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 Respondent was employed by Petitioner from December, 1982 to December, 1987 as a tariff clerk, a permanent career service position. On September 23, 1987 Respondent became ill and left work without informing her supervisor, Jill Hurd, or her co-workers. Hurd was available on September 23 and 24, 1987 if Respondent had tried to explain her absence or request leave authorization. Respondent presented Health Status Certificates to Petitioner signed by M. R. Grate, Jr., M.D., dated October 30, November 11 and 18, 1987 which certified her inability to return to work from October 27 through November 30, 1987, during which time she was under his care. On the basis of these certificates, Petitioner authorized her sick leave from October 27 to November 30, 1987. Respondent did return to work on December 2, 1987, but was again absent on consecutive work days of December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. On December 3, 1987, Respondent sent a note to Hurd, via her husband, stating she did not feel well and would not be in to work. On December 4, 1987 her husband again brought Hurd a note stating Respondent would not be in because her baby was ill. Respondent's husband called Hurd on December 7, 1987 to state that she was still ill and would not be in to work. Hurd stated that Respondent needed to get back to work. At no time did Respondent request leave for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, nor was she approved for leave. She simply informed her supervisor, Hurd, through her husband that she was not coming to work each day. Prior to these unauthorized absences in December, 1987, Respondent had received a memorandum from Hurd on January 14, 1987 setting forth specific instructions for calling in sick following a number of unauthorized absences. Respondent was specifically instructed to call her supervisor, Hurd, each morning by 8:30 a.m. when she wanted to take sick leave. Despite this instruction, Respondent never called Hurd on December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, but simply had her husband deliver notes and messages to Hurd on her behalf. This prevented Hurd from discussing with Respondent the extent of her illness and when she expected to return to work. On November 25, 1987 Respondent had an appointment with Dr. Grate, who signed another Health Status Certificate for the period November 30 to December 11, 1987 indicating she remained under his care and was still unable to return to work. However, despite the fact she did report to work on December 2, 1987 and had been given specific instructions about how to apply for sick leave, she never presented Dr. Grate's Health Status Certificate dated November 25, 1987 to Hurd, or anyone else associated with Petitioner, until the hearing in this case. Therefore, Respondent did not present proper medical certification of illness for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987, and instead simply failed to report to work, or to in any way attempt to personally contact her supervisor. A letter dated December 7, 1987 notifying Respondent of her abandonment of position and of her right to a hearing was sent to Respondent from Petitioner's Executive Director by certified mail, return receipt requested. Respondent's husband signed for this letter on December 9, 1987, and Respondent acknowledges receipt.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter Final Order concluding that Respondent has abandoned her position with Petitioner in the career service due to her failure to report to work, or request leave, for December 3, 4 and 7, 1987. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX (DOAH Case No. 88-0161) Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6, 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7, 8, 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact cannot be made since her post-hearing submission shows no indication that a copy was provided to counsel for Petitioner, despite specific instruction at hearing, and the narrative contained in her letter consists of serial unnumbered paragraphs which primarily present argument on the evidence rather than true proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Public Service Commission 212 Fletcher Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Harold McLean, Esquire Public Service Commission Office of General Counsel 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Norma D. Saabir P. O. Box 5802 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5802 =================================================================
The Issue Whether GMD Carpet, Inc., failed to comply with coverage requirements of the workers’ compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for enforcing provisions of Florida law, specifically Chapter 440 of the Florida Statutes, which require that employers secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. Respondent, whose principal is Emmanuel Simone, Jr. (Mr. Simone), is in the business of providing carpet installation services. At all times material to this case, Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 440.02(16)(a), Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Respondent was legally obligated to provide workers' compensation insurance in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, for Mr. Simone and four other individuals employed by GMD. On or about May 21, 2004, Petitioner became aware that Mr. Simone and another GMD