The Issue Whether Respondent, Xencom Facility Management, LLC (Xencom), terminated the employment of Petitioners solely because the contract under which they were working ended.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group), operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order denying the petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 15th day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in Petitioner’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the record as a whole, the stipulated facts, and matters subject to official recognition, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties and the Events of August 24, 2019 The Department is the state agency charged with encouraging the development of aquaculture3 in Florida. § 597.003(1), Fla. Stat. “When any qualified person desires to lease a part of the bottom, water column, or bed of any [state waters] for the purpose of growing oysters or clams . . . , he or she shall present to [the Department] a written application ” § 597.010(1), Fla. Stat. Mr. Lee and his father, Robert J. Lee, jointly hold Aquaculture Certificate of Registration No. AQ1529074. On January 5, 2016, they applied to the Department for a state owned submerged land aquaculture lease in the 2 Petitioner’s Exhibit G is a flash drive containing video footage of Officer Travis’s traffic stop and subsequent arrest of Mr. Lee. 3 Section 597.0015(1), defines “aquaculture” as “the cultivation of aquatic organisms.” Section 597.0015(3), defines “aquaculture products” as “aquatic organisms and any product derived from aquatic organisms that are owned and propagated, grown, or produced under controlled conditions.” vicinity of Alligator Harbor in Franklin County, Florida. The lease was to be used for the commercial cultivation of oysters and clams. The Department issued a ten-year lease, Sovereignty Submerged Land Aquaculture Lease No. 19-AQ-1465, to Mr. Lee and his father on February 3, 2016. One provision therein required the lessee to be bound by the current and future versions of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code. Another provision stated that a violation of chapter 597 and/or chapter 5L-1 “may be cause for this lease to be terminated without further notice to the lessee and shall result in the forfeiture to lessor of the works, improvements, and shellfish in and upon the leased premises.” On June 15, 2017, Mr. Lee pled nolo contendere to several charges filed in Franklin County, Florida. Two of the aforementioned charges pertained to the criminal offenses of possessing untagged and undersized oysters, and Mr. Lee was adjudicated guilty of all charges. At approximately 3:00 a.m., on August 24, 2019, Officer David Travis of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission was on patrol in Carrabelle, Florida, and traveling west on US-98, 25 miles from Alligator Harbor. He observed a Chevrolet Tahoe pulling a boat4 that had no trailer lights. A Ford Fusion was closely following the Tahoe. Officer Travis then made a U-turn in order to initiate a traffic stop based on the lack of trailer lights and the failure of both vehicles to use their blinkers prior to making two turns. Mr. Lee was driving the Fusion, and a friend of Mr. Lee’s was driving the Tahoe. Upon inspecting the boat, Officer Travis saw four untagged baskets, one blue and three orange. The blue basket was completely full with at least 40 4 The boat was registered to Mr. Lee’s father. pounds of unculled5 oysters. The orange baskets were approximately the same size as the blue basket, and two of the orange baskets were at least 75 percent full with unculled oysters. The third orange basket contained 15 to 20 culled oysters. The boat and the contents therein were wet. Officer Travis found multiple pairs of wet gloves and one pair of wet socks inside a yellow oyster sack at the boat’s stern. At the bow, he found several casting nets that were soaking wet and containing fresh grass, mud, sand, and live crustaceans. Officer Travis also found a mullet in a cooler that appeared to have been recently caught. During an inspection of the Tahoe, Officer Travis found a large, white cooler with a large quantity of culled oysters in a bed of ice. According to Mr. Lee, those oysters were harvested from his Alligator Harbor lease on August 22, 2019, and were intended for personal consumption. Mr. Lee told Officer Travis during the traffic stop that he had taken the oysters described in paragraph 6 from his lease in Alligator Harbor on August 23, 2019, between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Lee further stated to Officer Travis that he had transported the oysters at issue to his girlfriend’s house in Carrabelle where he had begun to cull some of them. According to Mr. Lee, he and his girlfriend had gotten into an argument, and Mr. Lee decided to take the oysters to his father’s home in order to finish culling them. Mr. Lee and his friend were supposedly driving to Robert J. Lee’s home when Officer Travis pulled them over. Officer Travis arrested Mr. Lee and his friend. Ultimate Findings Count I of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee violated rule 5L-1.007(2) on approximately 5 Wild oysters commonly grow together in clumps. “Culling” refers to the process by which wild oysters are separated from each other. The term can also encompass the cleaning, grading, and sorting of oysters. August 23, 2019, by failing to label containers holding oysters. Neither Officer Travis’s arrest report nor his testimony mentioned any tags on the baskets in the boat or the cooler in the Tahoe. Also, no tags are visible during the footage from Officer Travis’s body camera. While Mr. Lee testified that he had a bulk tag that applied to all of the containers at issue, the undersigned does not find Mr. Lee’s testimony to be credible. Accordingly, the Department proved Count I by clear and convincing evidence. Count II of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee failed to timely deliver oysters to a certified processing facility on approximately August 23, 2019, as required by rule 5L- 1.008(7). The aforementioned rule requires that “shellfish shall be harvested between sunrise and sunset as established by the U.S. Weather Service.” As noted above, Officer Travis observed that the contents inside the boat were wet and fresh, and that evidence convincingly undermines Mr. Lee’s assertion that the oysters at issue were harvested on August 23, 2019, prior to 6:00 p.m. While Mr. Lee asserted that the oysters in question were intended for personal consumption rather than for sale, that assertion is undermined by the large number of oysters Officer Travis observed in the boat during the August 24, 2019, traffic stop. Therefore, the Department proved Count II by clear and convincing evidence. Count III of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee violated rule 5L-3.004 on approximately August 23, 2019, by attempting to transport oysters to a private residence for sorting and washing rather than performing those activities over his lease. As noted above, Officer Travis observed a large quantity of unculled oysters during the traffic stop. Those oysters had not been sorted and washed over Mr. Lee’s lease. Also, the allegation in Count III is consistent with what Mr. Lee told Officer Travis during the traffic stop. Accordingly, the Department proved Count III by clear and convincing evidence. Count IV of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee violated rules 5L-1.008(5)(a) and 5L- 3.007(8)(c) in December of 2018 by harvesting and replanting wild shellfish stock on the submerged lands of his lease. However, the Department presented no clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Lee violated rules 5L- 1.008(5)(a) and 5L-3.007(8)(c). Count V of the Department’s Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleges that Mr. Lee was convicted on June 15, 2017, of possessing untagged oysters in violation of section 597.0041(4). As noted above, Mr. Lee was adjudicated guilty on June 15, 2017, of possessing untagged and undersized oysters. The Department thus proved Count V by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department impose a cumulative fine of $4,000.00 ($1,000.00 each) for Counts I through III and V. The undersigned also recommends that Aquaculture Certificate of Registration No. AQ1529074, jointly held by Mr. Lee and his father, be revoked. Finally, the undersigned recommends that Sovereignty Submerged Land Aquaculture Lease No. 19- AQ-1465 be terminated with Mr. Lee forfeiting all works, improvements, and shellfish in and upon the lease premises.6 6 Mr. Lee argued that his father’s interest in the Certificate of Registration and the lease at Alligator Harbor should not be extinguished because his father had no involvement with Mr. Lee’s violations. However, Mr. Lee offered no authority to support his argument, and the undersigned’s independent research did not find anything to support Mr. Lee’s position. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Kevin Lee Post Office Box 28 Carrabelle, Florida 32322 Darby G. Shaw, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Allan J. Charles, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Stephen M. James, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 531 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Steven Hall, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 (eServed) Honorable Nicole “Nikki” Fried Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent's license should be revoked for the reasons stated in the Administrative Action.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, Shahir Daghara Corporation, d/b/a Dunbar Liquors, was licensed by the Division, having been issued License No. 46-04408, Series 3-PS. The license permits Dunbar Liquors to sell alcoholic beverages at its premises located at 3637 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, No. 101, Fort Myers, Florida. Shahir Daghara is the sole corporate officer and shareholder of Shahir Daghara Corporation. The Division introduced the license file for Fowler Liquors, which formerly held License No. 46-04643, Series 3-PS. This file was also introduced in Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Barghouthi Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Fowler Liquor Store, Case Nos. 03-0217 and 03-0431 (DOAH June 5, 2003), the consolidated cases in which Fowler Liquors' license was revoked for repeated sales to minors. As to Mr. Daghara's relationship to Fowler Liquors, the following findings were made by the undersigned: In mitigation, counsel for Fowler Liquors argued that license revocation would be unfair because Samer Barghouthi is no longer involved in the operation of the business, having signed over his interest to his uncle, Shahir Daghara. Counsel contended that Mr. Daghara acted to remove Samer Barghouthi from the premises of Fowler Liquors as soon as he learned that Mr. Barghouthi was making sales to underage persons. This contention is not credible. The two sales that are the subject of these proceedings occurred nearly one month after the murder of Mr. Cubello, which was widely known to have occurred after Mr. Cubello purchased alcoholic beverages in Fowler Liquors. The two sales also occurred after Mr. Barghouthi had been interviewed by Captain Pendarakis about sales of alcoholic beverages to minors. Moreover, Officer Cecil Pendergrass of the Fort Myers Police Department testified that Samer Barghouthi was still working at Fowler Liquors on July 1, 2002, two weeks after his arrest for selling alcoholic beverages to Justin Bender. There is no record evidence that Mr. Barghouthi transferred his interest in the business to Mr. Daghara. At most, the Division's files indicate that at some point, Fowler Liquors represented to the Division that Mr. Daghara had taken a 49 percent interest in the business. The file also contains an undated "Current Licensee Update Data Sheet" on which Samer Barghouthi's name is crossed through, but Fowler Liquors offered no sworn testimony to explain the significance of this document. Further, even if Mr. Daghara did take over the business, there is no evidence that he took any steps to remove Mr. Barghouthi from the premises of Fowler Liquors, or did anything else to address the problem of selling alcoholic beverages to minors. (Emphasis added.) The underscored language referenced a license application filed by Samer Barghouthi that named Mr. Daghara as a 49 percent stockholder. The undersigned found this insufficient to establish Fowler Liquors' claim that Mr. Daghara had taken over the business at the time Mr. Barghouthi was making illegal sales to minors. In any event, Mr. Daghara's ownership status was irrelevant to the revocation decision because there was no evidence that his ownership interest had any impact on the alcoholic beverage sales to minors at Fowler Liquors. In reviewing the Fowler Liquors file in the instant proceeding, the undersigned noted a Division form titled "Personal Data for Partner-Officer-Stockholder" that had been completed by Mr. Daghara himself on March 14, 2000, and bore his notarized signature. On this form, Mr. Daghara himself stated that he was a 49 percent shareholder of Fowler Liquors. Mr. Daghara was present at the hearing in the instant proceeding and had every opportunity to testify in explanation of his relationship to Fowler Liquors. He chose not to testify. The undersigned draws no inference from Mr. Daghara's silence, aside from the fact that it leaves the Division's version of events as the only record evidence in this proceeding. It is found that Mr. Daghara owned 49 percent of the stock of Fowler Liquors at the time that a Final Order of Revocation was entered by the Division. Mr. Daghara's ownership interest was his only proven involvement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Action against Shahir Daghara Corporation, d/b/a Dunbar Liquors. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 2nd day of September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. Post Office Box 551 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Michael J. Wheeler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 6 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Peter Williams, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue is whether proposed amendments to Rule 46-39.005 adopted by the Marine Fisheries Commission, setting maximum lengths for nets used for the commercial harvesting of mullet, establishing one week alternating closure periods for mullet harvests during the late fall/ early winter roe season, setting a 500 pound per vessel per day harvest limit during the pre-roe season and a one thousand pound limit if two licensed commercial fishermen fish together during the roe season, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The Petitioners assert that the economic impact statement which accompanied the notice of rulemaking is inadequate.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Sigma International, Inc., owns and operates a mullet processing, wholesaling and exporting business in Florida. The restrictions embodied in the proposed rules will substantially affect its interests. Seafood Consumers and Producers Association is a non-profit association of businesses and consumers interested in fishery resources and fish harvesting in Florida and elsewhere. The rules would substantially affect interests of the association and the interests of individual members of the association. Bob Combs Fish Co. are fishermen, a first receiver of fish caught by others, and a fish wholesaler doing business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interests. Everglades Fish Corporation are fishermen, are first receivers of fish caught by others, and fish wholesalers doing business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect their interests. Houston Brown is a fisherman who does business in the State of Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect his interests. Triad Seafood is a first receiver of fish caught by others, and a fish wholesaler which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interests. Horse Weeks Fish Co. is a first receiver of fish caught by others, and a fish wholesaler which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interest. A.P. Bell Fish Co. are fishermen, a first receiver of fish caught by others, a wholesaler, retailer, and distributor of fish and fish products which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interests. SaltWater Enterprises, Inc., are fishermen, a first receiver of fish caught by others, a wholesaler, retailer and distributor of fish and fish products which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interest. The Fisherman's Market, Inc., is a first receiver of fish caught by others, a wholesaler, retailer and distributor of fish and fish products which does business in Florida. The proposed rules would substantially affect its interest. The Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) is legislatively created and assigned to the Department of Natural Resources. It has authority to adopt rules. Sections 370.025, 370.026 and 370.027(1), Florida Statutes (1991). It adopts fishery conservation and management measures which promote the continued health and abundance of marine fisheries resources in Florida. Section 370.025(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes (1991). The Fish Black or striped mullet is a popular food sought for the flesh of the fish and especially for its roe, which is available annually during the autumn spawning season beginning in October. Mullet roe is highly valued by the Japanese, and much of the roe is exported to Japan. Mullet is the most intensively harvested finfish in Florida; in 1989 mullet accounted for 19.3 percent of the state's total finfish catch. Florida is the source for 85 percent of the nation's black mullet catch. Since 1976 the demand for the export of black mullet roe has increased, which has increased fishing pressure on the species' egg bearing females. Roe-bearing fish caught during roe season are about four times as valuable as the fish would be if caught in the pre-roe season. Mullet has a shelf life as a fresh fish of no more than four days due to the oil in its flesh. Although it can be frozen, in the Florida retail market frozen mullet is not considered a desirable food. There is a California market for frozen mullet, however, where it is popular with Asians. Since the closures during the roe season proposed in the Commission's rules will be for periods of one week, there could be days when no fresh mullet would be available to Florida consumers. Earlier Regulation of the Black Mullet Fishery - 1989-1992 Black or striped mullet (mulgi cephalus) are regulated by the Commission as a restricted species. Section 370.01 (20), Florida Statutes (1991), and Rule 46-39.001(4), Florida Administrative Code. Size and bag limits are imposed on recreational takings of mullet. Commercial fishermen taking mullet must hold a saltwater products license with a restricted species endorsement. When they sell their catch they must provide a trip ticket to the purchaser of the fish which includes the fisherman's name and license number, the gear used in the catch, the place of the catch, the species caught and the number of pounds of fish caught. This information is then sent by the purchaser to the Department of Natural Resources, and is an important part of the Department's data base used in regulating the fishery. The Marine Fisheries Commission began a study of black mullet in 1987, and adopted rules restricting commercial black mullet fishing in 1989. Those rules established gear restrictions, amended certain qualifications for licensure to catch mullet in commercial quantities, and set roe season closure periods for mullet fishing. During 15 weekends of the year, the fishery was closed for 36-hour periods. The minimum net size for mesh was set at three inches. Amendments to the rules in 1990 closed new areas to fishing, set minimum net mesh size which could be used during the roe season at four inches, and prohibited commercial fishermen from using spotter aircraft to locate schools of fish. The weekend closures were extended from 36 to 54 hours, and two more weekends were closed for fishing. In drafting all its management measures, the Commission attempted to make it possible for fishermen to fish year round for mullet, and thus make fresh mullet available to consumers throughout most of the year; See the Purpose and Effect Statement of the rule published at 18 Florida Administrative Weekly at 4931, which reflects this Commission policy. In 1991 the Commission debated whether additional regulation was necessary for the mullet stock and proposed new rules and amendments to existing rules which were published in Volume 17, No. 32, of the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 9, 1991, at pages 3593 et seq. but, as noted above, the validity of these rules was challenged. In a final order that was issued on December 9, 1991, provisions of those rules were found to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority (DOAH Case Nos. 91-5408R and 91-5422R). The District Court of Appeal affirmed that determination in the opinion entered in Florida Marine Fisheries Commission v. Organized Fishermen of Florida, 610 So.2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Those invalidated rules had their genesis in a decision made by the Commission in February 1991 which set a statewide spawning potential ratio (SPR) for black mullet. The SPR is a measurement tool used by the Commission and by other regulatory groups, such as the Federal Fishery Management Councils, in the regulation of fish stocks. It is a measure of the biomass (essentially the total weight) of those fish capable of reproducing, divided by an estimate of what would have been the total biomass of fish of reproductive age if there were no fishing at all in the fishery. The goal the Commission set of maintaining a 35 percent SPR for black mullet was chosen using the best information available. The goal is a reasonable tool for the Commission to use in assessing the effectiveness of any of its efforts to manage the black mullet population to produce maximum stock abundance. The 35 percent target is the minimum level which could be set to provide adequate management of the stock and avoid the risk of a dramatic reduction in the number of fish available. The Commission was disappointed that its August 1991 efforts to increase regulation (and in its view, protection) of the mullet population had been turned back through litigation. It credited data on mullet landings showing a continuing decline in the mullet population. This led the Commission to believe that the spawning potential ratio for mullet in the 1991-1992 fishing year had declined to 18-25 percent, well below the target of 35 percent. Review of nine management options and debate at its August 1992 meeting led the Commission to advertise proposed new rules and amendments to existing rules published in Volume 18, No. 35 of the Florida Administrative Weekly at pages 4931 et seq. on August 28, 1992. According to the Purpose and Effect Statement and Summary for these rules the changes proposed to the regulatory regime for black mullet would do six things: proposed rule 46-39.0036 would prohibit the recreational harvesting of mullet from October 1 through October 15, from November 1 through November 15, and from December 15 through January 15 each year; an exception to the closures would be recognized for possessing cut mullet to be used on boats as bait; an amendment was proposed to existing rule 46-39.005 to prohibit the use of gill or trammel nets or beach or haul seine nets longer than 600 yards; subsection (4) of existing rule 46-39.005 was deleted, it had closed the fishery to commercial operation during weekends in the roe season; a new subsection (5) was proposed to rule 46-39.005, which would close the fishery to commercial harvests for the same periods specified for recreational closures; a new subsection (6) was also proposed for rule 46-39.005, which set a limit on commercial harvesting of mullet to 500 pounds of mullet per vessel per day from July 1 through September 30, which is the pre-roe season. At its meeting of September 25-26, 1992, the Commission conducted a legislative-type hearing under Section 120.54(3), Florida Statutes (1991), for the rules it had noticed for adoption. More than 60 people commented on the proposed new rules and amendments to existing rules. On September 26, 1992, the staff of the Commission made a presentation of options it believed were available to the Commission to achieve increased SPR for black mullet and the Commission deliberated using all the information placed before it. Based upon the rule making record compiled, the Commission voted to make changes to the text of the rules as they had been published for comment on August 28, 1992. The Commission decided that instead of two week alternating closures of the mullet fishery for 61 days during the roe season (from October 1-15, November 1-15 and December 15-January 15), it would close the fishery for 56 days using alternating one week periods (from the first