The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes, of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“FCRA”), by denying Petitioner the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of Petitioner’s handicap.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Smith is an adult male who resides in Sunrise, Florida. Respondent 7-Eleven is a Texas corporation, with its headquarters located at 3200 Hackberry Road, Irving, Texas. Respondent owns, operates, and franchises convenience stores in Florida under the trademarked name “7-Eleven.” Procedural Background On or about March 28, 2018, Smith filed a Public Accommodation Complaint of Discrimination with FCHR, alleging that 7-Eleven, Inc., through its agent, violated section 760.80 by denying him full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation on the basis of handicap. After conducting an investigation, FCHR issued a Determination: Reasonable Cause on or about September 19, 2018, finding reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful practice occurred. Smith timely filed a Petition for Relief on October 16, 2018, asserting that 7-Eleven had discriminated against him in a place of public accommodation on the basis of handicap. This charge, as set forth in the Petition for Relief, is the subject of this de novo proceeding. Events Giving Rise to this Proceeding On September 16, 2017, Smith arrived at the Store to purchase gasoline. He was accompanied by Mrs. Smith and his daughter, Rochelle Smith. At that time, the Store was a franchised 7-Eleven convenience store and gas station. HA&A Enterprises, Inc. (“HA&A”), owned by Sumera Shahzadi (“Shahzadi”), was the franchisee. Immediately upon arriving at the Store, Smith went inside to use the restroom, while Mrs. Smith remained outside to pump gas. Smith testified, credibly, that he had a stroke and, as a result, walks slowly with a visible limp. He testified that he sometimes, but not always, uses a cane to assist him in walking. He was not using a cane when he entered the Store on September 16, 2017. Upon entering the Store, Smith discovered that the restroom was locked. Smith asked Shahzada Hussain (“Hussain”), who was working behind the counter, for the restroom key so that he could use the restroom. Hussain told him that the restroom was out of order and did not give him the key. The evidence does not establish that Hussain was aware of any disability or handicap that Smith may have.4/ Because Smith was unable to use the restroom, he was forced to urinate outside, in the front of the Store. Smith had difficulty pulling down his pants, and he urinated on himself. He testified, credibly, that other persons were present at the Store and saw him urinate on himself. Mrs. Smith assisted Smith in pulling up his pants, then went inside the Store and asked Hussain for the key to the restroom. Hussain gave her the key. She went into the restroom and found it to be in working order. She also noticed that no “out of order” sign was posted on the restroom door. Mrs. Smith then took numerous photographs of various documents on the wall of the Store. These documents included: a Broward County Local Business Tax Receipt for the period of October 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017, showing the business name as “7-Eleven #35031” and the business owner as “7-Eleven Inc. & HA&A Enterprises, Inc.”; the 2016 Florida Annual Resale Certificate for Sales Tax issued to 7-Eleven Store #35031, HA&A Enterprises, Inc.; a Florida Department of Environmental Protection Storage Tank Registration Placard, 2015-2016, issued to 7-Eleven, Inc., Store #35031; a National Registry of Food Safety Professionalism certificate issued to Shahzada Hussain; a Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Temporary License/Permit; a document titled “Notice,” with the name “7-Eleven” handwritten as the business authorized to engage in the money transmission business; a Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Liquefied Petroleum Gas License issued to 7-Eleven Store #35031; and a ServSafe Certification issued to Sumera Shahzadi. The photographs, along with a written description of each document depicted in the photographs, were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. At that time, Mrs. Smith also photographed the Store’s restroom door, on which signs reading “MEN” and “WOMEN” were hung. Each of these signs depicted a wheelchair symbol, presumably indicating that the restroom was handicapped- accessible. The restroom door did not have a sign posted indicating that it was out of order. Mrs. Smith also photographed Shazhadi and Hussain as they were working behind the counter of the Store. Mrs. Smith referred to Shazhadi and Hussain as “the owners” of the Store in her testimony at the final hearing regarding the September 16, 2017, incident.5/ Shortly after the incident, the police arrived at the Store on an unrelated matter. At the direction of the police officer investigating the unrelated matter, the Smiths did not purchase gasoline at the Store that day, and went to another store to purchase gas. Mrs. Smith testified that she frequently patronized the Store, both before and after the September 16, 2017, incident. As noted above, Smith credibly testified that other persons present at the Store saw him urinate on himself. Smith is a member of the clergy of a local church and, thus, is a well-known person in his neighborhood, where the Store is located. The credible evidence establishes that Smith was extremely embarrassed and humiliated, and experienced emotional distress as a result of having urinated on himself in public view. He testified that this incident so embarrassed him that he may move from the community or from the state. No evidence regarding any quantified or quantifiable injury or damages that Smith may have incurred as a result of the incident was presented. On or about November 14, 2017, the Smiths filed a complaint regarding their September 16, 2017, experience at the Store through 7-Eleven’s complaint hotline. Mrs. Smith testified that in one of the telephone conversations with the 7-Eleven corporate office, they were given an incident claim number. On or about November 19, 2017, Mavis Steffan, the 7-Eleven corporate field consultant for the subgroup of 7-Eleven stores that includes the Store, contacted the Smiths and spoke to them regarding the September 16, 2017, incident at the Store. Mrs. Smith testified that when the Smiths spoke with Steffan on November 19, 2017, she (Steffan) told them that on the date of the incident, the Store was a private franchise, and that on October 23, 2017, the Store “became corporate”——meaning that 7- Eleven, Inc., began operating the Store. Steffan apologized for the incident, invited the Smiths to patronize the Store again, and told them that Smith was free to use the restroom at the Store. Relationship between the Store and 7-Eleven Steffan testified at the final hearing regarding the relationship between the Store and 7-Eleven, as it existed on September 19, 2017. 