The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Christos Rallis is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Christos Rallis has been licensed as a real estate sales associate in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 3123174. Respondent listed for sale a property located at 7240 Hilburn Road, Building A, in Pensacola, Florida, which property was owned by Mark Scanlan. Respondent represented Steven Hansen, who represented himself to be a real estate investor. Hansen became a licensed sales associate after the closing in question in this proceeding but was not licensed at the time of the closing. Hansen went with Respondent to look at the subject property. The property was a duplex located within a cluster of duplexes. Readily apparent were the enclosure surrounding a dumpster which served the residents in that cluster and security lighting on a pole in the parking area, along with electric meters, and a water meter. Each unit had its own electric meter, which meant that the freestanding electric meters served other than the units. Hansen and Scanlan signed an agreement whereby Respondent would act as a transactional broker for the subject property. Hansen ultimately purchased five of the duplexes for a total of ten units. Four of the duplexes were subsequently foreclosed on, and only the property at 7240 Hilburn Road is the subject of this proceeding. The MLS listing advised that the "owner pays $140 per unit per year to assoc. for trash collection." Hansen denies seeing the listing until after the closing, although it was Respondent's practice to provide copies of MLS listings to prospective purchasers. The Residential Sales and Purchase Contract in paragraph 7(d) provides as follows: Homeowners' Association: If membership in a homeowners' association is mandatory, an association disclosure summary is attached and incorporated into this Contract. Buyer should not sign this contract until buyer has received and read the disclosure summary. Neither a disclosure summary nor any other documentation referencing a homeowners' association is attached to the contract. Similarly, the notation in the form addenda in paragraph 20 of the contract which references any homeowners' association was left blank. Subsequent to the February 15, 2007, closing Hansen was contacted by someone who advised him that he owed homeowners' association dues. He paid approximately $1,600 for the ten units he owned, which covered trash pick-up, water for the open area, electricity for the security lighting, parking lot repairs, and other general maintenance. There is no evidence in this proceeding that there was or is an actual homeowners' association. No one offered any formal paperwork to prove the existence of such an association, and the Department's investigator did not obtain any such documentation. The amount paid by Hansen for all of those services is less than what he would be obligated to pay for only trash pick- up by the Escambia County Utilities Authority. Thus, the dues Hansen paid do not materially affect the value of the property he purchased. Even if there were an impact on the value of the property, the impact would be positive and would not adversely affect the value of the property. Hansen knew that there were expenses associated with the common lighting, water, roadway, and trash pick-up, whether by a formal association or an informal gathering of owners of the cluster of duplexes. His denial of that knowledge is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts One and Two and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick J. Cunningham, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael L. Guttmann, Esquire 314 South Baylen Street, Suite 201 Pensacola, Florida 32502 Thomas W. O'Bryant, Jr., Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Hurston Building-North Tower, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent has forfeited his rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2009).1/
Findings Of Fact The Fund is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. The Fund is charged with administering and managing a pension plan for employees of the City of Tampa (the “City”). Respondent was employed with the City from August 1, 1994, through March 16, 2009, when the City terminated his employment. Respondent worked as an Automotive Equipment Operator II in the City’s parks and recreation department. Respondent worked a total of 15 years for the City. By reason of his employment with the City, Respondent was enrolled in the pension plan administered by the Fund. After six years of employment, Respondent vested in the pension plan. According to a Notice of Disciplinary Action, dated March 16, 2009, the City terminated Respondent based on a complaint that he had stolen City property. Specifically, in February 2009, the City received information that Respondent was in possession of a City-owned lawn mower at his residence. After receiving the complaint, the City notified the Tampa Police Department (“TPD”). TPD searched Respondent’s home. TPD did not find a City lawn mower. However, during its search, TPD did discover a spool of weed eater line on Respondent’s porch that he admitted belonged to the City. During a subsequent interview with TPD, Respondent confessed to taking the spool from the City’s supplies without permission. Respondent also divulged that he did occasionally take a lawn mower owned by the City and use it on his property. Following the TPD interview, Respondent was arrested and charged with theft of the City property under section 812.014, Florida Statutes. Respondent, however, was never prosecuted for the crime. After completing a pre-trial intervention program, Respondent’s theft charge was dismissed. The City, however, terminated Respondent’s employment based, in part, on his admission to stealing the weed eater line. Kimberly Marple, an Employee Relations Specialist Supervisor for the City, testified on behalf of the City and explained that the City maintains a zero tolerance policy for removal of or taking City property for personal use. Consequently, when the City learned of Respondent’s admission to TPD that he took City property, he was fired. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted to “borrowing” the City lawn mower from time to time to use at his home. He expressed, however, that he always returned it to the City. Respondent claimed that he never considered permanently taking the lawn mower. Respondent did, however, confirm that he took the weed eater line from the City, without authority, for personal use and did not intend to return it. Respondent relayed that a spool of weed eater line costs approximately $80. Respondent voiced that he was an exemplary employee for the City during his 15 years of employment. Respondent represented that, prior to this incident, he had never received any disciplinary action from the City. Respondent’s testimony is supported by his annual performance evaluations which record that he dependably and diligently performed his responsibilities for the City parks and recreation department. Respondent’s performance was frequently marked as excellent or outstanding. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the City terminated Respondent’s employment by reason of his admission to theft of City property. Therefore, the Fund met its burden of proving that Respondent must forfeit all rights and benefits to the Fund’s pension plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund enter a final order finding that Respondent, Robert Ramshardt, a public employee who, by reason of his admitted commission of a “specified offense” under section 112.3173(2)(e), forfeited all rights and benefits in the pension plan administered by the Fund. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 22nd day of February, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was employed by the School Board of Volusia County from September 1, 1981 until November 14, 1989 as a painter or painter mechanic. T- II-39,40. The terms and conditions of the Respondent's employment was governed by the contract between the Petitioner and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 79, Local 850. This contract provides that employees can be disciplined, to include discharge for just cause. Joint Exhibit 1. The Respondent was employed as a painter within the Board's facilities support operations department. This department employs approximately 130 craftsmen and 20 clerical and supervisory staff. T-I-38. The Respondent's immediate superior was foreman of the painters, Joe Isaac, who has held that position for the past 18 years. T-I-38,64 The chain-of-command from the top of the facilities support department is Charles Lambeth, who is Director of Facilities Operation; Terry Ellis, who is Assistant Director in charge of the crafts area; and Clifton Robertson, who is the Director of Facilities Support Operations or the personnel administrator for the facilities support department. Clifton Robertson investigated the allegations against the Respondent, counseled with the Respondent, and issued the disciplinary letters and reprimands given to the Respondent. On October 24, 1989, Mr. Florio engaged in a loud, profane, and inappropriate shouting match with a coworker, Larry Brazil, while on the job scraping paint outside a classroom at Seville School. Their conduct was such that a teacher left her classroom, outside of which they were working, and cautioned them about the disturbance they were causing. The acting foreman, Don Jenkins, overheard the exchange between the Respondent and Brazil in which the Respondent used obscene or profane language. The acting foreman did not hear Brazil use such language, and other witnesses testified that they had never heard Brazil use such language on the job. On October 25, 1989, the Respondent got into another argument with another coworker, Ken Griswold. During this argument, the Respondent threw his paint scraper at Griswold, who had made no threat to the Respondent. With only the verbal provocation, the Respondent threw the scraper at Griswold and would have struck him had Griswold not jumped back out of the way. There was dissatisfaction among the Respondent's coworkers about the way he did his job. The Respondent had been injured in 1987 and was restricted from working on ladders over six feet tall, lifting regular ladders, and spray painting. Sometime later, the Respondent's restrictions were altered to permit him to work on a six-foot aluminum ladder. His refusal to do any type of work which was covered by his medical restrictions was a source of contention with his coworkers. In addition, he had a history of not following regulations and requirements which the other men were required to follow. On October 24 and 25, 1989, the Respondent was assigned to a team of painters to scrape and paint the exterior of a school. On both days, arguments between the Respondent and coworkers arose over the Respondent's refusal to scrape paint from