through the seventh and fifteen through the twenty-first days of the months of October, November, December and January). The proposed 600-yard maximum net length and 500-pound per fisherman trip limit during the pre-roe season remained, but an increased limit of 1,000 pounds per vessel during the roe season was added if two licensed commercial fishermen used a single vessel. These changes were published in Volume 18, No. 42, of the Florida Administrative Weekly, pages 6221 et seq., on October 16, 1992, as a notice of changes to the Commission's proposed rules. DSPOPS Model for Estimating Spawning Potential Ratio Authorities which manage stocks of pelagic fishes commonly assess the condition of the stock with biological models. Models attempt to account for dynamics of a fishery represented by variables, in an effort to mimic the behavior of the population in its natural state. The models' results provide managers with as accurate an estimate of future fish populations as current science can provide. The choice of a particular model is significantly affected by the data available to be loaded into the model equation. How well any model mimics the natural population necessarily is affected by the accuracy of each of the values used in running the model. The federal National Marine Fisheries Service uses models to assess the condition of stocks of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel and dolphin. The Florida Marine Fisheries Commission has used similar a model known as GXPOPS 1/ to manage the red drum population, with good results, and another for management of Spanish mackerel, which has been brought back from the point of collapse (i.e., a dramatic change in population from an insufficient number of juveniles reaching adulthood). Commission staff chose the biological model known by the acronym DSPOPS 2/ to analyze the current spawning potential ratio of the black mullet fishery. The DSPOPS model is rather sophisticated and contains a significant number of input parameters or variables, such as growth rates, age at sexual maturity, observed harvest levels, recruitment and mortality. The value for some of these parameters are relatively well known through biological sampling, such as age, size, sex and maturity. Values for others, such as mortality of black mullet due to fishing, are subject to some debate. There is sufficient data available to use the DSPOPS model. The model can be run using the high and low estimates for input variables, which yields a range for the SPR, based on those runs. Data the Commission staff used to run the model came from the southwest Florida area. About 75 percent of all mullet landings are made there (especially in the Tampa area), and there is no reason to believe that the dynamics of the black mullet population operate differently there than in the panhandle area or in eastern Florida waters. Catch and effort data for all areas of the state are sufficiently similar to show the fishery is a single unit. Analysis of mullet show Gulf and Atlantic mullet are part of a single gene pool. Moreover, the statute encourages the Commission to manage species populations as a single biological unit. Section 370.025(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1991). The Commission used data only for female mullet, which is appropriate when calculating the spawning potential for a fish where eggs are a limiting factor for the number of fish in a population. Recruitment is a term that refers to those fish that survive the egg and larval stages and eventually mature into adults which can be harvested with fishing effort. There is a relationship between the number of fish able to spawn and the number of fish that are added or "recruited" into a fishery as the result of the spawning, which is known as the spawner recruit relationship. Unfortunately, the spawner recruit relationship cannot be estimated for mullet with enough precision to incorporate it into the model. To account for this, Commission staff ran the model assuming constant recruitment, that is, the assumption was made that there is no relationship between spawning stock and recruitment. This produces an estimate of spawning potential ratio that may be accurate or may be higher than it would be had a spawning recruitment relationship been determined (or assumed). Thus, use of a constant recruitment assumption tends to produce an optimistic assessment of the spawning potential ratio. The most basic variables used in a biological model designed to predict future fish stock are those for mortality rates. In fisheries science, total mortality is universally represented as the variable "Z." It is equal to the rate of fishing mortality, represented as "F," plus the rate of natural mortality "M." 3/ Thus, the equation is that Z = F + M. This is as basic to fishery science as the equation "debits = credits" is to accounting. It is also significant that under this equation, if any two of the three variables are known, the third can be calculated. Non-Parametric Statistics and Independent Review Many of the parameters used in the DSPOPS model have threshold values, they are not parameters which would be expected to have a normal or bell-curved type distribution (such as the average age of fish in a population). Threshold values are non-parametric statistics, and there are no confidence intervals or other measures of variation, such as coefficients of variation, associated with them. This does not mean that the expected SPR levels produced by the model lack utility, are unscientific, or are inherently untrustworthy. Other efforts are made to test the correctness of the parameters values used in the model, or in using the model's output. Using the model to estimate a range of SPR for various regulatory regimes is the best way to manage a fishery. It is for this reason that the Department convened an independent review panel to evaluate the values which its staff had loaded into runs of the DSPOPS model, to represent what would happen in the fishery if various management measures were imposed. This group of outside scientists met with the Commission staff on July 9-10, 1992, to review the data and reach a consensus on the appropriate values to be used for all parameters introduced into the model equation. They cross checked data, and evaluated its consistency with published studies. Although Petitioners complain that scientists who testified for them at the Section 120.54(4) final hearing on the 1991 rules were not invited to this meeting, the Commission's explanation for this is persuasive. The scientists invited were independent, had no association with the Commission, DNR or the Petitioners, and had no other prior associations or biases militating against reaching a consensus. The panel concluded that data available showed female SPR was in the range of from 15 percent to 26 percent, with the most likely value being 21 percent or less. F Value Determined by Tag/Recapture Data and Z Using Time Series of this Data Dr. Behzad Mahmoudi, of the Florida Marine Research Institute, performed a tag/recapture experiment on mullet in southwest Florida in an attempt to determine the F value (fishing mortality) to be used in the DSPOPS biological model. The determination of F can be a problem; for some fish species it is not available. In a few fisheries researchers are assigned to observe and record activity on commercial fishing vessels; there F (fishing mortality) may be calculated by analyzing catch per unit of fishing effort, i.e., the number of pounds of fish landed per hour or per day of fishing. Florida's data gathering through trip tickets does not permit this, since it provides no means to account for the common situation of a fishing trip which yielded no mullet catch. Dr. Mahmoudi's experiment for determining fishing mortality was a good one, which carefully accounted for the biases normally associated with studies designed to estimate F. In a tagging experiment mullet are handled, a smooth plastic filament streamer or tag inserted in a small slit, and then the fish is reintroduced into the waters of the Gulf. These streamers are thin enough to be pulled through the mesh of the crown of fishing caps, where they are sometimes worn by fishermen disinclined to return them to the Commission's researchers, although they are paid $5.00 per tag returned. These tags are then returned to the Florida Marine Research Institute by fishermen or fish processors when tagged fish are caught. When used in conjunction with data on landings of mullet, the proportion of tags returned from among those landed gives an indication of the fishing mortality for the species. The fish were tagged at the beginning of the '89-'90 and '90-'91 seasons, and captured over the following two seasons. Fish tagged in the first year may not be caught until the second year or later. Dr. Mahmoudi also performed ancillary experiments. He put a sample of tagged fish in pools, and evaluated mortality over time caused by the tagging process itself. He also evaluated tag rejection by monitoring tagged fish placed in pools to determine the proportion of spontaneous tag loss. Lastly, he and associates evaluated the non-return rate for tagged fish commercially caught by going to fish processors, and examining commercial catches made by licensed fishermen. After the fishermen and processors had finished with the fish, and returned all tags that were going to be returned, researchers examined those fish to see how many tags yet remained and had not been removed or returned to the Commission. This permitted calculation of the rate at which tags on fish caught are returned. Through these three ancillary experiments, Dr. Mahmoudi accounted for the major variability likely to be introduced into estimations of F (fishing mortality) based on tag recovery. He did not add a specific adjustment to his F value for any increased predation on tagged fish, for there was no reason to believe that it would be anything other than de minimis. Due to the nature of the tag and the placement of the tags on the fish, it is unlikely that tagged fish were ensnared in nets at any higher rate than untagged fish. It is also significant to remember that the recovery rate for tags is not affected by fishing effort. It is based on the percentage of tags which are returned from among fish caught, and is a proportion of fish caught. The more fishermen fish, the larger the absolute number of tags returned, but if the price of fish falls, and fishermen make fewer fishing trips, the proportion of tags returned does not change, although fewer tags may be returned. The range of values which Dr. Mahmoudi estimated for F based on his tag return data of .88 through 1.13 are quite accurate. Moreover, the numbers are consistent with published studies and confirmed by separate calculations discussed below which are consistent with these F values. By treating tagged fish as if they were the whole fish population, Dr. Mahmoudi was also able to determine how many tags were returned at different time intervals, and by using this time series data, was able to calculate a value for Z (total mortality) of 1.5. Since he then had values for both F and Z, he was able to calculate the value of M (natural mortality) as .3. Independent Calculation of Z Through Catch Curve Analysis A commercial catch of fish contains individual fish of different ages. When gear such as gill nets are used, small fish escape, but after the fish reach a certain size, all but the biggest fish are caught (big fish may bounce off or swim around gill nets). The range of ages of the fish caught in gill nets mirrors the age distribution in the fish population, after an adjustment for the smallest and largest fish which escape gill net capture. It is possible then to calculate the slope of a line by plotting the age of fish versus the percent of fish of that age in the catch, and by this method to derive a value for Z (total mortality). Dr. Mahmoudi did this. He then went through an additional verification step. He made a catch of fish using a purse seine net which, unlike a gill net, catches all fish regardless of size. He was able to superimpose the catch curve analysis from this purse seine catch over that generated by the catch curve for fish caught with gill nets, and they matched. This gave him two additional independent and consistent estimates of Z, which also were consistent with his Z estimate of 1.5 from the tag/recapture data. Corroboration of Z value by Otolith Size Mullet have bones in their ear which lay down layers of clear and opaque material creating rings. Counting the number of rings yields a determination of the fish's age. Dr. Mahmoudi counted otolith rings using a large sample of mullet, and he determined the average age of mullet in the fishery was 3.5 to 4 years. This is consistent with the estimates of Z as being 1.5, because use of 1.5 in the equation Z = F + M means that the average age of mullet in the fishery is 3.5 to 4 years old. Independent Calculations of M Natural mortality, or M, is a significant parameter in the DSPOPS biological model, and it is important to have a good estimate for it. Dr. Mahmoudi used three independent methods to calculate a value for M. The first he used, Pauly's method 4/, is one which can be done with little data, but provides a somewhat weak estimate. It was developed for use in estimating sardine populations, and is based on water temperature readings, and the rate of the growth of fish. It yields an estimate of mortality which is accurate within a range of from one half to two times the actual mortality rate for the fish. The independent review panel determined that it was likely that the estimate for mullet of .58 using Pauly's method would be on the high side, i.e., closer to the twice than to one-half of the actual mortality rate. Dr. Mahmoudi then calculated an M value with a different method, Alagaraja's method 5/, which provides a stronger estimate, but requires knowing the maximum age of the fish attained in an unfished environment. This is somewhat difficult because black mullet have been fished in Florida waters for more than 50 years. Other experiments in the scholarly literature showed mullet have been found that were at least ten old, so an age of at least ten years was appropriate and when used in Alagaraja's method yielded a value for M of .4. The consensus of scientists on the independent review panel was that the maximum age of mullet in an unfished population was probably closer to 15 years of age, and using that value, the Alagaraja's method yielded a M value of .3, which was consistent with the M value generated in the tag/recapture study, and reasonably close to the .4 value computed for M under Alagaraja's method using a maximum age of ten years for mullet. The third method was to calculate M based on the values of F and Z determined from the tag/recapture study. Summary of Biological Data For Z there were two independent estimates derived from catch curve analyses (one using gill nets and the other purse seine net catches) and the determination from otolith rings. There were two separate calculations of M using Pauly's and Alagaraja's methods. F was calculated from the tag/recapture study. Independent estimates for Z and M were derived from Dr. Mahmoudi's tag/recapture data, and all were consistent. There are number of reasons, therefore, to have great confidence in the values for the significant variables Z, F and M used by Dr. Mahmoudi in running the DSPOPS model. As with the values for other parameters loaded into the DSPOPS model, which have no statistical confidence intervals associated with them, it is not possible to say that the value of 1.5 for Z is correct within plus or minus X thousandths of a point, at the .05 level of confidence, as is commonly done with parametric statistics, such as reports of opinion polling data. For this reason, separate computer runs were done using high and low estimates of significant variables such as Z (total mortality), F (fishing mortality), and M (natural mortality), paying special attention to the estimates likely to produce the highest SPR value. Effects of Cold Fronts on Catchability and the Effect of Effort-shifting by Fishermen. The more cold fronts which occur during the closure season, the more likely it is that a higher proportion of fish will escape, and conversely if many cold fronts occurred during the open weeks, a larger proportion of fish ready to spawn would be caught. Dr. Mahmoudi ran simulations using data from 17 years on the occurrence of cold fronts, and using what is similar to a random number generator, performed a Monte Carlo simulation for likely occurrences of cold fronts based on the 17 years of data. This data was incorporated into the projections of likely SPRs for different regimes. Net Limitations The Petitioners attack the 600-yard net limitation found in the rule as arbitrary. At the time the rule was being considered, the average net length used in the fishery was about 1,000 yards. The reduction in the maximum net length would have an effect on the catch, but while catch may vary inversely with maximum net length, it does not vary directly with a reduction in net length. Consequently, Dr. Mahmoudi estimated that the 40 percent reduction in the maximum net length would result in an approximately 15 percent reduction in catchability. While this assessment of the effect of the reduction in gear is judgmental rather than statistical, it is reasonable, and not arbitrary, i.e., a judgment unsupported by fact or logic. Regulatory Options For the option proposed of two-week closures during the roe season of October through January of each year, coupled with the 600-yard net limitation and a 500-pound catch limit per vessel, the estimation of SPR mullet would achieve would be from 30 percent to 39 percent. This was the management option discussed at the Commission's August 1992 meeting which led it to the publication of the first iteration of the rule in the August 28, 1992 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly. After that publication and before the legislative-type public hearing on the rule which had been noticed for adoption, Dr. Mahmoudi ran the DSPOPS biological model to consider four more management options, three of which were suggested by commercial fishermen or their representatives. The option which suggested the highest SPR range was not necessarily the best option, however, because the Commission also had to consider what the escapement rate would be for roe-bearing mullet during the roe season for that option, and how enforceable that option was likely to be. The commercial fishermen made it clear at the pubic hearing that they would prefer a one week open/one week closed regime, as opposed to the published text of the rule which would have closed the fishery for alternating two week periods. In addition, the rule was amended to allow two licensed fishermen on a single vessel to catch 1,000 pounds of mullet per boat trip during roe season. Fishermen believed that by fishing together when fish were more valuable they could lower their expenses and thus achieve a higher profit margin during the open weeks. The Petitioners argue that had the Commission chosen option 1, a 72- hour-per-week closure during roe season, with one 10 day closure, the predicted SPR would be approximately 32.3 percent (with a range of 27.9 to 36.7 percent), while option 4, the proposal for week one/week off closures, would produce an average SPR of 34.2 percent (having a range of 29.8 to 34.2 percent). They see the options as essentially identical in the SPR but would find option 1 much easier to live with, since it would be easier for fish processors to maintain their labor forces with shorter closures. Option 1 would also make it less likely that there would be many periods when no mullet would be available to retail consumers of fresh mullet since with a four-day shelf life, week long closures could produce periods when fresh mullet could not be found and 72-hour closures do not. The longer the closure period, the more likely closures will coincide with cold fronts; it is closures during these frontal periods which permit the escapement of the most fish. The significant differences between option 1 and option 4 are that under option 1, approximately 20 percent more spawning females would survive the roe season, but under option 4 (which is essentially the option the Commission adopted), the increase in the number of spawning females surviving through the roe season would be 48 percent. Option 4 intuitively is a better management option if the goal is to reach spawning potential ratio of 35 percent, the minimum ratio to sustain stock abundance over time. The Commission did adjust the closure period to help the commercial fishermen by switching the closures periods from a two-week on/two-week off regime to a one-week on/one- week off regime. The Economic and Small Business Impact Statement As is often the case with legislation, the goals stated in Section 370.025(2), Florida Statutes (1991), can be harmonized, but only with some difficulty. Section 370.025(2)(b) requires the Commission to base its conservation and management measures upon "the best information available, including biological, sociological, economic and other information deemed relevant by the Commission." Section 370.025(2)(c), Florida Statutes, requires that those measures "shall permit reasonable means and quantities of annual harvest, consistent with maximum practicable sustainable stock abundance on a continuing basis." The Petitioners interpret this to require the Commission to achieve its biological goals with the least possible negative impacts on the economics or social conditions in the fishery. This is simply not what the statute says. No doubt those regulated would hope that the Legislature would require the least possible impact on them. But what was enacted was the mandate that the Commission's primary goal is to insure the continuing health and abundance of the species, and after doing so, then to permit reasonable quantities of annual harvest which can be sustained over time. The economic impact statement (EIS) was prepared by an economist, using data from a variety of sources. The statement itself is 16 pages long, it contains three pages of references, five figures to illustrate points, and six pages of tables of data to support its conclusions. Much of the important information was derived from a 1989 study published by the Institute of Food and Agriculture Science at the University of Florida by Robert Degner and others entitled "An Analysis of Potential Regulatory Changes on the Economic Structure of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Finfish Industry Centered in Florida" (Reference 11). Section 3 of the EIS estimates the economic benefits and costs to persons directly affected by the proposed amendments. It analyzes who are the persons directly affected (Section 3.20); the costs and benefits of having no regulation, of maintaining current regulations, or of imposing the new regulations published in the August 28, 1992 edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly (Section 3.30); the result of changes in net lengths (Section 3.40); the result of the seasonal closures (Section 3.50), and of trip limits (Section 3.60). It contains as well an analysis of the impact of the proposed rules on competition in the open market for employment in Section 4.00, a small business impact statement in Section 5.00, and an analysis of alternatives in Section 6.00. Section 7.00 evaluates costs to the agency and to local governments. Section 8.00 describes the data and methods used by the Commission in making its estimates. The Petitioners presented testimony at final hearing of an economist that many of the views expressed in the economic impact statement are misinterpretations of economic data or are in error. It is essential to remember that the purpose of rulemaking is not to produce assessments of potential economic impact which can withstand the intense scrutiny of a Ph.D. dissertation. Rather, the EIS is required to insure that the agency considers each of the topics required in the statutory economic impact analysis before settling on a policy which will be embodied in its rule, and to give affected persons the opportunity to bring to the attention of the Commission information which could lead to other regulatory choices, if the Commission is persuaded by that economic evidence or argument. Basically, Mr. Murray's testimony at final hearing argued that the Commission's economic impact analysis focused on macro-economic results of the proposed regulations, but not enough on micro-economic results, that is, impacts on individual households and business (Tr. 458). The EIS concentrated on such things as estimates of total dollar losses caused by the regulation proposed. In Section 3.20 the EIS defines the persons directly affected by the rules as "those engaged in the directed harvest of mullet for commercial purposes;" and commercial harvesters (fishermen) were estimated to be between 455 and 3,150 persons, based on estimates in two sources (EIS at 5). The fishermen generally work alone, as two-man crews, and in a few instances in six to eight fishermen groups. These estimates of those directly affected appear to have an adequate