The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioner should issue a cease and desist order and/or impose sanctions against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that the Respondent, by failing to have its books, accounts, and documents available for examination and by refusing to permit an inspection of its books and records in an investigation and examination, has violated Sections 520.995(1)(a), (f), and (g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Sometime during the month of February of 1991, Ms. Jennifer Chirolis, a Financial Investigator from the Department of Banking and Finance, visited the offices of the Barat Company. She spoke with Mr. Roque Barat and determined that the Barat Company was conducting retail installment sales without being licensed to do so under Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. Mr. Chirolis advised Mr. Roque Barat that he needed a license and asked him to cease operations until he obtained the necessary license. The Barat Company thereafter obtained the necessary license and was still licensed as of the time of the formal hearing. Thereafter, the Department received a complaint about the Barat Company from a customer. The customer's complaint was to the effect that the Barat Company had made misrepresentations concerning the fee paid by the customer. The Department initiated an "investigation" of the customer's complaint and also decided to conduct an "examination" of the Barat Company. On April 22, 1992, a Department Examiner, Mr. Lee Winters, went to the office of the Barat Company to conduct the "examination" and "investigation". The Barat Company is operated out of a small office with two employees and a few filing cabinets. When Mr. Winters arrived, employees of the Barat Company were conducting business with two customers. Mr. Winters identified himself to the employees and informed them that he had been assigned to conduct an "examination" and "investigation" of the Barat Company. A Barat Company employee, Mr. Fred Vivar, said that he could not produce the company's records without express authorization from Mr. Roque Barat, that Mr. Roque Barat was out of the country, that he could not get in touch with Mr. Roque Barat at that moment, but that when he did get in touch with him, he would advise Mr. Roque Barat of Mr. Winter's desire to examine the company's books and records. Following a number of telephone calls over a period of several days, on May 1, 1992, Mr. Vivar advised Mr. Winters that he had received authorization from Mr. Roque Barat for the Department to inspect the books and records of the Barat Company. An appointment was made for the Department to inspect the books and records on May 6, 1992, beginning at 10:00 a.m. On May 5, 1992, a letter from an attorney representing the Barat Company was hand delivered to Mr. Winters. The letter included the following paragraph: It is my understanding that you have requested the opportunity to view the records of the above-referenced company, said inspection to take place on May 6, 1992. Please be advised that if this "inspection" is purportedly being done by your agency's authority, pursuant to F.S. 520.996, that no records will be produced absent compliance by your department with F.S. 520.994 including, but not limited to, the Barat Company exercising its right to challenge said subpoena. The Department concluded from the letter of May 5, 1992, that the Barat Company not only refused to produce records without a subpoena, but that, even if served with a subpoena, the Barat Company would resist compliance with the subpoena unless and until ordered to comply by a court. For that reason the Department did not pursue the issuance of a subpoena. Mr. Winters has been involved in over one hundred "examinations" under Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. In the course of those "examinations" there have been only two licensees that did not produce their records. Those two licensees were the Barat Company and another company known as Phase One Credit. Mr. Roque Barat is an officer and director of both Phase One Credit and the Barat Company. The license of Phase One Credit was revoked for its failure to produce its books and records. The refusal to produce the books and records of the Barat Company was occasioned by an effort on the part of Mr. Roque Barat to avoid payment of "examination" fees authorized by Section 520.996, Florida Statutes. In the summer of 1992, the Barat Company filed for bankruptcy, closed down its business operations, and is currently winding up the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing the charge that the Barat Company has violated Section 520.995(1)(a), Florida Statutes; Concluding that the Barat Company has violated Sections 520.995(1)(f) and (g), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; Imposing a penalty consisting of: (a) an administra-tive fine in the amount of one thousand dollars, and (b) revocation of the Barat Company's license; and Ordering the Barat Company to cease and desist from any further violations of Chapter 520, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 23rd day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5620 The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law, rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance, with the exception of the last five words. The last five words are rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case and as, in any event, not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 8: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as inaccurate description of letter. (The relevant text of the letter is included in the findings of fact.) Last sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary evidentiary details. Paragraph 9: Rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 10: First two sentences rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Last two sentences accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant to the issues in this case. Paragraph 13: Accepted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent: As noted in the Preliminary Statement portion of this Recommended Order, the Respondent's proposed recommended order was filed late. The Respondent's proposed recommended order also fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, in that it fails to contain citations to the portions of the record that support its proposed findings of fact. A party's statutory right to a specific ruling on each proposed finding submitted by the party is limited to those circumstances when the proposed findings are submitted within the established deadlines and in conformity with applicable rules. See Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, and Forrester v. Career Service Commission, 361 So.2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), in which the court held, inter alia, that a party is not entitled to more than a reasonable period of time within which to submit its proposals. Because the Respondent submitted its proposals late and because those proposals fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is not statutorily entitled to a specific ruling on each of its proposed findings and no such specific findings have been made. (As noted in the Preliminary Statement, the Respondent's proposed recommended order has been read and considered.) COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Brenner, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite 708-N Miami, Florida 33128 Louis J. Terminello, Esquire 950 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Michael H. Tarkoff, Esquire 2601 South Bayshore Drive Suite 1400 Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Copies furnished continued: William G. Reeves, General Counsel Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondents Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. (Wilson), and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety, are indebted to Petitioner for certain Florida-grown agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a producer of several vegetable crops in Hardee County. Wilson is a dealer in agricultural products. More specifically, Wilson operates an agricultural broker business in Plant City. Wilson’s surety is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Although Wilson has written contracts with some producers, Wilson does not have written contracts with all producers. In the absence of a contract, the terms of Wilson’s broker services are almost always the same; that is, Wilson gets a commission of 10 percent on the sale of the produce and $.35 per box for palletizing and pre-cooling the produce, in return for which Wilson makes a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Wilson in January 2007, about bringing flat beans to Wilson to sell. Wilson expressed interest and informed Petitioner about Wilson’s standards terms as described above. These terms were agreeable to Petitioner and he brought the beans to Wilson later that month. Although Petitioner and Wilson had no written contract, the parties’ mutual understanding of the terms of their agreement created an enforceable oral contract. Wilson sold Petitioner’s beans and no dispute arose from this first transaction. The parties’ subsequent transactions for other produce were undertaken pursuant to the same oral contract terms. Because Wilson works on a commission basis, it is generally in Wilson’s self-interest to sell growers’ produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Robert Wilson, Wilson’s owner, by telephone in February 2007, and informed Wilson of his plans to grow wax beans and “hard squash.” It was not stated in the record whether all three varieties of hard squash later grown by Petitioner, butternut squash, acorn squash, and spaghetti squash, were discussed by Petitioner and Robert Wilson during their February 2007 telephone conversation. A major dispute in the case was whether the parties’ February discussion about hard squash created some obligation on the part of Wilson beyond the oral contract terms described above. Petitioner claims that Wilson encouraged him to plant the squash and that Petitioner would not have planted the squash otherwise. Petitioner never made clear, however, what additional obligation was created by Robert Wilson’s encouragement beyond the obligation to accept delivery of and make good faith efforts to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price. Petitioner did not use the word “guarantee,” but his claim seems to be that Wilson became obligated to guarantee that the squash would be sold for a price close to the price published in the Columbia (South Carolina) Market Report, a periodic publication of produce prices. Such an obligation on the part of a broker is contrary to the general practice in the trade. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove more than that Robert Wilson thought he could sell Petitioner’s squash and had a genuine interest in acting as broker for Petitioner’s squash. The evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a contractual guarantee that Wilson would obtain a certain price for Petitioner’s hard squash or do more than was promised with regard to the beans that Wilson had sold for Petitioner; that is, to try to sell the produce for the best price. When Petitioner’s wax beans were picked in late April, he brought them to Wilson to sell. No dispute arose regarding the sale of the wax beans. Petitioner brought squash to Wilson in five deliveries between May 12 and May 29, 2007. Petitioner said that on one of these deliveries, he had to leave the boxed squash in the parking lot of Wilson’s facility because there was so much cantaloupe that had been delivered ahead of him. Petitioner says he was told by a Wilson employee that the squash would not be put in the cooler. Petitioner thinks Wilson was more interested in moving the cantaloupe than the hard squash. Petitioner thinks his squash was not put in the cooler or was put in too late. Wilson denies that Petitioner’s squash was not put into the cooler or was put in late. Robert Wilson claims that he made many calls in an effort to sell Petitioner’s squash, but he could not find interested buyers for all of the squash because (1) the demand for hard squash dried up, (2) some of Petitioner’s squash was of low quality, and (3) the squash began to spoil. Petitioner denied these allegations. Petitioner received invoices and other paperwork from Wilson showing that Wilson sold Petitioner’s first delivery of 490 boxes of acorn squash for $10.18 per box. It sold Petitioner’s second delivery of 519 boxes of acorn squash for $2.08 per box. For Petitioner’s third delivery of 110 boxes of acorn squash and 240 boxes of spaghetti squash, Wilson “dumped” the acorn squash by giving it to away for free to the Society of St. Andrews food bank, and sold the spaghetti squash for $5.15 per box. Wilson sold petitioner’s fourth delivery of 279 boxes of butternut squash for $.55 per box.1 Competent substantial evidence in the record established that it is a regular occurrence for agricultural products awaiting sale to decay and become unsellable, and for the broker to dump the products in a landfill or give the products to a charitable organization and then provide the grower a receipt for tax deduction purposes. It was undisputed that Wilson did not notify Petitioner before disposing of his squash. Petitioner claims he should have been notified by Wilson if the squash was beginning to spoil. However, Petitioner did not prove that prior notification was a term of their oral contract. Petitioner claims further that the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act required Wilson to notify Petitioner before dumping the squash and to have the squash inspected to determine whether, in fact, it was spoiled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, this federal law is not applicable. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that the market for agricultural products fluctuates and, at times, can fluctuate rapidly. For hard squash, which is normally prepared in an oven, the market demand can drop dramatically due to the onset of warm weather simply because people tend not to cook hard squash dishes in warm weather. Petitioner’s squash was being marketed in May, which means the beginning of warm weather for most areas of the United States. This fact supports Wilson’s claim that the demand for hard squash had been good, but fell rapidly just at the time Wilson was trying to sell Petitioner’s squash. The problem with the claims made by Petitioner in this case is simply one of insufficient proof. It is not enough for Petitioner to offer theories about what he thinks happened or to raise questions which are not fully answered. Petitioner had no proof that his squash was not put in Wilson’s cooler, that his squash did not begin to decay, that the demand for hard squash did not fall rapidly, that Wilson did not make reasonable efforts to sell the squash, that Wilson had willing buyers for Petitioner’s squash at a better price, or that Wilson sold squash from other growers at a better price. Petitioner’s evidence for his claims consisted primarily of market price reports that he contends show the approximate price Wilson should have gotten for the hard squash. Market price reports have some relevance to the issues in this case, but competent evidence was presented that the prices quoted in the publications are not always reliable to indicate the price a grower can expect to get on any given day, because there are factors that cause the published market price to be an inflated price (and applicable to the highest grade of produce) and because the market price can change rapidly with a change in demand for the product. The oral contract between Petitioner and Wilson required Wilson to try to get the best price for Petitioner’s squash, not some particular price appearing in a particular market price report. Petitioner did not show that Wilson got a better price for hard squash of equal quality, or that other brokers in the area got a better price for hard squash of equal quality at the times relevant to this case. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Wilson did not make a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 7th day of March, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether Rule 5J-10.001, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Sections 559.801(2) and 559.813(2), Florida Statutes, Respondent has exclusive administrative jurisdiction over the Sale of Business Opportunities Act, Chapter 559, Part VIII, Florida Statutes, and shares judicial enforcement over the Act with the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and the applicable office of the state attorney. (Unless stated otherwise, all references to "Sections" shall be to Florida Statutes, all references to the "Act" shall be to the Sale of Business Opportunities Act, and all references to "Rules" shall be to the Florida Administrative Code.) The Act governs the sale or lease of certain business opportunities in Florida. Sections 559.803 and 559.804 respectively require sellers of covered business opportunities to provide timely disclosures to prospective purchasers and to file annual disclosure statements with Respondent prior to advertising or offering covered business opportunities for sale. More relevant to this case, Section 559.801 sets forth the definitions that establish the coverage of the Act: 559.801 Definitions.--For the purpose of ss. 559.80-559.815, the term: (1)(a) "Business opportunity" means the sale or lease of any products, equipment, supplies, or services which are sold or leased to a purchaser to enable the purchaser to start a business for which the purchaser is required to pay an initial fee or sum of money which exceeds $500 to the seller, and in which the seller represents: That the seller or person or entity affiliated with or referred by the seller will provide locations or assist the purchaser in finding locations for the use or operation of vending machines, racks, display cases, currency or card operated equipment, or other similar devices or currency-operated amusement machines or devices on premises neither owned nor leased by the purchaser or seller; That the seller will purchase any or all products made, produced, fabricated, grown, bred, or modified by the purchaser using in whole or in part the supplies, services, or chattels sold to the purchaser; That the seller guarantees that the purchaser will derive income from the business opportunity which exceeds the price paid or rent charged for the business opportunity or that the seller will refund all or part of the price paid or rent charged for the business opportunity, or will repurchase any of the products, equipment, supplies, or chattels supplied by the seller, if the purchaser is unsatisfied with the business opportunity; or That the seller will provide a sales program or marketing program that will enable the purchaser to derive income from the business opportunity, except that this paragraph does not apply to the sale of a sales program or marketing program made in conjunction with the licensing of a trademark or service mark that is registered under the laws of any state or of the United States if the seller requires use of the trademark or service mark in the sales agreement. For the purpose of subparagraph 1., the term "assist the purchaser in finding locations" means, but is not limited to, supplying the purchaser with names of locator companies, contracting with the purchaser to provide assistance or supply names, or collecting a fee on behalf of or for a locator company. "Business opportunity" does not include: The sale of ongoing businesses when the owner of those businesses sells and intends to sell only those business opportunities so long as those business opportunities to be sold are no more than five in number; The not-for-profit sale of sales demonstration equipment, materials, or samples for a price that does not exceed $500 or any sales training course offered by the seller the cost of which does not exceed $500; or The sale or lease of laundry and drycleaning equipment. "Department" means the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. "Purchaser" includes a lessee. "Seller" includes a lessor. An important question in this case is the extent to which the Act addresses affiliates of a seller. In fact, the Act does so only once. In describing the various disclosure requirements imposed upon a "seller," Section 559.803 mentions an affiliate in Section 559.803(1), which requires the disclosure of "the name of any parent or affiliated company that will engage in business transactions with the purchasers or who takes responsibility for statements made by the seller." In describing the annual filings, Section 559.805 does not mention "affiliates." Nor do the main enforcement provisions of the Act mention "affiliates." Section 559.809 prohibits 14 specified acts by "sellers". Section 559.813(2)(a) specifies five violations by "a seller or any of the seller's principal officers or agents" that may result in the penalties set forth in Section 559.813(2)(b). In connection with the sale or lease of business opportunities, Respondent has adopted three rules at Chapter 5J-10, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioners have challenged, in its entirety, Rule 5J-10.001, which supplies several definitions. Rule 5J-10.001 states: 5J-10.001 Definitions. The definitions contained in Section 559.801, Florida Statutes, and the following apply: “Initial Fee or sum of money,” as used in Section 559.801(1)(a), F.S., shall include the total funds paid by the purchaser to the seller, including all monies paid for deposits, down payments, prepaid rents, equipment costs, materials, samples, products, training, services or inventory purchases. “Material change” shall include any fact, circumstance, or set of conditions which has a substantial likelihood of influencing a purchaser or a reasonable prospective purchaser in the making of a significant decision relating to a named business opportunity or which has any significant financial impact on a purchaser or prospective purchaser. “Sales program or marketing program” means: A written or oral procedure or plan provided by the seller to a purchaser of a business opportunity concerning products, equipment, supplies, services or training that the seller represents will be provided on how to sell or market the product or service; or Where the seller provides to the purchaser the following devices, techniques, training or materials which will assist the purchaser in deriving income from the business opportunity: Sales or display equipment or merchandising devices; Specific sales or marketing techniques; or Sales, marketing or advertising materials which are intended for use by the purchaser to influence a consumer to purchase a product or service. “Seller” includes any person who has an ownership interest of 10% or greater in an entity which sells or leases business opportunities. Specific Authority 570.07(23) FS. Law Implemented 559.801, 559.803, 559.805 FS. History–New 11-15-94, Amended 6-4-95. Respondent adopted Rule 5J-10.001 effective November 15, 1994, and amended it effective June 4, 1995. The specific authority cited for the rule, Section 570.07(23), provides only that Respondent "shall have and exercise the following functions, powers, and duties: To adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of law conferring duties upon it." However, in 1997, the Legislature adopted Section 559.813(8), which broadens Respondent's rulemaking authority under the Act by providing: "The department has the authority to adopt rules pursuant to chapter 120 to implement this part." In defining "seller" in Rule 5J-10.001(4), Respondent relied on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations at 16 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 436 (collectively, the "Franchise Rule"). In particular, Respondent relied on 16 CFR 436.2, explaining in a response to an interrogatory that Rule 5J-10.001(4) "was intended to clarify the identity of persons sufficiently affiliated with the sale of a business opportunity by virtue of their share ownership (16 C.F.R. 436.2) upon whom a duty should be imposed to make the required statutory disclosures in the sale of a business opportunity." In 16 CFR Sections 436.2(a)(1)(i) and (ii), the FTC identifies two types of franchises covered under the FTC Act: the package and product franchise and the business opportunity. As the name implies, the business opportunity described in 16 CFR Section 436.2(a)(1)(ii) bears the closer resemblance to the Act. Under 16 CFR Section 436.2(a), both types of franchises require an arrangement and, more importantly, "any continuing commercial relationship." For the business opportunity, 16 CFR Section 436.2(a)(1)(ii)(A) requires that a franchisee offer, sell, or distribute to a person other than the franchisor goods or services that are supplied by the franchisor, supplied by a third person with whom the franchisor requires the franchisee to do business, or supplied by an affiliate of the franchisor with whom the franchisee is advised by the franchisor to do business. In addition, for the business opportunity, 16 CFR Section 436.2(a)(1)(ii)(B) requires that the franchisor secure for the franchisee retail outlets or accounts, locations or sites for product sales displays (such as vending machines or rack displays), or the services of a person to secure these retail outlets, accounts, locations or sites. Also, 16 CFR Section 436.2(i) defines an "affiliated person" as a person that "directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, a franchisor"; that "directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to vote, 10 percent or more of the outstanding voting securities of a franchisor"; or that "has, in common with a franchisor, one or more partners, officers, directors, trustees, branch managers, or other persons occupying similar status or performing similar functions." However, the definitions in 16 CFR Section 436.2 apply only to terms "used in this part," and 16 CFR Part 436 does not cover enforcement and liability issues--only disclosures and definitions, including coverage definitions. In fact, the sole purpose of the affiliate definition in 16 CFR Section 436.2 is to explain the disclosure requirements set forth in 16 CFR Sections 436.1(a)(7) (total funds required to be paid to franchisor or its affiliates), 436.1(a)(8) (recurring funds required to be paid to franchisor or its affiliates), 436.1(a)(9) (names of affiliates with which franchisee is required or advised to do business), 436.1(a)(11) (basis for calculating actual revenue to be received by franchisor or its affiliates), 436.1(a)(12) (financing conditions offered by franchisor or its affiliates), and 436.1(a)(14) (extent to which franchisee--or, if a corporate, franchisee's affiliates--to participate directly in the franchised operation). Nowhere in the Franchise Rule does the affiliate definition broaden the scope of the persons liable for violations of the federal law. On July 26, 2002, Respondent filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioners and three allegedly related corporations and transmitted the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for a formal hearing. This proceeding was designated DOAH Case No. 02-3374. At the same time, Respondent imposed an Immediate Final Cease and Desist Order ordering that Petitioners and three allegedly related corporations discontinue the sale of business opportunities in Florida. (The First District Court of Appeal later stayed the enforcement of this order.) On October 11, 2002, Respondent served an Amended Administrative Complaint. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge completed the hearing in DOAH Case No. 02-3374 on November 25, 2002. As of the date of this final order, the parties have not yet filed their proposed recommended orders. In the Administrative Complaint, Amended Administrative Complaint, and Immediate Final Cease and Desist Order, Respondent relies on Rules 5J-10.001(3) and (4), but not Rules 5J-10.001(1) and (2). With respect to Rule 5J-10.001(3) ("Sales or Marketing Program Rule"), Respondent alleges that the business opportunities are covered by the Act because of the presence of a "sales program or marketing program." With respect to Rule 5J-10.001(4) ("Seller Rule"), Respondent alleges that Petitioners are liable as owners of one or more named corporations that are "sellers" who have violated the Act. With respect to Rules 5J-10.001(1) and (2), respectively, the regulatory definitions of an "initial fee or sum of money" or "material change" play no significant role in DOAH Case No. 02-3374. For this reason, Petitioners are not substantially affected by these rules, and the Conclusions of Law below determine that Petitioners lack standing to challenge Rules 5J-10.001(1) and (2), which are not further discussed in this final order.
Conclusions This matter came before the Department for entry of a Final Order upon submission of an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction by William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Petitioner’s Notice Of Dismissal, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Department hereby adopts the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction as its Final Order in this matter. Accordingly, it is hereby Filed November 5, 2012 12:49 PM Division of Administrative Hearings a an ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this a day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Jule Baker, Bureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this_Q day of November, 2012. NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within thirty days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jde Copies furnished: R. Craig Spickard, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes, LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 cspickard@kfb-law.com Cindy Bresnee Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC 1 Mercedes Drive Montvale, New Jersey 07645 J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley And Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 andy.bertron@nelsonmullins.com William F. Quattlebaum Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Saket Pan
Findings Of Fact Procedural background: By order dated July 10, 1984, notice of hearing was sent to all parties for a hearing on August 22, 1984. That hearing date was continued and rescheduled to September 11, 1984. On September 11, 1984, counsel for Petitioner moved for a continuance because he had failed to calendar the hearing and was thus not prepared. A continuance was granted upon the condition that Petitioner and counsel pay to Respondent its expenses and reasonable attorney's fees for attending the September 11, 1984, hearing. An order was subsequently entered setting the amount of expenses and attorney's fees. The Petitioner was employed as a store manager at Respondent's Majik Market Store Number 40105, Pinellas County, Florida. He had previously been a convenience store manager for 14 years, and was employed by the Respondent from December 1980 until he was terminated on August 23, 1984. The Petitioner is Black. In the relevant months prior to his termination, he was assigned to the late evening shift, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Ken Hinton was assigned to the 3-11 p.m. shift, and is White. Helen Lee was working the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. She is White and had worked at this store for many years. Other persons worked the three shifts on a temporary basis when one of the three regular employees had a day off. Each of the above persons, including the Petitioner, was responsible for sales of merchandise from the store, which included accounting for cash received and inventory, and protection of merchandise from theft. In the summer of 1982, the Majik Market store number 40105 experienced a loss of inventory at the end of several months of more than $1,000 in each month. These shortages were noted in normal monthly audits. Respondent requires employees to submit to a polygraph test prior to employment and when inventory shortages in a month at a single store exceed $1,000. Pursuant to that policy, all three employees of store number 40105 were asked to take a polygraph test administered by Respondent's security manager, Boyd Brown. Part-time employees were not asked to take the test. Petitioner, Helen Lee, and Ken Hinton, all were given a polygraph test. In the opinion of Mr. Boyd who administered the test, Petitioner did not answer truthfully when asked if he knew about or caused the inventory shortages. The relevant questions asked were "Did you steal money or merchandise" from the Respondent' s store. Mr. Boyd graduated from a polygraph school in Atlanta in 1972, has been licensed to administer polygraph examinations since 1974, and has worked in that field since that time. He has worked for Respondent since 1982. In Mr. Boyd's opinion, Helen Lee and Ken Hinton answered the same relevant questions truthfully. Petitioner was first notified that he was terminated by his area superviser, Richard Kenyon, who is the Group Supervisor of Majik Market stores for Pinellas County. Mr. Kenyon said he told Petitioner he was fired due to continuous inventory shortages. Petitioner testified that he was not told why he was being terminated when he met with Mr. Kenyon, but admitted that he was told that "security wouldn't allow me to work." It is apparent that Mr. Kenyon did not explain in detail why he was terminating Petitioner, and did not specifically mention failure of the polygraph as a reason. Several days later, Petitioner received a written separation notice, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, which mentioned only a "drastic" reduction in shift sales compared to other employees. On August 20, 1982, Mr. Kenyon signed an "employee separation form," Petitioner's Exhibit 3, which listed "low shift sales inventory shortages" and "shift sales drastically reduced with this employee" as circumstances surrounding the termination. Mr. Kenyon said he prepared both Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and 3 at about the same time. It does not appear that Petitioner's Exhibit 3 was shown to or given to Petitioner. In neither separation form did the Respondent mention the failed polygraph examination. The Florida Commission on Human Relations, in the process of its investigation, sought from the Respondent all the reasons for termination of Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits 5 through 8 contained correspondence with Jack B. Lightfoot, Director, Employee Relations, for the Respondent. Respondent's correspondence with the Commission on Human Relations does not at any point rely upon a failed polygraph examination as the reason for terminating petitioner. Paragraph 6 of a letter to Commission Representative Robert Jones states that "Polygraph not pertinent to case and results are never released without full releases because of state licensing law and Privacy Act." At the hearing on November 2, 1984, Richard Kenyon testified that it was very difficult to accurately determine why inventory shortages occur or to pinpoint responsibility. One method used is to compare shift sales to see if any particular shift is experiencing unusually low sales. Use of the polygraph test is another means. Respondent claimed to have used both methods with regard to the inventory shortages at Store Number 40105 in the summer of 1982. Mr. Kenyon testified that the late evening shift, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., which was Petitioner's shift, was more prone to having inventory shortages, and afforded more opportunity to steal. Mr. Kenyon testified that he considered shift sales, store paperwork, the longevity of Helen Lee, the auditor's findings of inventory shortages, and the results of the security interview (polygraph) in determining whether to terminate the Petitioner. Mr. Kenyon further testified that he was most influenced by the fact that petitioner had failed the polygraph test as the basis for terminating him. Mr. Kenyon stated that he had never kept an employee who failed the polygraph test. Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 are summaries of the terminations of employees from Store Number 40105 from January 10, 1980 through at least August 20, 1983. Of the thirty-five (35) persons on this summary who are identified by race, two (2) were Black. This exhibit further shows that a large number of persons who were not of the Black race were terminated for reasons similar to those given for termination of Petitioner. The other Black person terminated at this store was Joe Stephens, who was the person who replaced Petitioner when he was terminated in August, 1982. Mr. Stephens was terminated on January 19, 1983. All of the persons listed on Respondent's exhibit 1 who have a circle around the coded reason for termination were terminated for inventory control related reasons, and all of these were White. Respondent's attempts to show that Petitioner's shift sales were significantly lower than other sales persons were not persuasive. Mr. Kenyon referred to Petitioner's Exhibit 4, which sets forth all shift sales at Store Number 40105 for the weeks of July 29, 1982 through October 14, 1982. He pointed to the fact that Petitioner sold only $74.75 on Friday, July 23, 1982, and then sold $186.60 the next night, while Helen Lee on the afternoon shift sold $173.99 and $270.49 for the same Friday and Saturday, respectively. But Mr. Kenyon admitted that Petitioner's late night shift was "notoriously low" in sales due to the lack of customers, and that Ms. Lee's day shift was the most productive. Further, comparison of Petitioner's Friday evening sales with the sales of other persons covering that shift after he was terminated shows their sales to be essentially the same. Similarly, sales for all persons, including Petitioner, were proportionately greater on Saturday nights. Petitioner's Saturday night sales, however, were not significantly less than the sales of other persons for the same shift. Mr. Kenyon's claim that Petitioner's sales were "drastically reduced" has no basis in fact, and indicates that Mr. Kenyon did not in fact closely analyze the sales figures with respect to Petitioner. Mr. Brown, who administered the polygraph test, disclosed the results of the tests of all three shift employees at Store Number 40105 to Mr. Kenyon. Although he did not inform the Petitioner explicitly, Mr. Kenyon did rely upon the results of the polygraph test in making his decision to terminate the employment of the Petitioner, and did inform the Petitioner that "security" had advised not to employ Petitioner any longer. There was no evidence that the polygraph test was administered or graded differently with respect to Petitioner, or that it had been used in the past to discriminate against Black persons.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order that the Petitioner has failed to establish that Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes, with respect to the termination of the Petitioner in August 1984. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1984. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 4th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Morris Milton, Esquire P.O. Box 13517 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Robert D. McIntosh, Esquire P.O. Drawer 7025 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33338 Mr. Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Fla. Commission of Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint filed August 30, 1990, and assigned DOAH Case No. 90-6107, Respondent alleged that Petitioner, as a licensed auction business, accepted the consignment of property from Ms. Erma Grant in April, 1988. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to provide Ms. Grant a written agreement evidencing the consignment, as required by Section 468.388 for consignments involving property whose estimated value is over $500. The Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner failed to pay Ms. Grant the auction proceeds within 30 days of the auction. Based on the factual allegations set forth above, the Administrative Complaint charges that Petitioner violated Section 468.389(1)(j), which prohibits a violation of any statute, through the violation of Section 468.388 by failing to obtain a written consignment agreement; Section 468.389(1)(c), which prohibits the failure to account for or to pay, within a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days, money belonging to another which has come into the control of an auctioneer or auction business through an auction; and Section 468.389(1)(e), which prohibits conduct in connection with a sales transaction which demonstrates bad faith or dishonesty. Based on the alleged violations set forth above,the Administrative Complaint requests the Board of Auctioneers to enter a final order revoking or suspending Petitioner's license, imposing an administrative fine, issuing a reprimand, placing Petitioner on probation, and awarding other appropriate relief. Respondent predicated its allegations largely on a complaint that it received from Ms. Grant. By letter dated April 23, 1990, Ms. Grant recounted that she had advertised a moving sale in March or April, 1988. She reported that Petitioner contacted her and asked that she let him take everything to sell at an auction. Following the sale, she stated that she called Petitioner and consigned to him several items, including a davenport, china cabinet, a still- life picture, and two padded chairs. Ms. Grant charged in her letter that she did not hear from Petitioner following the consignment. Residing in Vermont, she returned to Florida in November, 1988, and immediately contacted Petitioner. She charged that Petitioner explained that he did not have the money, but thought that he had sent her a check. He reportedly promised to examine his records. Ms. Grant letter states that Ms. Grant returned to see Petitioner on March 6, 1989. The letter reads: "[Petitioner] had already told a cousin of mine that he had sent a check to me for $227. Some of my boys must have cashed it on me." It is unclear to whose "boys" the letter refers. Ms. Grant continued to pressure Petitioner for payment, according to the April 23 letter, but Petitioner refused to pay or show herrecords that he had already sent a check. Ms. Grant alleged that on April 11, 1989, Petitioner offered her $100. About a week later, Petitioner told her that he would be sending her a check for $50 and allegedly admitted that he had no copy of any prior check. Ms. Grant, who was 75 years old at the time and had recently been in poor health, ended her letter with a request for assistance and provided Respondent with her address in Vermont, to which she was returning in the next few days. Respondent opened a formal investigation shortly after receiving Ms. Grant's complaint. On June 4, 1990, Respondent's investigator contacted Ms. Grant, who stated that she had still not received anything from Petitioner. The following day, the investigator contacted Petitioner, who said that he could not remember accepting any property from Ms. Grant on consignment. They set up an appointment for June 6. On June 6, Ms. Grant telephoned the investigator and informed him that a friend of hers in Cocoa, Mr. Alcide Quesnel, had received a call from Petitioner, who offered him the sum of $200 to send to Ms. Grant. The investigator contacted Mr. Quesnel on the same day, and he confirmed that he had received from Petitioner the sum of $200 the prior evening to send to Ms. Grant. Mr. Quesnel explained that he had introduced Ms. Grant to Petitioner. Mr. Quesnel later tried to change his story by telling the investigator that Petitioner did not give him themoney. Instead, someone unknown to him put the money in his pocket and he assumed that it was for Ms. Grant because he had known that she and Petitioner had been having some problems. By letter dated June 9, 1990, Ms. Grant provided Respondent's investigator with a copy of the $200 check that she had received from Mr. Quesnel. She added that Mr. Quesnel had telephoned her on the evening of June 5 and informed her that Petitioner had given him the $200, she was to call the investigator and tell him that she had received the money, and Petitioner did not want a receipt. In addition to the interviews of Ms. Grant, Petitioner, and Mr. Quesnel, the investigator received an affidavit from Ms. Grant's sister, who swore that she witnessed Petitioner pick up the furniture from Ms. Grant's house in April, 1988. By internal memorandum dated December 31, 1990, a law clerk of Respondent advised the attorney handling DOAH Case No. 90-6107 that she did not believe that Respondent could prove by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was guilty of any violations of Chapter 468. Respondent served the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal the same day. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, Respondent is a state agency and initiated the underlying case giving rise to the present claim for attorneys' fees; Petitioner is a prevailing small business party; and the attorneys's fees and costs are reasonable as to those expended in connection with theunderlying case. The fees in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107 are $1920. There is no indication that Petitioner incurred any costs in connection with DOAH Case No. 90-6107.
The Issue Pursuant to Subsection 320.641(3), Florida Statutes (2006),1 the issues in the case are whether Nissan North America, Inc.'s (Respondent), proposed termination of the dealer agreement with Classic Nissan, Inc. (Petitioner), was clearly permitted by the franchise agreement, undertaken in good faith, undertaken for good cause, and based on material and substantial breach of the dealer agreement; and whether the grounds relied upon for termination have been applied in a uniform and consistent manner.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to definitions set forth at Section 320.60, Florida Statutes, the Petitioner is a "motor vehicle dealer" and the Respondent is a "licensee." In 1997, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agreement whereby the Petitioner took control of an already- existing Nissan dealership located in Orlando, Florida. In 1999, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into a Dealer Sales and Service Agreement (Dealer Agreement), which is a "franchise agreement" as defined at Subsection 320.60(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent's proposed termination of the 1999 Dealer Agreement is at issue in this proceeding. At all times material to this case, the dealership has been owned by Classic Holding Company. Classic Holding Company is owned by four members of the Holler family. Christopher A. Holler is identified in the Dealer Agreement as the principal owner and the executive manager of the dealership. The family owns a number of other dealerships, representing a variety of auto manufacturers. The Respondent does not sell cars at retail to individual purchasers. Standard Provision Section 3.A. of the Dealer Agreement requires that the Petitioner "actively and effectively promote" vehicle sales to individual retail purchasers. Standard Provision Section 3.B. of the Dealer Agreement permits the Respondent to develop and select the criteria by which sales are measured, as long as the measurement criteria is reasonable. Standard Provision Section 12.B.1.a. of the Dealer Agreement permits the Respondent to terminate a dealership when a dealer fails to substantially meet its vehicle sales obligation. The Dealer Agreement includes examples of various criteria that may be used to measure dealer performance. Specifically included among the examples is the calculation of a dealer's "sales penetration" within a defined geographic "Primary Market Area" (PMA) around the dealership as compared to other local and regional dealers. Sales penetration is calculated by dividing a dealer's total new vehicle sales by the number of competitive new vehicles registered in the dealer’s PMA. Data related to vehicle registration was compiled by R. L. Polk (Polk), a nationally recognized organization commonly relied upon in the auto industry for such information. There was no evidence offered to suggest the Polk data was incorrect. The dealer's sales penetration is compared to Nissan's regional sales penetration to determine the dealer's sales performance as measured against other Nissan dealer's in the region. A dealer performing at 100 percent of the regional average is performing at an "average" level. Otherwise stated, an average dealer is performing at a "C" level. The use of sales penetration calculations as a measurement of dealer performance is common in the automotive industry. The Respondent has used sales penetration as a measurement of dealer sales performance for more than 20 years. The Respondent's use of sales penetration as a measurement of dealer performance was reasonable or was permitted by the specific terms of the Dealer Agreement. The Respondent's use of the sales penetration measurements was widely communicated to dealers, who were advised on a routine basis as to the performance of their dealerships compared to local dealers and on a regional basis. The Petitioner knew, or should have known, that sales penetration was being used to measure the Petitioner's sales performance. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Respondent calculated sales penetration in order to disadvantage the Petitioner relative to other Nissan dealers in the region. At the hearing, the Petitioner suggested alternative standards by which sales performance should be reviewed, including consideration of total sales volume. The use of sales volume to measure retail effectiveness would penalize dealerships in smaller markets and fail to reflect the market opportunity available to each dealer. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that total sales volume more accurately measured the Petitioner's sales performance than did sales penetration. The Petitioner suggested that the use of sales penetration to substantiate the proposed termination of the Dealer Agreement at issue in this case was unreasonable and unfair because approximately half of Nissan's dealerships will be performing below 100 percent of the regional average at any given time, yet the Petitioner has not proposed termination of dealership agreements with half of its dealer network; however, the proposed termination at issue in this case is not based merely on the Petitioner's sales penetration. In 2002, the Petitioner's sales penetration was 110.5 percent, well above the regional average. At that time, the Respondent was preparing to introduce a number of new vehicles to the market. Some of the new vehicles were revisions of previous models, while others were intended to compete with products against which Nissan had not previously competed. Nissan representatives believed that the new models would substantially expand sales opportunities for its dealerships, and they encouraged their dealer network to prepare for the new environment. Some dealers responded by increasing staff levels and modernizing, or constructing new facilities. The Petitioner failed to take any substantive action to prepare for the new model lineup. Beginning in 2003, and continuing throughout the relevant period of this proceeding, the Petitioner's regional sales penetration went into decline. From 2002 to 2003, the Petitioner's annualized sales penetration fell more than 30 points to 85.13 in 2003. The Petitioner's sales penetration for 2004 was 65.08 percent. The Petitioner's sales penetration for the first quarter of 2005 was 61.78 percent. Following the introduction of the new models and during the relevant period of this proceeding, regional Nissan sales increased by about 40 percent. By 2004, the average Nissan dealer in the Petitioner's region had a sales penetration of 108.8 percent of the regional average. Through the first quarter of 2005, the average dealer in the region had a sales penetration of 108.6 percent of the regional average. Compared to all other Florida Nissan dealers during the relevant period of this proceeding, the Petitioner was ranked, at its best, 54th of the 57 Florida Nissan dealerships and was ranked lowest in the state by January 2005. Every Florida Nissan dealership, other than the Petitioner, sold more new cars in 2004 than in 2002. The Petitioner sold 200 fewer vehicles in 2004 than it had two years earlier. The three other Orlando-area Nissan dealers experienced significant sales growth at the same time the Petitioner's performance declined. The Petitioner has suggested that the Respondent failed to provide the information to appropriate management of the dealership. The Dealer Agreement indicated that Christopher A. Holler was the executive manager of the dealership; however, his address was located in Winter Park, Florida, and he did not maintain an office in the dealership. The Respondent's representatives most often met with managers at the dealership, who testified that they communicated with Mr. Holler. On several occasions as set forth herein, Nissan representatives met with Mr. Holler for discussions and corresponded with him. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner was unaware that its sales penetration results were declining or that the Petitioner was unaware that the Respondent was concerned with the severity of the decline. The Respondent communicated with the Petitioner on a routine basis as it did with all dealers. As the Petitioner's sales performance declined, the Respondent communicated the monthly sales report information to the Petitioner, and the topic of declining sales was the subject of a continuing series of discussions between the parties. In February 2003, Tim Pierson, the Respondent's district operations manager (DOM), met with the Petitioner's on- site manager, John Sekula, and discussed the dealership's declining sales penetration. Mr. Sekula was subsequently transferred by the ownership group to another auto manufacturer's dealership. In August 2003, Mr. Pierson met with the Petitioner's new manager, Darren Hutchinson, as well as with a representative from the ownership group, to discuss the continuing decline in sales penetration, as well as an alleged undercapitalization of the dealership and the lack of an on-site executive manager with authority to control dealership operations. On October 1, 2003, the Respondent issued a Notice of Default (NOD) charging that the Petitioner was in default of the Dealer Agreement for the failure to "retain a qualified executive manager" and insufficient capitalization of the dealership. In December 2003, Mr. Pierson met with Christopher A. Holler to discuss the dealership's problems. By the time of the meeting, Mr. Hutchinson had been designated as the executive manager, although Mr. Hutchinson's decision-making authority does not appear to have extended to financial operations. During that meeting, based on the Petitioner's failure to meet the capitalization requirements and respond to the deterioration in sales, Mr. Pierson inquired as to whether the Petitioner was interested in selling the dealership, but Mr. Pierson testified without contradiction that Mr. Holler responded "no." Mr. Hutchinson explained at the hearing that he asked the question because there was little apparent effort being made to address the deficiencies at the dealership, and he was attempting to ascertain the Petitioner's intentions. Mr. Hutchinson was directed to prepare a plan to address the Petitioner's customer service rating, which had fallen to the lowest in the area. Based on an apparent belief that the ownership group was going to remedy the Respondent's concerns about capitalization, the Respondent extended the compliance deadline set forth in the NOD, but the extended deadline passed without any alteration of the dealership's capitalization. A letter to the Respondent dated March 25, 2004, allegedly from Mr. Holler, noted that sales and customer service scores had improved; however, there was no credible evidence presented during the hearing to support the claimed improvement in either sales or customer service. The letter also stated that the capitalization of the dealership would be increased in April 2004 and that new vehicle orders were being reduced. On March 19, 2004, Mr. Pierson spoke with Mr. Holler and believed, based on the conversation, that a meeting would be scheduled to discuss the sales and capitalization issues. In anticipation of the meeting, Pierson sent the sales penetration reports directly to Mr. Holler, but the meeting did not occur. There was no additional capital placed into the dealership during April 2004. In April 2004, Andy Delbrueck, a new DOM for the area, met with Mr. Hutchinson to discuss the continuing decline in sales penetration through the end of March 2004. Other dealers in the area were experiencing increased sales at this time, but the Petitioner's regional sales penetration continued to decline and was below the region for almost all Nissan models. Mr. Hutchinson advised that he was hiring additional staff and had sufficient advertising funds to return the regional sales penetration averages by June. In early May 2004, Mr. Delbrueck and a Nissan vice president, Patrick Doody, sent a letter about the Petitioner's declining sales performance to Mr. Holler and requested that the Petitioner prepare a plan to address the problem. On May 18, 2004, Mr. Delbrueck again met with Mr. Hutchinson and discussed the decline in sales performance and customer service scores, as well as the issue of the dealership's undercapitalization. A May 25, 2004, letter to the Respondent, allegedly from Mr. Holler, noted that the dealership's sales penetration had improved, that additional staff had been hired, and that the Petitioner anticipated reaching or exceeding the regional sales penetration average by the end of the third quarter of 2004. The Petitioner never reached regional sales penetration averages following this letter, and, at the time it was written, there had been no material improvement in the dealership's sales penetration. On June 17, 2004, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Holler to discuss the continuing decline in the Petitioner's sales performance. Mr. Delbrueck believed, based on the meeting, that Mr. Holler was aware of the problem and would make the changes necessary to improve sales, including employing additional sales staff. On July 7, 2004, the Respondent issued an Amended NOD, citing the continuing decline in the Petitioner's sales performance as grounds for the default, in addition to the previous concerns related to capitalization that were identified in the earlier NOD. The Amended NOD established a deadline of November 29, 2004, by which time the cited deficiencies were to be remedied. One day later, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Hutchinson, discussed the Amended NOD, and made various suggestions as to how the Petitioner could improve the dealership's sales, including marketing and staffing changes. Mr. Delbrueck also offered to send in a trained Nissan representative, William Hayes, to review dealership operations and provide suggestions to improve conditions at the facility and ultimately to increase car sales. Mr. Hutchinson accepted the offer. A letter to the Respondent dated July 23, 2004, allegedly from Christopher A. Holler, noted that staffing levels had increased as had sales for the month of July; however, there was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that any substantive increase in staffing had occurred or that the Petitioner's sales penetration had increased. The letter contained no specific plan for remedying the problems cited in the Amended NOD. In late July 2004, a Nissan training representative, William Hayes, performed a focused review of the Petitioner's operations and provided a list of specific recommendations intended to improve the Petitioner's sales performance. He met with Mr. Hutchinson at the dealership and discussed the list of recommendations. At that time, Mr. Hutchinson stated that he believed the recommendations were useful. On September 10, 2004, Nissan Vice President Doody sent another letter to Mr. Holler referencing the Petitioner's declining sales performance and, again, requesting that the Petitioner prepare a plan to address the issue. A September 30, 2004, letter to the Respondent, allegedly from Mr. Holler, noted that staffing levels had been increased, a new executive manager (Mr. Hutchinson) had been hired, advertising funds had been increased, and customer service scores had improved. However, by that time, Mr. Hutchinson had been employed at the dealership since at least August of 2003, and there was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that staffing levels, advertising funds, or customer satisfaction scores had been materially increased. On October 18, 2004, Nissan Vice President Doody, sent another letter to Mr. Holler about the Petitioner's declining sales performance, noting that whatever efforts had been made by the Petitioner to improve sales had been unsuccessful. Thereafter, Mr. Doody arranged a meeting with Mr. Delbrueck, Mr. Holler, and another member of the Holler family to discuss the deteriorating situation at the dealership and between the parties. The meeting occurred on October 26, 2004, during which the Nissan representatives addressed the issues including under- capitalization, declining sales, and customer satisfaction scores. The Nissan representatives noted the Petitioner's failure to respond to any of the continuing problems and advised the Petitioner that, if the situation did not improve, the Respondent could initiate proceedings to terminate the Dealer Agreement. At the hearing, the Nissan representatives testified that the Holler family members in attendance at the October 26th meeting had no response during the discussion and offered no specific plan to resolve the situation. The Petitioner presented no credible evidence to the contrary. Shortly after the meeting, and in the absence of any substantive attempt by the Petitioner to resolve the concerns set forth in the NODs, the Nissan representatives decided to pursue termination of the Dealer Agreement if the Petitioner's sales penetration continued to be unsatisfactory. The Petitioner's regional sales penetration as of November 2004 was 65.69 percent. The year-end sales penetration for 2004 was 64.5 percent of regional average. On January 7, 2005, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Hutchinson to discuss the dealership's sales performance. By that time, more than a year had passed since Mr. Hutchinson's designation as executive manager, yet the dealership's sales performance had not improved. Mr. Delbrueck inquired as to whether the Petitioner would be interested in using an additional Nissan resource (the EDGE program) designed to identify specific deficiencies in the sales process. The EDGE program included an extensive review of the sales process from the customer perspective, including a six-month survey period and four hidden camera "mystery shopper" visits. There was a charge to dealers participating in the EDGE program. Mr. Hutchinson told Mr. Delbrueck that he would have to discuss the program with the owners. The Petitioner subsequently chose not to participate. During the January 7th meeting, Mr. Delbrueck also encouraged Mr. Hutchinson to hire additional sales staff. At the hearing, Mr. Hutchinson testified that at the time of this meeting, he had been "building a sales force" yet by March of 2005, the Petitioner's full-time sales staff was approximately one-half of what it had been in 2003. On February 11, 2005, Mr. Delbrueck met with Mr. Hutchinson and Holler family members to follow up on the NOD and the October 26th meeting, but made no progress towards resolving the problems. On February 23, 2005, Mr. Delbrueck and Mr. Hayes met with Mr. Hutchinson to follow up on the recommendations Mr. Hayes made in July 2004. Mr. Hutchinson continued to state that the recommendations were useful, but very few had been implemented, and he offered no plausible explanation for the delay in implementing others. On February 24, 2005, the Respondent issued a Notice of Termination (NOT) of the Dealer Agreement that set forth the continuing decline in sales penetration as grounds for the action, as well as the alleged undercapitalization. At some point in early 2005, the Petitioner increased the capitalization of the dealership and corrected the deficiency, although it was implied during the hearing that the correction was temporary and that the increased capital was subsequently withdrawn from the dealership. In any event, the Respondent issued a Superceding NOT on April 6, 2005, wherein capitalization was deleted as a specific ground for the proposed termination. The Petitioner's January 2005 sales penetration was 49.3 percent of regional average, the lowest of any Nissan dealer in the State of Florida. Consumers typically shop various automobile brands, and a consumer dissatisfied with a dealer of one brand will generally shop dealers of competing brands located in the same vicinity, in order to purchase a vehicle at a convenient dealership for ease of obtaining vehicle service. The Respondent asserted that it was harmed by the Petitioner's deteriorating sales performance because Nissan sales were "lost" to other manufacturers due to the Petitioner's failure to appropriately market the Nissan vehicles. The Petitioner asserted that because Nissan's overall sales performance in the Petitioner's PMA was average, no Nissan sales were lost. The Respondent offered testimony suggesting that sales lost to Nissan may not have been lost to the Holler ownership group because the group also owned nearby Mazda and Honda dealerships. The evidence regarding the calculation of lost Nissan sales was sufficiently persuasive to establish that Nissan was harmed by the Petitioner's inadequate vehicle sales volume and by the Petitioner's failure to meet its obligation to "actively and effective promote" the sale of Nissan vehicles to individual purchasers as required by the Dealer Agreement. The number of sales lost is the difference between what a specific dealer, who met regional sales averages, should have sold compared to what the dealer actually sold. In 2003, the Respondent lost 185 sales based on the Petitioner's poor sales performance. In 2004, the Respondent lost 610 sales based on the Petitioner's poor sales performance, 200 more lost sales than from the next poorest performing Nissan dealer in Florida. The parties offered competing theories for the Petitioner's declining performance, which are addressed separately herein. The greater weight of the evidence presented at the hearing establishes that as set forth herein, the Respondent's analysis of the causes underlying the Petitioner's poor sales performance was persuasive and is accepted. The Respondent asserted that the sales decline was caused by operational problems, including an inadequate facility, inadequate capitalization, poor management, ineffective advertising, inadequate sales staff, and poor customer service. Competing dealerships in the area have constructed improved or new facilities. Customers are more inclined to shop for vehicles at modern dealerships. Upgraded dealerships typically experience increased customer traffic and sales growth. The Petitioner's facility is old and in disrepair. Some dealership employees referred to the facility as the "Pizza Hut" in recognition of the sales building's apparent resemblance to the shape of the restaurant. Nissan representatives discussed the condition of the facility with the Petitioner throughout the period at issue in this proceeding. When the Respondent began preparing for the introduction of new models in 2002, the Respondent began to encourage dealerships including the Petitioner, to participate in the "Nissan Retail Environment Design Initiative" (NREDI), a facility-improvement program. Apparently, the Petitioner was initially interested in the program, and, following a design consultation with the Respondent's architectural consultants, plans for proposed improvements to the Petitioner's facility were created. At the time, the Respondent was encouraging dealers to improve facilities, the Respondent had a specified amount of funding available to assist dealers who chose to participate in the NREDI program, and there were more dealers interested than funds were available. Although funds were initially reserved for the Petitioner's use, the Petitioner declined in June of 2003 to participate in the program, and the funds were reallocated to other dealerships. The Respondent implied that one of the reasons the Petitioner did not upgrade the dealership facility was a lack of capitalization. The allegedly inadequate capitalization of the dealership was the subject of continuing discussions between the Petitioner and the Respondent for an extended period of time; however, inadequate capitalization was specifically deleted from the grounds for termination set forth in the NOT at issue in this proceeding. Although the evidence indicates that lack of capitalization can limit a dealer's ability to respond to a multitude of problems at a dealership, the evidence is insufficient to establish in this case that an alleged lack of capitalization was the cause for the dealership's failure to upgrade its facility. In a letter to the Respondent dated June 30, 2003, the Petitioner stated only that it was "not feasible" to proceed and indicated an intention only "to proceed in the future," but offered no additional explanation for the lack of feasibility. Similarly, it is not possible, based on the evidence presented during the hearing, to find that Petitioner's failure to respond to the deteriorating operations at the dealership was due to a lack of financial resources. Daily operations at the dealership were hampered by the lack of appropriate management at the dealership location. Although Mr. Holler was identified in the Dealer Agreement as the principal owner and the executive manager of the dealership, his address was located in Winter Park, Florida, and there was no credible evidence presented that he managed the operation on a daily basis. As sales deteriorated, the Respondent began to insist that the Petitioner designate someone located on-site at the facility as executive manager with full control over the day-to- day operations of the dealership. In June 2003, Mr. Sekula was appointed as executive manager, but his authority was limited and his decisions required approval of the ownership group. At the hearing, Mr. Sekula acknowledged that the ownership group was bureaucratic. Shortly after his appointment, he was transferred by the ownership group to another of their competing dealerships. Several months later, Mr. Hutchinson was appointed as executive manager. There was no credible evidence presented to establish that Mr. Hutchinson ran the fiscal operations of the dealership. He prepared budgets for various expenditures and submitted them to the ownership group. The ownership group apparently controlled the "purse strings" of the dealership. There was no credible evidence presented as to the decision- making process within the group; however, decisions on matters such as the dealership's advertising budget required approval of the ownership group. The failure to provide appropriate on-site management can delay routine decisions and negatively affect the ability to manage and motivate sales staff. For example, when Nissan offered Mr. Hutchinson the opportunity to participate in the Nissan EDGE sales program, Mr. Hutchinson was initially unable to respond, because he lacked the ability to commit the financial resources to pay for the program. Mr. Hutchinson testified that the ownership group routinely approved his advertising budget requests. As the Petitioner's sales declined, so did advertising expenditures, from $694,107 in 2002 to $534,289 in 2004. The Petitioner's declining advertising expenditures were a contributing factor in deteriorating sales. The Petitioner reduced its total advertising budget while the Orlando market was growing, and the Petitioner's sales penetration declined while competing dealerships sales increased. Additionally, the Petitioner did not monitor the effectiveness of its advertising. The Petitioner's advertising was implemented through "Central Florida Marketing," a separate company owned by the Holler organization. There is no evidence that either the Petitioner or Central Florida Marketing monitored the effectiveness of the advertising. A substantial number of Nissan buyers within the Petitioner's PMA purchased vehicles from other dealerships, suggesting that the advertising failed to attract buyers to the Petitioner's dealership. Only eight percent of the Petitioner's customers acknowledged seeing the Petitioner's advertising, whereas about 20 percent of car shoppers in the Orlando area admit being influenced by dealer advertising. The Respondent asserted that the Petitioner failed to have sufficient sales staff to handle the increased customer traffic precipitated by the introduction of new Nissan models in 2002 and 2003. The Respondent offered evidence that the average vehicle salesperson sells eight to ten cars monthly, five to six of which are new cars and that, based on sales expectations, the Petitioner's sales force could not sell enough cars to meet the regional averages. Although the evidence establishes that the Petitioner cut sales staff as sales declined at the dealership, there is no credible evidence that customers at the Petitioner's facility were not served. The assertion relies upon an assumption that the Petitioner experienced increased sales traffic upon the introduction of new models and that the sales staff was inadequate to sufficiently service the increased traffic. The evidence failed to establish that the Petitioner experienced an increase in sales traffic such that sales were lost because staff was unavailable to assist customers. However, the Petitioner's sales staff failed to take advantage of customer leads provided to the dealership by the Respondent. The Respondent gathered contact information from various sources including persons who requested vehicle information from the Respondent's internet site, as well as the names of lease customers whose lease terms were expiring. The contact information was provided to dealers without charge through the Respondent's online dealer portal. The Petitioner rarely accessed the data, and it is, therefore, logical to presume that the leads resulted in few closed sales. The Petitioner's customer satisfaction scores also declined during the time period relevant to this proceeding. Poor customer service can eventually influence sales as negative customer "word-of-mouth" dampens the interest of other prospective customers. The Respondent monitored the customer opinions of dealer operations through a survey process, which resulted in "Customer Service Index" (CSI) scores. Prior to 2003, the Petitioner's CSI scores had been satisfactory, and then CSI scores began to decline. By the close of 2003, the CSI scores were substantially below regional scores, and the sales survey score was the lowest in the Petitioner's district. Although the Petitioner asserted on several occasions that CSI scores were increasing, the evidence established that only the March 2004 CSI scores improved and that no other material improvement occurred during the time period relevant to this proceeding. The Petitioner asserted at the hearing that the sales performance decline was caused by a lack of vehicle inventory, the alteration of the Petitioner's PMA, a lack of available financing from Nissan Motors Acceptance Corporation (NMAC), hurricanes, improper advertising by competing dealers, and the death of Roger Holler, Jr. The Petitioner also asserted that this termination action is being prosecuted by the Respondent because the Petitioner declined to participate in the NREDI dealer-facility upgrade program and declined to sell the Respondent's extended service plan product. A number of the suggested causes offered by the Petitioner during the hearing were omitted from the Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, but nonetheless are addressed herein. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent failed to make available marketable inventory sufficient for the Petitioner to meet sales penetration averages. The evidence failed to support the assertion. Nissan vehicles were distributed according to an allocation system that reflected dealer sales and inventory. The Respondent used a "two-pass" allocation system to distribute 90 percent of each month's vehicle production. The remaining 10 percent were reserved for allocation by Nissan market representatives. Simply stated, dealers earned new vehicles to sell by selling the vehicles they had. New vehicle allocations were based upon each dealer's "days' supply" of cars. The calculation of days' supply is essentially based on the number of vehicles a dealer had available on the lot and the number of vehicles a dealer sold in each month. Through the allocation system, a dealership that failed to sell cars and lower its days' supply would be allocated fewer cars during the following month. More vehicles were made available to dealers with low days' supplies than were available to dealers with higher supplies. It is clearly reasonable for the Respondent to provide a greater supply of vehicles to the dealers who sell more cars. At some point during the period relevant to this proceeding, Nissan removed consideration of sales history from the days' supply-based allocation system calculation; however, there was no credible evidence presented to establish that the elimination of the sales history component from the calculation reduced the vehicle allocation available to the Petitioner. The Respondent applied the same allocation system to all of its dealerships, including the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the Respondent manipulated the allocation system to deny any vehicles to the Petitioner. The Respondent provided current inventory and allocation information to all of its dealerships, including the Petitioner, through a computerized database system. The Petitioner was responsible for managing vehicle inventory and for utilizing the allocation system to acquire cars to sell. Although the Petitioner asserted that the decline in sales was related to a lack of vehicle inventory, there was no evidence that the Petitioner's inventory declined during the period relevant to this proceeding. In fact, the evidence established that the Petitioner's inventory actually increased from 150 vehicles in early 2003 to 300 vehicles in early 2004, at which time the Petitioner reduced vehicle orders and the inventory began to decline. The Petitioner also asserted that it was provided vehicles for sale that were undesirable to the Petitioner's customers, due to expensive or excessive options packages. There was no credible evidence that the Petitioner's sales declines were related to an inventory of undesirable vehicles. Further, there was no evidence that the decline in sales penetration was related to poor supply of any specific vehicle model. Other than two truck models, the Petitioner's sales penetration decline occurred across the full range of Nissan vehicles offered for sale. Every Nissan dealer had the ability to exercise significant control (including color and option package choices) over most of the inventory acquired during the "first pass" allocation. Any inventory deficiencies that may have existed were the result of the Petitioner's mismanagement of inventory. Mr. Hutchinson did not understand the vehicle allocation system or its relationship to the days' supply calculation. The Petitioner routinely declined to order units of Nissan's apparently most marketable vehicles during the allocation process. During 2003, the Petitioner declined 137 vehicles from the "first pass" allocation, including 18 Sentras and 56 Altimas, and declined 225 vehicles from the "second pass" allocation, including 59 Sentras and 59 Altimas. During the first half of 2004, the Petitioner declined 58 vehicles from the "first pass" allocation and 42 vehicles from the "second pass" allocation. During the hearing, one of the Petitioner's witnesses generally asserted that the Respondent's turndown records were erroneous; however, the witness was unable to identify any errors of significance, and the testimony of the witness was disregarded. After the two-pass allocation process was completed, there were usually some vehicles remaining for distribution to dealers. Nissan assigned responsibility to DOMs to market these units to dealers. The DOMs used the days' supply calculation to prioritize the order in which they contacted dealers, although the vehicles were available to any dealer. There is no evidence that any DOM manipulated the days' supply-based prioritization of vehicles for denying the Petitioner the opportunity to obtain vehicles to sell. Any vehicles remaining available after the DOM attempts to distribute the vehicles were identified as "Additional Vehicle Requests" (AVR) and were made available to all dealers simultaneously. Dealerships were notified of such availability by simultaneous facsimile transmission or through the Nissan computerized database. There was no evidence that the Petitioner was denied an opportunity to obtain AVR vehicles, and in fact, the Petitioner obtained vehicles through the AVR system. The Petitioner asserted that the Nissan practice of reserving 10 percent of each month's production for allocation by market representatives rewarded some dealers and punished others. Market representative allocations are standard in the industry, and such vehicles are provided to dealerships for various reasons. Nissan market representative allocations were used to supply extra cars to newly opened dealerships or in situations where a dealership was sold to new ownership. Nissan market representative allocations were also provided to dealers who participated in the NREDI facility upgrade program. The provision of additional vehicles by market representatives to new or expanded sales facilities was reasonable because the standard allocation system would not reflect the actual sales capacity of the facility. The Petitioner presented no evidence that the Respondent, or any of its market representatives, manipulated the 10 percent allocation to unfairly reward any of the Petitioner's competitors or to punish the Respondent for not participating in various corporate programs. Prior to 2001, the Respondent had a program of providing additional vehicles to under-performing dealers in an apparent effort to increase sales by increasing inventory; however, the program did not cause an increase in sales and actually resulted in dealers being burdened with excessive unsold inventory and increased floor plan financing costs. The Respondent eliminated the program in 2001, and there is no evidence that any dealership was provided vehicles through this program during the time period relevant to this proceeding. There is no evidence that the Respondent eliminated the program for the purpose of reducing the vehicles allocated or otherwise provided to the Petitioner. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent altered the Petitioner's assigned PMA in March 2004 and that the alteration negatively affected the Petitioner's sales penetration calculation because the Petitioner's area of sales responsibility changed. Prior to March 2004, the Petitioner's PMA was calculated using information reported by the 1990 United States Census. After completion of the 2000 Census, the Respondent evaluated every Nissan dealer's PMA and made alterations based upon population changes as reflected within the Census. Standard Provision Section 3.A. of the Dealer Agreement provides that the Respondent "may, in its reasonable discretion, change the Dealer's Primary Market Area from time to time." There was no credible evidence presented to establish that the 2000 PMA was invalid or was improperly designated. There was no evidence that the Respondent's evaluation of the Petitioner's PMA was different from the evaluation of every other PMA in the United States. There was no evidence that the Respondent evaluated or altered the Petitioner's PMA with the intent to negatively affect the Petitioner's ability to sell vehicles or to meet regional sales penetration averages. There was no credible evidence that the 2000 PMA adversely affected the dealership or that the Petitioner's declining sales penetration was related to the change in the PMA. The alteration of the PMA did not sufficiently affect the demographics of the Petitioner's market to account for the decline in sales penetration. Recalculating the Petitioner's sales penetration under the prior PMA did not markedly improve the Petitioner's sales penetration. The Petitioner suggested that the 2000 PMA revision was an impermissible modification or replacement of the Dealer Agreement, but no credible evidence was offered to support the assertion. There was no evidence that the Petitioner did not receive proper notice of the 2000 PMA. At the hearing, the Petitioner implied that the Respondent caused a decline in sales by refusing to make Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation (NMAC) financing available to the Petitioner's buyers. NMAC is a finance company affiliated with, but separate from, the Respondent. NMAC provides a variety of financing options to dealers and Nissan vehicle purchasers. NMAC relies in lending decisions, as do most lenders, on a "Beacon score" which reflects the relative creditworthiness of a customer's application to finance the purchase of a car. Vehicle financing applications are grouped into four general "tiers" based on Beacon scores. Various interest rates are offered to customers based on Beacon scores. The Petitioner offered data comparing the annual number of NMAC-approved applications submitted in each tier by the Petitioner on behalf of the Petitioner's customers to suggest that the decline in the Petitioner's sales indicated a decision by NMAC to decrease the availability of NMAC credit to the Petitioner's customers. There was no evidence that NMAC treated the Petitioner's customers differently than the customers of competing dealerships or that NMAC-financed buyers received preferential interest rates based upon the dealership from which vehicles were purchased. There was no evidence that the Respondent exercised any control over individual financing decisions made by NMAC. There was no evidence that the Respondent manipulated, or had the ability to manipulate, the availability of NMAC financing for the purpose of negatively affecting the Petitioner's ability to sell vehicles. A number of hurricanes passed through the central Florida region in August and September of 2004. The Petitioner asserted that the dealership's physical plant was damaged by the storms, and that the hurricane-related economic impact on area consumers caused, at least in part, the decline in sales. The evidence failed to establish that the Petitioner's physical plant sustained significant hurricane damage to the extent of preventing vehicle sales from occurring. None of the Petitioner's vehicle inventory sustained hurricane- related damage. There was no evidence presented to indicate that the Petitioner's customers experienced a more significant economic impact than did the customers of competing dealers in the area. There was no credible evidence that the hurricanes had any material impact on the Petitioner's sales penetration. The Petitioner's sales penetration immediately prior to the hurricanes was 62.8 percent. The Petitioner's sales penetration in August 2004 was 61.6 percent, in September was 61.1 percent, and in October was 62.3 percent. Generally, within 30 to 45 days after a hurricane, customers with damaged vehicles use insurance proceeds to purchase new vehicles. The Petitioner's sales volume increased at this time; although because other dealers in the region also experienced increased sales, there was no change to the Petitioner's sales penetration calculation. The Petitioner asserted that improper advertising of "double rebates" by competing dealers caused declining sales, and offered evidence in the form of newspaper advertisements in support of the assertion; however, the Petitioner's own advertising indicated the availability of such rebates on occasion. There was no evidence presented to establish that the Respondent was responsible for creating or approving advertisements for dealerships. The Respondent has a program whereby dealers who meet certain advertising guidelines can obtain funds to defray advertising costs, but the program is voluntary. The Respondent does not regulate vehicle advertising or retail pricing. There was no evidence that the Petitioner reported any allegedly misleading or illegal advertising with any law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over false advertising or unfair trade practices. Mr. Hutchinson testified that the death of Roger Holler, Jr., in February 2004, negatively affected sales at the dealership, but there was no evidence that Roger Holler, Jr., had any role in managing or operating the dealership. The Petitioner's sales decline commenced prior to his death and continued thereafter. The evidence failed to establish that the death had any impact on the operation of the dealership or the Petitioner's sales performance. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent's effort to terminate the Dealer Agreement was an attempt to punish the Petitioner for declining to participate in the NREDI program and offered a chronology of events intended to imply that the Respondent's actions in this case were a deliberate plan to force the Petitioner to either build a new facility or sell the dealership. The assertion is speculative and unsupported by credible evidence. During the time period relevant to this proceeding, only one of the four Orlando-area Nissan dealers agreed to participate in the NREDI program. Of the four dealerships, three experienced increased sales activity during the period relevant to this proceeding. The Petitioner was the only one of the four dealerships to experience a decline in sales penetration during this period. The Respondent has taken no action against the two other dealerships that declined to participate in the NREDI program. There was no credible evidence that the Respondent has taken any punitive action against any dealership solely based on a dealership's decision not to participate in the NREDI program. The Petitioner asserted that the Respondent's actions in this case were intended to punish the Petitioner for not selling the Respondent's extended service contract (known as "Security Plus") and for selling a product owned by the Petitioner, but there was no evidence supporting the assertion. A substantial number of dealers in the region did not sell the Security Plus product to new car buyers. There was no evidence that the Respondent has penalized any dealer, including the Petitioner, for refusing to sell the Nissan Security Plus product. During the hearing, the Petitioner identified a number of other troubled Nissan dealerships, ostensibly to establish that other dealerships similarly situated to the Petitioner had not been the subject of Dealer Agreement termination proceedings and that the Respondent had failed to enforce the Dealer Agreement termination provisions fairly. A number of the dealerships cited by the Petitioner are outside the State of Florida and are immaterial to this proceeding. The Dealer Agreement provides for termination of an agreement if the dealer materially and substantially breaches the agreement. The Dealer Agreement does not require termination of every dealership that fails to achieve average regional sales penetration. Termination of a Dealer Agreement because of sales performance requires a dealer-specific analysis that includes consideration of the factors underlying poor sales and consideration of conditions that may warrant delaying termination proceedings. As to the other Florida Nissan dealers cited by the Petitioner, many had higher sales penetration levels than did the Respondent. When compared to the Florida dealerships, the magnitude of the Petitioner's sales penetration decline exceeded that of all the other dealerships. Many of the cited dealerships had also initiated changes in management, staffing, and facilities to address sale and service deficiencies. Some of the cited dealers had already shown sales and service-related improvements. One dealership, Love Nissan, had already been terminated, even though its sales penetration had exceeded that of the Petitioner. One dealership cited by the Petitioner was Hampton Nissan, against whom the Respondent had initiated termination proceedings in 2003. Changes to Hampton's PMA based on the 2000 PMA resulted in an increase in the dealership's sales penetration eventually to levels exceeding those of the Petitioner, and Nissan has rescinded the action. There was no evidence that the Hampton Nissan PMA was calculated differently than the Petitioner's PMA, or that either PMA was altered purposefully to affect the dealer's sales penetration results. Other dealerships cited by the Petitioner were being monitored by the Respondent to ascertain whether efforts to improve sales performance succeed. The Respondent may ultimately pursue termination proceedings against underperforming dealerships if sales performance fails to improve. There was no credible evidence that, prior to initiating this termination proceeding, the Respondent failed to consider the facts and circumstances underlying the Petitioner's poor sales and the Petitioner's response to the situation. The Petitioner has experienced a substantial and continuing decline in sales penetration and has failed to respond effectively to the deteriorating situation during the period at issue in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's protest and approving the April 6, 2005, Superceding Notice of Termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2007.
Findings Of Fact K & B Enterprises, Respondent, purchased plants from Roy Amerson, Inc., Petitioner, and they were delivered to Respondent on February 19, 1980. Respondent had ordered Bottlebrush and Cuban laurel (Ficus Nitida) packaged in wire baskets to protect root ball in shipment. Upon arrival Respondent noted that the wires were mangled and some root balls appeared separated from the roots. Before the trees were unloaded Mrs. Benway telephoned the salesman for Petitioner and told him about the condition of the trees. The salesman advised her to accept the trees, water them, and they (Amerson) would make an allowance for the damage. This, he said, would be better and cause less damage to the trees than if they were sent back on the truck that brought them. The driver was requested by Mr. Benway to note the condition of the trees on the invoice accompanying the shipment (Exhibit 1). No such notation was made. The driver did note the date of delivery. Respondent Benway acknowledged receipt of the merchandise by signing Exhibit 1 below the following statement printed near the bottom of Exhibit 1: STOCK MAY BE REFUSED AT TIME OF DELIVERY FOR A DEFINITE REASON, BUT ONCE SIGNED FOR CUSTOMER ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF INVOICE. OPEN ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BY THE 10TH OF THE MONTH. 1 1/2 PERCENT CHARGE ADDED IF NOT PAID BY THE 25TH WHICH IS ANNUAL RATE OF 18 PERCENT. Respondent is a plant retailer and landscape contractor. After accepting the February 19, 1980 delivery the Cuban laurel was planted as were the other plants. Attempts to settle the dispute with Petitioner's salesman were unsuccessful. Nine of the Bottlebrush died but all of the Cuban laurel have survived. At the instruction of the salesman these plants were watered but not trimmed or fertilized. Respondent paid for the other plants received on this invoice and for the damaged plants as they have been sold. As of the date of the hearing the balance owed on the stock delivered on Exhibit 1 was $1,494.90.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position with the Respondent in retaliation for reporting an unlawful employment practice that occurred in June 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was an "employee" of the Respondent as defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, and was employed by Respondent for approximately two years. Aaron Rents, Inc., is a national furniture rental and sales company which does business in some locations, including locations in Florida, as Aaron's Rental Purchase. Petitioner, Jerome Carter, was employed by the company at an Aaron's Rental Purchase store in Kissimmee, Florida, from approximately August 2, 1993, until August 19, 1995. Petitioner was initially hired as a delivery driver and progressed to Assistant Credit Manager, Credit Manager, and finally Sales Manager of the Kissimmee store. In August 1995, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Store Manager Steven Liberti. Liberti reported to District Manager Leonard Alonzo, who was supervised by Florida Regional Manager Joseph Fedorchak. As the Sales Manager, one of Petitioner's most important job duties was greeting and interacting with customers. He typically had the first contact with each customer as they walked into the store, and his demeanor, as he greeted them, influenced whether they felt comfortable and were likely to make a purchase. Petitioner, however, was not appropriately welcoming and friendly. Petitioner's attitude was withdrawn and not very cordial. Petitioner himself admitted that he "never look[s] happy." Petitioner's sullen demeanor was the topic of numerous discussions with his supervisors. In an effort to address the Petitioner's concerns and improve his work performance, the District Manager initiated a conversation to elicit any complaints the Petitioner might have. Petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with his position as a Credit Manager and the length of time since his last raise. As a result, Alonzo transferred the Petitioner to the Sales Manager position and gave him a pay increase. After the transfer, however, Petitioner's demeanor did not brighten. Concerned, the District Manager again inquired about the cause of the Petitioner's apparent unhappiness. Petitioner merely acknowledged that his attitude needed improvement and promised that he would "straighten up" and "be more outgoing." Each time they had that discussion, however, Petitioner's behavior would improve for only a short time, then return to his previous melancholy. The Store Manager also talked to Petitioner at least twice about his attitude toward his job, telling him that he needed to smile more often. Although the Petitioner's behavior would temporarily change after these discussions, Liberti observed that the improvement lasted only about 24 hours. In August 1995, sales at the Kissimmee store were at an all-time low. Petitioner's supervisors attributed the location's failure to meet its sales goals at least in part to the Petitioner's inability to interact with customers and make sales. After their repeated discussions with him did not result in lasting improvement, the Managers felt they had no choice but to terminate Petitioners employment. Fedorchak concurred that, because the Petitioner could not seem to display an appropriate attitude and demeanor for a Sales Manager, his services were no longer needed. Petitioner admits that when he was discharged, the reason that he was given was that he "did not look happy." Approximately two months before Petitioner left the Kissimmee store, one incident with racial overtones was brought to the Store Manager's attention. In June 1995, store employees Mark Mars and/or Jesus Rivera reported to Liberti that another store employee, Michael Flowers (who is white), had used the term "nigger" during a discussion with store employee Kenny Tatum (who is black). Liberti informed Alonzo about the complaint and an investigation was conducted. When the Managers spoke with Tatum, he explained that Flowers had used the expression "nigger, please," which was slang for "you've got to be kidding," during a conversation between the two men. He assured them that he had not been offended. Nevertheless, because Alonzo and Liberti felt it was highly inappropriate for Flowers to use such language in the store, they gave him a reprimand and warning. In his deposition testimony, Petitioner recalled learning about the occurrence from several other employees. Petitioner did not personally witness it or hear Flowers use the offensive term, but merely claimed to have reported to Liberti what he had been told. According to Petitioner, Liberti responded to this information by affirming that such behavior would not be tolerated. Petitioner admits that he was never told, and had no reason to believe, that Aaron's authorized, encouraged, or instructed Flowers to use racially derogatory language in the store or that he had done so on Aaron's behalf. When Petitioner allegedly reported the occurrence to Liberti, he only believed that a co-employee had made an inappropriate comment at work. The incident involving Flowers and Tatum was unrelated to Petitioner's discharge. None of the three individuals involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner associated him with the incident or any opposition to it. Liberti does not recall discussing the incident with Petitioner, and neither Alonzo nor Fedorchak knew that Petitioner even claimed to have had some involvement in reporting it until after he was discharged. Moreover, none of the conversations among the three about their decision to terminate Petitioner included any reference to Flowers' comment or the subsequent events. No one who opposed the incident suffered any adverse consequences. Rivera and/or Mars reported the comment, and neither of them experienced any unfavorable employment actions as a result.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order which dismisses the Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerome L. Carter, Sr. 2188 McClaren Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34744 Daniel F. Piar, Esquire Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Conclusions This matter came on for determination by the Department upon Respondent’s submission of a Motion to Dismiss as Moot, a copy of which is attached and incorporated by reference in this order. The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED. DONE AND ORDERED this ON day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ie ulje Baker, Chief ureau of Issuance Oversight Division of Motorist Services Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A338 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Motorist Services this _L2Myday of March, 2012 VWakins Vinagelk Nalini Vinayak, Dealer Yicense Administrator Filed March 13, 2012 7:31 AM Division of Administrative Hearings NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS Judicial review of this order may be had pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes, in the District Court of Appeal for the First District, State of Florida, or in any other district court of appeal of this state in an appellate district where a party resides. In order to initiate such review, one copy of the notice of appeal must be filed with the Department and the other copy of the notice of appeal, together with the filing fee, must be filed with the court within 30 days of the filing date of this order as set out above, pursuant to Rules of Appellate Procedure. JB/jdc Copies furnished: John W. Forehand, Esquire Kurkin Forehand Brandes LLP 800 North Calhoun Street, Suite 1B Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Andrew Bertron, Esquire Nelson, Mullins, Riley and Scarborough, LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard South, Suite 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Nalini Vinayak Dealer License Administrator Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
