The Issue Whether the City of Milton failed to accept an employment application from Sydney McCray on the basis of race or national origin, thereby committing an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Mr. McCray is a male African-American, and he is a member of a protected class. In his complaint, Mr. McCray claims that on April 4, 1994, the City discriminated against him by failing to hire him for the position of laborer (maintenance worker). Specifically, Mr. McCray alleged that in response to a newspaper advertisement for a laborer's position, he and his sister, Alice Larkins, contacted the City Manager's office for the purpose of submitting their employment applications. Both Mr. McCray and Ms. Larkins asserted that they arrived at the office of Mr. Whitson, the City Manager, at the appointed time, and that they waited over an hour to see Mr. Whitson. After waiting an hour, both Mr. McCray and Ms. Larkins left without ever meeting Mr. Whitson. Mr. McCray asserts that Mr. Whitson failed to meet with him or receive his employment application because of his race. The City disputes Mr. McCray's claims for several reasons. First, the City provided evidence to contradict Mr. McCray's position that he first learned of the laborer position through an advertisement. Several city employees testified that the City only advertises skilled positions and that the unskilled positions, such as maintenance positions, are handled through the Public Works Department without advertisement. With regard to the Public Works Department, testimony was also received that indicated the process for receiving applications for laborer positions. In particular, it was stated that applications for laborer positions are processed by the Public Works Department and that once the applicant has been interviewed, all qualified applicants are placed on a list for future vacancies. The record is clear that Mr. McCray never applied for a laborer position through the established procedure. Second, even if the position was advertised as stated by Mr. McCray, the City disputes that Mr. Whitson's office would have ever made an appointment for Mr. McCray. As indicated above, the prospective laborers are processed by the Public Works Department. Mr. Whitson testified that he plays no role in screening laborer applicants and that he is purposefully insulated from the hiring process. Therefore, it makes no sense that his office would have arranged an interview as asserted by Mr. McCray. Third, in addition to Mr. Whitson's lack of involvement in the employment process for prospective laborers, all the testimony received at the hearing supports a finding that Mr. McCray did not have an appointment with the City manager. Specifically, several City employees, including Mr. Whitson's personal secretary, testified that neither Mr. McCray nor his sister ever had an appointment with Mr. Whitson. They also testified that neither person appeared at Mr. Whitson's office on April 4, 1994. When pressed on the date and time of the alleged appointment with Mr. Whitson, Mr. McCray was unable to articulate consistently when the meeting was to take place. Mr. McCray appeared confused and his answers varied from his earlier deposition testimony and the testimony of his sister. Furthermore, based on the records maintained by the City of Milton, Mr. McCray never submitted an application for the position of "Laborer" with the Public Works Department of the City of Milton. Mr. McCray attempts to supplement his claim of discrimination by establishing that the City of Milton has systematically discriminated against him by failing on more than one occasion to hire him. Specifically, Mr. McCray stated that prior to April 4, 1994, he applied for other positions with the City of Milton, and he was denied such positions. In particular, Mr. McCray stated that he applied for the position of mechanic and technician. In both instances raised by Mr. McCray, however, it appears, based on the record, that he either failed to adequately complete his job application or he failed to possess the minimum qualifications for the positions sought. As further evidence supporting his claim, Mr. McCray offered the testimony of his sister, Alicia Larkin. Ms. Larkin testified that she, like her brother, was the subject of discrimination by the City. The undersigned dismissed her testimony as lacking relevancy and more importantly lacking credibility. First, Ms. Larkin has a claim pending against the City alleging similar discriminatory practices and she appears to have a bias against the City. Second, Ms. Larkin's testimony lacked consistency and lacked credibility. No evidence was presented to indicate that the City of Milton discriminated in its employment practices. Furthermore, the City presented testimony that it has and continues to develop fair employment practices relating to minorities. Specifically, the City of Milton, through Mr. Whitson, has met with the NAACP for the purpose of continuing to improve race relations between the City and the African-American community in Milton. In summary, the City has effectively rebutted the allegations raised by Mr. McCray. The City offered a series of witnesses that had personal knowledge of the employment policies and hiring practices of the City and each corroborated the other. Those witnesses collectively support a finding that the City did not discriminate against Mr. McCray.