The Issue The issue in this case is whether Orange County Fire Rescue (Respondent) committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination against Marlene Serrano (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a Puerto Rican-born Hispanic female. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Orange County Fire Rescue Department (FRD), a unit of the Orange County government. In order to increase the number of firefighters available to the Respondent, the FRD posted a job advertisement in July 2008 ("Job Req. #007931"), seeking to hire state- certified paramedics who were capable of becoming state-certified firefighters. The advertisement clearly indicated that applicants should be state-certified paramedics who were "[c]apable of successfully completing and maintaining the Florida State Firefighter certification after three (3) years of being hired." Employees hired into the new paramedic-firefighter positions were identified as "paramedics." Employees hired as paramedics only were identified as "PMOs." On September 8, 2008, the FRD officially hired four paramedics for the positions advertised by Job Req. #007931. The group included the Petitioner, two Caucasian females (Sarah Wilson and Jennifer Massey) and a Caucasian male (Shane Doolittle). It was commonly understood by those hired, including the Petitioner, that they were required to obtain state certification as firefighters by September 18, 2011, the third anniversary of their employment. Pursuant to the advertised job requirements, the paramedics were required to pass a physical ability test (referred to as the "CPAT") and complete the Orange County firefighter orientation program. The Petitioner passed the CPAT on her second attempt and completed the orientation program. Candidates seeking to be certified by the State of Florida as firefighters are required to complete a 450-hour firefighter training course (commonly referred to as Firefighter I and II Minimum Standards classes) and to pass a firefighter certification exam. The Petitioner had completed the Firefighter I and II Minimum Standards classes as of December 17, 2010. On December 22, 2010, the Petitioner took the firefighter certification exam at the Central Florida Firefighter Academy and failed the hose and ladder components of the exam. When the Petitioner failed to pass the exam, the Respondent placed her in a fire station with a ladder truck company so that she could improve her ladder skills. On February 22, 2011, the Petitioner retook the firefighter certification exam at a training facility in Ocala, Florida, where she successfully completed the hose component of the exam, but again failed the ladder component. A candidate for firefighter certification is permitted to take the exam twice. A candidate who twice fails the exam is required to retake the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class before being permitted to retake the certification exam. On March 8, 2011, the Petitioner met with FRD officials to assess her progress towards obtaining the firefighter certification. The Petitioner had received notice of the meeting on March 1, 2011, from Assistant Fire Chief Brian Morrow. Similar meetings occurred with the other paramedics employed by the Respondent. During the meeting, the Petitioner advised the FRD officials that she intended to dispute the results of her second test. The Petitioner was aware that she could not retake the certification exam without retaking the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class. Although the Petitioner contacted a training facility to inquire about course schedules, she did not attempt to retake the training course. The March 8 meeting and discussion was memorialized in a letter to the Petitioner dated March 14, 2011. The letter contained an assessment of her progress towards certification. The letter also noted that she was required to obtain her state certification prior to September 18, 2011, and that failure to obtain certification by that date could result in termination of her employment. The Petitioner received the letter on March 16, 2011. In an email dated March 22, 2011, to FRD Lieutenant John Benton, the Petitioner advised that she was trying to determine how she would be able to go to class and maintain her work schedule. Lt. Benton forwarded the email to Assistant Fire Chief Morrow. Assistant Fire Chief Morrow replied to the Petitioner's email on March 29, 2011, wherein he advised her that the FRD had met its obligation to fund the certification training. He asked the Petitioner to advise him of the status of her appeal, to identify the class she was planning to take, and to outline her schedule and specify the hours she would use as vacation time and as "time trades." He asked for a response "as soon as possible" and invited the Petitioner to contact him directly to resolve any questions. The Petitioner received Assistant Fire Chief Morrow's March 29 email, but did not respond to it. Assistant Fire Chief Morrow subsequently contacted the Petitioner by telephone to inquire as to the issues noted in the email, but received little additional information from the Petitioner regarding her plans. After receiving the official notice that she had failed her second attempt at the certification exam, the Petitioner filed an administrative appeal (DOAH Case No 11-1556) to dispute the scoring of the exam. A hearing was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on May 24, 2011. On July 7, 2011, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order finding that the Respondent failed the exam and recommending that the appeal be denied. By Final Order dated August 20, 2011, the State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshall, adopted the findings and recommendation of the ALJ and denied the Petitioner's appeal of the exam grading. The Final Order specifically noted that the Petitioner's certification was denied until she obtained a passing score on the exam. The Petitioner made no further efforts to become a state-certified firefighter. She did not register to retake the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class. As of September 17, 2011, the Petitioner was not a certified firefighter and was not actively engaged in seeking certification. Because the Petitioner did not meet the published job requirements and was making no effort to meet them, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner from employment on September 17, 2011. The Respondent offered to permit the Petitioner to resign from her employment rather than be terminated, but she declined the offer. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that, after she twice failed to pass the certification exam and was unsuccessful in challenging the scoring of the second attempt, she had no further interest in obtaining the certification. There is no evidence that the Petitioner requested an extension of the applicable three-year certification deadline. Nonetheless, the Petitioner has asserted that the Respondent provided deadline extensions to other paramedics and that the Respondent's actions, in not providing an extension to her and in terminating her employment, were based on her race or national origin. There is no evidence to support the assertion. The March 14, 2011, letter specifically referenced the published job requirements set forth in Job Req. #007931, as well as the applicable provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent. The Petitioner was a member of the Orange County Professional Fire Fighters Association. Her employment by the Respondent was subject to a CBA dated December 14, 2010, between the Respondent and the Orange County Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 2057, International Association of Fire Fighters. Section IV, Article 60, of the CBA provided as follows: ARTICLE 60 - PARAMEDIC PROMOTIONS/STATUS CHANGE Employees in the Paramedic classification agree to, upon reaching three (3) years of employment [sic] to meet the requirements of the Firefighter classification. Either upon reaching three (3) years of employment, or upon the desire of the department, the employee shall be moved from the Paramedic pay plan to Step 1 of the Firefighter pay step plan or to the higher nearest step to the employee's Paramedic current rate of pay. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit the Orange County Fire/Rescue Department from terminating the employment of a Paramedic when upon reaching three (3) years employment the minimum requirements for the position of Firefighter have not been met. Employees not meeting the minimum qualifications by the three (3) year employment anniversary may be separated from county employment without a predetermination hearing (PDH) and without access to Article 17 - Grievance and Arbitration Procedure of this contract. It is the sole discretion of Fire Rescue Management to extend the three (3) year time frame limitation due to case-by-case circumstances and/or operational need. The evidence establishes that certification deadlines have rarely been extended by FRD officials. The evidence fails to establish that FRD officials have considered race or national origin in making decisions related to deadline extensions. Sarah Wilson, a Caucasian female, was hired at the same time as the Petitioner and the deadline by which she was required to have obtained firefighter certification was September 18, 2011. Ms. Wilson completed the training course on September 15, 2011. She was scheduled to sit for the certification exam on October 4 and 5, 2011. The scheduling of the exam was the responsibility of the training facility. Neither Ms. Wilson nor the Respondent had any control over the testing date or the scheduling of the exam. The Respondent permitted Ms. Wilson to remain employed beyond the certification deadline and through the dates of the exam, an extension of 17 days. The extension granted to Ms. Wilson was the only time that the Respondent has allowed a paramedic more than 36 months of employment in which to obtain the required certification. Ms. Wilson passed the firefighter exam on October 4 and 5, 2011, and became a state-certified firefighter. Had Ms. Wilson not passed the exam on October 4 and 5, 2011, her employment would have been terminated by the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Wilson retained all required certifications and remained employed as a firefighter paramedic with the FRD. In contrast to Ms. Wilson, the Petitioner was making no effort to obtain the required certification when the certification deadline passed. There was no evidence that the Respondent's extension of Ms. Wilson's certification deadline was based upon race or national origin. Jennifer Massey, a Caucasian female who was hired at the same time as the Petitioner, left her employment with the Respondent prior to the certification deadline. Shane Doolittle, a Caucasian male, was hired at the same time as the Petitioner, and the deadline by which he was required to have obtained firefighter certification was originally September 18, 2011. However, Mr. Doolittle was called to active military duty for three months during the three-year certification period. In order to provide Mr. Doolittle with the full 36 months of employment prior to the certification deadline, the Respondent extended Mr. Doolittle's certification deadline by three months, to December 18, 2011. In contrast to Mr. Doolittle, the Petitioner was employed and present with the FRD throughout the three-year period and had a full 36 consecutive months in which to obtain the required certification. There was no evidence that the Respondent's extension of Mr. Doolittle's certification deadline was based upon race or national origin. Mr. Doolittle did not become certified by the extended deadline, and the Respondent terminated his employment on December 18, 2011. There is no evidence that the Respondent was not invested in each paramedic successfully completing their training and meeting the requirements set forth in Job Req. #007931. The Respondent hired 12 paramedics in 2008. The Respondent paid the tuition and equipment costs for each paramedic who sought state certification as a firefighter. Additionally, the Respondent paid the salaries and benefits for the paramedics while in classes or exams, as well as the costs of the employees who covered the shifts of such paramedics. The Petitioner received the same training and benefits as all other employees seeking certification. The Respondent anticipated that the Petitioner would ultimately complete the training and exam requirements for certification, and she participated in the recruit training graduation ceremony with her colleagues. The 2008 hires included a Puerto Rican-born Hispanic male who obtained his firefighter certification prior to the deadline, and a Caucasian male who resigned from employment in lieu of termination because he had not obtained the firefighter certification by the deadline and was making no progress towards doing so. During the termination meeting with the Petitioner, FRD Chief Michael Howe advised the Petitioner that she was eligible for re-employment with the FRD if she obtained the firefighter certification. About a week after the termination meeting, Chief Howe called the Petitioner and left a voice message, offering to loan equipment to the Petitioner and to sponsor her for a discount on tuition costs, should she choose to retake the required course and become re-eligible for the certification exam. Chief Howe received no response from the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan T. Spradley, Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Post Office Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802 Scott Christopher Adams, Esquire LaBar and Adams, P.A. 1527 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Hugenna D. Outar, operates a twelve-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under the name of Moorehead House Retirement Center at 1405 Northeast Eighth Street, Homestead, Florida. The facility is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and as such, is subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Outar serves as administrator of the facility. On or about August 15, 1987, Paul Grassi, an HRS fire inspector, conducted a routine annual inspection of respondent's facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the facility was in compliance with the fire safety requirements of Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code (1987). The inspec- tion was made in the presence of Outar's mother since Outar was not at the facility that day. Grassi requested documentation showing that all facility fire alarms and smoke detectors had been checked by facility personnel on a quarterly basis. Also, he requested documentation to evidence that all employees had been given monthly training in procedures to be followed in the event of a fire. The former set of records is required by Department of Insurance Rule 4A-40.017, which has been adopted by reference by HRS. The latter requirement is imposed by Rule 10A-5.023(15)(b) and pertains to ACLF's having thirteen or more licensed beds. Because Outar's mother did not know where such documentation was kept, she was unable to comply with Grassi's request. Next, Grassi observed that Room D had a "pocket type" door with no hinges. According to Grassi, a state fire marshal regulation prohibits the use of this type of door in a resident's room and requires instead that a resident's room located by an exit have a door mounted on a hinge that swings outwardly to the corridor. The Classification of Deficiencies refers to the regulation imposing this requirement as "L.S.C. 85, 17-3.6.2" but the regulation itself is not of record or officially noticed. Finally, Grassi observed two residents' rooms with no door closures. According to Grassi, such closures are required on all residents' rooms, pursuant to a state fire marshal regulation, for the purpose of containing and confining a fire in the event of a fire in a room. The regulation was not identified at hearing nor made a part of the record but is referred to in the Classification of Deficiencies as "N.F.P.A. 101-85, 17.3.6.3." After noting these violations, Grassi explained them to the mother and gave her a brief explanation as to how they might be corrected. Each of the three deficiencies were categorized as Class III deficiencies. By letter dated September 24, 1987, HRS advised Outar in writing of the nature of the violations. Although the letter was not prepared until September 24, it instructed Outar to correct the deficiencies by September 14, 1987, or ten days earlier. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Classification of Deficiencies which identified the deficiencies, their class and the date by which they had to be corrected. On October 29, 1987 Grassi made a follow-up survey of respondent's facility. Since Outar was not at the facility that day, the survey was conducted in the presence of Outar's mother. Grassi found none of the deficiencies had been corrected. Accordingly, Outar was sent a letter by HRS on November 6, 1987 advising her that a second follow-up visit would be made. On December 14, 1987 Grassi returned for a third visit. This time Outar was present. Again, Grassi found none of the deficiencies corrected to his satisfaction. However, he conceded that the documentation pertaining to monthly fire drills and quarterly checks of fire alarms and smoke detectors was available for inspection but maintained it was unsatisfactory because all reports were identical and did not vary from month to month. He reasoned that this was contrary to the "intent" of the rule. During the inspection, Outar requested specific advice as to how to comply with the door regulations for which she had been cited. After receiving advice, these changes were made, and her doors now meet all fire safety requirements. Outar operates a small facility with only twelve beds. She pointed out that she had difficulty in installing closures on the two doors in question since two residents used walkers and had placed door "jams" on the doors to give them easy access through the doorway. As to the other door violation, the building was purchased with an archway leading into Room D which made it difficult to install a door mounted on hinges. Outar attempted to comply with Grassi's instructions but her carpenter was unable to make the necessary changes until Outar received specific advice from Grassi on December 14. Finally, Outar stated that the fire drill documentation was available for inspection on August 15 and October 29 but her mother did not know where it was. Outar did not learn it was filled out improperly until she personally spoke with Grassi on his third visit. She now has satisfactory records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against respondent be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012, should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was offered at the final hearing held in the instant case, no findings of fact are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of the State Fire Marshall, enter an order denying Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012. S DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse Beauregard 10731 Northwest 18th Court Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Linje E. Rivers, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
Findings Of Fact On April 17, 1987, petitioner, Gary L. Waldron, filed an application for a certificate of competency with respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). If granted, Waldron would be authorized to take an examination for a certificate of competency as a fire protection system contractor II. After reviewing the application the Department issued a letter on May 5, 1987 advising Waldron that his application had been denied on the ground he lacked the necessary "four years proven experience in the employment of a contractor, or educational equivalent thereto, or a combination thereof." The letter of denial prompted this proceeding. The Department has regulatory jurisdiction over contractors who install fire protection systems. Before engaging in such activities, a person must obtain a certificate of competency from the Department. For regulatory purposes, and depending on the nature of the work, there are four classes of contractors, those being Contractors I, II, III and IV. In this case, Waldron desires certification as a Contractor II. This would authorize him to "lay out, fabricate, install, inspect, alter, repair and service" certain types of fire protection systems, except those that are preengineered. To be eligible for licensure, Waldron must possess "four years proven experience in the employment of a contractor or educational equivalent thereto or a combination thereof." By rule, the agency has provided that such experience may be gained only with a contractor certified as a Contractor I, II, III or IV. This is consistent with its interpretation of the statute as explicated by the chief of the bureau of explosives and fire equipment. Waldron owns a contracting firm, Waldron's, Incorporated, in Fort Lauderdale, and is licensed as a mechanical contractor. Over the last ten years or so, he has installed a number of non-preengineered fire protection systems for various major oil companies at Port Everglades (in Broward County). The Port is one of the largest petroleum storage areas in the Southeast. It is undisputed that the systems installed by Waldron are the types that would ordinarily be installed by a Contractor II. Such systems met the fire safety standards at Port Everglades, which equalled or exceeded relevant state standards adopted by the Department. This was confirmed by the chief of fire and security at Port Everglades and corroborated by petitioner's composite exhibit 1, which documents a variety of jobs completed by Waldron in recent years. In early 1987 Waldron learned that a certificate of competency was required to do the work he had previously been performing. This resulted in Waldron filing his application. Although the application and other evidence of record establish that Waldron has had many years of experience in installing the type of system typically installed by a Contractor II, none was obtained "in the employment of a (licensed) contractor." Further, he does not possess the alternative educational equivalent prescribed by Department rules. Therefore, he is not eligible at this time to take examination for licensure as a Contractor II.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application to take the examination for licensure as a Contractor II be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1987.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal (the Department), properly administered and graded the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination taken by Petitioner, Catalina Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for testing, monitoring and certifying firefighters. The Department conducts certification examinations at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, and some thirty-plus other sites around the State. Those sites are located on college campuses, training facilities, fire stations, and other locales. The test at issue in this proceeding was administered at the Fire College site. Catalina Williams is an Hispanic woman who desires to become a certified firefighter. Her interest in firefighting began when she worked as a photographer covering fire-related events for a magazine and thought it would be exciting and interesting to be on “the front line.” Williams has also served as a caregiver, giving her experience in providing assistance to others, and is a certified lifeguard. In order to accomplish her goal of becoming a firefighter, Williams entered into schooling to learn the trade. Williams first attended First Coast Technological College (First Coast) in 2009. She completed the Firefighter Minimum Basic Standards Course (Firefighter I) that year. In 2010, she enrolled at the school for the summer semester to begin training in the advanced (Firefighter II) curriculum. That school term was shorter and more compressed than a regular semester. Despite her best efforts, Williams did not successfully complete the Firefighter II course. Rochford was one of her instructors during her first unsuccessful enrollment at First Coast. In 2012, Williams entered First Coast again. At that time, she was working as a paid volunteer firefighter for Volusia County. The county paid her tuition costs at First Coast when Williams entered the school for the Firefighter II course work. The second time, Williams was able to successfully complete the course material and pass her final examination. Passing the final examination was a prerequisite to taking the State certification exam. While attending First Coast, Williams took hundreds of practice exams, especially on the practical portions of the tests. She took exams as part of her classes, took exams voluntarily with someone timing her, and took exams just to practice. The State Certification Exam There are four primary segments of the State certification exam: A written examination of 100 multiple choice questions; A hose evolution involving a self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and personal protection equipment (PPE); A ladder/search and rescue evolution; and A skills portion, involving ropes and knots, two fire ground skills, and a short test on the emergency response guide (ERG). The ladder/search and rescue evolution is a practical portion of the exam; it is the singular portion of the test at issue in this proceeding and will be referred to as the ladder evolution. The ladder evolution portion consists of the following tasks and assignments: The candidate inspects ladders hanging on a simulated fire truck. He or she then takes a 24-foot ladder from the truck and extends it against the wall of a building up to the second floor. Once that ladder is properly hoisted, the candidate confirms that a ladder guard (another candidate acting as a spotter) has control of the ladder. The candidate then initiates radio contact and then walks quickly around the building to another ladder that is already in place. He/she must ascend the ladder to the second floor, test the floor inside the building to make sure it is safe, and enter the building through a window. Upon entry the candidate must find a “victim” (a 125-pound mannequin) on the lower floor, secure the victim in an approved manner, and then exit the building with the mannequin. Upon exit, the candidate must safely deposit the victim on the ground and provide notice by way of radio contact that he/she and the victim are outside the building. The radio transmission is something along the lines of: “PAR 2 [Personnel Accountability Reporting, two people]. Firefighter No. “X” and victim have safely exited the building.” The entire ladder evolution sequence must be done within four minutes and 30 seconds although, as will be discussed below, there are differences of opinion as to when the timed portion of the evolution ends. It is necessary for candidates taking the test to pass each of the four sections. Failure of any one portion would result in failure overall. Should a candidate fail the examination, they must reschedule their retest within six months of the failed test. All retest examinations are administered at the Fire College. On test day, there may be dozens of applicants taking the test at the same time. The procedure dictates that candidates arrive at the test facility in time to process paperwork prior to the 7:30 a.m., test commencement. Candidates must first provide identification to an instructor and be assigned a candidate number. They then fill out paperwork, including a waiver should any injuries occur during testing. Candidates will have their gear inspected to make sure it is in compliance with State standards. Prior to commencement of testing, one of the instructors or examiners will read a document called the “Minimum Standards Pre-Exam Orientation” (the Orientation) to the candidates. During the reading of the Orientation, which may take 45 minutes to an hour or more, candidates are allowed and encouraged to ask questions. Unless a question is asked, the Orientation will be read verbatim, word for word, with no additional comment. After the Orientation is read, candidates are walked through the facility so they can familiarize themselves with the test site. Once the test commences, candidates are not allowed to ask any questions. Williams’ Test Experience In October 2012, after successful completion of the Firefighter II course at First Coast, Williams applied for and was approved to take the State certification examination. The exam was conducted at First Coast on the school’s training grounds. The test was conducted by certified employees of the Department. Williams did not pass the examination. One of her shortcomings in that test was a failure in the ladder evolution. Her timed completion of that evolution was in excess of the required time of four minutes and 30 seconds. Williams had been confident she would pass the certification exam because it was similar to the final exam she had passed at First Coast during her schooling. She believes she failed because she was too nervous when she took the exam when it was administered as the actual State certification test. After failing the exam, Williams then applied for a retest which would be held at the Fire College on February 7, 2013. That re-test is the focus of the instant proceeding. On the morning of the retest, Williams arrived well in advance of the 7:30 a.m., start time. As she inspected her gear in anticipation of the start of the exam, she found that the SCBA regulator she was supposed to use did not properly fit the face mask on her helmet. There were extra regulators behind one of the tables being used to process applicants for that day’s test. Examiner Harper was sitting at that table and was providing paperwork to applicants who had already signed in at the first processing station. Williams went to Harper’s table and was allowed to obtain a new regulator. Inasmuch as she was already at Harper’s table getting her replacement regulator before going to the first processing station, Williams went ahead and filled out the paperwork Harper was providing to candidates at his processing station. That is, she filled out the paperwork before actually checking in at the first station. Williams then went to the first check-in table which was manned by Examiner Rochford. She provided her identification to Rochford and was assigned candidate number 37. Rochford then told Williams to go to Harper’s table to fill out the paperwork at that station. Williams told Rochford she had already done so and walked away. (At that point, Williams remembers Rochford yelling at her, asking whether she understood his order and telling her in a harsh manner to obey him. Rochford does not remember talking to Williams at all. Neither version of this alleged confrontation is persuasive. Inasmuch as the conversation was not verified one way or another by a third person -- although there were probably a number of other people around, it will not be considered to have happened for purposes of this Recommended Order.) The Orientation was then read to the candidates. The various portions of the test were addressed in the Orientation. The ladder evolution contained the following language, which Rochford read verbatim to the candidates without anything added or deleted: “Time starts when you touch anything. Time ends when the candidate and victim fully exit the building.” There is no evidence that any of the candidates asked a question concerning this part of the Orientation. Rochford’s timing policy regarding the ladder evolution differs from what he read to the candidates. He takes the position that time stops when the candidate exits the building with the victim, places the victim on the ground in an appropriate manner, and issues a verbal statement into the radio indicating that the firefighter and victim are out of the building. By his own admission, Rochford could not speak to how other examiners handle this timing issue. Harper, who was Williams’ assigned examiner on the test, also seemed to require candidates to lay the victim down and make radio contact before stopping the time. Neither Rochford