The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice, namely discrimination on the basis of age, with regard to Respondent's hiring of another applicant for the position sought by Petitioner. A secondary issue is whether Petitioner was constructively terminated from employment as a result of age discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Jones, was born October 27, 1941. He was 52 years of age in March of 1994. Respondent is National Healthcare Center, a retirement home for elderly persons. Prior to March 28, 1994, the maintenance department at Respondent's facility consisted of one supervisory employee and one part-time employee, Jones. On March 28, 1994, Jones' immediate supervisor within the maintenance department resigned, effective April 8, 1994. In addition to his employment three days a week in the maintenance department, Jones also worked two days a week on the payroll of Respondent's facility in the housekeeping department. The administrator for Respondent's facility advertised the vacant maintenance supervisor position in the local newspaper. Approximately 35 applicants, including Petitioner, applied for the position. The administrator interviewed Petitioner and eight other applicants for the position, including the applicant who was eventually hired for the position. James French, the applicant hired for the position of maintenance supervisor, was serving as the head of maintenance at a 17 story, 163 unit condominium facility at the time of the interview. French supervised maintenance assistants at the condominium facility and was responsible for a wide array of maintenance services ranging from electrical, carpentry, plumbing, heating and air conditioning repairs to tests and maintenance of an emergency backup generator. The administrator, Steven Rykiel, was impressed by French and his eight years of maintenance experience. Rykiel was no novice in the hiring of personnel to run departments in facilities like Respondent's, having supervised the opening of a similar facility in Niceville, Florida where he hired department heads. Rykiel particularly liked French's expressed approach to performing maintenance: Fixing or repairing problems before the problems were pointed out by the boss. A comparison of French's candidacy for the maintenance supervisor position with Petitioner's reveals that French had recent experience in the supervision of maintenance personnel. While Petitioner had prior supervisory experience in other employment, he had not supervised employees since 1989. Rykiel followed his normal procedure in selecting the person to head the maintenance department at Respondent's facility. He reviewed the applications, interviewed the applicants, and checked the references of the one applicant who impressed him, James French. Ages of the respective applicants were not considered by Rykiel in his hiring decision. He was unaware of the age of either French or Petitioner at the time of their respective interviews. As previously noted, Petitioner was 52 years of age. French was 36 years of age. At the final hearing, Petitioner recanted his notarized statement in the Charge Of Discrimination dated July 18, 1994, which, in pertinent part, reads as follows: I trained the new supervisor and familiarized him with the inner workings of the nursing home until my resignation became effective on May 6, 1994. As explained by Petitioner at the final hearing, his sworn statement is technically untrue but he felt that he would be required to train the new supervisor and, consequently, decided to resign his position. Respondent's employee manual provides a procedure for employees to seek transfers and promotions. The manual does not set forth a directive requiring existing employees to be promoted over hiring a new employee. Specifically, the manual provides "[w]hen possible, a vacancy could be filled by a qualified employee of the health care center." Respondent does not have any policy that directs employment decisions be based on age of applicants. Rykiel did not hired French over Petitioner because of Petitioner's age. Petitioner was not told that he would have to train French. Consequently, there is no evidence to establish that such a directive placed Petitioner in intolerable working conditions. Although Petitioner has never failed, in the course of employment throughout his life, to obtain promotions sought by him, failure to obtain promotion in this instance does not constitute an intolerable working condition. Petitioner did not request a meeting with either Rykiel or any other higher superior in Respondent's organization, an opportunity provided by Respondent's procedures manual, prior to Petitioner's submittal of his voluntary resignation. Petitioner's resignation was submitted prior to French commencing employment with Respondent. Although Petitioner continued in Respondent's employment for a period of two days after French began work, Petitioner had little or no interaction with him. The hiring of French for the position of maintenance supervisor at Respondent's facility, as articulated by Respondent's personnel at the final hearing, was accomplished on the basis of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. French had more recent supervisory experience, experience in maintenance, and presented himself more dynamically in the course of the interview process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered denying the Petition For Relief. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 8th day of November, 1995. DON W. DAVIS, 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 8th day of November, 1995. APPENDIX In accordance with provisions of Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Accepted. Rejected, not materially dispositive. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 5.-6. Adopted by reference. Rejected, not materially dispositive. Rejected, relevance. Accepted. 10.-12. Rejected, not materially dispositive. 13. Rejected, Jones continued as the only maintenance person. No evidence suggests that he was ever permanently given the supervisor position. 14.-15. Accepted. 16.-25. Rejected, subordinate. 26. Accepted. 27.-34. Rejected, subordinate and not materially dispositive. 35. Rejected, relevance. 36.-38. Rejected, not materially dispositive. 39.-44. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 45.-53. Rejected, not materially dispositive. 54. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 55.-57. Rejected, subordinate. Accepted. Rejected, mischaracterization of testimony, argumentative. 60.-63. Rejected, not materially dispositive. 64.-65. Rejected, relevance, weight of the evidence, mischaracterization of testimony. The budget increase reflected increased tasks being performed in house that were previously contracted. 66.-68. Rejected, not materially dispositive. 69. Rejected, weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Accepted. 3. Rejected, relevance. 4.-19. Accepted, though not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan S. Grout, Esq. Goldsmith & Grout, P.A. 307 W. Park Ave. Tallahassee, FL 32301 Cecile M. Scoon, Esq. 36 Oak Ave. Panama City, FL 32401 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1750 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd., Bldg. F, Ste. 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1750
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to secure worker’s compensation coverage for seven employees who worked from February 28, 2006, to March 3, 2006, in violation of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and whether, as a result, Petitioner should be assessed a penalty in the amount of $1,115.52.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation ("the Division"), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees. Subsection 440.107, Florida Statutes (2006). Petitioner, Boudreau Concrete, Inc. (BCI), was, at all relevant times, an employer and engaged in concrete construction work in Florida. John Cipyak is a vice president with Builders Plus, a Boynton Beach Company hired to work on a Westview Office Building Site, in Port St. Lucie, Florida. Builders Plus subcontracted with BCI to perform pre-concrete form carpentry work at the site, including construction of the foundation and panels into which the concrete slab would be poured. Near the end of February 2006, Mr. Cipyak told Mr. Boudreau that the Westview project was falling behind schedule and that BCI needed more laborers on the job. Mr. Cipyak testified that Mr. Boudreau specifically agreed that his company, BCI, would hire sufficient additional manpower and would not use subcontractors. That agreement was not reduced to writing. In response to the need for additional laborers, the Division claims that BCI violated the applicable statutes and the insurance code by hiring seven carpenters, who worked at the Westview site from February 27, 2006, through March 3, 2006, as employees of BCI without providing workers' compensation insurance coverage for them. The seven carpenters are Dimas Zelaya, Francisco Figueroa, Gerardo Nava, Hector Sevilla, Jeremias Martinez, Carlos Quevedo and Jesse Hernandez. BCI claims that the seven carpenters were employees of a subcontractor, J. A. J. Construction Company, owned by Jose Alfredo Jiminez, and that Mr. Jiminez, BCI believed, carried the required workers' compensation insurance. The arrangements to have the additional workers on the project were made during a telephone call between Mr. Boudreau, Mr. Jiminez and Mr. Zelaya, who got the other six men to come with him and once they reported to the job, served as a translator for them. On March 2, 2006, Lynn Cornelius, a manager with Woodland Construction Company, Inc. (“Woodland”), sent an e-mail to Thomas Puglis, of the Division, listing the names of seven former employees of Woodland who had left Woodland’s employment, on February 24, 2006, to work for a subcontractor on another project. He named the same seven people who started work on the Westview site on the following Monday, February 27, 2006. On March 3, 2006, Mr. Puglis and Lieutenant Vance Akins, both investigators for the Division, visited the construction site where the seven former Woodland employees were working. With the assistance of an interpreter over the telephone, because no Spanish speaker was available for the site visit, the investigators instructed the seven workers to fill out Spanish language questionnaires for public works contractor licensing, provided by St. Lucie County. The investigators also tape recorded a statement from the only one of the seven men who spoke some English, Dimas Zelaya, during which, at best, he could be understood to have recognized and identified a picture of Mr. Boudreau. Lieutenant Akins telephoned another Division investigator Robert Barnes from the work site. Mr. Barnes testified that he telephoned someone who identified himself as Todd Freeman, a BCI employee, from whom he got the name of William Yocum of First Financial Employee Leasing, Inc., as the leasing company that provided workers' compensation coverage for BCI. Although he had no personal knowledge about where the seven carpenters were working from February 27 through March 3, 2006, Mr. Yocum noted that they were not covered on the policy for BCI and that the failure of BCI to report the names of all of its employees to the leasing company would violate the agreement between those two companies. Mr. Boudreau, on behalf of BCI, wrote a check dated March 10, 2006, to J. A. J. Construction Services, Inc., for $3860.00, with the notation "7 men - 2/27-3/3." BCI had no evidence of a written agreement with J. A. J. and the compensation to J. A. J. was solely for the wages earned by the carpenters. The Division's case is essentially based on the inference, without corroborating evidence, that Mr. Boudreau fabricated the subcontractor relationship and furthered that deception by writing the check after he knew BCI was being investigated for failure to secure workers’ compensation insurance. The Division based its assertion on the fact that Mr. Boudreau could not name the subcontractor during his first interviews by Mr. Barnes, saying that he was dealing with the subcontractor through Mr. Zelaya. The Division also presented evidence to demonstrate that the nature of the working relationship between BCI and the seven men was that of employer and employee, not independent contractors. That evidence was inconclusive. Although Mr. Boudreau kept their time sheets and personally supervised the work at the job site everyday from Monday through Thursday, with the assistance of Mr. Zelaya, as a translator, the carpenters brought their own tools and used materials and supplies provided by Builders Plus. The argument that J. A. J.'s role was administrative in nature is not convincing, since the same can be said of the leasing company, with which the Division asserted BCI should have obtained coverage. Mr. Barnes testified that he reviewed records of J. A. J., that someone from his office questioned Mr. Jiminez, and that they determined that the seven carpenters were not covered by J. A. J.'s workers' compensation policy during the time that they were working for Mr. Boudreau, based on some sworn statement made by Mr. Jiminez to the investigators. Mr. Jiminez did not appear as a witness in this case. The Division's investigator conceded that the Division did not determine whether or not the seven workers should have been on the J. A. J. policy. Mr. Zelaya testified that he spoke to Mr. Jiminez about getting more pay and understood that he would ". . . work with the license and insurance of Jose Jiminez. Mr. Boudreau was going to pay Jose and Jose was to pay me." Further, he stated that "Jose gets the workers, Jose makes a dollar off of the pay that we make. Mr. Boudreau was to give Jose a check, and Jose was to pay us, but Jose never paid us." Before he paid Mr. Jiminez, Mr. Boudreau requested and received from J. A. J. a workers' compensation policy, but that certificate of insurance was dated March 6, 2006, and did not appear to cover BCI for the prior week. At the same time, Mr. Boudreau added some of the workers to his own lease company policy, in an apparent attempt to continue the job, but was unable to do so after the stop work order was issued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order rescinding the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 8th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mary Morris, Esquire Morris & Morris, P.A. 224 Datura Street, Suite 300 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage as required by law, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Department is the State Agency responsible for enforcing those