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this claim with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of April, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Committee, Esquire 8870 Thunderbird Drive Pensacola, Florida 32514-5661 Roy V. Andrews, Esquire Post Office Box 586 Milton, Florida 32572 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Rule 21E-12.08, Florida Administrative Code, a rule of the Construction Industry Licensing Board, was adopted in compliance with the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. This rule was effective on January 6, 1980, and was amended on December 19, 1982. On or about January 19, 1983, an order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed fines of $2,000 on each of the Petitioners. This order did not specify a time certain by which these fines were to be paid. This order was appealed, and on or about April 4, 1984, a Mandate was issued by the Fourth District Court of Appeal which affirmed the order. On or about April 12, 1984, the Executive Director of the Construction Industry Licensing Board hand-delivered to each of the Petitioners a letter dated April 12, 1984, which stated in part "You shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000 within 30 days to the Executive Director, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. " These fines have not been paid. Rule 21E-12.08, Florida Administrative Code, cites as authority therefor Sections 455.227(2) and 489.129(2), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment condoned by Respondent due to his sex in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The School Board of Orange County, Florida, (Respondent) is an employer within the definition found in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Dexter V. Thomas (Petitioner) was an employee of Respondent, as defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, during the relevant time period. Petitioner timely filed his Charge of Discrimination (Charge) with the Commission, pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Acts of 1992, on August 4, 1995. The Commission failed to make a Cause/No Cause Determination within 180 days of the filing of the Charge. Petitioner filed a form with the Commission on January 27, 1998, seeking to withdraw his Charge and filed a Petition for Relief to proceed to an administrative hearing. Petitioner has not filed a Petition with the Commission. However, the Commission forwarded Petitioner's Charge to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal hearing on February 2, 1999, and this proceeding followed. Petitioner is an adult male and a United States citizen of African-American descent. Petitioner worked as a custodian at Apopka Middle School on the day shift from 1989 until his termination on November 22, 1995. Petitioner testified that he had received good evaluations until the fall of 1994, when a new principal took charge of the school. Shortly thereafter, it was Petitioner's perception that he was being harassed because of certain statements that he made to other school employees about the faculty and staff at Apopka Middle School which he believed to be true. The statements made by Petitioner were defamatory in nature. In addition, they were perceived by other school board employees as threatening to the safety and welfare of staff and students. Due to these statements and his general conduct while working his shift, Petitioner was relieved of duty with pay on September 21, 1995. On October 4, 1995, Petitioner was directed to be examined by a licensed psychiatrist at the expense of the school board. Petitioner refused to be examined by the school board's licensed psychiatrist on the grounds that it was part of the continuing conspiracy to silence him about illegal activities he believed were going on at Apopka Middle School. Petitioner was subsequently terminated by action of the school board on November 22, 1995. None of the testimony and other evidence produced by Petitioner, taken as true, could be construed to establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment by employees or supervisors of Respondent. Petitioner failed to offer any credible evidence that he was subjected to any unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, or other conduct of a sexual nature by employees of Respondent. Petitioner appears to have mistakenly checked the "race" box on his Charge of Discrimination. At the hearing, Petitioner did not raise any contentions that he suffered discrimination on the basis of race while in the employ of Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered as follows: The Charge of Discrimination should be dismissed, as Petitioner's request for administrative hearing was not timely filed under Chapter 760.11(4),(6), and (8), Florida Statutes. In the alternative, Petitioner has failed to prove that he was discriminated against on the basis of his sex by being subjected to a hostile work environment and the Petition should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Kruppenbacher, Esquire Orange County School Board Post Office Box 3471 Orlando, Florida 32802-3471 Dexter V. Thomas 3920 Country Club Drive, Number 3 Orlando, Florida 32808 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dennis Smith, Superintendent Orange County School Board Post Office Box 271 Orlando, Florida 32302-3471
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Respondent was not Petitioner’s employer.
