The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's employment with the Respondent was terminated in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was an employee of FRSA. On or about September 26, 1989, Petitioner's employment with FRSA was terminated and the charges of discrimination were filed. Prior to termination, Petitioner's work performance with the company had been acceptable. In fact, for the performance review issued on January 31, 1989, Petitioner received a superior rating in eight of the eleven categories, a good rating in two categories, and an outstanding rating in one category. At the time of her termination with FRSA, Petitioner earned an annual salary of $35,000. Petitioner claims a total of $83,568 for the lost wages and benefits resulting from her termination with FRSA. At the time of her termination, Petitioner was pregnant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the charge of discrimination filed by the Petitioner in this cause against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Rubeis Reno Rubeis 4350 Wyndcliff Circle Orlando, Florida 32817 Susan McKenna Garwood & McKenna, P.A. 322 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1992. Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
Findings Of Fact The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 1, 2011, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on April 19, 2011, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On April 1, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-110-1A to LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On April 1, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On April 19, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-110-1A to LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $12,985.36 against LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. 4. On April 29, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was. personally served on LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. LYNDA AGUAYO, DBA, LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION AND LA FRAMING CONTRACTOR, INC failed to answer the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment or request a proceeding in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds a certificate as a law enforcement officer, Certificate Number 02-22949. That certificate is currently inactive. Respondent was employed as a deputy sheriff with the Polk County Sheriff's Department in January of 1978. Respondent resigned this position on or about October 22, 1982. On or about September 9, 1982, Respondent was involved in the apprehension and arrest of an individual named James Pitts. A Winter Haven police officer, Dennis Warren, actually effected the arrest of the above suspect on or about September 9, 1982. During the arrest, Pitts resisted Officer Warren and in so doing, Officer Warren sustained injuries to his right hand. The area in which the struggle occurred consisted of loose dirt and gravel. Immediately after the arrest, Officer Warren's uniform was disheveled, dirty and ripped. The knuckles on his right hand were bleeding. Immediately after the arrest, Respondent's uniform was clean, not disheveled and no dirt was present. The dirt and gravel at the scene of the arrest were the type that would adhere to a uniform. After Officer Warren arrested the suspect, Respondent was unable or unwilling to walk the suspect to the police car. Another officer (Bill Stone), walked the suspect to the police car and placed the suspect in the vehicle. Respondent was present during the arrest of James Pitts and observed Officer Warren struggling with said individual. Officer Warren requested Respondent's assistance in the arrest but Respondent failed to provide such assistance. During Respondent's tenure as a deputy sheriff, he failed to assist other officers on several occasions during violent confrontations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 1984.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certificate as an educator in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Commissioner of Education, was the state official in Florida responsible for the certification of educators and the regulation of the teaching profession in Florida. Respondent was certified as an educator in this state by the Petitioner, and held Florida Educator's Certificate 554449, valid through June 30, 1995, and covering the area of elementary education. Crystal S. Bush, Respondent's wife, met the Respondent when he was her cross-country coach while she was a sixth grade student at Suncoast Middle School. He became her teacher for English and social studies the following year when she was a seventh grade student at that school. She married him in February 1993, when she turned sixteen years old, while she was in the ninth grade. Respondent and his wife had one child, a boy, in February 1994, and separated in the Spring of 1995 because, she claimed, he became very controlling and verbally abusive. Because she did not have any money, and needed funds on which to live, Mrs. Bush withdrew $400.00 from their joint bank account. With their child, she moved back with her parents, occupying the garage apartment on their property about three and a half miles from where she had lived with Respondent. Mrs. Bush insists that Respondent knew she was leaving, but she did not know if he knew where she was going. She believes he did, however, because he knew she had no place else to go. A day or two after the separation, Respondent came to the apartment where Mrs. Bush and the baby were staying. They were taking a nap at the time. He claims he went to the parents’ house first and was told his wife was in the garage apartment and he should "go on in,” which he did. Respondent entered the apartment and went into the bedroom where Mrs. Bush and the baby were sleeping. According to Mrs. Bush, she was awakened by Respondent's yelling that he wanted his mail-box key and the money she had taken from their joint account. Mrs. Bush contends that though she had her own checking account before this, he opened up the joint account with her as a gift, and it was into this joint account that their sizable tax refund check had been deposited. She claims that they had agreed she was to get half of the refund, but Respondent later reneged on that agreement. Mrs. Bush gave him the mail-box key, but asked him to let her keep a part of the refund. She had stopped working as a club dancer and had no money. Respondent refused. Because of his attitude, she declined to return any of the money she had withdrawn. Because Respondent's yelling was scaring the baby, and Mrs. Bush tried to terminate the conversation, but Respondent would neither be quiet nor let her leave. She tried to ignore him, but, she contends, he picked up an incense box and threatened to kill her with it. Respondent also demanded that she give him the baby. He claims he had had care of the child 5-to-6 nights a week while his wife was working, but when she left, she refused to let him have the child any more. Mrs. Bush contends that when she refused to give up the child, Respondent pushed her to the floor, pulled her hair and hit her on the lip, splitting