The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as envisioned in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005), on the basis of the Petitioner's disability or handicap, and his age. It must also be determined whether the Respondent committed retaliation against the Petitioner for the Petitioner's alleged exercise of statutorily protected rights in complaining about health, or safety concerns, regarding his operation of a machine or device while an employee of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Jimmy D. Forehand was hired by the Department of Management Services or its predecessor on January 21, 1977. He was employed at that Agency for approximately 27 and one-half years through June 30, 2004. For the last 19 years of his tenure he was classed as an electrician. This is the entry level electrician trade position and has fewer complex duties and skills required for its performance, as opposed to the more complex position of master electrician, in terms of working with complex wiring, wiring problems, electrical devices, and so forth associated with that latter position. It has been stipulated that through his termination date of June 30, 2004, Mr. Forehand, was qualified to perform the duties and functions of his job. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with managing all state government agency resources, services, properties, benefits, and procurement. It manages state-owned facilities, handles state human resources or personnel matters, employee benefit matters, as well as procurement of such things as office space and office supplies. It maintains the physical integrity of all state-owned properties. The Petitioner was employed for the Respondent by the Division of Facilities Management and Building Construction (Division of Facilities) which is responsible for managing and maintaining office complexes and other properties owned by the state. The Petitioner specifically worked for the electrician unit of that Division. The Disability Claim The Petitioner experienced several purported medical conditions which resulted in workers' compensation claims during his tenure as an employee. The ones relevant to this case commenced in approximately 1992. In 1992 the Petitioner was engaged in a repair work assignment at a DMS-administered office building in downtown Tallahassee. He allegedly became exposed to asbestos during that job. The Petitioner and the employer, DMS, initiated a First Report of Injury and a workers' compensation claim ensued regarding the asbestos incident. The progress of that workers' compensation claim and its disposition are not relevant to this case, aside from the diagnosis concerning that claim as a part of the predicate for showing a disability for purposes of the case at bar. In any event, in 1992, the Petitioner was diagnosed by a physician with asbestosis. Because of that diagnosis, through the workers' compensation process, the employer and carrier have authorized the Petitioner, in all the years since, to have an annual medical examination and chest X-ray under the auspices of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Financial Services. This is for the purpose of monitoring the status of the asbestosis. The Respondent has stipulated that it was aware of the diagnosis of asbestosis. It does not agree that the asbestosis constitutes a disability for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (i.e. handicap). The Petitioner was released from the physician with regard to the asbestosis situation without work limitations or restrictions due to that diagnosis. Sometime in 1999 the Petitioner injured his left knee on the job, apparently a severe sprain. A workers' compensation notice of injury was filed and a workers' compensation claim process ensued whereby he received treatment for his knee problem. When he reached maximum medical improvement he returned to work with a light duty recommendation from his treating physician, on a temporary basis. In fact, the Respondent accorded him a temporary light duty assignment after he returned to work from the knee injury. The Respondent, through the Petitioner's supervisors, particularly Joe Jacobson, generally made an effort to try to find the Petitioner a light duty assignment when he returned from illness or injury, based upon a doctor's recommendation and/or the Petitioner's own request for light duty. His supervisor, Mr. Jacobson, would customarily call other building managers, the "OP/CON Center" and other agencies in an effort to find a light duty post Mr. Forehand could perform in until he was ready for the full duties of his regular position. Thus, on several occasions Mr. Forehand was placed in light duty as a janitor or answering phones. It was not always possible to find temporary light duty for Mr. Forehand when he requested it or when a doctor recommended it. Apparently Mr. Forehand was on leave without pay for a number of months on at least one occasion when no light duty was available for him. In this connection, however, the Respondent, throughout Mr. Forehand's tenure as an employee or at least since his 1992 asbestosis diagnosis, has shown a penchant for allowing Mr. Forehand to occupy and perform his duties in his regular position of electrician by working at his own pace, without regard to any time limit for performing his duties, without prohibition on his taking frequent rest breaks, and with tolerance for his late arrival at work, if tardiness was related to his physical condition. Thus, in a defacto fashion, the Respondent accommodated what it knew of Mr. Forehand's impairments, as he related them to the Respondent, or as they learned of them from reports from his physicians and from the workers' compensation process (i.e., breathing difficulties and to some extent left knee impairment after 1999). In any event, the preponderant evidence establishes that when the Petitioner requested light duty and/or his physician recommended it, the Respondent would provide him with light duty if it was available, although it was not always available. It accommodated what it knew of his impairments when he worked in his regular position, performing his regular duties, by the means described above; even though the Petitioner did not for the most part request rest periods, frequent breaks from his duties, additional time to complete his assignments, or for permission to trade assignments with another worker who might have a less physically taxing job. In fact, when the matter of his physical difficulties came up, or was raised by the Petitioner in a conversation with his supervisor on at least one occasion, his supervisor told him in effect to "do the best you can." The implication thus clearly was that if the Petitioner needed rest breaks, needed additional time to do assignments, that the Respondent would accommodate him by not holding him to a strict standard as to when his job duties got performed. Since approximately the year 2000 or the fiscal year 2000-2001 the Respondent, like other state agencies, have been under a mandate from the Legislature and the Office of the Governor to save on costs and to become more efficient in its operations. One of the primary means of accomplishing this has been to require a reduction in the Agency's workforce. The Respondent has thus experienced a loss of employment positions since that fiscal year in each budget year and session of the Legislature. It has thus lost approximately 635 full-time positions over a four-year period ending with the 2005 Legislature and Appropriations Act. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Petitioner's position was identified by the year 2000 Florida Legislature to be eliminated, by making it "non-recurring," such that his position would be cut or eliminated effective July 1, 2001. The Respondent's supervisors did not want him to be laid off. Therefore, they avoided his lay-off in that fiscal year by re- classifying him or his position into a vacant position within the Division of Facilities. They made the decision to retain him even with knowledge of his past workers' compensation claims, his asbestosis diagnosis and his knee injury of 1999 with related occasional light duty and time off from work. When the 2000 Legislature identified his position as being one which would be non-recurring or deleted after July 1, 2001, the Respondent held a meeting with the Petitioner and all other employees whose positions had been deemed non-critical and subject to deletion in the job force reduction. What had occurred was explained and their options and procedures to remain employed or become re-employed were explained. Because his supervisors wanted to save him from lay-off, and re- classified a different position to place him in, he was protected when the 2001 Legislature carried through with its previous year alteration of his position to non-recurring funding by withdrawing all funding and rate supporting his original position. In continuation of its mandate to reduce the work force, the 2003 Legislature made 20 positions non-recurring, including the Petitioner's. This meant that the funding was determined to be non-recurring, meaning that the positions would be funded one more year, but at the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, 2004, these positions would no longer be funded and would be abolished. In the Governor's and agency's budget preparation process thereafter, in 2003 and early 2004, the Legislatively- mandated reduction of 20 positions was incorporated. The Agency, however, in late 2003 or early 2004, arrived at the conclusion that it needed 15 of those 20 positions to be re- classified as critical positions necessary to its mission. Therefore, in the Legislative budget-making process, beginning in February and early March 2004, it sought to convince the Legislature's Appropriations staff and members that 15 of the positions were critical. It was successful in doing that during the Legislative session. The Petitioner's position was not re-established as a recurring, critical position. This was because his position had previously been determined to be non-critical in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and, since his job duties and responsibilities had not changed since that time, his position was again deemed to be no longer critical to continued division operation. It was determined by the Respondent that the functions of his position could be performed by including them in the duties of other positions, to be performed by persons who qualified for and occupied those positions (such as master electricians). Although Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, wanted to find a vacant position to place the Petitioner in as he had done in the 2000-2001 fiscal year job force reduction, there were no vacant positions available in which to place the Petitioner. Mr. Jacobson's testimony establishes this, as does that of Clint Sibille and Cherri Linn (Mr. Jacobson's supervisors). The fact that Mr. Jacobson had a desire to try to find a way to retain the Petitioner is somewhat corroborated by the statement or message from Ms. Linn to Mr. Jacobson to the effect that "you can't save him this time." This meant that, unlike the situation in 2000-2001, there were no vacant positions which could be converted to a position in which to place the Petitioner. Moreover, the testimony of the supervisory lead worker, Bill Kerr, corroborated that of Joe Jacobson and Clint Sibille that there were no vacant positions to place the Petitioner in or to convert to a position suitable for his qualifications. Their testimony shows that the Petitioner's position was not a critical one in the division, especially because it did not involve duties concerned with intricate electrical wiring, wiring repairs, working on complex electrical devices and other complex electrical work. This testimony established that it made no sense to convert a master electrician position into one which met Mr. Forehand's lesser qualifications because a qualified person in a master electrician position, can perform the Petitioner's duties and many more duties in terms of complexity and critical importance than can a person with the Petitioner's lesser qualifications in an entry-level electrician position. Mr. Forehand is not a licensed electrician. The Respondent thus determined that there were no positions which were vacant and sufficiently less critical to its operation as to justify it in converting such to one which met the Petitioner's qualifications (in a managerial context). The Petitioner was not told of his lay-off until June 14, 2004. In fact, Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, did not know that it was certain to occur until immediately before Mr. Forehand was told, several days before at the most. Clint Sibille had told Mr. Jacobson before the Legislative session convened that Mr. Forehand's position might be eliminated but he was not certain at that time (approximately in December 2003 or January 2004). It is not clear which supervisor or manager made the initial decision that the Petitioner's position was not critical. It apparently was the recommendation of Clint Sibille, in concert with Cherri Linn, and with the final approval of the Division Director, then LeeAnn Korst. Mr. Jacobson, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, did not request that his position be deleted. During most of 2003, the Petitioner's job duties included operation of a florescent bulb or lamp crushing system. This was a device known as a VRS Bulb Crusher also known as the "bulb eater." It had apparently been purchased by the Agency sometime in 2002. The device consists of a large drum with a vertical tube through which burned-out florescent light bulbs are inserted so that they fall into the large drum where a mechanical device is operated which crushes the bulbs for disposal. The Petitioner performed a large portion of the bulb crusher's operation. This was particularly true during early 2004, when the Petitioner used the machine at a more intense level. Sometime in February 2004, the exhaust or filtration system of the machine sustained damage, or a break, so that dust and particulate matter and any gaseous or chemical contents of the broken bulbs had the opportunity to leak out of the area of the break into the ambient air. A temporary repair was made and a permanent replacement part was ordered from the manufacturer. The machine continued to malfunction, however, and the repair did not hold. The Petitioner complained to Bill Kerr, his lead worker, concerning the dust and particulate matter the machine apparently sprayed into the air. He also complained to his supervisor, Joe Jacobson. The Petitioner stated that he believed that the dust and particulate matter and other unknown contents of the broken florescent bulbs might aggravate the breathing problems he professed to have, which he related to his original asbestosis diagnosis. These complaints began in early March 2004. The Petitioner also complained to Dave Wiggins, the Respondent's Environmental Supervisor in March of 2004. When the complaints were made and the temporary repair was not successful, the Respondent stopped all use of the bulb machine in early March 2004. This was contemporaneous with the time or occasion when the Petitioner refused to use the machine any longer. The complaints about the bulb crushing machine were reported up the "chain of command" so that on March 16, 2004, Glen Abbott, the Employee Relations Specialist of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services, made a written "medical report" (according to the Petitioner's testimony) concerning the Petitioner's reported exposure to "poisonous chemicals" in the fluorescent bulbs being crushed through operation of the machine. This