Findings Of Fact The complaint alleged that Petitioner was the victim of employment discrimination based upon her race. The employers identified in the complaint were Respondent and Civigenics/Community Education Centers (Civigenics). The determination issued by FCHR with respect to Respondent stated in pertinent part:1/ The Commission lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint of Discrimination because the Respondent is not the Complainant’s employer. The investigation revealed that Civigenics/Community Education Center, not Respondent, is the proper Respondent in this case. The petition does not allege that Respondent was Petitioner’s employer. Rather, the petition “give[s] acknowledgement to the determination [of] no jurisdiction” and then focuses on the merits of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint. Respondent argues in its motion to dismiss that “Petitioner acknowledges and therefore, concedes the validity of FCHR’s no jurisdiction determination in her request for relief.” The Order to Show Cause entered on October 10, 2008, stated in pertinent part: The petition does not appear to raise any disputed issues of fact as to whether DOC was Petitioner’s employer. That is the only issue properly before the undersigned in this case based upon the “no jurisdiction” determination issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). Petitioner is entitled to a de novo hearing on the issue of whether DOC was her employer. If it is determined that DOC was her employer, then the case will be returned to FCHR with a recommendation that it investigate the merits of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint against DOC. [Endnote omitted]. If it is determined that DOC was not Petitioner’s employer, then the case will be returned to FCHR with a recommendation that the petition be dismissed based upon a lack of jurisdiction. That said, Petitioner is only entitled to a formal administrative hearing at the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) if there are disputed issues of fact as to whether DOC was Petitioner’s employer. If there are no disputed issues of fact, then DOAH must relinquish jurisdiction back to FCHR. See § 120.57(1)(i), Fla. Stat. As stated above, the petition does not appear to raise any disputed issues of fact on this issue; rather, it “give[s] acknowledgement to the determination of no jurisdiction” and then focuses on the merits of the discrimination complaint. The Order to Show Cause directed Petitioner to: show cause in writing as to why DOC’s Motion to Dismiss should not be granted and/or Petitioner shall file an amended petition that identifies the factual basis upon which Petitioner contends that DOC was her employer. The Order advised Petitioner that: Failure to respond to this Order and/or failure to identify any disputed issues of fact as to whether DOC was Petitioner’s employer will result in a Recommended Order of Dismissal or an Order closing DOAH’s file and relinquishing jurisdiction to FCHR. Petitioner’s response to the Order to Show Cause stated in pertinent part: This is response to the Order to Show Cause, Case #08-4878. I am submitting in response to this order the attachments of a notice of hearing to be held in this case at the Board of County Commissioners, Community Treasures [sic] Room, First Floor, County Administration Building, 12 Southeast First Street, on December 1, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., Gainesville, FL. I am also submitting a copy of the Order of Pre Hearing Instructions. All information as required will be provided at the times ordered. The response does not allege any facts that might establish that Respondent was Petitioner’s employer. The pleadings do not raise any disputed issues of material fact concerning whether Respondent was Petitioner’s employer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, the final hearing scheduled for December 1, 2008, is cancelled, and it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order dismissing the petition with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, 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 30th day of October, 2008.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding involves whether the Respondent's certification to practice contracting should be subjected to disciplinary action for alleged violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, and, if the violations are proven, what, if any, penalty is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with enforcing, administering, and regulating the practice standards and licensure standards for the construction industry in Florida. This authority is embodied in the various provisions of Chapters 489, 455, and 120, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated pursuant thereto. The Respondent is a licensed general contractor in the State of Florida having been issued license number RG0060516 and is registered to conduct contracting business in his individual capacity. On July 2, 1990, a contractor, Lonnie J. Walker, notified the Building Department of the City of Tallahassee that he had withdrawn as contractor for a job located at 722 Dunn Street, in Tallahassee, Florida. He thereupon withdrew the building permit he had obtained for the work being performed at those premises. On August 8, 1990, the Respondent contracted with Mary N. Spencer, the owner, to make certain repairs at the two-unit apartment building located at 722 Dunn Street, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. The contract price agreed upon between the Respondent and Ms. Spencer was $867.00. The Respondent thereupon performed some of the aforementioned contracting work, consisting of repairs of various types. He was not registered to contract in Leon County, Florida, however. The Department of Growth and Environmental Management of Leon County, Florida, is responsible for issuing construction contractor licenses for the County, including for the City of Tallahassee. There was no proper building permit issued for the job and job site when the Respondent entered into the contracting work at those premises. The Respondent failed to obtain a permit for the repairs and this ultimately came to the attention of the City of Tallahassee Building Department. That agency issued a stop work order on September 5, 1990. The Respondent was not performing work pursuant to Mr. Walker's previous permit, which had been withdrawn. The Respondent was not an employee of Lonnie J. Walker, the previous general contractor for the job. The Petitioner agency submitted an affidavit after the hearing and close of the evidence, with its Proposed Recommended Order. That affidavit asserts that the Petitioner accumulated $458.10 in investigative costs and $2,491.30 in legal costs associated with the prosecution of this case, for a total alleged cost of prosecution of $2,949.40. It moves, in its Proposed Recommended Order, that payment of the costs should be made in accordance with Section 61G4-12.008, Florida Administrative Code. The request for costs was first raised as an issue in the Proposed Recommended Order submitted by the Petitioner and is advanced only in the form of a hearsay affidavit. No prior motion for costs served upon the Respondent is of record in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint and assessing a penalty in the form of a letter of guidance and an aggregate fine of $600.00, as described with more particularity hereinabove. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-591 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-8. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent submitted no post-hearing pleading. COPIES FURNISHED: G.W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Julius S. Baker, Sr. Box 253 Morrow, GA 30260 Mr. Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether there are sufficient grounds for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against Respondent?s teaching certificate, and if so, the nature of the sanctions.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility to revoke or suspend, or take other appropriate action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795 and 1012.796. § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat. Petitioner, as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6), Fla. Stat. Respondent holds a teaching certificate issued by the Florida Department of Education, No. 608837, covering the areas of pre-kindergarten and primary education. Respondent?s current teaching certificate was issued as a result of the entry of a September 18, 2007, Settlement Agreement that resolved an initial denial of the teaching certificate for a series of pleas or convictions for financial crimes, including Public Assistance Fraud. The Settlement Agreement authorized the issuance of Respondent?s teaching certificate subject to a letter of reprimand and a two-year period of probation. The Settlement Agreement was adopted by the Education Practices Commission by Final Order entered on January 25, 2008. Respondent was employed by the Gadsden County School Board in various positions since 2005, most of them being as a teacher at the elementary school and kindergarten level. Respondent received instructional employee evaluation ratings of “very effective” for the 2006-2007 school year, and of “effective” for the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 school years. Respondent was suspended from teaching by the Gadsden County School Board on January 3, 2011 for issues relating to her December 21, 2010, arrest for drug-related offenses. The suspension was upheld at a meeting of the Gadsden County School Board on January 25, 2011. Respondent was rehired as a Gadsden County substitute teacher in February, 2011, and worked in that capacity at two schools until December 2012. The decision to rehire was made to accommodate Respondent with lawful employment so as to meet the terms of her probation. Administrative Complaint On November 30, 2012, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint that forms the basis for this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint identified the offenses that underlie the five specified counts. Resisting an Officer - September 29, 2007 On September 29, 2007, Officer Clark was in the process of effectuating an arrest of Respondent?s son at a convenience store located near Respondent?s home. According to Officer Clark, Respondent?s son was resisting efforts to place him in handcuffs. While Officer Clark was attempting to take Respondent?s son into custody, Respondent appeared on the scene and attempted to intervene in the incident. The nature of the intervention is disputed. When a back-up officer arrived, Officer Clark instructed him to take Respondent into custody. The only evidence of the disposition of the charge of resisting an officer was a printout of the case docket from the website of the Leon County, Florida Clerk of Court. The printout is hearsay, and comes within no exception to the hearsay rule set forth in section 90.803, Florida Statutes. Disposition of the charge of resisting an officer was not supported by competent, substantial, and non-hearsay evidence. Thus, no finding can be made to substantiate that charge. Driving Without a Valid License - January 2, 2010 On January 2, 2010, Respondent was driving her vehicle in Tallahassee. She was stopped by Officer Hurlbut for a traffic