The Issue Whether respondents are guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged by petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, including the pleadings and argument of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Carolyn E. Simmons, is a black female. In 1990, she began employment as a cook with respondent, Inverness Inn (Inn), an employer allegedly subject to the Florida Human Rights Act, as amended. At that time, the Inn was owned by respondent, Cvetko Blazevski. On March 25, 1992, petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) alleging that she was "harassed and subjected to racial terms by Mr. Cretko (sic) Blazevski, Owner, from the beginning of (her) employment until the present time." For the purpose of ruling on this motion only, the undersigned has accepted this allegation as being true. The charge of discrimination, and the petition for relief subsequently filed, did not specify the relief being sought. In April 1992, Blazevski's ownership in the Inn was terminated by a court, and the Inn later closed and went out of business. Petitioner continued to work in her position as a cook after Blazevski left the Inn and until it closed. According to petitioner's counsel, Simmons seeks only compensatory damages against respondents for their conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of October, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Kenneth S. Stepp, Esquire 305 North Apopka Avenue Inverness, Florida 34450 David L. Wilcox, Esquire 452 Pleasant Grove Road Inverness, Florida 34452
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of her race, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. ("CSK"), is a law firm having offices throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner Latasha McCleary ("McCleary"), an African-American woman, worked for CSK in its Orlando office as a legal assistant from August 7, 2017, through July 31, 2018. However, because McCleary began taking medical leave on June 6, 2018, and never returned to work, her last day in the office was June 5, 2018. Thus, the period of time in which McCleary actually functioned as a regular CSK employee was ten months. During her tenure with the firm, McCleary provided secretarial and administrative support to several attorneys, including partner Bartley Vickers and associates Jeremy Beasley and Shawn Gibbons. McCleary's direct supervisor was the then office manager, Lilliam Hernandez. CSK regarded McCleary as a valued and high-performing employee. Although, as will be discussed, McCleary complains that she was subjected to unfair criticism during the last weeks of her time in CSK's Orlando office, she was never reprimanded, disciplined, or subjected to an adverse employment action. For the first nine months of her employment, McCleary got along well with the attorneys for whom she worked, including Mr. Vickers, and she has no complaints about their treatment of her during this period. The only noteworthy incident or incidents of relevance to have occurred in this time frame are a secretary's use, on one or perhaps more occasions, of the "n- word" in McCleary's presence. An employee's use of this racial epithet in the workplace is, of course, extremely offensive and inflammatory, to say the least, and, if unchecked, could create a hostile work environment. That did not happen here, however. The legal assistant who made the offensive remark (apparently in the presence of peers only, not supervisors or managers) apologized to McCleary when the latter expressed her discomfort. McCleary never reported the incident(s) in writing to the firm's management, as the Employee Handbook required——a fact from which the undersigned infers that she accepted her co-worker's apology——and the bad behavior stopped. The upshot is that this upsetting incident was resolved informally among the affected employees without initiating an investigation by the firm, and a nascent problem was nipped in the bud. The watershed moment in this case occurred on May 7, 2018, at the beginning of McCleary's tenth month with CSK. An expert witness retained by CSK was scheduled to conduct an on- site inspection that day but failed to appear, forcing a last- minute cancelation which caused opposing counsel to incur travel expenses that CSK had to reimburse. McCleary mistakenly had failed, on the previous business day, to confirm the expert's availability, as the firm's routine required, and thus, she bore some responsibility for the unwanted results. That said, there is no evidence that this situation was other than a relatively minor inconvenience that could be fixed, learned from, and forgotten. When the problem came to light on May 7, 2018, Ms. Hernandez, the office manager, sent an email to McCleary reminding her that the inspection "should have been confirmed" beforehand to avoid a "waste[] [of] time and money." McCleary apologized for making a "human error" and promised it would not happen again. On May 9, 2018, Mr. Vickers, the partner, sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Gibbons, the associate, telling them that "some form of confirmation is needed" "for confirming inspection dates." He added: "This is a mistake that I imagine will not happen again, and I am glad we can move past it and look to the future without these types of issues again." The only thing remarkable about these emails is how unremarkable they are. Two points of interest will be mentioned. First, as just suggested, the tone of each message was neither derogatory nor personal, but measured and professional. There was a touch