G & B OF JACKSONVILLE, INC., D/B/A THE CLIMAX, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF BEVERAGE, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1978-08-30
No. DD-447
MELVIN, J., concurs., McCORD, C. J., dissents.
362 So. 2d 959 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1978) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. challenged an administrative order assessing a $500 civil penalty for employing a 16-year-old in violation of Florida law. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence of a violation because the employer exercised reasonable diligence in verifying the employee's age.


Holding

The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the civil penalty because the employer exercised the degree of diligence required by law to determine the employee's correct age. The employer's actions in reviewing the application, calling the applicant's mother for confirmation, and checking her prior employment history demonstrated reasonable diligence.


Headnotes

[1] A licensee violates Florida Statute 562.13 by employing a person under 18 years of age.

[2] A licensee may not be found in violation of Florida Statute 562.13 if they exercise reasonable diligence to ascertain the age of an employee.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“We agree with petitioner that the evidence is insufficient to support the assessment of the civil penalty.”

The court's principal holding that the administrative penalty was not supported by adequate evidence of a violation.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

G & B of Jacksonville, d/b/a The Climax, employed Teri Armstrong Beard, who was actually 16 years old. Ms. Beard stated on her job application and dur…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
BOYER, Judge.

BOYER, Judge.

By petition for review pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, the Administrative Procedure Act, and F.S. 561.29(7), G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. d/b/a The Climax, hereinafter referred to as petitioner, seeks review of an order of the director of the State of Florida Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, hereinafter referred to as respondent, by which order a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 was assessed against petitioner. The respondent charged petitioner with the following offense:

“(1) On or about the 5th day of June, 1975, investigation revealed that on your licensed premises, you, your agent, servant or employee did unlawfully employ a person under the age of 18 years, one Teri Armstrong Beard, age 16 years, in violation of 562.13, Florida State Statutes.” A hearing was conducted before a hearing officer at which Ms. Beard testified that she worked at The Climax for a few months and that she was 16 at the time. Ms. Beard filled out an application for the job which states that she was 19 years old, divorced, and had been employed previously as a cocktail waitress and bartendress in a beer tavern. When she was interviewed for the job, Ms. Beard gave her age at 19, however, the interviewer (the manager at The Climax) did not ask for any proof of Ms. Beard’s age. Eugene 0. Barnard, the president and stockholder of the licensee testified that he reviewed Ms. Beard’s application prior to employing her. He testified that he verified Ms. Beard’s application by calling her mother, who confirmed that Ms. Beard was 19. He further testified that he called Ms. Beard’s former employer in Oklahoma to determine whether or not Ms. Beard was paid the salary which she listed on her application. Although Ms. Beard testified that she had a restricted driver’s license at the time she was employed by petitioner, Barnard testified that he asked her about a driver’s license subsequent to her employment and she told him she didn’t have a driver’s license. The record indicates Ms. Beard did not drive while she was employed by petitioner and was given a ride to and from work.

The hearing officer concluded that petitioner violated F.S. 562.13 and recommended that a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00 be assessed against the petitioner. The respondent entered its order adopting the recommended order and assessing a civil penalty against the petitioner in the recommended amount.

We agree with petitioner that the evidence is insufficient to support the assessment of the civil penalty. This case is distinguishable from the case of R & R Lounge, Inc. v. Wynne, 286 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) cited by the hearing officer in his conclusions of law. Sub judice there were no warning flags sufficient to create a serious question as to Ms. Beard’s correct age. Here, petitioner did all that was reasonable under the circumstances. Ms. Beard said she was 19 years of age. The licensee’s unrebutted testimony reveals that he called Ms. Beard’s mother and she confirmed that Ms. Beard was 19 years of age. Further, the employment application reveals Ms. Beard to have been 19 and divorced. Divorce implies marriage and marriage implies adulthood. In short, we cannot say that petitioner failed to exercise the degree of diligence imposed upon it to determine the correct age of Ms. Beard before entering into an employment contract with her. Having reversed the respondent’s order on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the other points raised by petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent’s order is vacated.

MELVIN, J., concurs.

McCORD, C. J., dissents.

Dissent
McCORD, Chief Judge,

McCORD, Chief Judge,

dissenting.

There is competent substantial evidence in the record that Ms. Beard, at the time of her employment by petitioner, had a driver’s license but was not required or requested by petitioner to produce it or other identification to verify her stated age. I would affirm.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Surf Attractions, Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 480 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
    …ne. We find, however, that while sanctions may be imposed for a single violation by a corporate officer, the agency must still prove lack of due diligence by the officer. G & B, Inc. v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Beverage, 362 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); R & R Lounge v. Wynne, 286 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). A second issue which has concerned this court in reaching proper dispostion of this appeal is whether the “due diligence” standard of Cohen v. Schott and its pro-gency i…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw