The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only (“SWO”) and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“AOPA”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Background The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is the agency responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. Allstate is a corporation engaged in business in the State of Florida. Allstate was organized on May 23, 2005. Edgar A. Ezelle is the president and registered owner of Allstate. The address of record for Allstate is 8217 Firetower Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. In March 2017, Respondent was hired as the general contractor to renovate a hotel at a jobsite located at 3050 Reedy Creek Boulevard. When Respondent accepted the project, Prestige Handyworkers, LLC (“Prestige”), a subcontractor, was working on the jobsite. Although Prestige was hired by the previous general contractor, Respondent continued to work with Prestige. On June 15, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Kirk Glover, conducted a routine visit to the jobsite to conduct a compliance investigation. Mr. Glover observed six individuals performing construction-related work at the site. Mr. Glover conducted an interview of the individuals and took notes during the course of his interviews. Mr. Glover identified the individuals as: Luis Miguel Paz; Joseph A. Pizzuli; Roger Penley, Jr.; Georgios Rapanakis; Stavros Georgios Rapanakis; and Joseph Youngs. The six individuals were employed by subcontractor Prestige to perform work on behalf of Allstate. Luis Miguel Paz, Joseph A. Pizzuli, and Roger Penley, Jr., were engaged in painting work; Georgios Rapanakis and Stavros Georgios Rapanakis were supervising the other workers; and Joseph Youngs was engaged in cleanup of the construction site. The workers did not testify at the final hearing. Mr. Glover then contacted Allstate president, Edward Ezelle, who confirmed he was the general contractor for the jobsite and that he retained Prestige as the subcontractor for the site. Mr. Glover conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which revealed that Respondent did not have active workers’ compensation coverage for Prestige or its employees. Prestige did not have workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. The search of CCAS revealed that Mr. Ezelle had an active workers’ compensation coverage exemption, effective July 27, 2015, through July 26, 2017. Based on the results of his investigation, on June 16, 2017, Mr. Glover issued an SWO to Allstate for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On June 19, 2017, Mr. Glover hand-served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations (“Records Request”). The Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of June 16, 2015, through June 15, 2017. Respondent did not provide any business records to the Department. Mr. Ezelle testified that Allstate did not conduct business in Florida for the period of September 2016 through March 2017. While the undersigned has no reason to doubt Mr. Ezelle’s testimony that his business was not active during that time period, Respondent failed to produce records in response to the Records Request to support his testimony. Penalty Assessment To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, June 16, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. If the employer does not produce records sufficient to determine payroll for employees, the Department uses the imputed payroll to assess the penalty as required by section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to calculate the penalty assessment for Respondent. Based upon Mr. Glover’s observations at the jobsite on June 16, 2017, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) classification code 5474 to calculate the penalty. Classification code 5474 applies to work involving painting. Ms. Jackson applied the approved manual rates for classification 5474 for each of the six individuals working on the jobsite. The application of the rates was utilized by the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027 to determine the penalty assessment. The manual rate applied in this case was $11.05 for the period of June 16, 2015, through December 31, 2015; and $11.02 for the period of January 1, 2016, through June 15, 2017. The statewide average weekly wage, effective January 1, 2017, was used to calculate the penalty assessment. Georgios Rapanakis and Starvos Georgios Rapanakis had a workers’ compensation exemption for the period of June 16, 2015, through June 10, 2016. However, they were not covered by an exemption from June 11, 2016, through June 15, 2017. Although Mr. Ezelle has an exemption, his exemption was not in effect for a short period of July 19, 2015, through July 26, 2015. None of the other employees had an exemption. Based upon the Department’s calculation, the penalty assessment for the imputed payroll would be $153,908.20. On November 17, 2017, the Department filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment (“Motion for Leave to Amend”). The Department sought leave from the undersigned to amend the penalty assessment. The Department, as a party, is not authorized to amend a penalty without leave from the undersigned after the matter was filed with the Division. See § 120.569(2)(a) and Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.202. Despite the AOPA reflecting an issued date of July 14, 2017, the record supports a finding that the AOPA was issued November 17, 2017, the date the undersigned granted the Department’s Motion for Leave to Amend. Thus, the Department issued the AOPA for the imputed payroll 105 business days after Respondent received the Records Request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order as follows: finding that Respondent failed to secure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its subcontractors; and dismissing the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 26th day of January, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Christina Pumphrey, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 (eServed) Edgar Ezelle Allstate Custom Contracting, Inc. 8217 Firetower Road Jacksonville, Florida 32210 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 central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's employment with the Respondent was terminated in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was an employee of FRSA. On or about September 26, 1989, Petitioner's employment with FRSA was terminated and the charges of discrimination were filed. Prior to termination, Petitioner's work performance with the company had been acceptable. In fact, for the performance review issued on January 31, 1989, Petitioner received a superior rating in eight of the eleven categories, a good rating in two categories, and an outstanding rating in one category. At the time of her termination with FRSA, Petitioner earned an annual salary of $35,000. Petitioner claims a total of $83,568 for the lost wages and benefits resulting from her termination with FRSA. At the time of her termination, Petitioner was pregnant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the charge of discrimination filed by the Petitioner in this cause against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Rubeis Reno Rubeis 4350 Wyndcliff Circle Orlando, Florida 32817 Susan McKenna Garwood & McKenna, P.A. 322 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1992. Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.1/