7-Eleven and HA&A entered into a 7-Eleven, Inc. Florida Individual Store Franchise Agreement (hereafter, “Franchise Agreement” or “Agreement”), effective March 23, 2016, regarding the Store. The Franchise Agreement terminated on October 23, 2017, and, as of that date, 7-Eleven, Inc., began operating the Store.6/ Therefore, the Store was a franchised store on September 19, 2017, the date of the incident. As discussed above, HA&A was the franchisee. Pursuant to the Franchise Agreement, HA&A was an independent contractor. The Agreement provided that the franchisee——here, HA&A——controlled the manner and means of the operation of the franchised store, and exercised complete control over and responsibility for the conduct of its agents and employees, including the day-to-day operations of the franchised store. The Agreement expressly provided that the franchisee’s agents and employees could not be considered or held out to be agents or employees of 7-Eleven, and could not incur any liability in the name of, or on behalf of, 7-Eleven. The Agreement further provided that all employees of the franchised store were solely those of the franchisee, and that no actions taken by the franchisee, its agents, or its employees would be attributable to 7-Eleven. As part of the Franchise Agreement, HA&A also agreed to comply with 7-Eleven’s Operations Manual (“Manual”). Provisions in the Manual stated that the franchisee was solely responsible for setting the policies and procedures to operate his or her store in accordance with the laws of the legal jurisdiction in which the store was located, and that the franchisee was solely responsible for the actions of its employees while on the job. Additionally, training materials provided by 7-Eleven to franchisees for use in training franchisee employees expressly informed those employees that they were not “in any way considered to be an employee, agent[,] or independent contractor of 7-Eleven, Inc.,” and that 7-Eleven did not “assume any liability for providing you these training materials.” Consistent with these provisions, Steffan testified that the franchisee——here, HA&A——was solely responsible for the overall operations of the Store, including supervising, hiring, firing, promoting, and disciplining Store employees. HA&A also was solely responsible for enforcing workplace rules, policies, and procedures for the Store. Based on this evidence, it is determined that HA&A was solely responsible for the actions of its employees and agents, including Hussain’s actions on September 16, 2017, toward Smith. Stated another way, the evidence establishes that 7-Eleven was not responsible for Hussain’s actions in the Store, including his actions on September 16, 2017, toward Smith while he (Smith) was in the Store.
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 dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 12th day of March, 2019.
The Issue The issue presented for determination is whether Respondent, Dillard’s, discriminated against Petitioner, Tanya Chun, based on her age, in violation of section 760.101, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ when it did not hire her for a sales associate position.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Chun was born April 4, 1957. Ms. Chun applied for a position as a sales associate at Dillard’s Department Store No. 209 in Lakeland, Florida, on June 7, 2012. At the time, she was 55 years old. Ms. Chun completed the employment application at a kiosk in the store linked to Dillard’s personnel system. Ms. Chun’s application disclosed only two periods of employment. The most recent was with Golf Plus, Inc., as a bookkeeper handling accounts receivable and accounts payable from January 1998 to May 2012. The other was employment at Macy’s in New York City from April 1993 to October 1994 in clothing sales and customer services as a retail sales associate. At the time, the Lakeland Dillard’s store had five openings--two in cosmetics, two in ladies’ shoes, and one in men’s shoes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Walter Soto was operation sales manager at the store with authority to hire people to fill the openings. Mr. Soto interviewed Ms. Chun and seven other applicants for the five positions. During the interview and hiring process, Mr. Soto relied upon the information the applicants provided in their applications and the interviews. Mr. Soto hired five of the applicants. He did not hire Ms. Chun. During Ms. Chun’s interview, Mr. Soto asked her a number of questions about Macy’s sales procedures and common sales procedures and practices. Ms. Chun was not familiar with common concepts, such as sales per hour and items per transaction. These are concepts with which someone with retail experience and knowledge should be familiar. The five people Mr. Soto hired are Emil Pancorbo, Angelique Schoenmakers, Taylor Swallow, Ashley Thirion, and David Tilton. All were younger than Ms. Chun, although Ms. Schoenmakers was only three years younger. The information available to Mr. Soto about Emil Pancorbo, which he relied upon, indicated that Mr. Pancorbo had recent retail experience at large retailers, JCPenney from October 2008 to April 2011, and Guitar Center from April 2011 to September 2011. Mr. Soto considered this experience in deciding to hire Mr. Pancorbo, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Angelique Schoenmakers, which he relied upon, indicated that she had recent retail experience as a counter manager for Elizabeth Arden and that she worked for Macy’s from October 2010 to April 2012. Ms. Schoenmakers was recruited to work for Dillard’s. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Schoenmakers’ employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Schoenmakers, instead of Ms. Chun. Ms. Schoenmakers was born January 15, 1960, making her only three years younger than Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Taylor Swallow, which he relied upon, indicated she had recent retail experience, working for Kohl’s from August 2011 to June 2012. Ms. Swallow also had cosmetic experience. She had applied makeup on clients. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Swallow’s employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Swallow, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Ashley Thirion, which he relied upon, indicated she had recent retail experience working at a Clinique cosmetics counter at Macy’s from June 2011 to November 2011. Clinique is a cosmetics line that Dillard’s also carries. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Thirion’s employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Thirion, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about David Tilton, which he relied upon, indicated that Mr. Tilton had recent retail experience at a large retailer, Bealls from May 2010 to May 2012. Mr. Tilton worked in the shoe department for Bealls. Mr. Soto considered Mr. Tilton’s employment history in deciding to hire Mr. Tilton, instead of Ms. Chun. Based on the information from the applications and interviews available to him, Mr. Soto made a fair and rational decision to hire applicants other than Ms. Chun. In particular, the fact that the retail experience of each of the applicants was more recent than that of Ms. Chun supports Mr. Soto’s decision. All of the applicants, except Ms. Swallow and Ms. Thirion, also had more retail experience than Ms. Chun. Ms. Swallow and Ms. Thirion both had cosmetics experience, and two of the positions that Mr. Soto was filling were for the cosmetics department. The Dillard’s employment procedure includes preparing an applicant summary for each individual interviewed. For the hiring cycle involved here, eight of the applicant summaries, including Ms. Chun’s, indicate the person was hired. In order for the Dillard’s system to permit obtaining a background check, Mr. Soto had to change an applicant’s status on the applicant summaries to “hired.” At the time, Mr. Soto