The Issue The issue is whether respondent should be disciplined for allegedly operating various security services without a license as charged in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On April 25, 1989, petitioner, Department of State, Division of Licensing (Division), received by mail from an anonymous source a copy of a business card reflecting the name of respondent, Robert D. Wingard, and another individual, and indicating that respondent provided the following services: "Executive & V. I. P. Protection, Undercover Investigation, Alarm Technology, Bonding & Courier Work." The card further represented that Wingard held "Lic. No. 34882-809099." The card listed Wingard's address as 4419 Melbourne Street, Punta Gorda, Florida. After receiving the card, a Division investigator, Daniel J. Cabrera, interviewed respondent in Punta Gorda on May 11, 1989. During the course of the interview, respondent acknowledged to Cabrera that he operated a private investigative service, performed the services of a private investigator, operated a security guard agency and performed the services of a security guard, all under the name of Security Enforcement Specialists. However, Wingard maintained he had all necessary licenses from the state. According to Charlotte County records, Wingard applied for and was issued an occupational license by that county on June 18, 1988. The administrative complaint has used that date as the date on which Wingard commenced providing the above services. An examination of Division records indicated that Wingard did not hold those licenses needed to operate the services described in finding of fact 2. Therefore, all services being provided by Wingard were performed without the proper licensure from the state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the administrative complaint issued against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Donald R. Alexander Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1989.
Findings Of Fact In her application for issuance of an unarmed guard license, the Petitioner indicated that she had not been arrested. At the hearing it was established that the Petitioner was arrested in 1963 for disorderly conduct and fighting with a knife, convicted in 1967 of shoplifting, and convicted in 1975 of welfare fraud. The Petitioner is still making restitution on the welfare fraud charges. At the time of the hearing the Petitioner was not working as a security guard. She stated that her reason for not placing her arrest record on the application was that in the past it had prevented her from obtaining employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donald C. Whalen, is president of Somerset Security & Investigation, Inc. of Manatee County, Florida. Respondent holds several licenses issued by Petitioner, including a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency license number 86-00242, effective October 24, 1988; a Class "B" Watchman, Guard or Patrol Agency license number B86-00153, effective October 24, 1988; a Class "C" Private Investigator license number 86-00233, effective August 4, 1988; a Class "E" Repossesser license number E87-00027, effective March 20, 1989; and a Class "M" Manager license number M86-00046, effective August 4, 1988. Vaughn Yeager was employed by Respondent as a security guard for three months in 1988 without first obtaining licensure. Tom French was employed by Respondent as a security guard for three months in 1988 without first obtaining licensure. Ralph Chaffin was employed by Respondent as a security guard in May 1988, and worked for 27 hours without being licensed. Mr. Chaffin's application for licensure was not submitted because he quit within a few days of being hired. Judith L. Chester was employed by Respondent as a security guard between May 5, 1988 and September 24, 1988, before becoming licensed by the Division. George Clifton was employed as a security guard by Respondent between August 31 and September 5, 1988. An application for licensure was never submitted because of Mr. Clifton's termination. Roger Lee Curtis was employed by Respondent as a security guard from March 4 through August 1, 1988, before his application for 1icensure was received by the Division. James DeCoff was employed as a security guard by Respondent between June 17, 1988 and June 21, 1988, when he was terminated for improperly using a client's phone. His application for licensure was never submitted. Michael Durbin was employed as a security guard by Respondent in May 1988. He quit after working one day and an application was not submitted. Anthony R. Edwards was employed as a security guard by Respondent in May 1988. He quit after working one day and his application was not submitted. Albert F. Ferrell was employed as a security guard by Respondent between May 6, 1988 and November 20, 1988, before his application was submitted. Drenda Giambra was employed as a security guard for Respondent from September 16, 1988 to September 26, 1988, before becoming licensed by the Division. Dean Harris was employed as a security guard by Respondent from July 19, 1988 to November 20, 1988, before he was licensed by the Division. Dietrich Hogrefe was employed as a security guard by Respondent between November 30, 1988 and January 28, 1989, before becoming licensed by the Division. Daniel Hunt, Jr., was employed as a security guard by Respondent on April 10, 1989, before he was licensed on April 18, 1989. David Laplante was employed as a security guard by Respondent on January 15, 1989. He worked six hours and quit. An application was not submitted. Victor Lesso was employed as a security guard by Respondent from June 16 through July 7, 1988, without submitting an application for licensure. He was terminated after being arrested for arson. Ray Linderman was employed as a security guard by Respondent between April 8 and April 30, 1988, without being licensed. His application was submitted late. Todd Persinger was employed as a security guard by Respondent in January 1989, and worked one weekend before quitting. An application for licensure was never submitted. Arthur Samson was employed as a security guard by Respondent on September 30, 1988. His application was submitted by Respondent on October 2, 1988. He was terminated when the application was denied. Russell W. Schmidt was employed as a security guard by Respondent from March 4, 1988 thru April 1, 1988. He quit before his application for licensure was submitted. Jennifer Slaton was employed as a security guard by Respondent in November 1988. She worked part-time for three days and quit before her application was submitted. Randall Springer was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in September 1988. His application was never submitted because he quit. Tracy Tamburin worked as a security guard for Respondent for one weekend in December 1988. Her application was never submitted because she quit. James Wooten was employed as a security guard by Respondent from October 2, 1988 through March 25, 1989, before becoming licensed. Brian Frenn was employed as a security guard by Respondent for three shifts in January 1989. An application for licensure was not submitted. Gina Spaniak was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in March 1988. An application for licensure was never submitted. Tom Hunt was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in May 1989. An application was not submitted. Earl Watson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in April 1989. An application was not submitted. Todd Moudy was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in April 1989. An application was not submitted. John Mullins was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in May 1989. An application was not submitted. Walker Mobley was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a short period of time in May 1989. An application for 1icensure was not submitted. Richard Yelvington was employed as a security guard by Respondent from January 17, 1989, to February 28, 1989, before being licensed by the Division. Terry Harrison was employed as a security guard by Respondent from January 10, 1989 to February 10, 1989, before submitting an application for licensure. Cynthia K. Burdell was employed as a security guard by Respondent from July 18, 1988 through November 20, 1988, before being licensed by the Division. Flynn C. Gregory was employed as a security guard by Respondent from January 30, 1989 through April 4, 1989, before being licensed by the Division. David Morico was employed as a security guard by Respondent from March 30, 1989 to May 15, 1989, before being licensed by the Division. Daniel F. Hunt, Sr., was employed as a security guard by Respondent from March 18, 1989 to May 15, 1989, before submitting an application for licensure. Robert F. Hunt was employed as a security guard by Respondent for two weeks in March 1989, before submitting an application for licensure. John Moffat was employed as a security guard by Respondent from May 18, 1989 to June 1, 1989, with an expired Class "D" license. Jeff Clarkson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Jay Abram was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Shedrick Bates was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Joseph Likes was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Dawn Dodson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Woodrow Roberts was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. Robert Anderson was employed as a security guard by Respondent for a period of less than two weeks between April 1, 1988 and July 15, 1989, without proper licensure. In July 1989, twenty of Respondent's employees performed security guard services without identification cards. In July 1989, Respondent issued to six employees security guard badges which depicted a facsimile reproduction or pictorial portion of the Great Seal of the State of Florida without authorization. On or about June 30, 1988, Respondent repossessed a 38 ft. Wellcraft St. Tropez boat for Barnett Bank of Manatee County, Florida. The bank authorized Respondent to store the boat near Joe Ungarelli's house at 2409 69th Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida. Mr. Ungarelli expressed an interest in purchasing the boat from the Bank, and on July 2 or 3, 1988, Respondent, Ungarelli and two Barnett Bank employees, Doug Kramer and Tom French took the boat on a five to six hour trip so that Ungarelli could inspect the boat. The next day Respondent attended a Fourth of July party at Ungarelli's house. The boat was moved from Trailer Estates Marina to Ungarelli's dock and parked there. Respondent was also aboard for the second moving. Respondent solicited his friend Ungarelli to accompany him on the trip to repossess the St. Tropez boat from Englewood, Florida, a distance of over 40 miles south of Bradenton. Lee Bissette drove Respondent, Ungarelli and French to Englewood. Additionally, French worked part-time for Respondent as a security guard. After the boat was repossessed and brought from Englewood to Bradenton, Ungarelli again indicated to Respondent and Tom French that he was interested in purchasing the boat. Ungarelli requested that Barnett Bank allow him to take the boat out so that he could show his wife the boat and hopefully get her approval to purchase it. Barnett Bank thereafter contacted Respondent and authorized him to show the boat to Ungarelli and his wife. For doing so, Respondent was paid for his services. On Sunday, July 3, 1989, Respondent, acting on behalf of Barnett Bank, took the Ungarellis, Tom French and Doug Kramer out on the boat for approximately five hours. Karen Erikson, a friend and former employee of Respondent was picked up at a local seafood establishment earlier in the day. Immediately upon boarding the boat, Karen Erikson retired to the berth for at least three hours during the boat trip as she had consumed approximately ten beers and was somewhat intoxicated. On July 4, Joe Ungarelli had a Fourth of July party at his house. Respondent and other employees of Somerset Security were invited to Ungarelli's party. Ungarelli's house is located on a canal where the 38 ft. St. Tropez was docked along with four other boats, including a 40 ft. Scarub and a 32 ft. Sports Fisherman. Ungarelli dug the 25 ft. canal behind his home and it is, on the most favorable day, at best "tricky" to maneuver a large boat such as the repossessed 38 ft. St. Tropez into the canal. Respondent did not move the repossessed boat from Ungarelli's home on July 4th, nor did any other party, as Respondent, Ungarelli and several of his employees were busy barbecuing a pig for the party which was held that day. On each occasion that Respondent moved the repossessed boat, it was with the owner's (Barnett Bank of Bradenton) permission and was not used for any personal benefit of Respondent. Ungarelli submitted a bid to purchase the repossessed St. Tropez, however, he was out-bid by another party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Stipulation of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $4,000.00 and place his Class "A", "B", "C" and "M" licenses on probation for a term of six (6) months. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 1990.
The Issue At issue is whether the respondent violated section 493.6118(1)(n), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: During the period of time specified in the Administrative Complaint, May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, 24-Hour Security held a Class "B" Security Agency License, number B91-00117. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Richard R. Cullen was president of 24-Hour Security and held, among other licenses, a Class "M" Manager License, number M86-00152. 24-Hour Security, whose only office is located at 1515 South Federal Highway, Boca Raton, Florida, is in the business of providing security guards to businesses and condominiums. It employs licensed security guards and trains and supervises them to ensure that they adequately perform their duties and carry out the instructions of 24-Hour Security's clients. From May 19, 1994, through October 10, 1994, Michelle T. Reilly was employed by 24-Hour Security and worked as assistant to Mr. Cullen. She began working for 24-Hour Security in September 1992 and has always been highly regarded as an employee by Mr. Cullen. He has trained her in all aspects of the private security service business in order for her to get the experience necessary to qualify for a chapter 493 manager's license. Prior to February 16, 1995, she had never held any type of license authorized by chapter 493 of the Florida Statutes. Mr. Cullen was aware that she was not licensed. Since the agency's inception, Mr. Cullen has designated himself manager of 24-Hour Security and has considered himself ultimately responsible for the operation of the agency. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Ms. Reilly's business cards identified her as "Branch Manager," and she was identified as such by licensed employees of 24-Hour Security. On one occasion during the Department's investigation, Ms. Reilly expressly identified herself to an investigator of the Department as manager of 24-Hour Security. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, in addition to performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties, Ms. Reilly assisted Mr. Cullen in (1) hiring and training licensed security guards; (2) preparing daily work schedules for the guards; (3) preparing post orders outlining the duties a guard is to carry out at a particular post, including the client's special instructions or requirements; (4) supervising the operation of the agency's dispatch center; (5) addressing clients' problems; (6) consulting with clients regarding proper security precautions; (7) conducting post inspections to ensure that the guards are at their posts, properly uniformed and carrying out their responsibilities; and (8) writing security proposals for clients and in developing new accounts. In assisting Mr. Cullen with these duties, Ms. Reilly at times was allowed by Mr. Cullen to direct and control the activities of licensed security officers and to operate the agency. When Mr. Cullen was advised by the Department that Ms. Reilly could not function as or be designated as "manager" of 24-Hour Security, he immediately removed her business cards from the office. Ms. Reilly applied for a Class "MB" manager's license on November 9, 1994. Her application was denied by the Department by letter dated January 17, 1995, because she had "not demonstrated the lawfully gained experience or appropriate training" required for licensure. Ms. Reilly was issued a Class "D" Security Officer license on February 16, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order finding 24-Hour Security, Incorporated, and Richard R. Cullen guilty of the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine of $500 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of April 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 April 1995. APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on petitioner_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1 through 9: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 8. The following are my specific rulings on respondent_s Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact numbered 2 and 5. Paragraph 2: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact set out in the second portion of the first sentence and in the second, third, fourth, and fifth sentences are rejected as merely summaries of testimony. The proposed finding of fact in the final sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 3: The proposed finding of fact in the first sentence was adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 6. The remaining proposed findings of fact are rejected as argument. Paragraph 4: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as merely a summary of testimony; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as argument. Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 7: The proposed finding of fact in the first portion of the sentence is rejected as unnecessary; the proposed finding of fact in the second portion of the sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 8: The proposed findings of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as legal argument. The proposed finding of fact in the last sentence is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact numbered 5. Paragraph 9: The proposed finding of fact in the first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The proposed findings of fact in the last two sentences are rejected as argument. Paragraph 10: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 11: Rejected as argument. Paragraph 12: Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristi Reid Bronson Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Cullen, President 24-Hour Security, Incorporated 1515 South Federal Highway Suite 109 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Don Bell General Counsel Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32300-0250 The Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Findings Of Fact Based on the documentary evidence received, the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By letter dated October 18, 1982, Mr. General G. Foreman, Petitioner herein, was advised that his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses had been denied based on "fraud or willful misrepresentation in application for or in obtaining a license." Chapter 493.319(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner timely applied for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, concerning the denial of his application for Class "D" and "G" unarmed/armed security guard licenses by the Division of Licensing. 1/ Documentary evidence herein reveals that the Petitioner has been arrested ten times during the period April, 1950 through May, 1982. On Petitioner's application filed during approximately July, 1982, he listed two arrests during the period March, 1955 through approximately November, 1970. Petitioner listed (on the subject application) a trespassing charge which occurred during April, 1950, the outcome of which resulted in a conviction, and during November, 1969 or 1970, a rape charge which was "thrown out, dismissed." In the processing of applications for guard licenses, the Respondent conducts background investigations through fingerprint checks with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and other local law enforcement agencies. The Respondent reviewed a "rap" sheet from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and based on a consideration of the ten (10) occasions which the Petitioner had been arrested, an administrative determination was made that the Petitioner failed to fully disclose arrests. For that reason, Petitioner's application for the above-referred guard licenses was denied. (Testimony of Debbie Richards, Respondent's guard license application investigator). The Petitioner listed the tow charges which "bears" on his mind and the other arrests were not listed since they had no "bearing on his mind." Petitioner contends that he made no effort to "hide" anything. Further, Petitioner related that he, to this date, is unable to recall, with any specificity, the exact number of times that he has been arrested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for statewide Class "D" and "G" security guard licenses. 2/ RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 3rd day of February, 1983.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department or Respondent), should pay Petitioner, Gulf Coast Development Service, Inc.'s (Petitioner or Gulf Coast Development), attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ for initiating Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case No. 13-0798.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts set forth in this paragraph: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees and corporate officers. Petitioner, a Florida corporation, was engaged in the Florida construction industry on February 12, 2013. On February 12, 2013, Leida Perez, workers' compensation compliance investigator for the Department (Investigator Perez), commenced an investigation at 577 Gulfshore Boulevard, Naples, Florida 34102 (job site), to determine whether the individuals performing construction industry work at the job site were compliant with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Quang Dinh is the owner and corporate officer of Gulf Coast Development. The Department issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment to Petitioner on February 12, 2013. The Department served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation to Petitioner on February 12, 2013. The calculations and the methodology applied by the Department's penalty auditor in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment that was issued to Petitioner by the Department on February 27, 2013, and revoked on May 3, 2013, are not in dispute. Petitioner does not owe any Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to the Department. Bob Simat, drywall supervisor for Advantage Plastering and Finish Carpentry, contacted Gilberto Zepeda directly to perform the drywall operations at the job site. Mr. Simat was under the impression that Mr. Zepeda and his brother both worked for Gulf Coast Development. Discovery in this matter concluded on April 29, 2013, when the Department received check images from Petitioner's bank account. The Department issued and served an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation) to Petitioner on May 3, 2013. Petitioner is a bona fide "small business" and incurred legal fees and costs for this action. The Department revoked the February 12, 2013, Stop-Work Order, and, therefore, Petitioner is the prevailing party in the underlying action within the meaning of section 57.111(3)(c). On February 12, 2013, when Investigator Perez arrived at the job site, she observed Gilberto and Enrique Zepeda (Zepedas) performing drywall finishing work. Upon inquiry, the Zepedas informed Investigator Perez that they were performing the drywall finishing work for their employer, Gulf Coast Development, and provided her with Quang Dinh's cellular phone number. As previously noted, Investigator Perez is an investigator with the Department's Division of Workers' Compensation. When Investigator Perez arrived at the job site on February 12, 2013, a representative from the Department's Division of Insurance Fraud (Fraud Unit) was also present. In the presence of Investigator Perez, the representative from the Fraud Unit received from the Zepedas the same information that they provided to Investigator Perez regarding their employment status with Gulf Coast Development. While meeting with Investigator Perez and the representative from the Fraud Unit, the Zepedas memorialized their verbal statements by each executing an affidavit, and affirmatively stating therein that they were employed by Petitioner. Soon after receiving Mr. Dinh's phone number from the Zepedas, Investigator Perez phoned Mr. Dinh. When Mr. Dinh answered his phone, Investigator Perez identified herself and explained that she was with the Zepeda brothers. During the conversation with Mr. Dinh, Investigator Perez asked whom he used for workers' compensation coverage. Mr. Dinh replied "I am working on it," and the phone was disconnected. Investigator Perez immediately placed a second call to Mr. Dinh, and it was during this conversation that Mr. Dinh agreed to meet her at the job site. After speaking with Mr. Dinh, Investigator Perez contacted Advantage Plastering, a contractor at the job site, who informed her that they had hired Petitioner to perform the drywall finishing work. Following her conversation with the representative from Advantage Plastering, Investigator Perez, through the use of her mobile personal computer, searched the Department of State, Division of Corporations', website database (Sunbiz) for information on Gulf Coast Development. The information found on Sunbiz showed that Petitioner had been an active Florida corporation since May 9, 2007, that 27614 Imperial Shore Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134, was the company's principal address, and that Quang Dinh was president of the corporation. Next, Investigator Perez checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) for information on proof of coverage and exemptions for Petitioner. CCAS revealed that Petitioner did not have any active coverage, but did have an exemption for Mr. Dinh. An exemption is a method by which a particular corporate officer can become exempt from the requirement to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage, as authorized by section 440.05, Florida Statutes. When Mr. Dinh arrived at the job site, Investigator Perez again asked him about the company's current workers' compensation coverage, to which Mr. Dinh again replied, "I am working on it." Mr. Dinh then gave Investigator Perez a folder containing a blank application for workers' compensation insurance coverage. Based on her interviews with the Zepedas, Advantage Plastering, and Mr. Dinh, along with the information obtained from Sunbiz and CCAS, Investigator Perez determined that the Zepeda brothers were employed by Petitioner and that the Zepedas were not covered by workers' compensation insurance coverage. Given this information, Investigator Perez issued Petitioner a Stop-Work Order. Mr. Dinh testified that when he arrived at the job site, he informed Investigator Perez that the Zepedas were not his employees. Even if Mr. Dinh informed Investigator Perez that the Zepedas were not employees of Gulf Coast Development, his assertion was insufficient to negate the verbal and sworn statements given to Investigator Perez by the Zepedas and, moreover, conflicted with his previous statements to Investigator Perez that he was "working on" getting workers' compensation coverage for the Zepedas. In March 2013, the Zepedas recanted their earlier statements that they were employed by Gulf Coast Development. On May 3, 2013, Respondent issued an Order Releasing Stop-Work Order (Revocation). The facts uncovered in Investigator Perez's investigation on February 12, 2013, provided the Department with a reasonable basis to issue the Stop-Work Order to Petitioner.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents were negligent by failing to provide proper supervision and control of two security guard employees, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent U.S. Security has held a Class "A" Private Investigative Agency License No. A00-01448; a Class "B" Watchman, Guard or Patrol Agency License No. B00-01042; and a Class "DS" Guard School License No. DS89-00077. At all times material hereto, Respondent Bahram Sedaghat has held a Class "C" Private Investigator License No. C87-00645, a Class "DI" Guard Instructor License No. DI89- 00275, a Class "G" Statewide Gun Permit No. G88-00869, and a Class "M" Manager License No. M90-00046. At all times material hereto, Respondent Bahram Sedaghat has been the Vice-President of Respondent U.S. Security, and Juan Cabrera and Octavio Valdez were employees of Respondent U.S. Security. At all times material hereto, Respondent U.S. Security has provided supervision of its security guards (including Cabrera and Valdez) through patrol supervisors, assistant area managers, and area managers. Pursuant to that three-tier level of supervision, every guard post was checked by a supervisor almost every night as part of Respondent U.S. Security's regular supervisory procedures. For several years, Respondent U.S. Security had in effect a contract with Flamingo Plaza, an industrial complex in Hialeah, Florida, to provide unarmed guard services to Flamingo Plaza. That contract was in effect on October 23, 1989. When Cabrera was first employed by Respondent