Findings Of Fact Mr. Charlot is a Black male of Haitian descent. Mr. Charlot was employed by the County in the Department for almost 16 years before he was terminated in December 2008. The Department operates Miami International Airport (Airport). At the time of his termination and all times material hereto, Mr. Charlot's classification was an Airport Automotive Equipment Operator II, operating heavy machinery in maintenance work at the Airport. At all times material hereto, the majority of the Department's employees were Hispanic, including the supervisors. Mr. Charlot's Dismissal before the Aviation Director By letter dated December 12, 2008, the Aviation Director, José Abreu, dismissed Mr. Charlot from employment with the Department and the County, effective the close of business on December 4, 2008, upholding the "recommendation by management" for dismissal. Mr. Abreu indicated, among other things, that, in upholding the recommendation, he considered the Disciplinary Action Report (DAR) and Mr. Charlot's work history. Furthermore, Mr. Abreu indicated, among other things, that his decision on termination was based in part upon Mr. Charlot's violations of the County's Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraphs (I), (R), and (BB), related to Mr. Charlot's arrest on grand theft charges; and that the basis for his (Mr. Abreu's) final decision was based upon Mr. Charlot's disregard for County Personnel Rules. Additionally, Mr. Abreu indicated that, because Mr. Charlot failed to attend the meeting at which Mr. Charlot would have been able to appeal management's recommendation, he (Mr. Abreu) had no additional factors to consider in making his decision. Consequently, Mr. Charlot was dismissed from employment with the Department and the County, effective close of business on December 4, 2008. The DAR dated September 25, 2008, was considered by Mr. Abreu. The DAR notified Mr. Charlot that he was charged with violating the County's Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraphs (I), (R), and (BB), which provides: (I) that the employee has been guilty of conduct unbecoming an employee of the County whether on or off duty, provided allegations shall be specific and shall describe the conduct which is the basis of the charge; (R) that the employee has misappropriated County funds, appropriated County property for personal use, or illegally disposed of County property; and (BB) that the employee has violated any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The DAR dated September 25, 2008, set forth revised facts. Those revised facts state that, on September 24, 2008, Mr. Charlot was re-arrested, arraigned, and formally charged with a third degree felony for theft of County property based upon an incident occurring on August 5, 2008; and that, also, as a result of the formal charge, the County automatically placed Mr. Charlot on suspension without pay. Additionally, the revised facts recite facts stated in a DAR dated August 6, 2008, issued as a result of the incident occurring on August 5, 2008, which cited the same violations of the County's Personnel Rules. In essence, the DAR facts state that, on August 5, 2008, Mr. Charlot was on an overtime assignment, from 11:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m., repairing asphalt; that his duty was to operate the scrubber/sweeper, sweeping around the site prior to the asphalt being placed; that, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Mr. Charlot advised Kendall Davis that he would return and left the worksite; that, shortly thereafter and according to an Airfield Security Incident Report, a law enforcement officer observed Mr. Charlot on Airport property, not at the worksite, with two bags of copper wire, weighing approximately 140 pounds; that Mr. Charlot left the worksite and was found committing a crime against the County by stealing County material; that Mr. Charlot was in an area in which he was not authorized and found in a vehicle no longer in service and not able to be driven; and that the DAR was warranted because of Mr. Charlot's actions of taking County material, leaving the worksite and not performing his assigned duties while on County time. Further, the facts in the DAR dated September 25, 2008, stated that Mr. Charlot was arrested on May 11, 2006, for petty theft, but had failed to advise the Aviation Director or anyone in the chain of command about the arrest. Also, the facts stated that his failure to so advise of the arrest was a violation of Department's Rules which placed an obligation on County employees to notify their Department Director or his/her designee of an arrest, whether on or off duty, within a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed three calendar days, of the arrest. A copy of the Department's policy regarding arrests was included with the DAR. Additionally, a copy of the disposition of the charge was included with the DAR, which showed that Mr. Charlot was not prosecuted. The DAR dated September 25, 2008, concluded that the DAR was warranted based on Mr. Charlot's actions of taking County material, being formally charged with a third degree felony, leaving the worksite, not performing his assigned task while on duty, and failing to report a prior arrest to the Department. Mr. Charlot's responded to the DAR dated August 6, 2008, and his response was also included with the DAR dated September 25, 2008. The response stated, among other things, that the State Attorney's Office had decided that the evidence was insufficient to charge Mr. Charlot with committing a crime and took no action on the charge; that Mr. Charlot was on his lunch break, with his identification, and it was not uncommon for employees to take a lunch break away from the worksite; and that Mr. Charlot advised Mr. Davis that he (Mr. Charlot) was taking his lunch break and would return. Also, the response included affidavits from several employees stating that it was normal for employees to take lunch breaks away from the worksite and attesting to Mr. Charlot's performance as an employee and