The Issue Whether Petitioner suffered retaliation and reverse discrimination committed by the Department of Corrections in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white male who was a probation officer at the Department. He worked in the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit for the first ten years of his career and then transferred to the Seventh Judicial Circuit, based in Daytona Beach, Florida, where he had been employed for about eight and one-half years at the time of the hearing. The Department, in accordance with Section 20.315, Florida Statutes, is the state agency charged with protecting the public through the incarceration and supervision of offenders and the rehabilitation of offenders through the application of work, programs, and services. In early July 1999, Petitioner was working in the Department's probation office on Palmetto Avenue, in Daytona Beach, Florida. He was living with a woman named Tanya Folsom who worked for the Department in its probation program, but not in the same office. He was also romantically involved with a woman named Frances Fredericks, who he later married. At this time, Ms. Fredericks was married to one Mr. Anderson, and was known as Frances Anderson. This triangular relationship became known in the office in which Petitioner worked. Someone in Petitioner's office, who has never been identified, wrote a letter to Ms. Folsom, revealing to Ms. Folsom Petitioner's ongoing relationship with Ms. Frances Fredericks. The letter was written on stationery that was the Department's property, placed in an envelope that was the Department's property, and transmitted to Ms. Folsom via the Department's internal mailing system. Using Department resources for personal business, is contrary to Department policy. When Ms. Folsom received the letter a number of ugly consequences ensued. Ms. Folsom reacted with extreme hostility to the information she received, even though Petitioner claimed that their relationship had devolved into a mere friendship. She evicted Petitioner from the quarters they had been sharing. At a subsequent time, one Mr. Anderson, then Ms. Frederick's husband, confronted Petitioner in the parking lot adjacent to the office in which Petitioner worked, and in the presence of Petitioner's office supervisor, Mr. Seltzer, socked Petitioner in the jaw. The probation officer community, in which Ms. Folsom and Petitioner worked, suffered disruption. Morale amongst the workers was impaired. Petitioner blamed the occurrence of these unpleasant events, not on himself, but on Officer Michael Gallon, a probation officer who worked directly in the court system, and Ms. Velma Brown, his immediate supervisor. He attributed blame to them because he believed that they had rifled his desk and found gifts destined to be given to Frances Fredericks, and believed that one or both of them were responsible for the letter to Ms. Folsom. Both Officer Gallon and Ms. Brown are black. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department demanding an investigation into the use of the Department's stationery that was of a value of about a "half cent," according to Petitioner. He also complained that court officers, both black and white, were underemployed, and suggested that black court officers were afforded advantages not given to white officers. He asked his superiors to investigate the complaint regarding both the letter and the court officer matter. He prevailed upon the office manager to take action and when the office manager declined to open an investigation, he brought the matter to the attention of the circuit administrator, Robert Gordon, and ultimately to the attention of those in the chain- of-command all the way to the Department's Inspector General. Mr. Gordon, in response to the turmoil precipitated by the letter, reassigned Petitioner to DeLand, Florida, a distance of about 30 miles, for 60 days. Petitioner, who referred to his new post in the pejorative, "Dead Land," believed that officers who were moved there, "never came back." Mr. Gordon told Petitioner that he moved him because Petitioner needed a "change of venue." This reassignment occurred the end of July, 1999. Article 9, Section 3, of the Agreement between the State of Florida and Florida Police Benevolent Association (Agreement) states that a transfer should be affected only when dictated by the needs of the agency and only after taking into consideration the needs of the employee, prior to any transfer. Mr. Gordon complied with that requirement, and in any event, did not transfer Petitioner. The Agreement states at Article 9, Section 1 (C), that a move is not a "transfer" unless an employee is moved, " . . . in excess of fifty (50) miles." Petitioner was "reassigned" as that term is defined in Article 9, Section 1 (C), of the Agreement. In any event, Mr. Gordon did not move Petitioner because he was white. He moved him to a different post because Petitioner had created turmoil in the probation officer community in Daytona Beach. In any event, as will be discussed below, whether or not Mr. Gordon complied with the Agreement is immaterial to this case. Notwithstanding Petitioner's beliefs with regard to the outcome of his move to DeLand, he was reassigned back to the Daytona Beach area at the end of 60 days and resumed his regular duties. This occurred around early October, 1999. Petitioner continued to press for an investigation into his allegations. He brought the matter to the attention to Harry Ivey, the regional administrator for the Department and above