The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was licensed and regulated by Petitioner, having been issued license number 1618782. Respondent’s license authorizes Respondent to operate a public food service establishment known as Golden Corral at 7401 West Commercial Boulevard, Tamarac, Florida (the specified location). At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was operating a public food establishment at the specified location.2 At all times material hereto, Sean Grosvenor and Larry Torres were experienced and appropriately trained investigators employed by Petitioner as Sanitation and Safety Specialists. Their job responsibilities included the inspection of public food service establishments for compliance with pertinent rules and statutes. On July 7, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor led an inspection of the subject restaurant. Based on that inspection, Mr. Grosvenor prepared a report that noted multiple violations of pertinent rules. Prior to leaving the premises on July 7, Mr. Grosvenor discussed his findings with the associate manager of the restaurant. Mr. Grosvenor ordered that two of the violations be corrected immediately. He ordered the restaurant to correct the remaining violations by no later than August 7, 2005. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor conducted a follow-up inspection of the subject restaurant for the purpose of determining whether the two violations he had ordered corrected immediately had been corrected. One of the two violations that were to be corrected immediately had been corrected and is not at issue in this proceeding. The other violation had not been corrected and is the subject of the Paragraph 1 violation. PARAGRAPH 1 The Food Code requires that food be maintained at a temperature of 41° F. or less. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Grosvenor found the following: cottage cheese located on the buffet table was at a temperature of 48° F., raw hamburger patties located in a cooler were at a temperature of 47° F., and potato salad located in a cooler was at a temperature of 47° F. Mr. Afsarmanesh, the restaurant’s manager, testified that the hamburger patties had been freshly ground and that the potato salad had been freshly made. He testified that these items were brought to a temperature above 41° F. during the preparation process, that they had been placed in coolers to cool down shortly before the inspection, and that they were above 41° F. when Mr. Grosvenor conducted his inspection because they had not had sufficient time to cool down. While his testimony explained Mr. Grosvenor’s findings as to the hamburger patties and the potato salad, Mr. Afsarmanesh had no explanation as to why the cottage cheese was above 41° F. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3.501.16(B) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 1 by proving that Respondent failed to maintain cottage cheese on the buffet line at or below the required minimum temperature. The violations alleged in paragraphs 2-6 were based on Mr. Torres’s follow-up inspection on August 8, 2005. That follow-up inspection was conducted during a power failure which left the restaurant without electricity. Mr. Afsarmanesh requested that the follow-up inspection be rescheduled because of the power outage, but Mr. Torres decided to go forward with the inspection using flashlights. Mr. Torres testified that the absence of electricity had no bearing on his inspection. Based on the violations found, the undersigned finds that Respondent was not prejudiced by Mr. Torres proceeding with the inspection. PARAGRAPH 2 The initial inspection cited Respondent for storing uncovered lettuce, onions, and peppers in a cooler. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that lettuce, onions, and peppers were stored uncovered in a cooler. That conduct violated Section 3-302.11(A)(4) of the Food Code. Mr. Afsarmanesh testified that his staff rushed to put these items in the cooler when the electricity went out and that they did not have sufficient time or light to cover them. The exigent circumstances created by the power outage do not excuse the violation observed by Mr. Torres, but those circumstances can be considered in mitigation when determining the penalty to be imposed. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3-302.11(A)(4) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 2. PARAGRAPH 3 Paragraph 3 alleged that Respondent violated Section 3- 304.14(B) of the Food Code by failing to have chlorine sanitizer in a cleaning bucket at minimum strength. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres determined that the chlorine sanitizer in a cleaning bucket was below minimum strength. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 3-304.14(B) of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 3. PARAGRAPH 4 Paragraph 4 alleged that Respondent violated Section 5- 205.11(B) of the Food Code by using a hand-washing sink for purposes other than washing hands. The inspection report does not detail what other use was being made of the hand-washing sink and Mr. Torres could not recall what he had observed to cause him to cite that as a violation. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the alleged violation of paragraph 4. PARAGRAPH 5 Paragraph 5 alleged that Respondent violated Section 6-202.15 of the Food Code by failing to properly seal an exterior door. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that an exterior door to Respondent’s facility was not properly sealed and, consequently, would not prevent the intrusion of pests. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Section 6-202.15 of the Food Code as alleged in paragraph 5. PARAGRAPH 6 Paragraph 6 alleged that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7), by failing to keep an electrical room clean and free of debris by storing items in the electric room. On August 8, 2005, Mr. Torres observed that Respondent had stored items in an electric room. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(7), as alleged in paragraph 6. A violation of applicable rules by a public food service establishment is either a critical or non-critical violation. A critical violation is one that poses a significant threat to the health, safety, and welfare of people. A non- critical violation is one that does not rise to the level of a critical violation. The paragraph 3 violation is a non-critical violation. The remaining violations found are critical violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order that finds that Respondent committed the violations alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 and imposes administrative fines against Respondent as follows: $1,000.00 for the paragraph 1 violation; $100.00 for the paragraph 2 violation; $100.00 for the paragraph 3 violation; $500.00 for the paragraph 5 violation; and $500.00 for the paragraph 6 violation. In addition, the final order should require a manager responsible for the subject restaurant to attend, at Respondent’s expense, an educational program sponsored by Petitioner’s Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2006.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 20, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a public food establishment, licensed and regulated by the Division. Respondent's license number is 5810388. Respondent's address is 2595 South Hiawassee Road, Orlando, Florida 32835. Norma Gordon is employed by the Division as a sanitation and safety specialist and has worked in that position for four years. Ms. Gordon's job responsibilities include inspecting public food establishments that are regulated by the Division. To effectively carry out job responsibilities, Ms. Gordon had been trained in the areas of Food and Drug standardization, as well as the laws and rules related to the Food Code. Moreover, Ms. Gordon has successfully completed certified manager training. As part of her job, Ms. Gordon participates in monthly continuing education. During her employment with the Division, Ms. Gordon conducts about 1,000 inspections annually. On July 22, 2008, Ms. Gordon conducted a routine inspection of the premises of China No. 1. During the inspection, Ms. Gordon observed about 15 violations, eight of which were deemed to be critical violations. Ms. Gordon set forth her findings and listed all the violations on a Food Service Inspection Report on the day of the inspection. That same day, Ms. Gordon provided a copy of the report to Frank Liu, food manager for Respondent. The Food Service Inspection Report notified Mr. Liu that a call back inspection would be conducted on September 22, 2008, to determine if the violations had been corrected. Mr. Liu signed the Food Service Inspection Report on July 22, 2008, acknowledging that he received a copy of the Inspection Report. On September 23, 2008, Ms. Gordon conducted a call back inspection of China No. 1. During that call back inspection, Ms. Gordon observed several violations that were reported on the Food Service Inspection Report issued on July 22, 2008, but that had not yet been corrected. Ms. Gordon recorded the uncorrected violations that she observed and verified during the September 23, 2008, callback inspection on a Call Back Inspection Report form. That Call Back Inspection Report was completed on September 23, 2008, and signed by Mr. Liu. The uncorrected violations observed and verified on September 23, 2008, are set forth below in paragraphs 9 through 13. The first uncorrected violation was that raw animal foods were not properly separated from each other in the holding unit. Ms. Gordon observed raw chicken stored above the raw beef and vegetables in the upright reach-in freezer. This was a critical violation because food must be protected from cross-contamination. For example, the raw chicken has salmonella, which requires that it be cooked at a certain temperature. Cross-contamination may occur when raw meat products are not separated from each other and/or are stored next to vegetables, because the meats and vegetables have different cooking temperatures. The second uncorrected violation was that Respondent did not have a thermometer available to measure the temperature of the food products. This is a critical violation because such a device is necessary to ensure that foods are prepared and maintained at appropriate temperatures. The third uncorrected violation was that the bathroom door in the establishment was being left open at times other than during the cleaning or maintenance of the facility. This is deemed to be a critical violation. The fourth uncorrected violation was that the restroom was in disrepair. Respondent's establishment had only one toilet. That one toilet had no handle or mechanical device that could be used to flush the