Findings Of Fact Mitchell is a highway construction contractor with its principal place of business located in Tallahassee, Florida. FDOT is the agency of the state of Florida which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the roads designated as part of the State Highway System. On July 15, 1994, the parties entered into Contract No. 18,784 (contract) which required Mitchell to resurface the existing roadway, construct four (4) foot wide paved shoulders and perform other related work for $626,347.44 in State Project No. 59100-3512 (project) in Wakulla County, Florida. The contract incorporated by reference special provisions attached thereto and FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (1991) (Standard Specifications). The contract required Mitchell to complete the project within 84 calendar days. Construction began on August 31, 1994, which was contract day one (1). In order to construct and pave the shoulders, Mitchell had to remove the top soil and stabilize the subgrade. After removing the top soil, Mitchell hauled borrow material to the project site. Mitchell spread the borrow along the roadside and mixed it with the existing sub-soil. Mitchell then attempted to attain a certain required density by compacting the shoulders. Mitchell hauled borrow to the project site from October 5, 1994, through October 8, 1994, and on October 13, 1994. Mitchell rolled the surface of the shoulders on October 18, and 20-22, 1994. The contractor was unable compact the subgrade to the required density. On or about October 22, 1994, FDOT refused to pay Mitchell for additional material to reestablish grade on the shoulders. From approximately October 24, 1994, through November 11, 1994, Mitchell remixed and compressed the subgrade soil in an unsuccessful attempt to stabilize the shoulders. From October 25, 1994, through November 7, 1994, Mitchell wrote at least four (4) letters to FDOT discussing the problems at the project site in achieving required density and stabilization of the subgrade on the shoulders. These letters are not a part of the record in this case. However, the hearing transcript from February 15, 1995, clearly shows Mitchell's position: (1) Plastic materials beneath the subgrade (unexpected conditions not contemplated under the contract) were causing a delay on the project and preventing Mitchell from achieving the required density and stabilization of the subgrade; (2) Mitchell would have to excavate the plastic material and haul in additional borrow to reestablish the grade of the shoulders before stabilization could be obtained; (3) Mitchell needed an extension of time in which to complete the project; and (4) Mitchell wanted FDOT to pay for the expenses (not covered under the contract) that Mitchell would incur in curing the problem. On or about November 11, 1994, Mitchell informed FDOT in writing that Mitchell was suspending work on the project. Mitchell suspended work without obtaining FDOT's approval as required by the contract. By letter dated November 14, 1994, FDOT responded to Mitchell's four (4) letters. FDOT's letter did not specifically deny each of Mitchell's requests but made it clear that Mitchell's claims were unsubstantiated. FDOT took the position that Mitchell created the problems with compaction by failing to follow FDOT procedures: (1) Prior to hauling in stabilizing material, Mitchell did not submit a sample of the existing on-site material so that a lime rock bearing ratio (LBR) could be established to determine how much, if any, stabilizing material would be needed to obtain the required LBR; (2) Mitchell did not submit samples or get FDOT's approval of the material used for stabilization before spreading and mixing it on the project site; (3) Mitchell did not sufficiently mix the material used for stabilization so that density could be obtained; (4) Soil samples of the material beneath the area being stabilized, to a depth of approximately three and one half feet, indicated that it was suitable for compaction; (5) The sources of borrow material used in attempting to stabilize the subgrade were not approved as required by the contract; (6) Mitchell added unapproved material, in excess of what was required, to the borrow material hauled to the project site. FDOT wrote this November 14, 1994, letter after investigating the problem and performing certain field and laboratory soil tests. On December 12, 1994, Stephen Benak, District Construction Engineer for FDOT, made a visit to the project site to conduct further investigation. Later that day the parties had a meeting. Mitchell again explained to FDOT that unexpected conditions at the job site were causing problems and preventing the contractor from obtaining density requirements on the subgrade. FDOT again informed Mitchell: (1) The unapproved borrow material that Mitchell previously hauled to the project site was unsuitable and causing the problem; and (2) Mitchell's proposal to under-cut (excavate and haul more borrow material) was a drastic cure and not compensable under the contract. Mitchell did not immediately return to work on the project. With credit for twenty-four (24) rain days, the contract performance time increased to 108 calendar days. Taking the rain days and intervening holidays into consideration, FDOT determined that the contract term expired on December 20, 1994. Mitchell did not return to work at the project site until December 23, 1994. By letter dated December 29, 1994, FDOT gave Mitchell notice of the agency's intent to declare Mitchell delinquent on the project and to suspend its Certificate of Qualification and that of all its subsidiaries. This letter states that Mitchell was making unsatisfactory progress on the contract because the contract time had expired and the work was not complete. The letter refers to section 8-8.2 of FDOT's Standard Specifications and Rule 14- 23, Florida Administrative Code. On January 12, 1995, Mitchell filed a Request for Formal Hearing without making an additional request for extension of contract time. This petition states: Mitchell Brothers has filed timely requests for extension of contract time due to the delays resulting from the lack of constructability and differing site conditions of the project. Therefore, the Department's issuance of the notice of delinquency is invalid. After receiving Mitchell's request for hearing, FDOT designated Tom Kinsella, Esquire, as counsel for the agency. By letter dated January 23, 1995, Mr. Kinsella referred Mitchell's request for a hearing to DOAH. The Hearing Officer issued a Notice of Hearing on January 27, 1995, setting this matter for hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 on February 8, 1995. In order to allow the parties sufficient time for discovery, the Hearing Officer subsequently rescheduled the case for hearing on February 15 and 16, 1995. The parties took depositions every day from February 2, 1995, to February 13, 1995. Bill Carpenter, FDOT's Project Engineer on the project at issue here, was the first deponent. Prior to Mr. Carpenter's deposition, Mr. Kinsella inquired as to whether there were any outstanding time requests. Mr. Carpenter assured Mr. Kinsella that FDOT had addressed and denied all outstanding time requests in FDOT's letter dated November 14, 1995. At the formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 on February 15, 1995, Mr. Benak testified on FDOT's behalf. On direct examination, Mr. Benak testified that Mitchell made no "proper" requests for contract time extensions. During cross-examination, Mitchell questioned Mr. Benak concerning Mitchell's letters written between October 25, 1994, and November 7, 1994. Initially, Mr. Benak testified that Mitchell's letters were not "formal" requests for extension of contract time. The Hearing Officer ruled that two of these letters contained preliminary requests for extension of contract time. Mr. Benak subsequently questioned whether Mitchell's letters were timely pursuant to section 8-7.3.2, Standard Specifications. Without resolving the issue of timeliness, Mr. Benak conceded that the delay was on-going and that the agency had never written to Mitchell requesting more specific information about the delay, i.e. all documentation of the delay and a request for the exact number of days justified to be added to the contract time. Therefore Mitchell was never required to submit a more formal request for contract time extensions. However, Mr. Benak never conceded that Mitchell's preliminary requests were pending at the time the agency issued its notice of intent to declare Mitchell delinquent or that the agency failed to follow its own procedures before issuing that notice. Mr. Benak maintained that the contract did not provide for extensions of contract time for delays due to the fault or negligence of the contractor. He testified that FDOT's letter dated November 14, 1994, effectively denied Mitchell's pending preliminary requests for time extensions and informed Mitchell that the delay was due to the contractor's fault or negligence. Accordingly, FDOT was not required to solicit further information from Mitchell before issuing the December 29, 1994, delinquency letter. As the hearing on February 15, 1995, progressed, it became apparent that the parties disputed a variety issues involving mixed question of fact and law. In ruling on an objection which is not at issue here, the Hearing Officer stated: * * It seems to me the more pertinent, you know, a much more pertinent area -- and we haven't addressed this in terms of the Department's procedures, that would start a request for extension of time, and it appears that the Department has never acted on that. And you've raised a very interesting matter, and that is under the rules, apparently if that process has been initiated, you can't go to delinquency, which means that this activity, this that they've tried to initiate, lacks the appropriate legal predicate. That's a good point. After the hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 recessed on February 15, 1995, Mr. Kinsella advised Mitchell's counsel that FDOT would withdraw the delinquency. Mr. Kinsella wanted to alert Mitchell that it was unnecessary for witnesses to attend the hearing the next day. When the hearing resumed on February 16, 1995, FDOT filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Delinquency and Motion for Relinquishment and Remand of Jurisdiction. The motion states, "The Department is now withdrawing it (sic) notice of intent to declare delinquincy without prejudice, it appearing that all of Mitchell Brothers, Inc., requests for additional time may not have been addressed by the Department." However, competent persuasive record evidence indicates that FDOT made this determination based on the Hearing Officer's prior rulings and statements during the hearing on February 15, 1995. Mr. Kinsella stated on the record: * * After the conclusion of the hearing yesterday on the basis of the matters that came up in terms of whether the preliminary requests for time extensions have been properly met by the Department and evaluated and addressed in the correspondence as pointed out by the Court, we went back and evaluated, and determined that we don't believe those have been fairly met and addressed by the Department, and that this delinquency was premature for that reason. Counsel for Mitchell did not object to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction but requested an opportunity to submit a proposed order. The Hearing Officer stated that Mitchell could file a motion to submit a proposed order and that FDOT would have an opportunity to respond to that motion. The Hearing Officer did not set a date certain for the filing of the posthearing motion but Mitchell's counsel stated that the motion would be filed in a very brief time, within a day or two. February 16, 1995, was a Thursday. The following Monday, February 20, 1995, Mitchell filed a Motion to Permit Submittal of Proposed Findings and for Entry of a Recommended Order, a proposed recommended order for the Hearing Officer's signature, and a Motion for Attorney's Fees. DOAH's Clerk docketed Mitchell's motion to submit proposed findings and the proposed recommended order in DOAH Case No. 95-289. The Clerk docketed Mitchell's motion for attorney's fees under DOAH Case No. 95-1096F. That same day, the Hearing Officer entered an Order Closing File which did not retain jurisdiction over any issue in DOAH Case No. 95-289. Subsequent relevant pleadings and procedures arising in the instant case between February 20, 1995, and June 14, 1995, are set forth above in the Preliminary Statement and incorporated herein. The record indicates that the parties were at an impasse when Mitchell suspended work on the project on or about November 11, 1994. After FDOT's November 14, 1994, letter and the meeting on December 12, 1994, the parties certainly were aware of each other's positions, and were deadlocked as to the reason for the delay in stabilizing the subgrade. The dispute between them involved multiple questions of fact and law which are not at issue here. FDOT's December 29, 1994, delinquency letter gave Mitchell what it was entitled to, i.e., a point-of-entry to challenge, in an administrative proceeding, FDOT's position that Mitchell created the conditions causing the delay in stabilizing the subgrade. FDOT had a reasonably clear legal justification for issuing that letter based on sections 8-7.3.2 and 8-8.2 of FDOT's Standard Specifications and Rule 14-23, Florida Administrative Code. The delinquency letter was not issued and subsequently filed with DOAH for an improper or frivolous purpose. As of February 15, 1995, the 165th calendar day of the project, Mitchell continued to work on the project which was only 36 percent complete and which FDOT had not conditionally accepted. Mitchell has incurred $44,408.50 in attorney's fees and $18,071.13 in cost in litigating DOAH Case No. 95-289 and DOAH Case No. 95-1096F. Mitchell is also obligated to pay $1,045.00 to Carolyn Raepple, Esquire, who testified concerning the reasonableness of the fees and costs that Mitchell incurred in DOAH Case Nos. 95-289 and 95-1096F. FDOT has presented no evidence to rebut the reasonableness of these fees and costs.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop-Work Order and 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued by Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department), on July 1, 2015, and February 29, 2016, respectively, should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the various requirements of chapter 440. Respondent is a Florida corporation with offices located at 1904 28th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The company is engaged in the construction business, and its activities fall within the statutory definition of "construction industry." See § 440.02(8), Fla. Stat. Respondent also does business under the name of M & M Construction of South Florida, but both are the same corporate entity with the same Federal Employer Identification Number and use the same bank accounts. Respondent's assertion that the two are separate and work done under the "d/b/a" name cannot be used to establish liability under chapter 440 is rejected. On July 1, 2015, Munal Abedrabbo, a Department compliance inspector, made a random inspection of a job site at 4115 East Busch Boulevard, Tampa, where remodeling work on a commercial building was being performed. When he entered the premises, Mr. Abedrabbo observed Bernard Reed on a ladder painting an interior ceiling. After identifying himself, he informed Mr. Reed that he needed to verify his insurance coverage. Mr. Abedrabbo was directed to Mr. Cook, Respondent's vice-president and part owner, who acknowledged that he was the general contractor on the job and had three employees/painters working that day, Reed, James Dabnes, and John Russell. Mr. Cook informed the inspector that the three employees were leased from Paychek, Inc., an employee leasing company, and that firm provided workers' compensation coverage for the leased employees. Mr. Abedrabbo returned to his vehicle and accessed on his computer the Department of State, Division of Corporations, Sunbiz website to verify Respondent's status as a corporation. After verifying that it was an active corporation, he then checked the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System to verify whether Respondent had a workers' compensation policy or any exemptions. He was unable to find any active policy for Respondent, as the most recent policy had lapsed in January 2013. Mr. Cook has an exemption, covering the period October 20, 2014, through October 19, 2016, but the exemption is with a different company, Thomas Cook Carpenter, LLC. Mr. Abedrabbo spoke again with Mr. Cook and informed him that Department records