of criticism, to be sure, as would be expected, but the criticism was constructive in nature, not harsh or angry in tone. Second, McCleary was not the only one called to account. Mr. Vickers's email was directed as much to the associate attorney as to McCleary. The next day, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Mr. Vickers conducted a training meeting for the legal assistants in his group, which McCleary attended. There were a number of topics on the agenda, covering a range of administrative tasks that CSK expected its litigation support staff to carry out. Although Mr. Vickers brought up that week's scheduling snafu as an example of miscommunication-driven consequences, no evidence suggests that McCleary's mistake had prompted the meeting. Further, McCleary was not identified in the meeting as having been at fault or involved in the incident. McCleary, however, complains that she was "singled out" during the meeting, "80% [of which, she maintains,] covered what happened with [her] in regards to the May 7th re-inspection." The greater weight of the evidence does not support her characterization of the training session. According to McCleary, Mr. Vickers, who had been a good boss for the previous nine months, suddenly turned into a tyrant around May 10, 2018. McCleary alleged in an email written a few weeks later, on June 1, 2018, that soon after the canceled inspection, Mr. Vickers had begun asking her "idiotic questions to be sure [she knew] her job," and been constantly micromanaging [her] with multiple emails" accusing her of making numerous mistakes. Yet, although this entire period spans just 18 business days, McCleary produced none of Mr. Vickers's alleged, accusatory emails. The greater weight of the evidence does not support McCleary's allegations concerning Mr. Vickers's treatment of her during the month of May 2018. Sometime near the end of May, McCleary sent out notices of taking deposition duces tecum that did not have the document requests attached. McCleary was not solely to blame for this oversight; the attorney handling the case should have reviewed the papers to make sure that everything was in order before service. Still, as the legal assistant, McCleary should have spotted the omission and brought it to the attorney's attention. On the morning of May 31, 2018, after the problem had been discovered, Mr. Vickers sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Beasley, the associate, admonishing them to "stay focused" when preparing deposition notices for service. Similar to the canceled inspection earlier in the month, the incomplete deposition notices were a problem that CSK obviously would rather have avoided; inattention to detail, moreover, is something any reasonable employer should want to correct. There is no evidence, however, that CSK generally, or Mr. Vickers in particular, made a big deal about this incident. Mr. Vickers told McCleary and the associate that he hoped "it would not happen again"——and that, it seems, would be that. Except it wasn't. Later that day, May 31, 2018, McCleary spoke to the office administrator, Johnson Thomas. During this conversation, McCleary complained about working for Mr. Vickers and asked to be transferred to a different group of attorneys. On Friday, June 1, 2018, McCleary again contacted Mr. Thomas, sending him the email mentioned above. This email was the first written notice that CSK received from McCleary concerning her complaints about Mr. Vickers. In the email, McCleary did not allege racial discrimination, per se, but she did include some language which clearly indicated that such a charge might be forthcoming: "I refuse to subject myself to further retaliation, oppression and disrespect from Mr. Vickers. He is creating a hostile working relationship between us. I cannot concentrate on work and am in need of immediate transfer." (emphasis added). The following Tuesday, June 5, 2018, CSK approved McCleary's request to be transferred, assigning her to the work group headed by partner Melissa Crowley. When the announcement was made, Ms. Crowley sent an email to McCleary stating, "Welcome Latasha! I look forward to working with you." McCleary never reported for duty under Ms. Crowley. Instead, she took a sick day on June 6, 2018, and applied for unpaid medical leave. Despite McCleary's having presented somewhat nonspecific reasons, such as heart palpitations and anxiety, the firm granted McCleary's application and placed her on medical leave through July 11, 2018. In mid-July, McCleary provided CSK with a note from her mental health counselor in support of a request to extend the unpaid medical leave until September 5, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the firm informed McCleary that it would not be able to keep her position open that long without hiring a replacement, but agreed to let her remain on leave until July 31, 2018. CSK made it clear to McCleary that she needed to return to work on August 1, 2018, or face dismissal on grounds of abandonment. McCleary did not return to work on August 1, 2018, and the firm terminated her employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any actions against McCleary motivated by discriminatory animus, or created (or acquiesced to the creation of) a hostile work environment. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful racial discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any retaliatory action against McCleary for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that CSK did not discriminate unlawfully against McCleary on any basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding CSK not liable for race discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Reshad Favors, Esquire Mosaic Law Firm Tenth Floor 1875 Connecticut Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20009 (eServed) Robert Alden Swift, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 750 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Second Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Did Petitioner suffer an adverse employment action as a result of an unlawful discrimination by the Department of Corrections (Department) in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed at Brevard Correctional Institution and was considered by the Department to be qualified for the position for which he was employed. Petitioner is a male, African-American. On October 24 1994, Petitioner received a Written Reprimand for the abuse of the Department's sick leave policy, which had occurred on October 21, 1994, in that Petitioner, while on authorized sick leave on October 21, 1994, attended the Dorothy Lewis trial, without authorization from the Department. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the Written Reprimand issued on October 24, 1994, was issued because of Petitioner's race or gender; rather it was issued based on a reasonable belief that Petitioner had abused the Department's sick leave policy by attending the Dorothy Lewis trial while out on official sick leave. Petitioner presented no evidence to support the remaining allegations contained in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 18th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh F. Brockington, II 19715 Eagles View Circle Umatilla, Florida 32784 Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6563 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition For Relief.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer for the purposes of this proceeding. Respondent's principal place of business is in Orlando, Florida. In 1982, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a houseman at one of Respondent's hotels located at Marco Island, Florida. Respondent worked continuously in that location until he requested a transfer to the Orlando World hotel in 1986 and received his transfer in the same year. While employed at the Orlando World hotel, Petitioner refused to follow instructions, had excessive absences and was late to work repeatedly. Petitioner received the following disciplinary warnings which finally resulted in his termination on or about October 7, 1991: March 8, 1991 - Written Warning (refused to follow a reasonable job order) March 17, 1991 - Verbal Warning (reporting to work later on 3 occasions within a 90 day period), 2/27/91, 3/3/91, 3/17/91 May 15, 1991 - Written Warning (failure to follow Respondent's work policies) July 30, 1991 - Termination Recommendation (changed to a written warning) August 2, 1991 - Written document (explaining to Petitioner his problems with respect to attendance and tardiness) October 7, 1991 - Suspension and Termination Recommendation. Respondent's rules require employees to call in at least two hours in advance of their shift starting time to report a planned absence from work. Petitioner failed to comply with Respondent's rules by failing to give Respondent timely notice of his planned absence for October 7, 1991. On October 7, 1991, Petitioner called in to report his absence 15 minutes before 8:00 a.m. when his shift started. Petitioner failed to provide credible and persuasive evidence that the Respondent's disciplinary warnings were fraudulent or untruthful. Petitioner was replaced by Mr. Martin Gamey, an Hispanic male. Respondent did not conduct an unlawful employment practice in terminating Petitioner. Respondent did not act with any bias or animus against Petitioner. Petitioner's termination was based upon Petitioner's failure to satisfy his job requirements, failure to follow instructions, excessive absences, and failure to give timely notice for planned absences.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued denying Petitioner's claim of unlawful discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 7th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1302 Respondent's paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 were rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent's paragraph 1, 2, 5 and 6-10 were accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlton J. Trosclair, Esquire Marriott Corporation One Marriott Drive, Department 923 Washington, D.C. 20058 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Nicolas Polanco 88-05 71st Street Apartment 1-K Jamaica, New York 11432
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(b) and (kk), Florida Statutes (2010), and if so, what penalty should be imposed for the violations proven.