Mr. Gordon in the chain-of-command. He discussed the matter with a Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Ivey's deputy and believed subsequent to that conversation, that an investigation would occur. In fact, no one in the Department displayed any interest in Petitioner's allegations about the de minimis use of the Department's time and property in the preparation and transfer of the letter, or in his beliefs about the workload problems of the court officers, or his claims of favorable treatment in the case of Officer Gallon and Ms. Brown. In December 2000, Petitioner was assigned to the Ormond Beach Office, which was about six miles from the Palmetto Avenue Office. The Ormond Beach Office had lost a supervisor position due to reorganization and it was determined that Petitioner possessed the skill and experience to replace that senior leadership. The decision to relocate Petitioner was made by Mr. Gordon. In February 2001, Petitioner was transferred back to his old office. A few months later he was promoted to Correctional Probation Senior Officer and moved to another office. Between February 2000 and February 2001, the operative period, over 30 Correctional Probation Officers, Correctional Probation Supervisor Officers, and Correctional Probation Supervisors in the Seventh Circuit, were reassigned. Of these, six were black, four were Hispanic, and 20 were white. Although the four reassignments experienced by Petitioner may have inconvenienced him, Petitioner presented no evidence of any damages. The facts reveal that Petitioner's misfortunes were precipitated by his unwise amorous activities within his workplace. They were not the result of any effort by the Department to retaliate against him or to discriminate against him because he was white.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Amended Charge of Discrimination be dismissed because it was not timely filed. Dismissal on its merits if the June 25, 2001, Charge of Discrimination is determined to have been timely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 11th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gayle S. Graziano, Esquire 244 North Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner may be presumed, pursuant to Rules 22A- 7.0l0(2)(a) and 22A-8.002(5)(a)3 F.A.C. to have abandoned her position and resigned from the State of Florida Career Service System.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner started working for Florida State Hospital, a residential facility owned and operated by HRS, on August 8, 1986. On June 22, 1987, Petitioner was assigned to Unit 14, at Florida State Hospital, a unit which treated geriatric mentally ill patients. In that assignment, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor Shirley Greggly. It is an established policy at the HRS facility in question for employees who will be absent to notify their supervisors as soon as possible when they know they will be absent. During her employment, Petitioner had received printed copies of this general policy and of the State rules governing the presumption of abandonment of position in cases where an employee is on unexcused leave for three consecutive workdays. During her employment, Petitioner had been a less-than-exemplary employee with regard to absenteeism, tardiness and timely notification and had been counselled prior to April 1989 that she should make contact with the Hospital within seven minutes of the time she was due on shift if an absence was necessary. Only after review of such contact initiated by an employee can a superior determine to approve or disapprove the requested leave. If no contact were initiated by the employee, it was Ms. Greggly's standard procedure to attempt to initiate contact herself with the missing employee. Failure of an employee to notify Ms. Greggly or delayed notification of Ms. Greggly by an employee creates great hardship for the patients who may receive delayed care as a result, and also it creates considerable administrative turmoil for Ms. Greggly in rounding up a substitute employee. Petitioner had been disciplined with a ten-day suspension in September 1988 for failure to notify. She had received a prior written reprimand for absence without authorized leave in June 1988 and an oral reprimand for excessive absenteeism in December 1987. Petitioner had been frequently counselled in regard to these shortcomings. During the first few months of 1989, Petitioner was absent from work due to a work-related injury and, if not already filed, a workers' compensation claim pursuant to Chapter 440 F.S. was at least imminent. Petitioner's primary treating physician was Daniel Bontrager, D.C. By April 1989, Dr. Bontrager had determined that Petitioner could return to light duty work. On April 7, 1989 and again on April 13, 1989, Dr. Bontrager orally informed Petitioner that she could return to light duty work as of April 17, 1989. On April 13, 1989, Ms. Hobbs stated that she would not return to work. Dr. Bontrager communicated his advice to the Hospital. The best diagnostic evidence obtainable by Dr. Bontrager indicated that there was no valid medical reason why Petitioner could not return to work. Ms. Greggly expected Petitioner back at work on April 17, 1989. From that date until April 28, 1989, when Petitioner was deemed to have abandoned her position, Petitioner initiated no contact with her employer or Ms. Greggly, and therefore no leave was authorized for her. On the dates between April 17, 1989 and April 28, 1989, inclusive, Petitioner neither appeared at work nor informed the hospital that she was going to be absent. This period constitutes in excess of three consecutive workdays of absence without approved leave.