report was apparently required for workers' compensation purposes. The Petitioner also told Clint Sibille, Mr. Jacobson's supervisor, of the machine's purported malfunction. Mr. Sibille asked Dave Wiggins, the Environmental Specialist, to investigate the machine to determine if the machine was malfunctioning or if the problem reported by the Petitioner was caused by operator error. Mr. Wiggins and Joe Jacobson, after investigating the matter, believed it to be caused by operator error in the manner in which the bulbs were inserted into the vertical tube of the machine. The Petitioner maintains that he asked Clint Sibille to send him to a doctor concerning his fears of heath problems related to the machine and states that Clint Sibille told him to "see his own doctor." Mr. Sibille did confer with Cherri Linn about the Petitioner's request and Cherri Linn informed him that the Petitioner would have to engage in the workers' compensation report and claim process in order to see a doctor concerning his health-related fears about the bulb crushing machine. Mr. Sibille then told the Petitioner's supervisor Joe Jacobson to tell the Petitioner of this. Thereafter, at some point during the period of March through June 2004, after the Petitioner reported his complaints concerning the use of the bulb crusher, Glenn Abbott told all the electricians and carpenters who had worked with the machine to obtain medical examinations under the normal workers' compensation procedure, to try to ascertain if there are any deleterious effects caused by these persons' operation of the machine. Sometime in early May of 2004, the Petitioner called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and spoke to someone there and made a verbal report of his belief concerning unsafe conditions regarding operation of the bulb crushing machine. After the Petitioner left employment with the Respondent Agency in July of 2004, the machine and the warehouse space where it was located was examined by a representative of the DEP and samples were taken, in an effort to ascertain if any hazardous materials had been produced by the machine or were present in that working area. On May 18, 2004, the Petitioner re-injured the same knee which he had injured in 1999. A Notice of Injury concerning this knee injury was filed to trigger the workers' compensation process and the Petitioner saw a doctor through the workers' compensation procedure who examined and treated his knee problem (severe sprain). He was off work for a few days and then was sent back to work by the physician with a prescription of "light duty." He thus became available for work with light duty, at the doctor's recommendation, on or about June 1, 2004. At about this time he told his lead worker Bill Kerr, of his blood clot and showed him the doctor's report concerning leg swelling. He also informed Joe Jacobson of this. He sought light duty and indeed Joe Jacobson made substantial efforts to find light duty available for him by calling the various building managers and the "opcon" center to see if any light duty was available. Mr. Jacobson went so far as to try to ascertain if there were any office filing duties that the Petitioner could perform. He was unable to locate any light duty work for the Petitioner at this time. Joe Jacobson took annual leave in early June and while he was on annual leave, he received a call from his employer, (apparently Cherri Linn) around June 10th or 11, 2004, requiring him to come back to work because the job force reduction lay-off was going to be imposed on the Petitioner and his presence as his supervisor was apparently needed. On June 11, 2004, the Petitioner was called and told to report to work on Monday morning, June 14, 2004. On Monday the Petitioner was called in to a meeting with Joe Jacobson and Tim Carlisle and told of his lay-off. He was immediately required by the Department's Inspector General, Tim Carlisle, to take boxes and pack up his belongings and to leave the premises. Carlisle helped him pack his belongings and ushered him off the Respondent's premises. The Petitioner maintains that he did not know of his lay-off until that same day, which happened to be his fifty-fifth birthday. He was placed on leave with pay until June 30, 2004, his actual termination date. In July of 2004, apparently on or about July 2, 2004, he filed a formal written complaint to the Chief Inspector General regarding his concerns and feared health consequences of the operation of the bulb crushing machine. On or about July 20, 2004, Mr. Forehand visited a walk-in medical facility because he contends he was experiencing shortness of breath, chest pains, and tightness in his chest. He attributed these symptoms to use of the bulb crusher back in March and earlier. He testified that he was diagnosed with silicosis and that he physician determined that he could not tolerate walking 30 to 60 minutes at a time or lifting more than 15 or 20 pounds. Neither this physician nor any other testified, nor was non-hearing medical information admitted into evidence in this regard. Interestingly, Mr. Forehand's testimony indicates he was diagnosed with a heart condition, apparently based on these symptoms, and in late 2004 underwent insertion of an arterial stint. The Petitioner thus complained to his supervisors beginning in about early March 2004, concerning the fears he had about the results of the machine operations. He complained verbally to DEP in early May of 2004, but made no written formal complaint, to any agency or person, until after his termination in July 2004. The Petitioner was not asked to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry concerning the operation of the bulb crushing machine and made no written complaint to any supervisory officials of the Respondent, who could then themselves submit a complaint to the Inspector General or to the Human Relations Commission. In fact, in his own testimony the Petitioner admits that he made a written complaint in July of 2004. In an apparent effort to show that the Respondent's proffered non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual, the Petitioner advanced testimony from a number of witnesses, including himself, which he maintains shows a pattern and practice by the Respondent of retaliating against, and, if necessary, effectively firing older, disabled employees or employees who complain of safety hazards. In this regard, of the five positions selected to be eliminated in the job force reduction of 2004, four had incumbents when the decision was made. All four of those incumbents were over 40 years of age. Two of those four positions, however, became vacant before they were eliminated by the job force reduction. Ms. Ashraf Achtchi was fired by the Respondent before her position became officially eliminated in the job force reduction and Preston Booth voluntarily resigned from his position for unknown reasons. Ms. Achtchi testified to the general effect that she felt she had been discriminated against because of being ill and under medical treatment, yet she was still singled out (in her view) for being absent or tardy. Although the record may establish that she is over 40 years of age, there is no persuasive evidence that she suffered from a legally cognizable disability as that condition or term is defined below, even if she was under a doctor's care, was ill, and had frequent tardiness or absentness due to illness or a doctor's visit during her employment tenure. In any event, other than her own subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's speculations based upon hearsay, there is no persuasive, competent evidence to show that she was terminated for any reasons based upon an unproven disability, her age or due to any retaliation regarding any protected status within the purview of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner maintains that both he and