was not following the Dillard’s procedure of only conducting a background check for an employee after the employee was hired. He did not think the procedure was fair to the applicants, who may be hired and then “un-hired” after the background check. Mr. Soto chose to conduct background checks before extending job offers. The status on Ms. Chun’s applicant summary states “hired.” But she was not hired, just as Ricky Davis and William Guadalupe, whose summaries state “hired,” were not hired. The status for all the applicants said “hired,” only because Mr. Soto changed the status in order to run a background check. If Dillard’s hires an employee, a Basic Employee Information sheet is prepared. There is no Basic Employee Sheet for Tanya Chun because she was not hired. There are Basic Employee Information sheets for Emil Pancorbo, Angelique Schoenmakers, Taylor Swallow, Ashley Thirion, and David Tilton. If an employee is hired, Mr. Soto conducts reference checks. He did not conduct a reference check for Ms. Chun because she was not hired. Ms. Chun maintains that Mr. Soto told her at the interview’s conclusion that she was hired and that they agreed to a start date and compensation of $10.00 per hour with full medical and dental insurance. She also maintains that Mr. Soto told her she would undergo a routine background check and requested that she sign a consent form and provide her identification card for the background check. Ms. Chun says that Mr. Soto stated that she did not “look that old” after he looked at her identification. She also claims he then said he had to talk to someone else and left the room for about five minutes. Mr. Soto denies Ms. Chun’s descriptions of the conversation. Ms. Chun, according to her own testimony, called for Mr. Soto a few times in the days following the interview to check on her employment status. She was correctly told that he had been transferred. On June 18, 2012, Ms. Chun sent a letter with the following text to Mr. Soto: I am writing to inquire the status of my employment application and I would like to receive your written response. Early last week, I applied for employment at Human Resources. The next day I was called in for an interview by you and when we met, before you offered a position you stated that I seemed to be a good candidate, and requested my identification and social security card, made photocopies, then stated that you will do a background check. As you reviewed my identification papers, your tenor changed and you stated that you will get back to me. I am writing to ask the status. I would like to request a copy of the documents I completed, as I do not have them for myself--both the application and the background disclosure form. And I would like to know why my identification with date of birth was requested before I was offered a position, and why my identification became the basis of your change of discussion. Thank you for your prompt attention. She did not receive a response. On February 28, 2013, Ms. Chun sent another letter, this one to the Dillard’s Human Resource Department. It states: I wrote the attached letter [June 18, 2012, letter] to your company more than six months ago, and I have received no response. My discussion with Walter at the interview, before being requested to provide my ID showing my age, was that I was going to be hired. Then, when my ID revealed my age I was told “we will get back to you” and I have requested an explanation and copies of the documents pertaining to my application, but you have totally disregarded my letter. I am writing to reiterate my request, and I request that you respond within five business days. Neither letter, both of which are specific and articulate, includes the claim Ms. Chun now makes that Mr. Soto said she did not “look that old” after seeing her identification. Dillard’s did not respond until March 11, 2013. A woman named “Arlie” called that day and told Ms. Chun it was Dillard’s policy to obtain identification and again advised that Mr. Soto had been transferred to another location. The weight of the credible, persuasive evidence does not establish Ms. Chun’s version of the events. The factors resulting in this determination include the fact that she testified that Mr. Soto told her she was hired and that they agreed upon a start date. Yet, she also testified that she called several times to check on the status of her application. Calling to check on the application’s status is inconsistent with having accepted a job and having agreed to a start date. If Ms. Chun had been offered and accepted a job, she would have reported for work, not called to check on the status of her application. In addition, Mr. Soto’s testimony about the process and the events is consistent with the documents for the applicants he interviewed. Finally, Ms. Chun did not make her very specific claim about what Mr. Soto said, “you don’t look that old,” in either of her letters or her initial Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Commission. From April to November of 2013, Mr. Soto hired at least ten individuals born in 1957, like Ms. Chun, or born earlier. This is persuasive evidence corroborating Mr. Soto’s testimony that he does not weigh an applicant’s age against the applicant when making his hiring decisions. Mr. Soto hired five applicants other than Ms. Chun because he found their qualifications superior for the open positions. Ms. Chun’s age was not a factor in Mr. Soto’s decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny Ms. Chun’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 19th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner in connection with Petitioner’s employment by Respondent on the basis of his national origin.
Findings Of Fact The evidence adduced at final hearing established the facts that follow. In May 1999, Winn-Dixie hired Torres to work as a bagger in one of its grocery stores. Until the event that precipitated his termination in July 2000, Torres’s job performance was generally satisfactory, although he was formally reprimanded at least once, in December 1999, for insubordination. Torres was at work bagging groceries on July 14, 2000. The store was crowded that day, and the lines were long at the cash registers. A customer checking out in one line asked Torres——who was stationed at another lane——to bag his groceries. Torres refused, and the man (according to Torres) called Torres an “asshole.” Torres retorted, “You’re the asshole.” (At hearing, Torres admitted using the epithet in front of “a whole line” of customers but explained——in effect——that, since his antagonist had used the word first, the man had it coming.) Having thus offended one another, the two men——Torres and the customer——engaged in a loud shouting match. The assistant store manager, who was in the parking lot outside when this verbal altercation began, was called inside to restore calm and order. Taking charge, he separated the disputants, apologized to the customer (who was a regular shopper at that store), and sent Torres home to cool off. When Torres reported for work the next day, he was fired. He complained, then as now, that Winn-Dixie’s decision was the result of his Puerto Rican origin. His supervisors, however, claimed——then as now——that the cause of Torres’s firing was his profanity-laced row with a customer, which had occurred in front of other customers. Ultimate Factual Determinations Winn-Dixie fired Torres, not because of his national origin, race, or ethnicity, but because Torres quarreled with a customer——angrily and loudly——before other customers. This is a legitimate reason for a grocery store to discharge a bagger. There is no credible, competent evidence that Winn- Dixie tolerated similar behavior in non-Hispanic (or non-Puerto Rican or non-minority) employees. The evidence does not support a finding that Winn-Dixie feigned disapproval of Torres’s dustup with a shopper as a pretext for discrimination. In short, Winn-Dixie did not discriminate unlawfully against Torres.