toilet. Instead, there was a string tied to the toilet and the handicap bar in the stall. Somehow this mechanism was "rigged" so that in order to flush the toilet, a person had to pull the string that was tied to the handicap bar in the stall. The fifth uncorrected violation was based on the medium build-up of grease on the hood filters above the cooking area. This is a non-critical violation, but can become a critical violation if the equipment is not maintained and cleaned. If the equipment in the cooking area is not kept clean, dust, debris and other residue will accumulate and may fall in the cooking area and/or in the food being cooked. Respondent presented no evidence to establish that the violations described above were corrected on September 23, 2008. Moreover, Mr. Liu did not dispute the evidence presented. His testimony was that most of the violations were corrected in December 2008, which was after the call back inspection. Critical violations are violations that can contribute to food contamination, illness, environmental degradation and/or environmental hazard. Non-critical violations are those which, initially, do not pose an immediate threat. However, if such violations remain uncorrected, they may turn into critical violations. On or about March 21, 2008, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging violations of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or rules promulgated thereto. The charges set out in that Administrative Complaint were based on inspections conducted on September 27, 2007, and February 27, 2008. No hearing was held in the matter. Rather, the matter was resolved in April 2008, pursuant to a Stipulation and Consent Order executed by the Division and Respondent. Pursuant to that Stipulation, Respondent agreed to pay a $2,300.00 fine and have its manager and employee attend the Hospitality Education Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, China No. 1, violated Food Code Rules 3-302.11(A)(2), 4-302.12, 4-601.11(C) and 6-202.14; and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(2)(a) and (b); Imposing a total administrative fine of $5,000.00 against Respondent. The total administrative fine shall be paid to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 days of the agency entering its final order in this case; and Requiring Respondent (through its employees, owners, and/or managers) to attend, at personal expense, an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 30th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several statutes and rules governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Latin America Cafeteria, Inc. ("Cafeteria") is a licensed food service establishment. As such, Cafeteria is subject to the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (the "Division"). On three occasions——February 11, 2005; February 15, 2005; and March 21, 2005——an inspector for the Division named Jorge Gandolff inspected a restaurant located at 2940 Coral Way in Miami, Florida, which establishment was operated by Cafeteria. During each visit, Mr. Gandolff noticed several items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. As of March 21, 2004, the following deficiencies subsisted: (1) Ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food had been held more than 24 hours with no date marking, in violation of Food Code Rule 3-501.17(A)i; (2) The reach-in freezer door was not durable under normal use conditions, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-201.11; (3) The walk-in cooler door was in poor repair, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.11; (4) The gaskets in the walk-in door were in poor repair, also in violation of Food Code Rule 4-501.11; (5) There was no chemical test kit available for persons using chemical sanitizer at three compartment sinks, in violation of Food Code Rule 4-302.14; (6) There was a missing vacuum breaker on the hose bibb at the cookline, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-203.14; (7) Walls in the dishwashing area were soiled with accumulated debris, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(6); (8) Lights in the rear area of the kitchen lacked the proper shields, sleeve coatings, or covers in violation of Food Code Rule 6-202.11; and (9) Although four or more employees were engaged in food preparation, there was no currently certified food service manager on duty, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order: (a) finding Cafeteria guilty in accordance with the foregoing Recommended Order; (b) ordering Cafeteria to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,000, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk; and (c) directing Cafeteria to send an appropriate principal to an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.stae.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are stated in the counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint for each case: Whether Falcon Catering Service No. 7 (hereinafter "Falcon 7") and Falcon Catering Service No. 8 (hereinafter "Falcon 8") failed to maintain the proper protection and temperature requirements for food sold from their mobile site in violation of the federal Food and Drug Administration Food Code ("Food Code"). In the Prehearing Stipulation filed in this matter, each Respondent generally admitted to the violations in the Administrative Complaints, but suggested that mitigating factors should absolve them of the charges or greatly reduce any administrative fine imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all licensed food establishments in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all such establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Respondents Falcon 7 and Falcon 8 are licensed mobile food dispensing vehicles. Falcon 7 has license No. MFD5852560, which was initially issued on April 23, 2005; Falcon 8 has license No. MFD5852642, which was issued on October 19, 2005. Each of the Respondents serves meals and snacks to, inter alia, laborers at construction sites. On or about March 13, 2009, the Division conducted a food service inspection on Falcon 7. At that time, the food truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. One of the Food Code violations found by the inspector was Item 53b. That citation meant there was no validation of employee training on the truck. A follow-up inspection was deemed to be required. On April 10, 2009, a follow-up inspection was conducted by the Division. At that time, Item 53b was cited as a repeat offense. Also, Item 8a was cited. Item 8a refers to protection of food from contaminants and keeping food at an acceptable temperature. Notes by the inspector indicate that a further violation of Item 8a occurred because customers were allowed to serve themselves directly from food containers, and there was no fan in operation during the serving of food. On May 28, 2009, another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted. At that time, the food truck was located at 12720 South Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Item 8a was again cited as a deficiency. The inspector's notes indicate that food was not properly protected from contamination and that customers were being served "buffet style" from the back of the truck. The inspector noted that this was a repeat violation. A follow-up or "call-back" inspection was conducted on December 3, 2009, at which time the temperature in Orlando was unusually cold. The food truck was at the same address on Orange Blossom Trail as noted in the prior inspection. Falcon 7 was again found to have been serving food buffet style from the back of the food truck. An Item 8a violation was again noted by the inspector. Another inspection of Falcon 7 was conducted on January 19, 2010, another very cold day in Orlando. At that time, the food truck was located at the same site as the last two inspections. The inspector cited the food truck for an Item 8a violation again, stating that the food was not being protected from contaminants. Dust was flying up on the back of the truck to exposed food items. An inspection of Falcon 8 was conducted on August 25, 2009, while the truck was located at 4880 Distribution Court, Orlando, Florida. An Item 8a violation was noted by the inspector, who found that displayed food was not properly protected from contaminants. The food truck was located under an Interstate 4 overpass and was open to flying debris. The inspector noted that customers were being served buffet style and that there was no protection of food from contamination by the customers. A follow-up inspection for Falcon 8 was conducted on August 27, 2009, at 9:12 a.m., while the food truck was located at the same site. Another Item 8a violation was cited at that time. The violation notes indicate essentially the same situation that had been cited in the initial inspection two days earlier. Less than one hour after the follow-up inspection, another inspection was conducted on Falcon 8 at the same location as the prior two inspections. There were no Item 8a citations issued during this inspection, but the food truck was found to have no water available for hand washing. The food truck employee was using a hand sanitizer to clean her hands. Respondents do not dispute the facts set forth above. However, Respondents provided mitigating facts for consideration in the assessment of any penalty that might be imposed. Those mitigating factors are as follows: The food trucks were serving an inordinately large number of workers during the dates of the inspections. The City of Orlando was constructing its new basketball arena, and there were numerous laborers involved in the project. In order to serve the workers, it was necessary for the food trucks to put their food out on tables, rather than ladle the food directly from the food warmers in the food truck. In fact, the shelves in the food trucks are so narrow that dipping food out of the warmers would be impossible. Due to the cold weather in Orlando during this time, it was impossible to keep the food at acceptable temperature levels for very long. The large number of workers washing their hands at the food trucks caused the trucks to run out of water much more quickly than normal. When the water ran out, the employees took care to sanitize their hands as well as possible. Ms. Falcon testified that the inspector's testimony concerning use of tables to serve food was erroneous. However, Sabrina Falcon was not present during the inspections, and her contradictory testimony is not reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine of $500.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 7, in DOAH Case No. 10-10925; and a fine of $750.00 against Falcon Catering Service, No. 8, in DOAH Case No. 10-10930. All fines should be paid within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order by the Division. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William L. Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Sabrina Falcon Falcon Catering Service 642 Mendoza Drive Orlando, Florida 32825 Megan Demartini, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a restaurant, unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner, who is African-American, by refusing to serve her because of her race.
Findings Of Fact At approximately 2:25 p.m., on July 2, 2003, Petitioner, an African-American resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered the premises of a Denny’s Restaurant located at 14697 Duval Road, Jacksonville, Florida, to eat a meal. Petitioner had spent the previous night in Gainesville, Florida, and had interviewed for a position with the City of Gainesville that morning before driving to Jacksonville to fly home to Minneapolis. Petitioner approached the wait stand and waited approximately three minutes to be seated. Petitioner noticed only five guests in the restaurant at the time she was seated, all of whom were Caucasian. Petitioner was seated close to a Caucasian family of four and a single Caucasian male seated at another table. Petitioner did not claim that she had been segregated in the restaurant, and admitted that she had been seated close to tables with customers of other races. Immediately after being seated, Petitioner asked the hostess for a cup of hot water with lemons, which was promptly delivered to her by the hostess. Petitioner was treated respectfully by the hostess. After the hostess left, Petitioner drank her beverage while she reviewed the menu and waited to be greeted by her server and to have her order taken. Although there appeared to be three servers in the restaurant at the time of Petitioner’s visit, only one appeared to be serving. The others appeared to be completing their “side work,” that is, restocking and end-of-shift cleaning duties. The only person actually serving customers during Petitioner’s visit was Rhonda Nicks, a Caucasian woman. The restaurant was short staffed during this period due to a shift change and another server’s failure to show for her shift. While she waited to be served, Petitioner observed that two Caucasian women entered the restaurant, were seated, and were promptly served by Ms. Nicks who appeared to be the only server in the restaurant. Petitioner next observed as a Caucasian man and woman entered the restaurant, were seated, then promptly had their drink and food orders taken and served by Ms. Nicks. After waiting 20-25 minutes, and not having her food order taken, or even being acknowledged by the server, Petitioner went to the cashier’s stand where she was met by Audrey Howard, an African-American employee of the restaurant, who asked Petitioner if she wanted to see a manager. Petitioner replied that she did want to see a manager, and one was summoned. After waiting a few minutes, Petitioner was greeted by a Caucasian manager who identified himself as Mike Kinnaman. After speaking with Petitioner, Mr. Kinnaman offered to immediately put in Petitioner’s food order, to even cook the meal himself, and to provide the meal at no charge. Petitioner refused Mr. Kinnaman’s offer, stating that she had to return her rental car at the airport, then catch a flight. Mr. Kinnaman then offered Petitioner a business card on which he wrote “1 free entrée, 1 free beverage, 1 free dessert . . . Unit #1789." Mr. Kinnaman told Petitioner that she could use the card for a free meal at another time. This offer was made based upon the manager’s belief that Petitioner did not have time to eat and needed to leave for the airport. After speaking with the manager, Petitioner left the restaurant at approximately 3:00 p.m. She drove the short distance to the airport, removed her luggage and belongings from the rental car, turned in the car, and received her receipt which showed that she had turned in the car at the airport Hertz location at 3:20 p.m. Although Petitioner told the Respondent’s manager that she had to leave to catch a flight, the evidence showed that Petitioner’s flight was not scheduled to leave for another four hours. Petitioner’s rental car receipt documented the fact that she had a two-day rental and could have kept the car for almost another full day. Petitioner was in no jeopardy of incurring additional rental car charges or of missing her flight when she hurried from the restaurant at 3:00 p.m. Although Petitioner observed only nine other customers in the restaurant while she waited to be served, Respondent’s records and the testimony of Audrey Howard, a former cook at Respondent’s restaurant, 24 customers were served in the restaurant between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on the day of Petitioner’s visit. Although Petitioner testified that she was the only African-American customer in the restaurant, Ms. Howard recalled a table of two African-American patrons who were served during the time period when Petitioner was in the restaurant. She specifically recalled these patrons because the gentleman returned his omelet to the kitchen, asking for more cheese. During her time in the restaurant, Petitioner observed only five employees. Respondent’s records demonstrate that 14 hourly employees were in the restaurant between 2:25 and 3:00 p.m. From where she was seated in the restaurant, it is likely that Petitioner could not see every customer and employee in the restaurant. Petitioner never attempted to call a server over to her table, nor did she ask the hostess to either take her order or ask a server to provide her with service while she waited. Petitioner did not complain to the manager that she had been discriminated against. She complained that she had received poor service. Respondent requires training for all of its employees on diversity and discrimination issues before they are allowed to work for Respondent. Every server who testified at hearing had specifically undergone diversity and discrimination training. Although Respondent has a history of past discrimination against African-Americans as evidenced by a consent decree entered into by the company with the United States Justice Department, it has since received national awards and recognition for its strides in the areas of discrimination and diversity. Respondent takes claims of discrimination very seriously, and has a zero tolerance standard for acts of discrimination by its employees. Respondent’s managers are required to report all claims of racial discrimination to a 1-800 hotline. No call was made by the manager in this case because he did not believe that a claim of discrimination had been made by Petitioner when she claimed she had received poor service. Petitioner offered no evidence that she had suffered damages as a result of the poor service she received at the restaurant.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Ms. McAdory's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan S. Erdelyi, Esquire Marks Gray, P.A. Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Charlene McAdory 417 Oliver Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the State agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was a restaurant operating at 3582 West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and holding food service license number 1621408. On October 17, 2012, and December 17, 2012, Respondent was inspected by Maor Avizohar, a sanitation and safety specialist employed by the Division. During both visits, Mr. Avizohar noticed several items that were not in compliance with the laws which govern the facilities and operations of licensed restaurants. Through the testimony of Mr. Avizohar and the exhibits introduced into evidence during the final hearing, the Division presented clear and convincing evidence that, as of December 17, 2012, the following deficiencies subsisted at Respondent's facility: (1) an employee handwash station incapable of providing water at a temperature of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit, in violation of Food Code Rule 5-202.12; and (2) the storage of in-use utensils in standing water less than 135 degrees Fahrenheit, contrary to Food Code Rule 3-304.12(F).3/ The deficiency relating to the lack of hot water at the handwash station is considered a critical violation by the Division. Critical food code violations are those that, if uncorrected, present an immediate threat to public safety.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: finding Respondent guilty of Counts One and Two, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; and ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $300, to be paid within 30 days after the filing of the final order with the agency clerk. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2013.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed against it, and, if so, the appropriate penalty to be imposed, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Perpulys Sport Bar and Restaurant, has been licensed as a public food service establishment by Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Respondent is located in Homestead, Florida. Michael Brown, one of Petitioner's inspectors, has extensive experience and education in the food service industry. On July 19, 2006, he inspected Respondent's premises and found a number of violations of public food service establishment rules. He noted these on his inspection report and gave a copy of the report to Respondent. The report noted that the violations must be corrected by August 20, 2006. On August 21, 2006, Brown returned to Respondent's premises to conduct his "callback" inspection. Four critical item violations remained uncorrected, and he noted them in his report. After he had completed his report, one of Respondent's employees placed a thermometer in the cold holding unit which had lacked one during Brown's inspection. However, the exit signs were still not properly illuminated. Exit signs in a food service establishment are required to be clearly illuminated so that patrons will know where to exit the premises if a fire or other emergency should occur. Improperly illuminated exit signs are a critical item violation. Respondent's employees were still touching ready-to-eat food with their bare hands even though the establishment did not have in place an alternative operating procedure approved by Petitioner. Since touching ready-to-eat food with bare hands can lead to serious illness of the business' patrons, this is also a critical item violation. During that same call-back inspection, raw animal food was stored over ready-to-eat food, specifically, raw steak was stored over cooked shrimp. Since such storage can lead to cross-contamination, which can lead to serious illness of the business' patrons, this is also a critical item violation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of three critical item violations, imposing a fine of $1,500 to be paid within 30 days, and requiring Respondent to attend an educational program sponsored by the Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 17th day of May, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Soco Salgado Perpulys Sports Bar & Restaurant 113 South Homestead Boulevard Homestead, Florida 33030