Mr. Feizi were over 40 and disabled. Whether or not the Petitioner established proof of disability will be dealt with in the conclusions of law below. Mr. Feizi apparently suffered from a disease of the nervous system (AMS) and was confined to a wheel chair much of the time. It may thus be inferred that, for purposes of the legal elements of disability referenced below, that Mr. Feizi was disabled. Other than his subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's subjective testimonial speculation, based upon hearsay, however, there is no competent, persuasive evidence concerning the reasons Mr. Feizi was terminated, other than that his position was simply eliminated through a job force reduction in the manner described in the above findings of fact. There is no persuasive, credible evidence to show that he was dismissed from employment based upon his age or due to his disability or as retaliation, nor was that proven with regard to Ms Achtchi. Other employees testified concerning alleged retaliatory conduct on the part of the Respondent. Sid Palladino and John Corbin opined that they had been retaliated against for making safety complaints of various kinds, as well as for testifying on behalf of the Petitioner in this proceeding. Ralph Cleaver testified that he left the Department to work for the Department of Agriculture because he had filed a "whistle blower" claim and that the Respondent, in his view, would use retaliation for his taking such an action. Barry McDaniel was 60 years old when hired and, abruptly soon thereafter, was asked to resign, according to his testimony, without any given reason. He testified that Mr. Sibille had him read a book purportedly advocating hard work and the hiring of young workers. The book was entitled "The Go Getter." According to Mr. McDaniel's testimony, the book was required to be read by all employees under Mr. Sibille's supervision. There was no evidence, however, that although Mr. McDaniel was asked to resign, that any other employee was so treated. The book was not in evidence and the undersigned has only Mr. McDaniel's subjective testimony concerning his thoughts regarding the theme and content of the book, in relation to his subjective belief that his age was the reason he was asked to resign. He testified that his immediate superior, who was also 60 years of age, was "gone" shortly thereafter. There is no evidence of any circumstances or facts concerning why Mr. McDaniel or his supervisor were actually asked to resign or in the case of his supervisor, may have voluntarily resigned. There are insufficient facts and circumstances established by the evidence to show any discriminatory motive related to age or otherwise with regard to the terminations of either of these men. Sid Palladino testified that he was reprimanded for not wearing his uniform and that other employees were not reprimanded when they had not worn uniforms either. He also testified that he felt he was retaliated against for making safety complaints as well as for testifying in support of the Petitioner in this proceeding. In fact, his reprimand was rescinded shortly after it was given him when it was learned that he had not worn his uniform or worn it properly because the uniform supplied him did not fit. Additionally, other than their anecdotal comments in their testimony, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Palladino or Mr. Corbin were retaliated against for complaining of safety issues and the same is true of Ralph Cleaver opining that he was about to be retaliated against for being a whistle blower, and Barry McDaniel as well. There is simply no definitive, credible proof, other than these employees' own subjective opinions, upon which to base a finding that there was any pattern and practice of retaliation against employees for complaining about safety hazards, for supporting other employees' discrimination claims, for making whistle blower claims, for being disabled or on account of their age, which could be persuasively probative of the discrimination and retaliation claims of the Petitioner.1/ In this connection, it is also found that there are a number of remaining employees in the Petitioner's division, who were his age or older. Indeed, Mr. Robert Smith had retired and then was later re-hired by the Department and the Division after suffering at least one episode of injury and medically prescribed light duty. Likewise, there are an unknown number of disabled or physically impaired persons remaining employed by the Department, after the dates and circumstances occurred with regard to the Petitioner's discriminatory claims. At least two of them testified in this proceeding. These facts belie the existence of a systematic policy or practice of eliminating employees over age 40 or of Mr. Forehand's age or older, or those who might be disabled or suffering from physical or medical impairments.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 10, 1991, respondent, School Board of Collier County (Board), issued a written invitation to various contractors inviting them to submit proposals for certain construction work to be performed on Naples Park Elementary School in Collier County, Florida. The invitation in question is more specifically identified as Bid No. 120-5/91 Site Development/Naples Park Elementary School. The bidders were advised that their bids must be submitted no later than 2:00 p.m. on June 4, 1991. Bids were timely filed by five contracting firms, including petitioner, A2M2R Construction, Inc. (AMR), and Haas Construction, Inc. (Haas). On June 4, 1991, various school personnel, including Dallas Disney, Board architect, Vicki McKinney, Board assistant director of purchasing, and Pat Humphrey, a Board secretary, and the Board's engineering consultant, Glen Bridges, met for the purpose of opening the sealed bids. They agreed that the five bids would be opened in alphabetical order. This meant that AMR's bid was opened first while Haas' bid was opened fourth. Bridges was assigned the task of opening the bids and reading the dollar amount of each bid. In the case of AMR, it proposed a base bid in the amount of $174,815. When Bridges opened Haas' bid, he said words to the effect that he could not clearly make out the amount of the base bid. This was because the original number had been changed by Haas prior to the submission of its bid, and it could not be clearly read. Accordingly, Bridges handed the proposal to McKinney, who read the number as $146,500. She then handed the bid document to Disney who also concluded the bid was in that amount. At that point, the president of Haas, who was present at the bid opening, was asked if the amount was indeed $146,500. When he confirmed that it was, he was asked to place his initials next to the base bid number. He did so even though paragraph (6)(a) of the Bid Instructions provides that "(a)ny erasures or other corrections in the proposal must be explained or noted over the signature of bidders". According to AMR, this provision required that Haas initial the amount before it sealed and filed its bid. This interpretation of the Bid Instructions was confirmed by Board personnel. Thus, AMR contends that by Haas initialing its bid amount after the bids were opened, Haas violated the Bid Instructions and should have its bid proposal rejected. As it turned out, the bid amount submitted by Haas was the lowest dollar bid on the project, and the Board has proposed to award the contract to Haas. According to the Board's assistant superintendent for business affairs, Robert Wilson, who has supervised hundreds of bid lettings over the last several years, the circumstances in this case were "unusual" in that Haas initialed the bid amount after the bid documents were opened. However, Wilson considered this to be a minor irregularity which, by the terms of the Bid Instructions, could be waived by the Board. Further, he did not find such action to give Haas an undue advantage in the bidding process or place AMR and other bidders at a disadvantage. This was not contradicted. On the bid form used by the bidders, there is a line left blank before the space where the numerical amount of the bid is inserted. AMR contends that the purpose of this space was to be used by a bidder to spell out in words the amount of its bid, and because Haas did not spell out in words the dollar amount of its bid, the proposal should be rejected. However, there is no requirement in the Bid Instructions that the dollar amount be spelled out in words nor was there a school policy imposing such a requirement. Therefore, as to this contention, no irregularity in the bidding process occurred.