The Issue The issues presented in this consolidated proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts and violations alleged in the two administrative complaints, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating restaurants in the state. Respondent is licensed as a restaurant, pursuant to license number 5802478, and operates as 459 Chinese Restaurant at 657 North Primrose Drive, Orlando, Florida 32803 (the restaurant). A sanitation and safety specialist (Specialist) for Petitioner inspected the restaurant on October 28 and 29, November 5, and December 1, 2004. The Specialist inspected the restaurant again on April 26 and 27, 2005. On December 1, 2004, Respondent committed three violations of applicable statutes and rules. On April 27, 2005, Respondent committed another violation. Each violation was an uncorrected violation that first occurred in previous inspections. On December 1, 2004, Respondent did not document that an employee at the restaurant had received training in professional hygiene and food-borne disease prevention in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-4.023(4)(a). This violation is a critical violation. Petitioner's witness identified a critical violation as a violation that is an immediate danger to the public safety. On December 1, 2004, a grease buildup existed on the kitchen wall near the fryer. Food-debris buildup was also present on the floors in the corner of the kitchen. Neither of these violations is a critical violation. On April 27, 2005, Respondent maintained eggs at a temperature of 64 degrees Fahrenheit, rather than 45 degrees, in violation of Rule 3-5.01.16(B) of the Food Code. This is a critical violation. Several mitigating factors are evidenced in the record. The violations did not result in actual harm. Respondent has no prior discipline. The violations are not continuing or ongoing violations. The only aggravating factor is that two of the violations are critical violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of committing the acts and violations alleged in each Administrative Complaint, requiring Respondent's representative to attend the educational program prescribed in Petitioner's PRO, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,300, due and payable to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1011, within 30 calendar days of the date that the agency serves Respondent with a copy of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 21st day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Quinn 459 Chinese Super Buffet 657 North Primrose Drive Orlando, Florida 32803 Jessica Leigh, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued August 25, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating insurance licenses and appointments pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a Life Health and Annuity Agent, Life Health and Variable Annuity Agent, and a Health Insurance Agent in this state. On March 7, 1982, the Respondent was celebrating her birthday, she turned 22 that day, and was returning home with her husband when the vehicle they were in was stopped for a minor traffic infraction (expired tag). Believing he had to perform a "pat down" for his safety, the officer felt the Respondent's purse and noticed a bulge in the shape of a small weapon. The small hand gun had been a birthday present to the Respondent. Upon discovering the weapon, the officer charged the Respondent with carrying a concealed firearm. Initially the Respondent entered a written plea of not guilty but subsequently changed the plea in open court to one of nolo contendere. In connection with the plea change, the court entered an Order Granting Probation and Fixing Terms Thereof. The fact that the Respondent was placed on probation is not disputed. Further, as the Court determined the Respondent was not likely to again engage in a criminal course of conduct, adjudication was withheld and probation set for a period of one year. The Respondent successfully completed that year of probation and has had no further incidents of criminal misconduct. The Respondent erroneously believed that the successful completion of the probationary period, and the fact that adjudication had been withheld, resulted in the expungement of the criminal record. As the Respondent later found out, criminal records are not automatically sealed or expunged. On November 2, 1999, the Respondent filed an application for licensure as a life health and variable annuity agent with the Petitioner. That application contained two questions dealing with the applicant's past criminal history. As to both questions, the Respondent erroneously entered "no" responses. Had the Respondent entered accurate answers, both responses would have been "yes" based upon the status of the Respondent's criminal record at the time the application was submitted to the Petitioner. The Respondent has a medical condition that she claims has damaged her long term-memory. According to the Respondent, she answered the questions as she did because she did not remember all the facts surrounding the criminal history at the time the application was completed but that, even if she had, she would have assumed the matter was sealed and fully resolved since adjudication was withheld. The Respondent's account in this regard has been deemed credible. The Respondent did not intend to mislead the Petitioner and acted more in ignorance of the law as to the prior arrest and probation than in willful disregard of her responsibility to disclose it. At the time Respondent completed her application for licensure she read the paragraph that appears at the bottom of the third page of said application in bold typeface that states: IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE READ ALL OF THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS CAREFULLY AND HAVE ANSWERED THEM FULLY. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT AS IT RELATES TO AN APPLICANT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS. THE DEPARTMENT DEEMS ALL MATTERS THAT ARE PART OF AN APPLICANT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AND MATERIAL ELEMENT OF THE APPLICATION, THE OMISSION OF ANY PART OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORD IS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION OR MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT IN AND OF ITSELF. YOUR FAILURE TO DIVULGE YOUR COMPLETE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORD ON THIS APPLICATION CAN RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING DENIED. In addition to the foregoing, the application submitted by the Respondent provided the following statement: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of The Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). The answers provided by the Respondent to the two questions (application questions numbered 18 and 19) were incorrect, misleading, and were presumably used to support the issuance of the Respondent's licenses. Although the Respondent is eligible to have her criminal record sealed or expunged, as of the date of the hearing she had not completed that process. During the investigation of this matter, the Respondent fully cooperated with the Petitioner and obtained copies of documents as requested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Santurri, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph H. Fernandez, Esquire The Law Offices of Brand & Fernandez, P.A. 2 Northeast 40th Street Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33137 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lawrence A. Grolemund, has been in the securities business for over 21 years. Except for two complaints--one in 1986 and a second 1988--he has not been the subject of complaint or investigation by the National Association of Securties Dealers (NASD) or any state. He earned a reputation as a successful securities dealer and, as his career progressed, as manager of securities dealership branch offices. As branch manager, one of Grolemund's primary responsibilities was to insure that his office functioned in compliance with applicable state and federal law, and the rules of the NASD. Due to the reputation Grolemund had earned, the Chairman of the Board of Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., personally recruited Grolemund as a branch manager. After a training period, Grolemund assumed duties at the company's New Orleans office in August, 1982. He did not become a registered options principal for the New Orleans office until December, 1982. For several years before Grolemund's arrival, the company's New Orleans office had been a "problem office." A disproportionate share of securities violations occurred in that office, and management had difficulty controlling the associated persons in the office to achieve compliance. Several branch managers who preceded Grolemund had been disciplined by the NASD for inadequate supervision of the office. Grolemund knew some of the problems--he was hired to try to correct them--but he did not know the extent of the problems he would face when he took over. On August 25, 1986, the District 5 Business Conduct Committee filed a complaint against Howard Hampton, E.F Hutton & Company, Inc., Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., Grolemund and others. The gist of the complaint is that Hampton committed various violations of the Securities and Exchange Act, SEC rules and NASD rules while an associated person with E.F. Hutton and with Prudential-Bache. Hampton was with E.F. Hutton from February, 1981, through August, 1982, and was with Prudential-Bache in the New Orleans office from August, 1982, through February, 1984. The violations involve Hampton's dealings with clients he brought with him from E.F. Hutton to Prudential-Bache. Most of the violations involve the exercise of discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. Some of the alleged incidents occurred while Hampton was at E.F. Hutton. Some occurred while Hampton was at Prudential-Bache but before Grolemund arrived at the New Orleans office. Some occurred after Grolemund arrived but before he became an options principal for the office. In some cases, the information in the file on which Grolemund had to rely was incorrect. Grolemund fired Hampton in December, 1983. (At the time Hampton was fired, no complaints had yet been leveled against Hampton. In fact, all of the clients who ultimately complained against Hampton went with Hampton when he was fired from Prudential-Bache.) Grolemund also fired some other "unsavory" account executives in the New Orleans office. Grolemund was charged, along with other Prudential-Bache options principals, with failure and neglect to establish, maintain, and/or enforce written procedures which would enable Prudential-Bache to exercise reasonable and proper supervision of Hampton and with failure and neglect to supervise Hampton reasonably and properly. Grolemund was represented in the proceedings before the district committee by in-house counsel for Prudential-Bache. Otherwise, Grolemund did not have independent advice of counsel. Prudential-Bache was involved in other proceedings before the SEC which made it in its best interest to resolve the matters arising out of the New Orleans office. For several months, Prudential- Bache tried to convince Grolemund to settle. In addition, Grolemund was concerned whether the District 5 Business Conduct Committee would fairly consider the complaint against him. As part of his successful management of Prudential-Bache's New Orleans office, he competed directly against other securities dealers in the area, some of which were represented on, or had friends who were on, the Committee. When Grolemund came to New Orleans, there were 16 account executives in the office. Under his term of management, after he fired four to five account executives, including Hampton, the New Orleans office grew from 16 to 36 account executives. In addition, Grolemund opened satellite offices in Shreveport and Lafayette, Louisiana. These offices grew in size to 11 and 9 account executives, respectively. Many of the account executives Grolemund added were recruited away from competitors, and he was concerned that there might be hard feelings against him among the members on the Committee. After spending considerable time weighing all factors, Grolemund agreed on or about November 3, 1987, to settle the Hampton matter on terms that included acceptance of a finding that he was guilty of the allegations against him and acceptance of a censure, a 21-day suspension, a requirement that he re- qualify as a registered options principal, and a $7,500 fine. The settlement was reduced to writing in final form on April 25, 1988. As a result of the 21-day suspension, another options principal at Prudential-Bache was required to sign all options agreements during the suspension. Otherwise, Grolemund's job was the same as before the suspension, and Grolemund continued to receive his full normal compensation from Prudential- Bache. Prudential-Bache paid the fine for Grolemund. Re-qualification was a matter of passing a written examination, which did not present a problem for Grolemund. In agreeing to settle, Grolemund misunderstood that the district committee's action would not be the basis of any other proceedings against him. He also misunderstood that the offer of settlement would resolve all pending matters involving the New Orleans office, including the so-called Keel matters. Contrary to Grolemund's understanding, the NASD filed another complaint against Prudential-Bache and Grolemund on May 9, 1988. This complaint, which had been under investigation during the time the Hampton case was proceeding, involved an account executive named Patrick Keel. Like Hampton, Keel was alleged to have exercised discretionary power in the accounts of clients without prior written authorization. He also was alleged to have recommended unsuitable stock and option investments to two clients and to have falsely reported to Prudential-Bache that some of his clients enjoyed profits from the investments he had recommended and made for them, when in fact they had incurred losses. As with the Hampton matter, Grolemund was accused of having failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures that would have enabled him to exercise proper supervision of Keel and of having failed to properly supervise Keel. The Keel matter went to hearing before the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on August 24-25, 1989. As to what it called Cause One, the Committee found that Keel engaged in unauthorized and unsuitable options transactions in the account of one customer and that Grolemund had failed to supervise Keel properly in connection with the options transactions. Under Cause Two, the Committee found that Keel made unauthorized and unsuitable stock and options transactions in the account of another customer and that Grolemund had ample early warning that Keel was not handling his options accounts properly. The Committee noted that in October, 1984, the customer had lodged complaints regarding Keel's options trading and that Grolemund had daily conversations with a superior concerning problems with Keel's options accounts. The Committee found that, even if Grolemund did not have the benefit of the early warnings of irregularity, his response to the concerns raised by the customer in her December 10, 1984, telephone conversation was inadequate. The Committee found that, given the customer's refusal to sign the activity letter that Grolemund sent her, it was incumbent upon Grolemund to determine whether the customer understood options, whether options transactions were consistent with her financial situation, and whether she had approved the options transactions before their execution. The Committee found that Grolemund did not compile and review the customer's account documentation, which would have revealed that options trading was inconsistent with her objectives and needs and that the customer was only approved for Level II trading although Keel had executed two Level III transactions. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice by failing to supervise Keel properly. Under Cause Three, the Committee found that Keel recommended to a customer (the same customer involved in Cause Two) that she commit 25-30% of her net worth to a Hawaiian real estate private placement tax shelter that was not consistent with the customer's needs and objectives. However, the Committee noted that there was conflicting evidence as to whether Grolemund had reviewed the recommendation in light of the customer's personal financial strategy form. Although it was not Grolemund's job at Prudential-Bache to review suitability determinations with respect to private placements, the Committee expressed the view that Grolemund was in the best position to supervise the recommendations of salesmen and that he could not delegate this responsibility to other departments. Accordingly, the Committee found that Grolemund had violated Article III, Sections 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice under Cause Three. As to Causes Four through Eleven, the Committee dismissed all but two for insufficient evidence. As for the two that were not dismissed, the Committee found that Keel exercised discretion in the accounts of customers without prior written approval and that Grolemund failed to exercise proper supervision over Keel. The Committee reasoned that, by the time at issue, Grolemund had adequate warning of Keel's exercise of discretion without authority and that Grolemund allowed Keel not only to continue options trading but also allowed Keel to continue using special telephone and "bunching" privileges that, in the Committee's view, "greatly facilitated Keel's exercise of discretion." The Committee dismissed Cause Twelve to the extent that it alleged that Grolemund failed to supervise Keel reasonably with respect to the submittal of inaccurate active account information reports by him. The Committee, in its June 21, 1990, decision, censured Grolemund, barred him from associating with any NASD member in any principal capacity and fined him $4,000. Under the bar, Grolemund would not have been permitted to apply for reinstatement for at least ten years. Based on this decision, and the earlier disposition of the 1986 complaint in the Hampton matter, the Department offered to conditionally grant Grolemund's application, prohibiting Grolemund from acting as a principal, supervisor or manager. When Grolemund refused to accept the