10-007920 Tania Aponte vs. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 31, 2011.

Summary: Employer discharged employee for chronic absenteeism, not on account of her gender or as retaliation for an unfounded complaint of sexual harassment. The employee's supervisor did not subject her to sexual harrasment. Employee did not prove her claims.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

TANIA APONTE , )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 10 - 7920

)

WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. , )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge, John D. C. New ton, II, of the

Division of Administrative Hearings, heard this case, as

noticed, on April 1 , 201 1 , by video teleconference at sites in

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire

Karlin Law Group, P.A.

400 Southeast Eighth Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

For Respondent: Teresa Ragatz, Esquire

Isicoff, Ragatz & Koenigsberg

1200 Brickell Avenue , Suite 1900

Miami, Florida 33131

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

A. Did sexual harassment of Petitioner, Tania Aponte

(Ms. Aponte), if any, create a hostile work environment?

B. Did Respo ndent , Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Watson )

discriminate against Ms. Aponte based on her gender by

terminati ng her employment in March 2009?

C. Did Watson retaliate against Ms. Aponte for complaining

a bout alleged sexual harassment?

PRELIMINARY STATEMEN T

On February 15, 2010, Ms. Aponte executed a Charge of

Discrimination against Watson alleging that, in July 2008, her

then - supervisor sexually harassed her , that Watson terminated

her employment as a Manufacturing Tech I in March 2009 , and that

her termi nation constituted gender discrimination and

retaliation for having complained a bout alleged sexual

harassment. The Florida Commission on Human Relations

(Commission) investigated the complaint. On July 2, 2010, the

Commission issued its Notice of Determ ination that there was no

reasonable cause to believe that Watson committed an unlawful

employment practice. The Commission dismissed Ms. Aponte ' s

complaint.

Ms. Aponte filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful

Employment Practice with the Commission on August 5, 2010. The

Commission referred the Petition to the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) on August 16, 2010. The

undersigned scheduled the hearing in this matter to begin on

November 19, 2010. Due to the unavailability of one of Watso n ' s

witnesses, the hearing was continued to January 7, 2011 . Later

the hearing was continued to April 1, 2011 , on Ms. Aponte ' s

motion . The hearing was held on April 1, 2011 , as scheduled.

Ms. Aponte testified on her own behalf. Ms. Aponte offered

the fo llowing exhibits that were accepted into evidence:

Petitioner ' s Exhibits 1 - 3 , and the time card print - outs for

Arnold Phillips , Emile Jean - Phillipe, Arlinson Hernandez, Keisha

Noel, Alexis McElhaney, Jennifer Domenech, and Ian Anderson. 1

Watson presented the testimony of Maritza Pantigozo, Cor ey

Washington, and Tysaun Cook. Watson offered the following

exhibits that were accepted into evidence: Respondent ' s Exhibits

1 - 85 .

Petitioner moved for and was granted an extension of the

time for filing a propos ed recommended order. The parties

timely filed P roposed Recommended O rders that have been

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order .

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the testimony and other evidence presented at the

final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the

following findings of fact are made:

1. Ms. Aponte is a female.

2. Watson is a pharmaceutical company that manufactures

generic brand medic ines.

3. Ms. Aponte began working for Watson on November 13,

2006 , as a Process O perator I. During her employment with

Watson, Ms. Aponte received two promotions, first to Process

Operator II and then to Manufacturing Tech I . At all times

during her employment, Watson categorized Ms. Aponte as a " non -

exempt employee. " This means her position was not exempt from

the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour

laws.

4 . Watson gave Ms. Aponte a Watson Employee Handbook when

she started work . Ms. Aponte signed a receipt for th e handbook .

The receipt expressly acknowledged her responsibility to read,

know, and follow the personnel policies and practices described

in handbook.