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of medical doctors pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME94098. During all times relevant to the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent also held a license to practice medicine in the State of California. On September 7, 2010, Linda Whitney, the Executive Director of the California Board of Medicine, filed an Ex Parte Petition for Interim Suspension Order (Ex Parte Petition) in Case No. 06-2007-187158, seeking to suspend, pending a full hearing on the merits, Respondent’s physician’s and surgeon’s certificate in the State of California. On September 9, 2010, Administrative Law Judge Samuel Reyes of the California Office of Administrative Hearings entered an Ex Parte Interim Suspension Order, stating that the Ex Parte Petition had come up for hearing, with both the Executive Director (through counsel) and Dr. Fenton appearing and submitting documents and presenting argument. Judge Reyes granted the Ex Parte Petition; suspended Respondent’s California Physician’s and Surgeon’s certificate; scheduled a hearing on September 30, 2010; and set a deadline for submitting additional affidavits and other documents. After the hearing on September 30, 2010, Judge Reyes entered an Interim Suspension Order, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Interim Suspension Order indicates that it was entered pursuant to California Government Code section 11529, which, as stated in the Interim Suspension Order, authorizes licensure suspension and the imposition of other conditions pending a resolution of underlying disciplinary allegations. Subdivision (a) of the statute provides that: “[i]nterim orders may be issued only if the affidavits in support of the petition show that the licensee has engaged in, or is about to engage in, acts or omissions constituting a violation of the Medical Practice Act . . . and that permitting the licensee to continue to engage in the profession for which the license was issued will endanger the public health, safety, or welfare.” Subdivision provides: “[t]he administrative law judge shall grant the interim order where, in the exercise of discretion, the administrative law judge concludes that There is a reasonable probability that the petitioner will prevail in the underlying action. (2) The likelihood of injury to the public in not issuing the order outweighs the likelihood of injury to the licensee in issuing the order.” The Interim Suspension Order granted the Petition and suspended Respondent’s license in accordance with Government Code section 11529. On May 8, 2012, the Medical Board of California adopted a Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order as the Decision and Order of the Medical Board of California (Board Order), effective June 7, 2012. The Stipulated Settlement and Disciplinary Order, which was signed by Dr. Fenton, states in pertinent part: Respondent does not contest that, at an administrative hearing, complainant could establish a prima facie case with respect to the charges and allegations contained in SAA No. 06-2007-187158, and that he has thereby subjected his license to the disciplinary action. Respondent admits the truth of paragraph 31C. in SAA No. 06-2007-187158. SSA No. 06-2007-187158 refers to the Second Amended Accusation, which is the charging document in the underlying California case, akin to an administrative complaint in Florida. The SAA alleges that Respondent is subject to discipline based upon impairment because of physical or mental illness affecting competency in violation of the California Business Code, section 822; conviction of a crime substantially related to the qualifications, functions, and duties of the medical profession in violation of section 2236; and general unprofessional conduct, in violation of section 2234. The Board Order revoked Respondent’s Physician’s and Surgeon’s Certificate. The revocation was stayed, however, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of seven years, subject to terms and conditions outlined in the Board Order. Those terms and conditions included abstinence from the use of any controlled substances and any drugs requiring a prescription other than those lawfully prescribed by another practitioner; abstinence from alcohol use; biological fluid testing; completion of a professionalism program; submission to a psychiatric evaluation; psychotherapy by a California-licensed, board-certified psychiatrist or licensed psychologist; monitoring of Respondent’s practice while on probation; and a prohibition against supervising physician assistants during the course of probation. Respondent did not report the Interim Suspension Order dated September 9, 2010, to the Florida Board of Medicine within 30 days of the Interim Suspension Order. Respondent also did not update his practitioner profile to include the discipline in the State of California. The Board received notice from the State Federation of Medical Boards that another state had taken action, i.e., that the Interim Suspension Order had been issued by the State of California. There is no allegation, nor was any evidence presented, that Respondent has violated the terms of the Board Order entered in California. No evidence was presented indicating that Respondent has ever been disciplined previously, in Florida or in California. At the time of the hearing, Respondent was not practicing medicine. He testified at hearing that he has enrolled voluntarily in the Florida Physicians’ Resource Network (PRN). However, no contract with PRN was entered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated subsections 458.331(1)(b) and (kk), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that Respondent’s license in Florida be suspended until such time as Respondent demonstrates the ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety, followed by probation with such terms as the Board deems appropriate. Respondent’s demonstration of the ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety shall include an evaluation by a board-certified psychiatrist approved by PRN and compliance with any recommendations PRN may make as a result of that evaluation. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2013.