conditions, the Department denied the application. Grolemund appealed the Committee decision in the Keel matter to the Board of Governors of the NASD. The appeal was heard on October 11-12, 1990. On appeal, the Board reversed the finding that Keel executed out-of-level options transactions. The Board also noted that the record demonstrates a high degree of direct interaction between Grolemund, Keel, Keel's clients, and Prudential-Bache's operations manager and that the firm's records distribution system may have prevented Grolemund from exercising greater supervision over Keel. Because branch managers did not receive copies of customer information relating to limited partnerships, such as the Maui/Waikiki deal, Grolemund had no opportunity to assess the suitability of Keel's customer for the offering, or to compare the documents that Keel had completed in connection with that deal with other account information regarding the customer. The Board also noted that Grolemund engaged in more-than-adequate follow-up with clients following the receipt of complaints and that the customer may have been less than candid regarding her lack of understanding of the investments that Keel recommended for her account. Nonetheless, the Board believed that Grolemund fell short of the standard of reasonable supervision in that it should have been clear to Grolemund that Keel had not been properly trained and lacked a basic understanding of the practices of the securities industry. The well-documented problems that Keel's options trading caused with respect to customers' margins, and Keel's documented confusion of cash and margin accounts, certainly should have put Grolemund on notice that Keel lacked sufficient training to engage in such risky trading strategies as writing options. The Board also thought Grolemund should have inquired why there was no options agreement on file for one customer until after options trading in her account had ceased. The Board concurred with the Committee that Grolemund fell below the standard of reasonable supervision, and thereby violated Article III, Section 1 and 27 of the Rules of Fair Practice. The Board of Governors affirmed the censure and $4,000 fine against Grolemund. However, in light of the various mitigating factors regarding Grolemund's overall conduct, the Board ruled that barring him as a principal was an excessively harsh penalty. Instead, the Board suspended him from acting in any principal capacity for seven days and required him to requalify by examination in all principal capacities. In July, 1985, long before either the Hampton or the Keel complaint was filed, Prudential-Bache promoted Grolemund to the new Tampa office. When Grolemund took over as branch manager, the Tampa office was only nine months old. Grolemund successfully managed the Tampa office until May, 1990, when he applied for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc. During Grolemund's time as branch manager, the Tampa office grew to 35 account executives. The evidence proved that no violations occurred in the Tampa office during the almost five years that Grolemund was the branch manager there. Since the Hampton and Keel matters, the securities industry has changed remarkably, in part as a result of the October, 1987, stock market crash. Before the crash, options trading generally was viewed as a conservative investment--a way to participate in the market with limited resources and to provide an additional source of income from a conservative investment. The risks of options trading now are widely recognized, and management generally has become sensitive and responsive to those risks. In addition, the data processing and informations systems now in general use in the industry have given management new and effective tools for supervising the activities of account executives. Some of these systems make it impossible for some of the Hampton and Keel violations to occur today. For example, the systems will not process options trades for which there is no record of prior written authorization in the file. For these reasons, it is not likely that activities such as those in which Hampton and Keel were involved in 1981 through 1984 would go undetected today by a manager of Grolemund's caliber or that, detected, they would go unchecked. Advest, Inc., the securities dealer that wants to associate Grolemund to manage its new Clearwater office, is a respectable securities dealer that places reasonably strong emphasis on compliance with the requirements of the various regulatory agencies under which it must operate. It specializes in relatively safe investments, certainly as compared with the activities of the New Orleans office of Prudential-Bache in the early 1980s. Options trading represents only 14 to 15 percent of Advest's total business nationwide. Less than six percent of the business of its new Clearwater office consists of options trading. Advest's compliance department generates a monthly computer report called a "commission versus equity" run which displays the account name and number, the account executive's number, gross commission generated for the month and year, the number of trades for the month and year to date, the amount of cash and securities in the account, and the value of the account in relationship to the trading on a percentage basis. Some variation of the report is provided to the branch managers, to the division managers, and to the branch group manager, with each higher level of management getting more and more information in the report. An options activity report is produced in the Advest compliance department on a daily basis listing all accounts that traded outside their levels, if any, and any accounts that have a trade executed where the appropriate forms are not on file within the allowed period. Advest compliance sends out active account letters to verify customer satisfaction. If the customer does not respond within ten days, a second letter is sent. If the customer does not respond to the second letter within ten days, the account is restricted from further activity. The Advest compliance department reviews all aspects of the branch offices on an annual audit. Compliance then issues a report to the branch manager, the division manager, and the branch group manager. The computer generated commission report would automatically detect a trade executed by a registered representative not assigned to the account for which the trade is completed and would place an asterisk around the account executive number. The manager would then be contacted by the compliance department and asked to explain the discrepancy. In addition to the ordinary compliance procedures in place at Advest, to address the concerns of the Department and other regulatory agencies, Advest proposes several measures to reduce even further the likelihood of violations in the new Clearwater office to which it will assign Grolemund as branch manager. First, it will limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year. Second, it will require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year. Third, Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance; during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice. Fourth, two annual routine compliance monitoring visits will be made, instead of the usual one visit. Finally, the branch group manager personally will review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order granting Grolemund's application for registration as an associated person with Advest, Inc., subject only to the following conditions: First, that Advest limit the number of account executives under Grolemund to 15 or less for the first year; Second, that Advest require another senior registered options principal to supervise the options trading along with Grolemund for the first year. Third, that Advest's branch group manager or another Florida branch manager will personally visit Grolemund's office four times during the first year to monitor compliance and that, during the second year, either he or another Florida branch manager personally visit Grolemund's office for this purpose at least twice. Fourth, that Advest make two annual routine compliance monitoring visits to Grolemund's office, instead of the usual one visit. Finally, that the branch group manager personally review all new account information from Grolemund's office weekly. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5880 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part in that the Department did not consider the order of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the order of the District 5 Business Conduct Committee on the 1988 "Keel" complaint before giving notice of intent to deny the application. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in the sense that final action has not yet been taken. As it refers to Department notice of intended action, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 8.-10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect. Rejected as not proven exactly when the uniform guidedlines went into effect. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 16.-17. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that the system was in operation since 1980. 21.-23. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 24. Accepted and incorporated. 