employee were working a carpet installation job in Broward County, Florida. Upon inquiry, Petitioner accurately determined that GMD had not furnished the required coverage, and that there was no valid exemption from the coverage requirement. Accordingly, on May 21, 2004, a Stop Work and Penalty Assessment Order was properly entered. Thereafter, Petitioner reviewed Respondent's payroll records, which revealed that GMD employed three other individuals under circumstances which obliged Respondent to provide workers’ compensation for these employees. Based upon Respondent's payroll records, Petitioner recalculated the penalty assessment to be imposed in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 440, and issued an Amended Order in the amount of $1,916.65 on May 25, 2004. Respondent did not intend to violate the law. Rather, he mistakenly believed that he held a valid exemption; that his wife was not an employee, but rather a helper; and that the three other carpet installers were subcontractors to whom he had no insurance-related obligations. It is undisputed that Petitioner correctly calculated the penalty prescribed by law in the amount of $1,916.65 based upon Respondent's records and applicable law.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order confirming the Stop Work Order and imposing a penalty in the amount of $1,916.65, as set forth in the Amended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 15th day of October, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Colin M. Roopnarine, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers’ Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Emmanuel Simone, Jr. Debra Simone GMD Carpet, Inc. 717 North 31st Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florid a 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact 9. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 18, 2009, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 7, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Findings Of Fact 13. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 11, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 5, 2009, the 2"4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 11, 2009 and the 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 30, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief F inancial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-036-D1, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 11, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. 2. On February 11, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 5, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $196,980.30 against BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. 4. On March 16, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 11, 2009, the Department issued a 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. The an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $50,968.94 against BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. . 6. On March 26, 2009, the 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. The Employer requested a formal hearing on April 6, 2009. A copy of the Request for Hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On April 21, 2009, the request for formal hearing was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge. The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Barbara Staros and given case number 09-2138. 9. On October 30, 2009, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $10,179.61 against BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. 10. On October 30, 2009, the 3™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on legal counsel for BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the 3" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 11. On November 9, 2009, BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On November 12, 2009, an Order Closing File was entered. The Order Closing File relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact 14. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 14, 2008, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on July 21, 2008, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on August 20, 2008, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop- Work Order for Specific Worksite Only and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 08-185-D1, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On July 14, 2008, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 08-185-D1 to F. PALHANO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (hereinafter “F. PALHANO”.). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein F. PALHANO was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On July 14, 2008, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on F. PALHANO. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3, On July 21, 2008, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 08-185-D1 to F. PALHANO. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $24,758.10 against F. PALHANO. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein F. PALHANO. was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in _ accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4, On August 11, 2008, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on F. PALHANO by personal service. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On August 13, 2008, F. PALHANO filed a petition for administrative review with the Department. . | 6. On August 20, 2008, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment 1 in Case No. 08- 185-D1 to F. PALHANO. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $25,846.54 against F. PALHANO. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein F. PALHANO was advised that . any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F lorida Statutes. 7. On August 21, 2008, the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on F. PALHANO. by personal service. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On August 26, 2008, the employer entered into a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, in which the employer agreed to pay its penalty to the Department in set installments. The employer was granted an Order of Conditional Release From Stop-Work Order, which notified the employer that should the employer become delinquent on the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty, the Stop-Work Order would be reinstated. 9. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 5, 2008, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 08- 4396. 10. On February 5, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Granting Continuance, requiring the parties to advise the Administrative Law Judge of the case’s status no later than February 13, 2009. 11. The parties did not advise the Administrative Law Judge of the case’s status on or before February 13, 2009. On March 5, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File, dismissing the case and closing its file at the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On June 3, 2009, the Department reinstated the Stop-Work Order issued to F. PALHANO for failure to make timely payments on the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty. The last payment made by F. PALHANO was on January 5, 2009, leaving an outstanding balance of $21,696.78. 13. On July 27, 2009, F. PALHANO filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petition for Formal Hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Petition for Formal Hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order and 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement that employers in the State of Florida secure the payment of workers' compensation for their employees and corporate officers. Respondent, Po’ Boys, Inc. (Po’ Boys), is a Florida corporation engaged in business operations as a restaurant in the State of Florida from January 31, 2010, through January 30, 2013. Respondent employed more than four non-exempt employees during the periods January 31 through February 24, 2010; June 8 through September 3, 2010; and July 11, 2012, through January 30, 2013. Respondent was an "employer" as defined in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, throughout the penalty period. All of the individuals listed on the Penalty Worksheet of the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were "employees" (as that term is defined in section 440.02(l5)(a), Florida Statutes) of Respondent during the periods of noncompliance listed on the penalty worksheets. None of the employees listed on the Penalty Worksheet can be classified as independent contractors, as defined in section 440.02, Florida Statutes. Mr. Jonas Hall is a workers’ compensation compliance officer who has worked for Petitioner for about four years. He has been involved with between 200 and 300 cases. On the morning of January 30, 2013, Mr. Hall received a “referral” report that Po’ Boys was not securing the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees. Po’ Boys operates three “traditional” restaurants in Tallahassee, which provide wait-service to their customers. Mr. Hall checked the Florida Department of State’s “Sunbiz” website, which gave him information on Po’ Boys’ legal structure, corporate officers, and principal location. He also checked workers’ compensation information for Po’ Boys, Inc., by accessing the Coverage and Compliance Automated System (CCAS) maintained by the Department. It indicated that Po’ Boys’ last coverage, which had become effective on February 6, 2012, had ended on July 11, 2012. He determined that active workers’ compensation exemptions were on file for four individuals, including Mr. Carmen Calabrese and Mr. Jon Sweede, co-owners of Po’ Boys. Information in the CCAS is submitted by insurance companies and the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI). Mr. Hall drove to the College Avenue location of Po’ Boys to conduct a site visit, but it did not appear open because there were no vehicles present and the lights were off. Mr. Hall proceeded to the West Pensacola Street location. There were vehicles present and he saw an individual who appeared to be arranging chairs on the patio. Mr. Hall introduced himself and explained what he was doing there, and was then referred to Mr. Carmen Calabrese, the manager. It was about 10:00 a.m. Payroll records indicate that employees reported for work between 10:00 and 11:00 and that the restaurant was open to serve lunch and dinner. Mr. Calabrese took Mr. Hall to a “Broken Arm” poster which had a workers’ compensation sticker on the bottom. The sticker contained a workers’ compensation policy number and periods of coverage, as well as contact information for Zenith Insurance Company. Mr. Hall contacted Zenith Insurance Company, and they confirmed that coverage had not been in effect since July 11, 2012. In response to Mr. Hall’s questions, Mr. Calabrese indicated that Po’ Boys had between 50 and 60 employees working at its three