5. Watson records and tracks its nonexempt employees ' time

records through the Kronos time recordkeeping system. This

computerized system relies upo n employees " swiping " their

identification cards to " clock in " and " clock out. "

6. During her t ime with Watson, Ms. Aponte accrued paid

time off ( " PTO " ) which combin ed traditional vacation and sick

leave . Watson permitted employees to use PTO to take t ime off

without consequence if they follow ed proper approval procedures .

7 . Watson ' s Policies and Procedures Manual sets forth

Watson ' s attendance policy. Watson ' s Employee Handbook , which

Ms. Aponte received and was bound to read and follow, also sets

forth the attendance policy. The Handbook advises that

attendance and punctuality are considered to be part of an

employee ' s overall job performance. It states: " Maintaining a

good attendance record is very important. " The Handbook also

cautions that " excessive or unauthorized absences and/or

tardiness may result in disciplinary action, up to and including

termination. "

8 . The Handbook defines an " occurrence, " describes when

occurrences are incurred , and describes the number of

occurrences resulting fr om specified conduct. Effectively

occurrences function as a unit of measure for disciplinary

offenses. An employee incurs o ne half of an occurrence if she

is less than two hours late, leaves early , or takes excessiv ely

long or frequent breaks.

9 . An em ployee incurs o ne occurrence if she is absent for

a full day or part of a day. An employee also incurs one

occurrence if she fails to follow the prescribed call - in

procedures. This is in addition to the occurrence incurred for

the absence.

10 . The Han dbook establishes call - in procedures. It

requires an employee who is going to be unexpectedly absent to

speak directly to her supervisor within 30 minutes of the

scheduled start time , not leave a voice mail message. If the

employee cannot reach the super visor , then she is to speak to

the next level of management or a member of the human resources

department. A voice mail message is acceptable only if the

employee has tried and failed to reach her supervisor, the next

level of management, and the human re sources department.

1 1 . The call - in procedure is only for unexpected absences.

The Handbook requires, whenever possible, that employees request

and receive advance written approval for an absence. Unless

otherwise specified by a supervisor , Watson emp loyees, including

Ms. Aponte, were required to obtain 24 hours advance approval of

a n absence.

1 2 . The Handbook also provides that any absence or

tardiness from work not approved in advance will result in an

attendance occurrence.

13 . The Handbook al so establishes what constitutes

" excessive absenteeism. " A n employee is considered to be

excessively absent if that employee incurs seven or more

attendance occurrences within a rolling 12 - month period.

1 4 . Ms. Aponte knew that excessive absenteeism wo uld

result in disciplinary action, up to and including termin ation

of employment. She also knew of the " occurrence " system and

standards.

1 5 . Throughout her employment with Watson, Ms. Aponte had

a chronic absenteeism problem . The problem persisted rega rdless

of who supervised Ms. Aponte.

16 . Ms. Anna Bohorquez was Ms. Aponte ' s first supervisor.

On October 25, 2007, Ms. Bohorquez presented Ms. Aponte with a

counseling memorandum, emphasizing the importance of attendance

and punctuality. The memorandum stated that, over the last

quarter, Ms. Aponte had several days on which she had not

reported to work. It documented that Ms. Aponte had been

counseled about her attendance.

1 7 . The memorandum concluded with the bold face heading

" Consequence should i ncident occur again : " followed by the

statement: " If further violations of this nature and/or

violations of other company policies, GMPs, SOPs [occur, they]

will result in further disciplinary action up to and including

termination of employment. "

1 8 . Ms . Aponte admits that, as of October 2007, she

certainly knew the importance of complying with attendance

policies and the seriousness of the potential consequences of

continuing to violate Watson ' s attendance policy.

1 9 . Ms. Aponte's June 18, 2008, perfor mance review by

Ms. Bohorquez recorded Ms. Aponte's lack of dependability,

defined as "[r]egular, punctual attendance and timely return

from breaks; willingness to work overtime." The plan of action

for improvement or progress specified Ms. Aponte's nee d to

improve her punctuality and attendance.