portions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, requiring that employers secure payment of workers' compensation benefits for their employees. On November 6, 2006, Petitioner's Investigator Michael Robinson, conducted a random visit at the construction site of a new residence at 2631 Bluewave Drive, in Middleburg, Florida. At that time, he observed Respondent Keith Myer, installing metal framing for drywall installation.2/ This is a construction industry function. No evidence of current corporate status of Custom Interiors & Design, Inc., was presented at hearing. No evidence of the number of employees employed by the corporation was presented, either. There was no evidence to show which, if any, corporate officer Mr. Myer might be. The impression given at hearing by Respondent Myer was that he was the corporation's sole employee. At the jobsite on November 6, 2006, Mr. Myer told Mr. Robinson that he had secured the payment of workers' compensation through Staff Masters, which is a staffing company.3/ Mr. Myer was unable to provide Mr. Robinson with any documentation that would support Respondent's claim of having secured the payment of workers' compensation through Staff Masters. Mr. Myer presented no such evidence at hearing, either. Investigator Robinson utilized the Agency's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) database that contains all policy information from workers' compensation insurance carriers to insureds, and determined that Respondent did not have any State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy in force and effect on November 6, 2006. Mr. Myer presented no such policy at hearing, either. At all times material, 2000 through 2004, Section 440.05, Florida Statutes, has allowed a sole proprietor, partner, or corporate officer actively engaged in construction to apply for an exemption from workers' compensation benefits. From 2005 through 2006, only corporate officers could elect "out". Only the named individual on the application was exempt from carrying workers' compensation insurance coverage. Respondent Myer d/b/a Custom Interiors & Design, Inc., has no current valid workers' compensation exemption, but he had an exemption that had expired in September 2002. At all times material, 2000 through 2006, Sections 440.05(3) and 440.05(6), Florida Statutes, have limited the duration of construction workers' compensation exemptions to a period of two years. At the end of two years, the exemption automatically expires or terminates. Respondent Myer testified that he was not aware that his exemption had lapsed, even though the law states that a construction exemption has a duration of two years. Although Respondent denied receiving an expiration notification letter from the Agency, Investigator Robinson testified, and documents were admitted in evidence which show, that on or about June 19, 2002, the Agency sent a letter to Respondent Myer at his last known business address as shown on his exemption card, notifying him that his exemption was due to expire. The documents in evidence also suggest that Respondent or a similar name filed an incomplete exemption application in October 2002, but no witness's testimony addressed this issue. While the Agency's investigator was exploring all possible coverage of Respondent, Respondent was added to the payroll of the general contractor, Maronda Homes, which was on- site at the Bluewave Drive address, so that Respondent became covered by Maronda Homes' workers' compensation insurance policy. As a result, the Agency did not issue a stop-work order against Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent Myer or Custom Interiors & Design, Inc., were sub-contractors for, or employees of, any general contractor at any date prior to November 9, 2006, so as to be covered by that general contractor's workers' compensation policy pursuant to Section 440.10, Florida Statutes. On November 20, 2006, Investigator Robinson served Respondent with a "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation," seeking copies of business records for a period of three years, pursuant to Section 440.107(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes. This was for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had secured workers' compensation coverage, whether he or his employees had current valid workers' compensation exemptions, and to determine any civil penalties that might be owed for failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation. At the time the records request was issued, Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, stated, in relevant part: In order for the Division to determine that an employer is in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 440, F.W., every business entity conducting business within the state of Florida shall maintain for the immediately preceding three year period true and accurate records. Such business records shall include original documentation of the following, or copies, when originals are not in the possession of or under the control of the business entity: All workers' compensation insurance policies of the business entity, and all endorsements, notices of cancellation, nonrenewal, or reinstatement of such policies. * * * Records indicating for every pay period a description of work performed and amount of pay or description of other remuneration paid or owed to each person by the business entity, such as time sheets, time cards, attendance records, earnings records, payroll summaries, payroll journals, ledgers or registers, daily logs or schedules, time and materials listings. All contracts entered into with a professional employer organization (PEO) or employee leasing company, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company. If such services are not pursuant to a written contract, written documentation including the name, business address, telephone number, and FEIN or social security number of all principals if an FEIN is not held, of each such PEO, temporary labor company, payroll or business record keeping company; and For every contract with a PEO: a payroll ledger for each day period during the contract period identifying each worker by name, address, home telephone number, and social security number or documentation showing that the worker was eligible for employment in the United States during the contract for his/her services, and a description of work performed during each pay period by each worker, and the amount paid each pay period to each worker. A business entity may maintain such records or contract for their maintenance by the PEO to which the records pertain. * * * All check ledgers and bank statements for checking, savings, credit union, or any other bank accounts established by the business entity or on its behalf; and All federal income tax forms prepared by or on behalf of the business and all State of Florida, Division of Unemployment Compensation UCT-6 forms and any other forms or reports prepared by the business or on its behalf for filing with the Florida Division of Unemployment Compensation. In response to the records request, Respondent provided only W-2 forms for 2003 through 2005, and duplicate checks for 2006. The W-2 forms show the "employer" as Customer Interiors & Design, Inc., and Keith Myer as an "employee." Each of the checks shows the payor as "Custom Interiors & Design, Inc., Keith Myer, Angela Myer," and shows the payee as "Keith Myer." According to the W-2 forms, Respondent Myer's personal gross income from Custom Interiors & Design, Inc., in calendar year 2003 was $13,250.00; in calendar year 2004 was $16,500.00, and in calendar year 2005 was $34,625.00. Using these W-2 forms and checks, the Agency investigator calculated a gross payroll from the period November 9, 2003 to December 31, 2004, as $17,604.17; for January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, as $34,625.00; and for January 1, 2006 to November 9, 2006, as $14,600.00. Based on Respondent's materials, Investigator Robinson calculated a penalty for the three-year time period of November 6, 2003, through November 6, 2006. In calculating the penalty, he assigned Class Code 5445, to the framing work performed by Respondent utilizing the SCOPES Manual; multiplied the class code's assigned approved manual rate with the payroll per one hundred dollars, and then multiplied all by 1.5. The approved manual rate for Class Code 5445 fluctuated from year to year, and Mr. Robinson's penalty worksheet reflected such fluctuations. After several tries, the Order of Penalty Assessment, which assessed a penalty of $18,937.37, was served on Respondent by certified mail on March 1, 2007. Respondent Myer did not dispute any of the formulas or mathematics employed. He did not challenge his "employee" status. He only asserted that the penalty is excessively high for an honest mistake.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation enter a final order approving the penalty of $18,937.37 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 28th day of September, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Orders, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers' compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondents are gas station/convenience stores located in South Florida. Northlake was created by Nazma Akter on May 6, 2014. MB was created by Ms. Akter on March 23, 2010. Congress Valero was created by Muhammad Saadat on July 21, 2011. Hena was created by Ms. Akter and Abu Ahsan on December 14, 2011. Hayma was created by Ms. Akter on December 14, 2011. Blue Heron was created by Ms. Akter on August 4, 2009. At all times relevant hereto, Respondents were duly-licensed to conduct business in the state of Florida. On February 2, 2015, the Department's Compliance Investigator Robert Feehrer, began a workers' compensation compliance investigation of Gardenia, LLC. Investigator Feehrer called the number listed for Gardenia, LLC, and was provided with a corporate office address. On February 10, 2015, upon arrival at Gardenia, LLC's, corporate office located at 165 US Highway 1, North Palm Beach, Florida, 33408, Investigator Feehrer spoke with Operations Manager Mohammad Hossain. Mr. Hossain stated that Gardenia, LLC, was a paper corporation and existed only for the purpose of paying unemployment taxes on the "six stores." Mr. Hossain went on to provide Investigator Feehrer with a list of Respondents and names of the employees that worked at each store. As an employee of Gardenia, LLC, and Respondents, Mr. Hossain's statements are party opponent admissions and bind Respondents. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997). With Mr. Hossain's statements and the list of Respondents' employees, Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, and confirmed that Respondents were current, active Florida companies. Investigator Feehrer then consulted the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System ("CCAS") for proof of workers' compensation coverage and exemptions associated with Respondents. Investigator Feehrer's CCAS search revealed that Respondents had no workers' compensation policies and no exemptions. On February 24, 2015, Investigator Feehrer conducted site visits at each of the six stores. Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain accompanied Investigator Feehrer during these site visits. At all times material hereto, Ms. Akter was a corporate officer or managing member of each of the six Respondents. Muhammed Saadat and Abu Ahsan were corporate officers or managing members of Congress Valero, Hena, and Blue Heron. Kazi Ahamed was a corporate officer or managing member of Congress Valero and Hayma. Kazi Haider and Mohammed Haque were managing members of Hayma. All received compensation from the companies with which they were involved. Although Investigator Feehrer only personally observed one employee working at each location during his site visits, the payroll records revealed that at least four employees (including corporate officers or managing members without exemptions) received compensation for work at each location during the relevant period. Investigator Feehrer required additional information to determine compliance, and with Respondents' permission, contacted Respondents' accountant. Investigator Feehrer met with the accountant at least two times to obtain relevant information prior to March 30, 2015. Upon Ms. Akter's authorization, the accountant provided tax returns and payroll information for Respondents' employees. Information from Ms. Akter and Mr. Hossain also confirmed the specific employees at each of the six stores during the period of March 30, 2013, through March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, based on his findings, Investigator Feehrer served six Stop-Work Orders and Orders of Penalty Assessment. The Stop-Work Orders were personally served on Ms. Akter. Mr. Hossain was present as well and confirmed the lists of employees for each of the six stores were accurate. In April 2015, the Department assigned Penalty Auditor Christopher Richardson to calculate the six penalties assessed against Respondents. Respondent provided tax returns for the audit period and payroll transaction details were provided, as well as general ledgers/breakdowns, noting the employees for each Respondent company. Based on Investigator Feehrer's observations of the six stores on February 24, 2015, Auditor Richardson used the classification code 8061 listed in the Scopes® Manual, which has been adopted by the Department through Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.021(1). Classification code 8061 applies to employees of gasoline stations with convenience stores. Classification codes are four-digit codes assigned to various occupations by the National Council on Compensation Insurance to assist in the calculation of workers' compensation insurance premiums. In the penalty assessment, Auditor Richardson applied the corresponding approved manual rate for classification code 8061 for the related periods of non-compliance. The corresponding approved manual rate was correctly utilized using the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L-6.027 to determine the final penalties. The Department correctly determined Respondents' gross payroll pursuant to the procedures required by section 440.107(7)(d) and rule 69L-6.027. On January 14, 2016, the Department served the six Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment on Respondents, assessing penalties of $1,367.06 for Northlake, $9,687.00 for MB, $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, $18,508.88 for Hena, $7,257.48 for Hayma, and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents were engaged in the gasoline station, self-service/convenience store industry in Florida during the periods of noncompliance; that Respondents failed to secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees, as required by Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and that the Department correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a consolidated final order upholding the Stop-Work Orders and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment in the amounts of $1,367.06 for Northlake Mobile Enterprises, Inc.; $9,687.00 for MB Food and Beverage, Inc.; $12,651.42 for Congress Valero, Inc.; $18,508.88 for Hena Enterprises, Inc.; $7,257.48 for Hayma Enterprises, Inc.; and $4,031.60 for Blue Heron BP, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent was substantially justified in issuing an initial Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment against Petitioner for failing to comply with a Business Records Request, followed by an Amended Stop-Work Order and an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner for alleged noncompliance with workers’ compensation coverage requirements, and if so, is an award of attorneys’ fees and costs appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirements of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, requiring that employers in Florida secure the payment of workers’ compensation insurance coverage for their employees. Petitioner is a Florida corporation that conducts business in Florida, with headquarters in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner’s business involves the transportation of vehicles, utilizing a fleet of approximately 61 tractor-trailers and accompanying auto transport trailers. Michelle Newcomer is a compliance investigator for Respondent. Her duties focus on conducting inspections/investigations of Florida businesses to ensure compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation coverage requirements. She also issues Stop Work Orders (SWOs) and Orders of Penalty Assessment (OPAs) when Respondent believes a business is non-compliant with Florida’s workers’ compensation law. Ms. Newcomer and her supervisors are familiar with the definition of "independent contractor" set forth in Sections 440.02(15)(d)1a and 440.02(15)(d)1b, Florida Statutes. However, they never tested Petitioner’s claim that its truck drivers were independent contractors and not employees against the criteria in that definition. On March 16, 2009, Ms. Newcomer received information from an anonymous source that Petitioner was not in compliance with the workers’ compensation laws in Florida. The anonymous source asserted that Petitioner’s drivers were being misclassified as independent contractors. Ms. Newcomer performed a search of Respondent’s database. She learned that Tracie Hedges and George Hedges, as corporate officers, were exempt from having workers’ compensation insurance. She found that Petitioner had no workers’ compensation coverage for any employees. On March 18, 2009, Ms. Newcomer visited Petitioner’s office. Upon arrival, she met Ms. Hedges. During the meeting, Ms. Newcomer inquired about the company, its operations, and its truck drivers. Ms. Hedges told Ms. Newcomer that Petitioner had about 50 to 60 truck drivers who were independent contractors. Seeing only one other employee, Ms. Newcomer left and terminated her investigation. On April 8, 2009, Ms. Newcomer received a referral from Respondent’s Employee Assistance Office. The referral indicated that one of Petitioner’s former drivers, Mike Borders, had suffered an injury while working for Petitioner, but was not receiving workers’ compensation benefits. The referral included a copy of one of Mr. Borders’ pay stubs. Upon reviewing Mr. Borders’ pay stub, Ms. Newcomer noticed that federal income tax withholding was deducted along with various deductions for Social Security and Medicare. The federal payroll deductions were identical to those any employer would deduct from an employee’s wages. Ms. Newcomer performed another search of Respondent’s database, finding that Petitioner had workers’ compensation insurance through Allstates Employer Services, effective March 17, 2009. Ms. Newcomer then contacted Allstates Employer Services and requested a copy of Petitioner’s employee roster. When she received the roster, Mr. Borders’ name was not on the roster. Ms. Newcomer next interviewed Mr. Borders, inquiring about Mr. Borders’ relationship with Petitioner. She wanted to know the following: (a) whether he drove Petitioner’s vehicle; (b) whether he signed any employment contracts; and (b) whether he considered himself Petitioner’s employee. Mr. Borders responded as follows: (a) he considered himself an employee of Petitioner; (b) he had signed an employment application; (c) he drove Petitioner’s truck; and (d) he took orders from Petitioner as to when and where to pick up the cars that needed to be transported. After speaking with Mr. Borders, Ms. Newcomer conducted further review via various state databases. She researched the database maintained by the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, to determine the relationship of Petitioner to Transport TK 131, LLC, another company listed on Mr. Borders’ pay stub. This search revealed 21 limited- liability companies using the Transport TK name. Ms. Newcomer learned that Transport TK 131’s managing member was Gary Hedge. Ms. Newcomer believed that Mr. Hedge also was a principal of Petitioner. Ms. Newcomer also reviewed the database maintained by the Florida Department of Revenue to determine who was paying the unemployment compensation tax for Petitioner’s drivers. She learned that Transport TK 131, LLC, listed two to three employees for purposes of unemployment withholdings. The same was true for all of the other Transport TK companies. Ms. Newcomer believed her investigation presented numerous inconsistencies with statements made by Ms. Hedge. Ms. Newcomer presented her findings to her supervisors. They gave her approval to investigate Petitioner. Ms. Newcomer prepared a Business Records Request Form 1 (BRR#1) for Petitioner and Transport TK 131, LLC. Both BRRs requested the companies to provide payroll information for employees and any forms of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees for the period January 21, 2009, through April 21, 2009. The BRRs also made the following request: Record Category #12--For each independent contractor who performs any service with regard to the completion of a contractual obligation of the employer listed above, at any time during the period specified above: all contracts for work, licenses, invoices, ledgers, payments made pursuant to that contract, and any other documents that support the status of an independent contractor under section 440.02(15)(d), F.S. The request for records did not give the companies the option of creating and providing affidavits or other documents to support the status of independent contractors if no written contracts for work existed. The BRRs were sent to Petitioner and Transport TK 131, LLC, by certified mail on April 22, 2009. Petitioner failed to provide all of the requested records within the required five-day time period. Accordingly, Respondent issued a SWO and an OPA to Petitioner. Ms. Newcomer posted the SWO and OPA at the worksite on May 5, 2009. While Ms. Newcomer was at Petitioner’s headquarters, Ms. Hedges provided her with some records, including Petitioner’s QuickBooks registry, showing all checks written for a three-month period. Ms. Hedges also answered Ms. Newcomer’s questions about the records, including questions about DTS, LLC, a company described by Ms. Hedges as a payroll account. Ms. Hedges explained that before August 2008, Petitioner paid DTS, LLC, for work performed by “employees” of the Transport TK companies. DTS, LLC, would then pay the truck drivers. However, when DTS, LLC, ran out of checks in August 2008, Petitioner began paying the Transport TK employees directly. The documentation and information provided by Ms. Hedges, resulted in the SWO being revoked for Transport TK 131, LLC. The revocation was based on a showing that Transport TK 131, LLC, and other Transport TK companies did not have bank accounts. The SWO against Petitioner, for failing to produce sufficient records, remained in place, pending further review. Ms. Newcomer continued to have discussions with Ms. Hedges relative to Petitioner’s business. Ms. Newcomer discussed the case again with one of her supervisors. She explained that Petitioner was paying individuals that were reported as employees of the Transport TK companies. She also stated that Petitioner pays its corporate officers, Bradley Hedges, Gregory Hedges and Teri Forret, who did not have workers’ compensation exemptions and were not covered by Allstates Employer Services workers’ compensation coverage. Ms. Newcomer and her supervisor decided to amend the SWO to add the charge of failure to provide workers’ compensation coverage for employees. On May 6, 2009, Respondent sent the SWO, the Amended Stop Work Order (ASWO,) and a Business Records Request Form 2 (BBR#2) to Petitioner by certified mail. Petitioner received the documents the next day. Ms. Newcomer had a meeting with Ms. Hedges on May 8, 2009. During the meeting, Ms. Hedges explained that DTS, LLC, is just a bank account, used to pay the employees of the Transport TK companies. Ms. Hedges also stated that Petitioner has full control of its customer contracts and directs the drivers where to go for work. On May 11, 2009, Ms. Newcomer received Petitioner’s Quickbook report for the period of the BBR#2 records request. On May 13, 2009, Ms. Newcomer staffed the case with Respondent’s legal counsel. On May 14, 2009, Ms. Newcomer received some contracts between Petitioner and truck drivers who owned and operated their own trucks. Respondent calculated Petitioner’s penalty using the Quickbooks report, in conjunction with W-2 documents provided for tax years 2007 and 2008. As of May 18, 2009, Petitioner’s penalty was $1,496,680.40. Ms. Newcomer requested and received approval to issue an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (AOPA) for that amount. The AOPA was served on Petitioner by hand delivery on May 19, 2009. Ms. Newcomer did not include Petitioner’s office staff/dispatchers, including Ms. Hedges, in calculating Petitioner’s penalty. Ms. Newcomer was able to confirm that those individuals had workers’ compensation coverage through the employee leasing company. Ms. Newcomer did not include the owner/operator truck drivers in calculating Petitioner’s penalty. Ms. Newcomer had copies of contracts indicating that they were independent contractors. Ms. Newcomer did include the 50 to 60 truck drivers who drove Petitioner’s trucks in calculating the penalty. Ms. Newcomer knew that Petitioner was paying those individuals by check and that their pay-stubs showed various deductions, including withholdings for federal income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, and even deduction options for various forms of Individual Retirement Accounts, both standard and “Roth” versions. For some of the drivers, Petitioner deducted child support payments. If Ms. Newcomer had asked more questions or talked to more drivers, she would have learned that Petitioner made the deductions from the checks of drivers who drove Petitioner’s trucks at their request and in exchange for a smaller commission. Petitioner did not make the deductions as an employer. Ms. Newcomer also learned that all individuals driving Petitioner’s trucks signed employment applications. Apparently, Ms. Newcomer did not believe Ms. Hedges when she explained that the employment applications were used as forms to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Carrier Safety Act for drivers of trucks with Petitioner’s name. Ms. Newcomer never attempted to find out whether the drivers of Petitioner’s trucks were independent contractors pursuant to oral contracts. She did not ask Ms. Hedges questions that track the definition of “independent contractor” status in Sections 440.02(15)(d)1a and 440.02(15)(d)1b, Florida Statutes. In other words, Ms. Newcomer did not try to ascertain whether and/or to what extent Petitioner or the truck drivers controlled or directed the manner in which the work was done. Ms. Hedges told Ms. Newcomer that Petitioner’s corporate officers had filed for workers’ compensation exempt status by delivering exemption application forms to one of Respondent’s offices in 2005. Ms. Hedges did not have a receipt showing delivery of the forms. Ms. Newcomer could not find the names of two of these officers in the state’s database of corporate officers electing exempt status. Therefore, Ms. Newcomer included the two corporate officers in the penalty calculation. Apparently, Ms. Newcomer never considered that Ms. Hedges was telling the truth about the exemption forms and that, pursuant to statute, the exemptions became effective 30 days after Ms. Hedges delivered them to Respondent even though Respondent never processed them. Ms. Newcomer also did not go back to Mr. Borders to question him about his claim of being Petitioner’s employee as opposed to an independent contractor, using the definition of independent contractor set forth in Sections 440.02(15)(d)1a and 440.02(15)(d)1b, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Ms. Newcomer did not attempt to interview any other individuals that drove Petitioner’s vehicles to determine whether they considered themselves employees or independent contractors. On or about June 5, 2009, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to challenge the ASWO and AOPA. The hearing was held on November 3, 2009. On January 29, 2010, Administrative Law Judge P. Michael Ruff issued a Recommended Order, finding that Petitioner was compliant with Florida’s workers’ compensation coverage and recommending that a final order be entered dismissing the ASWO and AOPA. On April 28, 2010, Respondent entered a Final Order adopting Judge Ruff’s legal and factual findings. The parties stipulate as follows: (a) Petitioner is the prevailing party in the underlying case; (b) Petitioner was a small business at the time the ASWO and AOPA were served; and (c) The reasonableness of the amount of attorney’s fees and costs claimed by Petitioner, namely $50,000, is not in dispute.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed as building inspector of Suwannee County on or about November, 1974. and was terminated by action of Petitioner at a meeting on or about September 18, 1980. Respondent received a letter dated October 14, 1980 from Claude McDonald, Chairman, Suwannee County Board of County Commissioners, listing the following reasons for his termination: Gross neglect of duty. Absence without leave. Incompetence or unwillingness to render satisfactory services. Insubordination or serious breach of discipline. Habitual absences, tardiness or abuse of sick leave. Substantial violations of personnel regulations. Falsifying travel records. Fraudulent claims filed with the Board of County Commissioners `for reimbursement of travel expenses to job sites for inspections when, in fact, such inspections were not made, or in the alternative, making inspections which were not documented by signing building permits as required by established procedures. Respondent was the first building inspector for Suwannee County and established all of the procedures and forms used in the building department. He was bound by the personnel and fiscal regulations of Suwannee County, but was given a substantial degree of independence in setting up the building department, and thereafter in conducting the daily work of the department. In establishing and administering the department, Respondent consulted with other building inspectors and officials. In January, 1975 Respondent hired Connie Robinson as his secretary, and in February, 1979 he hired Pat Sura to be his assistant building inspector. Sura is now building inspector for Suwannee County. The evidence establishes that the regular business hours of the building department while Respondent was building inspector were from 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This is consistent with the county's policy and with the practice of other county offices. Both Connie Robinson and Pat Sura, "employees" of the building department, testified that they worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Respondent would regularly arrive at the office at about 5:30 a.m., but he frequently conducted official county business both before arriving at the office and after leaving in the evening by visiting job sites. The building inspector is a "department head" as that term is defined in Part I, Suwannee County Personnel Regulations, and as such is exempt from a 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work day and the 40 hours per week required by Part XIV, Section C, Suwannee County Personnel Regulations. Therefore, the evidence establishes that the "employees" of the building department maintained work hours consistent with applicable personnel rules at all times relevant herein, and also that Respondent's own work hours were not violative of applicable personnel rules. As a "department head", Respondent did not accrue compensatory time or earn over-time pay for hours worked beyond forty hours a week. Department heads were expected, when the need existed, to work more than forty hours a week. Respondent did earn vacation and sick leave. In order to use earned vacation or sick leave, Respondent was required to submit a request for leave as provided in Part XVI, Sections A4 and 55, Suwannee County Personnel Regulations. The evidence establishes that Respondent was absent from his office and did not perform official duties for the county on the following dates, although he was paid for work on these dates and did not submit a request to use either vacation or sick leave: February 5-12, 1980; June 3-13, 1980; September 15-16, 1980. This finding is based on the testimony of Connie Robinson and Pat Sura. Although Respondent called the office once during the February absence, notified the Board of County Commissioners in advance that he would be gone for two days during the June absence to attend an educational seminar in Orlando and also that he would need some additional time off due to his son's medical emergency, and had his wife call the office and leave a phone number where he could be reached during the September absence, Respondent never submitted a request for leave for any of this time. This failure followed a formal written warning concerning the use of leave issued by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to Respondent on December 6, 1979. Despite being absent from the office without claiming leave on the dates specified in finding of fact 7 above, Respondent submitted false reports to the county indicating that he had conducted inspections on June 6 and 9, 1980 when in fact he was in Orlando for his son's medical emergency and for an educational seminar. From February 24, 1979 to November 21, 1979, Respondent was in the process of building his house. He did not use a general contractor, but rather acted as an owner-builder. There is conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent was absent from his job without claiming leave during this time, and whether he spent time during his normal working hours working on his house, rather than as building inspector for Suwannee County. After considering all of the evidence, it is specifically found that Respondent did take unreported time off during his normal work day to either work on his house, receive materials on site, or check on contractors who were working on his house. The frequency of his visits with these contractors indicates that these were not normal inspections made during the course of his duties as building inspector. This finding is based upon the testimony of Connie Robinson, Pat Sura, Respondent himself, and also Buddy McCall, Anthony Donald Selph, Jan Touchton and James Benton who either worked on Respondent's house or delivered materials to the job site between 5:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. during this time, and who testified that Respondent was regularly present on the site between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. This finding is specifically made after considering the contrary testimony of Raymond Key, and Alfred Smith, and Respondent's denial that he took unreported leave to build, or worked on his home during his normal work hours. Although the exact number of unreported days off which Respondent took to work on his house in 1979 cannot be determined, there is competent substantial evidence based on the testimony of Connie Robinson and Pat Sura that Respondent took between 15 and 20 work days off between May and August, 1979 and did not report these absences. Respondent was paid his normal salary for these days by Petitioner. In May, 1980 Respondent was asked to submit a report to the Board of County Commissioners on the number of inspections he had personally made during the preceding twelve months, and thereafter to submit monthly inspection reports to the Board. This request was made on behalf of the Board by Jerry Scarborough, Clerk of the Court and Clerk to the Board. Claude McDonald, Chairman of the Board in 1950, testified that Commissioners had been receiving some complaints from the public that Respondent was frequently absent from his office, and that he was spending time at the real estate office of Robert Mahan where his wife worked. Robert Mahan confirmed that Respondent visited his wife during normal work hours quite often. Respondent reported to the Board of County Commissioners that he had made between 200 and 250 inspections during the preceding year while Pat Sura had made approximately 1200. He explained the difference was due to the fact that he had other duties, such as Public relations and administration, while Sura's sole job was to make inspections. However, subsequent to the request for regular reports which was made in May, 1980, the number of days per month when