nor Harper satisfactorily explained why their timing policy was different from what was stated in the orientation. The testimony concerning the correct way of timing the evolution was, at best, confusing. The following statements from the record provide contradictory and disparate opinions by various examiners: Rochford: “As soon as they lay the mannequin on the ground [and] announce they have exited the building . . . the time stops.” Tr. p. 45, lines 9-18 “The mannequin’s feet have got to be outside the plane from the door opening. That’s when the time stops.” Id. Lines 23- 25. “Until they talk on the radio is – - when they finish talking on the radio is when the time would stop.” Tr. p. 255, lines 7-9. Johnson: “At that point, they’ll use one of the prescribed methods for rescue to take the victim and themselves past the threshold out to the fresh air. At that point, the time stops.” Tr. p. 111, lines 11-14 “I read [the Orientation] word for word.” Tr. p. 114, line 23 “On the ladder rescue evolution . . . we [examiners] all stop when they pass the threshold.” Harper: “Then they’re told to lay the victim down, make radio contact you’re out of the building. Time stops.” Tr. p. 138, lines 7-8 “After they make radio contact.” Tr. p. 147, line 3 “[Orientation] says time starts when they touch anything, time ends when the candidate and the victim fully exit the building.” Tr. P. 148, lines 15-17 Hackett: “It stops when the victim comes out of the building.” Tr. p. 222, lines 7-8 [If the victim was thrown out of the building by the firefighter] “I think they would stop the clock.” Id., lines 9-11 “It is part of the timed part that they have to designate that they’re out of the building safely and lay down the victim.” Tr. pp. 222, line 24 through 223, line 1 Question to Hackett: “If [Williams] is coming out and she dropped the victim and picked up -- and presumably picked it up or whatever and then radioed, would that add time?” Answer: “No.” Tr. p. 246, lines 5- 10 Williams was timed by Harper when she took the ladder evolution portion of the exam. According to Harper’s (deposition) testimony, he subscribes to the version of timing that requires the victim to be laid down on the ground and the firefighter to make radio contact. Using that version of timing, Williams received a time of four minutes and 35 seconds for the entire ladder evolution portion of the test. In March, the Department mailed out notices to all the candidates that had tested on February 7. Notices of failure were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. Williams’ letter was returned to the Department as unclaimed. Williams at some point in time found out from Chief McElroy, head of the Fire Academy, that she had purportedly failed the exam. She began calling examiner Harper in March seeking to find out what portion of the exam she had not successfully completed. She had at least two telephone conversations with Harper in March 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Department re-sent the failure letter to Williams, again by certified mail. This time, the letter was claimed by Williams and she became officially aware that she had not passed the exam. The basis given for Williams’ failure was that she did not complete the ladder evolution within the prescribed time parameters. She was timed at four minutes and 35 seconds, just five seconds beyond the allowable limit. It is her contention that she exited the building with the victim within the four minute/30 second time frame. The basis for her belief is that she has done the test so many times that she knows when she is behind schedule. During the test she did not stumble, drop any equipment, or have any other problem that would have added to her time. So, she concludes, she must have completed the evolution timely. Her personal feelings on the matter, without further corroboration or support, are not persuasive. Harper did not testify at final hearing. The transcript of his deposition taken in this case was admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Harper talks about his policy regarding timing of the evolution. His policy is the same as Rochford’s and is discussed above. He does not specifically say if he employed that policy when timing Williams during her test on February 7, 2013. He does not explain the difference between the Orientation statement about timing and his personal policy. The most persuasive evidence at final hearing established that it would have taken ten to 15 seconds after exiting the building to lay the victim down and make radio contact. The radio contact itself would have taken about four seconds. If Harper had stopped his timing when Williams and the victim broke the threshold of the building, her time would have likely been less than four minutes and 30 seconds. If he used his personal timing policy, then the time of four minutes/35 seconds was probably accurate. Harper deducted points from Williams’ score because of other minor mistakes. The totality of those points would not have caused Williams to fail the test. It was the ladder evolution time that caused the failure. In fact, Williams successfully completed all portions of the re-test except for the timing issue in the ladder evolution portion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, rescinding the failing score on the State Firefighter Certification Examination for Catalina Williams and certifying her as a Firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Seth D. Corneal, Esquire The Corneal Law Firm 904 Anastasia Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Michael Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Marlene Serrano ("Serrano"), should be awarded certification as a firefighter or, in the alternative, whether Serrano should be allowed to re-take the hose operation and ladder operation portions of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact Serrano was a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency responsible for testing all candidates for certification as a firefighter, for conducting such tests, and for issuing a certification upon successful completion of minimum requirements by a candidate. One such examination administered by the Department is the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination ("Firefighter examination"). The Firefighter examination has a written portion, as well as three practical components: Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus, Hose Operations, and Ladder Operations. In order to meet the minimum requirements for certification, a candidate must obtain at least a 70-percent score on each component of the Firefighter examination. If a candidate fails the test, he or she is afforded one chance to take a re-test. The ladder component of the Firefighter examination is scored using a form listing five mandatory steps which the candidate must pass and ten evaluative component steps worth ten points each. A candidate taking the ladder component, who successfully passes the five mandatory steps, receives a total score of the sum of the scores from the ten evaluative component steps. A candidate who does not successfully complete one or more of the mandatory steps automatically fails the ladder component section and receives a score of zero out of 100 points. Serrano initially took the Firefighter examination on December 22, 2010. That test was administered at the Firefighter Academy, a more controlled environment. She failed to obtain a passing grade on two components of the examination, the hose operations component and the ladder operation component. Specifically, she failed to successfully complete the components within the required time limit of two minutes, 20 seconds; and one minute, 25 seconds, respectively. Her times were two minutes, 40 seconds; and one minute, 41 seconds, respectively. As allowed by law, Serrano was given the opportunity to re-take those components of the examination one time only. On February 15, 2011, Serrano went to a training facility in Ocala, Florida, to re-take the examination. The Ocala site was more open than the Academy site; there were other non-firefighter personnel engaged in activities in close proximity. Thomas Johnson and Kenneth Harper were the examiners assigned to administer the examination to Serrano. Serrano received a score of 100 on the hose operation component of the examination. She completed that portion of the test in one minute and 25 seconds, within the prescribed time. When Serrano finished the hose operation component, she was going to begin the ladder operation section. However, one of the examiners "yelled" at her that her protective face shield was not in place. That is, the shield had been raised to the top of her helmet, rather than being in the lowered position required during testing. The instructor yelled for her to "put your shield down." Serrano interpreted that instruction as a sign that she had failed the prior (hose operation) test. She began to walk toward the examiners, but they pointed her back in the direction of the ladder test. Serrano was confused, but undertook the ladder operation component of the examination anyway. Her concentration was somewhat broken by the examiner's comments, and she was flustered. Then she heard loud noises coming from the field next to the testing site. Apparently, there were military maneuvers of some type going on at the adjacent field. Furthermore, there was a four-wheeler driving around the training ground, creating more distraction for Serrano. However, the Department's field representative said he had administered over 1,000 tests in the same conditions as were present for Serrano's test. During the test, ten points were deducted from Serrano due to her inability to maintain the ladder in a vertical position. Further, Serrano did not complete the ladder operation component of the examination within the prescribed time frame for that section of the test. Her recorded time was two minutes and 49 seconds, some 29 seconds longer than allowed. The examiner also noted that Serrano almost lost control of the ladder twice during the examination and struggled with the halyard and safety lines. There are numerous events going on at the training site during testing. The training grounds are intentionally somewhat hectic in order to simulate real "fire ground" conditions. There is no attempt made by the examiners to keep the testing site quiet. Conversely, at the Firefighter Academy where firefighters are initially trained, there is less noise and distraction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, dismissing the Petition of Marlene Serrano, in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 2011, 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 7th day of July, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents have violated various statutes and rules governing persons licensed to install and service fire extinguishers and fire suppression systems and, if so, what penalties Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact General Respondents hold Class A and C licenses as fire extinguisher dealers, Class D licenses as pre-engineered systems dealers, Class 01 licenses as fire extinguisher permittees, and Class 04 licenses as pre-engineered systems permittees. Respondent Todd Jacobs (Jacobs) is the qualifier for Respondent National Fire and Safety Corporation (NFS). NFS has been in the fire-safety business for about 15 years. Jacobs received his first permit about ten years ago. Neither Respondent has been disciplined prior to the suspension of all of their licenses and permits effective May 15, 1997, for the incidents described below. The suspension has remained continuously in effect through the present. Pre-engineered systems are custom installations of fire-suppression systems. These pressurized systems, which are activated by heat-sensitive fusible links and small cylinders known as cartridges, feature large metal cylinders that supply the powder through pipes to specific hazard areas. Pre-engineered systems must be installed in accordance with pretested limitations and configurations. Petitioner has cited various violations of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association. As noted in the conclusions of law, violation of these standards, which are incorporated into the rules, provide the basis for discipline. The relevant standards of the National Fire Protection Association are divided into two sections: one governs persons dealing with fire extinguishers and the other governs persons dealing with pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10 is titled, “Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 1-3 defines a “portable fire extinguisher” as a “portable device carried on wheels and operated by hand containing an extinguishing agent that can be expelled under pressure for the purpose of suppressing or extinguishing a fire.” National Fire Protection Association 10 applies to fire extinguishers, not pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 4 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-1.4 provides that “[m]aintenance, servicing, and recharging” of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available the appropriate servicing manual(s), the proper types of tools, recharge materials, lubricants, and manufacturer’s recommended replacement parts or parts specifically listed for use in the fire extinguisher.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.1.2 requires that persons recharging a fire extinguisher shall follow the “recommendations of the manufacturer.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.1 requires that persons recharging fire extinguishers use “[o]nly those agents specified on the nameplate or agents proven to have equal chemical composition, physical characteristics, and fire extinguishing capabilities ” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.2 prohibits persons recharging fire extinguishers from mixing “[m]ultipurpose dry chemicals” with “alkaline-based dry chemicals.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 5 governs the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers. Table 5-2 provides that the longest hydrostatic test interval for fire extinguishers is 12 years. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-1.2 provides that the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and appropriate servicing manual(s).” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers first conduct an internal examination of the cylinder. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers do so in accordance with the “procedures specified in the pamphlet Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders (CGA C-1), published by the Compressed Gas Association.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.2 provides that the testing procedures for low-pressure cylinders, shells, and hose assemblies are detailed in Appendix A. Appendix A contains detailed material, but, according to a prefatory statement, “[t]his Appendix is not part of the requirements of this National Fire Protection Association document but is included for informational purposes only.” National Fire Protection Association 17 is titled, “Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “pre- engineered systems,” in part, as [t]hose having predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of dry chemical [with] specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings and number and types of nozzles prescribed by a testing laboratory.” National Fire Protection Association 17 applies to pre- engineered systems, not fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “inspection” as a “’quick’ check to give reasonable assurance that the extinguishing system is fully charged and operable.” The definition adds that this is done by “seeing that the system is in place, that it has not been activated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage or condition to prevent operation.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-8.3.1 requires that the dry chemical container and expellant gas assemblies of a pre-engineered system shall be located “so as not to be subjected to severe weather conditions or to mechanical, chemical, or other damage.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-9.1 provides that, for pre-engineered systems, the “pipings and fittings shall be installed in accordance with good commercial practices.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Chapter 9 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of pre- engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-1.1 provides that, when dry chemical pressure containers are not attached to piping or hand hose lines, the discharge outlet shall have a protective diffusing safety cap to protect persons from recoil and high-flow discharge in case of accidental activation. The caps shall also be used on empty National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9- 1.4 provides that “[a]ll dry chemical extinguishing systems shall be inspected in accordance with the owner’s manual and maintained and recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual and service bulletins.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2 provides that “[f]ixed temperature-sensing elements of the fusible metal allow type shall be replaced at least annually from the date of installation. They shall be destroyed when removed.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2.1 provides that the “year of manufacture and date of installation of the fixed temperature-sensing element shall be marked on the system inspection tag[,]” and the “tag shall be signed or initialed by the installer.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-4.2 provides that “[s]ystems shall be recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5 requires that trained persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems have “available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and an appropriate service manual(s).” This standard requires hydrostatic testing at 12-year intervals for the dry chemical container, auxiliary pressure containers (unless less than two inches in outside diameter and two feet in length or unless they bear the DOT stamp, “3E”), and hose assemblies. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems subject the tested components of hydrostatic test pressure equal to the marked factory test pressure or the test pressure specified in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. This test prohibits any leakage, rupture, or movement of hose couplings and requires test procedures in accordance with the manufacturer’s detailed written hydrostatic test instructions.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems remove and discard the dry chemical agent from the containers prior to the test. Page Field (Counts I and II) In March 1997, Rick Clontz, a Lee County employee, asked Roland Taylor, an NFS employee, to service components of the fire-safety system at the Lee County Hazardous Materials Facility at Page Field in Fort Myers. This fire-safety system protects an area at which Lee County stores corrosive, flammable, and poisonous materials. Initially, Mr. Taylor removed three ten-pound ABC fire extinguishers. These are small portable cylinders, whose “ABC” designation refers to their ability to suppress a broad range of fires. According to the National Fire Protection Association standards, Class A fires involve “ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, and many plastics.” Class B fires involve “flammable liquids, oils greases, tars, oil-based paints, lacquers, and flammable gases.” Class C fires involve “energized electrical equipment . . . .” On April 1, 1997, Mr. Taylor returned the three 10- pound ABC fire extinguishers. Later inspection revealed that Mr. Taylor had properly removed and discarded the ABC powder from each cylinder, but he had refilled only one of the three cylinders entirely with ABC powder. He erroneously filled the other two cylinders with mixtures of 75 percent and 50 percent BC powder. The improper filling of two of the fire extinguishers at the Page Field Hazardous Materials Facility threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Meeting Mr. Taylor at the Page Field facility when Mr. Taylor returned the three small cylinders, Mr. Clontz asked him to remove the 50-pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder and hydrostatically test it. Mr. Taylor noted that the cylinder was not yet due for this test, but quoted a price to which Mr. Clontz agreed, and Mr. Taylor disconnected the cylinder from the pre-engineered system and transported it from the site. Hydrostatic testing is a hydraulic interior pressurization test that measures ductility, which is the ability of cylinder walls to expand and contract. The purpose of hydrostatic testing is to determine the suitability of a cylinder for continued service. Hydrostatic testing requires the tester to release the pressure and empty the contents of a cylinder. Using specialized equipment, the tester then fills the cylinder with water, pressurizing it to twice the service pressure or, for the systems cylinders involved in this case, 1000 pounds per square inch. Cylinder failure from the loss of structural integrity can result in a dangerous rupture, possibly causing an improperly bracketed cylinder to launch like an unguided missile. A cylinder that passes its hydrostatic test does not have to be retested for 12 years. Three days later, Mr. Taylor returned the Ansul cylinder with a tag stamped to show the date on which NFS had hydrostatically