Findings Of Fact The following facts are stipulated by the parties and are incorporated herein: The Respondent has been the clerk of court for Collier County since June of 1986. The Respondent was the clerk of court at all times material to this complaint. In July of 1990, the Respondent's wife was issued a citation for having glass bottles on the beach, a violation of municipal ordinance No. 16.30, City of Naples. On August 21, 1990, upon failure to timely pay the fine for the violation of the above-described ordinance or to appear in court on this date, an arrest warrant for Theresa Giles was issued. On August 30, 1990, on or about 4:30 p.m., police officers arrived at the Respondent's residence to arrest Ms. Giles for her failure to appear or to pay fine. The officers allowed Ms. Giles to make a telephone call to her husband at the clerk's office. The Respondent went to one of his deputy clerks, Lorraine Stoll and discussed the situation with her. As a result, Ms. Stoll called the officers at the Respondent's home and informed them that the bench warrant for Ms. Giles was recalled. Ms. Giles was not taken into custody as a result of Ms. Stoll's action. These facts are derived from the evidence presented, weighed and credited: Respondent, James Giles was the Collier County finance director, performing the pre-audit function for the county, when he was appointed county clerk to finish a two year term in 1986. He was then elected to a four year term ending in January 1993, and was not reelected. His prior employment experience was as a private certified public accountant, an employee of St. Johns County, and an auditor for the State of Florida. On August 30, 1990, when Theresa Giles called her husband, she was very upset. He had promised to pay the fine, but had forgotten. She was home alone with her young child and her elderly mother when the deputies came to serve the warrant and arrest her. The ticket, or "Notice to Appear" issued to Ms. Giles for her infraction plainly provides notice that if the fine is not paid or the person fails to appear in court at the appointed time, an arrest warrant shall be issued. (Advocate Exhibit No. 2) James Giles immediately called his misdemeanor division and Kathleen Heck answered the phone. After he briefly explained the situation, she went to find the supervisor, Lorraine Stoll. As the two women were at Ms. Stoll's desk, bringing Ms. Giles' case up on the computer, Mr. Giles appeared in person. This was a very unusual situation because the clerk rarely came back to the misdemeanor office. He was Lorraine Stoll's immediate supervisor. He asked if there was anything that could be done and Ms. Stoll responded that the warrant could be recalled. Before she could explain any further, he handed her a paper with his home phone and asked her to make the call. Ms. Giles answered the phone and put the deputy on; Ms. Stoll told him the warrant was recalled, and Ms. Giles was not arrested. Ms. Stoll then told Mr. Giles that the fine and court costs had to be paid. He said the whole thing was ridiculous, that he could not believe a warrant could be issued for such a minor offense. By this time it was after 5:00 p.m. and the cashier's office was closed. Giles paid the $36.50 fine the next day and paid the $100.00 court costs on September 13, some two weeks later. (Respondent's exhibits nos. 1 and 2). James Giles admits being upset at the time that the phone call was made, but was trying to calm down because he knew Lorraine Stoll to be excitable. He was flabbergasted that someone could be arrested for having bottles on the beach. He denies that he pressured Ms. Stoll, but claims he was trying to be rational and get sound advice. He wanted her to make the call because he felt it would "look bad" if he did. James Giles did not raise his voice but both Ms. Stoll and Ms. Heck perceived he was upset and in a pressure situation. Ms. Stoll had never been involved in a circumstance where the warrant was recalled while the deputies were getting ready to make an arrest. She has worked in the misdemeanor section of the clerk's office for eleven and a half years, as deputy clerk. No ordinary citizen could have received the advantage that the clerk and his wife received. Judge Ellis, a Collier County judge, has a written policy providing that a bench warrant may be set aside after payment of costs and fine. Another county judge, Judge Trettis, requires that his office or the State's Attorney be called, and does not have a written policy. Ms. Stoll does not have the authority to recall a warrant without following the proper procedure. This situation was out of the ordinary. She made the telephone call because her boss told her to, and their main concern was that the warrant needed to be recalled so Ms. Giles would not go to jail. On the other hand, Ms. Stoll did not tell Mr. Giles that he was pressuring her, nor did she have the opportunity to tell him the proper procedure before making the telephone call. James Giles' explanation that he was simply seeking advice of his staff and then acting on it without wrongful intent is disingenuous. Whatever his actual knowledge of proper procedures for recalling a warrant, he knew or should have known that what he was doing was not an opportunity available to other citizens. His experience in the clerk's office and in prior public service should have clued him that no one else could simply get a deputy clerk to intercept an arrest with a telephone call.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics enter its final order finding that James Giles violated Section 112.313(6), F.S., and recommending a civil penalty of $250.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4942EC The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Advocate's Proposed Findings 1. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 12. 8.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 13. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1. A.-E. Adopted as stipulated facts in paragraphs 1-5. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 8 and 12. Rejected as the sequence suggested is contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as misleading. The evidence shows the process was incorrect and both staff knew it was incorrect. The clerk was informed about the correct procedure after the phone call. The procedure is set out in paragraph 13. The evidence is not clear that the fine and costs could not have been paid the same day. By the time Mr. Giles finished complaining, it was after 5:00. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence, considering the totality of Ms. Stoll's testimony as well as Ms. Heck's. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Rejected as immaterial. 3. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of evidence. More specifically, this proposed finding suggests that the culpability was Ms. Stoll's rather than Respondent's. That suggestion is supported only by Ms. Stoll's timid admissions that she should not have made the phone call without having received the payment from her boss. Ms. Stoll's acceptance of blame does not relieve the Respondent of his responsibility. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig B. Willis Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Raymond Bass, Jr., Esquire Bass & Chernoff 849 7th Avenue, South - Suite 200 Naples, Florida 33940-6715 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued August 25, 2000, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating insurance licenses and appointments pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a Life Health and Annuity Agent, Life Health and Variable Annuity Agent, and a Health Insurance Agent in this state. On March 7, 1982, the Respondent was celebrating her birthday, she turned 22 that day, and was returning home with her husband when the vehicle they were in was stopped for a minor traffic infraction (expired tag). Believing he had to perform a "pat down" for his safety, the officer felt the Respondent's purse and noticed a bulge in the shape of a small weapon. The small hand gun had been a birthday present to the Respondent. Upon discovering the weapon, the officer charged the Respondent with carrying a concealed firearm. Initially the Respondent entered a written plea of not guilty but subsequently changed the plea in open court to one of nolo contendere. In connection with the plea change, the court entered an Order Granting Probation and Fixing Terms Thereof. The fact that the Respondent was placed on probation is not disputed. Further, as the Court determined the Respondent was not likely to again engage in a criminal course of conduct, adjudication was withheld and probation set for a period of one year. The Respondent successfully completed that year of probation and has had no further incidents of criminal misconduct. The Respondent erroneously believed that the successful completion of the probationary period, and the fact that adjudication had been withheld, resulted in the expungement of the criminal record. As the Respondent later found out, criminal records are not automatically sealed or expunged. On November 2, 1999, the Respondent filed an application for licensure as a life health and variable annuity agent with the Petitioner. That application contained two questions dealing with the applicant's past criminal history. As to both questions, the Respondent erroneously entered "no" responses. Had the Respondent entered accurate answers, both responses would have been "yes" based upon the status of the Respondent's criminal record at the time the application was submitted to the Petitioner. The Respondent has a medical condition that she claims has damaged her long term-memory. According to the Respondent, she answered the questions as she did because she did not remember all the facts surrounding the criminal history at the time the application was completed but that, even if she had, she would have assumed the matter was sealed and fully resolved since adjudication was withheld. The Respondent's account in this regard has been deemed credible. The Respondent did not intend to mislead the Petitioner and acted more in ignorance of the law as to the prior arrest and probation than in willful disregard of her responsibility to disclose it. At the time Respondent completed her application for licensure she read the paragraph that appears at the bottom of the third page of said application in bold typeface that states: IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU HAVE READ ALL OF THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS CAREFULLY AND HAVE ANSWERED THEM FULLY. THIS IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT AS IT RELATES TO AN APPLICANT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS. THE DEPARTMENT DEEMS ALL MATTERS THAT ARE PART OF AN APPLICANT'S LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORDS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AND MATERIAL ELEMENT OF THE APPLICATION, THE OMISSION OF ANY PART OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORD IS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION OR MATERIAL MISSTATEMENT IN AND OF ITSELF. YOUR FAILURE TO DIVULGE YOUR COMPLETE LAW ENFORCEMENT RECORD ON THIS APPLICATION CAN RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING DENIED. In addition to the foregoing, the application submitted by the Respondent provided the following statement: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for license and the facts stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of The Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license(s). The answers provided by the Respondent to the two questions (application questions numbered 18 and 19) were incorrect, misleading, and were presumably used to support the issuance of the Respondent's licenses. Although the Respondent is eligible to have her criminal record sealed or expunged, as of the date of the hearing she had not completed that process. During the investigation of this matter, the Respondent fully cooperated with the Petitioner and obtained copies of documents as requested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance impose an administrative fine against the Respondent in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of prosecuting this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ________________________________ J. D. PARRISH 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 1st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Santurri, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Joseph H. Fernandez, Esquire The Law Offices of Brand & Fernandez, P.A. 2 Northeast 40th Street Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33137 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense, and, if so, whether Respondent’s intended action to deny Petitioner’s request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency that regulates the provision of services to individuals with developmental disabilities (referred to by the Agency as its clients), pursuant to chapter 493, Florida Statutes (2015).1/ The Agency’s clients are a vulnerable population, consisting of individuals whose developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, autism, spina bifida, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Down syndrome. These individuals often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. They are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation by those who provide services to them. Petitioner is a 42-year-old female who worked for a short period of time (from April 14, 2015, to October 2, 2015) as an independent contractor for Peak Provider, Inc., which is a service provider regulated by the Agency to provide in-home and community-based services to the Agency’s clients. Petitioner worked as a supported living coach, providing supported living services to adults with developmental disabilities in their homes. This means that she provided “assistance to adult clients who require[d] ongoing supports to live as independently as possible in their own homes, to be integrated into the community, and to participate in community life to the fullest extent possible.” § 393.063(39), Fla. Stat. (defining supported living services). These services include assisting clients with paying bills and balancing checkbooks, and taking clients out in the community, for shopping, medical appointments, or other activities. Petitioner’s supported living coach job was a “direct service provider” position of special trust, because she provided services directly to the Agency’s clients, she had access to clients’ living areas, and she had access to client funds or personal property. As a direct service provider, Petitioner was required to undergo level 2 background screening pursuant to chapter 435, Florida Statutes, upon being retained by Peak Provider on April 14, 2015. See § 393.0655, Fla. Stat. Petitioner underwent level 2 background screening, which was processed by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) on the Agency’s behalf. By letter dated September 30, 2015, DCF notified Petitioner that her background screening results revealed a criminal offense that disqualified Petitioner from continuing to work in her position of special trust. As a result of her disqualification, Petitioner’s position with Peak Provider was terminated on October 2, 2015. The DCF letter informed Petitioner that she may be able to apply for an exemption from disqualification. Petitioner was familiar with that process, since she had recently applied for and received exemptions from disqualification from two other state agencies: the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), which issued an exemption on February 5, 2015; and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), which issued an exemption on May 22, 2015. Within a few days after she was terminated by Peak Provider, Petitioner submitted an application seeking an exemption from disqualification for positions of special trust within the Agency’s purview. The purpose of an exemption application is to demonstrate to a state agency that the applicant should not be disqualified from employment in positions within the regulatory purview of that agency. Applicants must set forth “clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation” from their disqualifying offense. Factors to be addressed with regard to rehabilitation include the circumstances surrounding the disqualifying offense, the time period that has elapsed since the disqualifying offense, the nature of harm caused to the victim, and the history of the applicant since the disqualifying offense. In assessing rehabilitation, the state agency reviewing an exemption application may consider evidence that the applicant has been arrested for or convicted of other crimes since the disqualifying offense, even though the subsequent criminal incidents would not themselves be disqualifying offenses. Petitioner’s Disqualifying Offense The disqualifying offense identified in DCF’s letter notifying Petitioner of her background screening results was an August 16, 1994, probation violation in reference to a September 1991 aggravated assault offense. The evidence established that Petitioner committed the underlying offense in May 1991, when she was 17½ years old. An information was filed in September 1991, charging Petitioner with aggravated assault, a felony. In October 1991, Petitioner pled guilty to the charge. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty, sentenced to five years of probation, and ordered to pay restitution to the victim. At hearing, the Agency’s representative testified that the Agency did not consider the aggravated assault offense itself to be a disqualifying offense, because Petitioner was a minor when she committed the offense. However, the Agency determined that Petitioner’s conviction in 1994 for violating probation was a disqualifying offense, because her probation was revoked and, in accordance with section 948.06, Florida Statutes, the original charge was reopened and sentence was imposed for the aggravated assault felony conviction. The Agency’s position that the aggravated assault felony conviction was not considered a disqualifying offense does not appear to be supported by the background screening laws in chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The aggravated assault offense was a felony to which Petitioner pled guilty. It is a disqualifying offense under level 2 background screening standards even though Petitioner was a minor when she committed the offense. The Agency did not explain or offer any support for the notion that a disqualifying offense does not count as a disqualifying offense if it is committed by a minor; the background screening laws provide otherwise. Petitioner gave her explanation of the circumstances surrounding the aggravated assault offense, both in the “arrest narrative report” she submitted with her exemption application and at hearing. Petitioner wrote in her arrest narrative report that she and a girl she went to school with were arguing over a boy when the girl’s mother “jumped in my face with a knife.” Petitioner wrote that she was fearful, and was only trying to defend herself. She wrote that she and the mother struggled over the knife, “and in the process [the mother] got cut on the leg.” Petitioner’s described an incident in which she was more the victim than the girl’s mother: it was the mother who brandished the knife, and Petitioner was only acting in self-defense by struggling with the mother over the knife. Petitioner did not accept responsibility for cutting the victim with a knife. Instead, Petitioner used a more neutral, passive description, acknowledging only that in the process of struggling for the knife, the mother “got cut on the leg” as if it just happened. Nonetheless, Petitioner did not plead self-defense, when charged with aggravated assault; she pled guilty. Petitioner’s description is inconsistent with the police report. The police report described Petitioner as the aggressor who “came after [the other girl] with a knife” and that the girl’s mother--the victim--attempted to stop Petitioner, but was knocked to the ground. The police report then stated that while the victim was on the ground, Petitioner cut the victim not once, but twice, on the inside thigh of the left leg and on the right calf; Petitioner then fled the area and the victim went to a hospital emergency room where she was treated for the knife wounds. Petitioner did not attempt to explain the discrepancies between her description of this incident and the description in the police report.2/ According to the court records, after Petitioner pled guilty to aggravated assault, she did not accept the consequences of her offense by steadfastly carrying out the terms of punishment imposed by the court. Instead, as a young adult, Petitioner was found guilty of violating the terms of the probation imposed for the aggravated assault felony conviction not just in September 1994, but multiple times in 1992, 1993, and 1994. For example, in 1993, Petitioner was found to have violated the probation condition requiring her to not violate any laws. She violated that condition by committing retail theft, for which she was adjudged guilty and convicted in March 1992. Petitioner pled guilty to violating probation, her probation was revoked, she was placed on community control for one year, and ordered to perform 50 hours of public service work. Then, in September 1994, she was found to have violated the community control order by not properly conducting herself, which she admitted in a revocation of community control hearing. The community control was revoked, and she was sentenced to two months in jail, just a few months before her 21st birthday. Length of Time Since Disqualifying Offense Whether measured from the offense itself, the adjudication of guilt, or the completion of the punishments imposed (and revised), it plainly has been a long time since Petitioner’s disqualifying offense. She is now 42; she had completed all punishments for the aggravated assault offense before she turned 21. To her credit, Petitioner has not been convicted of another disqualifying offense. Although Petitioner was arrested several times for crimes that would have been disqualifying offenses if Petitioner was prosecuted and convicted, that was not the case. These incidents are not considered as additional disqualifying offenses; however, they have some bearing on the issue of Petitioner’s rehabilitation, as discussed below. Nature of Harm Caused to the Victim In describing the aggravated assault incident, Petitioner said that there was only a single minor cut to the mother’s leg. As noted above, the police report more precisely described not one cut, but two cuts, on the victim’s left inner thigh and the right calf, and that the knife wounds were treated at a hospital emergency room. Regardless of how many or how serious the cuts were, the harm inflicted by Petitioner was serious enough that she was charged with, and pled guilty to, aggravated assault, which means that she committed an assault (intentional, unlawful threat by words or act to do violence to another) with a deadly weapon. See § 784.021, Fla. Stat. (defining crime of aggravated assault, unchanged since 1975). Petitioner said that she made amends for the minor cut by reimbursing the victim for the small medical bill to treat the wound. Petitioner did so, however, pursuant to court order as part of her sentence for the offense. Indeed, had she not paid the restitution ordered, she would not be eligible to apply for any exemptions from disqualification. Petitioner’s History of Positive Accomplishments Since the disqualifying offense, Petitioner demonstrated that she has worked hard on her education. She did not finish high school on schedule, but later completed the requirements to receive her GED certificate of graduation in June 1997, when she 23 years old. More recently, Petitioner went to Gulf Coast State College, and in July 2012, she earned an associate in applied science degree in the legal assisting/paralegal field. Then, attending St. Petersburg College, she earned an associate in arts degree in May 2013. Continuing at St. Petersburg College, she received a bachelor of applied science degree in the fields of public safety administration and criminal justice in July 2014. By all accounts, Petitioner has done very well in school, making the President’s Honor List/Dean’s List on several occasions during her college studies. Petitioner testified that she is currently enrolled in online coursework offered by Liberty University, and is working on her master of arts degree in human service counseling with a minor in addiction recovery. While no documentation was provided with regard to this endeavor, Petitioner testified that she expects to graduate in May 2016. Petitioner submitted a number of reference letters with her exemption application and more letters at hearing.3/ A good number of these letters appear to be written by individuals involved in her various educational programs. Several of these letters were written to recommend Petitioner for admission to a graduate program, while others were written to recommend her for employment. Some of the letters are quite old, such as a general reference letter written ten years ago by a circuit judge who taught a criminal procedure class in which Petitioner was an “outstanding” student at Gulf Coast Community College, offering the opinion that she can be successful “in whatever activity she is pursuing.” These letters are somewhat helpful only in a very general sense to confirm what is shown by Petitioner’s educational achievements--that Petitioner has worked hard to better herself through education. However, these letters do not really address the issues for determination in this proceeding, in that the letters fail to indicate that the authors know of Petitioner’s background