to his character. Mr. Charlot's Appeal of the Termination through Arbitration Having been terminated from his employment by Mr. Abreu, Mr. Charlot appealed the termination through arbitration. On September 29, 2009, the appeal was heard by a Hearing Examiner of the American Arbitration Association. The Hearing Examiner issued a written recommendation on November 22, 2009. The Hearing Examiner's recommendation was to sustain Mr. Charlot's dismissal. Mr. Charlot's Dismissal before the County Manager After arbitration, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation was considered by the County Manager. By letter dated December 3, 2009, the County Manager sustained and confirmed Mr. Charlot's dismissal from employment with the County. The Incident on August 6, 2008 Mr. Charlot was arrested and charged with burglary on August 6, 2008. He obtained counsel. The State Attorney's Office decided to nolle prose, and the charge against Mr. Charlot was dismissed. He returned to work. However, subsequently, in September 2008, Mr. Charlot was re-arrested and arraigned on a third degree felony count of grand theft regarding the incident on August 6, 2008. On September 24, 2008, the State Attorney's Office filed an information charging Mr. Charlot with the third degree felony count of grand theft. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County played a part in or influenced the action by the State Attorney's Office to re-arrest Mr. Charlot, arraign him on a different crime, and file an information against him on the different crime. By letter dated September 25, 2008, Mr. Abreu advised Mr. Charlot, among other things, that he was suspended indefinitely in accordance with the "Code of Miami-Dade County, Section 2-42, Paragraph (22), which provides: 'For the automatic suspension of any person from the County service immediately upon being indicted by any grand jury or upon having an information filed against him by any prosecuting official, such suspension to continue until any such indictment or information shall have been disposed of by a trial and conviction or acquittal of the accused or by any dismissal or quashing or reversal of the same.'" The letter further advised Mr. Charlot that, if the charges were reduced or dropped, it was his (Mr. Charlot's) responsibility to immediately advise Human Resources; and that, even if the charges were reduced or dropped, the Department may still pursue any administrative action deemed necessary. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Charlot's immediate suspension was in accordance with the County's Code. Mr. Charlot was unable to afford the continuation of representation by counsel. He entered into a plea agreement, and the charge was nolle prossed.2/ Prior Disciplinary Action Against Mr. Charlot In October 2004, Mr. Charlot was suspended for three days for an incident that occurred on July 2, 2004. He served the three-day suspension from October 13 through 15, 2004. Mr. Charlot received a DAR in July 2004 for the incident, which stated, among other things, that his minor child was with him on a sweeper during his work hours. Also, the DAR indicated previous disciplinary action taken against Mr. Charlot in November 2003 and December 2002, resulting in a five-day suspension and a three-day suspension, respectively; and indicated that the County would not tolerate continuous violation of its rules. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incident on July 2, 2004, was unreasonable or discriminatory. In November 2003, Mr. Charlot received a five-day suspension for an incident that occurred on October 11, 2003. He served the five-day suspension from November 18 through 22, 2003. Mr. Charlot received a DAR on October 14, 2003, which stated, among other things, that he failed to report to work during his scheduled work shift hours and failed to notify his supervisor that he would not be reporting to work. Also, the DAR indicated previous disciplinary action taken against Mr. Charlot for leaving work prior to the scheduled end of his shift, without swiping out of his shift, resulting in a three-day suspension. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incident on October 11, 2003, was unreasonable or discriminatory. In December 2002, Mr. Charlot received a three-day suspension for an incident that occurred on November 26, 2002. He served the three-day suspension from January 15 through 17, 2003. Mr. Charlot received a DAR on December 2, 2002, which stated, among other things, that he left the worksite in his personal vehicle during his regularly scheduled shift hours, without swiping out and without notifying his supervisor. In a memorandum dated December 30, 2002, the Assistant Aviation Director, among other things, advised Mr. Charlot of the suspension and further advised Mr. Charlot that, should he need to leave the worksite to respond to personal matters, he was required to swipe out and to ensure that his supervisor was notified. As to the incident on November 26, 2002, at hearing Mr. Charlot testified that school personnel at the school that his child was attending contacted him regarding his child experiencing a diabetic episode; and that he immediately departed the worksite for the school to give his child an insulin injection. His testimony is credible. Further, no evidence was presented to indicate that the County failed to consider his explanation at the time of the disciplinary action. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incident on November 26, 2002, was unreasonable or discriminatory. In July 1998, Mr. Charlot received a written reprimand for various incidents occurring in May 1998. He received a DAR on May 26, 1998, regarding the incidents. The written reprimand indicated, among other things, that Mr. Charlot engaged in insubordinate behavior and took an unauthorized break. Additionally, the written reprimand advised him that further such incidents would result in progressive disciplinary action up to and including termination. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the County's disciplinary action, regarding the incidents in May 1998, was unreasonable or discriminatory. Alleged Employees Similarly-Situated to Mr. Charlot Mr. Charlot asserts that there are other Department employees who are similarly-situated to him and who are Hispanic. The other employees are Robert Chacon, Rodolfo deArmas, and Ricardo Mendez. No dispute exists that all of the other employees are Hispanic. Robert Chacon Robert Chacon was employed with the Department for approximately 20 years. Since 2008, he has been an Airport Maintenance Mechanic. The evidence demonstrates, among other things, that, in 2009, Mr. Chacon was suspended due to an incident not associated with the Department and which occurred outside of the workplace; that in 2001, he was issued a DAR, which he grieved, but lost; that he was a supervisor, but was demoted and is no longer a supervisor; and that he has been suspended four times. The evidence fails to demonstrate the details of or the circumstances of the suspensions, the DAR, or the demotion. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Chacon has not been charged with stealing from the Department. Rodolfo deArmas Rodolfo deArmas has been employed with the Department since 1984. He has been an Equipment Operator II for more than 15 years. The evidence demonstrates that, in 1991, Mr. deArmas was charged with a criminal offense which was not associated with the Department and for which he was not convicted; and that he has been subject to two disciplinary actions. The evidence fails to demonstrate the details of or the circumstances of the criminal offense or the disciplinary actions. Ricardo Mendez Regarding Ricardo Mendez, the evidence demonstrates that the Department charged Mr. Mendez with violating the County's Personnel Rules and that one of the Rules was the same one Mr. Charlot was charged with violating, i.e., Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraph (R); and that Mr. Mendez was dismissed and terminated in 200l for the violation. Among the alleged facts associated with Mr. Mendez's violation of Personnel Rules, Chapter VIII, Section 7, Paragraph (R) were that Mr. Mendez submitted more hours of work than he had actually worked and was paid for more hours than he had actually worked. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates Mr. Mendez appealed his termination through arbitration, as did Mr. Charlot. However, the evidence demonstrates that, unlike in Mr. Charlot's situation, a hearing examiner found facts favorable to Mr. Mendez and recommended reinstatement of Mr. Mendez. The County reinstated Mr. Mendez.
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 discrimination complaint of Venis Charlot. S DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 26th day of April, 2012.
The Issue Whether the petitioner is entitled to an award under section 57.111, Florida Statutes, of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the appellate matter Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 631 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), and, if so, the amount of such award.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is the state agency responsible for issuing occupational licenses to veterinarians with access to the backside of a racetrack and for regulating such licensees. Sections 550.10(1)(b) and .105(2)(d)2, Florida Statutes. Dr. Witmer has been licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Florida since January 1, 1993, and, as of October 19, 1993, he was authorized to practice veterinary medicine at Florida racetracks by virtue of a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license (“license”) issued by the Department. He has been domiciled in Florida at all times material to this matter. On October 19, 1993, Dr. Witmer was a partner in a professional practice in veterinary medicine with its principal office at 1450 Southwest Third Street, Pompano Park, Broward County, Florida. His professional practice had three full-time employees and a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than $2 million. In the Administrative Complaint and Emergency Order of Suspension dated October 19, 1993, the Department took two actions with respect to Dr. Witmer’s license.1 First, in the administrative complaint, it put Dr. Witmer on notice that the Department had initiated a disciplinary action against him, charging him with violations of a statute and a rule governing his license which, if proven, would justify the imposition of penalties, including revocation or suspension of his license. Secondly, in the emergency order of suspension, it summarily suspended Dr. Witmer’s license. Dr. Witmer requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the truth of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case Number 93-6638. That action was pending at the time Dr. Witmer filed the application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue in this proceeding. Underlying proceeding On the basis of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint and its determination that Dr. Witmer’s interest in his license was “far outweighed by the immediate danger to the public health and safety and to the integrity of harness racing in the State of Florida,” the Department suspended Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as of October 19, 1993, ordered him to cease and desist from all activities authorized by the license, and barred him from entering any pari-mutuel establishment as a patron for the duration of the emergency suspension. Dr. Witmer chose to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to sections 120.60(8) and 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993). It is this appellate proceeding which is the proceeding underlying Dr. Witmer’s application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue herein. State agencies are authorized by section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes (1995) to immediately suspend a license under the following circumstances and subject to the following conditions: If the agency finds that immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency suspension, restriction, or limitation of a license, it shall show compliance in its order with the requirements imposed by s. 120.54(9) on agencies making emergency rules. Summary suspension, restriction, or limitation may be ordered, but a formal suspension or revocation proceeding under this section shall also be promptly instituted and acted upon. Section 120.54(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: If an agency finds that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action, the agency may adopt any rule necessitated by the immediate danger by any procedure which is fair under the circumstances and necessary to protect the public interest, provided that: * * * 3. The agency publishes in writing at the time of, or prior to, its action the specific facts and reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare and its reasons for concluding that the procedure used is fair under the circumstances. . . . The agency’s findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness shall be judicially reviewable. On February 2, 1994, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida issued its opinion in Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Case Number 93-3232, reported at 631 So. 2d 338. The court quashed the Emergency Order of Suspension, concluding that the order was “facially inadequate,” and ruling that “the Department’s findings of