U.S. Security, he was assigned to perform unarmed guard services at a construction site for the Carnival Cruise Lines building. On his first day at that post, construction workers noticed that he was armed. When Brian Pierce, the area manager, came to the post approximately one hour later, the construction workers advised Pierce that Cabrera was armed. Pierce immediately reprimanded Cabrera, reminding Cabrera that the post was an unarmed guard post and that Cabrera was prohibited from being armed while on duty at that post. He made Cabrera lock his gun in his car. Thereafter, no one saw Cabrera with a firearm at that unarmed post. Cabrera was subsequently reassigned to perform guard services at the unarmed guard post located at Flamingo Plaza. On his first day at that assignment, James Cee, the property manager at Flamingo Plaza, saw Cabrera with a firearm while on duty and reported that to Brian Pierce. Pierce reprimanded Cabrera in front of Cee and instructed him not to return to the post with a firearm since it was an unarmed post. Thereafter, there were no further complaints regarding Cabrera carrying a firearm while at Flamingo Plaza although Cabrera continued his assignment at Flamingo Plaza for approximately three or four more months. After Pierce reprimanded Cabrera for appearing at Flamingo Plaza on his first day with a firearm, however, on one occasion Mark McCray, the assistant area manager, saw Cabrera at Flamingo Plaza wearing a jacket while on duty. Visible below the jacket was the bottom of a holster. Cabrera was specifically ordered by McCray not to wear a holster while on duty at an unarmed post. Cabrera was not armed on that occasion. There were no other reports that Cabrera wore a holster at Flamingo Plaza on any other occasion. On October 23, 1989, a shooting incident involving Cabrera took place at the Flamingo Plaza. Upon being notified of the incident Respondent U.S. Security immediately suspended Cabrera and fired him on the following day. Criminal charges were filed against Cabrera based on that shooting incident, and those charges remained pending at the time of the final hearing in this cause. Petitioner immediately conducted an investigation of the incident and of Respondent U.S. Security's procedures for supervision of its unarmed guard employees. At the conclusion of the investigation, Petitioner determined there were no violations of the statutes regulating the security guard industry and closed its file. Thereafter, Cabrera, while the criminal charges were pending against him, appeared on television and gave statements which directly contradicted the evidence obtained by Petitioner in its investigation. As a result of those statements made by Cabrera and pressure exerted by the news media, Petitioner reopened its investigation and subsequently issued the Administrative Complaint which is involved in this proceeding. Respondents were not aware that Juan Cabrera or Octavio Valdez had firearms in their possession while on duty on October 23, 1989, when their assigned duties did not require firearms. Further, there is no reason that Respondents should have known that Cabrera or Valdez had firearms in their possession on that occasion. It is standard procedure for Respondent U.S. Security's supervisors to provide all security guards with "post orders" prior to each guard beginning a new post assignment. Among other things, this document notifies the guard as to whether the post calls for armed or unarmed personnel. Respondent U.S. Security ensures that the guard reads and understands the post orders prior to beginning his shift. On October 23, 1989, Respondent U.S. Security had procedures set up for the hiring, training, and supervision of security guards, both armed and unarmed. Respondent U.S. Security had in place procedures for taking disciplinary action against employees. Those disciplinary guidelines included the exercise of judgment by the supervisory personnel involved. If an employee did something prohibited, the employee was specifically reprimanded and instructed not to engage in that conduct again. If the employee engaged in the same conduct again, he would be fired immediately for disobeying direct orders. Respondent U.S. Security did not have a specific policy directed at a guard appearing at an unarmed post with a firearm or with only a holster because such conduct simply did not occur. Respondent U.S. Security's procedures for supervision of security guards comply with or exceed the procedures utilized in the industry.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondents not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against them and dismissing that Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-4840 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 3-7 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2 and 10 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8 and 9 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues involved in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-12 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Florida Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Norman S. Segall, Esquire Bentata Hoet & Associates and Zamora Segall Lacasa & Schere 3191 Coral Way Third Floor, Madison Circle Miami, Florida 33145 The Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent (ACG) is a provider of contract security guard services. Its clients include FedEx and other shipping companies. A critical responsibility of the ACG Security Guards stationed at these shipping companies' sites is "verifying all seal numbers & trailer numbers, against [the] manifest" in order "to make sure the correct shipment goes out with the correct trailer." When a trailer leaves the site with the wrong shipment (which ACG refers to as a "mispull"), ACG is obligated to compensate the client for monetary damages the client suffers as a result of the "mispull." Site Supervisors are responsible for the performance of the Security Guards working at their site. It is ACG policy, where there are repeated incidents of Security Guard nonfeasance at a site, to take disciplinary action against the Site Supervisor. Site Supervisors, in addition to having supervisory obligations, also must perform security guard functions at their assigned sites. Petitioner is a black Haitian. He was employed by ACG as a Site Supervisor from August 13, 2006, until December 2009. He supervised two sites during his employment with ACG: the FedEx Freight site in Medley, Florida (until September 3, 2008), and the FedEx National site in Orlando, Florida (thereafter). Petitioner worked under the supervision of three successive Operations Managers: Sheila Doyle (who was fired in October 2008), then Clarence Dorm, and finally Alex Potempa. Mr. Potempa, who was Petitioner's supervisor at the time Petitioner left ACG's employ, has supervisory authority over Site Supervisors and Security Guards in ten east coast states, including Florida. In addition to the FedEx Freight site in Medley and the FedEx National site in Orlando, there are two other sites in the central and southeast part of the state at which ACG is providing contract security guard services (under Mr. Potempa's supervision) to shipping company clients: the SouthEast Freight site in West Palm Beach, and the FedEx National site in Delray Beach. As of April 5, 2010, working at these four sites was a total of 15 ACG employees, of which all but one were black. Six of the black employees were of Haitian national origin, and one of these six employees was a Site Supervisor (of the SouthEast Freight site). Over approximately a three-month period from October 2009, to December 2009, there were four separate incidents where a Security Guard under Petitioner's supervision at the FedEx National site was, in the opinion of Mr. Potempa, guilty of dereliction of duty. These incidents were: a "mispull" in late October; another "mispull" in late December; a Security Guard not being at his post, in late December, when a FedEx representative sought to access the site; and a Security Guard being involved, in late December, in an "at fault" accident while riding on an ACG golf cart on the site. In accordance with the ACG policy described in Finding of Fact 3, Petitioner was removed from his Site Supervisor position because of these incidents. This disciplinary action was recommended by Mr. Potempa and approved by ACG's Regional Vice President, Jeff Darley. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to remain with ACG in a non-supervisory, Security Guard position, but he declined the offer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding American Citadel Guard not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Thomas A. Baggett, Respondent, is a Tampa Bay Pilot licensed by the State of Florida and holds license number 000045. He was so licensed at all times relevant to the charges here involved. On December 13, 1985, the United States Coast Guard held a hearing concerning the Coast Guards charge of negligence against Baggett for his piloting of the T/B Bulkfleet Pennsylvania. At that hearing Baggett pleaded guilty to and was found guilty of the charge that he was negligent while piloting the T/B Bulkfleet Pennsylvania on November 19, 1985, which resulted in this vessel running aground in the vicinity of Cut "C" Channel, Hillsborough Bay, Florida. At the time of the grounding of the T/B Bulkfleet Pennsylvania, Baggett was acting under the authority of his Coast Guard license number 486856 and was subject to the jurisdiction vested in the Coast Guard under 46USC 7703 or 7704.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with violations of numerous provisions of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, regarding the several licenses held by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact During October of 1990, Respondent's Class "B" Security Agency License was in a suspended status due to his failure to pay an administrative fine imposed by the Department of State. His Class "B" license expired July 10, 1991, and has not been renewed. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent held a valid Class "D" Security Officer License and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm License issued pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Respondent's Class "M" Manager License was issued in July of 1985 and expired in July of 1987. He did not possess a valid Class "M" license in October of 1990. On approximately October 1, 1990, Respondent changed his business location from 2950 Northwest 214 Street, Opa Locka, Florida, to 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent did not notify the Department of his address change within ten days of moving. The Department was notified of the address change sometime in May of 1991. On October 18, 1990, May Weiser, an employee of Respondent, appeared at the Department of State, Division of Licensing, West Palm Beach Regional Office to obtain applications for licensure. Ms. Weiser was wearing a security officer badge depicting a replica or facsimile of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. The badge was issued to her by Respondent. On October 19, 1990, Investigator Frank Bedingfield of the Division of Licensing inspected Respondent's business address at 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. At that time it was determined that Respondent did not possess or have on display a valid Class "B" Security Agency License, an agency disclosure notice, a manager's license, or the required city and county occupational licenses. On that occasion, Respondent was dressed in a security guard uniform and was wearing a .357 caliber model 686 Smith & Wesson revolver loaded with three rounds of .357 caliber steel jacket ammunition and three rounds of .38 special hollow point ammunition. Respondent was also wearing a badge that depicted a facsimile of the Great Seal of the State of Florida. On October 19, 1990, Respondent was unable to provide Mr. Bedingfield with a current