showed no insurance coverage for his employees. Mr. Cook telephoned Paychek, Inc., and then confirmed that the three painters had no workers' compensation insurance. Mr. Cook explained that before he allowed Mr. Reed to begin work, Mr. Reed had shown him an insurance certificate that turned out to be "falsified," and then "conveniently lost it" when the inspector appeared. He also explained his firm "was caught with our pants down once before" and he did not want it to happen again. For that reason, he contended he was especially careful in hiring leased employees. Even so, he does not deny that Respondent has had no insurance in place since January 2013 and Paychek, Inc., failed to provide coverage. The Department issued a Stop Work Order and Penalty Assessment the same day. To determine the amount of Respondent's unsecured payroll for purposes of assessing a penalty in accordance with section 440.107(7)(d)(1), Florida Statutes, the Department requested Respondent to provide business records for the preceding two years. This period of non-compliance is appropriate, as Respondent was actively working in the construction industry during that time period without securing insurance. The request informed Mr. Cook that if complete records were not provided, the Department would use the imputation formula found in section 440.107(7)(e) to calculate the penalty. After reviewing the information provided by Respondent, on August 18, 2015, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $114,144.52 for the period July 7, 2014, through June 30, 2015. Based on two depositions of Mr. Cook, a 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $105,663.48 was issued on February 29, 2016. The Department penalty auditor calculated the final penalty assessment using the "imputed" method because insufficient business records were provided to determine Respondent's payroll for all relevant time periods, except the month of October 2014. In addition to missing bank statements and check images, Respondent failed to provide its entire second bank account. Although Mr. Cook contends some records were in the possession of M & M Construction of South Florida, and he could not access them in a timely manner, this does not excuse Respondent's failure to timely produce all relevant records. Under the imputed method, the penalty auditor used the average weekly wage ($841.57) times two to determine Respondent's payroll for the imputed portions. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 69L-6.028(2); § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The gross payroll was then divided by 100 in order to be multiplied by the applicable approved manual rates. The Department applied the proper methodology in computing the penalty assessment. A class code is a numerical code, usually four digits, assigned to differentiate between the various job duties or scope of work performed by the employees. The codes were derived from the Scopes Manual Classifications (Manual), a publication that lists all of the various jobs that may be performed in the context of workers' compensation. The Manual is produced by the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc., an authoritative data collecting and disseminating organization for workers' compensation. The Manual provides that class code 5474 applies to painters who perform painting activities. Reed, Dabnes, and Russell were assigned this code. Mr. Cook agrees this code is correct. Mr. Cook was assigned class code 5606 (construction executive) and placed on the penalty assessment because he is an owner of the corporation and was managing the work. Although Mr. Cook argues he had an exemption and should not be placed on the assessment, Department records reflect that Mr. Cook had an exemption with a different company during the audit period. Therefore, his inclusion in the employee census was correct. Because Respondent's business records included checks written to Kerry Francum for tile work, he was assigned class code 5348 (tile work) and placed on the penalty assessment as an employee. At his deposition, Mr. Cook acknowledged that Francum performed tile work for his firm and was an employee. At hearing, Mr. Cook changed his testimony and contended Francum was only a material supplier, not a subcontractor, and should not be on the penalty assessment. This assertion has not been accepted. Mr. Francum's inclusion on the assessment is appropriate. Respondent's business records also indicated a check was written to Kerry Randall, a tile subcontractor. At hearing, however, Mr. Cook established, without contradiction, that because of Mr. Randall's violent temper, he was paid a one-time fee of $1,000.00 and let go before he performed any work. Mr. Randall should be removed from the assessment. The Department has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is correct, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order assessing Respondent the penalty in the 2nd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, less any amount owed for Mr. Randall. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of November, 2016.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is rehabilitated from his disqualifying offense, and if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 32-year-old male who seeks to qualify for employment in a position of trust having direct contact with children or developmentally disabled persons served in programs regulated by the Agency. The Agency is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. In a letter dated February 20, 2015, the Agency's Director, Barbara Palmer, notified Petitioner that his request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust was denied. The letter advised Petitioner that this decision was based upon "the serious nature of the offense(s), the lack of sufficient evidence of rehabilitation, and [his] failure to sustain [his] burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that [he] should not be disqualified." Resp. Ex. C. Before Director Palmer made her decision, Petitioner's request for an exemption was reviewed by a Department of Children and Families (DCF) screener who compiled a 120-page report entitled "Exemption Review" dated November 17, 2014. See Resp. Ex. B. The Exemption Review did not make a recommendation one way or the other, but simply compiled all relevant information that would assist the Director in making her decision. The report was first given to the Agency Regional Operations Manager in Orlando, who reviewed it and then made a preliminary recommendation to the Director. The Agency decision was triggered after Petitioner applied for a position of special trust on October 24, 2014. To qualify for the position, Petitioner was required to undergo a level 2 background screening performed by the DCF. The screening revealed that Petitioner had six disqualifying offenses between 1995 and 2005. Those offenses are listed below: May 17, 1995 -- burglary of a dwelling; Petitioner pled guilty and adjudication was withheld; April 10, 1997 -- robbery; Petitioner pled guilty and adjudication was withheld; May 9, 1997 -- robbery; Petitioner pled guilty, adjudication was withheld, and he was placed on probation; June 17, 1997 -- battery by detainee in a detention facility; Petitioner pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated delinquent, and placed on probation; January 18, 2001 -- possession of cocaine with intent to sell; Petitioner pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation, and ordered to serve 86 days in the County Jail; and February 1, 2005 -- possession of cocaine; Petitioner pled guilty, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation, and ordered to serve six months in the County Jail. Besides the disqualifying offenses, Petitioner has a number of arrests and/or convictions for non-disqualifying offenses beginning in 1995. Two offenses, disorderly conduct and trespass on a property or conveyance, occurred in July 2012, or seven years after his last disqualifying offense. For that offense, he pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty. He was also ordered to serve one day in the County Jail and required to complete a four-hour anger management class. The Exemption Review shows that in May 2000, Petitioner earned his high school diploma. In June 2009, he earned an associate's degree in Network Administration from the TESST College of