the ladder. On October 24, 1990, this led to a shouting match with Larry Brazil and to the Respondent throwing a paint scraper at Ken Griswold on October 25, 1990. On March 21, 1989, the Respondent was directed at 7:00 a.m. to report to work at Seabreeze Senior High School by his foreman, Joe Isaac. The Respondent did not do so and stayed at the main maintenance facility until 8:45 a.m., when he was discovered by the Assistant Maintenance Director, Terry Ellis, who instructed him to report to the high school. The Respondent again refused to go and remained at the main maintenance facility until 8:54 a.m., when the Maintenance Director, Charles Lambeth, arrived. The Respondent had asked his foreman, Joe Isaac, to see Lambeth; and Isaac had told Florio to report to work at the high school and if Lambeth wanted him, Lambeth would send word through Isaac for Florio to report to Lambeth. When confronted by Ellis, the Respondent told Ellis he wanted to see Lambeth. Ellis also told Florio to report to the school immediately. Florio remained at the maintenance headquarters until Lambeth arrived. Lambeth asked Florio why he was there, and Florio stated that he had been told Lambeth wanted to see him. Lambeth told Florio that he had not wanted to see him, and Florio blamed the incident on the men lying to him. Florio did not report until told to do so by Lambeth. The Respondent had his pay docked for two hours and received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow direct instructions. The letter of reprimand described the Respondent's actions as malingering and insubordination. Painters reported each day to the maintenance headquarters, after which they took School Board vehicles to the job sites. Similarly, after being released at the job site, the painters were supposed to return to the main maintenance facility, where employees were dismissed for the day. On September 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1989, the Respondent drove his private automobile to the school at which the paint team was working. Although the Respondent had been given permission to drive his car on Monday of that week because his stomach had been giving him problems, he took his car the rest of the week and left directly from the school, not returning to the maintenance headquarters, as required on the dates indicated above. The Respondent received written notice that he was being docked 160 minutes. On or about September 21, 1989, the Respondent told a coworker that he refused to drive. The Respondent did not deny telling the coworker that he would not drive but asserted that he had been kidding. On September 22, 1989, the Respondent slammed open the door of a School Board truck striking another School Board truck in the door and damaging both trucks. The property damage was $121.63. The Respondent had slammed the door open because he was angered by the remarks of a coworker who chided him about driving. The letter of reprimand which the Respondent received for his conduct on September 21 and 22 indicated that the Respondent had been encouraged to enter the Employee Assistance Program. The Respondent did not avail himself of the program. The Respondent frequently complained to his supervisors about what he described as "harassment" and "kidding" by his coworkers although the Respondent engaged in similar behavior with his coworkers. As a result of his complaints, his superiors counseled his coworkers not to tease, harass, or kid the Respondent. The Respondent is a malingerer. He developed a pattern of avoiding work by failing to report when he was supposed to report; by refusing to perform duties within his ability as requested by his fellow workers; and by asserting he was ill. The Respondent was ill-tempered and acted out inappropriately with increasing frequency and violence. The Respondent refused to acknowledge that there was a problem, that the problem was him, and to seek assistance for it. The employer counseled with the Respondent and used progressive discipline to attempt to modify the Respondent's behavior to no avail. The employer had just cause to discharge the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the Respondent be discharged. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6360 The parties filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following is a listing by party of the findings which were adopted and those which were rejected and why: Petitioner's findings by paragraph number which began with paragraph 7: Paragraph 7 Adopted Paragraph 8 Adopted Paragraph 9 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 10 Rejected; restates exhibit Paragraph 11 1st sentence adopted; remainder irrelevant Paragraph 12,13,14 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 15(a) Irrelevant Paragraph 15(b) Rejected; restates exhibit Paragraph 16-20 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 21 Irrelevant Paragraph 22-29 Adopted and rewritten Respondent's findings by paragraph number beginning with paragraph 1: Paragraph 1-4 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 5 Irrelevant Paragraph 6-10 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 11 Whether Brazil was disciplined is unknown Paragraph 12 Rejected as contrary to fact Paragraph 13-14 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 15 Rejected that Florio did not throw the scraper at Griswold; remainder adopted and rewritten Paragraph 16 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 17 Evidence was received that coworkers were counseled on several occasions; however, it is also irrelevant because the disciplinary records of the other employees were not introduced. Evidence was received that; at least one other employee was discharged for similar types of behavior. Paragraph 18 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 19-24 Irrelevant Paragraph 25 The statement is true, but gives the erroneous impression that Florio was discharged because he did not participate in the program. The employer's reference of the employee to this program was relevant because it shows the employer had such a program and it was available. The employee's rejection was relevant because it indicates how confused the employee is about his situation and condition. Paragraph 26 Rejected as contrary to fact COPIES FURNISHED: Harrison C. Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON, SIZEMORE & GONZALEZ P.O. Box 639 Tampa, FL 33601 Ben Patterson, Esq. P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, FL 32315 Dr. Jame D. Surratt, Superintendent Volusia County School Board P.O. Box 2118 Deland, FL 32720 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The petition herein was filed by the Petitioner with PERC on February 11, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). The hearing in this case was scheduled by notice dated May 3, 1976. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 2). The City of Boca Raton is a Public Employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(2). (Stipulation, Transcript of Record */ , Page 6). The Petitioner is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes, Section 447.002(10). (Stipulation, TR 6, 7). The Petitioner has requested recognition as the bargaining agent of employees set out in the petition, and the Public Employer has denied the request. (Stipulation, TR 7). There is no contractual bar to holding an election in this case, and there is no pertinent collective bargaining history which affects the issues in this case. (Stipulation, TR 7, 8). PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner is a duly registered employee organization. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 3). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. PERC has previously determined that the Petitioner filed the requisite showing of interest with its petition. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 4). No evidence was offered at the hearing to rebut the administrative determination previously made by PERC. The Public Employer contends that the unit described in the petition is inappropriate, and that the Petitioner has made no appropriate showing of interest with respect to any appropriate collective bargaining unit. The Public Employer's Fire Department is divided into five divisions. The employees in the proposed collective bargaining unit all work under the Administrative Division, and are supervised by an assistant chief. The other divisions are the Training Division, Operations Division, Staff and Line Support Division, and Fire Prevention Division. The Public Employer operates four fire stations. Station No. One is the Department's headquarters. Fire fighters and emergency medical personnel are housed at headquarters as are all communications personnel, including the persons in the proposed collective bargaining unit. None of the persons in the proposed unit are stationed at the Public Employer's other fire stations. Dispatchers and Alarm Operators are supervised either by the Assistant Chief in charge of the Administrative Division, or by the company officer in- charge of the shift at the headquarters station. Dispatchers are not certified fire fighters, and they do not perform the duties of certified fire fighters. Fire fighters work what is called a twenty-four-hour-on, forty-eight-hour-off shift. Dispatchers work an eight-hour shift which revolves so that one or more dispatchers are continuously on duty. Dispatchers and fire fighters have a different pension plan, and different employee benefits. Fire fighters make a larger contribution to theirs pension plan than do dispatchers, and are covered by their plan from the first day of employment. Dispatchers are not covered until after the passage of six months. The City provides hazardous duty insurance for fire fighters, but not for dispatchers. Dispatchers have a six- months probationary period. Fire fighters have a one-year probationary period. Although dispatchers do not perform the work of fire fighters, fire fighters are trained to serve as dispatchers, and do frequently perform the dispatchers' functions. The dispatchers and fire fighters work closely together. There are occasional social functions attended by fire fighters and dispatchers which no other city employees attend. Dispatchers receive the same basic employment benefits that are received by clerical employees of the Public Employer. They have the same pension plan, vacation and sick leave policies, and they serve the same probationary period. Dispatchers and clerical employees receive similar salaries. The only promotions available to dispatchers within the City of Boca Raton would be to clerical positions with a higher pay grade. There are no promotions available within the Fire Department. Dispatchers do not perform typing, filing, and other general clerical duties. Their function is not, however, unique to the City. The Police Department also employs dispatchers, and police and fire dispatchers have the same job description. (Public Employer's Exhibit 7). The Public Employer is presently engaged in collective bargaining with three employee organizations representing three certified bargaining units. There is a unit of "blue collar" employees, a unit of sworn police officers, and a unit of certified fire fighters. ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James C. Crossland, Esquire Muller & Mintz, P. A. Suite 600, One Hundred Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33132 Richard F. Krooss, President Fire Fighters of Boca Raton, No. 1560 Post Office Box 565 Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Curtis L. Mack, Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 - 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Brooks D. Purvis, held General Contractor's License No. CGC003887 authorizing Respondent to perform general contracting services throughout the State. Governor Dover at all times material hereto was a registered general contractor authorized to perform general contracting throughout the State and operated a construction business under the trade name Pat's Construction, Inc. However, because Dover had been grandfathered in as a licensee without taking an examination, he was prohibited by local ordinance from pulling permits in Duval County. On or about May 25, 1977, Dover entered into an agreement with Dr. Patrick J. Wright to construct a house for Wright at 2649 Sam Road in Jacksonville, Florida (Exhibit No. 1). This agreement was subsequently modified by Dover and Wright on June 14, 1977 (Exhibit No. 2). However, the new agreement merely changed the amount of money to be paid by the owner to the contractor for construction of the house. On or about September 13, 1977, Respondent met Dover in Jacksonville, Florida, and in exchange for a cash payment from Dover, agreed to pull a permit in Duval County so that Dover could fulfill the contractual agreement with Wright. On September 13, 1979, Respondent was issued Building Permit No. 7966 by the Building and zoning Inspection Division of the City of Jacksonville (Exhibit No. 3). This permit authorized Respondent to construct a house for Wright at the same location previously agreed to by Dover and Wright. Dover utilized the building permit issued to Respondent in order to fulfill his contractual obligations with Wright. At no time during the construction of the house did Respondent visit the premises or in any way participate or supervise the job. Dover has not seen Respondent since their meeting on September 13, 1977.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the contractor's license of Respondent Brooks D. Purvis be suspended for two (2) years from the date of the final order entered in this proceeding and that, prior to reinstatement, Respondent pay a fine of $500.00. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations should grant the Petition for Relief alleging that the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of his marital status, in violation of Section 760.10, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Shaker Lakes Apartments Company d/b/a Seasons of Tampa, Limited, is a property management company whose principal place of business is in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Respondent owns real property or conducts business in Florida and has 15 or more employees. The Petitioner, Jerry Dolinger, was hired by the Respondent on or about August 14, 1989, as a maintenance supervisor at a starting pay of $12,000 a year. On or about May 1, 1991, the Petitioner was promoted to district manager at an annual salary of $20,541.57 ($395.03 per week), plus hospitalization benefits and the use of a company car. By the end of 1992, the Petitioner was demoted to maintenance supervisor, but his salary and benefits remained the same. The Petitioner's wife, Karen Dolinger, also was employed by the Respondent, as property manager for Seasons of Tampa, Limited. On or about April 1, 1993, the Petitioner's wife resigned due to disputes with and conduct of the Respondent's vice-president of operations, Jacqueline McCullough. Upon her resignation, she distributed a letter to all residents of the apartment complex giving the residents information concerning the change in property management and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the Respondent's management personnel in Ohio. The Respondent did not wish to have the names, addresses and telephone numbers of the Respondent's management personnel in Ohio given to the tenants at Seasons of Tampa. The Respondent wished to have those individuals remain unknown to the tenants so all tenant complaints and similar issues would have to be resolved locally through the property manager and district manager. On or about April 2, 1993, Jacquelyn McCullough telephoned the Petitioner and asked whether he had any knowledge of his wife's letter to the tenants. The Petitioner denied any knowledge and in fact had no such knowledge. She asked if the Petitioner also intended to resign, and the Petitioner answered that he did not. Later on April 2, 1993, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner's employment. One of the reasons given for the termination--an alleged temporary staff reduction--was a pretext. (Within days of the Petitioner's termination, the Respondent hired someone to take the Petitioner's place as maintenance supervisor.) The other reason--alleged insubordination and disloyalty--was based on the Respondent's belief that the Petitioner knew about and participated in the letter to the tenants. But the only basis for this belief was the Petitioner's marital status. Since there was no evidence to support the Respondent's belief, the basis of the Petitioner's termination was his marital status. The Petitioner was unable to find reemployment until approximately June 11, 1993. However, his new employment was at a salary of only $17,000 a year, a reduction of $68.11 a week. The Petitioner suffered this reduction in salary until November 5, 1993, when he obtain employment at a salary higher than what he earned with the Respondent, together with hospitalization benefits and the use of a company car, for a total of salary loss during this period of $1,430.31. The Petitioner's loss of use of the Respondent's company car from April 2 through November 5, 1993, cost him monetary damages of $295 a month for replacement transportation, or approximately $2,100. (The Affidavit of Petitioner's damages incorrectly multiplies the monthly expense by 31 weeks, resulting in an incorrect alleged total loss of $9,145.) In order to redeem the second mortgage on the Petitioner's home, which went into default as a result of the loss of the Petitioner's salary, the Petitioner and his wife had to refinance, at a cost of $2,033.02. The Petitioner also claims damages due to the loss of life and health and hospitalization insurance from April 2 through November 5, 1993. But the Petitioner's testimony was that he could not afford to replace those insurance coverages, and there was not evidence that he suffered any out-of-pocket uninsured expenses that would have been covered by them. The Petitioner also claims damages for the loss of $3,775 worth of personal items sold to pay necessary living expenses for the period from April 2 through November 5, 1993. But those sums already are accounted for in loss of salary and would result in a double recovery if added to the loss of salary. Based on the Affidavit of Plaintiff's Attorney's Fees, a reasonable attorney fee in this case is $6,492.50. Based on the Certificate of Costs, reasonable costs to be taxed to the Respondent in this case is $178.42.
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 the Respondent guilty of illegal discrimination on the basis of the Petitioner's marital status; and (2) requiring that the Respondent pay the Petitioner a total of $9,692.03, together with legal interest from November 5, 1993, plus $6,492.50 as a reasonable attorney fee, together with legal interest from May 1, 1996, as affirmative relief from the effects of the illegal practice. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5381 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Conclusion of law. 2.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law, subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Annual salary rejected as inconsistent with the Affidavit of Petitioner's Damages; otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9.-10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 11.-15. Accepted and incorporated. 16. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 17.-23. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Amount of loss rejected as not proven by the evidence; "mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other intangible injuries" rejected as not relevant in this proceeding; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Davis, Esquire 620 E. Twiggs Street, Suite 305 Tampa, Florida 33602-3929 Jacqueline McCullough Vice President Shaker Lakes Apartments Company 1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1146 Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1951 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact David M. Blackketter is a Career Service Employee with appellate rights who was suspended for two days by the Department of Transportation and who filed a timely appeal of said suspension to the Career Service Commission. David M. Blackketter was employed by the Department of Transportation in June 1976 as a Highway Technician III with duties as a crew foreman for the Department of Transportation. On June 28, 1976, T. C. Bradford, District Maintenance Engineer, was in his office at the Department of Transportation maintenance facility and from the window of said office observed what appeared to him to be a fight. (T-7) He observed John Knight, a Highway Technician II, swinging his fist at the Appellant, David M. Blackketter. Blackketter was several feet from Knight and was moving toward Knight. (See T-8) Bradford did not see Blackketter strike at Knight, although he saw Blackketter move toward Knight with his hands in front of him. (T-10,11) Bradford directed Angel Alvarez, his Maintenance Supervisor, who was present in Bradford's office, to go out into the yard and stop the men and have them report to Bradford that afternoon. (T-7) Angel Alverez left Bradford's office and went to where the men were. When he left Bradford's office, he observed the Appellant Blackketter moving towards John Knight and Knight taking off his cap and sun glasses, throwing them to the ground, and moving toward Blackketter. (T-21,23) The men immediately thereafter adopted a boxing-type combative stance several feet from one another. At this point Alvarez observed that Blackketter was cut above the eye and on the mouth in such a manner that it appeared to him that Blackketter had been struck in the face. He saw no marks on Knight. (T-24) He did not observe either man strike at the other. (T-22) At that point, Alvarez directed them to stop, at which point both Blackketter and Knight stopped. Alvarez directed both men to report to Bradford that afternoon. That afternoon, Blackketter stated that Knight had hit him unexpectedly while the men were engaged in an argument, which is consistent with the injuries Alvarez observed. Having presented the foregoing testimony, the Department of Transportation rested its case and the Appellant moved for a directed verdict.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having considered the facts and reached the foregoing Conclusions of Law recommends to the Career Service Commission that the Agency's action be reversed, and the two-day suspension be set aside. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of January, 1977 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Ephraim Collins, Esquire Atlantic Plaza 6856 West Atlantic Boulevard Margate, Florida 33063 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Career Service Commission Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Petitioner has forfeited her rights and benefits under the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2010).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 11, 1986, Respondent commenced her employment as a police community service officer with the City of Tampa Police Department. As a city employee, Respondent was eligible for, and participated in, the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund, which is a public retirement system. Respondent was continuously employed by the City of Tampa through September 1, 2011. Sometime around May 1994, Respondent was promoted to the position of investigative assistant where she worked closely with a team of detectives. Respondent’s job duties as an investigative assistant included interviewing crime victims, witnesses, and individuals who were suspected of having engaged in criminal activity. As an investigative assistant, Respondent often had access to confidential information, and she understood that confidential information was not to be disclosed to unauthorized individuals. An “officer safety alert” is one such piece of confidential information that Respondent had access to in her position as an investigative assistant, and like other confidential information, Respondent understood that an officer safety alert should only be disclosed to authorized personnel. Officer safety alerts are internal police department missives that are often issued for the purpose of advising officers to proceed with caution when encountering individuals who may be under investigation, but who have not yet been charged with a crime. Around 7:50 a.m. on the morning of January 19, 2011, Respondent’s co-worker, Priscilla Phillips, reviewed an officer safety alert that identified Reginald Dennard Preston as a subject of an ongoing investigation. The officer safety alert contained a picture of Respondent’s nephew, and other individuals, along with the following narrative: The above listed subjects are part of an ongoing investigation. S.I.B./Enforcement Group 2 has purchased firearms from these subject(s) that were taken in a residential burglary. The subjects are still in possession of additional firearms. The subjects are not wanted at this time due to the ongoing nature of the investigation. Use caution when coming into contact with the listed subjects and vehicle. Also use caution if responding to calls at the listed addresses. Due to ongoing investigations, only distribute to TPD Personnel. LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE The information contained within this bulletin is the property of the Tampa Police Department and constitutes active criminal intelligence information, and is exempt from public record. The information has been collected in accordance with 28 CFR Part 23 and Florida State Statute Chapter 119. It is undisputed that Ms. Phillips knew that Mr. Preston was Respondent’s nephew and that within minutes of reviewing the officer safety alert, she sent Respondent a text message regarding the same. Respondent admits that she sent a reply text message to Ms. Phillips within a minute or so of receiving the initial message. During the morning hours of January 19, 2011, Respondent was home from work on sick leave when, according to Respondent, she received a message from Ms. Phillips informing her that Reginald Preston was “wanted for questioning regarding a burglary.” According to Respondent, Ms. Phillips then took a snapshot of Reginald Preston’s photograph and sent it to Respondent without including any other information from the officer safety alert. In other words, Respondent claims that she had no knowledge that Ms. Phillips had gleaned the information regarding Respondent’s nephew from an officer safety alert, and that as far as she knew, the only issue, as conveyed by Ms. Phillips, was that her nephew was “wanted for questioning regarding a burglary.” Respondent’s credible testimony regarding this issue is as follows: Q: Now, when Ms. Phillips contacted you on January 19th of 2011, she informed you that Preston was part of this officer safety alert; right? A: She did not inform me that he was part of an officer safety alert. She advised me that they want[ed] to speak to my nephew in reference to a burglary. She did not mention an officer safety alert to me, sir. Q: But she did inform you that there was an investigation ongoing that had to do with your nephew, Mr. Preston; right? A: She did not mention an ongoing investigation to me, sir. She indicated that they want[ed] to