germane to this proceeding, including the disqualifying offense and subsequent arrests and convictions for non-disqualifying offenses; as such, they cannot offer meaningful perspective as to Petitioner’s rehabilitation. While Petitioner is to be commended for her hard work and scholastic achievements, they do not provide the clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense, or that Petitioner’s non-disqualifying criminal history does not present concerns about her rehabilitation. Petitioner also provided some information about her employment history. At the time she filed her exemption application, she was not working, having just been terminated by Peak Provider. Prior to that job, she worked as an event specialist for Advantage Sales & Marketing in Clearwater from September 2009 to September 2012. Petitioner also worked as a client service coordinator for H&R Block in Clearwater from December 2007 to April 2010. When she lived in Panama City, she worked as an assistant cook for Laguna Christian Retreat from August 2005 to November 2007. The only two reference letters that were written recently (both in October 2015), obtained by Petitioner to respond to a letter identifying omissions from her exemption application, were from a Peak Provider co-worker, who wrote to recommend Petitioner for employment, and from Petitioner’s supervisor in the job she held from 2005 to 2007. Neither letter demonstrated knowledge of Petitioner’s background at issue in this case. The letter from Petitioner’s supervisor from ten years ago offered only a general statement that Petitioner has paid her debt to society and should be given a second chance. Petitioner’s exemption request noted that she was undergoing stress because her background was keeping her from getting or keeping a stable job. However, Petitioner had only recently obtained exemptions issued by two different state agencies. By the time of the hearing, Petitioner testified that she secured a job in December 2015 working for a home health agency as a home health aide. Petitioner qualified for that job because of her exemption from disqualification issued by AHCA. Petitioner testified that her real passion is juvenile justice. She presented evidence that she started her own non- profit organization in 2009 to carry out her dream of helping troubled youth. The program she envisions, described in the non- profit materials, would “promote and establish a strong network support with the school system and juvenile court system. We will form a partnership with local school district and juvenile court system. Our primary goal is to target at risk youth and to break habits that are leading our youth in trouble in school and in the streets.” She put it this way in an October 1, 2015, letter that she wrote to submit with her exemption application: I would like to open up a youth center for at-risk youth and a drug rehabilitation center to give back to the community and make a difference in people [sic] lives. I feel my past experiences will be a great asset to youth who are headed down the wrong path. I have not only been down that road they are traveling but I can relate too [sic] many of their issues and help them overcome them. Why not choose a person to work with youth that has overcome the same obstacles they are faced with, has the insight on their challenges and has hands on experience as a juvenile delinquent? Petitioner testified that her non-profit organization has not reached the operational stage. She blamed her background as a stumbling block that has kept her from progressing beyond creating the organizational structure to operations. Although she testified that the organization is not operational because of her background, she was unable to explain why her DJJ exemption would not allow her to move forward and begin at least a portion of the program she envisions. Petitioner explained that she would not be able to fully implement her dream program because she would want to include substance abuse counseling, a program regulated by DCF, requiring a DCF exemption from disqualification. However, the exemption application at issue in this case, submitted in response to being disqualified from working for Peak Provider, seeks an exemption from the Agency, not from DCF. Apparently realizing this when questioned at hearing, Petitioner retreated from her statement that an exemption would allow her to carry out her dream. Instead, she said that an exemption from Respondent would provide her with another option, and that she had “fun” as a supported living coach providing services to adults with developmental disabilities. While need for an exemption is not a criterion, to the extent Petitioner sought to justify her request as needed to remove the stress in her life caused by being unable to carry out her dreams and being unable to support her family with a job, those justifications were proven incorrect or no longer true. Petitioner was offered the opportunity to present evidence in her exemption application of her history after the disqualifying offense of positive contributions she has made in the various communities in which she has lived. Examples might include participating in volunteer work for religious or charitable organizations, schools, shelters, libraries, community centers for the elderly or for the needy, or any of the myriad of similar opportunities for becoming involved in one’s community. Petitioner fairly summarized her showing in this regard in her PRO: “Petitioner stated that she is not involved in any community activities because her background will not allow her to be a part of much now. She stated she would love to be more involved in community activities. Petitioner reports attending church.” While Petitioner may have voiced the right sentiment in stating that she would love to be more involved, that statement is not credible. Petitioner is unreasonably using her background as an excuse for her lack of involvement in community services. Petitioner presented no evidence that she has sought to provide volunteer services in the church or in the community, but was turned down because of her background. There appears to be plenty of room within the background screening requirements for Petitioner to volunteer in a variety of programs, perhaps with limits on the number of hours she could volunteer in any one area, and perhaps with supervisory requirements. This would be one way to develop more compelling evidence that she is making good choices in her free time and making positive contributions that not only improve herself (such as with her educational achievements), but also help others in need. Petitioner generally alluded to having overcome a troubled background, but did not offer much detail to explain what problems she has or had endured, and what she has done to cope with her troubles. In response to a question in the exemption application regarding whether she receives any form of counseling, she responded vaguely that she gets counseling at her church, as needed. No specifics were offered. No documentation or testimony was presented with regard to the counseling she has obtained at her church, such as a description of the nature of the counseling services she referred to and how often she has availed herself of those services. Here, too, a better showing could be made, such as by offering testimony of a pastor or other church official who could attest to Petitioner’s rehabilitation that may be evident from her drawing on church resources for support. In response to a question in the exemption application about alcohol or drug use, Petitioner stated that she used to drink alcohol, but does not now drink alcohol, and has never “abused” drugs (notably not stating that she has not used drugs). She stated that she completed substance abuse and alcohol courses in 1992, 2004, and 2010. She only provided documentation for a substance abuse awareness course completed on January 26, 2004, but not for any others. While she claimed these courses were taken “for educational purpose” (PRO, p. 7), it appears that the courses may have been taken close in time to an arrest involving drugs or alcohol. The documented 2004 course, in particular, was completed within the 12-month probationary period for Petitioner’s nolo plea to possession of drug paraphernalia, discussed below; her probation conditions specifically required her to complete such a course during her probation. The reasonable inference is that Petitioner completed this coursework because it was required as part of her punishment for drug or alcohol-related criminal offenses. Petitioner’s Subsequent Criminal History Since the Agency did not consider Petitioner’s disqualifying offense to be the 1991 aggravated assault offense, the Agency did not consider Petitioner’s criminal record of arrests and convictions for non-disqualifying offenses between the 1991 aggravated assault offense and the September 1994 probation violation. However, this information was collected and reported as part of the background screening results, and Petitioner was asked to submit documentation, if available, with her exemption application and to explain the circumstances of each criminal arrest and conviction reported. Petitioner’s arrest narrative report provided her description of 24 criminal incidents, spanning the time period from June 20, 1990, when Petitioner was a little over 16 years old, through January 16, 2010, when Petitioner was about to turn 36 years old. Between the 1991 aggravated assault conviction and the 1994 probation violation, the arrest narrative report itemized eight arrests resulting in criminal charges. Only one of these incidents occurred when Petitioner was still a minor. The others were: battery in January 1993 and battery again in May 1993 (both battery charges dropped by prosecutor); assault and disorderly conduct in July 1993 (adjudicated guilty); assault in August 1993 (adjudicated guilty); grand theft auto in January 1994 (charge dropped); battery in March 1994 (charge dropped); stalking in July 1994 (charge dropped); and aggravated battery and disorderly intoxication in July 1994 (first charge dropped, nolo plea to disorderly intoxication, adjudication withheld).4/ Petitioner’s record reveals many non-disqualifying criminal incidents after the September 1994 probation violation; the arrest narrative report identifies 13 criminal incidents after September 1994. In eight of these instances, Petitioner pled guilty or nolo contendere to a variety of misdemeanor charges, including fleeing and attempting to elude police (1997); passing worthless checks (1999, 2000, and 2007); retail theft (2000); possession of drug paraphernalia (2003); and driving under the influence of alcohol (2010). During this same time span, Petitioner was also arrested and charged on several other occasions, but the charges were dropped for a variety of reasons. These include a 1996 arrest and felony charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon; a 1998 arrest in Georgia on five counts of forgery; a 1999 arrest for domestic aggravated battery; a 2001 criminal reckless driving charge in Miami-Dade County; a 2002 arrest for felony child abuse; and a December 2002 arrest for possession of cocaine in addition to possession of drug paraphernalia--the cocaine charge was dropped in 2003 when Petitioner pled no contest to the drug paraphernalia charge. Petitioner offered little by way of detail regarding these incidents. She claimed no recollection of any incident that was not documented through official records. When Petitioner did provide some detail, in most instances Petitioner blamed someone or something besides herself; Petitioner was an innocent and falsely accused bystander. For example, with regard to the March 1996 charge of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, Petitioner acknowledged that the charge stemmed from a fight that broke out at a club she had attended, and the victim accused Petitioner of hitting her with a bottle. However, according to Petitioner, she was not trying to hurt the victim, but was instead trying to help the victim who was “under the influence of drugs and alcohol.” Petitioner claimed that the charge was dropped because it was determined that the victim was not being truthful; instead, the court records reflect that a Nolle Prosequi was filed because the state was “unable to locate the victim after the defendant was arraigned.” With regard to the November 1998 forgery charges in Georgia, after stating that she was “not sure of all the specifics verbatim,” Petitioner excused this incident as follows: “I was falsely accused for something I didn’t do.” Petitioner submitted records from Georgia, including the arrest report, which stated that Petitioner was arrested at K-Mart when she tried to use a forged check in the amount of $631.25 to pay for merchandise. The arresting officer stated that Petitioner gave several different names during the investigation, and that when she was arrested, she had four other forged checks in her possession. Petitioner did not attempt to reconcile her statement that she was falsely accused for something she did not do with the officer’s contrary description in the police report. At hearing, Petitioner noted that these forgery charges should not have been revealed as part of her criminal history, because her request to have them expunged was granted. However, the documents are in evidence, and some or all of them were provided by Petitioner. If the charges were being considered as disqualifying offenses, the fact that they were expunged might make a difference, but they are not considered here as disqualifying offenses. Instead, as Petitioner was informed at the hearing, statements in the records in evidence related to those charges can be considered, such as the statement that Petitioner gave different names to the investigating officer. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner herself offered a description of the incident that was inconsistent with the arrest report, the unexplained inconsistencies have a bearing on Petitioner’s credibility. Despite being informed at hearing as to how this evidence might be considered, Petitioner still offered no explanation for the inconsistencies. With regard to the periodic worthless check offenses, Petitioner explained her first worthless check offense for which she was adjudged guilty in April 1999 this way: “I didn’t know how to balance my checkbook properly back then.” Her second worthless check offense in 2000 was explained as follows: “I think I wrote a check to pay my furniture bill and my paycheck didn’t post in time to cover the total amount.” Petitioner offered no explanation for the May 2007 worthless check charge, stating that “to be honest I do not remember this charge.” Petitioner blamed several of the more serious charges on a boyfriend whom she accused of “constantly abusing me physically, emotionally and verbally.” She said that the domestic aggravated battery charge in December 1999 occurred because she “finally got the courage to fight him back,” and noted that the charges against her were dropped after investigation. By the same token, she filed a complaint against the boyfriend, which was investigated by the state attorney’s office, and she was notified in April 2000 that prosecution was not warranted against the boyfriend. Three years later, Petitioner blamed “the same abusive boyfriend” when she was arrested and charged with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Petitioner claimed that the boyfriend was “hiding drugs in my home which I knew nothing about,” but she pled no contest to possession of drug paraphernalia, rather than risk losing at trial. A different picture was painted by a DCF investigation report on allegations that Petitioner and her paramour were making and selling drugs out of the home, that the house was known as a “drug house” in the community, and that Petitioner and her paramour were arrested on the drug charges while a child was present. The DCF report verified the threatened harm to a child by exposure to substances, and also verified child neglect. While no findings are made herein with regard to the truth of the facts stated in the DCF report, Petitioner was aware that this and eight other DCF investigation reports were put in evidence by Respondent, and Petitioner chose not to address them at all. Petitioner’s most recent criminal charge and conviction was just over five years ago, for driving under the influence of alcohol in Alabama. Petitioner disclaimed any responsibility for the incident, seeming to blame a state trooper for improperly accusing her of being “on something,” then taking her to jail when she refused to take a breathalyzer test “because I know my rights.” Petitioner asserted that a field test was administered, which she “passed with no problem.” No evidence was offered to support that assertion. The arrest report did not mention a field test, nor did Petitioner offer the testimony of any witness, such as her sister who was a passenger in the car. Petitioner offered several sweeping statements, both in her exemption request and at hearing, to the effect that she accepted responsibility for all of her wrongs, and that she was very remorseful for everything she did wrong. However, in explaining each individual incident, she did