tested the cylinder. Mr. Taylor reconnected it to the pre-engineered system, changing the three fusible links. However, Mr. Taylor did not tighten the actuation piping wrench-tight, as required by the manufacturer’s specification. Instead, Mr. Taylor left the actuation piping sufficiently loose that it might cause a failure of the pre- engineered system to activate. As Respondents conceded, the loose actuation piping threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Finished with his work, Mr. Taylor gave Mr. Clontz a receipt, but no diagram or report, as Mr. Clontz usually received after such service. Consistent with the work requested by Lee County, the receipt stated that NFS had hydrostatically tested and recharged the three ten-pound and one 50-pound cylinders. However, NFS had not hydrostatically tested the 50- pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. NFS had not even changed the powder in the cylinder. Jacobs was personally aware of these facts and personally authorized the deceitful stamping of the tag to show a hydrostatic testing. The fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the hydrostatic testing of the Ansul SPA 50 cylinder threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, NFS had replaced the three fusible links with three other fusible links. Petitioner failed to prove that there are material differences between the two types of links so as to justify discipline. There are two differences between the links. First, NFS used Globe links rather than Ansul links. However, Ansul links are manufactured by Globe. The Ansul expert testified that Ansul subjects the links to an additional inspection. However, the record does not reveal whether Globe does not also subject its brand-name links to another inspection that it does not perform for the links that it manufactures for Ansul. The Ansul expert did not testify as to the defect rate resulting from the Ansul inspection or any difference between the performance of the “two” links. On this record, then, there is no demonstrated difference in the two brand-named fusible links. The second difference is that NFS installed an ML link rather than the newer K link currently in use. Ansul approved the ML link in the Ansul SPA 50 pre-engineered system until five years ago. At that time, Ansul authorized use of the older ML link until dealer inventories were depleted. Even assuming that the K link represents a safety advance, compared to the ML link, Ansul’s gradual introduction of the new link precludes a finding that the difference was material, unless one were to assume that Ansul disregarded public safety when authorizing the gradual introduction of the new link. Respondents conceded that they did not have a copy of the Ansul SPA 50 manual when they serviced the Ansul SPA 50 system. They have since obtained the manual. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to have the manual threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondents conceded that they did not produce the inspection form for the system. They had provided such a form previously. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to produce an inspection form threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. At the hearing, Petitioner agreed not to pursue the claim against Respondents regarding the LT10R cartridge. Petitioner effectively conceded that Respondents were not required to hydrostatically test the cartridge because it is exempt from such testing. Petitioner evidently elected not to pursue the recharging issue for other reasons. Mobile Service Units (Counts III-V The service truck operated by Mark Thackeray did not have a conductivity tester, certified scales, or proper manuals. The conductivity tester ensures that the braiding is intact on carbon dioxide hoses. The certified scales ensures that the cylinder is filled with the proper amount of dry chemical. The manuals ensure that the person servicing a pre- engineered system understands all of its components and how it works. Additionally, one cylinder in the truck had a drill bit instead of a safety pin installed in the head of the bottle. Petitioner also proved that the fire extinguisher and pre-engineered system tags bore the Naples and Fort Myers addresses for NFS. As noted below, the Fort Myers location was inactive, used only for storage and drop-offs and not for shop work or retail sales activity. For several years, Petitioner’s representatives knew that the tags bore both addresses and knew that the Fort Myers location was inactive, but never objected to Respondents’ practice. The only violation involving Mr. Thackeray’s truck that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. The service truck operated by Ward Read lacked an operational inspection light, six-inch vise, and proper manuals. Additionally, Mr. Read’s truck had tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses for NFS. However, none of these violations involving Mr. Read’s truck threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read’s truck lacked leak testing equipment. The truck had a bottle of Leak Tech with which to detect leaks in fire extinguishers. The truck also had a cable-crimping tool. The truck lacked a Kidde tool, but Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read installed Kidde systems off this truck or that the crimping tool present on the truck could not service adequately Kidde installations. The service truck operated by Donald Zelmanski lacked an inspection light, a six-inch vise, certified scales, leak-testing equipment, and proper manuals. Mr. Zelmanski’s truck contained tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses. The only violation that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. Naples and Fort Myers Facilities (Counts VI-VII) The NFS Naples facility lacked operational hydrostatic test equipment on April 9, 1997. Respondents claim that they were having the equipment upgraded and calibrated at the time of the inspection. Ordinarily, this defense might be creditable, but not in this case. While the hydrostatic test equipment was out of service, NFS accepted the Page Field cylinder for hydrostatic testing and returned it to service, fraudulently representing that the cylinder had been hydrotested. This is precisely the practice against which the requirement of operational testing equipment is designed to protect. The Naples facility also lacked certified gauges for low-pressure testing. Respondents claim that the equipment upgrade described in the preceding paragraph would allow them to test high- and low-pressure cylinders on the same machine. However, due to Respondents’ fraudulent handling of the Page Field cylinder during the equipment downtime, this defense is unavailing. The Naples facility lacked an adapter to allow Respondents to recharge an Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. Jacobs drove the Page Field cylinder to St. Petersburg to have the cylinder recharged by a competitor that had such an adapter. However, the requirement that a facility have an adapter reduces the risk that a licensee will ignore its professional responsibilities and simply return a cylinder to service without first discharging it and performing a visual internal inspection. Respondents’ failure to discharge their other professional responsibilities underscores the materiality of the requirement that they keep an adapter for the Ansul SPA 50 that they elected to accept for service. Respondents kept tags at the Naples facility with tags containing addresses of the Naples and Fort Myers facilities. At the time of the inspection, Respondents also lacked documentation for two of eight scales, including a scale in 1/4-pound increments. Jacobs’ claim that they sent the two uncertified scales for servicing immediately after the inspection does not obviate the fact that, at the time of the inspection, they were available for use and in disrepair. Respondents failed to include serial numbers of serviced fire extinguishers on the relevant invoices. Respondents also failed to include the necessary permit number on inspection forms. Respondent falsely represented that they had hydrotested the Page Field Ansul SPA 50 cylinder at the Naples facility when they had not done so. Respondents stored cylinder bottles without safety caps in place. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents did not post DOT certification near the hydrostatic testing equipment or that they stocked nitrogen cylinders without an acceptable blow-out disk in place. The blow-out disks were not Ansul brand, but Petitioner failed to prove that the disks were not UL listed or the substantial equivalent of Ansul disks. Respondents concede that the Fort Myers location lacked the items alleged by Petitioner. However, the Fort Myers location is inactive and serves merely as a drop-off or storage facility. All shop work and retail sales activities occur at the Naples location. At the time of the April 1997 inspection, Respondents surrendered the license for the inactive Fort Myers location. Other Jobs (Counts VIII-XI) Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the SunTrust Bank in Naples. The cylinder is in the bank vault, which it is designed to protect. Petitioner charged that Respondents improperly located the cylinder in the hazard area, but Petitioner did not discuss the fact that the cylinder at Page Field was in the hazard area. Obviously, the corrosive effect of the hazardous materials at Page Field represents a greater risk to the cylinder than the corrosive effect of money and other valuables in the vault at the SunTrust. Additionally, some language in the Ansul manual cautions not to locate the cylinder in the hazard area, but only if the hazard is corrosive. Respondents replaced the fusible links at SunTrust annually. However, they failed to record the year of manufacture of the fusible links on the system tag when last servicing the system in October 1996. There is no evidence as to whether Respondents had suitable Ansul manuals and adapters when it serviced the system at that time. Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the VFW Post in Naples. In doing so, their employee, who also misfilled the three fire extinguishers at Page Field, left the end-pipe-to-nozzle loose, so as to risk a loss of pressure in case of fire. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Although Respondents fired this employee shortly after discovering his poor performance, this action does not eliminate the safety violations for which he, and they, are responsible. Petitioner also proved that Respondents located the 260 nozzle over the griddle in the wrong location. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare because the system might not extinguish a fire on the griddle. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents located the 230 nozzle in the wrong location. The Ansul manual allows this nozzle to be located anywhere along or within the perimeter of the fryer, if aimed to the center of the fryer. The 230 nozzle was so located and aimed. Respondents installed two pre-engineered systems at Mozzarella’s Café in Naples. In the course of this job, Respondents committed several violations governing documentation. Respondents improperly combined two pre- engineered systems on one inspection report, failed to include in the inspection report references to the manufacturer’s drawings and page numbers, failed to list in the inspection report a second gas valve on the front hood of one system, and failed to include in the inspection report Respondents’ permit number. However, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the type of fusible links in each hood. Respondents serviced a pre-engineered system at Kwan’s Express in Fort Myers in December 1996. Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the degree and types of fusible links installed and a reference to the drawing and page number in the manufacturer’s manual. However, Respondents listed in the inspection report the model number of the system. Red Lobster (Count XII) Several months after Petitioner had suspended Respondents’ licenses and permits, counsel for both parties negotiated a settlement agreement. Under the agreement, Petitioner would immediately lift the suspension. Jacobs and his general manager, Judson Schroyer, learned that Respondents’ counsel had received an unsigned, final draft settlement agreement on Monday, August 18, 1997. The settlement conditions were acceptable to Respondents, and Jacobs knew that Respondents’ counsel had signed the agreement and faxed it back to Petitioner’s counsel for execution by Petitioner’s representative. On August 18, the general manager of the Red Lobster in Naples called NFS and spoke with Jacobs. The general manager described a job involving the installation of a new oven, which would necessitate the relocation of other kitchen equipment a few feet. Thinking that the settlement agreement would be fully executed by then, Jacobs agreed to visit the general manager at the site the following morning. The next morning, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer met the general manager at the Red Lobster. Giving the general manager NFS business cards with their names, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer briefly examined the pre-engineered system in the kitchen, as the three men walked through the kitchen, and assured the general manager that there would be no problem doing the work in the short timeframe that the customer required. The purpose of the visit was much more for marketing than it was for preparation for the relatively simple job that the general manager envisioned. Shortly after leaving the Red Lobster, Mr. Schroyer realized that Respondents might not have their licenses and permits reinstated in time to do the job. He conveyed this concern to his supervisor, Jacobs, who spoke with Respondents’ counsel on the evening of August 19 and learned that they could not do the job. Jacobs instructed Mr. Schroyer to call another company in Fort Myers, FireMaster, to which Respondents had referred work during their suspension. Mr. Schroyer called a representative of FireMaster, and he agreed to perform the work. FireMaster assigned the job to Ward Read, who, as is authorized by Petitioner, held a dual permit, which means that he was permitted to work for two licensed dealers. One was NFS, and the other was FireMaster. Mr. Read reported to the Red Lobster in the predawn hours of August 21, as requested by the general manager of Red Lobster. Because his FireMaster truck had insufficient supplies, Mr. Read used an NFS truck, the equipment tags, inspection report, and invoice all bore the name of FireMaster.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshal enter a final order suspending the licenses and permits of both Respondents for two years, commencing from the effective date of the earlier emergency order of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Mechele R. McBride Attorney Richard Grumberg Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark H. Muller Quarles & Brady, P.A. 4501 North Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34103 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal can revoke Respondent's certification as a firefighter because Respondent failed to timely complete the requirements to maintain his Firefighter Certificate of Compliance prior to September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352, Florida Statutes (2010).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certifying firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. On June 30, 2006, Respondent also obtained certification as a fire Instructor III. On October 9, 2006, Pointu obtained his Firefighter II Certificate of Compliance ("certification"). On September 30, 2008, Respondent stopped volunteering with Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Volunteer Fire Department ("Lauderdale-By-The-Sea"). Prior to July 1, 2010, state certified fire instructors were able to maintain their firefighter certification as long as their fire instructor certification was current. On July 1, 2010, the statutory requirements for firefighters changed. Section 633.352 was amended to require a certified firefighter be a full-time fire instructor or a full- time fire inspector to maintain certification. The 2010 statutory change retained a three-year period for firefighters to complete the requirements to maintain certification. It is undisputed that between September 30, 2008, and September 30, 2011, Pointu did not perform any of the necessary requirements to maintain his certification in section 633.352, such as retake the Minimum Standards Examination; maintain employment as a firefighter or volunteer firefighter; or work full time as an instructor or firesafety inspector. On April 6, 2012, the Department distributed an informational bulletin titled "Firesafety Instructors & Maintenance of Firefighter Certification." The bulletin stated in bold "The 3-year period begins on July 1, 2010 for persons who held an active instructor certification and an active firefighter certification as of June 30th, 2010." Question 7 of the bulletin also provided: 7. Is the Division of the State Fire Marshal attempting to amend the State Statute to reflect the previous language that does not require "full-time employment as a fire instructor"? The Division has attempted to amend or reinstate this language, however, the Statute remains unchanged, and the Division may not be successful in amending the language to its previous form. Pointu received the 2012 bulletin and determined that since he held an active instructor certification and active firefighter certification as of June 30, 2010, his firefighter certification period started July 1, 2010, and expired July 1, 2013. On July 1, 2013, section 633.352 was revised amended and renumbered legislature as section 633.414. The statutory amendment also changed the three-year recertification cycle to a four-year cycle and removed the full-time instructor requirement. Respondent used the 2013 statutory change to calculate his certification validation date until 2018. In 2014, Pointu contacted the Department regarding his certification after being told by a county official that his certification was not valid. Thereafter, over an approximate two-year period, Respondent was informed various and conflicting information regarding his certification status and expiration dates. The Department does not have a statutory requirement to provide notice to certified individuals of requirements to maintain certification. The Fire College Department of Insurance Continuing Education ("FCDICE") database monitors and manages all firefighters' certifications. Department's interim chief, Michael Tucker ("Tucker"), made the final decision regarding Pointu's certification. Tucker reviewed FCDICE and did not find any records which demonstrated Pointu's renewal of certification prior to September 29, 2011. Tucker correctly determined that the 2010 version of the statute applied to Pointu's certification because Respondent left his employment at Lauderdale-By-The-Sea on September 30, 2008, which made his three-year period for renewal deadline September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352. Tucker also established that Pointu did not fulfill the minimum requirements to renew his certification prior to September 30, 2011, because he did not become employed again, volunteer with a fire department, become a full-time fire inspector or a full-time instructor, or retake the practical portion of the examination. After evaluating Respondent's certification history, Tucker concluded Respondent failed to meet the minimum firefighter requirements and therefore Pointu's certification is not valid and should be revoked. At hearing, Tucker acknowledged that he was not familiar with the issuance of the April 6, 2012, bulletin, but, after reviewing it, he determined there were misstatements in the bulletin regarding requirements for certification because the Department did not have the authority to waive any statutes. On June 3, 2011, Petitioner issued an amended Notice that it intended to revoke Pointu's certification for failure to renew his certification within three years of employment termination from an organized fire department pursuant to section 633.352. Pointu contested the notice and requested a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Patrick Pointu, violated section 633.252, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Firefighter Certificate of Compliance be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 31st day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa E. Dembicer, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 (eServed) Merribeth Bohanan, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Patrick Pointu (Address of Record-eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post (Petitioner or Mr. Post), achieved a passing score on the practical exam for firefighter certification.