immediate danger to the public welfare are not supported by specific facts and reasons as required by 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes.” Id. at 340, 343. The district court in Witmer observed that its review was limited to a determination of whether the order complied with the requirements of section 120.54(9)(a)3 and based its analysis upon the following rules of law: If the facts alleged in the complaint and [emergency] order are sufficient to demonstrate immediacy, necessity and fairness, no hearing is required prior to the emergency suspension. . . . The factual allegations contained in the emergency order must sufficiently identify particularized facts which demonstrate an immediate danger to the public. (Citation omitted.) Where, as here, no hearing was held prior to the entry of the emergency order, every element necessary to its validity must appear on the face of the order. (Citation omitted.) The order must be “factually explicit and persuasive concerning the existence of a genuine emergency.” (Citation omitted.) Witmer, 631 So. 2d at 341. In reaching its conclusion that the emergency order was facially inadequate, the court in Witmer held that the Department failed to allege facts in the complaint and order to establish the essential elements of the violations upon which the emergency suspension was based. Firstly, the court found that the charge in the emergency order that Dr. Witmer had failed to report gratuities was not supported by any allegations of fact in the complaint and order. Id. at 341. Secondly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer’s actions related to horse racing or to race horses, an essential element of a violation of section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, and of rule 61D-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code. Id. at 342. Thirdly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer reached an agreement with a second person to commit the violation, an essential element of any conspiracy, including one to violate section 550.235(2) and rule 61D-1.002(10). Id. Finally, the court concluded that the public harm alleged by the Department in the order was too attenuated to support the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Id. at 343. The district court issued its mandate to the Department on February 18, 1994, directing it to act in accordance with the opinion quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension. The Department did not seek review of the decision of the district court in the Florida Supreme Court. Consequently, the decision of the district court had the effect of nullifying the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Summary Dr. Witmer was a small business party, as that term is defined for purposes of section 57.111, at the time the Department entered the emergency order.2 The evidence is sufficient to establish that the Department initiated an action against Dr. Witmer when it entered an Emergency Order of Suspension. This order was issued under the authority granted state agencies in section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes. The order had the effect of immediately and summarily suspending Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license. Dr. Witmer had the right to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to section 120.54(9)(a)3. The appellate court quashed the emergency order because it was legally insufficient to support the suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license under the standards of section 120.54(9)(a)3. The Department did not appeal or seek further review of the appellate court’s decision. Dr. Witmer, therefore, prevailed in the administrative proceeding initiated by the Department. The Department presented no evidence to establish that its action in ordering the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license had a reasonable basis in law and fact or that any special circumstances exist which would make an award of attorney’s fees and costs in this case unjust.3 The monetary value of the attorney’s fees rendered in connection with the appellate proceeding culminating in the decision quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension is $9,715.00, and the costs incurred total $250. These fees and costs are reasonable and were necessary to prosecute the appellate proceeding.4
The Issue Whether the suspension of the Petitioner Nelson was based on just cause.
Findings Of Fact Allen T. Nelson, Petitioner, was employed by the Department of Education, Division of Universities, University of Florida, as a Career Service employee Custodial Worker in the Physical Plant Division. During a three and a quarter month period of time the official attendance record disclosed 20 attendance deficiencies ranging from 15 minutes tardy to unauthorized absences for a full day. The employee had received an oral reprimand on July 8, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance; a written reprimand on July 29, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance and on September 29, 1977 was advised that his probationary period as a Groundskeeper II was unsatisfactory because of his attendance record. Because his probation was unsatisfactory, he was returned to his permanent position as a Custodial Worker. Notwithstanding official reprimands as well as counseling from his immediate supervisor, Mr. Earl Davis, and the Personnel representative for the Physical Plant Division, Mr. Danny Busseni, the employee's pattern of poor attendance and tardiness continued. While suggesting that some of his tardiness was caused by transportation problems and some of his absences were caused by family sickness and personal business, the employee was unable to give any clear or convincing reason why his attendance patterns were in any manner excusable. The employee indicated that he felt that the agency had not treated him fairly and this was one of the reasons for his poor attendance. Documentary evidence submitted by the employer confirms the steps of progressive discipline taken against the employee in an effort to improve his attendance record. The Guidelines for Standards of Disciplinary Action promulgated by the University provide that for unsatisfactory attendance the first offense shall result in an oral reprimand, the second offense in a written reprimand and that following a third offense the employee may be suspended for one week or dismissed. 8, All employees were aware of the guidelines which were incorporated in an Employee Handbook, covered in employee orientation sessions as well as being posted in areas where Career Service Employees are employed. Competent substantial evidence exists to sustain the action of the agency and "just cause" for the suspension of the employee is evident.