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for an exemption pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On September 23, 1995 Hunt was charged with battery on his wife. The facts surrounding this incident are limited, but essentially the evidence indicated that Hunt struck his wife with a closed fist. Subsequently, Hunt pled no contest to the charge and was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment and nine months supervised probation. Approximately six months after the above-referenced battery, Hunt began work at Bayshore Cluster, a residential facility that houses non-ambulatory residents with severe developmental disabilities, located in Panama City, Florida. Based on Hunt's conviction of battery on his spouse, the Department advised Hunt that he was ineligible to hold a position caring for the developmentally disabled. The Department also advised Hunt that he was ineligible for a statutory exemption. Hunt contested the decision of the Department that denied him an exemption for employment in a position for which a security background check is required pursuant to Sections 435.03 and 435.04, Florida Statutes. The contest resulted in this Chapter 120 hearing before the undersigned Administrative Law Judge. At the hearing, Hunt failed to take responsibility for battering his wife. In fact, Hunt attempted to shift the blame for the incident by claiming that his wife initiated the dispute that resulted in the battery.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order and therein DENY Hunt's request for exemption. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1996.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Department of State, Division of Licensing's (Department's) March 26, 1992, letter to Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is 56 years of age. He has had numerous brushes with the law, many of them alcohol-related, dating back to 1956, but he has never been convicted of a felony. In June of 1956, Petitioner attempted to purchase a beer in Sacramento, California. He was 19 years old at the time and, although in the military, under the legal drinking age. Petitioner was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor violation of California's alcoholic beverage control law. He received a ten-day suspended sentence. In November of 1956, when Petitioner was stationed on a military base in Amarillo, Texas, he and friend, without authorization, went into a room on the base where weapons were stored. They took possession of a .38 calibre firearm and started "playing with it." Petitioner was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offenses of unlawful entry and wrongful appropriation. He received a bad conduct discharge, which was suspended. After attending a rehabilitation training program, he returned to active military service. In May of 1962, Petitioner was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. He was subsequently convicted of the offense. His license was suspended for ten days and he was ordered to pay $25 in court costs. In the early part of 1964, Petitioner, along with several others, charged $700 worth of merchandise in a department store in Indianapolis, Indiana using credit card slips they had forged. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the felony offense of uttering a forged instrument. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on three years probation. In October of 1968, while in Anderson Indiana, Petitioner was arrested and charged with theft by deception for having written checks in amounts that exceeded the balance of his checking account. The checks were actually written by Petitioner's estranged wife without his knowledge. The charge against Petitioner was dropped after restitution was made. In January of 1969, Petitioner was again arrested in Anderson, Indiana and charged with theft by deception for having written bad checks. These checks were written by Petitioner, but he did not realize at the time he wrote them that, because of his wife's check writing, he had insufficient funds in his account. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for a year. In February of 1970, Petitioner stayed in a Naples, Florida hotel for approximately three or four days. When he checked out, he did not have enough money to pay his bill. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offense of defrauding an innkeeper. Less than a week later, Petitioner made restitution and the charge against him was dropped. The following month, while in Miami Beach, Florida, Petitioner was again unable to pay a hotel bill and, as a result, arrested and charged with defrauding an innkeeper. This charge was also dropped after Petitioner made restitution. In May of 1970, Petitioner was arrested and charged with breaking and entering a Naples, Florida restaurant with intent to commit grand larceny. The charge was unfounded and it was subsequently dropped. In January of 1971, Petitioner was driving a motor vehicle in Fort Myers, Florida that had an expired inspection sticker affixed to it. He was stopped by the police and a firearm belonging to a passenger was discovered in the vehicle. Petitioner was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and driving a vehicle with an expired inspection sticker. The former charge was dropped. With respect to the latter charge, Petitioner was fined $30 or $35. In October of 1971, Petitioner was arrested in Naples, Florida and charged with writing a worthless check. The check was in the amount of $20 or $25. At the time he wrote the check, Petitioner was unaware that he did not have enough money in his account to cover the check. Petitioner subsequently made restitution and the charge was dropped. In February of 1976, in Lauderhill, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and again charged with writing a worthless check. The amount of this check was less than $50. Petitioner pled guilty to this misdemeanor offense and was fined $10. In addition to paying the fine, Petitioner made restitution. That same month, Petitioner was arrested in Sunrise, Florida and charged with battery on his wife. The charge was unfounded and it was subsequently dropped. In July of 1976, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, assault and battery and petty larceny. All of these charges were unfounded; however, as a matter of convenience and pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pled no contest to the assault and battery charge. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld. Petitioner received a 90-day suspended sentence and a $352 fine, which was also suspended. The remaining charges against Petitioner were dropped. In December of 1977, Petitioner was again arrested in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On this occasion, he was charged with two counts of writing worthless checks under $50. Petitioner subsequently made restitution and the charges were dropped. In February of 1980, in Jasper, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated, speeding, driving without a valid drivers license and refusing to sign a summons. The latter charge was dropped. Petitioner pled guilty to the remaining charges and was adjudicated guilty on these charges by the trial court. For speeding and driving without a valid drivers license, he was fined. For driving while intoxicated, he was also fined and, in addition, his drivers license was suspended and he was ordered to attend DWI school. In May of 1985, in West Palm Beach, Florida, Petitioner was arrested on a Dade County, Florida warrant that had been issued in 1980, when he had been charged with two felony counts of writing worthless checks. The checks had actually been written by Petitioner's daughter. After his arrest, Petitioner made restitution and the charges against him were dropped. In November of 1985, Petitioner was arrested in West Palm Beach, Florida and charged with driving while intoxicated. He pled guilty to this misdemeanor charge. The trial court adjudicated Petitioner guilty and suspended his license for six months and ordered him to attend DWI school. Petitioner has not been in trouble with the law since. He is now a law-abiding citizen, who is better able to control is intake of alcohol. In filling out Section 5 of his application for licensure, which addressed the subject of criminal history, Petitioner did not intentionally make any misrepresentations or omit any required information. It was his understanding that he was required to disclose information relating only to felony convictions in this section of the application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner should not be denied licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer on the grounds cited in the Department's March 26, 1992, denial letter. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of August, 1992.
The Issue Whether the petitioner is entitled to an award under section 57.111, Florida Statutes, of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the appellate matter Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 631 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), and, if so, the amount of such award.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is the state agency responsible for issuing occupational licenses to veterinarians with access to the backside of a racetrack and for regulating such licensees. Sections 550.10(1)(b) and .105(2)(d)2, Florida Statutes. Dr. Witmer has been licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Florida since January 1, 1993, and, as of October 19, 1993, he was authorized to practice veterinary medicine at Florida racetracks by virtue of a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license (“license”) issued by the Department. He has been domiciled in Florida at all times material to this matter. On October 19, 1993, Dr. Witmer was a partner in a professional practice in veterinary medicine with its principal office at 1450 Southwest Third Street, Pompano Park, Broward County, Florida. His professional practice had three full-time employees and a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than $2 million. In the Administrative Complaint and Emergency Order of Suspension dated October 19, 1993, the Department took two actions with respect to Dr. Witmer’s license.1 First, in the administrative complaint, it put Dr. Witmer on notice that the Department had initiated a disciplinary action against him, charging him with violations of a statute and a rule governing his license which, if proven, would justify the imposition of penalties, including revocation or suspension of his license. Secondly, in the emergency order of suspension, it summarily suspended Dr. Witmer’s license. Dr. Witmer requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the truth of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case Number 93-6638. That action was pending at the time Dr. Witmer filed the application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue in this proceeding. Underlying proceeding On the basis of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint and its determination that Dr. Witmer’s interest in his license was “far outweighed by the immediate danger to the public health and