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by respondent awarding the contract in question to Haas Construction, Inc. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Respondent: 1-2. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 2. Adopted in finding of fact 4. 5-7. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being unnecessary. Adopted in finding of fact 3. Adopted in finding of fact 4. Adopted in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James R. Powell, Jr. P. O. Box 150340 Cape Coral, FL 33915 Thomas W. Franchino, Esquire 700 Eleventh Street, South Suite 203 Naples, FL 33940-6777 Dr. Thomas L. Richey, Superintendent Collier County School Board 3710 Estey Avenue Naples, FL 33942
Findings Of Fact On January 1, 1977, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issued Dealer a license to conduct the business of buying and selling motor vehicles at U.S. Highway 441, South, Leesburg, Florida. On January 19, 1977, Dealer's license was revoked by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for the reason that Dealer was no longer conducting business. Effective November 1, 1975, Dealer and Manufacturer executed franchise agreements authorizing Dealer to conduct dealership operations on behalf of Buick Motor Division, Pontiac Division and GMC Truck Division. These franchise agreements provide that they may be terminated if a required license is revoked or if the dealer fails to maintain his operation open for business for seven (7) consecutive business days. On January 28, 1977, Manufacturer gave Dealer notice that the three franchise agreements would terminate on the ninetieth day following receipt of the notice. The grounds for revocation were that the Dealer's license had been revoked and that dealership operations were not maintained for seven consecutive business days.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice as a result of retaliation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner D'Angelo A. Sullivan is a black male who worked for Respondent from January 14, 1999, until November 2002 as a blooming onion cook at Respondent's restaurant in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent Aussie Restaurant Management is a company that operates an Outback Steakhouse in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent employs more than 15 people. In a letter dated September 6, 2002, Petitioner requested a paid vacation. Petitioner believed he was entitled to a paid vacation. He departed on vacation on September 23, 2002. Upon returning on September 30, 2002, he was told that he would not be paid during the time he was on vacation. Respondent has a policy that provides paid vacations to employees who have worked 32 hours per week for the six weeks prior to the time requested for a vacation. Petitioner averaged 30.20 hours per week for the six weeks prior to his request for a vacation. He was, therefore, not entitled to a paid vacation. On October 11, 2002, Petitioner filed a Complaint Form with the Escambia-Pensacola Human Relations Commission. In the "Nature of the Complaint" section the blocks "race" and "color" were checked. The "other" block was completed with the words "promotion, pay raise." In this complaint, Petitioner recited that he was not given paid leave, that his work schedule had been reduced, and that he had been given a $.25 per hour pay raise instead of the annual $.50 per hour pay raise that he had received in prior years. The complaint also asserted that only one black had been employed "out front" among the customers. In the complaint he alleged mistreatment by a manager identified as "Donnie." Petitioner suggested as a remedy, that Respondent cease discrimination, that Petitioner be given a pay raise, a paid vacation, and a W-4 tax form. He also suggested that he should be trained so that he could get a promotion. No evidence was offered demonstrating that Respondent was aware of the existence of the complaint. Petitioner testified that he was advised by the person who took his complaint to refrain from telling Respondent he had complained, and that he followed that advice. In November 2002, subsequent to an automobile accident, and upon the advice of the attorney representing Petitioner as plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit arising from the accident, Petitioner determined that he should not continue to work. This decision was based in part upon his belief that working might lessen his chances of prevailing in the ongoing lawsuit. In June 2003 Petitioner approached the manager of Respondent's restaurant, Nicholas Loizos, on at least four occasions and asked to be hired as a "take away" person in the "front of the house." Although his former position of blooming onion cook was offered to him, Petitioner insisted that he wanted the "take away" position. Mr. Loizos told Petitioner that in order to be a "take away" person, he would have to take the "Front-of-the House Selection Test." Petitioner was provided the opportunity to take this test. Petitioner did not avail himself of this opportunity. No evidence was adduced that would indicate that Respondent engaged in racial discrimination against Petitioner, or any of Respondent's employees. No evidence was adduced that would prove that Respondent was aware that Petitioner had filed a discrimination complaint. Because Respondent was unaware of the discrimination complaint, Respondent could not have engaged in retaliation against Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 16th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 D'Angelo A. Sullivan 1006 West Hayes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Maria A. Santoro, Esquire George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King & Stevens 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should reimburse Petitioner for the attorneys' fees and costs Petitioner expended in its successful defense of Respondent's Stop-Work Order.
Findings Of Fact Hernandez, Inc., was a contractor based in the Jacksonville, Florida area, and was in the business of installing dry wall, among other construction-related activities. Its principal owner, Jorge Hernandez, founded the company in 1981. The Department of Financial Services is the state agency responsible for enforcing the Workers' Compensation Law. This duty is delegated to the Division of Workers' Compensation. The Division is a state agency. It is not a nominal party. On February 5, 2004, Hernandez, Inc., was engaged in installing drywall in the Bennett Federal Building in Jacksonville, Florida, using its own personnel, who were leased from Matrix, Inc., an employee leasing company, and two subcontractors, GIO & Sons (GIO), of Norfolk, Virginia, and U&M Contractors, Inc., (U&M), of Charlotte, North Carolina. The leased employees were properly covered by workers' compensation insurance provided by the lessor. Prior to contracting with GIO and U&M, Hernandez, Inc., asked for and received ACORD certificates of insurance, which on their face indicated that the subcontractors had both liability coverage and workers' compensation coverage. It is the practice of Hernandez, Inc., to