locations. Mr. Calabrese told Mr. Hall that he had no knowledge that coverage was not in effect and that Mr. Hall would have to talk to Mr. Sweede, who handled the workers’ compensation for the business. Mr. Calabrese was a credible witness. Mr. Hall called Mr. Sweede, who in turn told Mr. Hall to contact Mr. Wade Shapiro, his insurance agent for providing workers’ compensation coverage. Mr. Sweede then called Mr. Shapiro as soon as he completed his telephone call with Mr. Hall. When Mr. Hall later telephoned Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Shapiro confirmed that Po’ Boys had no policy in effect, but said that he was in the process of obtaining coverage for them. Mr. Hall contacted his supervisor, Ms. Michelle Newcomer, who provided him with a Stop-Work Order Number. Mr. Hall served the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Mr. Calabrese, along with a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation, at about 11:15 a.m. Although some records indicated that the Stop-Work Order was served at 10:30, other records and the testimony of the witnesses that it was served at 11:15 were more credible. Mr. Sweede testified that he was unaware until January 30, 2013, that his workers’ compensation coverage was not in effect. He testified that the Electronic Funds Transfer payment “came back” in July, but that he had been unaware of this. He testified, “I must not have found the paperwork, must not have looked at the envelopes, take all the heat for that in this business.” Mr. Sweede testified that he later learned Mr. Shapiro was not only aware that Po’ Boys’ coverage was not in effect, but that he had already been working to get Po’ Boys new coverage before Mr. Sweede telephoned him on January 30, 2013, all without the knowledge or authorization of Mr. Sweede. Mr. Sweede entered into an agreement to obtain workers’ compensation coverage for Po’ Boys sometime on January 30, 2013. Several documents were required, at least one with a notary’s signature. Mr. Sweede signed a letter stating that there had been no workers’ compensation claims since his previous coverage had been canceled on July 11, 2012, joined the Florida United Businesses Association (FUBA), filled out an application for coverage, and made a down payment from the Po’ Boys bank account to the (FUBA sponsored) Florida Citrus, Business, and Industries Fund. Under the terms of the agreement, coverage was made effective retroactively to 12:01 a.m. on January 30, 2013. Mr. Sweede testified that Mr. Shapiro notified him, although he could not remember exactly how, that workers’ compensation coverage was obtained for Po’ Boys at around 11:00 a.m. on January 30, 2013, about 15 minutes before the Stop-Work Order was served. Mr. Sweede’s testimony as to how he came to be satisfied that his coverage at Zenith was actually not in effect, determined how and why it had been canceled, decided to obtain insurance elsewhere, and arranged for people in at least three different locations to prepare and execute all of the required documents in approximately 45 minutes, from about 10:15 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., was unclear. The transcript reflects the following exchange: Q: Okay. So this is another –- this is something else. Obviously when Wade Shapiro came by you brought this check, right, and then he also had you sign these documents? A: I really couldn’t tell you. I couldn’t tell you which way, you know, I mean, obviously, you know, like I said, I was stressed. I got him the check. Whether he ran the check up, brought this stuff back, I probably couldn’t –- I can’t remember which chronology it was. It was, you know, a pretty stressful morning. But I know it was all fast, fortunately. Although it does not contain a jurat or notarial certificate,1/ the application for insurance does contain the signature and stamp of a notary public beneath the signatures of Mr. Sweede and Mr. Shapiro. All signatures on the document are followed by a handwritten notation of “1-30-13” in the space provided for a date. The signature and seal provide credible evidence that the document was signed sometime on January 30, 2013. Regardless of the time when coverage became effective, there is clear and convincing evidence in this case that Petitioner had no information reasonably available to it indicating that Respondent had obtained workers’ compensation coverage in the last minutes before the Stop-Work Order was issued. Respondent concedes it did not have coverage at the time of Mr. Hall’s site inspection, and does not claim that when coverage was obtained, it notified Petitioner, or even attempted to do so. Mr. Hall wrote a “Narrative” in a Department database on the afternoon of January 30, 2013, describing the events of the morning. Although Respondent demonstrated that the description was “modified” several days later on on February 5, 2013, the Department put on no evidence to explain what was modified, or why. The testimony of witnesses that Mr. Hall served the Stop-Work Order at 11:15 a.m. was deemed more credible under all of the circumstances than the notation in the Narrative that it was served at 10:30 a.m. Respondent executed a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty and was issued an Order of Conditional Release from the Stop-Work Order on February 6, 2013. Po’ Boys failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation for its employees from January 31 through February 24, 2010; June 8 through September 3, 2010; and July 11, 2012, through January 29, 2013. It obtained coverage sometime on January 30, 2013. Respondent would have paid an amount less than $11,565.68 in premiums for those periods during which it failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation, because that figure should be reduced by the premium paid for coverage on January 30, 2013. Payroll records submitted by Po’ Boys indicate several employees were paid for varying hours after 11:15 a.m. on January 30, 2013. The parties stipulated that the Department has assigned the appropriate class code and manual rates to Respondent's employees from the NCCI SCOPES Manual.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order determining that Respondent, Po’ Boys, Inc., violated the requirement in chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that it secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees, and imposing upon it a total penalty assessment of $17,349.70, reduced by the amount attributable to lack of coverage on January 30, 2013. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2013.
Findings Of Fact 11. — The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 3, 2009, and the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 5, 2010, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-014-D2, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 3, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-014-D2 to ASSOCIATED WINDOW AND DOOR, INC. (ASSOCIATED). The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On February 3, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served via personal service on ASSOCIATED. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On April 10, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $99,761.78 against ASSOCIATED. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569.and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED by personal service on April 13, 2009. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 30, 2009, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $76,081.13 against ASSOCIATED. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment contained a Notice of Rights wherein ASSOCIATED was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 6. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED by personal service on May 1, 2009. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and is incorporated herein by reference. 7. On May 22, 2009, ASSOCIATED filed a timely Petition for a formal administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned Case No. 09- 3044. . 8. On February 5, 2010, the Department issued a Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to ASSOCIATED in Case No. 09-014-D2. The Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $1,256.24 against ASSOCIATED. The Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on ASSOCIATED through the Division of Administrative Hearings. A copy of the Fourth Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and is incorporated herein by reference. 9. ‘On February 10, 2010, ASSOCIATED filed a Motion to Close File Due to Settlement in DOAH Case No. 09-3044. A copy of the Motion to Close File Due to Settlement filed by ASSOCIATED. is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.” 10. On February 10, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Errol H. Powell entered an Order Closing File, relinquishing jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the February 10, 2010 Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit F.”
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lester Bishop, was employed as a Correctional Officer at Union Correctional Institution from March 20, 1981, to April 1, 1986. Union Correctional Institution (UCI) is a facility which houses inmates ranging in custody levels from minimum to close. In December of 1981, the Respondent was given a copy of the rules of the Department of Corrections. At this time he acknowledged that he was responsible for compliance with these rules. In late March and early April, 1986, the Respondent was scheduled to work the first shift at UCI beginning at 12:00 midnight and ending at 8:00 a.m.. The supervisor for this shift was either Lieutenant R. L. Weiland or Lieutenant S. E. Stafford, depending upon the day of the week. On March 23, 1986, the Respondent called Lieutenant Weiland at Union Correctional Institution at 12:30 a.m., requesting and receiving sick leave for the remainder of this shift. On March 24, 1986, the Respondent did not report to work, and he did not contact the shift supervisor to request leave. As a result, he was placed on unauthorized leave without pay status for this day. On March 25, 1986, the Respondent called his supervisor, requesting and receiving eight hours sick leave for this day. On March 26 and 27, 1986, the Respondent neither called his supervisor nor reported for work. He was given unauthorized leave without pay status for these days. March 28 and 29, 1986, were the Respondent's regularly scheduled days off. From March 30 until April 2, 1986, the Respondent neither called his supervisor nor reported for work. He was given unauthorized leave without pay status for these days. On April 2, 1986, the Superintendent of Union Correctional Institution, T. L. Barton, sent the Respondent a letter informing him that he had abandoned his position at Union Correctional Institution, and that he was dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order terminating the employment of the Respondent, Lester Bishop, from his position as Correctional Officer at Union Correctional Institution, for abandonment, pursuant to Rule 22A 7.010(2), Florida Administrative Code, effective March 25, 1986. THIS Recommended Order entered on this 9th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gilda H. Lambert Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1986. Ernest A. Reddick, Esquire 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lester Bishop, in pro per Box 1341 Starke, Florida 32091
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner Amber Renae Baker has met her burden of proving actual innocence, thereby entitling her to compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Amber Renae Baker was born on November 25, 1963. At the time of her conviction, she was 43 years of age. On March 28, 2006, Petitioner was charged with racketeering, in violation of Section 895.03(3), Florida Statutes, relating to her participation in her brother's escort service, which was in fact an organized prostitution ring. On April 16-20, 2007, Petitioner was tried before a jury in Escambia County, Florida, on one count of racketeering. She stood trial along with her brother, Dallas Baker, who was tried on a count of racketeering and for procuring a person under the age of eighteen for prostitution, and her mother, Mary Helen Baker, who was tried for racketeering as well. During the trial, Petitioner made a motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State did not produce evidence that Petitioner knowingly participated in a pattern of racketeering activity, to wit: that the State of Florida did not produce any evidence that Petitioner knew that any of the women hired by her brother to provide escort services (a legal activity) was also providing prostitution services. Petitioner further argued that the State did not produce sufficient evidence that Petitioner intended to assist in perpetuating anything more than an escort service. The trial court denied Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal. The jury convicted all three defendants on all charges. Petitioner was sentenced to thirty-four and one-half months of imprisonment. On September 22, 2008, the First District Court of Appeal issued an Opinion reversing the trial court's denial of Petitioner's motion for judgment of acquittal. Baker v. State of Florida, 990 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The District Court found, as a matter of law, that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that she agreed to secure another person for prostitution or otherwise violated Section 769.07, Florida Statutes. Petitioner was released from incarceration on October 9, 2008. By the time she was released, Petitioner had been incarcerated for 540 days. Petitioner has never been convicted of any other felony in any jurisdiction. From 1995 through at least 2005, Petitioner answered the telephone for her brother's escort service from 1:00 p.m. until 3:00 a.m. seven days a week, arranging dates for the callers with the women who worked for her brother. When a call came in, she would describe the different girls that were available by height, weight, hair color, and bra cup size. Then Petitioner would call the woman in whom the caller expressed interest and give her the customer's phone number. The woman would decide if she wanted to go. Petitioner quoted to the customer, as she describes the men who called to hire a woman, the price of $150 to $200 per hour. During the "date," Petitioner would call the woman every hour to ask her if she was alright. After the "date," the woman would bring the money to Petitioner at her brother's trailer where she lived and answered the telephone. She knew that each of the women who worked for her brother had and was required to have a "dance card," which is the slang term for an occupational license for an exotic dancer. Petitioner contends that she did not know that her brother, with her help and her mother's help, was operating a prostitution ring. She contends that she believed that the women were simply going on dinner dates and were being paid by the customer $150 to $200 per hour to accompany a man who was also paying for dinner. She contends that she also thought that sometimes the women were hired for topless dancing or to attend a bachelor party, which meant charging the customer for four hours. Petitioner did not testify at her criminal trial on the advice of her lawyer and of her co-defendant brother. Because she did not testify, the State was not able to offer two documents into evidence. Those documents are a letter she wrote to her mother before her arrest and the transcript of an interview of her after she was arrested. The typewritten letter is undated and was confiscated from her home by the police when they executed a search warrant upon arresting her. In the letter she complains bitterly about her mother not loving her as much as she loved Petitioner's brother. Primarily, though, she complains bitterly that she has worked in the business for years without being paid even minimum wage. The letter also contains the following statements: (1) "And you have never cared that I could lose my kids because of this business. . . ." and (2) ". . . but I am gonna [sic] be left in the dirt as usual answering phones that could cause me to lose my kids. " Those statements are contrary to Petitioner's position in this proceeding that she did not know she was answering the phones and scheduling appointments for prostitution. There would be no