basis. While a broader number of people will feel the pinch of the rule (for instance consumers wishing to buy fresh mullet at retail) they are indirectly rather than directly affected, since there is no prohibition against possession of mullet purchased at retail for home consumption during closure periods. The statute requires the analysis of the effect on those persons who will be prevented from harvesting mullet during closure periods and the EIS is not deficient for limiting its analysis to those whose actions would be directly regulated by the Commission. The section of the EIS dealing with the impact on competition and the open market for employment acknowledged that the rule would have seasonal affects on employment and the incomes of persons in roe mullet fishing and processing businesses (EIS Section 4.00 at 9). Most all of the fishermen are small businesses, so there is no effective way to tier the rules to impose lesser restrictions on small businessmen and ultimately achieve the impact the Commission intends to achieve. If small businesses were exempted, no regulation could be effective. EIS has an analysis of the effect on the standing stock of fish and the dollar value of that stock under four scenarios, (1) under equilibrium conditions with no regulation, (2) the then current weekend closure and net size regulations, (3) under the proposed rule as published and (4) under the assumption that the rule would result in an increased recruitment to the fishing stock of an additional 10 percent. The dollar value for the fish used in the these evaluations is probably inappropriate (the value is $6.70 for each fish, which is the ecological value the Department of Environmental Regulation was considering establishing for fish killed through violations of ecologic regulations). What is significant is the comparison of the increase in standing stock in each scenario, as well as the dollar value ascribed to that stock. Commissioners, legislators, or anyone else could interpret the dollar value by making different dollar assumptions for the stocks levels projected. Mr. Murray's written comments pointed out to the Commission that a better value might be 60 per pound. The EIS does provide a means of comparing the benefits of not adopting the rule to the benefits of adopting the rule, at least as far as an increase in the size of the fish stock is concerned. Proper notice of the proposed rule was sent to the Director of Economic Development, the Bureau Chief of Minority Business, and the Small and Minority Business Advocate, as well as to the Joint Administrative Procedure Committee. The Marine Fisheries Commission received neither a response nor an objection from any of these agencies. The Commission amended the proposed rules in significant ways in an attempt to relieve the burdens which the fishermen argued they would suffer if the rules were adopted with no changes. The one week on/one week off closure periods were substituted for the two week closure periods originally proposed, and the trip limit was amended to permit two licensed fishermen to fish in a single boat and bring in 1,000 pounds of fish during the roe season. The agency thus seriously considered alternatives to achieve their management goals while ameliorating the economic impact on those regulated. This shows that the economic information contained in the economic impact statement was seriously considered by the Commissioners. The only economic objection actually voiced to the Commission on September 25, 1992, during public testimony by Mr. Murray was that the EIS did not ascribe sufficient value to mullet flesh taken during roe season, but concentrated on the value of the roe. He informed the Commission that for some sellers, fresh mullet flesh was 80 percent of their sales, and that two week closures could put them out of business. (Ex. 12, at 57-58). This error in the EIS was remedied by Mr. Murray's testimony.
Findings Of Fact The Southland Corporation is a corporation engaged in the operation of convenience food stores under the name "Seven Eleven Food Stores." Petitioner, Richard V. Ballard, was employed by Southland in March of 1984. Michael Jones, Supervisor of Southland, hired Ballard. Jones interviewed Ballard and reviewed his application prior to hiring him. At the time he interviewed Ballard, Jones noticed a gap on the application in Ballard's employment which he asked Ballard about. Ballard stated he had some operations on his arm and leg and that he had omitted a job with Huntley Jiffy Foods Stores where he had been terminated unfairly and had filed a handicap complaint against them. Jones asked him if he had left anything else out, to which Ballard replied no. Ballard had been previously employed part-time at Citgo, another convenience food store, and failed to reveal this on his application. He also failed to tell Jones about this previous employment when Jones questioned him prior to his being hired by Southland. Southland was aware that Ballard was handicapped when he was hired. In fact, Jones had a discussion with Ballard at the time he was hired about any possible limitations which would have an affect on his job performance. Ballard has cerebral palsy. Jones hired Ballard knowing that he was handicapped and knowing that he had filed a handicap complaint against Huntley Jiffy Foods. After he was employed, Ballard received two raises including a $0.20 merit increase, which was the highest increase for which he was eligible, and the increase was approved by Jones on May 25, 1984, effective May 11, 1984. Subsequent to his receiving the merit increase, Ballard was counseled for several incidents involving his job performance. On September 14, 1984, Jones became aware through a conversation with a former supervisor of Ballard's that Ballard had worked for Citgo previous to his working with Southland. Jones double-checked Ballard's application and found that he had omitted his employment with Citgo from his application and he had failed to disclose the Citgo employment to Jones during the interview. Ballard was suspended on September 14, 1984, pending a meeting with Jones on September 17, 1984. At the meeting on September 17, 1984, Ballard admitted that he had worked for Citgo and that he had omitted it from his application because he did not think he would be hired if he put it on his application because he would have been terminated from two previous jobs. Ballard had omitted two previous jobs in his application, Huntley Jiffy Foods and Citgo. The application which Ballard filled out contained the statement "I certify the facts set forth in my application for employment are true and complete. I understand that, if employed, false statements on this application shall be considered sufficient cause for dismissal." Southland has a policy prohibiting falsification of applications and providing for termination of employees for falsifying their applications. Southland had terminated employees other than Ballard for falsification of applications. While Ballard alleges that he was terminated because he had filed a discrimination complaint against Citgo, in fact, Jones had no knowledge at the time he terminated Ballard that Ballard had filed a charge against Citgo. Southland did not learn that Ballard had filed a discrimination charge against Citgo until sometime in October, 1984, after it terminated Ballard. Southland learned of the charge against Citgo from the documents Ballard filed charging retaliation in this case. Southland purchased a part of City Service (Citgo) in September, 1983, including the Kwik Mart facilities where Petitioner had worked previously. However, it did not incur liability for charges filed against City Service. The discrimination charge filed by Ballard against City Service is being defended by City Service. Southland is not involved in the that matter in any way.
The Issue The issue presented in DOAH Case No. 93-3290RX is whether Rule 46-3.028, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and the issue presented in DOAH Case No. 93-5549RP is whether the proposed amendment to that Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Menhaden are a species of herring. They are tightly-schooling fish which travel at the water surface. Menhaden are generally harvested as bait or for industrial products. Menhaden are planktivorous, or plankton-eating, fish which thrive in highly eutrophic aquatic environments. Portions of the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties become highly eutrophic during the summer months. Each summer menhaden congregate in the highly eutrophic areas of the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, resulting in overcrowding and consequent suffocation of large numbers of fish. These summer fish kill in certain regions of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties are considered a nuisance and a public health problem. To alleviate the problem, the Department of Environmental Protection has issued Special Activities Licenses to permit purse seining of menhaden in these regions during the summer months. Petitioner Blanchard is a commercial fisherman and owner of a fish net business. He has fished in the local waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties for many years. In 1978, the Legislature enacted Chapter 78-501 and Chapter 78-502, Laws of Florida, which prohibited fishing in the salt-waters of Escambia or Santa Rosa Counties with a net having a mesh of less than 2 5/8 inches stretched. After the effective date of those special laws, Petitioner Blanchard continued his fishing operations by using a purse seine net with a mesh of 2 5/8 inches. After the creation of the Marine Fisheries Commission in 1983, the Commission held hearings in various locations in the State of Florida where citizens could come and discuss local laws which they wanted changed or not. Such generic local public hearings were held in Escambia County and in Santa Rosa County in August of 1987 and in November of 1989. No evidence was offered that changes to Chapters 78-501 and 78-502 were discussed at those meetings or that any notice that such changes would be discussed was published. During 1991, the Commission engaged in rulemaking to promulgate a statewide rule regulating net sizes and meshes and types of fishing gear. During the final public hearing in August of 1992 held in St. Augustine, Florida, the Commission changed its proposed statewide gear rule which had proposed to ban all seine nets, determining instead that it would prohibit purse seining but would allow haul seining and beach seining. The statewide gear rule, which went into effect, prohibited the use of purse seine nets in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. No evidence was offered as to the notices issued or the steps engaged in during that rulemaking process. At the time that the Commission passed its statewide gear rule prohibiting the use of purse seine nets in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties, it was aware that it was repealing Chapters 78-501 and 78-502, Laws of Florida, which had become rules of the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to Chapters 83-134 and 84-121, Laws of Florida. At the time that it adopted the statewide rule, however, the Commission believed that purse seine netting was already banned in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties and believed, therefore, that it was making no change to the local fishing regulations in those counties. At the time, the Commission did not know that a small scale menhaden purse seining fishery existed in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. The Commission's reading of the unambiguous language of Chapters 78- 501 and 78-502 was clearly erroneous. The Commission had not intended to ban an existing menhaden purse seine fishery in those waters. Petitioner Blanchard filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court in Escambia County over the repeal of the allowance of purse seine nets with a minimum mesh of 2 5/8 inches and the ban on purse seine nets in those local waters. That litigation was dismissed due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner Blanchard then filed the challenge to the existing rule which is the subject of this proceeding. In an attempt to resolve the issues raised in Petitioner Blanchard's rule challenge, the Commission proposed to amend Section (3) of Rule 46-3.028, Florida Administrative Code, to correct its unintended ban of an ongoing menhaden purse seine fishery by permitting instead a limited harvest of menhaden using purse seines in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Under the proposed