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order ratifying its previous presumption that Petitioner has abandoned her position and resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 4th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: None filed. Respondent' PFOF: 1-3, 8, 10, 12-14 Accepted. 4-5 Immaterial. 6-7, 9 Accepted as modified; unnecessary argument and detail is rejected as such. 11 Modified to reflect the record; rejected where it is not true to the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration Office of the General Counsel 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ms. Clara Hobbs Route l, Box 186B Sneads, Florida 32460 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4082 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Aletta L. Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to section 112.3173, Florida Statutes (2017),1/ Petitioner forfeited his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account after he was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit first degree murder.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Retirement System (FRS) is a public retirement system as defined by Florida law. See § 121.021(3), Fla. Stat. Petitioner was a state employee and a special risk class member of the FRS. Work History Petitioner was a 20-year DOC employee. Since 2004, he served as a sergeant at the Reception and Medical Center at Lake Butler, Florida (Center). A sergeant is a supervisory position whose duties include the “care, custody and control of inmates.” Retaliating against an inmate is a violation of DOC policy and the oath administered to correction officers.2/ Witnessing or having knowledge of a DOC officer’s conspiracy to murder a former inmate, and failing to report that conspiracy would also be a violation of a DOC sergeant’s duties. As explained by Petitioner, such conduct would be, “outside the guidelines. That’s not the rules. That’s not what [a DOC sergeant is] supposed to do.” Underlying Crime On August 4, 2013, Thomas Driver, a DOC corrections officer who worked at the Center at the same time as Petitioner, was involved in an altercation with an inmate (referred to as Mr. Williams). During that altercation Mr. Williams bit Mr. Driver. Charles Newcomb was a former DOC employee who knew Petitioner from the Center and also about Mr. Driver’s incident with Mr. Williams. All of the DOC employees at the Center knew about the incident between Mr. Williams and Mr. Driver. Based on information they gathered from working at the Center, Mr. Driver, Mr. Newcomb and Petitioner (collectively referred to as the conspirators) believed Mr. Williams had a contagious medical condition and intentionally bit Mr. Driver to infect him. After the incident Mr. Driver was subject to treatment for a possible infection. Mr. Williams was African-American. Although their race is not apparent from the record, in December 2014, the conspirators were members of a local chapter KKK. Joe Moore, served as a Knighthawk for the KKK. A Knighthawk is the person responsible for security at KKK events and traditionally is responsible for the security and protection of the KKK Grand Dragon (the leader of the local KKK chapter). Petitioner and his fellow KKK members (also referred to as “klansmen”) knew that Mr. Moore was a veteran and had training as a sniper. Unbeknownst to the conspirators, however, Mr. Moore was a undercover informant for the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). Although Mr. Newcomb and Mr. Driver referred to each other and Mr. Moore as “Brother,” they referred to and addressed Petitioner as “Sarge” based on his position as a DOC sergeant at the Center. On December 6, 2014, Mr. Driver and Petitioner approached Mr. Moore at a KKK event. As they spoke, Mr. Newcomb stood nearby to ensure that the other klansmen would not interrupt or overhear the conversation. Mr. Driver and Petitioner showed Mr. Moore a picture of an African-American male. The picture was on an 8” x 10” piece of paper that looked as if it had been printed from a database. It was apparent to Mr. Moore at the time that it was a picture of an inmate. After speaking with Petitioner and Mr. Driver, Mr. Moore believed they wanted his help to harm or kill Mr. Williams. Mr. Moore immediately notified the FBI of his conversation with Petitioner and Mr. Driver. At the FBI’s request, Mr. Moore began wearing a microphone and secretly, but legally, taping and transmitting his conversations with the conspirators. Eventually, it was confirmed that the conspirators wanted Mr. Williams put “six-feet under.” Mr. Driver explained to Mr. Moore the graphic nature of the altercation, his subsequent blood treatment as a result of Mr. Williams’ attack, and the fact Mr. Williams served very little time for the attack before he was released on probation. Mr. Driver clearly wanted revenge. Mr. Driver: Yeah, it pissed me off. If I could I’d kick his fricking throat out. Mr. Moore: That’s not necessary I’m all over it we’re all over . . . how do you want [it] done? Mr. Driver: Well. I’m going to tell you like this: If it was me personally and I had another chance at him I’d stomp his larynx. On January 30, 2015, Petitioner, Mr. Newcomb, and Mr. Moore met at a prearranged location and time to drive to the area of Mr. Williams’ home. Mr. Williams had been released and was no longer in custody at the