25.-28. Accepted and incorporated. 29. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 30.-36. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary. First clause, accepted; second clause, rejected consistent with the NASD orders. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 43.-46. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated in the form of the findings of the Board of Governors of the NASD on appeal from the 1988 "Keel" complaint. Accepted but unnecessary. 49.-50. Accepted and incorporated. 51.-52 Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary. Rejected that the orders were entered in 1986 and 1988; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 5.-7. Rejected as conclusion of law and unnecessary. 8.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. Accepted that the Committee characterized its decision in those terms by way of explaining why it was just to differentiate between Prudential-Bache and its representatives, including Grolemund, and E.F. Hutton and its representatives. However, in fact, the various dispositions were agreed by the parties. It is unnecessary to include this finding. 15.-18. Accepted and incorporated. 19. Accepted but unnecessary. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated. 22. Accepted but unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward W. Dougherty, Esquire Mang, Rett & Collette, P.A. 660 East Jefferson Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance Legal Section The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, Esquire General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was discriminated against through an adverse employment decision by the Respondent, because of the Petitioner's age.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was hired by the Respondent on or about April 27, 1998, as a salesperson. When the Petitioner was hired he was 77 years of age. He is currently 84 years of age. Apparently the principal reason the Petitioner was hired was because of his substantial business contacts and principal client, which was Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. The Petitioner had sold food, principally seafood, to Winn Dixie for a substantial period of time. The Petitioner worked for a division of the Respondent known as the Great Fish Company. The Great Fish Company began operations in October of 1998. Mr. Carter, the president of Great Fish Company was the Petitioner's supervisor. During his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner worked from his home. He sold seafood to customers, principally Winn Dixie, for which he was primarily paid on a commission basis. During his term of employment his compensation plan was periodically changed by the Respondent. Some of those changes financially benefited the Petitioner in some years and other changes served to reduce his commission or compensation. During the term of the Petitioner's employment with the Respondent, the Respondent also periodically changed the compensation plans of other employees of the Respondent; some of those changes involved reductions of their compensation plans and some involved increases. This depended upon the sales volume of those individual employees or the revenue situation of the company overall. In or about June of 2003, the Respondent changed the Petitioner's compensation plan. This change did not benefit the Petitioner but represented a reduction in compensation. This change to his compensation plan, however, was based upon legitimate business and financial reasons and was non- discriminatory, because it was based upon a down-turn in business, sales, and revenue for the company. Around the same period of time, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that he believed he was underpaid on earned commissions. Because of this the Respondent performed an audit of the Petitioner's commissions to determine if indeed he had been underpaid. The results of that audit did not establish that the Petitioner had been underpaid but rather that he had been overpaid by approximately $9,000.00 dollars. The audit results were provided to the Petitioner and the Petitioner disputed the results. The Petitioner never complained during his employment to any employees of the Respondent or supervisors suggesting that any employees or supervisors had discriminated against him or retaliated against him because of his age or because of his dispute concerning compensation, during his term of employment. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was singled-out or treated less favorably than other employees, including other employees of different ages, in terms of his compensation or other employment conditions. Indeed, there was no persuasive evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner was treated less favorably in any way than other employees of the Respondent, regardless of their ages. There apparently came a time after June of 2003 and during 2004 when the Petitioner earned very little or no commissions from the Respondent. His employment was never actually terminated by the Respondent. The Petitioner rather either voluntarily quit his employment sometime prior to the final hearing or his sales opportunities dropped off so that, essentially, he was earning little or no compensation from the Respondent, while working out of his home in accordance with their arrangement. This down-turn in business apparently had a great deal to do with the severe financial circumstances his principal customer, Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., found itself in during this same period of time. In any event, the reduction in the Petitioner's commissions and compensation was not shown to be due to any effort or intent by the Respondent to single him out because of his age and reduce his compensation in some effort to force him to resign or retire. The reduction in his compensation was for the business reason of a decrease in revenues generated by the Petitioner himself or being experienced by the company as a whole, necessitating reduction of not only the Petitioner's but other employee's compensation, as a matter of a prudent business practice by the Respondent.
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 argument of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2004, 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 11th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wyn Samuel 130 Willow Pond Lane Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 J. Scott Hudson, Esquire 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1220 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert J. Stovash, Esquire Stovash, Case and Tingley, P.A. SunTrust Center 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1220 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners, Judith C. Cleary and Charles B. Houck (Petitioners or Ms. Cleary and Mr. Houck), are entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Respondent, Department of Financial Services (Respondent or the Department), pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The underlying proceedings were initiated by Respondent on February 22, 2010, by the issuance of substantively identical Administrative Complaints against Petitioners. Petitioners timely requested administrative hearings to contest the charges against them, and the cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings where they were consolidated for hearing. Count 1 of each Administrative Complaint charged Petitioners with willfully misrepresenting and or omitting material information in order to induce Mr. and Mrs. Nagle to cash in another annuity they held in order to purchase an annuity sold by Petitioners. Included in the alleged misrepresentations or material omissions were: misrepresenting that there would be no surrender charges to withdraw the entire amount of the new annuity after one year, when in fact there would be a 15 percent surrender charge; falsely representing that the annuity would earn the Nagles ten to 20 percent returns; and (3) misrepresenting the suitability of the Nagles to purchase the annuity by misrepresenting the Nagles' net worth and by misrepresenting the Nagles' investment objective as long-term, in a form Petitioners submitted to the insurance company issuing the annuity. Count 2 of each Administrative Complaint charged Petitioners with similar conduct in order to induce the Nagles' son, Robert, to purchase an annuity. Included in the alleged misrepresentations or material omissions were: misrepresenting that there would be no surrender charges to withdraw the entire amount of the new annuity after one year, when, in fact, there would be a 15 percent surrender charge; and falsely representing that the annuity would earn Robert Nagle ten to 20 percent annual returns. Petitioners do not dispute that if the allegations charged in the Administrative Complaint had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, then Respondent would have established the statutory violations alleged as the predicate for taking disciplinary action against Petitioners' insurance agent licenses. Petitioners also acknowledge that Respondent initiated the disciplinary actions against them on the basis of two complaint letters received by