safety and to the integrity of harness racing in the State of Florida,” the Department suspended Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as of October 19, 1993, ordered him to cease and desist from all activities authorized by the license, and barred him from entering any pari-mutuel establishment as a patron for the duration of the emergency suspension. Dr. Witmer chose to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to sections 120.60(8) and 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993). It is this appellate proceeding which is the proceeding underlying Dr. Witmer’s application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue herein. State agencies are authorized by section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes (1995) to immediately suspend a license under the following circumstances and subject to the following conditions: If the agency finds that immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency suspension, restriction, or limitation of a license, it shall show compliance in its order with the requirements imposed by s. 120.54(9) on agencies making emergency rules. Summary suspension, restriction, or limitation may be ordered, but a formal suspension or revocation proceeding under this section shall also be promptly instituted and acted upon. Section 120.54(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: If an agency finds that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action, the agency may adopt any rule necessitated by the immediate danger by any procedure which is fair under the circumstances and necessary to protect the public interest, provided that: * * * 3. The agency publishes in writing at the time of, or prior to, its action the specific facts and reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare and its reasons for concluding that the procedure used is fair under the circumstances. . . . The agency’s findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness shall be judicially reviewable. On February 2, 1994, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida issued its opinion in Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Case Number 93-3232, reported at 631 So. 2d 338. The court quashed the Emergency Order of Suspension, concluding that the order was “facially inadequate,” and ruling that “the Department’s findings of immediate danger to the public welfare are not supported by specific facts and reasons as required by 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes.” Id. at 340, 343. The district court in Witmer observed that its review was limited to a determination of whether the order complied with the requirements of section 120.54(9)(a)3 and based its analysis upon the following rules of law: If the facts alleged in the complaint and [emergency] order are sufficient to demonstrate immediacy, necessity and fairness, no hearing is required prior to the emergency suspension. . . . The factual allegations contained in the emergency order must sufficiently identify particularized facts which demonstrate an immediate danger to the public. (Citation omitted.) Where, as here, no hearing was held prior to the entry of the emergency order, every element necessary to its validity must appear on the face of the order. (Citation omitted.) The order must be “factually explicit and persuasive concerning the existence of a genuine emergency.” (Citation omitted.) Witmer, 631 So. 2d at 341. In reaching its conclusion that the emergency order was facially inadequate, the court in Witmer held that the Department failed to allege facts in the complaint and order to establish the essential elements of the violations upon which the emergency suspension was based. Firstly, the court found that the charge in the emergency order that Dr. Witmer had failed to report gratuities was not supported by any allegations of fact in the complaint and order. Id. at 341. Secondly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer’s actions related to horse racing or to race horses, an essential element of a violation of section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, and of rule 61D-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code. Id. at 342. Thirdly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer reached an agreement with a second person to commit the violation, an essential element of any conspiracy, including one to violate section 550.235(2) and rule 61D-1.002(10). Id. Finally, the court concluded that the public harm alleged by the Department in the order was too attenuated to support the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Id. at 343. The district court issued its mandate to the Department on February 18, 1994, directing it to act in accordance with the opinion quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension. The Department did not seek review of the decision of the district court in the Florida Supreme Court. Consequently, the decision of the district court had the effect of nullifying the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Summary Dr. Witmer was a small business party, as that term is defined for purposes of section 57.111, at the time the Department entered the emergency order.2 The evidence is sufficient to establish that the Department initiated an action against Dr. Witmer when it entered an Emergency Order of Suspension. This order was issued under the authority granted state agencies in section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes. The order had the effect of immediately and summarily