infraction. Respondent presented Officer Hurlbut with a Florida driver?s license. When Officer Hurlbut ran the driver?s license through his onboard computer, he discovered that the driver?s license produced by Respondent was not current, and that Respondent?s driver?s license had been suspended. Officer Hurlbut issued a citation and notice to appear to Respondent, and seized her expired driver?s license and her automobile tag. On April 14, 2010, Respondent entered a plea of no contest to a charge of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver?s license, a second-degree misdemeanor, was adjudged guilty, and was placed on probation for a period of six months. Driving Without a Valid License/Violation of Probation - September 26, 2010 On September 26, 2010, Respondent was stopped by Highway Patrol Sergeant Teslo for driving without a seatbelt. Respondent had no identification. Sergeant Teslo asked Respondent to write her name and date of birth on a sheet of paper so that he could run it through his onboard computer. The name and birthdate provided by Respondent were not those of Respondent. When Sergeant Teslo determined that the name and birthdate were not those of Respondent, he returned to her car, whereupon Respondent provided him with her real name and birthdate. When Sergeant Teslo ran Respondent?s name and birthdate, he discovered that Respondent was operating her vehicle while her driver?s license was suspended. He issued a traffic citation, and waited for a licensed driver to come and pick up Respondent. As a matter of discretion, Sergeant Teslo did not charge Respondent with providing false information. On September 30, 2010, an affidavit of probation violation was executed which alleged that Respondent violated her April 14, 2010, sentence of probation by driving with a suspended license. A warrant was issued, and Respondent was taken into custody. Respondent entered a plea of no contest to a reduced charge of operating a motor vehicle without a valid driver?s license. Adjudication was withheld. Drug Offenses - December 9, 2010 On December 9, 2010, after a period of investigation and surveillance of Respondent?s home, the Tallahassee Police Department executed a search warrant for the home. Respondent was not at the home when the search was conducted. Respondent arrived at her home while the search warrant was being executed. There were numerous police cars around the house. Respondent asked a neighbor to watch the house and retrieve the keys when the search was done while she took her pit bulldog, which had been Tasered during the execution of the warrant, to the veterinarian. The neighbor later called Respondent to advise her that drugs were found during the search. Thus, the search and its results were openly known in the area. During the execution of the search warrant, two of Respondent?s sons were taken into custody. The search of the home uncovered a significant quantity of powdered and crack cocaine, cannabis, and various articles of paraphernalia located in rooms throughout the home, including the kitchen and Respondent?s bedroom. On December 21, 2010, Respondent was arrested for a number of drug-related offenses. On February 11, 2011, an Information was filed charging Respondent with trafficking in controlled substances, a felony of the first degree; sale or possession of controlled substances with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a convenience store, a felony of the first degree; sale or possession of controlled substances with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a convenience store, a felony of the second degree; and possession of paraphernalia, a misdemeanor of the first degree. On November 15, 2011, Respondent entered into a deferred prosecution agreement for the charged offenses subject to Respondent?s compliance with various terms of the agreement. Public Assistance Fraud - July 25, 2012 On July 6, 2012, an affidavit was executed by Department of Economic Opportunity Investigator Marshall, in which it was alleged that Respondent made false statements that she was unemployed and not receiving wages or benefits from June 19, 2010 through February 26, 2011, so as to qualify for reemployment assistance benefits for which she was otherwise not eligible. Respondent asserted that she was, in fact, unemployed during the summer of 2010, since her annual contract expired at the conclusion of the 2009-2010 school year, and was not renewed until the commencement of the 2010-2011 school year. She further asserted that she was suspended without pay commencing on January 26, 2011. However, the evidence is undisputed that Respondent was employed and receiving wages for, at a minimum, the start of the 2010-2011 school year1/ until January 26, 2011. On July 25, 2012, an Information was filed charging Respondent with Unemployment Compensation Fraud, a felony of the third degree, for making false statements to obtain or increase benefits under Florida unemployment compensation laws. On November 2, 2012, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the felony charge of unemployment compensation fraud, was adjudicated guilty, was placed on probation for a period of five years, and was ordered to pay restitution to the Florida Reemployment Compensation Trust Fund in the amount of $7,972.00 and to pay an additional $750 in court costs.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order permanently revoking Respondent?s teaching certificate, No. 608837. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Respondent was validly disciplined by a local government, which causes the Respondent to be in violation of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes. Whether the Respondent is guilty of fraud, or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Tillack Ram Netram, was licensed as a certified residential contractor and held license number CR C035238. On or about November 16, 1988, a duly noticed hearing was held before the Contractors Regulatory Board of the City of Cape Coral to determine whether Respondent Netram had violated local ordinances by falsifying three certificates of occupancy in order to close real estate transactions and receive money before the residences were actually approved for occupancy by the City of Cape Coral. The incomplete permits were removed from the property prior to actual completion, and copies of falsified permits were given to the closing agent. The falsified permits showed that certificates of occupancy had been issued by the local building department when in fact, this had not occurred. All of the witnesses at the hearing were placed under oath and were subject to cross-examination by Respondent Netram's attorney, Terry Signorella. The Respondent was present at the proceeding and was allowed to present evidence and to testify in his own behalf. At the close of the evidentiary portion of the proceeding on November 16, 1988, Respondent Netram was found guilty by the local board of making misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of his contracting business. He committed these violations by delivering three building permits with forged signatures under the Certificate of Occupancy approval portion of the permits to Miss Peggy Burt of Stewart Title Company in Fort Myers. This conduct constitutes three violations of Section 6.10(1) of the Municipal Code. As a result of the alleged violations, Respondent's permit pulling privileges were suspended for a period of six months. An appeal was not taken of the disciplinary action. On November 15, 1988, an Information was filed against the Respondent which charged the Respondent with five counts of grand theft and scheme to defraud in connection with five separate real estate sales. At the time of hearing, these charges were still pending. The investigator for the State Attorney's offices attended the formal administrative hearing and presented a copy of his investigatory file. All of the testimony and documents presented were uncorroborated hearsay. None of the documents, including official records, were properly verified. There was no evidence submitted in mitigation or in aggravation of the penalties provided for the alleged violations.
Recommendation Because the Respondent committed the misconduct in regards to three different building permits, he should be penalized for his action as to each permit. Accordingly, it is Recommended: That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as set forth in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the Administrative Complaint. That the Respondent be found not guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, for the misconduct alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint. That the Respondent be found guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes, as set forth in paragraph 6 of the complaint. That the Respondent pay a fine of $1 500.00, as set forth in Rule 21E- 17.001(8), Florida Administrative Code, for his willful violation, on three occasions, of the municipal building code. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0819 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1. Rejected. Irrelevant. Not charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Rejected. Insufficient competent evidence provided at hearing. Accepted. Accepted except for the allegation that Respondent forged the inspector's signature. Insufficient proof. See HO #4 and #5. Rejected. Insufficient competent evidence provided at hearing. Rejected. Insufficient competent evidence provided at hearing. Accepted. See preliminary matters. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Gaspari, Esquire Post Office Box 2069 West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Tillack Ram Netram 532 Southeast 18th Place Cape Coral, FL 33904 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Leroy Alvin Colts was qualifier for Berkley Home Service, which held License #RC0029635. Colts held such license from 1977 - 81. In December 28, 1978, Leroy Alvin Colts' local certificate of competency was revoked by the Pinellas County authorities. This action was reviewed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board prior to these charges being filed. On January 4, 1979, Leroy Alvin Colts was adjudged guilty of violating Section 812.021 (Grand Theft) and Section 812.014 (Grand Larceny) and sentenced to 45 years in the State Penitentiary. These offenses arose directly from Colts' activities as a licensed contractor. The court's judgment was affirmed by the appellate court. Notice of this proceeding was provided Colts in the manner prescribed by law, and inquiry of Counsel for the Petitioner Board and representatives of the St. Petersburg Police Department showed that Colts was free on bond and available to attend the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommended that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board revoke Leroy Alvin Colts' license. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 247 South Adams Street Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph F. McDermott, Esquire 544 First Avenue, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner,