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the subject Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent has operated as a bed and breakfast and has been subject to Petitioner’s regulation. That regulation required Petitioner to comply with all relevant provisions set forth in Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, and the Food Code. At all times relevant to this proceeding Respondent held license number 5402366. That license authorizes Respondent to operate a bed and breakfast at 415 William Street, Key West, Florida (the subject facility). Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to inspect licensed premises to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare. Section 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Petitioner to inspect the subject facility at any reasonable time as follows: (b) For purposes of performing required inspections and the enforcement of this chapter, the division has the right of entry and access to public lodging establishments and public food service establishments at any reasonable time. Leonardo Hernandez is employed by Petitioner as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. Mr. Hernandez is experienced and properly trained to conduct inspections of food service and public lodging establishments to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mr. Hernandez performs between 1,200 and 1,400 inspections per year. On May 21, 2010, Mr. Hernandez appeared at the subject facility at 8:26 a.m. for the purpose of conducting an unannounced inspection. The time Mr. Hernandez appeared at the subject premises for the inspection was a reasonable time. Mr. Hernandez had the right to inspect the premises and the licensee was required to grant him entry for the purpose of conducting the inspection. Ms. Carlson, the owner of the subject facility, was not on the premises when Mr. Hernandez first arrived. The person in charge of the subject facility (the operator), who was not identified by name, was supervising the preparation of breakfast for the guests of the subject facility when Mr. Hernandez first arrived. Mr. Hernandez showed the operator his credentials and told him why he was at the subject facility. In response, the operator, using profane language, denied Mr. Hernandez access to the premises. Mr. Hernandez suggested that the operator call the owner. The operator called Ms. Carlson by telephone and informed her of Mr. Hernandez's presence. Ms. Carlson arrived at the subject premises within ten minutes of that telephone call. In the interim, Mr. Hernandez remained outside of the premises. Upon her arrival, Mr. Hernandez informed Ms. Carlson of the reason of his visit and showed her his credentials. Ms. Carlson asked why he had not scheduled the inspection. Mr. Hernandez explained that rules governing public food service and public lodging inspections allow the right of entry to licensed premises for the purpose of unannounced inspections. Mr. Hernandez further explained that he would not force his way into the establishment. Mr. Hernandez did not inspect the subject facility on May 21, 2010. Mr. Hernandez generated the inspection by computer, while he was at the subject facility, the inspection report that was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Mr. Hernandez closed the inspection report with the recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Respondent because he was refused entry to the premises. The inspection report reflects the time Mr. Hernandez arrived at the subject facility, but it does not reflect the time Mr. Hernandez closed the inspection report. Mr. Hernandez asserted that he closed his inspection report after Ms. Carlson did not respond to his statement that he would not force his way into the subject facility. There is no dispute that Mr. Hernandez explained to Ms. Carlson that he had the right to inspect the premises. There is also no dispute that Ms. Carlson offered to walk him through the premises while he conducted his inspection after that explanation.2 Ms. Carlson's offer came after Mr. Hernandez closed his inspection report that contained the violation at issue in this proceeding, but before Mr. Hernandez left the premises. Mr. Hernandez told Ms. Carlson that that he had been abused by her staff and that he would not go into the facility. That statement was made after he closed his inspection report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in the subject Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a restaurant subject to Petitioner's regulation. That regulation required Petitioner to comply with all relevant provisions set forth in Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code, and the Food Code. Petitioner's license number is 1614578. Respondent's restaurant is located at 5001 North University Drive, Lauderhill, Florida (the subject premises). At the times relevant to this proceeding, Ana Rosa