Mrs. Phyllis Nagle, the attestation of Mrs. Nagle to the material allegations in an affidavit, and a corroborating complaint letter by Mrs. Nagle's son, Robert Nagle. After a full evidentiary hearing, a Recommended Order issued in the underlying disciplinary actions determined that the more credible evidence failed to establish the allegations in the Administrative Complaints. In particular, the undersigned weighed the credibility of testimony by Robert Nagle and by Petitioners at the final hearing, as well as deposition testimony by both Mr. and Mrs. Nagle. The question posed in this case, however, is not whether credibility judgments caused the Department to ultimately not prevail in its charges against Petitioners. Instead, the question here is whether Respondent had a reasonable basis, in law and in fact, at the time it initiated the underlying disciplinary actions. In this regard, Petitioners contend that the Department's investigation file contained documents from the insurance company issuing the annuities that contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaints. Petitioners point to three documents in particular. The first document was a customer survey response submitted by Mrs. Nagle to the insurance company after she purchased the annuity from Petitioners. Her completion of the survey form indicated that she knew that "[s]urrender charges are imposed on premature full withdrawal"; that she considered the "annuity to be a long-term investment"; that she did "not intend to use these funds to meet current expenses"; and that Petitioners reviewed her "financial status . . . and other pertinent information to determine whether this annuity purchase" was suitable to her. The other document claimed to contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaints was the Nagles' annual statement showing a yield of 5.66 percent, which was different than the 2.6 percent yield claimed by Mrs. Nagle in her complaint letters or affidavit. Finally, Petitioners point to statements of understanding signed by the Nagles, showing the surrender charges that would be imposed for early withdrawals. None of these documents conclusively refute the charges in the Administrative Complaint. For example, with respect to surrender charges, the Nagles' complaints assert that Petitioners represented that there would be no surrender charges for a withdrawal after one year. Mrs. Nagle's survey form only acknowledged that there would be surrender charges for "premature" withdrawal. It certainly would have been possible to reconcile these two concepts in that Mrs. Nagle may have been thinking that "premature" withdrawal, as used in the survey form, was a withdrawal in less than one year. The response in the survey form to the "surrender charge" question does not conclusively contradict Mrs. Nagle's complaint and affidavit, nor does it conclusively contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Similarly, the responses in the survey form about suitability do not conclusively contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. The annual statement likewise does not conclusively contradict the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, even though the yield shown is somewhat different from the yield Mrs. Nagle referred to in her complaint. Whether the yield was actually 2.6 percent or 5.66 percent, the material allegations in the Administrative Complaint were that Petitioners misrepresented that the yield would be 10 to 20 percent per year. These allegations and the complaints on which they were based, were not so plainly lacking in credibility that no reasonable agency would have proceeded with charges. Finally, the signed statements of understanding showing that surrender charges would be imposed for early withdrawals do not contradict the Nagles' complaints or the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. Although the undersigned ultimately found against the credibility of the Nagles' complaints, those complaints were that Petitioners made oral representations assuring the Nagles that there would be no surrender charges after one year, even though the policy forms themselves said otherwise. The ultimate lack of credibility of the complaining witnesses' testimony was not so clear that no reasonable agency would have prosecuted the claims. In short, Respondent had a reasonable basis in law and in fact, following a reasonable investigation, to make the allegations and to charge the statutory violations it did in the Administrative Complaints. The documentation gathered in the investigation did not conclusively contradict the factual allegations, and the credibility of the complainants was not so obviously lacking that no reasonable agency would have made the allegations in the Administrative Complaints. And it is beyond dispute that if those factual allegations had been proven, the charged statutory violations would have been established. Thus, it cannot be said that Respondent's action in initiating the disciplinary proceedings against Petitioners was unreasonable governmental action.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of sex discrimination in employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born in Puerto Rico and lived there 11 years. She speaks English fluently with a Spanish accent. Respondent is a wholesale distributor of building materials. Four- fifths of its customers are retail outlets, and the remainder are building contractors. Respondent is the largest such distributor in the Southeast and is a mid- to large- size corporation. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760. Answering a want ad in the newspaper, Petitioner sent David Russell, who is Respondent's controller, a resume and letter of recommendation. She had two interviews with Mr. Russell and was hired. It is unclear whether Petitioner's Puerto Rican background came up during the interview. Evidently unknown to Petitioner at the time, each of four other interviewees was offered the job and refused it before it was offered to Petitioner. Petitioner began work with Respondent on May 21, 1989, as an invoicing clerk. Her responsibilities included invoicing, copying, mailing, filing, and microfilming. Petitioner began work at an hourly rate of $5.50, which was raised after the completion of a 90-day probationary period to $6.00. After one year, she received a raise to $6.50 per hour, which remained her hourly rate through her date of termination. The raise resulted from the favorable recommendation of Mr. Russell to the president of Respondent. Mr. Russell earlier gave Petitioner preferential treatment when he recommended to the president that Respondent lend her over $1000 for surgery. Normal company policies did not authorize such loans to new employees, which Petitioner was at the time. The loan was made and later repaid. An important part of Petitioner's duties was to learn how to operate a Burroughs L-9000, which is a dedicated, automated ledger machine. The L-9000 dates back to the early days of office automation. Invoices are run through the L-9000, which performs simple mathematical functions to extend total costs based on number of units and price per unit, total costs per invoice, and total invoiced costs per day and per month. Inputting data into the L-9000 is a time-consuming process. Corrections take even more time, as each incorrect entry has to be deleted and the correct entry added. The machine has other problems, such as the loss of data during power outages. When Petitioner joined Respondent, she knew nothing about the L-9000. At the time, Shirley Rehrig, who had been employed by Respondent since October, 1985, was operating the machine. Ms. Rehrig had joined the company as an invoice operator on the L-9000 and was, by May, 1989, supervisor of the Invoicing Department. The Invoicing Department works closely with the Pricing Department, which are both part of the Accounting Department. At the time, employees in the Pricing Department manually took prices for invoiced items from books and entered them in handwriting on invoices. The process was prone to error through mistranscriptions of quantity, price, or cost. Pricing errors were only one source of invoicing errors. Additional errors could arise in invoicing, such as by misreading the handwritten information provided by the Pricing Department or misentering the data. In May, 1989, there were two persons working in the Pricing Department and, counting Petitioner, two persons working in the Invoicing Department. Speed and accuracy were important characteristics for the L-9000 operator. Petitioner's early experience with the machine was frustrating for her, Ms. Rehrig, and Mr. Russell, who was in charge of the Accounting Department. Despite repeated demands from Ms. Rehrig and Mr. Russell that she work more slowly, Petitioner continually tried to operate the machine as fast as Ms. Rehrig could operate it. The result was that Petitioner's error rate was unacceptably high and thus her processing of invoices was relatively slow. Ms. Rehrig became very upset with Petitioner and several times complained about her to Mr. Russell. Perhaps recalling the difficulty he had had filling the position, Mr. Russell tried to calm Ms. Rehrig and continually counselled Petitioner to work more slowly. Mr. Russell