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Torres’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of August, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Modesto A. Torres 25302 Southwest 127th Place Miami, Florida 33032 Maria H. Ruiz, Esquire 799 Brickell Plaza, Suite 900 Miami, Florida 33131 Denise Crawford Clerk of the Commission Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position with the Respondent in retaliation for reporting an unlawful employment practice that occurred in June 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was an "employee" of the Respondent as defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, and was employed by Respondent for approximately two years. Aaron Rents, Inc., is a national furniture rental and sales company which does business in some locations, including locations in Florida, as Aaron's Rental Purchase. Petitioner, Jerome Carter, was employed by the company at an Aaron's Rental Purchase store in Kissimmee, Florida, from approximately August 2, 1993, until August 19, 1995. Petitioner was initially hired as a delivery driver and progressed to Assistant Credit Manager, Credit Manager, and finally Sales Manager of the Kissimmee store. In August 1995, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Store Manager Steven Liberti. Liberti reported to District Manager Leonard Alonzo, who was supervised by Florida Regional Manager Joseph Fedorchak. As the Sales Manager, one of Petitioner's most important job duties was greeting and interacting with customers. He typically had the first contact with each customer as they walked into the store, and his demeanor, as he greeted them, influenced whether they felt comfortable and were likely to make a purchase. Petitioner, however, was not appropriately welcoming and friendly. Petitioner's attitude was withdrawn and not very cordial. Petitioner himself admitted that he "never look[s] happy." Petitioner's sullen demeanor was the topic of numerous discussions with his supervisors. In an effort to address the Petitioner's concerns and improve his work performance, the District Manager initiated a conversation to elicit any complaints the Petitioner might have. Petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with his position as a Credit Manager and the length of time since his last raise. As a result, Alonzo transferred the Petitioner to the Sales Manager position and gave him a pay increase. After the transfer, however, Petitioner's demeanor did not brighten. Concerned, the District Manager again inquired about the cause of the Petitioner's apparent unhappiness. Petitioner merely acknowledged that his attitude needed improvement and promised that he would "straighten up" and "be more outgoing." Each time they had that discussion, however, Petitioner's behavior would improve for only a short time, then return to his previous melancholy. The Store Manager also talked to Petitioner at least twice about his attitude toward his job, telling him that he needed to smile more often. Although the Petitioner's behavior would temporarily change after these discussions, Liberti observed that the improvement lasted only about 24 hours. In August 1995, sales at the Kissimmee store were at an all-time low. Petitioner's supervisors attributed the location's failure to meet its sales goals at least in part to the Petitioner's inability to interact with customers and make sales. After their repeated discussions with him did not result in lasting improvement, the Managers felt they had no choice but to terminate Petitioners employment. Fedorchak concurred that, because the Petitioner could not seem to display an appropriate attitude and demeanor for a Sales Manager, his services were no longer needed. Petitioner admits that when he was discharged, the reason that he was given was that he "did not look happy." Approximately two months before Petitioner left the Kissimmee store, one incident with racial overtones was brought to the Store Manager's attention. In June 1995, store employees Mark Mars and/or Jesus Rivera reported to Liberti that another store employee, Michael Flowers (who is white), had used the term "nigger" during a discussion with store employee Kenny Tatum (who is black). Liberti informed Alonzo about the complaint and an investigation was conducted. When the Managers spoke with Tatum, he explained that Flowers had used the expression "nigger, please," which was slang for "you've got to be kidding," during a conversation between the two men. He assured them that he had not been offended. Nevertheless, because Alonzo and Liberti felt it was highly inappropriate for Flowers to use such language in the store, they gave him a reprimand and warning. In his deposition testimony, Petitioner recalled learning about the occurrence from several other employees. Petitioner did not personally witness it or hear Flowers use the offensive term, but merely claimed to have reported to Liberti what he had been told. According to Petitioner, Liberti responded to this information by affirming that such behavior would not be tolerated. Petitioner admits that he was never told, and had no reason to believe, that Aaron's authorized, encouraged, or instructed Flowers to use racially derogatory language in the store or that he had done so on Aaron's behalf. When Petitioner allegedly reported the occurrence to Liberti, he only believed that a co-employee had made an inappropriate comment at work. The incident involving Flowers and Tatum was unrelated to Petitioner's discharge. None of the three individuals involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner associated him with the incident or any opposition to it. Liberti does not recall discussing the incident with Petitioner, and neither Alonzo nor Fedorchak knew that Petitioner even claimed to have had some involvement in reporting it until after he was discharged. Moreover, none of the conversations among the three about their decision to terminate Petitioner included any reference to Flowers' comment or the subsequent events. No one who opposed the incident suffered any adverse consequences. Rivera and/or Mars reported the comment, and neither of them experienced any unfavorable employment actions as a result.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order which dismisses the Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerome L. Carter, Sr. 2188 McClaren Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34744 Daniel F. Piar, Esquire Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether Respondent's beverage license should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for permitting prostitution activity on his licensed premises. At the formal hearing the Petitioner called as witnesses John Harris, Kelvin Davis, Carlos Bauxalli, Lewis Terminello, Hugo Gomez, Louis Viglione, Keith Bernard Hamilton, and Alfonso Scott Julious. Respondent called as witnesses Isaac Dweck, Gary Arthur, Irene Madden, Collins Jones, Mary Scott, Debbie Heenan, Judy Pearson, Joe E. Clements, Cecil Rolle, and the Respondent himself, Eddie Lee Pittman. Petitioner offered and had admitted a videotape which was viewed during the hearing. Respondent offered and had admitted one exhibit. Petitioner also offered a composite exhibit containing police reports relating to the licensed premises for the years 1981 and 1982. That composite exhibit was admitted as hearsay to corroborate the testimony of the police officers relating to the reputation of the licensed premises. These police records were of very limited probative value and no finding of fact was based upon these records. Neither party submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for consideration by the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding the Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was the holder of beverage license No. 23-371, Series 2-COP. The license is issued to the licensed premises at 1772 N.W. 79th Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida, and was originally issued to Respondent on October 6, 1965. On the evening of March 22, 1983, Beverage Officer Kelvin Davis visited the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn, in an undercover capacity to investigate possible prostitution activity in the licensed premises. Officer Davis was accompanied by Beverage Officer Eddie Bauxalli. After entering the licensed premises Officer Davis was approached by a white female named Elnora Moore who engaged him in conversation. The conversation led to a discussion of voter registration cards and Ms. Moore stated that a voter registration card could get you out of jail on a misdemeanor charge. Officer Davis asked why she needed a card for that purpose and Ms. Moore said because of solicitation. She then asked Officer Davis if he would like to be solicited and asked how much money he had. He responded that he had twenty dollars and she said that would get him a "straight." "Straight" is slang or street language for sexual intercourse. He agreed to the price but told her he also had a friend (Officer Bauxalli). Ms. Moore offered to service both men for $100. Officer Davis and Officer Bauxalli agreed to this offer and the three of them prepared to leave. The conversation between Ms. Moore and Officer Davis took place next to the bar where the officers were seated. This was approximately three to five feet from the cash register where the bartender on duty was working. The conversation took place in a normal tone of voice. As Officers Davis and Bauxalli and Ms. Moore began to leave, a white female named Peggy Schultz yelled across the bar to Officer Bauxalli and asked where he was going. Officer Bauxalli yelled back that he was going to have a good time. In response, Ms. Schultz yelled back "How can you have a good time without a date?" Officer Bauxalli responded that he would figure something out. At this point Ms. Schultz walked over to Officer Bauxalli. Ms. Schultz asked Officer Bauxalli if he wanted a "date" and he asked what is a "date." She responded that a "date" is a "straight" for $20 or a "straight" and a "blow job" for $25. He agreed to a "date" and Ms. Schultz then told him to drive around to the back and she and Ms. Moore would meet them at the back door. She also stated that the owner did not like the girls to go out the front door. Officers Bauxalli and Davis then left the bar, drove around to the back door of the licensed premises and picked up Ms. Moore and Ms. Schultz, who were waiting just inside the back door of the lounge. While Officers Bauxalli and Davis were in the licensed premises, the bar was pretty crowded and there was a lot of noise from people talking. At the time Ms. Schultz solicited Officer Bauxalli, she spoke in a normal tone of voice while they stood approximately four or five feet from the cash register on the bar. Ms. Schultz was dressed in a low-cut blue silky dress that was made of a material which you could easily see through. She was wearing only panties underneath the dress. The owner, Mr. Pittman, was observed in the licensed premises on the evening of March 22, but there was no evidence that he observed or overheard any of the discussions between the two beverage officers and Ms. Schultz and Ms. Moore. On the evening of September 17, 1983, at approximate1y. 10:A5 p.m., Beverage Officer Louis J. Terminello went to the licensed premises in an undercover capacity. Immediately upon entering the licensed premises he was approached by a white female named Michelle Orfino. The bar was pretty crowded and there were a number of females in the bar and poolroom area who by their dress appeared to be prostitutes. These women were mingling with the men at the bar and in the poolroom area. A number of couples were exiting through the back entrance. When Ms. Orfino approached Officer Terminello, she walked up to him and asked if he was looking for a "date." He asked her what a "date" was and she said "a blow job." She then asked if he wanted one and Officer Terminello responded "yes." She told him the price would be $20 plus $5 for the room. As they had been talking Officer Terminello, accompanied by Ms. Orfino, walked into the poolroom area. After agreeing to the price, Officer Terminello took Ms. Orfino by the arm and started to walk out the front door of the lounge. She stopped him and said that they had to use the back door because Eddie does not allow them to leave through the front door. She then told him to drive around back and Officer Terminello responded that his car was just outside the back door. She then walked with him out the back entrance and into the parking lot. As they walked to his car Officer Terminello observed the Respondent, Eddie Pittman, in the parking lot. After driving away, Officer Terminello placed Ms. Orfino under arrest. Ms. Orfino was dressed in a very low-cut latex body suit. For at least three nights prior to September 17, Officer Terminello, while on surveillance, had observed a continuous pattern of a patron entering the bar, coming back out and driving his car to the rear entrance. A woman would then come out the back door, get in the car and they would drive away. Twenty minutes or so later the car would come back and the girl would get out and go back in. After the arrest of September 17, Officer Terminello returned to the bar in the early morning hours of September 18 to arrest two other women for prostitution. The Respondent had not been advised of the arrests on September 17. On the evening of September 15, 1983, Beverage Officer Louis Viglione went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. After entering the licensed premises he took a seat at the bar near the rear entrance. Shortly after entering, he was joined by two black females named Veronica and Angie. He purchased a beer for each of the two women and the three of them engaged in conversation about good times, good loving, and Pink House. The Pink House is a boarding house in the area where the licensed premises is located and is used by prostitutes for "dates." A "date" is a slang or street term used commonly by prostitutes to refer to sexual intercourse or other sexual acts for pay. During this conversation, Veronica stated that one hour with her would cost $40 or $50 and Angie stated that she charged $100 an hour. As an excuse, Officer Viglione then stated that he did not have enough money because he wanted two women at once. He remained in the lounge approximately one more hour and left. On this particular evening Veronica was wearing a short white dress and Angie was wearing a blue print dress with white stockings. Both were dressed in what Officer Viglione described as normal dress. Several other women in the lounge were dressed in a very provocative manner and appeared by their dress to be prostitutes. The lounge was approximately 3/4 full of patrons, but it was not particularly noisy or boisterous. There were also several women outside the front and rear entrances of the licensed premises who appeared to be prostitutes. The area where the licensed premises is located is an area which has a visible concentration of prostitutes and has a reputation as an area where prostitution is prevalent. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on September 16, 1983, Beverage Officer Keith Bernard Hamilton entered Eddie's Dive Inn. Upon entering the lounge, Officer Hamilton took a seat at the west end of the bar. There were approximately 40 or 50 male patrons in the lounge and at least 30 women. The women were scantily dressed in very revealing clothes and were observed by Officer Hamilton to be moving around the bar stopping and talking with the men. Several of the women left the bar after talking to one of the men who also left the bar. While seated at the bar, Officer Hamilton was approached by a young black female named Anna. Anna had been talking to a white male seated next to Officer Hamilton. She asked Officer Hamilton what he was interested in tonight. He asked what she had and she asked if he wanted to fuck. She also stated that for $35 plus $5 for the room she would give him a "suck and fuck." He said he would wait for a while and Anna left but returned several times during the evening. After Anna left, another woman walked up to Officer Hamilton and asked if he dated. He was short with her and she moved over and began talking to the white male seated next to him. A few minutes later, Officer Hamilton went to the bathroom and was stopped by a black female named Carol Lawrence. Ms. Lawrence stated that she needed money and asked if he could help her out. Officer Hamilton asked what did she have and Ms. Lawrence responded "a suck and fuck for $35." Officer Hamilton agreed to this but said he wanted to wait a while. She then left, but approached him at least three more times that evening. On the evening of September 16, 1983, there were three security guards at the licensed premises. They primarily remained outside where they regulated the crowd outside the lounge. One of the guards told one of the females that she shouldn't leave with a guy but should wait inside the rear door. The guard did not object to the woman and man leaving in the man's car. On this particular evening, the Respondent was present at the licensed premises until approximately 11:00 p.m. He was in and out of his office during the course of the evening. On September 17, 1983, at approximately 9:30 p.m. Officer Hamilton returned to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. When Officer Hamilton entered the lounge, the Respondent was seated at the bar. The activity in the bar was about the same as the night of September 16, and there was a smaller crowd. There were about 20 women in the bar. These women were walking around the bar talking to the men. There was a man seated next to Mr. Pittman who was being kissed by one of the women. After kissing the man she moved on and began talking to another male patron. Shortly after entering the lounge one of the women in the lounge looked at Officer Hamilton and winked. Later, when Officer Hamilton was in the rear of the lounge near the bathrooms, be observed this same woman standing near the rear entrance. He asked her where she was going and she responded that she would be back. She then offered him a "suck and fuck" for $20 plus the cost of the room. As she walked out the rear entrance Officer Hamilton agreed to the offer. That same evening Officer Hamilton was again approached by Anna whom he had met the previous evening. She asked if he was ready and again told him the price of a "suck and fuck." He agreed and she told him to leave out the front door and she would wait around back. Officer Hamilton left the lounge and drove his car to the rear entrance where Anna was waiting just inside the screened door of the back entrance. On the evening of September 15, 1983, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Beverage Officer Alfonso Scott Julious entered the licensed premises. There were several men seated inside the bar and several women were walking around the bar. The women were dressed casually and some were wearing short dresses which were low cut in the front. After entering the licensed premises Officer Julious observed women from time to time leave the bar with a man and then come back. Each of the women exited through the rear door. At approximately 9:45 p.m. Officer Julious was approached by a white female named Gail Sylvia James. She asked if he wanted a "date" and he said what is a "date." She then said that she would "fuck him and suck him" for $30. He responded that he would be around for a while and would get back to her. Officer Julious left the lounge at approximately 10:30 p.m. During the evening Officer Julious had overheard other men being solicited and observed at least five men leave with women. On this evening Officer Julious considered the women's dress to be casual, nice dresses. Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:00 p.m. on September 16, 1983. After entering the lounge he was approached by a white female named Patricia. She asked him if he wanted a "date" and he asked "what is a "date?" She then said she would fuck him for $30. Officer Julious responded that he would be around and would get back to her. Some time later in the evening Gail James, whom he had met the previous night, approached Officer Julious and asked if he was ready for a "date." She said she would go half and half, "suck and fuck" for $30. He told her he would be around for a while. Officer Julious was also approached by a woman named Mindy Jo Gelfin, who asked if he wanted a "date." He asked "What is a date?" and she responded "half and half, fuck and suck" for $40. He also did not accept this offer. Officer Julious left the licensed premises at approximately 10:45 p.m. On Saturday, September 17, 1983, Officer Julious returned to the licensed premises at approximately 9:05 p.m. The Respondent, Eddie Lee Pittman, was in the lounge. Immediately after entering the licensed premises, Officer Julious was approached by Mindy Gelfin, who asked if he was ready for a "date." Officer Julious stated that he would be around all night and Mindy said she would come back. Later, Mindy returned and asked if he was ready and he responded "yes." He asked if they could go to the Holiday Inn and she asked if he was a cop. Officer Julious said "Do I look like a cop?" She then asked if she could pat him down. He said "yes" and she patted him down. She then said that she wanted to go in a friend's car. She borrowed the car and drove to the Holiday Inn where she was arrested. At the time of her arrest Mindy Jo Gelfin was residing with Collins Winston Jones and his girlfriend. At the time of the final hearing, Mindy Gelfin was continuing to live at Mr. Jones' residence. Mr. Jones' girlfriend had allowed her to move in. Mr. Jones is the manager of Eddie's Dive Inn. On September 29, 1983, Detective Hugo Gomez of the Metropolitan Dade County Police Department went to the licensed premises, Eddie's Dive Inn. Detective Gomez