Recommendation Sustain the decision of the Respondent University of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen T. Nelson 227 N.W. 7th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32611 Ashmun Brown, Esquire 207 Tigert Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, A-1 Block Corp., discriminated against Petitioner, Harold E. Ford, Jr., on the basis of his race and/or color and in retaliation, and, if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a family-owned business that manufactures concrete products, ready-mix concrete, concrete block, and precast concrete. Mr. Freeman has been the president of Respondent for approximately 10 years. Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent at two different times. Petitioner was hired to work in several different capacities which included: ready-mix driver; block driver; dump truck driver; and/or loader operator. Mr. Caviglia serves Respondent in a supervisory position, and Mr. Caviglia made the decision to hire Petitioner as a truck driver in December 2009 (first employment). Respondent hired Petitioner at $12.00 an hour. Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment in July 2011 (first employment termination). Mr. Freeman described the circumstances under which Petitioner was terminated as: Petitioner failed to unhook some type of ladder or other apparatus at a self-loading dock, and drove off causing approximately $4,000 to $5,000 of damage to Respondent’s truck and/or the dock. Respondent was responsible for making the repairs. At the time of his first employment termination, Petitioner was making $13.00 an hour. Approximately five months later, in December 2011, Mr. Caviglia re-hired Petitioner to be a truck driver for Respondent. The other drivers employed by Respondent wanted Petitioner to return. Petitioner was hired at $13.00 an hour (second employment). At various times during Petitioner’s employment with Respondent, Petitioner inquired about becoming a “dispatcher” for Respondent. Mr. Freeman indicated to Petitioner that he (Mr. Freeman) would think about Petitioner’s dispatcher request. However, one of the requirements for Respondent’s dispatcher position was the availability to work on Saturdays. Mr. Freeman knew that Petitioner had a second job which required Petitioner to work on Saturdays. Since 2004, Petitioner worked part-time as an attendant at a local funeral home, which required Petitioner to work some Saturdays. Petitioner was paid $75 per funeral; however, he did not know how much he had been paid since his second employment termination. Petitioner did not have any pay-stubs to reflect how much he had been paid by the funeral home. Petitioner continues to work for the funeral home. In October 2013, Petitioner caused damage to tires on a truck belonging to Respondent. Respondent incurred a financial loss as a result of the damaged tires. Petitioner was terminated from his second employment with Respondent on November 20, 2013. Petitioner alleged and testified that Mr. Caviglia threatened Petitioner at various times during Respondent’s operational meetings.3/ Two other witnesses, Mr. Timmons and Mr. Sandy, testified that they did not observe Petitioner being threatened at these meetings. Petitioner alleged that he was retaliated against based on his race. Petitioner claimed that he was directed to wash a white man’s truck. Petitioner refused to wash the truck. Respondent requires its drivers to wash the trucks that they drive each day. However, there was no evidence of any retaliation against Petitioner when he did not wash the other man’s truck. Petitioner alleged he asked for raises when he thought it appropriate, and was refused. Mr. Freeman paid his employees the going rate, and it was established that Petitioner was being paid $14 an hour when he was terminated. Mr. Timmons, a former employee of Respondent, received the same rate of pay for working as a driver or as a dispatcher for Respondent. Petitioner’s resumé was admitted into evidence as Exhibit C. Petitioner created this resumé in 2011, and revised it one time to assist in the preparation for the hearing. The resumé does not accurately reflect Petitioner’s separate employment periods at Respondent, nor does it contain a two-week period of employment at another construction company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations DISMISSING the Petition for Relief filed by Mr. Ford. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 22nd day of December, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice on the basis of failure to hire (sex discrimination), sexual harassment, and/or retaliatory termination.
Findings Of Fact This case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about August 15, 2006. The parties filed respective responses [sic "compliances"] with the Initial Order herein, which responses were considered in setting the case for hearing. Petitioner's response requested that the final disputed-fact hearing be scheduled for any day after October 12, 2006. On September 6, 2006, final hearing was noticed for November 8, 2006. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner provided a change of address to New York. On October 10, 2006, a joint Pre-hearing Stipulation was filed. On October 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Continue [sic “Request for Continuance for Good Cause”]. On October 27, 2006, Respondent filed its Objection to Petitioner's Request for Continuance. On November 1, 2006, a motion hearing was held by telephonic conference call. At that time, both parties agreed to continue the final disputed-fact hearing to January 16, 2007. Petitioner was orally cautioned that no further continuances would be granted except upon good cause shown. Also on November 1, 2006, an Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Hearing was entered and mailed. The new date noticed for final hearing in that Order was January 16, 2007, as follows: 2. This cause is hereby re-scheduled for final hearing on January 16, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., at the Department of Transportation, Seminole County Conference Room, 4th Floor, 719 South Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida. On January 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion, titled "Motion Requesting a Continuance of Hearing Date for Good Cause." Apparently also on January 8, 2007, Respondent filed a response in opposition to the proposed continuance, but this item was not seen by the undersigned until January 16, 2007, at the final hearing.1/ Petitioner's Motion did not, in fact, state good cause for a continuance and was denied by an Order entered January 10, 2007, which Order was mailed that day to Petitioner's address of record in New York. On January 11, 2007, a copy of the Order was mailed to the Florida address which Petitioner had given under her signature on her Motion. On January 16, 2007, the final disputed-fact hearing was convened as noticed in the November 1, 2006, Order. At that time, the undersigned, a court reporter, Respondent's counsel, Respondent's principal, and two additional witnesses on behalf of Respondent were present. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned inquired by telephone of her office staff and of the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings if Petitioner had contacted the Division with any explanation for her absence and was told that she had not. The undersigned sounded the docket in the hallway of the hearing room in Deland and inquired at the front desk. Petitioner had not appeared in the building. After waiting 30 minutes, Petitioner still had not appeared. Respondent's counsel represented on the record that he had spoken to Petitioner by phone on January 10, 2007, at which time Petitioner had told him that she would not appear for the January 16, 2007, hearing herein. He produced a January 10, 2007, letter he had sent Petitioner at the Florida address she had used on her second motion to continue. (See Findings of Fact 11 and 13.) Respondent's counsel's letter was admitted as Exhibit R-1, and represents that Respondent’s counsel advised Petitioner that her motion to continue had been denied and that the final disputed-fact hearing would be going forward on January 16, 2007, as previously noticed for hearing on November 1, 2006. (See Finding of Fact 10.) Respondent then moved ore tenus for a Recommended Order of Dismissal, which was taken under advisement, pending the undersigned's return to the Division of Administrative Hearings and further inquiries as to why Petitioner had not appeared for the final disputed-fact hearing. Respondent next moved ore tenus to tax fees and costs, and presented Exhibit R-2, itemizing the charges of Respondent’s counsel to Respondent and further presented the testimony of Respondent's principal, James Frank Kulger, in support thereof. Respondent's counsel was granted five days in which to file an affidavit of reasonableness in regard to the services and charges billed on Exhibit R-2. That affidavit was timely filed, and has been marked and admitted as Exhibit R-3. No transcript was provided. Upon the undersigned’s personal inquiries, when she returned to Tallahassee, of her office staff and of the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 17, 2007, the undersigned was yet again informed that Petitioner still had not contacted the Division with any excuse for not attending the previously-noticed final disputed-fact hearing on January 16, 2007. On January 18, 2007, the undersigned's secretary informed her that Petitioner telephoned the secretary to the undersigned and indicated that prior to January 16, 2007, Petitioner had received the January 10, 2007, Order denying a continuance; knew the final hearing had remained scheduled for January 16, 2007; and had elected not to attend the hearing. Petitioner inquired if the hearing had gone forward anyway, and was told by the secretary that it had. Petitioner inquired if an order had been entered and was informed that one had not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for attorney's fees and costs should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In these cases, Petitioner, Couch Construction, L.P., seeks to impose sanctions against Respondents, Darel Holland (Holland) and Diane Lowery (Lowery), on the ground that they allegedly filed petitions for an improper purpose challenging the issuance of a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). In responsive papers filed by Respondents, both deny that the actions were initiated for an improper purpose. The facts in the underlying DEP case involving Holland (OGC Case No. 98-3015) show that on October 30, 1998, Petitioner published a copy of DEP's Notice of Intent to Issue Permit to Petitioner authorizing the construction of a hot mix asphalt concrete plant at 2780 North Highway 95-A, Cantonment, Florida, with potential emissions of up to 29 tons per year of particulate matter. After learning of the proposed action, various citizens in the Cantonment area signed a petition opposing the project. In addition, a local attorney, John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire (Reading), offered to provide them with pro bono assistance as a "community service." Among other things, Reading prepared a form petition challenging the issuance of the permit and requesting a formal hearing. That form was