Center. Mr. Driver was intentionally absent from this drive so that he would not come under suspicion for the actions Petitioner and Mr. Newcomb were planning to take that night. In fact, based on his knowledge from working at the Center, Petitioner assured the group that Mr. Driver was working the night shift at the Center and, therefore, had an alibi. Petitioner clearly knew the purpose of the drive was to attempt to kill Mr. Williams. Prior to the drive, Petitioner asked when they were going to “grab him” and discussed with the others whether he should bring his gun on the ride. He told the others that he had obtained the gun, a nine-millimeter, from “the guy that I work with.” Petitioner also wanted to wear protective clothing because he knew, presumably from his work as a DOC sergeant at the Center, that Mr. Williams had a contagious infection or disease. During the car ride, Petitioner discussed the best way to terminate Mr. Williams without raising suspicion. Mr. Newcomb suggested abducting Mr. Williams, injecting him with insulin, and leaving him near the water with a fishing pole. Petitioner said this would look suspicious unless Mr. Williams was known to go fishing. The men also discussed how to dispose of Mr. Williams’ body. Petitioner suggested a “complete disposal” by chopping up the body. At some point that night Mr. Newcomb indicated a recent picture of Mr. Williams would be helpful; Petitioner agreed to “go to work and pull up [Mr. Williams’] picture.” When they arrived in Mr. Williams’ neighborhood, Petitioner made numerous offensive and stereotypical remarks about African-Americans. Neither Petitioner nor the others took any action against Mr. Williams the night of the January 30 drive; and Mr. Williams was never harmed.3/ On March 19, 2015, Mr. Moore met with Petitioner and showed him a staged picture of Mr. Williams’ body lying on the ground in a pool of blood. Upon seeing the photo of what he believed was Mr. Williams’ dead body, Petitioner laughed and stated, “I love it. F—king p-d on himself . . . good f-king job.” During that same meeting, Mr. Moore asked Petitioner if he was happy with the results. Petitioner seemed elated: Mr. Moore: And, we need to make sure that everybody was happy with it. Petitioner: Hell yeah . . . uh Brother I love you, man. . . . I will call [Mr. Driver] as soon as I get – dude you don’t know how happy . . . I love you, brother. I love you, brother. I love you brother. At the final hearing, Petitioner claimed he did not intend to hurt Mr. Williams, but only went along with the others because he believed it was part of the KKK initiation process; and that he was entrapped by the FBI. He also argued he did not know the victim was Mr. Williams or that he was a former inmate. Petitioner’s assertions are not credible and his testimony is unbelievable for a number of reasons. First, the evidence at the underlying criminal trial established the conspirators did not want KKK leaders to know about the plan to attack Mr. Williams. Petitioner admitted the KKK oath includes a promise not to commit acts of violence. These facts contradict the assertion that Petitioner was pretending to plan the death of an African-American (who coincidentally happened to be a former inmate) just to prove his loyalty to the KKK. Second, although he claimed he was unaware of the purpose of the January 30 car ride or that Mr. Williams was a former inmate, the transcripts of the taped recordings clearly establish this is not true. In fact, Petitioner not only knew who the intended victim was, but knew he had attacked Mr. Driver and that he allegedly had an infectious disease. Third, Petitioner’s testimony that he was a passive participant induced by the FBI informant into planning the death of Mr. Williams is also implausible. Again, Petitioner offered to bring a gun along on the ride, offered advice on how to possibly set up the attack so that it looked like an accident, and suggested how to dispose of Mr. Williams’ body. Petitioner’s reaction to seeing Mr. Williams’ body in the photo also contradicts any contention that he did not intend harm to Mr. Williams or that he did not derive any pleasure from his death. Finally, Petitioner testified he was not racist. This was clearly contradicted by the statements he made about African- Americans during the January 30 car ride. Similarly, his testimony that he was a passive KKK member who only participated in its social aspects (i.e., picnics and “fellowship”) was belied by his own acknowledgment that his wife did not want him to be a member of the KKK, and that he participated in cross-burnings.4/ On August 11, 2017, a jury found Mr. Moran guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Murder in the First Degree.5/ Findings of Ultimate Fact The evidence clearly establishes there is a nexus between Petitioner’s employment as a DOC correctional sergeant at the Center and the commission of the felony of conspiracy to commit murder. Petitioner’s actions were intentional and he knew his participation in the conspiracy was illegal. Petitioner knowingly violated his obligation as a sworn correctional officer by participating in the conspiracy and not reporting the criminal activity committed by the other conspirators. Petitioner defrauded the public from receiving the faithful performance of his duties as a DOC sergeant. The public had a right to expect that one entrusted with guarding inmates would not act as a violent vigilante to exact revenge for a fellow correctional officer. Petitioner realized a profit, gain, or advantage from the commission of the crime in the form of self-gratification and comradery with and respect from Mr. Driver. Petitioner used his power, rights, privileges, and the knowledge accessible to him through his work as a correctional officer to facilitate his crime.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the State Board of Administration issue a final order finding that Petitioner was a public employee convicted of a specified offense committed prior to retirement; and that pursuant to section 112.3173, he has forfeited all of his rights and benefits in his Florida Retirement System Investment Plan account, except for the return of his accumulated contributions as of the date of his termination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1553112. Respondent's nursing license is current through March 31, 1987. In April 1984, Respondent applied for a license to practice nursing in the State of Florida. On this application she indicated she had never been arrested for any offense other than a traffic violation. The aforesaid application was signed by Respondent under oath. However, on or about 7 September, 1974, Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of abduction of a female. Respondent was convicted of the aforesaid crime and sentenced to not less than three (3) nor more than ten (10) years in a state prison with execution of sentence suspended and Respondent placed on probation for a period of three (3) years. Marianne Gauthier and Respondent are one and the same person. Respondent was tried in a county court in West Virginia and never actually served any prison time. Upon successful completion of her probation period, Respondent was released from all provisions of probation. Subsequent to her arrest and conviction in 1974 Respondent completed a four year college curriculum to qualify as a registered nurse and has had no further involvement with any law enforcement authority. RECOMMENDED that Respondent be issued a reprimand for failure to accurately complete her license application and be placed on probation for a period of 6 months. Entered this 11th day of April, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marianne E. Abbott 1824 Cadillac Circle Tampa, Florida 33619
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Raymond A. Baker, for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner would be allowed to return to work as a supervisor in a unit for developmentally disabled adults at Florida State Hospital (FSH). Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on September 2, 1997, a DCFS committee denied the request. Petitioner is now barred from doing such work because of a disqualifying offense which occurred on September 19, 1993. On that date, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of committing a "battery upon his live-in girlfriend," a misdemeanor under Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). Since the victim in that case was a person with whom Petitioner was then residing, the offense constituted domestic violence as it subsequently became defined in 1994 by Section 741.28, Florida Statutes. Petitioner entered a plea of No Contest to the charge of "[b]attery-domestic" on October 12, 1993. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, he was fined $150.00, and he was placed on twelve months probation. In addition, he was required to complete "New Hope & Alcohol Counseling," and he was ordered to have no contact with the victim. Petitioner successfully completed all terms of his probation, including counseling courses in both spousal abuse and substance abuse. In October 1993, Petitioner began working at FSH in an Other Personnel Services position. Eventually, he attained the position of unit treatment rehabilitation senior supervisor I in Unit 4, a position involving supervision of developmentally disabled adults. Due to a change in the law, in 1996, he was required to undergo a background screening. That screening uncovered his 1993 offense, and on July 18, 1997, he was disqualified from working in a position of special trust with developmentally disabled adults. Petitioner then accepted a position of fiscal assistant in the financial services section of FSH, a position having no contact with residents. He has continued working in that position pending the outcome of this case. Because of his desire to return to his former position, he has applied for an exemption from disqualification. Petitioner is a graduate of Florida State University with a degree in government and criminology. He also holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence from Howard University School of Law. He eventually plans to take the Florida Bar examination, and if he passes the examination, the Florida Bar will accept him for membership, notwithstanding his 1993 misdemeanor conviction. This assertion was not contradicted. In interpreting the statutory criteria which govern the granting of exemptions, the DCFS considers the following factors, among others, to be important. First, the applicant should not minimize the seriousness of the offense; he must express some remorse; and he must have insight into the seriousness of the incident and the risks involved. A three-person committee preliminarily denied the request in early September 1997 because at that time it believed that Petitioner minimized the incident, that he expressed little or no remorse, and that he had no insight into the seriousness of his offense. More than four years have elapsed since the criminal incident, a sufficient time for rehabilitation. Since that time, there have been no other blemishes on Petitioner's record. Except for a "bleeding toe," which was caused when the victim either cut it on broken glass or accidentally jammed it against the door, there was no injury to the victim. Petitioner has worked continuously at FSH since the incident, and he was described by former colleagues in Unit 4 as having a good rapport with patients and staff. According to co-workers, he also handled crises in the unit "in the right way." During the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, he received satisfactory evaluations from his supervisor. There is no evidence that Petitioner would present a danger to the residents if the exemption is granted. Petitioner's description of the circumstances surrounding the incident was not altogether accurate. This finding is made after considering the testimony of the victim who reluctantly testified on behalf of DCFS. For example, Petitioner recalled that the altercation ensued after the two had an argument over finances. However, it was established that it was caused when the victim attempted to break off the relationship and to leave the premises. In an effort to keep her from leaving, Petitioner tried to disrobe her. Also, he was extremely argumentative when speaking with the investigating law enforcement officer, and he refused to leave the premises when requested. According to the victim, Petitioner's verbally abusive behavior and his refusal to leave, rather than the altercation itself, ultimately led to his arrest that evening. While Petitioner was somewhat evasive and had no recollection about some of the facts surrounding the incident, this is probably attributable, at least in part, to his being highly intoxicated when the incident occurred. Petitioner expressed regret for his actions on the evening of September 19, 1993. His assertion that he has had no problems with alcohol since that night was not contradicted. Given the lapse of time since the incident, a record of continuous employment with the FSH with good evaluations, the completion of two counseling courses, and an expression of regret, the request for an exemption should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949
The Issue Whether the Education Practices Commission (EPC) should revoke or suspend the Respondent's Florida teaching certificate, or impose any other penalty provided by law, for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 5, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 326738, covering the areas of History, Political Science, and Economics, which was valid through June 30, 1994. Respondent's teaching certificate has not been renewed for failure to complete three additional course credits. On or about November 1989, Respondent was reported to Professional Practices Services (PPS) for failure to maintain honesty. The basis for the report was that on a teacher in-service day, Respondent did not report to work, but had a co-worker sign in for him. As a result of this report, the Pinellas County School District suspended the Respondent for three (3) days without pay. On or about August 21, 1990, Respondent entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Department of Education that extended through the end of the 1990-1991 school year. The Deferred Prosecution Agreement included in its terms the requirements that the Respondent: violate no criminal laws and shall fully comply with all district school board regula- tions, school rules and State Board of Education Rule 6B-1.006, F.A.C.; perform assigned duties and responsibilities in a professional manner and which is satisfactory to the county school board and in compliance with the rules of the Florida Department of Education; and satisfactorily complete a workshop/inservice training course or college level course in developing positive relationships with others. On July 24, 1991, then Commissioner of Education, Betty Castor, revoked the Respondent's Deferred Prosecution Agreement with the Department of Education and filed an Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. On June 30, 1992, the Education Practices Commission (EPC) issued a Final Order regarding the July 24, 1991 Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. On or about August 12, 1992, Karen Wilde, Executive Director of the EPC, notified the Respondent of the terms of the Respondent's probation as provided by the June 30, 1992 EPC Final Order. On May 4, 1992, Betty Castor, Commissioner of Education filed a second Administrative Complaint against the Respondent. The second Administrative Complaint referenced the first pending Administrative Complaint entered against the Respondent and further alleged that the Respondent had engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional conduct. The second Administrative Complaint also alleged that on or about October 25, 1991, the Pinellas County School Board suspended the Respondent with pay and recommended that the Respondent be terminated. On August 18, 1992, the Respondent entered into a Settlement Agreement with the EPC whereby the Respondent elected not to contest the allegations set forth in the May 4, 1992 Administrative Complaint. This agreement required the Respondent among other things to: submit to an evaluation by licensed psychiatrist mutually acceptable to the EPC and the Respondent within sixty (60) days of the date of this agreement. submit to an evaluation by a licensed physician other than [Respondent's] regular physician. This exam must include a medical review to determine