is a mild-mannered man, who showed great patience with his employees. He tolerated a longtime employee in the Pricing Department who, partly due to poor health, was often volatile and one time threw invoices at Ms. Rehrig. Petitioner gradually began to gain competence with the L-9000. However, she was unable to erase completely the perception of her coworkers, but not Mr. Russell, that she was the source of more invoicing errors than for which she was in fact responsible. Petitioner's high error rate gave her one advantage, though. She knew how to correct errors, which were inevitable in the invoicing process, especially given the peculiarities of the L-9000. In July, 1990, Respondent hired Alice Sweet to work in the Invoicing Department. Petitioner trained Ms. Sweet in the use of the L-9000, and soon Petitioner and Ms. Sweet were alternating on the machine. Ms. Sweet was a very good worker who was able to concentrate on her work better than Petitioner could. However, she was more timid than Petitioner in trying to fix the mistakes that she did make and often required the assistance of Petitioner or Ms. Rehrig in making the corrections. When Ms. Sweet was hired, Ms. Rehrig was given a chance to learn pricing, while still supervising invoicing. The division between the Invoicing and Pricing Departments, which are really subdepartments, is not as clear as the line between Accounting and other true departments. When Ms. Rehrig told Mr. Russell in the summer of 1991 that she would be quitting, he asked her if Petitioner or Ms. Sweet should take Ms. Rehrig's position in pricing. Ms. Rehrig recommended Ms. Sweet because she was more focused and methodical than Petitioner, but also because Petitioner could handle the L-9000 on her own and Ms. Sweet could not. Mr. Russell made the changes that Ms. Rehrig had recommended after she left the company in November, 1991. Ms. Rehrig was not contacted subsequently about problems with the L-9000 as long as Petitioner remained with the company. In October, 1991, Felicia Jones, who is an African- American, was hired by Respondent through Kelly Temporary Services. Ms. Jones was assigned to the Invoicing Department where she reviewed invoices and Petitioner's output from the L-9000. After Ms. Rehrig's departure, Petitioner alone operated the L-9000. Although improved from her early days on the machine, Petitioner continued to make errors on the L-9000, and Mr. Russell continued to ask that she improve her performance on the machine. During this time, Respondent was undergoing difficult financial times. The depression in the construction industry sharply impacted Respondent's business. Total sales were down about 1 percent between fiscal years-end June 30, 1989, and June 30, 1990. Sales plummeted 14.4 percent between fiscal years- end 1990 and 1991, and slid 4.4 percent between fiscal years-end 1991 and 1992. Although still showing earnings, profits between fiscal years-end 1990 and 1991 were almost halved, and profits between fiscal years-end 1991 and 1992 slipped another 18 percent. By sometime in the first half of 1989, Respondent had been adopted cost-containment strategies to deal with poor market conditions. Examples of Respondent's efforts included controlling the purchasing of supplies, requiring bids on goods and services, and using inventory-control mechanisms. These strategies proved ineffective in the face of seriously deteriorating market conditions in 1991. Finally, Respondent turned to reductions in force. When voluntary attrition proved insufficient, Respondent implemented layoffs. Layoffs throughout the company in each of its offices throughout the state reduced employment from 131 persons to 94 persons from January, 1989, to December, 1992. The impact in the Accounting Department was a reduction in the average workforce of 12 persons from January, 1989, through January, 1992, to 10 persons in January, 1992, and 8 persons in December, 1992. After Ms. Rehrig's departure, the president of Respondent instructed Mr. Russell to identify an employee to layoff should the president decide to make layoffs. The most likely candidates were Petitioner and Ms. Sweet. Petitioner decided that he would lay off Petitioner because Ms. Sweet was trained in invoicing and pricing and could run the L-9000, even though she was less able to correct errors than could Petitioner. Mr. Russell decided not to lay off Ms. Jones, who remained employed with Respondent through Kelly Temporary Services. Even though Respondent paid Kelly Temporary Services $7.50 per hour for Ms. Jones, Respondent owed no benefits for her. Estimating that benefits cost $1.91 per hour, Mr. Russell figured that Petitioner, who was then receiving $6.50 per hour, was costing Respondent a total of about $8.41 per hour--almost one dollar more per hour than Ms. Jones cost. The Pricing and Invoicing Departments could withstand a reduction in force. After Ms. Rehrig's departure, there had been times that Petitioner had nothing to do in invoicing. When Petitioner was terminated in April, 1992, Ms. Sweet returned to operate the L-9000 for one year. During that time, she worked exclusively in the Invoicing Department, but only about four of five days a week were required for work on the L-9000. Ms. Sweet's former duties in pricing were covered by another employee. Sometime in the second quarter of 1992, Mr. Russell discussed with Ms. Jones the possibility of her permanent employment with Respondent, rather than through Kelly Temporary Services. Because Petitioner had already filed her Charge of Discrimination, Mr. Russell decided not to pursue fulltime permanent employment with Ms. Jones until the discrimination charges were resolved. Following Petitioner's departure in April, 1992, Ms. Sweet encountered problems with the L-9000 that she could not solve. She and Mr. Russell several times contacted Ms. Rehrig, and at least once Ms. Rehrig came to the office after finishing her other work for the day to fix the problem. Mr. Russell offered her a consultation contract, which Ms. Rehrig declined. Mr. Russell and Ms. Rehrig discussed the possibility of her returning to work with Respondent, but they could not agree on acceptable conditions. Ms. Rehrig testified that, on one occasion immediately after interviewing Petitioner, Mr. Russell referred to her as a "Puerto Rican" and alluded to the excitability of Puerto Ricans. This testimony is not credited. Ms. Rehrig was displeased with Respondent for undisclosed reasons when she quit, and she became more displeased when, after being badgered by Ms. Sweet and Mr. Russell concerning the L-9000, she and Mr. Russell could not agree on adequate conditions for her reemployment with Respondent. Called as a witness by Petitioner, Ms. Rehrig initially omitted mention of her early dissatisfaction with Petitioner's work, although she admitted that she had recommended to Mr. Russell that he assign Ms. Sweet, rather than Petitioner, to the Pricing Department after Ms. Rehrig quit. The only other evidence concerning Petitioner's national origin involves Petitioner's testimony that Ms. Sweet angrily called her a "Puerto Rican" one time, that coworkers routinely assumed that Petitioner had made all errors in invoicing even when she had not, and that Mr. Russell treated her in a diffident manner. There are problems with each of these items of proof. First, Petitioner admitted that Mr. Russell did not know that Ms. Sweet had referred to Petitioner's national origin in a derogatory way. Petitioner never told Mr. Russell about this remark, nor is she aware that anyone else did. Second, the coworkers who wrongly assumed that Petitioner was responsible for invoicing errors when she was not were understandably basing their assumption on Petitioner's history of a high number of mistakes, not on her national origin. More importantly, Mr. Russell did not misperceive Petitioner's error rate. Third, Mr. Russell was not especially close with a number of employees, including but not limited to Petitioner. But he resisted Ms. Rehrig's requests to fire Petitioner, showed patience with her high error rate, and gave her one raise. Petitioner has proved a prima facie case of discrimination. She is Puerto Rican. She was generally qualified for the invoicing job. And she was replaced by Ms. Sweet, who is a white person whose national origin evidently does not place her in a protected class. However, Respondent has shown a legitimate business reason for Petitioner's layoff. Business was poor and getting worse. Petitioner's competence was marginal. Ms. Sweet, whom Ms. Rehrig herself had named over Petitioner for what appears to have been a promotion, was cross-trained and thus, for that reason alone, more useful to Respondent. And Respondent's president justifiably believed that the Invoicing and Pricing Departments could continue to operate effectively with one less employee. The quick offer of fulltime permanent employment to the less experienced Ms. Jones did not mean that she was intended to replace Petitioner. Following Petitioner's termination, Ms. Sweet worked for one year on the L-9000 before Ms. Jones, who was not even trained on the machine until August, 1992, replaced her in April, 1993. Respondent in effect gave Ms. Jones a raise when she began to operate the L-9000 by increasing the pay to Kelly Temporary Services to $8.55 per hour. However, competence in 1992 with the L-9000 was of increasingly limited utility to Respondent, which, by the time of the final hearing, had replaced the obsolete device with modern automated office equipment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. ENTERED on January 13, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on January 13, 1994 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Petitioner failed to prove that the matter of her national origin arose during the interview. 6 and 8: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 9-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: adopted or adopted in substance except that Petitioner continued to make a high rate of mistakes on the L-9000. 12: adopted or adopted in substance, although the reasons for Ms. Rehrig's recommendations go beyond those stated in the proposed finding. 13: rejected as subordinate. 14-17 (first sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. (remainder): adopted or adopted in substance. (first two sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 18 (remainder)-20: rejected as subordinate, irrelevant, and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 21-22: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence except for positions of Respondent. 23-25: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Subsequent events led Mr. Russell to reassess his needs and the costs of meeting these needs. However, in April 1992, he did not have the advantage of this knowledge and made in good faith the personnel decisions that he made at the time. 26: adopted or adopted in substance, but see 23-25. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: rejected as unnecessary. 30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-16: adopted or adopted in substance. 17: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence except that Ms. Rehrig unhappily left her job with Booker. 18-19: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Craig P. Clendinen Stearns Weaver One Tampa City Center Suite 3300 Tampa, FL 33601 Michael D. Malfitano Macfarlane Ferguson 111 E. Madison St. Suite 2300 Tampa, FL 33601
The Issue The issues for disposition in this case are whether Respondent committed willful violations of section 106.07(7), Florida Statutes (2014), when its campaign treasurer failed to notify the filing officer that Respondent had not received funds, made contributions, or expended reportable funds during four 2014 reporting periods; and, if so, whether Respondent is subject to civil penalties in view of the holding in PAC for Equality v. Department of State, Florida Elections Commission, 542 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the entity responsible for investigating complaints and enforcing Florida's election and campaign financing laws, chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes. § 106.25, Fla. Stat. Respondent is a political committee organized for the purpose of sponsoring and supporting a constitutional initiative to conserve and protect Florida’s scenic beauty, which is primarily directed to restrictions on billboards along Florida highways. Respondent has been a registered political committee since 2002. Prior to 2014, Respondent suspended its campaign to gather petitions to place the constitutional initiative on the ballot. Respondent has not abandoned the campaign, and the initiative remains legally active. Prior to 2014, Respondent’s most recent financial activity was an expenditure of $61.25 in the first quarter of 2011. Respondent’s assets during 2014 consisted of $157.50 held in a bank account. There were no contributions received or expenditures made by Respondent during the times pertinent to this proceeding. Respondent’s treasurer is Mr. Crescimbeni. Mr. Crescimbeni acknowledged his responsibility as treasurer to accurately report to the Division of Elections the contributions received and expenditures made by Respondent, and the dates of each. The reporting requirements were contained in a political committee handbook and copy of the Florida statutes that are provided by Petitioner to all political committees. Mr. Crescimbeni acknowledged having received and read both documents. Although some reporting requirements have changed since Mr. Crescimbeni’s receipt of the political committee handbook, Mr. Crescimbeni believed that he understood the reporting requirements. Mr. Crescimbeni understood that, since Respondent neither received contributions nor made expenditures, the requirement to submit a treasurer’s report was statutorily waived, though there was a requirement to notify the filing officer that a report was not being filed. In 2013, section 106.07 was amended, creating 33 reporting periods for calendar year 2014, significantly more than existed prior to the amendments. Ch. 2013-37, § 9, Laws of Fla.3/ Reports for the 33 reporting periods in 2014 were statutorily waived pursuant to section 107.07(7), inasmuch as there were no contributions or expenditures. Notifications of no activity were filed for each of the 33 reporting periods in 2014, all of which were timely, except the four identified in the Order of Probable Cause. The M5 Filing Period The notification of no activity for the 2014 M5 reporting period of May 1 through May 31, 2014, was due by midnight on June 10, 2014. The notification of no activity for the 2014 M5 reporting period was filed on Saturday, June 14, 2014, at 11:50:59 a.m. On the morning of Saturday, June 14, 2014, Mr. Crescimbeni picked up Respondent’s mail from the post office. He then traveled to his office, where he opened the mail. Among the items received was a notice from the Division of Elections advising Respondent that its M5 report had not been received by the filing deadline. The letter was dated June 11, 2014, and bore a postmark of June 12, 2014. When Mr. Crescimbeni realized his error, he immediately uploaded the report of no activity at 11:50 a.m. on the morning of June 14, 2014. Mr. Crescimbeni testified credibly that “[m]y delayed filing of the M5 notification of no activity was neither deliberate nor a repeated failure. It was simply an oversight and nothing more.” The P1 Report The notification of no activity for the 2014 P1 reporting period of June 1 through June 20, 2014, was due by midnight on Friday, June 27, 2014. The notification was filed on Saturday, June 28, 2014, at 9:34:11 a.m. The notification was filed without any form of notification from Petitioner. Mr. Crescimbeni indicated that the late filing of the PI notification of no activity, which occurred within hours of the time due, was not deliberate, and was unintentional and an oversight. The G1 Report The notification of no activity for the 2014 G1 reporting period of August 23 through 29, 2014, was due by midnight on Friday, September 5, 2014. The notification was filed on Saturday, September 6, 2014, at 3:52:33 a.m. The notification was filed without any form of notification from Petitioner. Mr. Crescimbeni indicated that the late filing of the GI notification of no activity, which occurred within hours of the time due, was not deliberate, and was unintentional and an oversight. The D2 Report The notification of no activity for the 2014 D2 reporting period of October 25, 2014, was due by midnight on Sunday, October 26, 2014. The notification was filed on Monday, October 27, 2014, at 10:12:15 a.m. The notification was filed without any form of notification from Petitioner. Mr. Crescimbeni indicated that the late filing of the D2 notification of no activity, which occurred within hours of the time due, was not deliberate, and was unintentional and an oversight. As to each of the four notifications of no activity referenced above, Mr. Crescimbeni credibly testified that the delay was: [T]he result of my temporary inattention and each such delay was a simple and inadvertent omission on my part that was promptly remedied . . . . I was never indifferent to the required filings of notifications of no activity. Each such delay by me in making such filing of said notification was not intentional. Each such delay was not deliberate, purposeful, or with any intent or consciousness on my part to avoid the notification of “no” activity. Mr. Crescimbeni’ testimony is accepted. There was no evidence adduced at the hearing suggesting there to have been any financial or political advantage or benefit that could reasonably be derived from the late filing of the four notifications of no activity referenced above. The Commission does not investigate willfulness and does not make a finding of willfulness until after the determination of probable cause in a Probable Cause Hearing.