20 . On or about June 25, 2008, Ms. Bohorquez counseled

Ms. Aponte again about attendance and provided her a verbal

warning. The basis for the warning was that, during the rolling

year, Ms. Aponte had accrued 2 1 and one - half occurrences.

Ms. Bohorquez provided a Corrective Action Notice. The Notice

accurately stated that the issues of attendance and punctuality

had been discussed with Ms. Aponte in the past, that Ms. Aponte

previously had been counseled for her attendance on October 25,

2007, and that her attendance had not improved.

21 . The Notice specifically stated: "Tania is expected to

improve her attendance drastically and comply with Watson's

Attendance and Punctuality policy at all times."

22 . The "Plan for Improvement" in the Notice stated

bluntly:

It is imperative that Tania improve her

attendance immediately. She must fully

comply with the Watson's Attendance and

Punctuality [sic], as unplanned absences are

not allowed. Further violation of t his

policy will result in further disciplinary

action up to and including termination.

2 3 . After Ms. Aponte ' s annual performance review,

Ms. Bohorquez and another supervisor, Corey Washington, switched

shifts for a couple of months. During that time Ms. Aponte

reported to Mr. Washington. Her attendance problems continued.

2 4 . Ms. Aponte worked an eight - hour shift. Like all

employees she was permitted to take two 30 - minute breaks during

her shift. On July 17, 2008, Mr. Washington issued Ms. Aponte a

C orrective Action Notice for exceeding her break time. The

written warning stated that Ms. Aponte left for her break at

4:45 p.m. and returned to the floor at 6:00 p.m. , taking a break

of one hour and 15 minutes. Ms. Aponte had been on her break

with a ma le co - worker, Arlinson Hernandez. Mr. Washington

issued Mr. Hernandez an identical written warning for exceeding

his break time.

2 5 . After receiving the written warning, Ms. Aponte went

to the Human Resources Department to complain that the written

warni ng issued by Mr. Washington was too harsh. She requested

that it be downgraded to a verbal warning. Ms. Aponte met with

Maritza Pantigozo, Senior Human Resources Representative.

Ms. Aponte admitted that she had taken an excessively long

break. She just claimed that her break had not been as long as

stated in the Corrective Action Notice. However, although the

Corrective Action Notice provides that Ms. Aponte could place a

written response to the disciplinary action in her human

resources file, she neve r did so.

2 6 . Ms. Pantigozo denied Ms. Aponte ' s request to downgrade

the warning because of Ms. Aponte ' s record of corrective actions

and attendance problems. Human Resources downgraded

Mr. Hernandez ' s written warning to a verbal warning because,

unlik e Ms. Aponte, he had a clean file and had not established a

pattern of excessive absenteeism.

2 7 . When Ms. Aponte requested downgrade of the warning and

in a subsequent meeting , she also claimed that Mr. Washington

had once asked her if she was having ph one sex with her

boyfriend when she was talking on the telephone during work

hours. Watson investigated the complaint in accordance with its

sexual harassment policies.

28. No persuasive evidence establishes that Mr. Washington

made that comment or any of the other inappropriate comments

that Ms. Aponte now claims he made. The timing of Ms. Aponte ' s

claims, the fact that personal telephone use during work hours

was not permitted, and the demeanor s of Mr. Washington and

Ms. Aponte when testifying are pe rsuasive evidence that he did

not make the comments alleged.

2 9 . Shortly afterwards, Mr. Washington and Ms. Bohorquez

switched back to their original shifts. Ms. Bohorquez once

again supervised Ms. Aponte.

30 . On October 27, 2008, Ms. Bohorquez issued Ms. Aponte a

Corrective Action Notice because Ms. Aponte had accrued 13

occurrences for attendance during the 12 - month rolling year.

Five of the occurrences had been incurred since Ms. Bohorquez

had issued her last warning to Ms. Aponte in June 2008. Th e

Notice stated in bold print that any future incident of this or

similar nature may result in additional corrective action, up to

and including termination.