not accept responsibility, did not concede that she did wrong, and expressed little or no remorse. The strongest expression of any remorse was in Petitioner’s statement that ten years after the aggravated assault disqualifying offense, she saw the victim at church and apologized, and said that the victim forgave her. Yet even with that, Petitioner’s narrative description in 2015 of the incident made it sound like Petitioner was acting in self-defense and should be considered the real victim. At the hearing, Petitioner exhibited frustration and borderline anger at being questioned about her past and having to explain herself. Petitioner made it clear that she is weary of being asked to explain the long list of criminal arrests, charges, and convictions in her background. As she stated in her exemption request and repeated at hearing, “I think I have paid my debt to society . . . my past has haunted me long enough.” However, while Petitioner may have paid her debt to society in terms of completing all of the punishments imposed under the criminal justice system, that does not equate to entitlement to an exemption from the Agency to serve its vulnerable clients. It was Petitioner’s choice to apply for an exemption from the Agency. By doing so, she took on the burden of proving her rehabilitation, upon consideration of her history since the disqualifying offense. Petitioner believes that she should be given a second chance, and that giving her an exemption would give her the opportunity she believes she deserves to prove herself. Two other agencies have given Petitioner such a chance. Although her submissions to these agencies were not offered in evidence, she succeeded in convincing both agencies to issue exemptions from disqualification for programs they regulate. Petitioner has embarked on proving herself worthy of that chance in her current job, for which she qualified by virtue of AHCA’s exemption. The Agency took those other exemptions into account in reviewing Petitioner’s application, but also considered the differences in the types of services that could be provided, and the clients who would be served, in positions of special trust within the Agency’s purview. The Agency believes that greater caution is required because of the Agency’s vulnerable clientele and also because of the nature of the services Petitioner would be able to provide to these vulnerable people. The Agency’s view is reasonable in this case. For example, Petitioner’s history skirting around violent incidents is of heightened concern for this vulnerable population. Petitioner’s history with crimes involving theft, forgery, and issuing worthless checks is of heightened concern because of duties that include helping adults with developmental disabilities gain independence by helping them shop, pay bills, balance checkbooks, and manage budgets. The Agency also considered Petitioner’s history of traffic infractions and driver’s license issues since the disqualifying offense, including the following: failure to obey a traffic sign in August 1997; driving with a suspended license in September 1997; speeding in February 2000; failure to yield to a pedestrian in May 2001; driving a vehicle in unsafe condition in December 2001; failure to obey a traffic control device in July 2008; the 2010 DUI conviction previously mentioned in Alabama; driving while license suspended or revoked in October 2010; suspension of Petitioner’s driver’s license in July 2011 for PIP cancellation; operating a motor vehicle without a driver’s license in October 2011; and suspension of her driver’s license again in March 2015 for PIP cancellation. In addition, Petitioner’s driver’s license records show that she completed two driver’s school courses, one identified as substance abuse treatment in September 2010, and the other identified as DUI school, completed in March 2011. Petitioner offered no explanation of these records in evidence. All things considered, Petitioner failed to demonstrate rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. Instead, her history subsequent to the disqualifying offense reflects a pattern of criminal incidents over a long period of time, providing reasonable concern that Petitioner would pose a risk of danger as a direct service provider to the Agency’s clients. While it has been over five years since the last criminal conviction, Petitioner’s traffic infractions have continued, causing some concern that Petitioner has not completely rid herself of bad choices that present risks to others, at least in positions where Petitioner’s duties include transporting clients to medical appointments and on community outings. And significantly, in 2015 (in the exemption application) and 2016 (at hearing), Petitioner has not demonstrated that she takes responsibility for her past actions, that she recognizes the seriousness of her long history of criminal incidents that cannot simply be erased or go without explanation, or that she is truly remorseful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Jenella Brown’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, the appropriate relief for such action.
Findings Of Fact For purposes of this case, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent in July of 2007. Although the Petitioner had worked for the Respondent in prior years (at another location), he had voluntarily left the company to pursue other opportunities. When the Petitioner returned to employment with the Respondent in connection with this case, it was ten years after a heart transplant. At the time of hiring, the Respondent knew the Petitioner's medical condition and age. The Petitioner is approximately 61 years of age. The Respondent is a national corporation with several sites for engineering and manufacture of its products. The Respondent is an equal opportunity employer and maintains policies prohibiting unlawful discrimination. One of the Respondent's facilities, Sykes Creek, is located in Brevard County, Florida. The Petitioner was hired to work at the Sykes Creek facility in the role of engineering supervisor. The Sykes Creek site builds luxury power yachts ranging from 50–to-60 feet in length. The price of these yachts runs from approximately $900,000 to $2,000,000 each. Typically, the yacht is ordered and customized to the buyer's specification. The Petitioner was responsible for supervising and directing work at Sykes Creek and reported to Kevin Shaw, his immediate supervisor. Mr. Shaw in turn reported to the plant manager, Steven Fielder. The Petitioner reviewed the work and attendance of approximately 21 hourly employees. When the Petitioner was hired (2007), the Sykes Creek facility produced 116 yachts and employed approximately 575 people. Within the Petitioner's department (engineering) there were 26 people; four others like Petitioner were salaried employees. The economic crunch that struck most of the nation drastically reduced the Respondent's business. In 2008 the Respondent instituted unpaid furloughs and layoffs due to the lack of business. By 2009 the economic condition in the industry had not improved. Accordingly, the Respondent had to make additional cuts to its staff. To that end, Mr. Fielder advised Mr. Shaw that the Petitioner's department would have to be cut to reduce the number of hourly employees and one salaried employee. To determine who should be cut, the Respondent looked to the number of years of service with the company and the skill set/education they provided for the facility. The Petitioner had the shortest length of service with the Respondent except for an employee named Julie Halesma. That person was not chosen for lay-off because she was a credentialed industrial engineer. The Petitioner did not have those credentials. The Petitioner was not offered a lower, hourly paid position because he did not have the skill set to perform the work as well as the hourly employees who were already doing the jobs. A number of employees were laid off the same day the Petitioner was dismissed. The Petitioner's job position was eliminated and has not, as of the date of hearing, been restored. The Respondent has continued to lay off workers. In 2009 the Sykes Creek facility was down to 175 employees. The engineering department was down to 15 people. Absent a return to more prosperous times, it is not expected that the facility will be able to rehire employees. The job tasks that the Petitioner performed are now shared by other employees at the facility. Throughout his time at the Sykes Creek facility, the Petitioner was allowed to take time off as needed to attend to medical issues. Based upon the frequency of the medical leave, the Respondent knew or