preventable violations of a safety policy or procedure. A driver who accumulates 24 points within one year is automatically terminated. On a driver's anniversary date, all points assessed during the previous year are removed from the driver's record and the driver begins the year with a clean company driving record. The rules, policies, and procedures of the safety program are contained in the driver's safety manual. All drivers receive a copy of the safety manual when hired. All drivers also receive safety training before being allowed to operate a truck transporting hazardous materials. In addition, to maintain driver awareness of safety rules and regulations, Respondent conducts monthly safety meetings at each terminal. The meetings are conducted by the terminal manager or safety supervisor, or both, and consist of a review of safety rules, policies, procedures, and equipment and recent changes in relevant laws. The safety program is administered by the safety department of Respondent. Luc Cleyman, Director of Safety, directs the daily operations of the safety department. When a spill, mixture, or other violation of the safety program occurs, the driver's terminal manager initiates a review of the incident to determine whether it was preventable or non-preventable. If the terminal manager determines that the violation was preventable, the driver is assessed points and/or subjected to other discipline based on the type and severity of the violation. A driver is not assessed points for a non- preventable violation of safety rules and procedures. In certain situations, Mr. Cleyman may instruct the terminal manager to assess a number of points greater or less than the amount specified in the safety manual, and to administer further disciplinary action for safety violations. Under the safety program, management has the authority to administer further disciplinary action for a safety violation, if in their opinion it is warranted. In addition, management has the authority to impose less discipline than that which is set forth in the safety manual. The safety department reviews all citations issued to verify that the correct number of points was assessed. An employee's race is not referenced in the files maintained by the safety department. Consequently, in disciplinary actions, management does not know the race of an employee unless the individual in management knows that particular employee. In this case, unlike most terminal managers, Nancy Dinnes, the terminal manager at the Panama City Terminal, always consulted with the safety department before her initial assessment of points against a driver for a safety violation. Respondent's safety program includes an appeal procedure by which a driver may appeal the determination that an incident was preventable and/or the assessment of points. The safety manual provides: The driver has the right of appeal, without prejudice. The appeal must be made to the Safety Department, in writing, within ten working days after the driver receives his/her notification. Once the appeal is received in the Safety Office, the incident facts will be reviewed by the Accident Review committee and/or the Violation Review Committee. Each committee will be comprised of the Vice President, Division Vice President, and the Director of Safety. The Committee's decision regarding work- related injury claims and spillages, mixtures, and contaminations will be final in all cases. In the event a driver does not agree with the committee's decision regarding a traffic accident, then he/she must submit, in writing, his/her disfavor to the Safety Department within ten (10) days after his/her receipt of the committee's decision. The accident facts will then be submitted to the National Safety Council Accident Review Committee for their review and decision. Their determination will be final in all cases. To encourage drivers to follow the safety program's policies and procedures, Respondent pays substantial quarterly and annual safety bonuses to eligible drivers. An eligible driver receives a quarterly safety bonus of four percent of his previous quarter's earnings and an annual safety bonus of two percent of his previous annual earnings. A driver is eligible to receive a quarterly safety bonus unless he or she is assessed six or more points during the quarter. A driver who accumulates 21 or more points during the year is not eligible to receive an annual safety bonus. Quarterly bonuses are paid in the month following the end of the quarter. Annual safety bonuses are paid in January of the following year. The amount of quarterly and annual safety bonuses is substantial. Drivers always know when they are due a bonus and whether that bonus has been paid. If a driver does not receive a quarterly or annual safety bonus he or she has a right of appeal. The safety manual provides: It is Florida Rock and Tank Lines, Inc.'s desire to pay all earned Quarterly and Annual Safety Bonuses. Any driver that does not qualify for the quarterly or annual bonus has the right of appeal, without prejudice. The appeal must be made to the Safety Department, in writing, within ten working days after the quarter in question has ended or the year in question has ended. Once the appeal is received in the Safety Office, the case will be reviewed by the Bonus Review Committee. The Bonus Review Committee consists of the Vice President, Division Vice President, and Director of Safety. Their findings and recommendations will be final. Petitioner was hired as a driver of tractor-trailer trucks at Respondent's Panama City Terminal on February 28, 1980. His duties included loading petroleum products at distribution terminals and transporting them to gas stations and other facilities in the southeastern part of the United States where he would unload the product into storage tanks. Petitioner was aware of the company's safety policies and procedures. In particular Petitioner was aware of the safety policies and procedures involved in this action. On April 13, 1993, Petitioner delivered resin, a very thick material, to the Georgia-Pacific facility in Albany, Georgia. The hose used for unloading resin is two inches in diameter. The hose was in bad shape. It's end blew off while Petitioner was pumping resin into the storage tank. A spill, which is a potential violation of the company's safety policy, occurred. The violation carries an assessment of twelve points. Petitioner brought the failed hose back to the terminal and showed it to Nancy Dinnes. Upon investigation, Mr. Cleyman was told by a representative of Georgia-Pacific that Petitioner was pumping the resin too fast and blew the end of the hose off. The same Georgia-Pacific representative also complimented Petitioner for his help in containing and cleaning up the spill. Both Ms. Dinnes and Mr. Cleyman were of the opinion that hoses did not fail unless Petitioner was forcing too much product into the hose by pumping the product too fast. However, both conceded that Petitioner's claim that the hose failed while he was properly unloading the resin could have occurred. Both gave Petitioner the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, no points were assessed against Petitioner since the spill was deemed unpreventable due to the unpredicted failure of the hose. On April 28, 1993, Petitioner was dispatched to deliver ethanol no-lead regular fuel to Sunshine Jr. Store No. 28 in Springfield, Florida. When he arrived at the store, Petitioner testified that he was unable to determine into which tank to dispense the ethanol unleaded regular fuel because the storage tanks were not properly marked for ethanol fuel. Likewise, the pumps were not marked for ethanol fuel because the store had not sold ethanol fuel for several months. There were separate storage tanks marked for regular unleaded fuel, mid- grade fuel and premium fuel. Because he was unable to determine the correct tank into which to drop his load, he asked the store manager to identify the correct tank. The store manager did not know and called Sunshine Jr.'s corporate offices. After the store manager contacted someone at the corporate office, the store manager told Petitioner to unload the no-lead regular fuel into the premium fuel tank. Without calling the terminal, Petitioner unloaded regular gasoline in with premium gasoline causing a mixture of the two fuels and downgrading the premium fuel to a lesser octane fuel. Petitioner did not draw a diagram of the storage tanks with their markings on the Bill of Lading for the delivery. In instances where the storage tanks are not clearly marked, a driver is required to diagram the location of the storage tanks and the type product each contains so that the information will be on record at the terminal. Petitioner admits that he was aware of the requirement of a diagram under such circumstances. His failure to diagram the storage tanks at Sunshine, Jr. Store No. 28 demonstrates that Petitioner was not confused by the markings on the storage tanks. Indeed he had been disciplined for unloading fuel into the wrong storage tank the previous year at Rice's Grocery. The mixture resulted in the loss of over 1,500 gallons of fuel and caused a hazardous situation. Eventually, the fuel was removed and transported to another location. Because of the dangers to the public from a mixture of hazardous materials and the substantial penalties resulting from such a violation of environmental laws and regulations pertaining to the transportation of petroleum products, Respondent's safety program includes a policy imposing 12 points, or further discipline up to discharge, for preventable mixtures of fuel and other hazardous materials. Respondent's load/unload procedures in the driver's safety manual require a driver before unloading to: Check the fill pipe identifications to be sure they are labeled properly and indicate the same product you intend to unload. Do not depend on identification by others. If fill pipes are not properly identified and you are unable to personally identify the contents of the tank, call your terminal for instructions. Failure to do so may endanger lives, property and the environment. Thus, a driver who cannot determine the correct tank in which to unload may not rely on others for identification of the proper storage tank, but must contact the terminal manager for instructions. A driver who contacts the terminal for instructions does not violate safety rules and procedures if a mixture results. As indicated, Petitioner did not call the terminal for instructions. Petitioner's very confusing testimony to the contrary is not credible. Petitioner admits the above procedure is correct. On April 29, 1993, the day after Petitioner's delivery, Sunshine Jr., Stores contacted terminal manager Dinnes to inform her that Petitioner had unloaded ethanol unleaded fuel into the premium fuel storage tank causing a mixture of the two fuels. Ms. Dinnes investigated the report. As part of her investigation, Respondent sent Fernando Berrios, mechanic, to the site to conduct a visual inspection of the storage tanks. Mr. Berrios found that the tanks were properly marked. Additionally, a diagram identifying the layout of the store's storage tanks with their markings was displayed in the store's window. Mr. Berrios drew a diagram showing the layout of the storage tanks with their markings at Sunshine Jr. Store No. 28 on the face of the Truck Bill of Lading pursuant to which Petitioner had delivered the fuel. After her investigation, Ms. Dinnes contacted the safety department and informed Mr. Cleyman that Sunshine Jr. Stores had reported a mixture and to discuss the appropriate discipline. Mr. Cleyman and Ms. Dinnes determined that Petitioner had failed to follow written company procedures pertaining to the unloading of products and mixed two different fuels together by unloading one fuel into the incorrect storage tank. Specifically, they concluded that Petitioner failed to follow written company safety procedures requiring a driver to contact the terminal if the driver is uncertain about which storage tank to unload into or the storage tanks are not properly marked and deliberately mixing two different grades of gasoline together. The mixture was clearly preventable. The points schedule in the safety manual provided that a driver who mixes product should receive twelve points. Accordingly, Mr. Cleyman instructed Ms. Dinnes to assess 12 points against Petitioner's driving record in accordance with the schedule contained in the safety manual. As a result of this violation, Petitioner did not receive his quarterly safety bonus. Petitioner did not appeal the assessment of points on his record or the disqualification for a quarterly safety bonus. Petitioner's claim that he did not receive the Sunshine, Jr. citation is not credible. Moreover, this fact is irrelevant since there was no evidence that the incident was contrived or that Petitioner was harmed if he had not received the Sunshine, Jr. citation. Petitioner admits that contacting the terminal manager is the procedure he should have followed. He did not follow that procedure. Petitioner, also admits he mixed two different grades of fuel. On October 6, 1993, Petitioner delivered diesel fuel to Diamond Sand Company at Mossy Head, Florida. Petitioner returned to the terminal with 510 gallons of diesel fuel in his trailer. Petitioner did not notify the terminal of the left- over fuel. The next day, the tanker trailer containing the diesel fuel was assigned to another driver, David Wood (white), who loaded gasoline into the tank containing the diesel fuel resulting in a mixture of petroleum products. Admittedly, Wood violated Company safety policy by failing to check his trailer for fuel prior to loading it. However, relevant to Petitioner, Respondent's safety policy also required Petitioner to verify that all product had been unloaded from his tanker. A tanker like the one involved here unloads from the bottom of the compartment. Even if the product is not being pumped, gravity causes the product to flow out of the tanker. To determine whether product remains in a tank after unloading, a driver is trained not to open the trailer dome lids, but to open the valve of a tank slightly and to drain the tank's contents into a bucket. If the tank is empty, little or no product will drain into the bucket. If the tank contains product, it will continue to drain into the bucket and the driver will have to close the tank's valve to cut-off the flow. The process is known as the bucket test. If the tank is not empty, the driver is required to contact the terminal to obtain further instructions regarding the disposal of the remaining product. The bucket test is not part of a driver's pre- or post-inspection. The pre-or post-inspection is a term of art which refers to a particular type of DOT required inspection. Petitioner testified that he performed the bucket test, drained the diesel fuel in a bucket until the flow stopped. He gave the fuel to a man in charge of unloading to pour into the storage tank. Petitioner also testified that a man on top of the tanker told him the compartment was empty. Petitioner did not reference this other man in his appeal letter or his FCHR affidavit. Ms. Dinnes did not recall Petitioner telling her about the man on top of the tanker. The safety manual provides that a driver must always call [the terminal] for instructions when a customer cannot take all of the load or does not want all of the load the customer has ordered and owns. Respondent instituted this policy because an extremely hazardous situation is created when petroleum products are stored in a tanker trailer at the terminal without the implementation of appropriate safety precautions. In addition, management needs to be informed about the presence of the product in a tanker trailer, so the next driver using the tanker can be informed to minimize the chance of a mixture. On October 7, 1993, during loading, Mr. Wood discovered that the tank he was loading gasoline into was not empty when the pump cut-off before depositing the amount of gasoline he had entered into the system. He immediately contacted the terminal manager, Ms. Dinnes, to report the mixture. Ms. Dinnes was also contacted by D & H Oil Company and informed the customer did not receive all of the fuel it had ordered. Ms. Dinnes contacted the safety department and informed Mr. Cleyman of the facts and circumstances surrounding the incident. Petitioner failed to notify the terminal that he did not unload 510 gallons of diesel fuel at Mossy Head, Florida. If Petitioner had reported to the terminal that he had leftover product, the terminal manager or dispatcher would have provided instructions to Petitioner for its distribution or recorded its presence in the tanker trailer so that the next driver using the tanker would be informed of its presence thereby preventing a mixture. Mr. Cleyman and Ms. Dinnes concluded that Petitioner violated written company safety policy by failing to notify the terminal that diesel fuel remained in the tanker trailer after his last delivery which created a hazardous situation at the terminal and contributed to the creation of a mixture by the next driver to be given the truck to drive. They also concluded that Mr. Wood violated safety rules by failing to check the tanker trailer to verify it was empty before loading gasoline into it. Mr. Cleyman instructed Ms. Dinnes to assess twelve points against both Petitioner and Mr. Wood in accordance with the safety manual. The contaminated product was sold by Respondent to Davis Oil Company in Dothan, Alabama. Respondent lost an estimated $1,988.56 as a result of the safety violations by Petitioner and Mr. Wood. Importantly, using the same tanker trailer that Petitioner used to transport the diesel fuel, Mr. Wood delivered the product to Davis Oil Company without any malfunction of the tanker trailer's equipment, including its emergency and unloading valves. These were the same valves which would have had to malfunction to cause Petitioner to believe the tanker was empty when he allegedly performed the bucket test at Mossy Head. After Petitioner received a Notice of Termination, Petitioner appealed to Respondent's safety review committee the assessment of points for the Sunshine, Jr. store and the Mossy Head violations. In his appeal letter, Petitioner contended that he did not violate safety policy because he did not "stick the tank before and after" unloading since "it was unsafe for [him] to climb on top of [the trailer] and there are no guard rails." "Sticking the tank" is where a driver inserts a measuring stick into a compartment to see if any product is left or to measure the amount of product remaining. Petitioner further contended that he was directed by Respondent not to open the trailer dome lids because someone had been killed in an explosion by doing so. Irrespective of the issue of climbing on the tanker to check to see if it was empty, the evidence was uncontroverted that the valves involved in unloading the tanker and performing the bucket test do not malfunction intermittently, but continue to malfunction until repaired. If the valves had not been working, the valves would not have been functioning when the mixture was later unloaded by Mr. Wood. The only conclusion is that Respondent either did not perform the bucket test or performed it improperly. Both conditions violate the company's safety policy. The returned product and the resultant mixture were clearly preventable. Pursuant to Respondent's policy, an investigation of the incident based on Petitioner's appeal letter by the safety review committee was initiated. After review of the incident and all contentions made by Petitioner in his appeal letter, the safety review committee upheld the point assessment against Petitioner. It was reasonable for Respondent to rely on the functioning of valves in analyzing the veracity of Petitioner's appeal. Petitioner was discharged on October 8, 1993, for violations of Respondent's safety program. Respondent's safety program specifies that the accumulation of 24 points in one year by an employee results in the dismissal of the employee. In 1993, Petitioner violated the company's safety policies on two separate occasions. The two violations caused Petitioner to accumulate 24 points within one year. The safety policies Petitioner violated were: (1) mixture of petroleum products on April 28, 1993; and (2) failure to notify the terminal of undelivered product left in the tanker trailer he brought back to the terminal after his last delivery which later resulted in a mixture on October 7, 1993. Each violation of the safety program was reported by Nancy Dinnes, Terminal Manager, to Luc Cleyman, Director of the company's safety department. The safety department reviewed the facts of each infraction as given to them by the terminal manager. In each case the infractions were preventable. In each case, the point assessment against Petitioner's driving record was in accordance with the point schedule contained in the driver's safety manual. In each case, the number of assessed points was reasonable. However, Petitioner contends that white drivers were treated differently than black drivers. Much of Petitioner's accusations are based on rumor. For instance, Petitioner contends in his Affidavit that Clayton Vaughn (white) had a major spill at Sunshine Jr. Store No. 214, cleaned up by Dave Garner, that was not reported. Petitioner testified that he had no evidence to support this allegation or first-hand knowledge of this incident. He stated that he learned of it through "driver talk," although he could not remember the name of the driver he had heard it from. Mr. Vaughn, Ms. Dinnes, and Ms. Cleyman each state that no such incident occurred and that Petitioner's claim is not true. Petitioner also contends that in July 1991, Lane Corbin (white)and Tommy Jordan (white) could not pass a random drug test, so Ms. Dinnes told them to purchase a bottle of Murine eye drops to put into the urine specimen bottle. Again Petitioner admits that he has no evidence, only hearsay, to support this allegation. Ms. Dinnes denies Petitioner's allegation. Mr. Cleyman states that the drug testing of urine specimens utilized by Respondent would have detected an adulterated specimen, therefore, Murine eye drops would not have concealed the use of illicit substances by a test subject. In his Affidavit, Petitioner contends that Tommy Jordan was assessed six points instead of 12 points for a mixture. The citation referred to by Petitioner clearly indicates that 12 points were assessed against Mr. Jordan's driving record. In his Affidavit, Petitioner asserts that Mr. Vaughn had a spill at Citgo. Again, Petitioner has no evidence, only hearsay, to support this assertion. Mr. Vaughn, Ms. Dinnes, Mr. Cleyman, and Gail Williams (dispatcher) state that no such incident took place. Petitioner contends in his Affidavit that Mr. Vaughn tried to load 1,500 gallons of gas into a 1,000 gallon tank, which caused a spill. Petitioner admittedly has only hearsay to support this contention. Mr. Vaughn, Ms. Dinnes and Mr. Cleyman state that no such incident occurred. In his Affidavit, Petitioner states that Mr. Vaughn and Dave Oyler (white) received speeding citations and were not assessed points. Petitioner testified that he had no first-hand knowledge of this allegation. Ms. Dinnes and Mr. Cleyman state that they are unaware of any instance where Mr. Vaughn or Mr. Oyler received points for speeding violations. Moreover, each year, Respondent obtains a Division of Motor Vehicle (DMV) report on all drivers and other employees who operate company vehicles. The DMV report does not list infractions. Petitioner also asserts that in November 1992, Tommy Jordan, in violation of company rules, drove through a tunnel in Mobile, Alabama with a placarded trailer. Ms. Dinnes and Mr. Cleyman state that the incident referred to by Petitioner was thoroughly investigated by the safety department and determined to be nonpreventable. The investigation showed that the exit ramp for trucks carrying hazardous materials was not properly marked. As a consequence, Jordan did not have sufficient notice to safely exit the roadway before entering the tunnel. Therefore, the incident was determined to be nonpreventable. Petitioner contends in his Affidavit that Tommy Jordan delivered product to the wrong location which caused a mixture. Petitioner has only hearsay to support this contention. No evidence exists showing that such an incident occurred. Petitioner contends that Mr. Vaughn had a large spill at A.W. Herndon Convenience Store. Petitioner has no first-hand knowledge of this incident. Mr. Vaughn, Mr. Fernando, Mr. Berrios, Ms. Dinnes, and Mr. Cleyman state that a spill occurred; however, the amount spilled was not large, only two gallons. After a thorough investigation of this incident, the safety department determined that the spill was nonpreventable. The investigation showed that the spill was caused by a malfunctioning lock-down fitting, and that the size and severity of the spill was minimized by Mr. Vaughn's quick response. At hearing Petitioner presented evidence of some racial slurs in the workplace. In February, 1993, Petitioner testified that Ms. Dinnes told Tommy Jordan that she had to fire that nigger J.J. (John Jordan) because he is influencing that nigger Sheffield and that nigger McCoy. Again, Petitioner testified that he had no first-hand knowledge of this alleged incident. Petitioner learned of the comment from John Jordan. Ms. Dinnes and Tommy Jordan both state that no such statement was made by Mr. Dinnes. John Jordan testified that he overheard the statement. The statement was raised in John Jordan's charge of racial discrimination to FCHR against Respondent. However, the evidence showed that John Jordan was legitimately discharged for deliberately dumping hazardous material at the terminal. Around December 18, 1992, Tommy Jordan delivered product to Tyndall Air Force Base. A black sergeant had instructed Mr. Jordan to deliver the product differently than had been done before. After the sergeant walked away, Mr. Jordan stated in front of a white airman, "Who does that nigger think he is?" The airman informed the sergeant of Mr. Jordan's comment. Ms. Dinnes received a telephone call from the Air Force sergeant. He informed her of Tommy Jordan's conduct. Ms. Dinnes informed the sergeant that Mr. Jordan would be terminated immediately. The sergeant told Ms. Dinnes that he did not want Mr. Jordan to be discharged, but would be satisfied if he was never assigned to deliver product to the base again. Ms. Dinnes called Florida Rock's main office and believes she spoke with Bob Jackson, then president of Florida Rock. She informed him of the incident and the sergeant's desire. Both took the sergeant's request into consideration when making a decision regarding disciplinary action. Ms. Dinnes confronted Tommy Jordan about his conduct. He admitted he made the statement. She told him that he would be terminated immediately if he ever made such a comment again. Ms. Dinnes also told him that if it were not for the sergeant's request that he not be fired, he would have been discharged. Mr. Jordan did not use another racial slur in the workplace again. Mr. Jordan was not assigned to haul another load to Tyndall Air Force Base. Tommy Jordan was later terminated for accumulating too many points for safety violations. Numerous other minority and non-minority employees employed at the Panama City Terminal during 1991 through 1993 testified that they had never heard Ms. Dinnes or any other of Respondent's manager or supervisor make a derogatory comment based upon race. Mr. Harrison, a black driver, testified that the only derogatory comments relating to race he heard at the terminal from any employee of Respondent were made by Petitioner. Every time Petitioner "got a chance to get close to Harrison" since 1985, Mr. Harrison testified that he called him an "Uncle Tom" and a "bootie kisser" because Harrison refused to get "up in the white folks' face." Mr. Miller a black driver also testified that the only derogatory comments relating to race he heard at the terminal from Respondent's employee were made by Petitioner. Mr. Miller testified that Petitioner called him an "Uncle Tom," a "suck ass," and a "suck butt" because Petitioner said he "liked white people." When Mr. Miller asked Petitioner to stop calling him these names, Petitioner told Mr. Miller that he would "get a gun and shoot [him]." The record clearly indicates that use of racial slurs in the workplace were few and far between. Respondent's policy was to attempt to prohibit such conduct. The company president, Mr. Mabbett, personally investigated Petitioner's claims. In this case, the sporadic racial slurs which occurred are not a sufficient basis to infer an intent to discriminate against Respondent. The terminal manager of Whitaker Oil Company (Whitaker), Jerry Watkins, testified that he barred Petitioner for over two years beginning in late 1990 from hauling loads for Whitaker. Mr. Watkins decided to bar Petitioner after Petitioner said that he could deliver Whitaker loads any time he wanted. Mr. Watkins believed that Petitioner's attitude jeopardized Whitaker's reputation with its customers. Mr. Watkins testified that Whitaker's reputation was its most important asset. He also testified that Petitioner's race had nothing to do with his decision. Three drivers (all white) other than Petitioner also were barred by Mr. Watkins from hauling Whitaker loads during the more than 15 years he has been Whitaker's terminal manager. Only one of these three drivers was employed by Respondent. Pud Parker, a white driver, was barred by Mr. Watkins because he refused to clean his truck. During the time Mr. Parker was barred, Ms. Dinnes did not call Mr. Watkins attempting to have the prohibition lifted as she did for Petitioner. During the time Petitioner was barred, Ms. Dinnes contacted