danger of having her children removed from her custody for working in a legitimate business answering telephones and scheduling appointments. Further, photographs admitted in evidence show the condition of the trailer where Petitioner lived with her children. The conditions are deplorable and clearly unsafe. Although not obvious in the photographs, Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she allowed dog feces to remain in the trailer without removing them. Yet, she does not appear to have been worried that her children would be removed from her custody for unsafe living conditions, only for her answering the telephone for the business. The recorded and transcribed interview of Petitioner was conducted on March 27, 2006, after her arrest. The following questions and answers are relevant to this inquiry: Q. Did girls ever try to talk about sex with you? People having sex or people wanting some weird things? A. They, a couple of them would try to start talking about some weird things and I would say, I don't want to hear it. Q. What kind of weird things? A. I don't know, like walking on hot dogs. (Laughing) Q. Walking on hot dogs? Were girls allowed to talk to you about, I mean, if a girl tried to talk to you about sex what would you do? A. I would just tell them I don't want to hear about it. * * * Q. Okay. Do you believe the girls were having sex for money? Did you have a pretty good idea they were having sex for money? A. Well, I guess that's what everybody assumes. Q. Did you assume it? A. No Audible Answer. Q. Is that a 'yes' A. Um, what else can you assume? * * * Q. Really? Okay. Is there anything that you can think about that you can tell me why you would believe or what would make you think that Dallas knew the girls were having sex for money? A. I don't know. I, that's the way it's done on t.v. Q. What's, what's how it's done on t.v.? A. Services. Q. That are involved in prostitution? A. I was hoping he wasn't doing it. Q. Really? Did you feel he was? A. I guess. Q. Yes? A. I said I guess. * * * Q. . . . can you think of any conversations you and your mother had about customers or the things they liked or anything like that? A. No, just made jokes about the hot dog thing. We thought that was funny. Q. Really? What did, what did, what did he want her to do after she walked on the hot dogs? A. Let him eat them from between her toes. * * * Q. Men with feet fetishes? Never heard nothing like that? A. I don't know, they would call and ask for somebody with pretty feet sometimes. Petitioner, who professes to have had "a little bit of college," may well have avoided direct conversation regarding the real services offered by her brother's "escort service," but it is evident by her statements both in the letter she wrote to her mother and in her transcribed interview that she in fact knew that sex was involved in the "dates" she arranged and that she was at risk answering the telephones because she was participating in an illegal activity. Petitioner contends that she was an unwilling participant in her brother's business and that she was coerced into answering the telephone for the business because her brother emotionally and physically abused her and threatened her with harm. Petitioner takes two approaches in supporting her position that she was coerced by her brother into answering the telephone. First, Petitioner testified in this proceeding that her brother abused her when she was a child by calling her names and years later by beating her. Interestingly, her letter to her mother describes her brother as a "lying, back stabbing, whore hopping, white trash dog. . . ." It appears that name- calling was not a one-way street in Petitioner's family. Similarly, in her recorded interview she explained that her brother "always beat her up," but then admitted the last time was 16 years earlier. She also explained that when he had recently started cussing at her, she "told him to go to hell." The dynamic between Petitioner and her brother does not suggest duress or coercion, as Petitioner alleges. Petitioner's other approach to proving duress in this proceeding (rather than in the criminal proceeding where it can constitute an affirmative defense) is by the affidavits admitted in evidence by stipulation of the parties. One affidavit is that of Petitioner, which alleges her brother continuously beat and threatened her, a version not consistent with her testimony at the evidentiary hearing in this cause. The other affidavit is from a psychologist with solid credentials who saw Petitioner twice after her release from prison. Petitioner's attorney referred her to him for a psychological evaluation. The affidavit is accompanied by the psychologist's report. Although the evaluation showed Petitioner to have "significant emotional problems," it was clear to the psychologist that Petitioner exaggerated her symptoms for the benefit of the evaluation, and her test profiles were, therefore, only marginally valid. Even with his awareness that Petitioner was not an accurate reporter as evidenced by his several references to Petitioner's obvious attempt to influence the evaluation, the psychologist opined that Petitioner needs extended treatment and medication. There is no evidence that Petitioner has followed his recommendations. The holding in Dixon v. United States, 548 U. S. 1 (2006), makes it clear that duress is an affirmative defense and that to invoke it, a defendant must admit the crime and then affirmatively prove that the defendant was coerced