should have known that the Petitioner's medical condition required monthly treatment. The extent of the medical treatment, however, was unknown to the Respondent. As a salaried employee the Petitioner did not have to "punch the clock." The Respondent allowed the Petitioner to complete his work as he might dictate so that he was free to leave the facility to attend to his medical needs. Clearly, the Respondent knew the Petitioner had had the heart transplant at the time of hiring but that medical condition did not impede the Petitioner's ability to perform his job assignments. The medical situation required that he be absent, but there is no indication that Petitioner could not perform his job. The cost of the Petitioner's medical care was unknown to the persons charged with making the lay-off decisions. The cost of the Petitioner's medical care played no part in the decision to eliminate the Petitioner's job. Similarly, the Petitioner's age did not play a part of the Respondent's decision to eliminate the Petitioner's job. The Respondent articulated legitimate business reasons for eliminating the Petitioner's job position. Clearly the Respondent knew of the Petitioner's age at the time of hiring. The Respondent did not replace the Petitioner with a younger employee. The Respondent's explanation for whom it chose to retain in employment was not based upon an employee's age but rather legitimate business interests. Episodes during which the Petitioner required medical attention at the facility did not rise to a level to cause the Respondent to be concerned for Petitioner's medical well-being. Incidents of the Petitioner being light headed or with low blood sugar did not cause the Respondent to seek to eliminate the Petitioner's job position.
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 finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by the Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 9th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Rolf J. Bierman 1035 Palmer Road Rockledge, Florida 32955 Brian W. Koji, Esquire Bona M. Kim, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue, Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether, pursuant to sections 475.17(1)(a) and 475.181(2), Florida Statutes, Petitioner has the required honesty and good character to be entitled to take the examination for licensure as a licensed real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact On January 7, 2013, Petitioner filed the Application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. In response to a question asking if she had ever been convicted or found guilty of, or entered a plea of no contest or guilty to, a crime, Petitioner disclosed one crime: exploitation of an elderly person. Although providing a detailed explanation of what she viewed as extenuating circumstances for the exploitation offense, Petitioner failed to disclose any other offenses. In addition to this offense, which is a 1999 conviction for the exploitation of an elderly person for more than $20,000, Petitioner was convicted at the same time of two other offenses that are undisclosed in the Application: organized fraud for $20,000 to $50,000 and grand theft. These three offenses are second-degree felonies bearing the same disposition date of May 12, 1999, based on Petitioner's plea of no contest to the three charges. The court withheld adjudication and sentenced Petitioner to three years' probation, 300 hours' community service, restitution of $1598, and court costs. These offenses arose out of Petitioner's persuading an aged neighbor to cosign a note, so that Petitioner could purchase a car. The neighbor also lent Petitioner $1000, so that Petitioner could obtain insurance for the vehicle. Fifteen years later, Petitioner continues to assert her innocence in this matter, although she does not deny the transactions described above in connection with these three convictions. Petitioner claims that she was poorly represented by a public defender and that the entire matter was the result of an overprotective out-of-state son who visited his aged mother and happened to notice a credit card charge for the insurance premium. At the very least, Petitioner lacks insight into the serious nature of her bad conduct in this matter. In addition to failing to disclose two of three of the offenses described above, the Application also fails to disclose two earlier criminal matters. In 1989, Petitioner was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest without violence, both misdemeanors. The record is undeveloped as to these charges, although it appears that Petitioner pled no contest to at least one of them, and the court withheld adjudication on both of them. Also, in 1990, Petitioner pleaded no contest to a third- degree felony of grand theft, for which the court withheld adjudication and sentenced Petitioner to restitution of $450 and other special conditions. Petitioner claims to have forgotten about these older criminal matters. Without regard to the legitimacy of this explanation as to the 1989 misdemeanor offense, it is unlikely that Petitioner had forgotten about the 1990 felony offense because, in this case, she had stolen a gold bracelet owned by a woman with whom her husband was romantically linked. Under these circumstances, Petitioner has failed to prove, not only that she has the requisite honesty and good character for licensure, but also that sufficient time and subsequent good conduct provide the necessary assurance that her licensure would not present an undue risk to the public and investors.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order denying the Application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 10th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Leslie Barnhart, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Evelyn Lozado Apartment 305 3001 South Ocean Drive Hollywood, Florida 33019 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner should be permitted to take the examination for licensure as a real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact In September 2003, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure by the State of Florida as a real estate sales associate. In an application section titled "Background Information" question 1 asks in relevant part, "[h]ave you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere . . ." to which the Petitioner responded in the affirmative. "Background Information" question 4 in relevant part asks, "[h]as any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation, vocation, or business been revoked, annulled, suspended, relinquished, surrendered, or withdrawn . . ." to which the Respondent replied in the affirmative. Question 1 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the incident(s) by completion of "form 0050-1." Question 4 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the termination(s) by completion of "form 0060-1." The disclosure forms completed by the Petitioner (if any) are not in the Respondent's files and are unavailable for review. The Petitioner's application package was presented to the Commission on December 16, 2003. After considering his presentation, the Commission denied his application and instructed him to return with additional information related to the disclosed charges. The Petitioner apparently sought reconsideration, and his application package was again presented to the Commission on March 17, 2004. After reconsidering the Petitioner's background, the Commission again denied his application. The Petitioner then sought an administrative hearing to challenge the denial of his application. On or about July 26, 2000, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with stalking. The Commission's records indicate that the Petitioner completed a pretrial program and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service. At the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that he was placed on probation for six months, and had to complete a six- month psychological evaluation. The stalking charge was nolle prossed. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that at the time of the stalking charge, he was working at a retail establishment. The object of his attention was a 16-year-old female who was working in the vicinity. The Petitioner was approximately 36 years old. The Petitioner asserted that he did not know the female was 16 years old at the time. He denied that he "stalked" the female, but stated that he merely spoke to her a few times in person and attempted to contact her once by telephone. He continued to express surprise at the stalking charge. On or about June 6, 2001, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, a felony, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced to two years of probation, six months of psychological evaluation, and was required to pay court costs. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that he went to the home of an ex-girlfriend to collect a $500 debt she allegedly owed to him. He testified that he knocked on her door and got no response. As he left her residence, he saw that her automobile was unlocked. He opened the hood of the ex- girlfriend's vehicle and ripped out the spark plug cables. He asserted that he "didn't steal anything" because he threw the cables away and didn't keep them. On or about September 5, 2001, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, entered an order based on the Petitioner's stipulation, revoking his Class "D" Security Officer's License, based on the burglary charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfonso Santana, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Fernando Freire 5242 Millenia Boulevard, No. 304 Orlando, Florida 32839 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32808-1900