Mr. Watkins repeatedly asking him to allow Petitioner to haul Whitaker loads again. Mr. Watkins refused Ms. Dinnes' request. In defiance of Mr. Watkins' orders, Ms. Dinnes formulated a plan to permit Petitioner to haul Whitaker loads without Mr. Watkins' knowledge. Ms. Dinnes arranged to have Mr. Berrios and other drivers load tanker trailers for Petitioner. Mr. Berrios would go to the Whitaker terminal, load the tanker trailer, and bring it back to the Panama City Terminal where Petitioner would take over the transportation duties. Ms. Dinnes instituted this plan to permit Petitioner to earn a living during a time when business was slow. He had complained to her about not being able to make enough money to support his family. This practice continued until Mr. Watkins discovered that Petitioner was hauling Whitaker loads without his permission. When he found out, Mr. Watkins contacted Ms. Dinnes who admitted to him that she had arranged for Petitioner to haul Whitaker loads clandestinely. He directed Ms. Dinnes that Petitioner was barred from transporting any Whitaker loads until further notice. After approximately two years, Mr. Watkins decided to lift the ban. Petitioner had also been barred from hauling loads from the Chevron terminal. Again, Ms. Dinnes repeatedly attempted to have the prohibition lifted. After approximately two years, Petitioner was permitted to transport Chevron loads. Reports pertaining to the compensation of drivers at Respondent's Panama City Terminal from 1991 through 1996 show no discrimination toward black drivers in the area of compensation or load assignments. The compensation reports show that the drivers receiving the most compensation in 1991 were Petitioner and Michael Davis, both black drivers. For 1992, 1993 and 1994, Mr. Davis was the second most highly compensated driver. For 1995 and 1996, Mr. Davis was the most highly compensated driver. As discussed below with respect to Petitioner's disparate impact claim, an evaluation of driver discharges from 1990 to August 1997, shows no adverse effect on black drivers in terminations for safety violations. During this period, 18.7 percent of the drivers employed by Tank Lines were black and 74.4 percent were white. Of the drivers discharged for safety violations 18.9 percent were black and 77.5 percent were white. The percentage of white drivers terminated for safety violations actually exceeded the percentage of white drivers employed by the company. In comparison, the percentage of black drivers discharged for safety violations was nearly identical to the percentage of black drivers employed by Respondent. The undisputed evidence establishes that Respondent applied its safety policies equally to all drivers regardless of their race. A total of 20 white drivers were identified in the discovery process, where according to the safety manual, they could have received 12 points but received less points for creating or contributing to mixtures. With the exception of Roderick Miller, a black driver, all drivers receiving six points for a mixture. For each white driver that was assessed less than the minimum 12 points for the mixture, an explanation of "extenuating circumstances" was offered by Florida Rock to justify the assessment. The white drivers assessed less than the minimum 12 points for a mixture and the explanation for "extenuating circumstances" that justified the assessment of less points as testified to by Luc Cleyman, the safety director, is as follows: Dan Butow, a white driver at the Panama City terminal, along with James "Pud" Parker received six points on January 10, 1991. The citation issued described the incident as failed to check trailer and loaded on top. The safety department determined that extenuating circumstances existed. The investigation of the incident established that it was caused by a faulty internal valve which failed to open when the handle was pulled. Consequently, the drivers thought that the tanker trailer was empty because when they pulled the handle to open the valve to determine whether the tank was empty, no product came out of the pipe. The bucket test was performed. The tanker trailer used by Parker and Butow had to be repaired before it could be used to transport product again. Ms. Dinnes was directed by the safety department to assess six points against the driving records of Parker and Butow because it was felt the drivers should have recognized the odd feel of the cable when it was pulled and should have known something was wrong. However, it was not clear if the cable felt strange when it was pulled. James Parker, a white driver at the Panama City terminal, received six points. The citation issued described the incident as failed to check trailer and loaded on top. This is the same incident described above. Lane Corbin, a white driver at the Panama City terminal, failed to unload number 3 compartment of supreme gas and loaded 96 gallons of no lead gas on top of it in 1989. Mr. Cleyman advised he had no knowledge of any extenuating circumstances since it was prior to his time as safety director. Archie Trull, a white driver at the Panama City terminal, downgraded a product and blended mid-grade in August, 1991. He was given six points. The "extenuating circumstances" justifying the six points was because it was a blending error constituting driver error, not a mixture. The evidence showed that there is a difference between mixing or blending products to purposefully obtain a certain grade of product and the mixtures involved in this case. There is no category in the safety manual specifically referring to blending errors. The error falls in the general or other category of safety violations. A blending error typically results in the assessment of six points. Daniel Webb, a white driver at the Panama City terminal, received six points for a mixture on March 24, 1990. The "extenuating circumstances" justifying Mr. Webb receiving six points was because this was a training situation. Webb removed the tags which identified the product, the trainee mixed the product, and because there was some comparative negligence with him and the trainee, Roderick Miller (black), only six points were assessed. The incident occurred five days after Miller was hired. Miller was being trained by Webb at the time of the incident. Because Miller was a new driver in training at the time of the mixture, the safety department directed Ms. Dinnes to assess six points against both drivers. William White, a white driver at the Panama City terminal, brought back 595 gallons to the yard and did not completely unload the no-lead product in October, 1990. Six points were assessed because there was no indication of a mixture. Kenneth Albritton, a white driver at another terminal, received zero points for a spill. The original point assessment was voided. The "extenuating circumstances" justifying assessing zero points is unknown. Mr. Cleyman testified that to void points it must be deemed unpreventable. Barry Sanders, a white driver at another terminal, had a spill. The cause of the spill was an equipment malfunction because the drop pipe coupling was egg-shaped and did not fit the hose. Ricky Brannen, a white driver at another terminal, received six points for a mixture where he brought product back on the trailer and then loaded other product on top (no- lead on top of premium). Brannen four months earlier had a spill which was deemed preventable in which he got 12 points. If Brannen would have received 12 points for