Technology in Baltimore, Maryland. In May 2014, he earned a bachelor's degree in psychology from Morgan State University located in the same city. The Exemption Review also shows: from January 2008 through September 2008, Petitioner worked as a cashier and sales consultant at a retail store; from May 2009 through January 2010, he worked as an activities coordinator; from June 2011 through August 2013, he worked as a youth counselor; from February 2014 through May 2014, he worked as a records and registration clerk at the university from which he received his degree; and from June 2014 through August 2014 he worked as a behavior technician. At hearing, he testified that he is currently employed by Quest Diagnostics in the Orlando area. Most of Petitioner's disqualifying offenses occurred at a very early age. For example, in May 1995, while in middle school and just before he turned 12 years of age, he committed his first disqualifying offense, burglary of a dwelling. When he was arrested for his last disqualifying offense in February 2005, possession of cocaine, he was 21 years old. Petitioner attributes his criminal conduct to immaturity, peer pressure, and what he characterized as "environmental exposure." He expressed remorse, he takes full responsibility for his actions, and he acknowledges he could have handled his life better. He is currently in a committed relationship, has a new-born child, and serves as a mentor in the community. In short, Petitioner says he has changed his life for the better. Besides two witnesses who spoke highly of his recent volunteer work with children, an Orlando City Commissioner submitted a letter of recommendation. If his application is approved, Petitioner has a pending job offer with Lodestone Academy in Orlando, which works with Agency clients. An Agency representative testified that the Agency's clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve. They often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-tasks and communicate their wants and needs. For this reason, the Agency undertakes a heightened scrutiny of individuals seeking an exemption. In explaining the Agency's rationale for denying the application, the Regional Operations Manager listed the following factors that weighed against a favorable disposition of Petitioner's request: the frequency of the criminal offenses; criminal behavior that has consumed one-half of his life; the limited time (three years) since his last arrest, albeit for a non-disqualifying offense; and Petitioner's lack of specificity and accountability in his Exemption Questionnaire and testimony regarding the disqualifying offenses. As to the last factor, Petitioner could recall very few facts regarding his early arrests, saying they occurred at a very young age. He also denied that there were any injuries to his victims. However, one offense involved battery on a detainee in a juvenile facility, and in another, he ripped two gold chains from a victim's neck.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 17th day of June, 2015.
The Issue Whether Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc. (“Respondent”), failed to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Petitioner” or “Department”), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with enforcing the requirement of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, that employers in Florida secure workers’ compensation coverage for their employees. § 440.107(3), Fla. Stat. Respondent is a corporation engaged in the construction industry with headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. On November 19, 2015, the Department’s compliance investigator, Scott Mohan, observed five individuals framing a single-family house at 173 Botefuhr Avenue in Daytona, Florida. Mr. Mohan interviewed the individuals he observed working at the jobsite and found they were working for Respondent on lease from Convergence Leasing (“Convergence”). Mr. Mohan contacted Convergence and found that all of the workers on the jobsite were employees of Convergence, except Scott Barenfanger. Mr. Mohan also confirmed that the workers’ compensation policy for Convergence employees was in effect. Mr. Mohan reviewed information in the Coverage and Compliance Automated System, or CCAS, for Respondent. CCAS indicated Respondent’s workers were covered for workers’ compensation by Convergence and that Respondent’s contract with Convergence was active. Mr. Mohan also confirmed, through CCAS, that Foster Coleman, Respondent’s president, had previously obtained an exemption from the workers’ compensation requirement, but that his exemption expired on July 18, 2015. Mr. Mohan then contacted Mr. Coleman via telephone and informed him that one of the workers on the jobsite was not on the active employee roster for Convergence, thus Respondent was not in compliance with the requirement to obtain workers’ compensation insurance for its employees. Mr. Coleman reported to the jobsite in response to Mr. Mohan’s phone call. Mr. Coleman admitted that Mr. Barenfanger was not on the Convergence employee leasing roster. Mr. Coleman subsequently obtained an application from Convergence for Mr. Barenfanger and delivered it to his residence. Mr. Mohan served Mr. Coleman at the jobsite with a Stop-Work Order and a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation (“BRR”). In response to the BRR, Respondent provided to the Department business bank statements, check stubs, copies of checks, certificates of liability insurance for various suppliers and subcontractors, and an employee leasing roster for most of the audit period from November 20, 2013, to November 19, 2015.1/ Respondent did not produce any check stubs for November and December 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that his bookkeeper during that time period did not keep accurate records. Mr. Coleman did produce his business bank statements and other records for that time period. Based on the review of initial records received, the Department calculated a penalty of $17,119.80 and issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in that amount on February 18, 2016. On March 17, 2016, Respondent supplied the Department with additional records. Altogether, Respondent submitted over 400 pages of records to the Department. The majority of the records are copies of check stubs for checks issued on Respondent’s business bank account. The check stubs are in numerical order from 1349 to 1879, and none are missing. The check stubs were hand written by Mr. Coleman, who is 78 years old. Some of his writing on the check stubs is difficult to discern. On April 4, 2016, following review of additional records received, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in the amount of $9,629.36. The Department assigned penalty auditor Sarah Beal to calculate the penalty assessed against Respondent. Identification of Employees Ms. Beal reviewed the business records produced by Respondent and identified Respondent’s uninsured employees first by filtering out payments made to compliant individuals and businesses, and payments made for non-labor costs. However, the evidence demonstrated that the Department included on its penalty calculation worksheet (“worksheet”) payments made to individuals who were not Respondent’s employees. Neal Noonan is an automobile mechanic. Mr. Noonan was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Noonan performed repairs on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Noonan during the audit period were for work performed on Mr. Coleman’s personal vehicles. The Department’s worksheet included a “David Locte” with a period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014, through December 31, 2014. The basis for including Mr. Locte as an employee was a check stub written on December 10, 2014, to a business name that is almost indiscernible, but closely resembles “Liete & Locke” in the amount of $100. The memo reflects that the check was written for “architect plans.” Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of David Locte as pertaining to David Leete, an architect in Daytona. Mr. Leete has provided architectural services to Respondent off and on for roughly five years. Mr. Leete signs and seals plans for, among others, a draftsman named Dan Langley. Mr. Langley provides drawings and plans for Respondent’s projects. When Respondent submits plans to a local governing body which requires architectural drawings to accompany permit applications, Mr. Leete reviews and signs the plans. Mr. Leete was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Mr. Leete by Respondent during the audit period was for professional architectural services rendered. Mr. Langley was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Langley during the audit period were for professional drafting services rendered. Among the names on the Department’s worksheet is R.W. Kicklighter. Mr. Kicklighter is an energy consultant whose office is located in the same building with Mr. Leete. Mr. Kicklighter prepares energy calculations, based on construction plans, to determine the capacity of heating and air-conditioning systems needed to serve the planned construction. Mr. Kicklighter was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. Payments made to Mr. Kicklighter during the audit period were for professional services rendered. Respondent made a payment of $125 on September 15, 2014, to an entity known as Set Material. Set Material is a company that rents dumpsters for collection of concrete at demolition and reconstruction sites. Removal and disposal of the concrete from the jobsite is included within the rental price of the dumpster. The Department included on the worksheet an entry for “Let Malereal.” The evidence revealed the correct name is Set Material and no evidence was introduced regarding the existence of a person or entity known as Let Malereal. Set Material was neither an employee of, nor a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The single payment made to Set Material during the audit period was for dumpster rental. The Department’s worksheet contains an entry for “CTC” for the penalty period of January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014. Respondent made a payment to “CTC” on April 11, 2014, in connection with a job referred to as “964 clubhouse.” The records show Respondent made payments to Gulfeagle Supply, Vern’s Insulation, John Wood, Bruce Bennett, and Ron Whaley in connection with the same job. At final hearing, Mr. Coleman had no recollection what CTC referred to. Mr. Coleman’s testimony was the only evidence introduced regarding identification of CTC. CTC could have been a vendor of equipment or supplies for the job, just as easily as an employee. The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that CTC was an employee of, or a subcontractor for, Respondent during the audit period. The check stub for check 1685 does not indicate to whom the $60 payment was made. The stub reads “yo for Doug.” The Department listed “Doug” as an employee on its worksheet and included the $60 as wages to “Doug” for purposes of calculating workers’ compensation premiums owed. At hearing, Mr. Coleman was unable to recall ever having employed anyone named Doug, and had no recollection regarding the January 7, 2015, payment. The evidence was insufficient to establish that “Doug” was either Respondent’s employee or subcontractor during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air was not an employee of, nor a subcontractor to, Respondent for any work undertaken by Respondent during the audit period. Ken’s Heating and Air conducted repairs on, and maintenance of, Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Ken’s Heating and Air during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. Barry Smith is an electrical contractor. Mr. Smith was neither an employee of, nor subcontractor to, Respondent for any work performed by Respondent during the audit period. Mr. Smith did make repairs to the electrical system at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence during the audit period. Checks issued to Mr. Smith during the audit period were payments for work performed at Mr. Coleman’s personal residence. The remaining names listed on the Department’s penalty calculation worksheet were accurately included as Respondent’s employees.2/ Calculation of Payroll Mr. Coleman’s exemption certificate expired on July 18, 2015, approximately four months shy of the end of the audit period. Payments made by Respondent to Mr. Coleman during the time period for which he did not have a valid exemption (the penalty period) were deemed by the Department as wages paid to Mr. Coleman by Respondent. Respondent’s business records show seven checks written either to Mr. Coleman or to cash during that time period in the total amount of $3,116.52. The Department included that amount on the worksheet as wages paid to Mr. Coleman. Check 1873 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $1,035.69 was made to Compliance Matters, Respondent’s payroll company. Check 1875 was written to cash, but the check stub notes that the payment of $500 was made to Daytona Landscaping. The evidence does not support a finding that checks 1873 and 1875 represented wages paid to Mr. Coleman. The correct amount attributable as wages paid to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $1,796.52. Respondent’s employees Tyler Eubler, Brian Karchalla, Keith Walsh, and John Strobel, were periodically paid by Respondent during the audit period in addition to their paychecks from Convergence. Mr. Coleman testified that the payments were advances on their wages. He explained that when working on a job out of town, the crew would arrive after Convergence had closed for the day, and Mr. Coleman would pay them cash and allow them to reimburse him from their paychecks the following day. Unfortunately for Respondent, the evidence did not support a finding that these employees reimbursed Mr. Coleman for the advances made. The Department correctly determined the payroll amount attributable to these employees. The Department attributed $945 in payroll to “James Sharer.” The Department offered no evidence regarding how they arrived at the name of James Sharer as Respondent’s employee or the basis for the payroll amount. James Shores worked off-and-on for Respondent. Mr. Coleman recognized the worksheet entry of “James Sharer” as a misspelling of Mr. Shores’ name. Respondent’s records show payments totaling $535 to Mr. Shores during the audit period. The correct amount of payroll attributable to Mr. Shores from Respondent during the audit period is $535. The Department included wages totaling $10,098.84 to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance from November 20, 2013, to December 31, 2013. The Department imputed the average weekly wage to Mr. Barenfanger for that period because, in the Department’s estimation, Respondent did not produce records sufficient to establish payroll for those two months in 2013. See § 440.107(7)(e), Fla. Stat. The voluminous records produced by Respondent evidenced not a single payment made to Mr. Barenfanger between January 2014, and November 19, 2015. Even if Mr. Coleman had not testified that he did not know or employ Mr. Barenfanger before November 19, 2015, it would be ludicrous to find that he worked weekly for Respondent during the last two months of 2013. Mr. Coleman testified, credibly, that Mr. Barenfanger worked the jobsite for Respondent on November 18 and 19, 2015, but not prior to those dates. The evidence does not support a finding that the worksheet entry for Mr. Barenfanger in the amount of $10,098.84 accurately represents wages attributable to Mr. Barenfanger during the period of noncompliance. The Department’s worksheet includes an employee by the name of Ren W. Raly for the period of noncompliance from January 1, 2014, through May 1, 2014, and a Ronnie Whaley for the period of noncompliance from June 19, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Mr. Coleman testified that he never had an employee by the name of Raly and he assumed the first entry was a misspelling of Ronnie Whaley’s name. Mr. Coleman testified that Ronnie Whaley was a concrete finisher and brick layer who did work for Respondent. Mr. Coleman testified that he submitted to the Department a copy of Mr. Whaley’s “workers’ comp exempt,” but that they must not have accepted it. The records submitted to the Department by Respondent do not contain any exemption certificate for Ronnie Whaley. However, in the records submitted to the Department from Respondent is a certificate of liability insurance dated February 25, 2014, showing workers’ compensation and liability coverage issued to Direct HR Services, Inc., from Alliance Insurance Solutions, LLC. The certificate plainly states that coverage is provided for “all leased employees, but not subcontractors, of Ronald Whaley Masonry.” The certificate shows coverage in effect from February 1, 2013, through February 1, 2015. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the certificate or otherwise object to its admissibility.3/ In fact, the document was moved into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit P1. Petitioner offered no testimony regarding whether the certificate was insufficient proof of coverage for Mr. Whaley during the periods of noncompliance listed on the worksheet. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Whaley was an uninsured individual during the periods of noncompliance. Thus, the wages attributed to Mr. Whaley by the Department were incorrect. Ms. Beal assigned the class code 5645—Carpentry to the individuals correctly identified as Respondent’s uninsured employees because this code matched the description of the job being performed by the workers on the jobsite the day of the inspection. Ms. Beal correctly utilized the corresponding approved manual rates for the carpentry classification code and the related periods of noncompliance to determine the gross payroll to the individuals correctly included as Respondent’s uninsured employees. Calculation of Penalty For the employees correctly included as uninsured employees, Ms. Beal applied the correct approved manual rates and correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69L-6.027 and 69L-6.028 to determine the penalty to be imposed. For the individuals correctly included as uninsured employees, and for whom the correct payroll was calculated, the correct penalty amount is $2,590.06. The correct penalty for payments made to Mr. Coleman during the penalty period is $571.81. The correct penalty for payments made to James Shores is $170.24. The correct total penalty to be assessed against Respondent is $3,332.11. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was engaged in the construction industry in Florida during the audit period and that Respondent failed to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its employees at times during the audit period as required by Florida’s workers’ compensation law. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent employed the employees named on the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, with the exception of Ken’s Heating and Air, CTC, Don Langly, Ren W. Raly, R.W. Kicklighter, Dave Locte, Let Malereal, Ronnie Whaley, and “Doug.” The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it correctly calculated the gross payroll attributable to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Shores. The Department demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that Ms. Beal correctly utilized the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. to determine the appropriate penalty for each of Respondent’s uninsured employees. The Department did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the correct penalty is $9,629.36. The evidence demonstrated that the correct penalty to be assessed against Respondent for failure to provide workers’ compensation insurance for its employees during the audit period is $3,332.11.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, finding that Fantastic Construction of Daytona, Inc., violated the workers’ compensation insurance law and assessing a penalty of $3,332.11. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 18th day of August, 2016.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At issue in this case is a request by petitioner, W. D., for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust, namely, working with developmentally disabled persons. Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), is the agency charged with the statutory responsibility of approving or denying such requests. When the relevant events herein occurred, petitioner was sharing an apartment with his fiance in Gainesville, Florida. As such, his fiance was a "family or household member" within the meaning of the law. On the evening of October 16, 1992, petitioner was arrested on charges of battery (domestic violence) against his fiance and battery against her girlfriend as a result of an altercation. After a trial was conducted in the Alachua County Court on February 9, 1993, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both charges. Thereafter, petitioner was ordered to pay costs in the amount of $310.00 or in lieu thereof complete 50 hours of community service, and reimburse one of the victims for the cost of replacing her broken eye glasses. He was also placed on six months probation. On August 20, 1993, petitioner was discharged from probation after successfully complying with all general and special conditions of his probation. In 1995, petitioner secured employment with the Alachua County Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) as a residential care technician. Because the job involved working with developmentally disabled persons, petitioner was required to undergo a background screening for disqualifying offenses. A background check by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revealed petitioner's arrest and conviction on two counts of battery. Because the offense of battery against a "family or household member" constitutes domestic violence and is a disqualifying offense under the law, petitioner was notified by HRS that he was ineligible to continue employment with ARC. That advice prompted petitioner to request an exemption. After his request was denied by an HRS committee, petitioner initiated this proceeding. In order to obtain an exemption, a disqualified person must present (a) "clear and convincing evidence to support a reasonable belief that the person is of good character so as to justify an exemption," and (b) "sufficent evidence of rehabili-tation." In establishing rehabilitation, the circumstances surrounding the incident, the time period that has elaped since the incident, the nature of the harm occasioned to the victim, and the history of the person since the incident, are factors to be considered. In support of his request, petitioner first described the circumstances surrounding the incident. According to his account, which was not controverted, it was precipitated by the friend of his fiance, who was drinking that evening. After the argument began, the friend placed petitioner in a "bear hug." While breaking free, petitioner unintentionally knocked her down. She also broke her glasses during the altercation. There were no apparent injuries to the friend. Petitioner denied that his fiance suffered any serious injuries during the incident. However, the arrest report does indicate that his fiance suffered a cut on her elbow, "soreness" in her face, and her clothes "were pulled open and dissheveled (sic)." Even so, there is no indication that the fiance required medical treatment or suffered any permanent injury. Petitioner avers that this was the only incident of that nature during his nine year relationship with his fiance, and he asks that he not be punished indefinitely for this one mistake. Petitioner has no blemishes on his record since the incident occurred more than three years ago. A contention that he is now undergoing counseling was not disputed. As to petitioner's "history since the incident," except for a six-week stint with ARC, the record does not show his entire employment history since late 1992. However, petitioner did work for eighteen years with the Gainesville Regional Utilities, including some period of time after his 1992 arrest. Petitioner enjoys working with retarded children and desires to continue his employment with ARC. Letters received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1 corroborate his assertions that he did a good job during his brief tenure with ARC, he was considered a "reliable" employee, and he will be reemployed if his request for an exemption is granted. They also corroborate his contention that he is now a good citizen. Based on this unrefuted evidence, it is found that there is sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that petitioner is of good character so as to justify an exemption and that he will not be a danger to the safety or welfare of the children with whom he would work. Accordingly, his request should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust, namely, working with the developmentally disabled. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1996, 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 March, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra R. Coulter, Acting Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard E. Doran, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 W. D. (address of record) Lucy E. Goddard, Esquire 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, Florida 32601