rule, which is also the subject of this proceeding, menhaden may be harvested in specified areas of the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties landward of the Colregs Demarcation Line with the use of a purse seine net only from a vessel with a documented length of less than 40 feet and with a purse seine net no longer than 400 yards. The proposed rule further provides that no harvesting of menhaden with a purse seine shall occur during any weekend or on any state holiday, limits any incidental bycatch to 2 percent by weight of all fish in possession of the harvester, and requires that any fish for which the Commission has established a bag limit shall be released free, alive, and unharmed. The proposed rule also includes a two-stage quota and an established fishing season for the commercial harvest of menhaden in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties which opens on June 1st of each year and closes on May 31st of the following year unless it is closed earlier in accordance with quota limits. The summer quota allows a commercial harvest of menhaden in those Counties' waters of 1,000,000 pounds during the period from June 1st to October 31st of each year. If that quantity is not netted, the season is closed on November 1st by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection and not reopened until the following June 1st. The winter season offers a quota of an additional 2,000,000 pounds. If the total commercial harvest of menhaden in those counties reaches 3,000,000 pounds (the 1,000,000 pounds during the summer plus the 2,000,000 pounds during the winter) before May 31st, the menhaden season for the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties shall be closed on the date that the harvest is projected to reach that amount and shall not reopen until the following June 1st. The Commission began the rulemaking procedures for the proposed amendment to Section (3) of Rule 46-3.028, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner Florida Conservation Association (hereinafter "FCA") filed its challenge to the proposed rule. In the proposed rule, the Commission makes a specific finding that the harvest of menhaden through the use of purse seine nets in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties during the summer months serves the public purpose of avoiding the nuisance and public health problems associated with the menhaden die-offs. The Commission also specifically finds that harvesting menhaden with purse seines will not adversely affect the long-term abundance of menhaden in the area so long as appropriate restrictions on seasonal and total annual harvest are adopted. Menhaden bring a low economic return in the marketplace. During the summer months when demand is low, commercial fishermen are paid approximately $.05 per pound for menhaden. The price increases slightly during the winter months when there is a demand for menhaden, for example, in Louisiana where it is used as bait for crawfish traps and crab traps. That demand is primarily served by large commercial operations using large vessels and long nets to harvest menhaden in the Gulf of Mexico, not in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Similarly, the fish reduction industry (the processing of fish such as menhaden to make fish meal and to extract fish oils for industrial purposes) is primarily served by large commercial operations harvesting menhaden in the Gulf of Mexico. There is a Marine Fisheries Information System maintained by the Florida Marine Research Institute of the Department of Environmental Protection. Licensed wholesale seafood dealers fill out trip tickets reporting the type of fish, amount of fish caught, and the county where the fish are landed, whenever those dealers purchase fish from licensed fishermen. The Department receives approximately 30,000 trip tickets per month from its approximately 700 licensed wholesale seafood dealers in the State of Florida. The data from those trip tickets is entered into a computer, and the resulting statistics are relied upon by the State of Florida and by the federal government to make fishery management decisions. It can take as long as six months for the data to become part of the computer data base and as long as two years for all of the data to be edited and considered to be in final form. Because of that time lag, the Florida Marine Research Institute has implemented procedures for fish which are subject to quotas. For those fish, employees of the Institute do not wait to receive trip tickets from the dealers; rather, they commence telephone contact with the dealers who historically deal in that type of fish, maintaining telephone contact on a daily basis if necessary when it is projected that the harvest quota may be reached. Although menhaden are both a bait fish and an industrial fish, they are required to be coded on the trip tickets specifically as menhaden and not under the general category of industrial fish. Reporting on the trip tickets the name of the county where the fish were landed is mandatory although reporting the area fished, i.e., where the fish are actually caught, is optional. Although there is some evidence that menhaden caught in Tampa Bay were sometimes landed there and then transported by truck along the interstate highway system to fish houses and processing plants in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, there is no evidence that menhaden caught in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties have been transported by boat and landed outside of those counties. Further, there is no likelihood that such will be done under the limited boat and net size required under the proposed rule. There is no evidence that it is economically feasible for such small boats to travel through Escambia Bay and into the Gulf of Mexico to other counties or states to avoid reporting their menhaden harvest. Although it would be better for the Department's trip tickets to report the area where the fish were caught, it is likely that menhaden harvested by boats under 40 feet in the inside waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties will be landed in those counties and, therefore, captured by the Department's information gathering system, as it is currently operated. The menhaden team of the National Marine Fisheries Service, in cooperation with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, has calculated the maximum sustainable yield for Gulf of Mexico menhaden at 1.75 billion pounds. The maximum sustainable yield is the amount of fish that can be harvested annually without depleting the population of that fish. The 1993 menhaden harvest from the entire Gulf of Mexico was 1.19 billion pounds. The National Marine Fisheries Service performs annual stock assessments of Gulf menhaden. Its current assessment is that menhaden are not being overfished in the Gulf of Mexico. The federal government considers Gulf of Mexico menhaden as a single stock for management purposes. There are no indications that there is a biological problem in the Gulf-wide menhaden fishery. The Gulf stock of menhaden has been increasing in numbers since 1960. The proposed rule provides for a managed fishery for menhaden in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties by allowing a limited harvest. The 1,000,000 pound quota for the summer portion of the fishing season is consistent with the volume of menhaden harvested in the inside waters of those Counties at the behest of those local governments and pursuant to the Department's Special Activities Licenses issued to reduce the fish die-offs in those areas, plus the volume of dead menhaden which the local governments haul to the landfill yearly. The overall 3,000,000 pound annual harvest quota was determined by calculating the peak landings for that area which had been approximately 2.1 to 2.2 million pounds yearly, plus the approximate 640,000 pounds of dead menhaden hauled away. Therefore, the summer quota of 1,000,000 pounds, plus the winter quota of 2,000,000 pounds, comprising the annual quota of 3,000,000 pounds, is a reasonable sustainable harvest. The proposed rule will serve a public purpose by helping to alleviate the summer menhaden kills in the upper bayous in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties and will not adversely affect the menhaden population for the Gulf of Mexico. Until 1988, there was an active menhaden fishery in Tampa Bay. Suddenly, there was a dramatic decline or collapse of the Tampa Bay menhaden fishery. There still exists a lively debate on whether the disappearance of menhaden from Tampa Bay was caused by over-fishing and/or the 1988 massive acid spill into the Alafia River by the Gardinier Corporation and/or improved water quality in Tampa Bay and/or whether the disappearance of menhaden in Tampa Bay was caused by a shift in the range of where menhaden are found. There are dissimilarities between Tampa Bay and Escambia Bay. Tampa Bay was on the edge of the range for menhaden, while Escambia Bay is in the middle of the range of the menhaden population. Spotter planes were used in Tampa Bay to locate the schools of menhaden, but spotter planes have not been used to locate menhaden in Escambia Bay. Moreover, there were no regulations in place for the menhaden fishery in Tampa Bay. The proposed rule would limit and control the menhaden harvest in Escambia Bay at a time when the population is plentiful and a decline is not expected. The proposed rule with its two-phase quota has been developed by the Commission in a conscious attempt to avoid what happened in Tampa Bay. The quota prevents the dramatic increase in menhaden harvests which occurred in Tampa Bay and provides that if the summer quota is not met, which would signal a decline in the population, the fishery is automatically closed. Although menhaden have been harvested by large "motherships" in the Gulf of Mexico, mothership operations have not been conducted in Escambia Bay or the other waters in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties. Even with mothership operations, fish are removed from the nets and loaded directly onto the mothership. They are not caught by small boats, loaded onto those small boats, then off loaded from the small boats onto the mothership. Motherships would also be prohibited in those waters since the proposed rule limits the size of vessels to under 40 feet. The Commission does not have a mandate to ban commercial fishing in the State of Florida. Rather, its mandate is to allow reasonable means and quantities of harvest, which the proposed rule does but which the total ban under the existing regulation does not. The proposed rule also allows for a reasonable management of resources, while the existing rule does not. The proposed rule is based upon the best information available to the Commission at this time. On the other hand, the ban contained in the existing rule was enacted in the absence of data showing the need for a ban. Prior to passage of the existing ban, no studies were done, no data was gathered, and there was no finding as to any problem with the menhaden fishery in the waters of Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Hispanic male who was employed as a sales host in the pastry department of the Respondent, Les Chefs de France, a restaurant located in the French Pavilion of Epcot Center at Walt Disney World. On August 12, 1983, the Petitioner and another employee of the Respondent, Mr. Kenneth Day, a non-Hispanic, were involved in a fight in Respondent's cooler, a refrigerated room located on the Respondent's premises. Ms. Brenda Kennedy was working in the Respondent's salad department at the time and she and another employee, Charles Hammel, were present in the cooler and witnessed the fight. Mr. Day had entered the cooler to pick up some supplies and was in the process of taking a tray out of a tram or rack when the Petitioner walked into the cooler and peremptorily told Day to get out of his way. When Day requested that the Petitioner wait until he was finished, the Petitioner shoved the tray back into the tram and pushed Day towards the back of the cooler. The Petitioner then began hitting Day with his fists. Francois Fourreau, the executive chef for the Respondent, heard a noise in the cooler at that point, looked through the window and saw Day holding the Petitioner and the Petitioner throwing punches at Day. Fourreau entered the cooler, separated the two men and directed them to leave the place of employment immediately. The Petitioner reported to the Walt Disney World infirmary and told the nurse to examine him, that he had been assaulted by another employee. A