speak to my nephew in reference to a burglary. Q: You knew that there was an ongoing investigation when you spoke to her regarding your nephew; correct? A: I was not at work, sir. I did not see this bulletin. Q: But my question is: Did you know there was an ongoing investigation at that point regarding your nephew? A: If they want[ed] to speak to him in reference to a burglary, it’s an investigation; correct. Q: Is that a yes, you knew there was an ongoing investigation regarding your nephew; correct? A: It was an ongoing investigation. She told me they wanted to speak to him in reference to a burglary. Tr. pp. 84-85. Armed with the information from Ms. Phillips, Respondent, over the course of about two hours, had multiple conversations with her brother (Reginald Preston’s father), her sister-in-law (Reginald Preston’s mom), and her nephew, Reginald Preston. Respondent disclosed to her relatives that Reginald Preston was “wanted for questioning regarding a burglary” and she told them that Mr. Preston (the nephew) needed to go to the police station to address the situation. As part of the investigation of this matter, the police department secured phone records for both Ms. Phillips and Respondent, and according to the testimony of Brent Holder, neither Respondent’s nor Ms. Phillips’ phone records revealed the substance of the text messages sent or received by either individual. Ms. Phillips did not testify at the final hearing. Also as part of the investigation, Brent Holder conducted a recorded interview of Respondent. Neither the recorded statement nor a transcript thereof was offered into evidence. Brent Holder was employed by the Tampa Police Department from 1987 until his retirement in 2013. Mr. Holder was a detective with the police department for many years. Mr. Holder testified that when he interviewed Respondent on August 24, 2011, she admitted to the following: Q: What did you do next? A: I then conducted an interview with Ms. Harvin and showed her the same memo. And during our interview I asked her questions about it, had she had--had she disclosed the information, had she had conversation with Mr. Preston. I will go back on her cell phone records. That morning after she received the text message from Ms. Phillips, there were numerous calls to Ms. Harvin’s brother, who is the father of Reginald Preston, her sister, and there actually were five phone calls to Reginald Preston himself. Q: From Ms. Harvin’s cell phone? A: From Ms. Harvin’s cell phone, yes. Q: And did she admit to all this during her interview? THE COURT: Did she admit to what? A: She admitted to making the phone calls to her brother, and during the conversation with her brother she explained that this was regarding a burglary and some stolen firearms and that Reginald Preston was the subject of this investigation. And then she also in her conversations with Reginald Preston admitted to telling him that it was regarding firearms taken in a burglary, and she said Mr. Preston’s response was, “I didn’t do nothing.” Q: Did she admit to anything else? A: She admitted to having conversation with her sister. Q: Let me ask you this question: Did Ms. Harvin ever deny learning of the officer safety alert? A: She did not. Q: Did she ever deny contacting Mr. Preston? A: She did not. Q: Did she ever deny informing Mr. Preston of the officer safety alert? A: She did not. * * * Q: Did Ms. Harvin admit to knowing that there was an ongoing investigation? A: She did. She admitted knowing it was an ongoing investigation, that this was confidential information, and that it was not to be disclosed outside of the Tampa Police Department. * * * Q: Did Ms. Harvin admit that the reason or the way she found out [about] the officer safety alert was through Ms. Phillips? A: Yes. Tr. pp. 29-31 As noted previously, Mr. Holder interviewed Respondent on August 24, 2011. There is no indication in the record that Mr. Holder’s recollection as to the specifics of his interview with Respondent from nearly five and a half years ago was refreshed, and the undersigned is not persuaded that Mr. Holder independently recalls, with the specificity testified to, the details of his interview with Respondent. Petitioner suggests that Respondent admitted during her deposition that she received a copy of the officer safety alert from Ms. Phillips and disclosed the contents of the alert to her nephew. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, Respondent’s deposition testimony contains no such admission, but does contain an acknowledgement by Respondent that she was confirming “what they wrote up” on the notice of disciplinary action issued to her by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the City of Tampa General Employees Retirement Fund enter a final order: Finding that forfeiture of Respondent’s benefits under the retirement plan is not authorized pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2010); and Dismissing the petition for forfeiture, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN 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 24th day of April, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Beverly Harvin 423 Benson Street Valrico, Florida 33594 Luis A. Santos, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP Suite 900 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Natasha Wiederholt, CPA GE Pension Plan Supervisor General Employee Retirement Fund City of Tampa 306 East Jackson Street, 7th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602