ensure that certificates of insurance are provided by subcontractors. The office staff of Hernandez, Inc., at all times prior to going out of business, tracked the certificates and ensured that they were kept current. Hernandez, Inc. had relied on hundreds of these ACORD certificates in the past. During times pertinent, neither GIO or U&M maintained workers' compensation insurance on their employees that complied with the requirements of Section 440.38(7), Florida Statutes. On February 5, 2004, Katina Johnson, an investigator with the Division's Jacksonville office, made a routine visit to the Bennett Federal Building with another investigator. She observed personnel from Hernandez, Inc., and its subcontractors GIO and U&M, installing dry wall. She also determined that Hernandez, Inc., had a contract to install dry wall as a subcontractor participating in the construction of the Mayport Naval Station BEQ. U&M worked at both the Bennett Federal Building site and the Mayport BEQ site as a subcontractor of Hernandez, Inc. Ms. Johnson discovered that neither U&M nor GIO had workers' compensation coverage for its employers. Ms. Johnson asked for and received the certificates of insurance that Hernandez, Inc., had obtained from GIO and U&M, which facially suggested that Hernandez, Inc., had determined that its subcontractors had appropriate coverage. Nevertheless, she issued a SWO on February 26, 2004, to Hernandez, Inc., as well as GIO, and U&M. By the SWO, Hernandez, Inc., was charged with failure to ensure that workers' compensation meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, was in place for GIO and U&M. She also issued an Order of Penalty Assessment that eventually became an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 19, 2004. The SWO stated, in bold print, that Hernandez, Inc., was, "Ordered to Stop Work and Cease All Business Operations in the State." Hernandez, Inc., was, at the time, also engaged in construction at the new Jacksonville Library and at the Carlington Apartments, both of which were located in Florida. By the terms of the SWO, Hernandez was required to stop work in those sites also. The Division had no evidence that might cause it to believe that Hernandez, Inc., was operating in violation of the law at those sites. The SWO contained with it a Notice of Rights advising that a formal or informal administrative hearing might be had and required that a petition for a hearing be filed within 21 days of receipt of the SWO, if a hearing was desired. Hernandez, Inc., was not informed that it had the right to an immediate hearing. Hernandez, Inc., timely filed a petition demanding a formal hearing. In an effort to get back to work, Hernandez, Inc., entered into an agreement with the Division, whereby it paid a partial penalty of $46,694.03, but admitted no liability. The formal hearing did not take place until August 16, 2005. Ms. Johnson had the power to issue a stop-work order. She did not have to get approval from a neutral magistrate or from the Division. Because she was a recent employee of the Division, she conferred with her supervisor Robert Lambert before taking action, and he approved her action in writing. In February 2004, it was the policy of the Division to issue SWO's for all work sites even though it concluded that a violation had occurred in only the site or sites visited. The Division policy did not require an investigation into all worksites as a prerequisite to shutting down all worksites. The policy requiring a contractor to cease work at all worksites was not adopted as a rule. In February 2004, the Division asserted that compliance with Section 440.10(1)(c), Florida Statutes, required a general contractor to look beyond an ACORD certificate of insurance to determine if subcontractors had complied with the requirement to maintain the required workers' compensation coverage ". . . under a Florida endorsement using Florida rates and rules pursuant to payroll reporting that accurately reflects the work performed in this state by such employees." This policy was not adopted as a rule and was subsequently abandoned. The Division, in implementing this policy, asserted that a general contractor must actually review the policy of a subcontractor presenting an ACORD certificate and determine if it was in effect and if it complied with Florida law. This policy was not adopted as a rule and the policy was subsequently abandoned. The Division further asserted that the employees of the subcontractor of a general contractor were to be viewed as if they were employees of the general contractor, when contemplating workers' compensation coverage. This policy was not adopted as a rule. Ms. Johnson acted in conformance with the Division's policies in effect at the time the SWO was issued. The net worth of Hernandez, Inc., was a negative $1,821,599, on December 31, 2003. Hernandez, Inc., was struggling financially in February 2004, but was on the way to recovery until the SWO was issued. On November 30, 2004, the net worth of Hernandez, Inc., was a negative $1,161,865, and this figure included the sum of $978,000 that Mr. Hernandez put into the business. Accordingly, Hernandez, Inc., was a small business party for purposes of Subsection 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes, during times pertinent. The SWO, which terminated work at all Hernandez work sites, torpedoed any chance the company had to continue in business. Mr. Hernandez mortgaged his house, which he subsequently lost to creditors, in an effort to keep Hernandez, Inc., in business. All of his efforts failed. The failure was a direct result of the actions of the Division. The Division's interpretations of the law that precipitated their policies, and thus the failure of the business, were both wrong and unreasonable. Subsequent to the hearing and Recommended Order in Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Hernandez, Inc., Case No. 04-1174 (DOAH October 3, 2005), the Chief Financial Officer entered a Final Order styled, In the Matter of: Hernandez, Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 75492-05-WC (Florida Department of Financial Services, January 25, 2006). The Final Order noted that the contractor, Hernandez, Inc., complied with the extant law when it, ". . . demanded and received proof of insurance. . . . " The Final Order also noted that there was no authority produced by the Division that would permit the imposition of a fine on Hernandez, Inc. The Final Order further recited that there was no statutory duty on the part of a contractor to ensure (emphasis supplied) that its subcontractors had secured workers' compensation coverage for its employees. It noted that, ". . . without some formal delineation of the specific obligations of a contractor in ascertaining proof of insurance from a subcontractor, the Department cannot impose a penalty upon the facts presented in the instant case." The Division was ordered to rescind the SWO issued February 26, 2004, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment dated March 19, 2004, and was further ordered to repay the amount of $46,694.03, which had been paid to persuade the Division to abate the SWO. The action was initiated by the Division, which is a state agency. At the time the SWO was initiated, there was no reasonable basis in law and fact to do so. The actions of the Division were not "substantially justified." Hernandez, Inc., prevailed in the hearing because the Chief Financial Officer entered a Final Order in its favor and the Order has not been reversed on appeal and the time for seeking judicial review of the Final Order has expired. Hernandez, Inc., is, therefore, a "prevailing small business party." Hernandez, Inc., paid its law firm, Holbrook, Akel, Cold, Stiefel & Ray, P.A., $51,815.50 in attorneys' fees, and paid $8,837.00 in costs, in its successful defense of the Division's actions.