Respondent reported that he had conducted inspections increased substantially. Specifically, from January to April, 1980 he averaged inspections on 3 days per month while from May to August he averaged inspections on 11 days per month, according to his reports. From the evidence presented, it is found that Respondent did copy Pat Sura's inspection reports and submit them as his own regarding some of the inspections he reported after May, 1980. The exact number of falsified inspection reports cannot be determined, but it is clear that Respondent falsely reported an increased number of personal inspections in response to the request by the Board. From the evidence presented, it is also found that Respondent falsely claimed travel expense reimbursement for inspections which, in fact, he did not make on April 14 and 15, 1980 and September 2-4, 8, 9, 1980. The reimbursement received for travel associated with inspections during this time was less than $100, but it cannot be determined exactly how much of this claim was false. It is clear, however, from an independent audit conducted by Steven Collins, C.P.A., that the system for documenting travel expenses does not support a substantial number of the inspection trips claimed by Respondent on these vouchers. Respondent sought to explain the matters in findings of fact 12 and 13 by contending that on most of the inspections he made, he did not sign the building permit. However, he acknowledged that it was standard practice for the inspector to sign the permit when he made an inspection. Respondent indicated that his visits to a building site were not always formal inspections and that he might simply stop by to check up on a contractor or on the work of Pat Sura, or to make a public relations visit. Notwithstanding the possibility that some of his site visits and reported inspections may have, in fact, occurred as uncalled, surprise visits, a substantial number of these visits and inspections, as well as associated travel vouchers, were falsified by copying Pat Sura's inspection reports. On May 22, 1981, Lynn B. Martin, Appeals Referee, Unemployment Compensation Section, determined that Respondent was disqualified from receiving benefits for having been discharged for misconduct connected with his work. Respondent was not represented by counsel in that proceeding.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether David Bumgarner (Respondent) should be assessed a penalty for an alleged failure to obtain workers' compensation coverage for his employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency designated to enforce the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2008),1 which requires that employers in Florida obtain workers' compensation coverage for their employees. The Respondent is a sole proprietor based in North Carolina and doing business as "Builders and Assemblers." On February 25, 2009, Ira Bender, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, observed ten men assembling the iron-and-steel frame for a single story storage building being constructed at 7253 Gasparilla Road, Port Charlotte, Florida. The Respondent was present at the time Mr. Bender observed the workers, and Mr. Bender asked the Respondent about the project. The Respondent advised Mr. Bender that he was the owner of the company constructing the building, that the ten men erecting the building frame were his employees, and that they were being paid $10.00 per hour. Mr. Bender, accompanied by the Respondent, then spoke to each of the ten men at the work site and obtained their names and other relevant information. The Respondent provided to Mr. Bender a copy of a certificate of insurance from "Acord" bearing policy number BNUWC0108275. Mr. Bender reviewed the Petitioner's "Coverage and Compliance Automated System" (CCAS) database and information contained on the National Council on Compensation Insurance ("NCCI") website. Both sources are routinely used to monitor and review workers' compensation coverage. Neither the CCAS database nor the NCCI website indicated that the Respondent had workers' compensation coverage valid within Florida for any of the ten employees at the work site or that the Respondent had a valid exemption from coverage for any employee. After discussing the collected information with his supervisor, Mr. Bender issued a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment dated February 25, 2009. The Respondent subsequently provided a copy of his workers' compensation policy to the Petitioner. The policy information page attached to the policy is an NCCI-issued form identified as "WC 00 00 01 A." The Respondent's policy's information page provides, in relevant part, as follows: 3.A. Workers Compensation Insurance: Part One of the policy applied to the Workers Compensation Law of the states listed here: NC * * * C. Other States Insurance: Part Three of the policy applies to the states, if any listed here: All states and U.S. territories except North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, Wyoming, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin islands, and states designated in Item 3.A. of the Information Page. Administrative rules adopted by the Petitioner and referenced elsewhere herein explicitly state that the coverage identified in the Respondent's policy information page is not valid within the State of Florida. Mr. Bender also issued a Request for Production of Business Records on February 25, 2009. Other than the previously referenced insurance certificate and policy, no further business records were provided to the Petitioner by the Respondent. Mr. Bender subsequently forwarded the case to Lynn Murcia, the Petitioner's penalty calculator. Because the Respondent failed to provide business records sufficient to enable computation of a penalty, Ms. Murcia computed the penalty based on an imputed payroll as provided by Florida law. The NCCI publishes the "SCOPES Manual," which contains a commonly-used system of occupational classifications used to determine workers' compensation requirements. In Florida, the SCOPES Manual has been adopted by incorporation into the Florida Administrative Code. The SCOPES Manual identifies the erection of steel or iron frames for buildings not in excess of two stories under classification code 5059. The Respondent's employees were engaged in such activities, and Ms. Murcia therefore properly classified the Respondent's employees under code 5059. Ms. Murcia utilized the SCOPES classification in determining the imputed payroll applicable to this case and, thereafter, computed the penalty according to a worksheet that has been adopted as an administrative rule by the Petitioner. The worksheet is routinely used to calculate penalties applicable to employers who fail to obtain workers' compensation coverage for employees. Based on Ms. Murcia's calculations, the penalty was identified as $1,764,643.98, as was set forth in an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 31, 2009. Ms. Murcia's calculation of the applicable penalty, including her reliance on the applicable SCOPES classification codes and the imputation of the Respondent's payroll, was not disputed at the hearing. Her testimony has been fully credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order assessing a penalty of $1,764,643.98 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 2009.