list of security agency employees or any business records including hiring and termination notices, and informed the investigator that records were not available due to his recent move. However, he agreed to meet with Mr. Bedingfield again on October 22, 1990, to provide the records. On October 19, 1990, Respondent was providing security guard services to four Miami churches. At the same time he was soliciting business and mailing advertisements in West Palm Beach. Respondent's Class "B" Security Agency License was issued February 23, 1990, was suspended for nonpayment of a fine on September 13, 1990, and was due for renewal on July 10, 1991. Respondent informed Mr. Bedingfield that the fine would be paid by October 22, 1990, in the Miami Regional Office of the Division of Licensing. On October 24, 1990, Mr. Bedingfield returned to Respondent's business location at 4623 Forest Hill Boulevard in West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent was again wearing a .357 revolver even though he had been notified of the violation during Mr. Bedingfield's previous visit on October 19, 1990. Respondent told Mr. Bedingfield that he had requested a waiver from the Division of Licensing to carry other than a .38 revolver, but could not produce a copy of his request or an approval of such request. The Division of Licensing never received a waiver request from Respondent. Mr. Bedingfield's return visit also revealed that Respondent was again wearing a security badge with the Great Seal of the State of Florida. Respondent did not have a Palm Beach County occupational license and could not provide any evidence that he had notified the Division of Licensing of his change of business address. He could not provide Mr. Bedingfield with a current list of employees, copies of his agency security guard contracts, personnel files for the previous two years, or records of all terminations and new employments. Nor could Respondent produce evidence of current general comprehensive liability insurance. He did provide Mr. Bedingfield with approximately 73 employment applications of current and previous employees. Using these records Mr. Bedingfield compiled a list of guards and produced computer printouts of each current and previous employee. As of October 24, 1990, Respondent had failed to notify the agency of the hiring or termination of 43 employees. Respondent's insurance had been cancelled for non- payment of the premium in August of 1990. At the time of the events described in the foregoing findings of fact, Respondent had overlooked, or was not aware of, a number of the statutory requirements such as the requirements that he notify the Department when he changed business locations, that he display an agency disclosure notice, and that he not use the Great Seal of the State of Florida on his badges. He has since painted over the Great Seal on the badges. For reasons not clarified on the record in this case, Respondent's manager's license states that it is "non-expiring," notwithstanding the statutory provision that all licenses issued under Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, shall be valid for two years.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of State issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: (a) Concluding that Count V of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed for insufficient proof; (b) Concluding that the Respondent committed all of the other violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (c) Imposing the following administrative penalties: A suspension of the Respondent's Class "D" Security Officer License for a period of one year; A suspension of the Respondent's Class "G" Statewide Firearm License for a period of one year; and An administrative fine in the total amount of one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of May 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-1015 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties in this case. Findings submitted by the Petitioner: All of the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner have been accepted in substance. Findings submitted by the Respondent: The Respondent's proposed recommended order consists of nine unnumbered paragraphs, none of which are specifically identified as proposed findings of act, but most of which contain factual assertions. All of the factual assertions in the Respondent's proposed recommended order have been treated as if they were proposed findings of fact and are specifically addressed below. First paragraph: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant or as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument, rather than proposed facts. Second Paragraph: First two sentences accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Third Paragraph: Accepted. Fourth Paragraph: First two sentences rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence and as, in any event, irrelevant. Last sentence accepted. Fifth Paragraph: First paragraph rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; there were other reasons the licenses were not on display. Second sentence is accepted. The last two sentences are rejected as irrelevant or as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Sixth Paragraph: First sentence accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Seventh Paragraph: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details because other evidence establishes that at the time in question the Respondent was conducting and advertising the business of a security agency. Eighth Paragraph: Rejected as constituting comment on a subordinate matter, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Ninth Paragraph: This paragraph consists of a suggested disposition of the case, rather than proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, M.S. #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Mr. Dave Burgess, Jr. Post Office Box 552590 Miami, Florida 33055 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