The Issue This cause came on for consideration upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief from a "Determination: No Cause," order entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact The undisputed facts are as follows: After investigating Petitioner's Claim of Discrimination, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) entered its Order, "Determination: No Cause," on March 12, 1996. FCHR's order unequivocally advised Petitioner that her Petition for Relief, if any, must be filed within 35 days. The thirty-fifth day would have been April 16, 1996. After the time as provided by FCHR's Rule 60Y-5.008(1) and by FCHR's March 12, 1996 order for the filing of her Petition for Relief had already run out, Petitioner filed a request for extension of time in which to file her Petition for Relief. Her request for extension stated that she needed the extension of time "due to failing health of my spouse and medical care and concern for him." This late request for extension of time was the only request for extension of time filed by Petitioner. It was dated April 17, 1996, (one day late) but it was not filed with the FCHR until April 24, 1996 (eight days late). Petitioner did not mail a copy of her April 1996 request for extension of time to Respondent as required by FCHR rules. Therefore, Respondent was unaware there had been a request for extension made to the FCHR until Respondent received the FCHR's order dated May 31, 1996. Because it had no notice that Petitioner was requesting an extension in April 1996, Respondent had no opportunity to object to the FCHR before the Commission entered its May 31, 1996 order. By its May 31, 1996 order, FCHR granted Petitioner an extension of time only until June 14, 1996 in which to file her Petition for Relief. The order does not state a number of days, but clearly and specifically states that the Petition for Relief must be filed by June 14, 1996. FCHR granted no further extensions to Petitioner for filing her Petition for Relief. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief beyond the June 14, 1996 date assigned her by the FCHR. Although her Petition for Relief was dated June 14, 1996, FCHR's date stamp on the Petition for Relief shows that it was not filed with the Commission until June 18, 1996. FCHR transmitted the Petition for Relief to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about July 12, 1996. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief and an Answer with affirmative defenses based on untimeliness. See, Conclusion of Law 15. In response to the October 8, 1996 order to show cause herein, Petitioner filed a pleading she labelled "Order Requiring Further Advices and to Show Cause." Although she had been required to show cause why she did not timely file her Petition for Relief between May 31, 1996 and June 18, 1996, she instead explained her tardiness in filing for an extension of time back in April 1996 this way: I was under the impression that I had 35 days to respond from the time I received the Notice of Determination: No Cause. I receive [sic] this notice on March 15, 1996, under my impression the 35 day lapse period would have been until April 19, 1996. I feel my response met this time period as my letter was dated April 17, 1996. In response to the October 8, 1996 order herein, Petitioner has offered no explanation why she filed her Petition for Relief beyond the clearly specified extension period granted her by the Commission.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner on account of her race in not promoting her to executive director, denying her a salary increase, threatening her with a demotion and/or placing her on medical leave?
Findings Of Fact At the time and place noticed for hearing, petitioner failed to appear and nobody appeared on her behalf.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that the FCHR enter an order denying the petition for relief. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Anita I. Parker 7740 Southside Blvd., #501 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Glenn R. Padgett, Esquire Kinsey Vincent & Pyle P.O. Box 3096 Daytona Beach, FL 32018-0096
The Issue The issues presented here concern the propriety of the Respondent's action in its decision to reject all bids submitted for Project 72906-9109, Duval County, thereby excluding the bid of the Petitioner which was the apparent low bid in this process.
Findings Of Fact Alfair Development Company, Inc. (Alfair), is a company owned by Maggie Alford. This company is certified as a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" under the terms of Chapter 337, Florida Statutes. This recognition is for benefit of contractual work done for the State of Florida, Department of Transportation. Alfair, together with two other companies who are "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises," responded to a bid opportunity from the Department of Transportation identified as Project No. 72906-9109, Duval County. The other two bidders were ILA Construction Company, Inc., of Daytona Beach, Florida, and Highway Valets, Inc., of Norwalk, Ohio. This project was for the construction of concrete sidewalks and curb cut ramps, installation and repair. The contract was for competition solely among contractors who had been certified as "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" by the Office of Minority Programs within the Department of Transportation. As such, it is referred to as a "set-aside" job. In a "set-aside" project, bids are accepted from these "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" in furtherance of the requirements of Section 339.0805, Florida Statutes, which mandates that not less than 10% of the amounts expended from the State Transportation Trust Fund shall be expended with small business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. When the bids were opened related to Project No. 72906-9109, Duval County, Alfair was the apparent winner having offered the lowest bid among the three competitors. However, there was a problem with the bid submission by Alfair and the others, in that Alfair's bid was 70% above the pre-bid estimate of the Department of Transportation concerning the expected price that the agency would have to pay for this project. The other two bidders were even higher, but within the range of the 70% above the pre-bid estimate. The pre-bid estimate had been derived by resort to a manual at the Department of Transportation referred to as the Contract Maintenance Administration and Inspection Manual. Within that manual the pre-bid estimate is found, as it was here, by examining historical workload and/or work needs survey information and development of that information and retention of that information through a computation book. That book includes appropriate forms, square yards, per linear feet, etc., for each item of activity to be paid for in the contract. The form to be used in this process shows the project number, the county, the section number of the roadway to be worked, the method of calculating estimated quantities and specific project location, if known. In this arrangement prior contracts of a similar sort to that contemplated in this instance are reviewed in trying to anticipate the contract costs on this occasion. That approach was followed in making the pre-bid estimate in this project. When the comparison was made of those figures it was a comparison to the immediately preceding years' contract for similar work against the work called for in the subject project at hand. In addition, the Department of Transportation contacted concrete companies to make sure that the concrete cost had remained the same. It also verified that minimum wage requirements had not changed from the prior year to the year in question. At hearing, the only rebuttal which the Petitioner offered to this approach of pre-bid estimate was the attempt to present certain documents which were denied admission as evidence in that the representative of the Petitioner, James D. Alford, III, husband to Maggie Alford, was not shown to be sufficiently apprised of contracting matters to explain those exhibits and show how they would tend to rebut the method of pre-bid estimate by the Department of Transportation. The exhibits standing alone did not lend themselves to the interpretation that they were competent rebuttal. When the degree of difference between the pre-bid estimate and the quotes by the bidders was examined by employees within the Department of Transportation, the belief was expressed that the bids were so out of keeping with the pre-bid estimate as to put to question the advisability of contracting with the apparent low bidder, Alfair. The Department felt that it needed to make certain that its pre-bid estimate was not flawed in some fashion and a determination was made to undergo reevaluation of the initial perception held about the bids offered before making a decision. Nonetheless, the impression was created in the mind of Barry D. Bunn, District Contract Administrator for District II, Department of Transportation, that he was