was accompanied by Detectives Manny Gonzalez and Ray Gonzalez. Detective Gomez stood at the west end of the bar and his two partners sat at the bar next to him. After they ordered a beer, they were approached by a white female named Catrina Gibides. She sat down between the two officers who were seated. She asked what they were doing and told Detective Gomez he looked like a cop. He then pulled up his pants legs to show he was wearing no socks and she said "you can't be a cop" and grabbed his groin. She then began playing with Manny Gonzalez's leg and asked if they wanted a "date." She was wearing a very loose chiffon type outfit and her breasts were barely covered. The officers who were seated had been pretending not to speak English and Ms. Gibides asked Detective Gomez to ask Manny Gonzales if he wanted to go across the street to a motel with her. She said that she would perform intercourse and fellatio for $25 plus $5. She then called over another white female named Lisa Brown, who also began talking about going across the street to a motel. Lisa Brown said her price was $25 plus $5 for the room. They then discussed going in different cars. During these conversations the bar was crowded and Eddie Pittman was in the lounge approximately 8 to 10 feet from where the officers were located. It was pretty loud in the bar. There were also barmaids working behind the bar. Isaac Dweck is a regular patron of Eddie's Dive Inn. He goes there primarily on Sunday afternoons to watch football and shoot pool. He is almost never in the licensed premises after 9:00 p.m. and averages going to the lounge four or five times a month. He has never been solicited for prostitution in the lounge and has never overheard someone else being solicited. Gary Arthur goes to Eddie's Dive Inn two or three times a week and generally leaves some time between 7:30 and 9:00 p.m. Once or twice he has stayed until 11:00 or 12:00 p.m. He has never been solicited for prostitution and has never overheard anyone else being solicited. He has been going to Eddie's Dive Inn for five or six years. The Respondent has a policy against drugs, fighting, solicitation, and profanity and also has a dress code. He employs 11 full-time employees at the lounge and three or four of these employees are security guards who work at front and back doors. The Respondent has a closed circuit television system with cameras on the cash register and pool room area. The screen is in Respondent's office. Over the past 12 years the manager, Collins Jones, has barred 12 or 13 women from the bar after he heard them soliciting in the bar. In the twenty years he has operated Eddie's Dive Inn, the Respondent has barred approximately 20 women from coming into the licensed premises because of prostitution. Once the women are arrested for prostitution, they are barred from the premises. There are signs posted in the bar prohibiting soliciting. Irene Madden works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has been instructed to not serve known prostitutes and that if she heard someone soliciting she should diplomatically ask them to not do that and inform Mr. Pittman or the manager. Mary Scott works as a barmaid at Eddie's Dive Inn. She has heard women solicit in the lounge for prostitution. She does not have the authority to ask someone who solicits for prostitution to leave the premises. She does have authority to ask people to leave who are in violation of the dress code. In September, 1972, the Respondent was charged in an administrative proceeding against his license with permitting prostitution on the licensed premises. He was also charged criminally with permitting prostitution. Respondent paid a $350 administrative fine and his license was placed on probation for the remainder of the license year. He pleaded guilty to the criminal charge.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 561.29, Florida Statutes, and imposing a civil penalty of $1,000 and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of ninety (90) days. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 9th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Department of Business Regulation Regulation 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Arthur M. Garel, Esquire 40 Southwest 13th Street Miami, Florida 33130 Howard Milan Rasmussen, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Knites of Redington, d/b/a Fort Knox Bar (the “Bar”), discriminated against Petitioner, Kevin Murphy (“Murphy”), on the basis of his age or, alternatively, for retaliation, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Murphy is a 56-year-old male. At all times relevant hereto, he was employed as a bartender at the Bar. He had been hired at the Bar initially by its former owners, the Smiths, in approximately March 2009. In December 2009, Bachert purchased the Bar and retained Murphy as an employee. When he purchased the Bar, Bachert formed a corporation, Knites of Redington, Inc., to own the assets. Bachert was listed as the only officer, director, or owner of the corporation. The corporation was formed on December 17, 2009. Murphy was one of several bartenders working at the Bar. Under the prior owners, Murphy was paid $25.00 per shift, plus tips. When Bachert took over, Murphy was paid $40.00 per shift, plus tips. By his own admission, Murphy did not report all of his tips to the Internal Revenue Service. Bachert’s sister, Elizabeth Horton, also worked at the Bar, helping out with accounting services. Apparently, she and Murphy did not get along. Murphy testified that Ms. Horton called Murphy names and said he was “old, fat, and slow.” Murphy also claims that Ms. Horton was a cocaine user, used the Bar’s money as her own, and caused “problems” at the Bar with customers. There was no other competent, substantial evidence presented to support those claims. Some time in February 2011, Bachert became aware that Murphy had an extensive criminal background. Bachert had not done a criminal background check on Murphy because he (Murphy) was already an employee of the Bar when Bachert took over operations. When he found out about Murphy’s background, Bachert placed Murphy on a temporary leave of absence to further investigate Murphy’s past. Bachert expressed a concern that he did not believe persons with criminal backgrounds are allowed to work as bartenders. Murphy said no such prohibition exists. Neither party introduced support for their position. After a couple of weeks, Bachert called Murphy in and told him that “things just aren’t going to work.” Bachert said that because of Murphy’s criminal past, and the fact he was “running sheets” from behind the bar, his employment at the Bar was being terminated. (“Running sheets” refers to the practice of betting on football games, car races, and other events. It was common for such bets to be going on in the Bar, and in fact Bachert took part. The problem was that Murphy was running sheets from behind the bar while on duty, and Bachert had asked him not to do that. Despite that request, Murphy continued to run sheets from behind the bar.) During Murphy’s entire period of employment, he had never heard Bachert make any disparaging or discriminatory remarks about him. The only person who allegedly made such remarks was Ms. Horton. The evidence does not prove that Ms. Horton had any authority over Murphy. At the onset of the corporation, she was not listed as an officer. On the Division of Corporations printout produced by Murphy, however, Ms. Horton is shown as secretary of the corporation. However, that document was dated May 12, 2011, i.e., some three months after Murphy was terminated. Thus, the evidence does not support that Ms. Horton had authority over Murphy at the time she allegedly made disparaging comments. The average age of bartenders and employees at the Bar was about 49 years of age. Murphy refused to testify during his case-in-chief. He reluctantly testified during the Bar’s case-in-chief, but did not, during his testimony, establish any evidence of discriminatory behavior by the Bar or its owners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the claim for relief filed by Petitioner, Kevin Murphy, should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 25th day of January, 2013.