medical record prepared by that nurse indicated that the Petitioner suffered a laceration on his right hand and abrasions on his left arm. (Petitioner's composite exhibit 1 in evidence). Walt Disney World security was notified of the incident. Written statements regarding their versions of the incident were prepared by the Petitioner, Kenneth Day, Brenda Kennedy, and Francois Fourreau. Copies of them were provided to Bernie Juban, the Respondent's general manager. (See Respondent's exhibits 1 and 3 in evidence). On August 13, 1983, John Thall, who was the -assistant manager of food and beverages for the Respondent, met with Juban to discuss the incident. After reviewing the written statements, the two men decided that both Petitioner and Mr. Day should be terminated from employment in accordance with the established, consistent company policy which prohibited fighting on the job. The Petitioner was notified of this decision by a letter signed by Juban dated August 15, 1983. Day received a similar termination letter. The Petitioner acknowledges the existence of the company policy which provides that fighting may result in termination of all parties involved. This policy is contained in the employee policy handbook, which was in existence at the time of the incident and was given to all employees, including the Petitioner, at the time of their hire (Respondent's exhibit 2 in evidence). No employee who instigated or actively participated in an altercation during restaurant hours has been allowed to continue in the employ of the Respondent according to this policy which was shown to be consistently enforced. A previous incident had occurred between Mr. Fourreau and Eduardo Davilla, in which Davilla began punching Fourreau, his supervisor, in a disagreement over a work assignment. This altercation resulted in Davilla's termination, although Fourreau was not disciplined. Petitioner references this as an instance of Hispanics being discriminated against by the Respondent in favor of French Nationals employed by the Respondent. In that instance, however, Fourreau did not instigate nor actively participate in the altercation and thus the policy was not applicable to him. He simply put his arm in front of his face to protect himself. Mr. Thall had witnessed this incident, intervened in it, and stopped it by restraining Mr. Davilla from behind. This incident is further explained in Respondent's exhibit 5 in evidence. Prior to August 12, 1983, Mr. Day had threatened or in some other manner had an altercation with a supervisor, Christine Grassiot. Mr. Day was not disciplined by the Respondent for that incident. After the Respondent received the notice regarding the alleged discrimination in the instant case, Ms. Grassiot prepared a statement indicating that Mr. Day was only trying to irritate her at the time and that the episode was a totally personal matter between the two of them. The Respondent had no prior knowledge of this incident until the Petitioner alleged it in this cause as a basis for trying to show selective enforcement of the above policy. Prior to August 12, 1983, Day also reportedly had a disagreement of some sort with another employee of the Respondent, Kiki Babalagua, apparently involving him bumping into her with a "sheet pan" in the restaurant. Ms. Babalagua informed Brenda Kennedy of the incident and Day explained to Kennedy that he had accidentally bumped into her and apologized for it. In any event, this was not a fight or altercation as contemplated by the above-mentioned policy. Both Kennedy and Fourreau established that Ms. Babalagua was a difficult employee in terms of her personal relations with others and was "hard to get along with." She was later transferred to another location at her own request because she wanted to broaden her knowledge of the restaurant business and learn to work with pastries. Prior to August 12, 1983, Jean Luc Nichols, an employee of the Respondent working in a test kitchen at Disney Central Foods, was transferred by the Respondent at the personal request of a Walt Disney World manager, Mr. John Cardone, apparently to avoid a personality conflict. There is no evidence to show that Ms. Nichols was transferred because of a fight or other altercation. Finally, Petitioner acknowledges that the phrase "les imigres" translates in English as "the immigrants" and is not a standard cultural slur in the French language. Additionally, the testimony of Mr. Fourreau refuted Petitioner's allegation that this phrase had assumed a particular derogatory or discriminatory meaning among employees and staff at the restaurant.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed by the Petitioner, Leonardo A. Zapata, be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED, this 25th day of July, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 1986. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph I : accepted, but not material to resolution of the material issues presented. : rejected as irrelevant. : rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence. (d): rejected as irrelevant. : accepted, but irrelevant. : rejected as contrary to the preponderant evidence. (a): rejected as constituting argument and not supported by the evidence. (b): rejected as constituting argument and discussion of evidence and testimony. (a): rejected as immaterial.- (b): accepted but immaterial in the full context of the witness's testimony. (c): (same as (b). : rejected as not supported by record evidence. (a): accepted, but not supportive of Petitioner's position. : rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. : (same as (b)) (a): rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. : accepted, but irrelevant to resolution of the material issues presented. : accepted, but immaterial. (d): accepted, but immaterial. (e): accepted but not dispositive in itself. (f): rejected as to its purported import; merely argument. : rejected as not supported by preponderant testimony and evidence. : accepted, but immaterial to resolution of the issues at bar. : (same as (g) above.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 1. - accepted - accepted - accepted - accepted - accepted - accepted - accepted - accepted - accepted - accepted Copies furnished: Leonardo A. Zapata Post Office Box 1934 Kissimmee, Florida 32742 Susan K. McKenna, Esquire Post Office Box 60 Orlando, Florida 32802 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent, The MG Herring Group, Inc. (MG Herring), was an employer of Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Xencom provides general maintenance, landscaping, housekeeping, and office cleaning services to retail facilities. In September of 2015, Xencom entered three contracts for services with CREFII Market Street Holdings, LLC (CREFII). The contracts were to provide maintenance, landscaping, and office cleaning services for a mall known as Market Street @ Heathbrook (Market Street) in Ocala, Florida. Michael Ponds, Xencom’s president, executed the contracts on behalf of Xencom. Two individuals executed the contracts on behalf of CREFII. One was Gar Herring, identified as Manager for Herring Ocala, LLC. The other was Bernard E. McAuley, identified as Manager of Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC. MG Herring was not a party or signatory to the contracts. MG Herring does not own or operate Market Street. A separate entity, The MG Herring Property Group, LLC (Property Group) operated Market Street. The contracts, in terms stated in an exhibit to them, established a fixed price for the year’s work, stated the scope of services, and detailed payment terms. They also identified labor and labor-related costs in detail that included identifying the Xencom employees involved, their compensation, and their weekly number of hours. The contract exhibits also identified operating costs, including equipment amortization, equipment repairs, fuel expenses, vacation costs, health insurance, and storage costs. The contracts ended December 31, 2016. The contracts specify that Xencom is an independent contractor. Each states: “Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the owner. Accordingly, neither Contractor nor any of Contractor’s Representatives shall hold themselves out as, or claim to be acting in the capacity of, an agent or employee of Owner.” The contracts also specify that the property manager may terminate the contract at any time without reason for its convenience. The contracts permit Xencom to engage subcontractors with advance approval of the property manager. They broadly describe the services that Xencom is to provide. Xencom has over 80 such contracts with different facilities. As the contracts contemplate, only Xencom exerted direct control of the Petitioners working at Market Street. Property Group could identify tasks and repairs to be done. Xencom decided who would do them and how. In 2013, Xencom hired Michael Harrison to work as its Operations Manager at Market Street. He was charged with providing services for which Property Group contracted. His immediate supervisor was Xencom’s Regional Manager. In 2016, that was David Snell. Mr. Snell was not located at Market Street. Property Group also did not have a representative on site. Before Xencom hired him, Mr. Harrison worked at Market Street for Property Group. Xencom hired the remaining Petitioners to work at Market Street under Mr. Harrison’s supervision. Each of the Petitioners completed an Application for Employment with Xencom. The application included a statement, initialed by each Petitioner, stating, “Further, I understand and agree that my employment is for no definite period and I may be terminated at any time without previous notice.” All of the Petitioners also received Xencom’s employee handbook. As Xencom’s Operations Manager and supervisor of the other Petitioners, Mr. Harrison was responsible for day-to-day management of Petitioners. He scheduled their work tasks, controlled shifts, established work hours, and assigned tasks. Mr. Harrison also decided when Petitioners took vacations and time off. His supervisor expected him to consult with Property Group to ensure it knew what support would be available and that he knew of any upcoming events or other considerations that should be taken into account in his decisions. As Operations Manager, Mr. Harrison was also responsible for facilitating payroll, procuring supplies, and managing Xencom’s equipment at the site. Xencom provided Petitioners work uniforms that bore Xencom’s name. Xencom required Petitioners to wear the uniforms at work. Xencom provided the supplies and equipment that Petitioners used at work. Only Xencom had authority to hire or fire the employees providing services to fulfill its contracts with the property manager. Only Xencom had authority to modify Petitioners’ conditions of employment. Neither MG Herring, Property Group, nor Xencom held out Petitioners as employees of MG Herring or Property Group. There is no evidence that MG Herring or Property Group employed 15 or more people. Property Group hired Tina Wilson as Market Street’s on- site General Manager on February 1, 2016. Until then there was no Property Group representative at the site. The absence of a Property Group representative on-site left Mr. Harrison with little oversight or accountability under the Xencom contracts for Market Street. His primary Property Group contact was General Manager Norine Bowen, who was not located at the property. Ms. Wilson’s duties included community relations, public relations, marketing, leasing, litigation, tenant coordination, lease management, construction management, and contract management. She managed approximately 40 contracts at Market Street, including Xencom’s three service agreements. Ms. Wilson was responsible for making sure the contracts were properly executed. Managing the Xencom contracts consumed less than 50 percent of Ms. Wilson’s time. During the last weeks of 2016, Mr. Harrison intended to reduce the hours of Kylie Smithers. Ms. Wilson requested that, since Ms. Smithers was to be paid under the contract for full- time work, Ms. Smithers assist her with office work such as filing and making calls. Mr. Harrison agreed and scheduled Ms. Smithers to do the work. This arrangement was limited and temporary. It does not indicate Property Group control over Xencom employees. Ms. Wilson was Xencom’s point of contact with Property Group. She and Mr. Harrison had to interact frequently. Ms. Wilson had limited contact with the other Xencom employees at Market Street. Friction and disagreements arose quickly between Mr. Harrison and Ms. Wilson. They may have been caused by having a property