expected in his employment to notice that the bids had been rejected. As a consequence on October 25, 1988, the bidders were advised that all bids were rejected for the project. On that same date, an advertisement was placed in the local newspaper that the project was being resolicited for bid purposes and through the advertisement the "set-aside" was deleted. This meant that for purposes of the re-advertisement of October 25, 1988, a general class of bidders could respond, to include "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises." Having been made mindful of this error, Bunn contacted the newspaper where the advertisement had been placed and told them to take that advertisement out of circulation. This occurred on October 26,1988. On that same date further correspondence was directed to the bidders, to include Alfair, in which it was stated that the bids had not been rejected, identifying that the bids were undergoing a reevaluation process. That reevaluation process did not change the initial impression by the Department of Transportation concerning the quotations received as being too far in excess of the Department's pre-bid estimate. Consequently, on November 1, 1988, a further notice of bid rejection was dispatched. That notice did not describe the reason for the rejection, but upon inquiry Mr. Alford was informed that the basis of the rejection was that the bid quotations were too costly when compared to the pre-bid estimate. Under inquiry the Department of Transportation did not identify the details of that explanation in the sense of saying what items they resorted to for drawing that conclusion and the Alfair company did not seek to gain a further explanation of their reasoning through prehearing discovery. The Department of Transportation had refused to give any further information to the Petitioner about this in the course of the telephone conversation between Mr. Alford and an employee in the Lake City, Florida Office of the Department of Transportation based upon the Department's belief that Section 337.168, Florida Statutes exempts it from having to state the pre-bid cost estimate until a contract has been entered into concerning the project. Nonetheless, it was revealed in the course of the hearing what the difference between the bid quotation of Alfair and the pre-bid estimate had been, as well as identifying the methods for deriving that difference. When Alfair received the notice of rejection of its bid it filed a timely notice of protest followed by a timely petition in protest. In addition, the Petitioner posted the appropriate amount of bond under Section 337.11(3)(b), Florida Statutes, to allow it to pursue this case. The pleadings by the Petitioner are not particularly informative but the sum and substance off the allegations as demonstrated in those pleadings and as set forth by remarks of the representative at hearing, identify the belief held by the Petitioner that the Department of Transportation in rejecting the Alfair bid has been unjust, illegal, dishonest and arbitrary. Moreover, Alfair through its representative found fault with the refusal to reveal to him over the phone the methods of arriving at the pre-bid estimate and the general belief that the Department allows the participation in the bidding process and in the award of contract related to "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" of persons who are not registered or licensed as contractors through the offices of the Department of professional Regulation within the State of Florida. None of these claims were shown to be meritorious through the proofs submitted at hearing. The Department of Transportation seeks the award of costs under the provisions of Section 337.11(3)(b), Florida statutes. The evidence in this hearing reveals that the salaries of the two witnesses who testified for the Department of Transportation, namely Russell O. Davis and Barry D. Bunn, were $125.80 and $130.00, respectively, per day. These employees were involved in the hearing process for one day. In addition to salary costs the State had to pay these employees $62.50 each for per diem allowance in that the witnesses were from out of town. The cost of attendance at hearing by the court reporter is $67.50.
Recommendation In consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that Final Order be entered which rejects all bids and allows the re-advertisement of Project No. 72906-9109, Duval County. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner has submitted a Memorandum in which an indication is given concerning the Project 72906-9109, Duval County, as to the scope of that project-and an explanation in the mind of the representative of Petitioner as to the reason for "set-aside" projects. An accusation is made that the Department of Transportation has tried to avoid bringing black businesses into the mainstream of Florida economy. This is not borne out by the proof. An accusation is made which was not proven at hearing and is not relevant to the resolution of this dispute concerning the contributions to the Florida tax base made by the black community and businesses. This contention together with the allegation that the Department of Transportation is using tactics to deny a small percent.age of tax dollars to recirculate into the black community for economic development and by such arrangement promotes institutional slavery was not proven. Reference to rejection of all bids on October 18, 1988 is at odds with the facts of this case. Further, there is no indication in the facts of this case that for the first time in history a black-owned company was going to cross economic a threshold within the district in terms of gaining business and that the agency rejected the bids to avoid this. Further reference to the procedural history of this case and the fact that corrections had to be made to the process of notification of rejection of all bids is not sufficient reason to overturn the decision to reject all bids. Reference within the Memorandum/Argument to the need to post a bond as being done because it would cause an economic hardship on a black-owned company is rejected as a grounds of argument in that the requirement of bond is a matter of law imposed upon all companies black or otherwise. The fact that office holders within the State Legislature were called upon by the Petitioner to ascertain the status of this project and that the Department of Transportation went through the process of correcting "the initial rejection of bids in favor of a reevaluation phase, has been explained in the fact finding elated to the sequence of events and the procedures involved in rejecting all bids. Reference to the failure to describe the reasons for rejection beyond the fact that the bids were too high has been described in the- fact finding. No evidence was shown that the refusal to indicate the reason in detail or to refer to the source of the data was in the interest of somehow favoring white prime contractors over black contractors. There is some other indication within this Memorandum concerning the meeting of goals for "Disadvantaged Business Enterprises" and the concern that the Department of Transportation is using minority individuals instead of minority businesses to meet those goals. There was no indication that the Department of Transportation acted inappropriately in its attempts to gain a contract in this case, or that it generally has participated in a process which the Petitioner refers to dualism in preferring minority persons who are not licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation to engage in the construction business over those who are. Moreover, Section 489.103(1), Florida Statutes, states that the license provisions of Florida law, do not pertain to contractors who are working on bridges, roads, streets and highways and services incidental to that work. Comments about training and apprenticeship found within the Memorandum were not proven in the course of the hearing and are not sufficiently relevant to the inquiry at hand; that they need be considered in resolving this dispute. The suggestion that the Department of Transportation intends to put the contract back out for award in some arrangement other than a "set-aside" is correct in the sense of the intentions expressed in the ad of October 25, 1988; however, that advertisement was not carried forward and the oral indication was made by an official of the Department of Transportation at hearing, that the contract would remain "set- aside" if the Department were allowed to readvertise at some point beyond the outcome of this hearing. Finally, the suggestion that if the second bidder in this case had been a non-black company or individual, the Department would have awarded the project to that entity was not borne out in the proof. Respondent's facts are subordinate to the facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Alford, III 1348 Davis Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Marilyn McFadden, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S.-58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