31 . On December 2, 2008, Ms. Bohorquez issued a Corrective

Action Notice to Ms. Aponte. Ms. Boh orquez issued the Notice

because Ms. Aponte had incurred 10 and one - half occurrences

during the 12 - month rolling year for attendance and punctuality.

The Final Written Warning noted that, on November 30, 2008,

Ms. Aponte had reported to work three hours late without

authorization. It also noted occurrences for dress code

violations and product production procedure violations in

addition to Ms. Aponte ' s absenteeism violations.

32 . The " Plan for Improvement " section of the notice

stated: " A Final writt en warning is being issued to Tania for

attendance and punctuality. She is expected to drastically

improve and sustain her attendance pattern immediately to avoid

termination. "

3 3 . On December 18, 2008, Ms. Bohorquez issued an addendum

to the December 2 Notice. The addendum corrected the Notice to

state that an audit of Ms. Aponte ' s attendance records

determined that Ms. Aponte had incurred 13 occurrences in the

prior 12 month rolling period, not the 10 and one - half reported

in the December 2 Notice.

3 4 . The addendum reiterated the previous warnings about

the importance of attendance and the likelihood of termination

with any further occurrences. It stated:

Tania must fully comply with Watson ' s

Attendance and Punctuality Policy. This

includes bein g present for work and arriving

on time, and timely returns from breaks. If

Tania earns 1.0 occurrence she will reach

the next level of disciplinary action, which

is termination.

Ms. Aponte understood that she would be terminated if she

incurred just one more occurrence.

3 5 . Ms. Bohorquez issued the Notice because of

Ms. Aponte ' s work record, including her chronic absenteeism.

There is no persuasive evidence that the Notice was related in

any way to Ms. Aponte ' s complaint about Mr. Washington.

3 6 . Afte r she received the December 2008 Final Written

Warning from Ms. Bohorquez, Watson transferred Ms. Aponte , at

her request, to the second shift under the supervision of Tysaun

Cook.

3 7 . When Ms. Aponte started working on Mr. Cook ' s shift,

he received her employee packet. From it Mr. Cook learned that

Ms. Aponte was on a final written warning. Mr. Cook spoke to

Ms. Aponte about her attendance and made sure that she

understood that another occurrence could result in her

termination.

3 8 . On March 4, 2009, while under Mr. Cook ' s supervision,

Ms. Aponte incurred another occurrence. She did not come to

work that day and did not seek or receive approval to take the

time off.

3 9 . Ms. Aponte knew in advance that she was going to miss

work on March 4, 2009. She planned to miss work that day to

attend school orientation. Ms. Aponte also knew that she had

used up all of her accrued PTO.

40 . On March 3, 2009, Ms. Aponte spoke to Ms. Pantigozo in

Human Resources. At the time Ms. Pantigozo was not the Human

Re sources representative responsible for the division where

Ms. Aponte worked. Ms. Aponte did not ask Ms. Pantigozo for

authorization to take March 4 off or advise her that she

intended to miss work on March 4. And Ms. Pantigozo did not

tell Ms. Aponte tha t sh e could miss work on March 4. Ms. Aponte

spoke to Ms. Pantigozo solely to try to determine if she could

get away with missing work that day under the occurrence

accounting system. Her conversation with Ms. Pantigozo

consisted of general inquiries abo ut the occurrence and

attendance policies.

41 . On March 4, 2009, Ms. Aponte did not come to work.

She left a voice mail message for Mr. Cook that she would not be

coming to work that day. This violated Watson ' s call - in policy,

because Ms. Aponte did not speak to Mr. Cook directly, attempt

to speak with the next level supervisor, or, failing that, speak

to a Human Resources representative.