Castro was the manager of the restaurant. Two inspections of the subject premises are relevant to this proceeding. The first inspection was a routine inspection on December 15, 2009 (the routine inspection). Michele Schneider conducted the routine inspection. A callback inspection was conducted on February 24, 2010 (the callback inspection). Terrence Diehl and Tatiana Joy conducted the callback inspection. Ms. Schneider and Mr. Diehl are experienced and properly trained to conduct inspections of food service facilities to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. For both inspections, an inspector prepared a report on a personal data assistant, printed the report at the establishment, and provided a copy of the report to the person in charge prior to leaving the establishment. The inspectors discussed the report with Ms. Castro and explained the reasons the violations were cited. The routine inspection report and the callback inspection report were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. Ms. Schneider's report noted multiple violations, including the four violations that are issue in this proceeding. Ms. Schneider's report contained a warning that required Respondent to correct each cited violation on or before February 20, 2010, at 8:00 a.m. Ms. Schneider and Ms. Castro signed the routine inspection report. Mr. Diehl and Ms. Joy performed the callback inspection on February 24, 2010. Ms. Joy, working under Mr. Diehl's supervision,2 prepared the callback inspection report setting forth the findings she and Mr. Diehl made. Ms. Joy and Mr. Diehl reviewed the findings with Ms. Castro and explained to her the reasons for the violations identified in the report. Ms. Joy, Mr. Diehl, and Ms. Castro signed the callback inspection report. The four violations at issue in this proceeding had not been corrected following the routine inspection. Violations of the Food Code are classified as either critical or non-critical. Critical violations are violations that are likely to result in a food-borne illness or an environmental health hazard. Non-critical are violations of the Food Code that have not been classified as critical, and are less likely to contribute to a food-borne illness or an environmental health hazard. Each of the four alleged violations in this proceeding is designated a critical violation.3 Food Code Rule 3-501.16(A) requires that except in circumstances inapplicable to this proceeding, food shall be maintained at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit. On December 15, 2009, and on February 24, 2010, the cook-line reach-in cooler was not maintaining potentially hazardous food at or below 41 degrees Fahrenheit. This is a critical violation because foods that are maintained above 41 degrees become a potential danger for the growth of bacteria that could harm a consumer of the food. Food Code Rule 6-301.14 requires a food establishment to have a sign or poster at a sink used by food service employees notifying the employees to wash their hands. There was no such signage posted during the routine inspection or the callback inspection. This is a critical violation because employee hand-washing is a basic requirement for good hygienic practices, and the sign reminds employees of the requirement that they wash their hands before returning to work. Food Code Rule 7-102.11 requires that "working containers used for storing poisonous or toxic materials such as cleaners and sanitizers taken from bulk supplies shall be clearly and individually indentified with the common name of the material." The routine inspection noted the following as a violation: "[o]bserved unlabeled spray bottle dishroom [sic]." On the callback inspection, Mr. Diehl observed several unlabeled bottles that had liquids in them. There was no evidence as to what type liquids were in the spray bottles. Specifically, there was no evidence that the unlabeled spray bottles had to be labeled because they were "containers used for storing poisonous or toxic materials such as cleaners and sanitizers taken from bulk supplies." Pursuant to section 509.049(5), Respondent was required provide training of its employees and was required to provide proof of such training to an inspector. On December 15, 2009, Ms. Castro could not provide proof to Ms. Schneider that her employees had been trained. On February 24, 2010, Ms. Castro could not provide proof to Ms. Joy and Mr. Diehl that her employees had been trained. The testimony of Mr. Diehl established that this failure is a critical violation because untrained employees may not be aware of the importance of proper hygiene and proper food handling, which can result in contaminated food and the exposure of the consumer to food-borne illness. On June 16, 2009, Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent in case number 2009032247. That Administrative Complaint contained five alleged violations of the Food Code, at least one of which was a critical violation. The alleged violations were resolved by the entry of a Stipulation and Consent Order filed July 21, 2009. By that action, Respondent agreed to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,200.00.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Administrative Fines be imposed against Respondent in the amount of $600.00 for each of the three violations, for a total fine of $1,800.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2011.