the cumulative effects of medication which has been prescribed to [the Respondent], and to determine whether any medications or combinations thereof with each other or with alcohol may contribute to the behaviors which are the basis of the Adminis- trative Complaint. On November 6, 1992, the Education Practices Commission issued a Final Order with regard to the Second Administrative Complaint. The November 6, 1992 Final Order incorporated the terms of the August 18, 1992 Settlement Agreement. On or about December 11, 1992, Karen Wilde, Executive Director of the EPC, notified the Respondent of the terms that the Respondent agreed to in his Settlement Agreement. On or about March 10, 1993, Karen Wilde again notified the Respondent of the requirements of the Respondent's Settlement Agreement and the Respondent's non-compliance with terms of that latest settlement agreement. The Respondent has not complied with the terms of the Final Order of November 6, 1992 which incorporated the Settlement Agreement insofar as the evaluations from a physician and from a psychiatrist have not been submitted. On or about April 1, 1993 Karen Wilde notified the Respondent that the Respondent was being reported to the PPS for non-compliance with the terms of the Final Order of November 6, 1992. On June 30, 1993, the PPS initiated an action against the Respondent for violation of the Respondent's EPC probation. Respondent has taught school for over twenty years. On September 7, 1992, Respondent seriously injured his back in the course of his employment as a result of intervening to prevent a fight between two students. Respondent's injury required him to undergo surgery to repair a herniated disc, and resulted in a 9 percent permanent partial impairment rating to the body as a whole. During this time Respondent was on prescribed pain medication. Respondent filed a worker's compensation claim which was settled by the Pinellas County School Board. The settlement stipulated that Respondent would resign his employment with the Pinellas County School Board, and further provided that the School Board has no objection to deletion of paragraph 8(f) and 8(g) of the settlement agreement. On August 18, 1993, the Respondent resigned his teaching position with the Pinellas County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Respondent be barred from reapplying for a teaching certificate for a period of one (1) year from the final disposition by the Education Practices Commission; That prior to reapplication the Respondent be required to provide the certificates that were required by Paragraph 5 and 6, and shall comply with Paragraphs 8(f) and 8(g), all of the Final Order entered by the Education Practices Commission on November 6, 1992; That upon reemployment in the teaching profession that he be placed on a term of probation of three years on the terms outlined in Paragraphs 7, 8(a), 8(b), 8(c), 8(d), 8(e), and 9, all of the Final Order entered by the Education Practices Commission on November 6, 1992; and That an administrative fine of $500.00 be paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner within the first twelve months of the probationary period. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of March, 1995. RICHARD HIXSON 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 16th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the Findings of Fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-10. Adopted. 11. Adopted in part. 12.-18. Adopted. Incorporated in paragraph 18. 20.-22. Adopted. Respondent's Proposed Order Adopted in part. Reject as not supported by the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Nathan L. Bond, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 David L. Smith 2521 Oak Leaf Lane Condo D Clearwater, Florida 34623 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to maintain good moral character, in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner certified Respondent as a correctional probation officer on February 1, 1991, and as a criminal justice training instructor on December 7, 1999. Her respective certificate numbers are 20851 and 205697. Respondent was first employed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) on August 10, 1990. She was employed as a correctional probation officer. As a result of promotions, Respondent became a DOC Correctional Probation Specialist in February 1995, so that she was responsible for, among other things, various administrative duties, such as handling citizens' complaints of employee misconduct and coordinating training events. In April 2001, Respondent filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that DOC forced her to work in a hostile environment. On February 15, 2002, Respondent, alleging the same facts, commenced a legal action against DOC in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 02-60236-CIV. As part of the federal litigation, DOC filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing, in part, that Respondent's complaint failed to claim damages. In response, on March 28, 2003, Respondent, representing herself, filed a lengthy affidavit, to which she personally attested. In the affidavit, Respondent swore to the following statement: I requested assistance from management [following the departure of the other Correctional Probation Specialist from Respondent's office and DOC's failure to fill the empty position], but they refused to assign another Specialist to the office to assist me. As a result I had to work an average of five hours per week extra in overtime