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by Respondent in retaliation for Petitioner's efforts in behalf of minority employees of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Petitioner, Priscilla M. Young, was a licensed practical nurse employed by Respondent, BAT Management Foundation, Inc. (BAT), at its Orlando Health Care Center (OHCC), as a floor nurse responsible for the care of approximately 60 residents during the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Her immediate supervisor was Joan Renee’ Banton. Petitioner began working at OHCC as an LPN in 1992. In 1987 she had been convicted of a felony, aggravated battery, in circuit court and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 30 months. After serving 8 of the 30 months, she was released without probation. At that time, she went to nursing school and was subsequently licensed in Florida as a practical nurse. At no time did she ever conceal her conviction from either the nursing school or licensing authorities. Petitioner was hired at Winter Park Memorial Hospital after graduating from nursing school and becoming licensed. At that facility she worked for both Joan Renee’ Banton and Sue O’Brien. During this period, Ms. O’Brien left Winter Park Memorial to take a position with BAT at its OHCC facility. Somewhat later, Petitioner saw an advertisement by BAT in the newspaper and applied for employment there. She claims Ms. O’Brien, who was at that time director of nursing was happy to see her when she arrived to fill out the application. Petitioner was interviewed for employment at OHCC by Ms. Stanley, who was the unit manager of the north wing at the facility. The employment application form contained a question which asked the applicant if she "had ever been convicted of a felony or, within the last five years of a misdemeanor, which resulted in imprisonment." Petitioner claims she was not sure how to interpret the verbiage and asked Ms. Stanley. Ms. Stanley also was not sure, so they discussed it with Ms. O’Brien. Based on their discussion, the determination was made that Petitioner did not have to list her felony conviction because it had occurred more than five years prior to the application. This was an incorrect decision because clearly the application requires listing a felony conviction regardless of when it happened, but requires listing of only those misdemeanor convictions which occurred within the last five years prior to application. Nonetheless, Petitioner was hired. During the course of her employment with OHCC, Petitioner had no disciplinary problems. Both Ms. Stanley and Ms. Banton deny having had any problems with her or her work. Petitioner contends that at least twice during the term of her employment, however, she complained to Ms. Banton about Banton’s use of the term, "you people" in reference to the aides and orderlies who worked for her, all of whom were minority of some nature: African American, Hispanic, or Asian. Ms. Banton cannot recall Petitioner’s having ever complained to her about that, and she denies having ever used that term. She claims that if she ever did refer to the employees as a group, it would have been phrased more as "you guys," or something like that. Considering the evidence of record, however, it is found that Ms. Banton probably did use the term "you people" and that Petitioner did complain about that usage to Ms. Banton. According to Ms. Banton, shortly after Petitioner was hired, all people who had knowledge of her conviction had left employment with OHCC. Ms. Stanley had taken employment elsewhere. Ms. Banton also left employment with OHCC in August 1994 because of rumors involving management problems with which she did not want to be involved. Somewhere between two and three weeks after leaving OHCC, however, Ms. Banton received a call from Mr. Allen, the owner of the company, asking her to come back to OHCC as Director of Nursing to replace Ms. O’Brien whom he intended to discharge. She agreed, and when she assumed her new role, she quickly received a phone call from Mr. Allen. In this telephone call, Mr. Allen asked if Petitioner was employed at OHCC. When Banton replied that she was, Allen reportedly revealed he had received a background check on Petitioner which indicated she had a felony conviction. According to Banton, Allen, who did not want any felons working in his nursing homes, directed Banton to check Petitioner’s background to see if the conviction had been noted on her application. She did, and when she reported to Allen that it had not been listed, he directed Banton by telephone to fire the Petitioner. Ms. Banton did what she had been directed to do. Petitioner contends that Banton’s attitude at the time of discharge was cavalier. Ms. Banton admits that at the time she had the discussion with Mr. Allen, she knew that Petitioner had served time in prison, but did not know why. She also claims that she did not know that Petitioner had discussed the conviction with Stanley and O’Brien and had been advised not to list it. Petitioner’s termination from employment with OHCC was based on her failure to disclose her felony conviction. Petitioner claims the termination was based on her speaking out for the other nursing assistants, all of whom were minority, when they were accused of incompetence. Ms. Banton, however, cites instances where when she would come in at night to check on how things were going, she would find pillows and chairs scattered around as if people were sleeping on their shift. She discussed this with Petitioner and admits the discussions were sometimes loud, but she never took any disciplinary action against Petitioner or wrote her up for this. Banton absolutely denies having ever disciplined any employee in public, always taking an employee to a private area to take corrective action. Petitioner is adamant in her contention that the fundamental basis for her discharge from employment with OHCC is retaliation for her standing up for the minority nursing assistants who were accused of incompetence. She firmly believes that her failure to list her felony conviction was seized upon as a pretext upon which to support the unlawful basis for her discharge. She cites that both Banton and O’Brien knew of her conviction and the fact that she had served time, when they all were employed at Winter Park Memorial, and that though it was not listed on her application for employment with OHCC, O’Brien knew about it at the time of her hiring, and Banton knew about it when she, Banton, subsequently came to work at OHCC. Coincidentally, Petitioner claims to have been instrumental in Banton’s obtaining employment at OHCC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order determining that Petitioner, Pricilla Young, was not subjected to racial discrimination or retaliation because of her advocacy on behalf of minority employees; that her discharge from employment with Respondent, BAT Management Foundation, Inc., d/b/a Orlando Health Care Center was based on a determination by Mr. Allen, the owner thereof, that her prior felony conviction disqualified her from employment at the facility; and that she is not entitled to back pay, expenses, or compensatory damages as a result thereof. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 2000 COPIES FURNISHED: Priscilla M. Young 312 Lime Avenue Orlando, Florida 32805 Jefferson M. Braswell, Esquire Scruggs & Carmichael, P.A. One Southeast First Avenue Post Office Box 23109 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