apparently made available to the local citizens so that they could sign and file it, if they chose to do so. Holland says that he did, and it is fair to infer that this form was the source of Lowery's petition as well. Holland lives only 9 blocks from the proposed plant and suffers from a lung disease which has left him with only 58 percent of his lung capacity. Because of his legitimate concerns about the projected amount of particulate emissions and their potential effect on his respiratory system, on November 12, 1998, he filed in proper person a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the proposed issuance of the permit. Holland's petition alleged that he was a property owner in the area where the plant would be constructed; that "due to respiratory problems," he would be "substantially affected by the permitted 29 tons of particulate emissions"; that his property "may be substantially reduced in value and peaceful enjoyment" as a result of the permit being issued; and that the petition was not "being interposed merely for the purposes of delay, or any other improper purpose as listed in F.S. 120.57(1)(b)(5)." There was no showing that the petition was filed for an improper purpose or that Holland's concerns were not genuine. Holland's petition also requested an extension of time "to determine which rules or statutes require reversal or modification of the Department's action" and "to obtain counsel" to assist him in his action. On December 21, 1998, DEP entered an order dismissing Holland's petition on the ground that he failed to allege the information required by Rule 28-106.201(2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. It also determined that no good cause had been shown to warrant an extension of time for Holland to determine if any rules or statutes supported his position. He was, however, granted leave to file an amended petition within 15 days from the date of service of DEP's dismissal order (December 23, 1998). This meant that an amended petition had to be filed with DEP no later than January 7, 1999. After learning that his petition had been dismissed, Holland had a brief conversation with Reading about the dismissal and was left with a somewhat vague understanding that Reading "would get an extension" from DEP. Thereafter, on January 12, 1999, or 5 days after the due date, Reading filed with DEP an Amended Petition of Darel Holland for Administrative Hearing. The petition was signed by Reading, and it represented that a copy of the petition had been served on Petitioner's counsel on January 5, 1999. On January 14, 1999, Reading also filed with DEP on behalf of Holland a paper styled Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time in which Reading claimed that "due to circumstances not known," the amended petition had not been timely filed. Reading accordingly requested that DEP authorize the untimely filing. By order dated January 28, 1999, DEP denied the Motion to Enlarge Time and dismissed the amended petition, with prejudice, as being untimely. No appeal from that final agency action was taken. Lowery did not attend the final hearing. However, according to Holland, Lowery lives only 500 feet from the proposed cement plant. She boards horses on her property and frequently has children visit the property to ride their horses. The papers filed in her underlying case (OGC Case No. 98-2932) reflect that the facts in that case are essentially the same as those involving Holland. On November 12, 1998, Lowery filed in proper person a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing which was virtually identical to the petition filed by Holland. As an additional ground, however, she alleged that the October 30, 1998, notice published by Petitioner was defective, and she requested that DEP require Petitioner to re-advertise the matter. There was no evidence that this petition was filed for an improper purpose or that Lowery's concerns were not genuine. On December 21, 1998, Lowery's petition was dismissed by DEP because she had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 28-106.201(4), Florida Administrative Code. Like Holland, she was given until January 5, 1999, in which to file an amended petition. In papers filed by Lowery after this sanction proceeding arose, she denies that she had any knowledge that any further papers in the permit case would be filed on her behalf after the DEP dismissal order was entered. In any event, on January 12, 1999, or five days after the due date, Reading filed on Lowery's behalf with DEP an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing which was identical to that filed on behalf of Holland. Also, on January 14, 1999, Reading filed a Plaintiff's Motion to Enlarge Time seeking to excuse his tardiness in filing the amended petition. Both papers were served on Petitioner's counsel. On January 28, 1999, DEP entered its Final Order Denying Motion to Enlarge Time and dismissing Lowery's amended petition, with prejudice. No appeal from that final order was taken. Because no appeal was taken by either Respondent, DEP's intent to issue a permit became final, and it is fair to infer that a permit has been issued to Petitioner. On January 7, 1999, or prior to DEP's final order of dismissal, Petitioner's counsel noticed both Respondents for a deposition in Pensacola, Florida, on January 14, 1999. Because Reading had signed the amended petitions, Petitioner's counsel logically served the notices by Federal Express on Reading. However, Reading failed to notify Respondents, and neither he nor Respondents appeared at the deposition or advised counsel prior to the depositions that they would not appear. As a result, Petitioner incurred the costs and fees for having its counsel travel to Pensacola. In addition, Petitioner presumably incurred the cost of a court reporter's appearance fee. Assuming that Petitioner's claim is meritorious, those costs would be the responsibility of Reading, and not Respondents. At the hearing, it was represented that Reading is no longer a member of the Florida Bar. This is because in an unpublished order dated January 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court revoked his license to practice law effective 30 days thereafter, or on February 7, 1999. His current address is unknown. Petitioner has asserted that in defending against Respondents' petitions, "the bulk" of its costs and fees are related to the deposition and that a few other undisclosed fees and costs have been incurred. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not specify the amount of fees and costs that it seeks or provide any breakdown of those amounts; rather, it opted to provide an affidavit detailing those costs after this final order is rendered, assuming it prevails in this action.