by threatened unlawful and imminent harm to commit the crime. In this proceeding, Petitioner argues, inconsistently, that she did not commit a crime and that she was forced to repeatedly perform the act which constituted the crime, i.e., arranging "dates" between customers and prostitutes over a period of approximately ten years. Petitioner does not make a credible witness. Her varying explanations given at different times to different persons undermine her credibility. The purpose of this proceeding is not to determine whether Petitioner is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime of racketeering by participating in a prostitution ring, the determination that was made in her criminal trial and the test before the appellate court which overturned her conviction. Rather, in this proceeding wherein Petitioner is seeking monetary compensation for her wrongful incarceration, Section 961.03, Florida Statutes, requires Petitioner to establish by clear and convincing evidence that she committed neither the act nor the offense that served as the basis for her conviction and incarceration and that she did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice or accessory to a person who committed the act or offense. Further, she must prove her actual innocence by verifiable and substantial evidence in order to meet the definition of wrongfully incarcerated person. A review of the appellate court opinion overturning Petitioner's conviction reveals that the State presented insufficient evidence that Petitioner knew of the unlawful nature of the "dates" she arranged. It is appropriate, therefore, that Petitioner’s conviction and sentence based upon that insufficient evidence should have been vacated, and they were. However, the inability or failure of the State to prove Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt does not prove that Petitioner is actually innocent of the act or offense that served as the basis for the conviction and sentence and does not prove that she did not aid, abet, or act as an accomplice or accessory to a person who committed the act or offense. The evidence which the State was prevented from offering at her trial by her decision not to testify-- Petitioner's letter to her mother and her statements during her recorded interview--and which, therefore, was not before the appellate court conflicts with Petitioner's testimony that she is innocent. That evidence is not verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's actual innocence, which is the quality of evidence the Statute requires in this proceeding. Further, Petitioner's statements to the psychologist and his conclusions regarding her mental health are not verifiable and substantial evidence of Petitioner's actual innocence. Lastly, Petitioner’s own testimony denying her guilt is not verifiable and substantial evidence of her innocence. Petitioner argues that since Chapter 961, Florida Statutes, does not provide a definition of “actual innocence,” the definition should be the one found in Black's Law Dictionary. Petitioner's argument is not persuasive. The statutory scheme under which Petitioner seeks monetary compensation in this proceeding requires more than meeting a definition in a dictionary; it requires a certain quality and quantity of evidence. The Statute regulating this proceeding does not consider the legal sufficiency of the evidence as did the appellate court when it reversed Petitioner's conviction and as does Black's Law Dictionary. Rather, the Statute seeks a determination of the factual sufficiency of the evidence by requiring the undersigned to make findings of fact as to Petitioner’s actual innocence if proven by verifiable and substantial evidence. In other words, proof of factual innocence is required. Perhaps the reason the Statute does not contain its own definition of actual innocence is that the Legislature intended the words to have their plain, ordinary meaning. Based upon the evidence before the trial court, the appellate court found insufficient evidence proving Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Based upon the evidence in this proceeding, including evidence not presented to the jury in Petitioner's criminal trial and, therefore, not reviewed by the appellate court, there is no verifiable and substantial evidence proving that Petitioner is actually innocent. Accordingly, Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence and, thus, has failed to establish that she is a wrongfully incarcerated person eligible for compensation under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Compensation Act. RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION Based on the record in this proceeding and the above Findings of Fact, it is RECOMMENDED that an order be entered by the Circuit Judge determining that Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, denying Petitioner’s claim for compensation, and dismissing her Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Nickolas P. Geeker Escambia County Circuit Judge M.C. Blanchard Judicial Building 190 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32502 Ernie Lee Magaha, Clerk of Court Escambia County M.C. Blanchard Judicial Building 190 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32502 Keith W. Weidner, Esquire Taylor, Warren & Weidner, P.A. 1823 North 9th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32503-5270 Russell Graham Edgar, Jr., Esquire State Attorney's Office Post Office Box 12726 Pensacola, Florida 32575-2726