suspending Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license. Dr. Witmer had the right to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to section 120.54(9)(a)3. The appellate court quashed the emergency order because it was legally insufficient to support the suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license under the standards of section 120.54(9)(a)3. The Department did not appeal or seek further review of the appellate court’s decision. Dr. Witmer, therefore, prevailed in the administrative proceeding initiated by the Department. The Department presented no evidence to establish that its action in ordering the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license had a reasonable basis in law and fact or that any special circumstances exist which would make an award of attorney’s fees and costs in this case unjust.3 The monetary value of the attorney’s fees rendered in connection with the appellate proceeding culminating in the decision quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension is $9,715.00, and the costs incurred total $250. These fees and costs are reasonable and were necessary to prosecute the appellate proceeding.4
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, sex, or as retaliation in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, a 56-year-old African- American female, as a Food Support Worker at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. Petitioner was promoted to the position of Food Service Worker on May 10, 2002, with probationary status until May 10, 2003. On February 12, 2003, Petitioner was terminated from her employment for failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period in the career service. In the course of her employment with Florida State Hospital, Petitioner was aware of the strict safety guidelines implemented by Respondent to protect employees from injury. Petitioner also knew that violation of the safety rules could result in dismissal of an erring employee. Violations of these policies had resulted in dismissal of both non-minority and minority employees in the past. On February 9, 2003, due to an unsafe act and violation of Respondent’s safety rules, Petitioner proceeded to cut the tip of her left thumb in the process of slicing cabbage. Petitioner was not using a cutting glove, a mandatory requirement of the safety rules. As a result of this rule violation, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on February 12, 2003. At final hearing, Petitioner admitted the cutting injury to her finger, but contended that termination of employment had not been effected for other younger white employees for similar offenses in the past. These allegations of Petitioner were non-specific and uncorroborated; they are not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Annette Carroll 10202 Northwest Third Street Bristol, Florida 32321 Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000 Jacqueline H. Smith, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a contractor engaged in highway construction and holds a certificate of qualification with Respondent. Action pending in DOAH Case No. 84-2538 could result in the suspension of Petitioner's certificate if an alleged contract delinquency is proven. Section 337.16, F.S., delegates to Respondent the authority to revoke or suspend a certificate when contract delinquency is demonstrated. This statute provides: No contractor shall be qualified to bid when an investigation by the highway engineer discloses that such contractor is delinquent on a previously awarded contract, and in such case his certificate of qualification shall be suspended or revoked. The department may suspend, for a specified period of time, or revoke for good cause any certificate of qualification. The purpose of the above statute is to enforce timely completion of construction work and to prevent a contractor from taking on new work which might require diversion of resources from the delinquent job, thus lessening the contractor's ability to catch up. Rule 14-23.01, F.A.C. was promulgated by Respondent to implement its authority to suspend or revoke contractor certificates for job delinquency. Because contractors charged with delinquency frequently catch-up or cure the delinquency during the pendency of administrative proceedings, 1/ Respondent's statutory authority to enforce construction schedules was easily thwarted. To "put teeth" in its ability to deter job delays, Respondent amended its delinquency rule in 1982 to provide after- the-fact certificate suspension where a contractor was proven to have been delinquent in its progress on a construction project. This provision, which is challenged here, states as follows: (b) REINSTATEMENT. Any contractor disqualified under the above provisions shall be disqualified from further bidding and shall be disapproved as a contractor until the delinquency is cured. Where a contractor cures the alleged delinquency during the course of administrative proceedings, the Department may suspend the qualification to bid and disapprove as a subcontractor for the number of days the contractor is administratively determined to be delinquent. Specifically, Petitioner challenges the last sentence which it contends amounts to unauthorized punishment since the deficiency sought to be corrected by the statute no longer exists. However, the provision would arguably have some deterrent force since contractors would recognize that suspension could not be avoided merely by requesting formal proceedings 2/ and counting on administrative delay to render the delinquency issue moot.