the mixture he would have been terminated. Mr. Cleyman was on vacation and did not have sufficient knowledge regarding the assessment. Rosemary Crossman, a white driver at another terminal, had a spill which was voided. The "extenuating circumstances" justifying zero points was because she was not properly trained and therefore, not able to "pump off". Lou Dostal, a white driver at the Atlanta terminal, was given 12 points for a spill in 1991. Ultimately, the 12 points were reduced to six points by Cleyman. However, Mr. Cleyman did not know the reasons for the reduction. James Garner, a white driver at the Ocoee terminal, had a mixture and received six points in 1991. The mixture resulted in an upgrade of fuel to a higher octane. There is no rationale set forth in the file. Cleyman believes that he spoke with the terminal manager or had some reason to give six points instead of 12. However, he could not recall the reason for the point assessment. Dennis Lee Hall, a white driver at the Albany terminal received six points for a mixture around July 1993. The six points was [sic] issued for failing to follow procedure which is less harsh than mixture. The point assessment was based on a conversation between Cleyman and the terminal manager. The terminal manager felt that no points should be assessed. The mixture occurred at a tank farm with confusing tanks and pipes. The driver simply hooked to the pipe he thought correct. However, he had traced the wrong connection. Ronnie Harrison, a white driver at the Tampa terminal, who initially received 12 points for a spill in November 1995. In January of 1996, Cleyman removed the points. Steve Cassell, regional manager, requested Cleyman take action on behalf of the driver based on a deceased terminal manager's alleged agreement. Before he died, Fred Tatum, the terminal manager, gave Mr. Harrison three days off, when no pay can be earned, and 12 points, but according to the driver, he intended that he would still get his safety bonus. In trying to honor the deceased terminal manager's alleged arrangements, Cleyman, two months after the incident, removed the 12 points and gave Harrison his safety bonus. Additionally, the tanks were not properly marked and the delivery was made to a commercial private account which controlled the delivery. Robert Holland, a white driver at the Tampa terminal, received three days off and six points for failure to unload all of the product at the site. No mixture was involved. Cleyman did not recall the incident in detail. Ray E. Kersey, a white driver at the Tampa terminal, received six points for a spill in March 1990. Cleyman cannot recall the reason for the six-point assessment because it was a difficult drop process at Respondent's terminal and Mr. Kersey could have received zero points. If Cleyman did not believe Kersey, he could have given him 12 points. Cleyman did not totally believe the narrative written by the driver accurately reflected what happened, but gave him the benefit of the doubt. Michael Koester, a white driver at the Atlanta terminal, received six points for a mixture in 1991. Chevron assumed responsibility for the occurrence because the tag and identification cover did not match. The tag was under muddy water and could not be seen. Mr. Mabbett and Cleyman deemed it unpreventable but still assessed six points. Kee Wayne Laurendine, a white driver at the Jacksonville terminal, received six points for a mixture in 1994. He dropped premium into no-lead fuel. Also, he cross-dropped a kerosene tank with diesel and received 12 points. On July 4th, thousands of people who had been watching fireworks, began to converge on the gas station where the driver was loading product. The people were flipping cigarettes, shooting off fireworks and sparklers, etc. Mr. Laurendine became excited, confused, tense and scared that he was going to be blown up. He made an error. Robert Remillard, a white driver at the Atlanta terminal, received six points for a mixture. Luc Cleyman stated that the "extenuating circumstances" were that unloading paint thinner in a tank containing only alcohol residue was not a mixture. Remillard received six points because he was supposed to check and see if the tank was clean and he failed to do so. He had been told the tank was clean. On August 15, 1990, Mr. Remillard wrote a narrative describing spilling product on the grass. Luc Cleyman offered no "extenuating circumstances". Elvin Roe, a white driver at the Ocoee terminal, received six points for a mixture in September 1990. Mr. Higgins, a vice president, was sent a memorandum to review the incident on September 23, 1990, for Mr. Roe. Mr. Bob Jackson and Mr Higgins agreed Roe should get six points rather than 12 points and Cleyman issued six points. An alternative disciplinary approach was proposed which included suspension, probation, and forfeiture of a yearly bonus. David Trimmel, a white driver at the Tampa terminal, received six points for failure to unload. There was no mixture. Trimmel also received only 12 points for a spill that he did not report, clean up, notify DEP or the fire department. Mr. Trimmel quit before he could be terminated by the terminal manager. After reviewing all of the above records, the record shows that each case turned on facts different from those of Mr. McCoy. Some were treated more harshly than hindsight would have warranted. Some were not. Insufficient facts were presented to show that the facts and circumstances were similar to those of Petitioner. No expert testimony was offered as to the validity of the sampling of employees or that these employees constituted a statistically significant group. Indeed if the exercise of judgment by management is the objectionable policy of Petitioner, then a larger sample constituting the entire safety program would be appropriate since the exercise of judgment is present throughout the company's disciplinary process. The only evidence presented in this regard was the statistical evidence presented by Respondent. That evidence did not demonstrate an adverse impact or treatment of Petitioner or other minorities. Petitioner's statistical evidence was not shown to be reliable or sufficiently valid. Therefore, the sample referenced above cannot form the basis for an inference of discriminatory intent or disparate impact. At the time of his termination on October 8, 1993, McCoy had earned $26,291.99 for approximately 40 weeks of work in 1993. Therefore, McCoy's annualized earnings in 1993 would have been approximately $34,000. In 1992, McCoy earned $30,254.28 from Florida Rock. In 1991, McCoy earned $26,549.38 from Florida Rock. Based on these earnings, McCoy's gross wages from Florida Rock increased in 1992 by 14 percent and in 1993 by 12.3 percent. Therefore, based on McCoy's increase from 1991-1993 and the exemplary models above, it is more than reasonable to assume that McCoy's earnings as a driver at Florida Rock would have continued to increase at a minimum of five percent per year. Florida Rock also provides significant fringe benefits to its employees that include health benefits, life, and accidental death insurance, dental insurance, profit sharing, a 401K deferred earning plan, disability benefits, holiday, and vacation days, a flexible spending account plan, and payroll taxes. According to Florida Rock, these employee benefits represent an "additional 40 percent of compensation" to Florida Rock's employees. Florida Rock's benefit plan is significantly better than the typical employer. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was 50 years of age. After Petitioner was terminated, he could not find comparable employment and filed for and received unemployment benefits. The State of Florida, Department of Labor, required Petitioner to make a "thorough and continued effort to obtain work" in order to receive unemployment compensation benefits. The Petitioner's family goal regarding his re- employment was for him to get a job in the Panama City area. Petitioner continued to look for employment with out- of-town employers that hired in the Panama City area so he would not be away from his family at night. He either was not hired by these employers, or in order to be considered for the positions, he was told he would have to relocate out of state. Petitioner's educational background was limited to high school and he had never received any specific education or training on job searches or job placement. Petitioner attempted to get retrained at Haney Vocational Technical School; however, the company, JTPA, went out of business. Despite not having the background or this knowledge, McCoy attended job fairs and sought training in the communications field from a friend (Robert Alford) who had been in the business for 18 years. Since Petitioner could not locate a truck-driving job similar to or of a like nature with his Florida Rock position, he decided after approximately five to six months to start his own lawn care and telephone communications business. Petitioner reasonably believed that both businesses could be very successful in the Panama City area. Because Petitioner had limited income after being terminated, he used his pension money from his Florida Rock 401K plan both for living expenses and for capital to start his businesses. Petitioner withdrew $102,556 of his 401K savings during this time. Petitioner's telephone communications business was very successful in the beginning. His first bid was accepted and a lucrative contract was obtained to install the phone system for a new hotel in Panama City. At the same time, while the communications business was just starting Petitioner continued to operate a lawn care business after having observed the financial success of others, including family members. Margie McCoy took care of all of the bills and invoices associated with the businesses, as well as provided the information to the accountant for the preparation of the income tax returns. At times, Petitioner's lawn care business was seasonal, but for each season, McCoy would provide different types of services for his client as opposed to not working at all. There was at lease one six-month period in which McCoy could not work because he had a stroke on March 21, 1995. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner's stroke or high blood pressure was caused by his termination from Florida Rock. Petitioner's high blood pressure did contribute to his stroke. However, Petitioner demonstrated symptoms of elevated blood pressure prior to his discharge from Florida Rock. Notwithstanding his health restrictions, Petitioner continued to try to make his lawn care and telephone businesses successful. Petitioner would work in the sun trying to make the lawn care business successful in violation of his doctor's orders. Petitioner's earnings/losses from his communications and lawn care businesses are as follows: 1994 - $878; 1995 - $6,722; 1996 - $7,055; 1997 - $739; 1998 - $1,689. Petitioner currently works for the Bay County School Board driving a school bus. He was hired in 1998. He continues to work his lawn care and communications businesses. He took a night class to become certified as a bus driver, while at the same time operating his lawn care business during the day. The evidence did not show that Petitioner is currently physically able to work for Florida Rock because his blood pressure was not under control as late as January 2000. Therefore reinstatement would not be appropriate. Petitioner earned $7,086 as a school bus driver in 1998, and $12,554.89 in 1999. Based on the circumstances presented to Petitioner after he was terminated from Florida Rock in October 1993, Petitioner used reasonable efforts to seek employment of a like nature compared to his driver's position at Florida Rock. Also, he used reasonable efforts to earn income by starting his own businesses. Following his stroke, McCoy continued to use reasonable efforts to obtain a bus driver position with the Bay County School Board that provided insurance benefits, while at the same time, continuing to operate his lawn care business. There is no indication that Petitioner failed to use reasonable efforts to earn income following his termination from Florida Rock. Moreover, Petitioner's pension/401K savings of $102,556 that was lost and used to start the businesses and for living expenses (as well as additional amounts that would have been contributed to the 401K plan), would have continued to grow and compound during this period. Petitioner's damages from lost earnings and benefits, lost earnings on his 401K plan (assuming 10 percent simple interest), and total back pay damages less mitigated earning from October 1993 to the present is as follows: Date Lost Wages Lost Benefits (40%) Lost Earnings To 401K2 Less Mitigated Earnings Total Loss Oct. 93- Dec 93 $8,000 $3,200 $10,255 $11,200 1994 $35,700 $14,280 $10,255 <$4,250> (unemploy -ment) $55,985 1995 $37,485 $14,994 $10,255 0 $62,734 1996 $39,359 $15,743 $10,255 0 $65,357 1997 $41,327 $16,530 $10,255 <$739> $67,373 1998 $43,393 $17,357 $10,255 <$7,086> $63,919 1999 $45,562 $18,224 $10,255 <$12,554> $61,487 Jan. 00- Sept. 00 $35,880 $14,352 $7,691 <$9,415> $48,508 401K Withdrawal $102,556 Total Back Pay Damages $539,119 However, Petitioner's damages would have terminated upon his stroke in March 1995. At that time, Petitioner was no longer qualified for employment with Respondent due to his uncontrolled high blood pressure. However, Petitioner would have received $5500.00 in disability benefits because of his stroke.
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 finding Respondent not guilty of committing an unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr., Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Drawer 190 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190 John P. McAdams, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Harriett W. Williams Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Carter, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 J. Steven Carter, Esquire Henry, Buchanan, Hudson, Suber & Williams, P.A. Post Office Drawer 1049 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Respondent operated a truck on May 14, 1991, which had a legal weight of 80,000 pounds. The truck was weighed on May 14, 1991, at the White Springs Scales on I-75. At the time it was weighed, the truck weight registered 87,600 pounds. The actual weight of the truck exceeded the legal weight by 7,600 pounds. The operator of the truck requested a second weighing. A second weighing was performed with the same result as the first weighing. Petitioner imposed a penalty of $380 which was paid by Respondent. The amount of the penalty was accurately calculated in accordance with applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order upholding the fine imposed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of January, 1992. DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of January, 1992.