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent City of Gainesville committed an unlawful employment practice when it terminated Petitioner's employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white male. Petitioner's employment as a police officer was terminated by Respondent City of Gainesville on September 17, 2008. On the evening of June 26, 2008, Petitioner was voluntarily working an extra duty assignment at the Super Wal- Mart store on Northeast 12th Avenue in Gainesville. Wal-Mart had been experiencing problems with juveniles entering the store in large groups and causing disturbances and property damage. At approximately 11:15 p.m., Ms. Felicia Stallworth, a black female, pulled into a handicapped-parking space and hung her handicapped-parking decal from her rear-view mirror. She was accompanied by two children: her twelve-year-old son and her seven-year-old niece. At the time, Petitioner, who was in uniform and wearing his badge, was engaged in conversation with the occupants of a vehicle parked in another handicapped-parking space. Stallworth and the children exited her vehicle and began walking to the store's entrance. Because Stallworth was talking on her cell phone while she was walking, she heard Petitioner say something but did not know what he said. She stopped walking and asked him what he wanted. Petitioner rudely and loudly demanded to see her documentation to prove she was entitled to park in a handicapped-parking space. Stallworth complied by walking back to her vehicle, sitting in the driver's seat with the driver's door open, and retrieving her handicapped-parking registration from her glove compartment. While she was doing so, Petitioner, who was standing just outside the car door, was shining a flashlight into her car so that it was shining in her face. She told him several times to move the flashlight because she could not see, but he ignored her and continued to shine it in the same manner. Concerned for the safety of the children who were standing at the back of the car on the passenger side, she instructed the children to get back in the car so as to be out of the path of passing vehicles. Petitioner rudely and loudly told them to stand in front of the car instead. The children complied. Stallworth retrieved the registration and handed it to Petitioner. She also handed him her placard. She then attempted to get out of the car so she could put her purse on the hood of the car so she could find her driver's license. As she stood up, Petitioner crossed his arms in front of his chest in a blocking motion and, using them, shoved her forcefully against her car and then down into the driver's seat. Her glasses were knocked askew, and the side of her face and earlobe began to burn, likely from being scraped against the doorframe. After she was shoved back into her car, Stallworth was able to find her driver's license in her purse, and she handed it to Petitioner. When Petitioner finished examining her placard, her placard registration, and her driver's license, he handed the documents back to Stallworth and told her to have a nice day. Petitioner walked to the door of the store, turned and looked at Stallworth, and stood there, apparently laughing at her. Some of the numerous witnesses to this encounter between Petitioner and Stallworth came up to her, inquired as to how she was, and walked into the store with her. Petitioner followed Stallworth while she was in the store. When Stallworth left the store, she saw Petitioner walk behind her car, write down her license tag, and then get into his vehicle. Stallworth thought he was "running her tag" and became afraid of what he might do to her next. She called a relative who worked for the Alachua County Sheriff's Office and asked that person to come to Wal- Mart and watch her leave. After calling, she went back into the Wal-Mart to wait. When she came out again, she and Petitioner did not interact. Before Petitioner shoved her against and then into her vehicle, Stallworth had made no threatening remark or gesture that would cause Petitioner to have any concern for his safety. After Stallworth returned to her home, her back started hurting, and her face and earlobe still burned. She telephoned the City of Gainesville Police Department and complained about Petitioner's unacceptable treatment of her. The complaint was forwarded to Sergeant Lance Yarbrough, the Sergeant on the midnight shift. At 1:45 a.m., when he had "cleared" the matter he was working on, he called Stallworth. She described what had happened, including Petitioner's demeanor and her injuries. She told Yarbrough she had obtained the names and telephone numbers of some of the witnesses who had seen the entire encounter. After attending to some additional duties, Yarbrough arrived at the Wal-Mart at 3:00 a.m. to talk to Petitioner about his use of force on a disabled person. Petitioner's version of what had happened essentially matched Stallworth's, including admitting he had "pinned" her to her vehicle. By the end of their conversation, Petitioner had become confrontational about defending what he had done and demanded of Yarbrough, "Do you have a problem with that?" Yarbrough answered Petitioner in the affirmative. Yarbrough tried to obtain a copy of Wal-Mart's video surveillance tape, but a copy of the tape could not be made by Wal-Mart employees at that hour. After he left Petitioner, Yarbrough, a white male, completed an Administrative Investigation Referral Form regarding Petitioner's treatment of Stallworth, which he considered a violation of the City's Policies and Procedures Number 19, Rule 19. That Form is, essentially, a referral to the police department's internal affairs office. He filed that form on June 27, 2008, in his name and in Stallworth's name. Stallworth filed her own form on that same date. Wal-Mart has a policy of releasing copies of its video surveillance tapes only to law enforcement officers conducting official business. Internal Affairs investigator Sergeant Jorge Campos, a white male, contacted Wal-Mart and arranged to obtain a copy of the video of Wal-Mart's parking lot showing Petitioner's encounter with Stallworth. When he later called Wal-Mart to make sure the copy was ready, he was told that another police officer had come to pick it up, and the copy had been given to him. Campos requested an additional copy and when he went there to pick up that copy, the Wal-Mart loss prevention employees showed Campos the video and also a video of Petitioner picking up the copy of the video that had been made for Campos. Since Petitioner had come there in a police car and in uniform, they had assumed that Petitioner was obtaining the copy of the video for official purposes. In fact, Petitioner never reported to the police department that he was conducting an investigation and that he had obtained evidence of his encounter with Stallworth. Further, he never turned over to the police department his copy of the video so it could be preserved as evidence in the evidence room, as required by department policy. Petitioner did not obtain the video for law enforcement purposes, therefore, but rather for personal purposes. Campos watched the copy of the surveillance video he had obtained from Wal-Mart in conjunction with his investigation. He also interviewed and obtained sworn statements from Yarbrough, from Stallworth, and from all of the identified witnesses who were willing to speak with him about what they saw. During the course of the internal affairs investigation, it was discovered that Petitioner had also repeatedly contacted Stallworth's personal physician, allegedly in his capacity as a police officer, to ascertain what Stallworth's disability was that would have made her eligible for a handicapped placard. Eventually, Petitioner did speak with a doctor in that office who disclosed Stallworth's disability. Campos attempted to interview Petitioner, but Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for the scheduled appointment. Campos' further attempts to interview Petitioner were unsuccessful. At the conclusion of his investigation, Campos prepared his report and consulted with the Chief of Police as to an appropriate disposition of the matter. It was concluded that Petitioner had violated Rule 19 regarding his encounter with Stallworth by his (1) excessive use of force, (2) obtaining a video recording under the color of a law enforcement officer for personal use, and (3) obtaining medical information under the color of a law enforcement officer without proper legal service. It was determined that Petitioner's employment should be terminated. Policy 19, Rule 19 prohibits "[i]mmoral, unlawful, or improper conduct or indecency, whether on or off the job[,] which would tend to affect the employee's relationship to his/her job, fellow workers' reputations or goodwill in the community." The range of penalties for the first offense is from instruction plus 5 days' suspension up through dismissal, and for the second offense is dismissal. Petitioner exercised his right to file a grievance regarding his termination and participated in a multi-level grievance process within the City. His grievance was unsuccessful, and he was terminated from his employment as a police officer. At no time during Petitioner's conversation with Sergeant Yarbrough, during the internal affairs investigation, or during the City's grievance process did Petitioner raise any allegation of disparate or discriminatory treatment of him by the City due to his race or his sex. Sergeants Yarbrough and Campos are, like Petitioner, white males.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel M. Nee, Esquire City of Gainesville 200 East University Avenue, Suite 425 Gainesville, Florida 32601-5456 Jarrod Rappaport 402 Northwest 48th Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32607 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