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the regulatory process governing firefighters, including the process by which candidates apply for certification as firefighters in the State of Florida. In addition to meeting certain background and training requirements, candidates must take and attain passing scores on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination) administered by the Department. Mr. Post applied to the Department for firefighter certification. There is no dispute that Mr. Post met the background and training qualifications for certification in all respects. In addition, Mr. Post took and passed the written portion of the firefighter examination. At issue is whether Mr. Post attained a passing score on the practical portion of the firefighter examination (practical exam). The practical exam has four components covering the following subjects: self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); hose operations; ladder operations; and fireground scenarios. In order to pass the practical exam, a candidate must obtain a score of at least 70 percent on each component. If a candidate does not pass the practical exam, the candidate is offered the opportunity for a retest. The practical exams are conducted by Bureau field representatives. A field representative evaluates each candidate's performance and records the candidate's scores on a form called "minimum standards exam field notes" (field notes). There is a separate field notes form for each component of the practical exam. The field notes form identifies each of the separate skills or activities tested. Certain items are scored on a pass-fail basis, because they are considered mandatory skills. Thus, the failure to achieve an acceptable result in a mandatory item results in automatic failure for the component. Other tested items are considered evaluative, and the candidate's performance is given a point score. A total of 100 points is possible for all of the evaluative items; a candidate must attain a score of at least 70 to pass the component. Mr. Post took the firefighter examination on June 13, 2012. In the practical exam, Mr. Post received passing scores of 100 percent for the SCBA component; 100 percent for the hose operation component; and 70 percent for the fireground scenarios component. However, Mr. Post failed the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered Mr. Post's practical exam on June 13, 2012, and who completed the field notes reflecting how he scored Mr. Post's performance. Mr. Harper has been a Bureau field representative for more than five years, and in that time, he has administered thousands of practical exams. Mr. Harper gave Mr. Post a failing score for not donning and securing all personal protective equipment (PPE) properly. Donning and securing PPE properly is considered a mandatory item that has to be achieved, because of the importance of this skill to a firefighter's safety. To emphasize the safety concern associated with failing to don and secure all PPE properly, Mr. Harper also gave Mr. Post a failing score for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death. The "unsafe act" scoring category is separate on the field notes form from the mandatory item "donning and securing all PPE properly." However, a failing score in either one of these categories alone required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Thus, giving Mr. Post a failing score for an "unsafe act" had no effect on his score; Mr. Post's failing score for not donning and securing his PPE properly required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper credibly explained why he judged Mr. Post's donning and securing of his PPE to be improper. He recalled in precise detail how Mr. Post's mask had a five-point harness mechanism that is designed to hold the face piece tight to the face, creating an air-tight seal that will keep out dangerous smoke and fumes. There were two straps at the temple, two straps at the jaw, and one at the top center. To secure the mask, the two jaw straps are supposed to be pulled tight at the same time, then the two temple straps are pulled tight at the same time, then the top strap is pulled last to pull the mask up evenly on the face. Mr. Post did not secure his mask this way. Instead of pulling the two jaw and temple straps at the same time, he held the face piece with one hand, and pulled the straps on one side of his face with his other hand. This pulled the mask to the side, instead of centering it. Mr. Post testified that his face piece was on good enough for him to achieve an air-tight seal, which was maintained throughout the exercise. Therefore, he took issue with the opinion that the way he put on his PPE was unsafe. Mr. Post's statements were inconsistent regarding whether the mask was askew, pulled to one side. At the final hearing, Mr. Post testified at first that Mr. Harper's field notes comment was incorrect when it said that the "face piece was pulled to left side." Mr. Post testified that he disagreed with the field notes comment that his face piece was "pulled to one side." But then Mr. Post acknowledged that "it could have been maybe a little bit to the left, but there was no poor seal at all times." This latter statement was closer to Mr. Post's statement in his hearing request: "I had a seal of my face piece but was failed because the harness wasn't quite centered on my head." Mr. Post essentially admitted that he did not "properly" don and secure all of his PPE; his argument is with the extent to which it was improper, and whether his failure to properly secure the harness actually caused harm. Mr. Harper's testimony that Mr. Post improperly donned and secured his PPE and that this failure was an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death is accepted. Mr. Harper credibly explained the danger of a mask not being harnessed securely with a centered face piece. Even though it is possible to initially attain a proper seal with an off-centered face piece, as Mr. Post did, the fact that it is not properly secured to be centered on the face means that it is easier to dislodge than a centered, properly-harnessed mask. Anything jarring the head gear, or even an abrupt head movement, could cause the mask to move further off-center and break the critical seal that protects the firefighter from toxic gases and smoke. These serious risks cannot be brushed aside simply because Mr. Post managed to make it through a short simulated exercise without dislodging his off-centered mask. The Bureau notified Mr. Post that he did not achieve a passing score on his practical exam because of his failed score on the ladder operations component. As provided by statute, Mr. Post was advised that he was allowed one opportunity to retake the practical exam. Mr. Post took the practical exam retest on September 18, 2012. Once again, Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered the practical exam to Mr. Post. Mr. Post admitted that his retest "was pretty sloppy." On the hose operations component, once again, Mr. Post had problems donning and securing all of his PPE. This time, the problems were with the gear that was supposed to protect his torso. As Mr. Post acknowledged, "my shoulder strap was twisted and . . . my high-pressure hose [was] under [the] strap. That is true. I remember that." His jacket was pulled up in the back, and his shirt was exposed. Based on these problems, Mr. Post received an automatic failure under the mandatory category for failing to don and secure all PPE properly. Mr. Post admitted that he failed to don and secure all of his protective equipment properly. The protective jacket is not supposed to be pulled up in the back, exposing one's shirt. Shoulder straps are not supposed to be twisted, with the high-pressure hose caught under a strap. Mr. Post testified that he did not think he should have been failed for these admitted problems with putting on his protective gear, because no skin was exposed. However, he offered no legitimate challenge to the reasonableness of the exam itself, which makes the proper donning and securing of all of one's PPE a mandatory step. As described, it was entirely reasonable to give Mr. Post an automatic failure on this retest component for his improper donning and securing of his protective gear. Mr. Post also received an automatic failure in the ladder operations component. There were two separate problems with this exercise. One problem was Mr. Post's failure to fully secure the ladder's "dogs" or locking devices that secure the separate sections of a multi-section ladder. The dogs are like clamps that are activated by a spring mechanism; when employed properly, they clamp around a rung at the joinder point of the ladder's separate sections. In Mr. Post's ladder exercise, he failed to properly employ the dogs; they were not fully secured in place around the rung. Instead, they were balanced on the tips, sitting on top of the rung, instead of locked around the rung. Mr. Post attempted to argue that it was not possible for him to have failed to properly employ the dogs in this manner because if the dogs were not locked, the ladder would have fallen down and his stayed upright. However, as Mr. Harper credibly explained, the dogs were sitting on top of the rung (instead of clamped around it). As such, the ladder could remain upright, albeit, in a precarious state that depended on the dogs keeping their balance on top of a rung, instead of in a secure state with the dogs locked in place around the rung. Mr. Harper's testimony is credited; Mr. Post did not effectively rebut the testimony regarding his improper employment of the dogs. The second problem Mr. Post had in the ladder operations component of his retest came in the part of the exercise in which Mr. Post was supposed to exit the building carrying the "victim" and retreat to safety. According to the field notes, Mr. Post received an automatic failure for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death, because he was running backwards with the victim. Mr. Post did not take issue with this aspect of his retest scoring, admitting that the field notes were accurate: "When you're carrying the victim out of a building, that's the only time you're allowed to go backwards, but I guess I was running where I should have been walking. But I don't really--I don't really testify against that." Mr. Post expressed some generalized concern with the fact that the same field representative--Mr. Harper--administered Mr. Post's initial examination and the retest. However, no evidence was offered to suggest that Mr. Harper's administration of the practical exam or the retest was improper or unfair to Mr. Post in any respect. Indeed, Mr. Post essentially conceded that Mr. Harper fairly and reasonably assessed Mr. Post's admittedly sloppy performance on the retest. Mr. Post's concession in this regard puts to rest any implication that Mr. Post might not have failed the retest if a different field representative had been assigned. Instead, the evidence established that Mr. Post's performance in the practical exam retest earned three different automatic failures, any one of which would have resulted in an overall failing grade on the retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, denying the application of Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post, for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2013.