without pay to properly supervise this caseload to prevent from being reprimanded, suspended or terminated by [DOC]. I was not paid for this time. The evidence is clear that Respondent did not work overtime, with or without pay. The Correctional Probation Supervisor who directly supervised Respondent at the time testified at the hearing. Obviously not hostile to Respondent, the supervisor testified definitively that during the relevant period in the affidavit--March 2, 2001 through May 9, 2002--she was intimately familiar with Respondent's work, including her itinerary and travel logs. The supervisor testified that Respondent incurred no overtime whatsoever during this period, and this testimony is credited in its entirety. Respondent's sworn statement in the affidavit is false and was false at the time that Respondent made it. Respondent's sole purpose in making this false statement was to deceive the court and show an element of damages that did not, in fact, exist. DOC terminated Respondent on August 1, 2003. She has not since worked in a job that requires certification from Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order suspending Respondent's certificates as a correctional probation officer and criminal justice training instructor for one year retroactive to August 2, 2003; placing these certificates on probation for two years from the date of the final order; and requiring Respondent to attend an ethics course approved by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph S. White Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Faye E. Wright-Simpson
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of nursing assistance pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was a certified nursing assistant, having been issued license number 84961. Her address with the Department of Health is Post Office Box 402, McIntosh, Florida 32664. On June 25, 2007, a Final Order was entered by the Board of Nursing against Respondent. The Final Order required Respondent to pay a fine of $50.00, enroll in and successfully complete courses in Legal Aspects for Nursing Assistants, and placed Respondent on probation for two years. A condition of the two-year probation was “[w]hether employed as a nurse or not, the licensee shall submit written reports to the Nursing Compliance Officer which shall contain the licensee’s name, license number, and current address; the name, address, and phone number of each current employer; and a statement by the licensee describing her employment. This report shall be submitted to the Nursing Compliance Officer every three (3) months in a manner as directed by the Nursing Compliance Officer.” (Emphasis supplied.) Respondent’s probation required that she “be responsible for assuring that reports from nursing supervisors will be furnished to the Nursing Compliance Officer every three (3) months. That report shall describe the licensee’s work assignment, work load, level of performance, and any problems." Quarterly self-reports and reports from her nursing supervisor, if any, were due to the Department on September 24, 2007, December 24, 2007, March 24, 2008, June 24, 2008, September 24, 2008, December 24, 2008, March 24, 2009, and June 24, 2009. Failure to comply with the terms of probation contained in the Final Order without prior written consent from the Board of Nursing was a violation of Respondent’s probation. As part of the Final Order a Notice of Appeal Rights was included, indicating that Respondent had 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal with the clerk of the department pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, if she wanted to challenge the Final Order. Shaila Washington, a compliance officer for the Board of Nursing, was Respondent’s compliance officer. As Respondent’s compliance officer, Ms. Washington mailed Respondent the Board of Nursing's standard information packet on July 18, 2007. The packet outlines the terms imposed by the Board and summarizes what the Respondent needed to do in order to comply, including definite due dates listed above. The letter accompanying the information packet states in bold, "Remember, it is your responsibility to read the final order and ask questions if you do not understand it." Respondent did not contact her compliance officer regarding the information packet mailed to her. She also did not appeal the final order. Ms. Washington testified, and Respondent confirmed, that Respondent failed to submit any of the quarterly reports, by Respondent or any supervisor, as required pursuant to the terms of Respondent’s probation. Respondent stated that she did not file any of the reports because she was not working as a CNA. However, the Final Order was clear that even if Respondent was not employed, she was required to follow the probation terms and submit the reports.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated Section 464.204(1)(b) and Section 456.072(1)(q), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent’s license to practice nursing assistance be reprimanded and that Respondent’s license be suspended, with the suspension stayed for 60 days to allow Respondent to comply with the terms of the Board’s prior Final Order. If within 60 days Respondent has not complied with the terms of the Board’s prior Final Order, it is recommended that the stay will be lifted and the suspension be imposed. The suspension will be lifted upon Respondent’s compliance with the Board’s prior Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 3rd day of December, 2009.