manager representative on-site after Mr. Harrison’s years as either the manager representative himself or as Xencom supervisor without a property manager on-site. They may have been caused by personality differences between the two. They may have been caused by the alleged sexual and crude comments that underlie the claims of discrimination in employment. They may have been caused by a combination of the three factors. On November 21, 2016, Norine Bowen received an email from the address xencomempoyees@gmail.com with the subject of “Open your eyes about Market Street.” It advised that some employees worked at night for an event. It said that Ms. Wilson gave the Xencom employees alcohol to drink while they were still on the clock. The email said that there was a fight among Xencom employees. The email also said that at another event at a restaurant where Xencom employees were drinking, Ms. Wilson gave Ms. Smithers margaritas to drink and that Ms. Smithers was underage. The email claimed that during a tree-lighting event Ms. Wilson started drinking around 3:30 p.m. It also stated that Ms. Wilson offered a Xencom employee a drink. The email went on to say that children from an elementary school and their parents were present and that Ms. Wilson was “three sheets to the wind.” The email concludes stating that Ms. Wilson had been the subject of three employee lawsuits. On December 14, 2016, Ms. Wilson, Ms. Bowen, and Mr. Snell met at Property Group’s office in Market Street for their regular monthly meeting to discuss operations at Market Street. Their discussion covered a number of management issues including a Xencom employee’s failure to show up before 8:00 to clean as arranged, security cameras, tenants who had not paid rent, lease questions, HVAC questions, and rats on the roof. They also discussed the email’s allegations. The participants also discussed a number of dissatisfactions with Mr. Harrison’s performance. Near the end of a discussion about the anonymous email, this exchange occurred:2/ Bowen: Okay, so I know that David [Snell], I think his next step is to conduct his own investigation with his [Xencom] people, and HR is still following up with John Garrett, and you’re meeting with Danny [intended new Xencom manager for Market Street] tonight? David Snell: Yes. Bowen: To finish up paperwork, and, based on his investigation, it will be up to Xencom to figure out what to do with people that are drinking on property, off the clock or on the clock, you know, whatever, what their policy is. * * * Bowen: So, I don’t know what to make of it. I’m just here to do an investigation like I’m supposed to do and David is here to pick up the pieces and meet with his folks one-on- one, and we’ll see where this takes us. This exchange and the remainder of the recording do not support a finding that Property Group controlled Xencom’s actions or attempted to control them. The participants were responsibly discussing a serious complaint they had received, their plan to investigate it, and pre-existing issues with Mr. Harrison. The exchange also makes clear that all agreed the issues involving Xencom employees were for Xencom to address, and the issues involving Property Group employees were for Property Group to address. At the time of the December 14, 2016, meeting, the participants were not aware of any complaints from Mr. Harrison or Mr. Smithers of sexual harassment or discrimination by Ms. Wilson. On December 15, 2016, Gar Herring and Norine Bowen received an email from Mr. Harrison with an attached letter to Xencom’s Human Resources Manager, and others. Affidavits from Petitioners asserting various statements and questions by Ms. Wilson about Mr. Harrison’s and Mr. Smithers’ sex life and men’s genitalia and statements about her sex life and the genitalia of men involved were attached. Xencom President Michael Ponds received a similar email with attachments on the same day. On December 21, 2016, Mr. Ponds received a letter from Herring Ocala, LLC, and Tricom Market Street at Heathbrook, LLC, terminating the service agreements. Their agreements with Xencom were going to expire December 31, 2016. They had been negotiating successor agreements. However, they had not executed any. Xencom terminated Petitioners’ employment on December 21, 2016. Xencom no longer needed Petitioners’ services once MG Herring terminated the contract with Xencom. This was the sole reason it terminated Petitioners.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitions of all Petitioners. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 11th day of May, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, had the sole authority to administer the Net Ban Assistant Program enacted in Section 370.0805, Florida Statutes. For purposes of this record, this program has been called the net buy-back program (or the program). The Petitioner, Stephen E. English, is a fisher who filed an application for assistance under the buy-back program on July 5, 1995. The Department received applications from many fishers who sought to participate in this program. Those fishers who were deemed eligible to receive assistance from the program were notified of a time and date certain to present their nets for buy-back. The Department advised all fishers that their claims would be processed on a first come, first served basis. The initial estimate of the total buy-back expense to the Department (and the assumption that the fund was sufficient to cover same) was based upon the types of nets listed on the buy-back applications which had been filed. For example, Petitioner listed that he would be selling 5,000 yards of gill net (49 meshes or less); 5,000 yards of gill net (50 meshes or more); 1,000 yards of beach, purse or seine net; and 4,000 yards of trammel net. Based upon the foregoing information, when the Department reviewed the Petitioner's application and the amounts applicable to each type of net was computed, it was presumed Petitioner would receive approximately $25,000.00 for his nets. This process was repeated for all applications filed and led the Department to believe that, based upon what the fishers had described in their applications, there would be sufficient funds to pay all fishers who were deemed eligible for all nets listed in their applications. When the Department made the decision to set appointments for the buy- back program it erroneously presumed the fishers would turn nets in as described in the applications. Therefore, although the appointments were to be on a first come, first served basis (based upon the date and time of the filing of the applications), the appointments were scheduled at various sites around the state on the basis of when applications were turned in, what nets were expected to be received, and total volume of work a location could be expected to do on a given day. Several buy-back sites were selected in an effort to accommodate the fishers hauling their nets in for sale. Had the Department used only one buy- back site, and set the appointments by time only, fishers traveling long distances to turn in their nets would have been inconvenienced. Delays inherent in the process of waiting for identification of nets and receiving them by the Department would have been greater than those incurred at the multiple sites. Since the Department did not expect any site to be able to handle more than 80 nets per day, the numbers of nets expected to be turned in also affected the scheduling of the appointments. None of these minor deviations from the first come, first served policy would have effected the buy-back program had the fishers, in fact, turned in nets according to their applications. That did not happen. Instead, when fishers presented nets for buy-back on the first days of the program in August, 1995, they turned in huge volumes of seine nets. The buy-back amount for a seine net was much greater than the other types of nets. As a result, the claims to the buy-back fund greatly exceeded the amounts initially computed by the Department. In fact, it became apparent that the fund could not repay fishers for all seines expected to be turned in. This impacted Petitioner because the first appointments for the buy- back program at Petitioner's buy-back site (Stuart or Salerno) began on September 5, 1995. Petitioner's appointment was for September 7, 1995 at 8:00 a.m. By September 5, 1995, the Department was in the process of evaluating claims and stopping the buy-back program. On September 6, 1995, at 5:00 p.m. the Department called a halt to the buy-back at all sites. On September 6, 1995, before the buy-back program was stopped, Petitioner attempted to sell his nets. He was advised by the Department's agents at the buy-back site that he would not be allowed to turn in his nets until his appointment time. Petitioner observed others, who had appointment times after his, being allowed to turn in their nets on September 6, 1995. The Department refused to purchase Petitioner's nets on September 6, 1995. The net purchase process can be described as follows: a fisher presented the net for purchase, it was identified by type, measured over a roller, and a voucher receipt issued. This procedure was repeated for each type of net turned in until all nets from a fisher were processed. Although unexpected by the Department some buy-back locations were able to process more than 80 nets per day using the described procedure. After the buy-back program was resumed, Petitioner was permitted to sell his nets but was advised he would only be paid for 1,200 yards of seine nets (the amount shown on his application). Petitioner was advised that the remainder of his nets would be acceptable in any other type other than seine net. Consequently, Petitioner was paid as follows: $11,608.68 for trammel nets, $6,999.60 for seine nets, and $10,382.51 for gill nets (50 meshes or more). Thus, the total Petitioner received for his nets was $28,990.79. The underlying problem with the buy-back program was caused when fishers who turned in nets ahead of Petitioner altered their nets to claim reimbursement as seine nets. Since the appointment letters did not advise fishers that they would only be able to sell the nets described on their applications, the fishers took advantage of the definition of "seine" net as then in effect and presented "seine" nets at the buy-back locations. In response to this definition issue, the Department enacted an emergency rule, 38BER95-1, to define the types of seine nets more particularly so that the integrity of the buy-back program was assured. Persons who were given vouchers for their "seine" nets who were later disallowed have filed a class action lawsuit against the Department. Petitioner did not receive a voucher for his nets on September 6, 1995, so he is not a member of the class action suit. Petitioner maintains he should have received a voucher for his nets on September 6, 1995; that he was treated differently than others whose nets were purchased at his site on September 5 and 6, 1995; and that he has been damaged and should receive a voucher from the net buy-back program in the amount of $55,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order denying Petitioner's claim for additional compensation based upon the nets returned under the buy-back program, and dismissing Petitioner's request for a voucher or to make him a member of the class action lawsuit. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-5781 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 through 6, and 14 through 17 are accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 13, 18 and 19 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence, argument, or irrelevant. Further, it is concluded that Petitioner had no vested right to sell his nets before 8:00 a.m. September 7, 1995. Since the program had been suspended by that time, he was compensated according to the rules and his application at the next appointment date and time. Thus, he was paid all monies contemplated under his original application. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Paragraphs 1 through 18, and 22 through 38 are hereby accepted and adopted by reference. With regard to paragraph 19, it is rejected as repetitive. With regard to paragraph 20, it is rejected as irrelevant. With the correction to September 6, 1995 at 5:00 p.m., paragraph 21 is accepted. The Department bought no nets on September 7, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Louise T. Sadler, Senior Attorney Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Stephen E. English, pro se Post Office Box 814 Port Salerno, Florida 34992 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