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.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent complied with coverage requirements of the workers' compensation law, Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. A determination of whether Respondent functioned as an employer is a preliminary issue to be resolved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of state government currently responsible for enforcing the requirement of Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, that employers secure the payment of compensation for their employees. Respondent works in the fence construction industry and employs four people. Petitioner's investigator identified three people preparing a worksite for the erection of a privacy fence at 3000 Majestic Oaks Lane South in Jacksonville, Florida. The investigator then contacted Respondent and confirmed that the three identified individuals in addition to Respondent, were employed by Respondent for a total of four employees. The investigator determined none of the employees had workers’ compensation exemptions nor had Respondent secured the payment of workers’ compensation to his employees. On April 27, 2005, the investigator served a SWO on Respondent. The SWO required Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. At the same time, the investigator served a Request for Business Records for Penalty Calculation on Respondent, requesting payroll records from Respondent for the period April 27, 2002, through April 27, 2005 (the audit period for penalty calculation). Respondent provided no records to the investigator. On May 23, 2005, the investigator determined 520 days had passed between the beginning of the audit period and September 30, 2003, and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was $52,000.00. The investigator also determined that during the period October 1, 2003, through the end of the audit period, the statewide average weekly wage paid by employers was $651.38; Respondent had four (4) employees; the imputed weekly payroll for Respondent’s employees was $320,848.00; using approved manual rates Respondent should have paid $97,969.40 in workers’ compensation premium; and the penalty for noncompliance during this period was calculated to be $146,954.12. On May 26, 2005, Investigator Bowman served the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent. The Amended Order assessed Respondent with a penalty for the entire audit period in the amount of $198,954.12. The investigator obtained records created by Respondent demonstrating Respondent placed a bid on a job on June 1, 2005, and Respondent completed the job on July 1, 2005. On July 19, 2005, the investigator served a Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on Respondent, which assessed a penalty in the amount of $3,000.00 for violating the terms of the SWO. Respondent violated the SWO on two separate days, the day of the bid and the day the work was completed. No competent substantial evidence was presented regarding intervening business operations.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order affirming the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and Corrected Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, requiring Respondent to pay a penalty in the amount of $200,594.12 to Petitioner, and requiring Respondent to cease all business operations in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of September, 2005, 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 15th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Iriye, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-422 Martin D. Snyder 10367 Allene Road Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Carols G. Muniz, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to employment discrimination by refusing to hire Petitioner based upon Petitioner?s disability. Whether Respondent failed to make reasonable accommodations for Petitioner?s physical disabilities.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a trucking company that has over 7,000 trucks that carry payload throughout the country. Petitioner alleges that Respondent did not hire him as a truck driver because Petitioner is disabled, or because Respondent perceived that Petitioner had a disability. Petitioner?s claimed disabilities are a skip of the heart and lower back pain. Petitioner completed his initial application for a truck driving position with Respondent on November 6, 2008, which Respondent received on December 10, 2008. In accordance with Respondent?s hiring process, once Respondent receives an initial application for a driver position, it conducts a preliminary review of the information provided by the applicant. If an applicant provides sufficient information to pass preliminary review, Respondent then sends the applicant a pre-approval letter with an attached “Pre- Training Checklist,” which sets forth a number of requirements for hiring. Respondent?s Pre-Training Checklist requires applicants to have three years of work history. Respondent uses work histories for references from previous employers to check on the background of its applicants as part of Respondent?s obligation to the public to ensure that the drivers it hires will be safe. Respondent?s pre-approval letter advises applicants that “[t]his pre-approval is contingent upon further background investigations, including motor vehicle reports and the successful completion of the hiring process.” Petitioner?s initial application contained no work history. Instead, Petitioner wrote in his application that he had lost his job because the company he was working for had gone out of business, and that he was a stay-at-home dad. Although Respondent sent Petitioner a pre-approval letter, Respondent requested Petitioner to submit additional information regarding his income and work history. Petitioner then submitted information demonstrating that he had no work history in the three years prior to his application. Thereafter, Respondent declined to hire Petitioner based upon his lack of work history. Although Petitioner claims that Respondent failed to hire him because Petitioner was disabled, the evidence submitted by Petitioner was insufficient to show that Petitioner ever informed Respondent of his alleged disability during the application process. Petitioner argued at the final hearing that tax returns and Social Security Benefit Statements submitted to Respondent as part of the application process to verify Petitioner?s earnings should have alerted Respondent to the fact that Petitioner was disabled.1/ Those returns and statements, however, standing alone, do not demonstrate that Respondent was made aware that Petitioner was claiming to be disabled, especially in light of the fact that Petitioner produced no evidence that Respondent received any other information whatsoever from Petitioner, Petitioner?s truck-driving school, or any other entity about Petitioner?s claimed disability or physical limitations, prior to making the decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent denied receiving such information, and it is found that Respondent did not receive information from any person or entity regarding Petitioner?s alleged disability prior to making the decision not to hire Petitioner. Regarding Respondent?s alleged failure to accommodate, Petitioner testified that, in order to accommodate his disability, he would not be able to load or unload trucks, and would need to be given time to visit his doctor. Petitioner, however, failed to show that he ever requested an accommodation from Respondent. Moreover, the ability to load and unload trucks is an essential duty of the driver position for which Petitioner applied. At the final hearing, Respondent provided evidence that it employs and provides accommodations for a number of drivers with disabilities. Respondent?s evidence that it hires disabled persons is consistent with guidelines adopted by Respondent stating that Respondent “provides equal employment opportunities to all employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status or veteran status in accordance with applicable federal and state laws.” In sum, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against him by refusing to hire him because of his disability or that Respondent failed to make reasonable accommodations for Petitioner?s disability. Rather, based upon the evidence adduced at the final hearing, it is found that Respondent decided not to hire Petitioner because he failed to provide three years of work experience required of all applicants.
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 dismissing the Complaint and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 14th day of April, 2011. 1/ The tax statements consist of forms 1040EZ for 2006 and 2007 signed by Petitioner and his wife. On both forms, the lines for “occupation” next to Petitioner's wife's signature state, “Disable/Cashier.” The occupation lines on both forms next to Petitioner's signature state, “Disable.” The Social Security Benefit Statements consist of five Form SSA-1099 Social Security Benefit Statements for years 2005 through 2007, including Petitioner's wife's 2005 statement for benefits totaling $9,494.40, Petitioner's 2006 statement for benefits totaling $7,542.00, Petitioner's wife's 2006 statement for benefits totaling $9,882.00, Petitioner's 2007 statement for benefits totaling $7,794.00, and Petitioner's wife's 2007 statement for benefits totaling $10,206.00. 2/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to statutes or rules are to the current, 2010, versions, which have not been substantively revised since the relevant hiring decision in this case. 3/ See Finding of Fact 13, supra. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward Rhoades 7470 Northwest 167th Place Trenton, Florida 32693 Ignacio J. Garcia, Esquire Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to exemption from disqualification by law with regard to working in a position of special trust and responsibility related to children, disabled adults, and elderly persons?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is disqualified from working in a position of special trust because of: a 1991 conviction of grand theft auto; a 1980 conviction of battery; two counts in 1993 of uttering a forged instrument, one count of petty theft and one count of trespassing after warning. Respondent's testimony was direct, candid, and creditable. He previously engaged in a life-style that is no longer compatible with his present involvement with church and community. His testimony was well corroborated by the testimony of eight other witnesses and numerous exhibits. As established by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing, Respondent is rehabilitated and unlikely again to engage in criminal conduct or present a threat to children, disabled adults, or elderly persons, if employed in a position of special trust. The various criminal offenses for which Petitioner has been convicted, were all committed more than three years prior to his disqualification notice from Respondent for which Petitioner now seeks exemption. Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification to work with children in positions of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 10th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karlier Robinson 1018 Martin Street Blountstown, Florida 32424 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Suite 252-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue On or about August 16, 1996, Petitioner, Betty Osborne, was notified by Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, that she was disqualified from employment in a position of special trust. The disqualification was based on the results of Petitioner's criminal screening. Petitioner challenged this eligibility status and requested an exemption from disqualification. On August 20, 1996, the Department's Exemption Review Committee met and, after reviewing the Petitioner's record, denied her request for an exemption from disqualification. Petitioner filed a timely request for formal hearing and this proceeding followed. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on her own behalf and offered no exhibits into evidence. Respondent presented one witness, George H. Seibert, Background Screening Coordinator, Department of Children and Family Services. Respondent offered and had admitted into evidence five exhibits. The proceeding was recorded but not transcribed. Neither party filed proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for a license as a child care provider in 1993 in an effort to qualify to open her own day care facility. Based on a criminal screening of Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services (Depatment), determined that Petitioner was disqualified from employment in a position of special trust or responsibility, and thus was ineligible to work or volunteer in child care programs. Pursuant to Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification, the Department convened the Exemption Review Committee (Committee) to consider the requested exemption. The Committee reviewed Petitioner's record relating to her August 19, 1993, plea of nolo contendere to one count of grand theft. On or about January 7, 1993, Petitioner was charged with grand theft. The incident giving rise to the denial of the request for exemption occurred during the course of Petitioner's employment as a supervisor with the Pinellas County Tax Collector's Office. The allegation was that Petitioner had misappropriated $20,000 or more collected by that office for fishing licenses for her personal use or with the intent to deprive the State of Florida of a right to the property or benefit therefrom. On or about August 19, 1993, Petitioner completed a Plea Form on which she indicated that she would plead nolo contendere to one count of grand theft. Paragraph Five of the Plea Form expressly stated that "No one has pressured or forced me to enter this plea.", and that "No one has promised me anything to get me to enter this plea. . . ." Nevertheless, the form noted that Petitioner had an understanding that as a result of the plea, she would serve fifteen (15) years probation; pay $300.00 in court costs; and pay $56,404.00 in restitution. Both Petitioner and her attorney signed the Plea Form. On or about August 19, 1993, an Order of Probation (Order) was entered noting that the "Defendant being present with counsel: entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of grand theft". The Order withheld an adjudication of guilt; placed Petitioner on fifteen (15) months of probation; and required payment of $300.00 in court costs and $56,404.00 in restitution. The amount of restitution was reduced to $27,501.00 by an order issued on January 26, 1994. As of August 20, 1996, the date of the Department Exemption Review and hearing, Petitioner had twelve years of probation remaining to be served. Also, as of that date, Petitioner had paid only $300.00 in restitution. If Petitioner had made restitution payments as scheduled, she would have paid $7,100.00 as of August 1996. At the time of this hearing, Petiitoner had made no additional restitution payments. At hearing, Petitioner presented no evidence of rehabilitation. Several letters of recommendation written by friends on Petitioner's behalf indicate that she is (1) active in her church; works well with children and others; and has a love for children. However, none of these letters reflect that Petitioner has worked in a responsible position or has been engaged in activities that demonstrate rehabilitation since she entered a plea of nolo contendere to grand theft.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Children and Family Services, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner, Betty Osborne, an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position designated by law as one of trust or responsibility. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Betty Osborne 4149 38th Street South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Kathleen Harvey, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 34648-1630 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building Two, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