42. As significantly , the absence did not qualify for

reliance on the call - in policy because it was not an unexpec ted

absence. Both Ms. Aponte ' s testimony and her Proposed

Recommended Order acknowledge that, at the least, she knew on

March 3, 2009, that Ms. Aponte intended to miss work on March 4,

2009 . B ut she did not attempt to contact her supervisor until

March 4 , 2009.

43 . Mr. Cook advised Human Resources of Ms. Aponte ' s

violation of policy. He recommended that Watson follow the

governing procedures and terminate Ms. Aponte. Her employment

history of excessive absenteeism, the fact that she was on final

warni ng, and the incurrence of another occurrence were the sole

reasons that Mr. Cook recommended termination.

4 4 . Watson terminated Ms. Aponte approximately eight

months after her single complaint that Mr. Washington made an

inappropriate comment to her. Du ring those eight months, two

different supervisors assessed occurrences against her for

absenteeism and warned her that further unapproved absences

could result in termination.

4 5 . By Ms. Aponte ' s own testimony, the final occurrence

violated Watson ' s at tendance policies. She admits that she

planned in advance to miss work to attend school orientation.

And she admits that she did not attempt to notify her supervisor

until the day of the absence although attending the orientation

was not an unexpected ab sence.

4 6 . There is no persuasive evidence that Watson terminated

Ms. Aponte because of her unfounded complaint about

Mr. Washington. The persuasive evidence establishes that Watson

terminated Ms. Aponte in full compliance with its policies and

procedu res for her accrued occurrences and her documented record

of excessive absenteeism.

4 7 . No persuasive evidence established that Watson treated

Ms. Aponte differently than similarly situated males.

4 8 . Ms. Aponte identified eight employees she maintains

w ere similarly situated employees not in her protected class who

Watson treated diff e rently. The y are: Ian Anderson, Jennifer

Domenech, Arlinson Hernandez, Alexis McElhaney, Keisha Noel,

Emile Jean - Phillipe, Arnold Phillips, and Valmyr Vavick. Only

Ian A nderson, Arlinson Hernandez, Emile Jean - Phillipe, Arnold

Phillips, and Valymr Vavick were proven to be male. Persuasive

evidence did not establish that they were similarly situated to

Ms. Aponte or whether they were disciplined and to what degree.

C ONCLU SIONS OF LAW

4 9 . Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes

(2010), grant DOAH jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

proceeding and of the parties.

50 . Section 760.10 (1)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), makes

it unlawful for an employer to t ake adverse action against an

individual because of the individual ' s sex. Section 760.10(7)

makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any

person because that person has opposed an unlawful employment

practice.

51 . Section 760.11(7), Fl orida Statutes (2010), permits a

party who receives a no cause determination to request a formal

administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative

Hearings. " If the administrative law judge finds that a

violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred,

he or she shall issue an appropriate recommended order to the

commission prohibiting the practice and recommending affirmative

relief from the effects of the practice, including back pay. "

Id.

52 . The Florida Legislature patterned Chapter 760 after

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Consequently, Florida courts look to federal case law when

interpreting Chapter 760. Valenzuela v GlobeGround N . Am . ,

LLC. , 18 So. 3d 17, 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

Discrimination Cl aim

53 . A party may prove unlawful sex discrimination by

direct or circumstantial evidence. Carter v. City of Miami , 870

F.2d 578, 581 (llth Cir. 1989). Direct evidence did not

establish unlawful discrimination in this case.

5 4 . The evidence establi shed, as set forth in the findings

of fact, that Watson discharged Ms. Aponte in compliance with

it s policies and procedures for her chronic , documented

absenteeism. It also established that Watson provided

Ms. Aponte clear and ample notice that her poor attendance was a

significant issue and would result in termination if it did not

improve.

5 5 . To prove unlawful discrimination by circumstantial

evidence, a party must establish a prima facie case of

discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. If

successful, this creates a presumption of discrimination. Then

the burden shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate, non -

discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the

employer meets that burden, the presumption disappears and the

em ployee must prove that the legitimate reasons were a pretext.

Valenzuela v . GlobeGround N . Am . , LLC . , 18 So. 3d 17, 21 (Fla.

3rd DCA 2009); Wascura v. City of South Miami , 257 F.3d 1238,

1242 (11th Cir. 2001). Facts that are sufficient to establish a

pri ma facie case must be adequate to permit an inference of

discrimination. Id .

5 6 . The record is not sufficient to establish a prima

facie case.

5 7 . Ms. Aponte argues that Watson treated her differently

than similarly situated male employees. But t he facts

established by the persuasive evidenc e do not support the

argument. Only five of the employees identified as similarly

situated were proven to be males. The scant evidence about

their employment at Watson was not sufficient to establish that

the y were similarly situated or treated differently.

Retaliation Claim

5 8 . Ms. Aponte did not establish that Watson retaliated

against her for complaining of gender discrimination. The court

in Blizzard v. Appliance Direct, Inc. , 16 So. 3d 922, 926 (Fla.

5 th DCA 2009), described the analysis required for a retaliation

claim. The opinion says:

To establish a prima facie case of

retaliation under section 760.10(7), a

plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that he or

she engaged in statutorily protected

activity; ( 2) that he or she suffered

adverse employment action; and (3) that the

adverse employment action was causally

related to the protected activity. See

Harper v. Blockbuster Entm ' t Corp., 139 F.3d

1385 (11th Cir.), cert . denied , 525 U.S.

1000, 119 S. Ct. 509 , 142 L. Ed. 2d 422

(1998). Once the plaintiff makes a prima

facie showing, the burden shifts and the

defendant must articulate a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse

employment action. Wells v. Colorado Dep ' t

of Transp. , 325 F.3d 1205, 1 212 (10th Cir.

2003). The plaintiff must then respond by

demonstrating that defendant ' s asserted

reasons for the adverse action are

pretextual. Id .

59 . Ms. Aponte ' s complaint about Mr. Washington was a

st a tutorily protected activity. Her discharge is an adverse

employment action. But the adverse employment action was not

related to her complaint about Mr. Washington. Therefore she

did not establish a prima facie case of retal ia tion.

Hostile Work Environment

6 0 . Ms. Aponte advances a sexually hostil e work

environment claim. Under Title VII and Section 760.10, Florida

Statutes (2009), a plaintiff can establish gender discrimination

through sexual harassment that creates a hostile work

environment, by showing:

(1) that she belongs to a protected group ;

(2) that she has been subjected to unwelcome

sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment

was based on her sex; (4) that the

harassment was sufficiently severe or

pervasive to alter the terms and conditions

of employment and create a discriminatorily

abusi ve working environment; and (5) that a

basis for holding the employer liable

exists.

Cotton v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. , 434 F.3d 1227,

1231 (11th Cir. 2006). Ms. Aponte was not subjected to

unwelcome sexual harassment. She claims that Mr. Washington

made many sexual comments to her, including asking her if she

was having phone sex. The claims were not proven by persuasive

evidence. Consequently she did not establish her hostile work

environment claim.

61 . The facts do not support Ms. Ap onte ' s claims of sexual

discrimination and retaliation.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

Relations deny the Petition of Tania Aponte in FCHR Case Number

20 10 - 012 50 .

DONE AND EN TERED this 31st day of May , 201 1 , 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 3 2399 - 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 31st day of May , 201 1 .

ENDNOTE

1 Due to inconsistencies in the transcript and the manner in

which the exhibits were numbered, the exhibit numbers for the

employee time record s are less than clear. Consequently , for

clarity of the record they are identified by the employee name.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 3 2301

Stewart Lee Karlin, Esquire

Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C.

400 Southeast 8th Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316

Teresa Ragatz, Esquire

Isicoff, Ragatz & Koenigsberg, P.A.

1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900

Miami, Florida 33131

Larry Kranert, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the dat e of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.