Findings Of Fact At about half past ten o'clock on the night of December 14, 1977, Daniel James Cobb, than a beverage officer under the supervision of Lieutenant Robert E. Baxley, arrived at the Mezzanine Lounge at the corner of Intendencia and South Palafox Streets in Pensacola. He entered through the south door, went upstairs, and sat down at a table. An Asain woman who said her name was Charlene asked him if he wanted a drink and asked him to buy a drink for her, which he did. Subsequently, he bought a bottle of champagne for $18.00, at her request. Other customers at other tables also bought drinks for this woman, who went from table to table, occasionally stopping to chat with Officer Cobb. She asked him if he wanted a "chick," offered her own sexual services for $50.00, and said that he could have two girls for $100.00. Officer Cobb left the premises alone about midnight. At approximately quarter past eight on the night of January 5, 1978, Officer Cobb returned to the Mezzanine Lounge. Again he went upstairs and sat at a table. After he had ordered a drink for himself, he bought a drink for a dancer who sat down at his table. A second dancer, a blonde known professionally as Gigi, came over and offered to dance "for tips." Gigi, who is also known as Christine Haney Hampton, performed an impromptu dance after Officer Cobb gave her $5.00. At Gigi's insistence, he then bought a bottle of champagne for $30.00, which Gigi opened. When she did, the cork ricocheted off the ceiling and hit Lieutenant Baxley, who had taken a seat at a nearby table. Lieutenant Baxley had arrived 15 or 30 minutes after Officer Cobb, and was drinking bourbon, when he was hit by the cork. Maintaining the pretense that they were strangers, Officer Cob invited Lieutenant Baxley to join him for champagne. Lieutenant Baxley accepted, struck up a conversation with Gigi, then left with Gigi for another table. Shortly thereafter Officer Cobb left the premises alone. Gigi said to Lieutenant Baxley, "If you buy me a bottle of champagne, we'll have a party." She told him she would do anything for $100.00. Lieutenant Baxley purchased a bottle of champagne for $30.00, and he also bought three flowers for Gigi for $2.00, at her request. At one point on the night of January 5, 1978, respondent Julie Schofield came upstairs. When asked, she said Gigi could not leave early. Respondents purchased the Mezzanine Lounge from a Mr. Aliberti some three years ago. At the time it was a topless bar. For the first three months they owned it, respondents did not operate it as a topless bar, but they "reverted." The dancers were topless on the nights of December 14, 1977, and January 5, 1978. Respondent Julie Schofield spent five nights a week at the Mezzanine Lounge during that period. Respondent Frank Joseph Schofield visited the premises daily. After Gigi had worked for respondents as a dancer for two or three months, respondents entered into an agreement with her husband, Harry Hampton, who undertook the management of the upstairs portion of the licensed premises, called the "Hideaway Lounge area." Mr. Schofield described the agreement in these words: "[M]y mark up percentage is 600 percent or as close as possible to it. any additional income may be disbursed as he sees fit. At the even- ings close Mr. Hampton gives me a sheet showing total liquor and bar sales for the evening. The cash for the evening is also turned in minus whatever cash disburs[e]ments were made. Most of the excess profit is derived from cocktail sales at 1000 percent mark up and bonus money is handed out from that by Mr. Hampton as determined by the number of drinks they had. This is approximately 30 percent of the drink price." Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. The more drinks the girls sold, the more money they made. Respondents terminated this agreement after hearing that Mr. Hampton was inviting bar patrons elsewhere for "exotic treats" and "personalized service." Respondents made no investigation of Mr. Hampton before hiring him. On January 18, 1978, Officer Cob and Lieutenant Baxley arrested Christine Hampton and the Asian woman who had identified herself as Charlene, who is also known as Phung Kim Holland. Although both women were charged criminally, neither was convicted. Ms. Holland was acquitted after trial by jury; Ms. Hampton pleaded nolo contendere, but adjudication was withheld. After the arrests, respondents "fired a few people." In addition, respondents posted a sign on a wall urging patrons to report the solicitation of drinks to the management and placed "table tents" imprinted with the same message on various tables; and they also installed more lights on the licensed premises. At one point, Mr. Schofield asked some of the employees of the Mezzanine Lounge not to solicit for prostitution. Petitioner instituted the present proceedings by serving respondents with a notice to show cause on March 17, 1978. An informal conference on March 24, 1978, was attended by Mr. Schofield and Lieutenant Baxley. Respondents were not represented by counsel at the informal conference. On May 23, 1978, respondents' counsel wrote Lieutenant Baxley suggesting that the notice to show cause be dismissed "[i]n light of the outcome of the criminal cases." Respondents' exhibit No. 1. On August 24, 1978, the petitioner referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing, even though respondents have never made demand for formal hearing. On August 28, 1978, notice of hearing issued setting the final hearing for September 29, 1978, but the hearing was continued on application of respondents' counsel, according to the file. The final hearing was next noticed for December 13, 1979. On December 13, 1979, according to the file, counsel for petitioner sought a continuance on grounds of Lieutenant Baxley's illness and represented that counsel for respondents had no objection to the continuance; and the final hearing was again continued. Also on December 13, 1978, respondents' counsel (who had previously corresponded with counsel for petitioner, respondents' exhibit No. 3) wrote a letter to Lieutenant Baxley "objecting to any kind of hearing . . . because so much time has transpired [sic] since the original offense." Respondents' exhibit No. 2. Respondents' counsel did not send copies of this letter either to petitioner's counsel or to the hearing officer.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner impose a civil penalty against respondents' license in the amount of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May 1980 in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel C. Brown, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert G. Kerrigan, Esquire 224 East Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