The Issue Whether the sign on the side of the Respondent's trailer, which has been placed on the east side of I-4, .01 mile south of Buffalo Avenue in Hillsborough County, is a nuisance which should be removed, pursuant to Chapter 479, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In early February 1990, the Department's Outdoor Advertising Administrator with District 7 observed the following: a 13' x 40' metal trailer with a large advertisement for Contractor's Exams on its side in a stationary location. The trailer was approximately twenty feet from the I-4 right-of-way fence, on the east side of the highway, one-tenth of a mile south of Buffalo Avenue in an unincorporated area of Hillsborough County. The advertising message was clearly visible from the main travel way of the interstate highway. During a sixty-day period, the administrator regularly observed this trailer to see if it had been relocated in anyway. When he determined from the observations that the trailer had not been moved, he visited the property where the trailer was located on April 2, 1990. The business enterprise at this location is South Florida Engineering Company. As part of its business, this company has trailers, tractors and other equipment parked on site. When the administrator and an outdoor advertising inspector entered the property, they went to the office and inquired about the one trailer. The administrator was directed to another manager who has his office in the dock area. No one met with him at this location, and he was unable to get any more assistance from the man with whom he had spoken earlier. Having observed the trailer on the premises, and having observed its distance away from other equipment, along with its position in relation to the highway and the type of message printed on its side, the administrator issued a Notice of Violation. The administrator determined that the printed message on the trailer's side advertising Contractor's Exams was a unpermitted sign, in violation of Section 479.07(1) Florida Statutes. Another copy of the notice was mailed to Carl Mathews Construction School. The reason the notice was mailed to this enterprise was because the school's services were being advertised by the sign. The mailing address was ascertained by calling the phone number on the advertisement and requesting the address. The inspector accompanying the administrator physically attached the Notice of Violation on the trailer and took a picture of it on this same date. Subsequent to April 2, 1990, the inspector took pictures of a different trailer on the same site with the same advertising message. In these later pictures, the trailer was farther away from the right-of-way fence, but the message could still be seen from the interstate highway. The trailer remained isolated from other trailers on site. These additional pictures were taken on June 15 and 26, and July 18, 1990. In addition to the trailer in I-4 and Buffalo Avenue, the inspector became aware of another trailer with the same message at State Road 60 and Adamo Drive. This trailer's message could also be seen from the road. It remained at this location in the same stationary position from the middle of June through mid July. This trailer was parked in a trailer yard. Mr. Carl Mathews is the owner of Carl Mathews Construction School, the business advertised on the side of these two trailers. In addition to this enterprise, Mr. Mathews is actively involved in the business of leasing trailers, like the two previously mentioned. Ordinarily, these are leased to Contractors for the storage of on-site supplies or to truckers for over the road hauling. Through his various interests in a number of corporations, Mr. Mathews has an interest in one hundred and thirty trailers as well as the trailer yard at State Road 60 and Adamo Drive. Only two of these trailers display an advertisement for Carl Mathews Construction School. The trailer originally at the I-4 and Buffalo Avenue site from February through April 2, 1990, was there for two reasons. First of all, the strip of property where both trailers were ultimately located had been leased by one of the corporations in which Mr. Mathews is a principle. The purpose of the lease was to store empty trailers during the time periods they were not being leased. Storage of this type of trailer is difficult in Hillsborough County because ordinances only allow them on property zoned for industrial use. Secondly, the trailer in question needed its brakes redone. During this time period, this repair was going to be performed by South Eastern Mechanical, who runs a repair business at this site. Later, this trailer was moved to the State Road 60 - Adamo Drive storage yard in which Mr. Mathews has an ownership interest. This yard had recently acquired its own mechanic who will repair the brakes. The second trailer was also placed at the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location for storage purposes. The Carl Mathews Construction School is located at 7207 North Nebraska Avenue in Tampa. There are no school functions at the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location. The purpose of the written message on each trailer was to inform members of the public interested in Contractor's Exams that Carl Mathews Construction School was offering new courses. A sign permit has not been issued by the Department for either trailer during their stays at the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended: That the Notice of Violation issued against the first trailer at the I- 4 - Buffalo Avenue location be found be have been properly issued by the Department. That Contractor be found to have fully complied with the Notice of Violation issued April 2, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2427T The Department's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO number 1, number 2 and number 5. Accepted. See HO number 10, number 11, number 14 and number 16. Accept first sentence. See HO number 10. The rest is rejected as irrelevant to the dispute of material fact. Contractor's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Although the Department did comply with all necessary legal requirements when the violation was posted on the first trailer. Accept all but last two sentences. See HO number 8. The last two sentences are contrary to fact. See HO number 15. There was no showing that the second trailer had been moved from the I-4 - Buffalo Avenue location. There was insufficient reliable evidence presented at hearing for the Hearing Officer to accept this presumption. More reasonable, contrary evidence was accepted by the Hearing Officer which revealed that the second trailer remained at this location. See HO number 9. Rejected. Contrary to fact that the first trailer was able to operate on the road. See HO number 14. Otherwise, accept that trailers were the type of trailers pulled by truck tractors. Accepted. But factual dispute was reconciled. See HO number 1 and number 8. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO number 18. Accept all except last sentence. See HO number 10, number 12, number 13, number 14 and number 15. Last sentence is improper conclusion and contrary to reasonable inference. See HO number 9. Rejected. Improper comparison without proper foundation. Rejected. Improper legal argument. Accept the first sentence. See HO number 10. Reject the last sentence as self serving. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, Esquire General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