it. She cannot say whether he hit her with his open hand or his fist, but there is no doubt her lip was split. The injury was observed by Mr. Gregory, a domestic violence investigator with the county, when he interviewed her a few days later. Mrs. Bush also claims that during the course of the fight over the baby, Respondent threatened to break the baby's arm if he had to in order to get the child. Respondent denies this, and there is no evidence that any such injury was inflicted on the child. However, that Mrs. Bush finally gave up the child and the Respondent left the premises. Immediately after Respondent's departure, Mrs. Bush called the police who responded within fifteen minutes. When they arrived, she told them that Respondent had hit her and the child, and she repeated that allegation to the court when she subsequently sought an injunction against him. She also advised an investigator for the Department of Education that Respondent had hit her and had returned the child to her scratched and bruised. This report was also made to child protection investigators with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services some weeks later. No evidence was introduced to confirm her allegations of injury to the child, however. Later the day of the incident, Respondent was arrested on a charge of domestic violence, and the child was returned to Mrs. Bush. While the police were at her house, they suggested she sign a document seeking a restraining order against Respondent, which she did. Respondent and his wife talked by telephone several times after his arrest. As a result of these discussions, she put up the funds required to get him released from jail on bond the following morning. Several days after the incident, because she was experiencing pain in the neck, Mrs. Bush saw her doctor. At that visit, no medical attention was required for the injury to her lip. She did not feel it necessary to take the child to the doctor because though, she claims, he had been struck by the Respondent, he did not seem to be injured. In the interim between Respondent's arrest and his subsequent court appearance at which his plea of nolo contendere was entered, Mrs. Bush obtained an order granting a temporary injunction against the Respondent to prevent him from committing any violence against her. This was followed by an amended order which made the injunction permanent. Mr. Gregory, the court's domestic violence and family law investigator, received the same story from Mrs. Bush that she had told to the police, and conducted his own investigation. Gregory claims to have spoken with Respondent during several mediation meetings. On each interview, save one, Respondent had an attorney present. Mr. Gregory contends that Respondent admitted there had been a physical altercation between him and his wife, but that the hitting of Mrs. Bush was an accident which occurred while he was trying to take the child from her arms. Gregory also states that Respondent admitted striking Mrs. Bush in the mouth, pushing her to the floor, pulling her hair, and threatening to take the child away from her. At hearing, Respondent again claimed he was acting in self-defense to his wife’s striking out at him and grabbing him by the genitals. In light of the fact that this defense was not raised to anyone prior to hearing, however, it is rejected. Based on his investigation into the incident, Mr. Gregory recommended that the State Attorney proceed with prosecution of the criminal charges which had been filed against the Respondent. Thereafter, on February 27, 1996, Respondent pleaded nolo contendere in circuit court to a charge of domestic violence. The court withheld adjudication but sentenced the Respondent to one-year probation, a fine of $150.00, required him to attend counseling, and directed him to refrain from contact with Mrs. Bush. In the expert opinion of Marilyn L. Strong, the Director of Personnel Services for the Lee County Schools and an educator with almost a quarter century of administrative and supervisory background, the misconduct attributed to Respondent constitutes both gross immorality and moral turpitude as they are defined in the Florida Statutes and the rules of the Department of Education. However, Ms. Strong’s opinion is not supported by the facts in this case, and it is found that Respondent’s single striking of his wife does not here constitute either gross immorality or moral turpitude.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commissioner of Education enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire 14 South Ninth Street DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Lawrence Bush, pro se 4840 East Riverside Drive Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Kathleen M. Richards Executive Director Education Practices Committee 224-E Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Program Director Professional Practices Services 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Pl-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact 1. On December 21, 2010, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued an Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 10-388-D4-OPA to DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. for a total assessed penalty of $2,994.10. The Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. was advised. that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Order of Penalty Assessment must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On December 23, 2010, the Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. A copy of the Order of Penalty Assessment with Proof of Service is attached hereto as “Exhibit 1” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On January 11,2011, DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A. filed a Petition for Administrative Review Hearing (“Petition”) with the Department. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 20, 2011, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 11-0345. A copy of the petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit 2” and incorporated herein by reference. 4. On February 18, 2011, the Respondent filed with DOAH a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal/Satisfaction of Penalty Assessment and also sent the Department a certified check for $2,994.10. The check was received by the Department’s investigator and deposited into the Workers’ Compensation Trust Fund on Monday, February 17, 2011. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal/Satisfaction of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 3” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On April 29, 2011, the Department received from DOAH a copy of an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit 4” and incorporated herein by reference 6. The factual allegations contained in the Order of Penalty Assessment, issued on December 21, 2010, are fully incorporated herein by reference, and are adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this matter.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Petition received from DIABETES AND ENDOCRINE CENTER OF FLORIDA, P.A., as well as the Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that:
