Findings Of Fact On December 3, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: provides maximum penalties for major violations, but fails to designate, or define minor infractions, or provide sufficient guidelines to guide the agency in exercise of its discretion to designate minor infractions as opposed to major infraction listed by the rule. More particularly, the rule provides in part that "any portion of either penalty may be applied." Applying either penalty listed in this rule, which provides for loss of gaintime or disciplinary confinement, is definitionally a major violation. . . . The Petition and the Amended Petition do not included any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edward Willison Carroll, III, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a Credit Life, including Credit Disability Insurance Agent; General Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines Agent; General Lines - Motor Vehicle Physical Damage and Mechanical Breakdown Agent; Ordinary Life, including Health Insurance Agent; Health Insurance Agent; and Automobile and Inspection and Warranty Association Salesman. On March 10, 1980, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as a General Lines Agent (Property, Casualty, and Miscellaneous Lines) . Question number 13 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. On May 28, 1982, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as an Ordinary Life including Disability Agent. Question number 15 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. Respondent's answers to question 13 on the March 10, 1980, application and question 15 on the March 28, 1982, application were false. On December 11, 1970, the State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, filed an information with the circuit court which charged that respondent did on December 3, 1970, in Leon County, Florida ... knowingly commit a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of Alice Leigh Divita, a female child under the age of fourteen years, to-wit: of the age of six years, without intent to commit rape upon said child, contrary to Section 800.04, F.S. On March 9, 1971, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of fondling, as charged in the information. The court withheld adjudication of guilty and imposition of sentence, and placed respondent on probation for a period of three years. At hearing, respondent conceded that he had been charged with the aforementioned felony. He averred, however, that his failure to disclose such charge on his applications was not intended to be deceitful but was premised on his belief that he could properly answer no to such inquiries because adjudication of guilty had been withheld. While respondent may reasonably have believed that he could respond in the negative to an inquiry concerning felony convictions, his contention that he held an honest belief that he could also respond in the negative to inquiries about whether the had ever been charged with a felony is not persuasive. But for the foregoing charge, respondent has not been charged or convicted of any other felonies. Nor, has the respondent been shown to have engaged in any improprieties as an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending respondent's licensure and eligibility for licensure for three months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 5. 7 & 8 Addressed in paragraph 6. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 11. Addressed in paragraph 9. 12-14. Rejected as not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas L. Neilson, Esquire 105 West Fifth Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact For purposes of the Motion, the following allegations contained in the petitions are accepted as true: Albert Figueroa is an approved visitor for an inmate in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Albert Figueroa regularly visits an inmate under the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Jaylin Figueroa has a brother in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Jaylin Figueroa regularly visits with this brother. Martin Glick is on the Florida Department of Corrections approved visitor list for an inmate in its custody. Imposition of visitation restrictions upon an inmate, including indefinite suspension of these privileges, would affect the Petitioners’ visitation of that inmate.
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to make a reasonable accommodation in order to allow the Petitioner to perform his job functions and thereby committed an unlawful employment practice constituting discrimination that is prohibited by the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Miami-Dade County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Respondent, Miami Dade County Consumer Service, is a department of Miami-Dade County. The Petitioner, Carlos A. Mangual, is an employee of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the County). He currently is employed as the security manager for the Port of Miami. The Petitioner has held his current position since April of 2001. Prior to his current position, the Petitioner was a Parks and Recreation Security Supervisor for the County. As a supervisor he was eligible to participate in seminars and training meetings that were geared toward making supervisors aware of personnel rules and regulations. During his employment with Parks and Recreation, the Petitioner attended a meeting regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Collins is the County's Employee Relations ADA specialist who was the guest instructor for the supervisor's certification program. Mr. Collins met the Petitioner at the ADA meeting and discussed with the Petitioner whether the Petitioner's weight (and size) would be considered a disability under the ADA provisions. Subsequently, while employed with the County, the Petitioner was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in a knee injury. The Petitioner has undergone two surgeries to correct the damaged knee. Because the knee has adversely affected the Petitioner's gait, he also suffers back pain from the incident. The knee injury, resultant back pain, and residual physical impairments have caused the Petitioner to receive a workers' compensation overall impairment rating of 8 percent. For purposes of this case, the Respondent does not challenge such impairment. Subsequent to the accident and knee injury, the Petitioner applied for a position with the Respondent. Such position, Consumer Protection Inspector/Officer, required the Petitioner to attend to office duties for approximately 1-2 hours per day and to "be on the road" the rest of the time. Consequently, while working as a Consumer Protection Inspector, the Petition logged anywhere from 100 to 200 miles per day in a County-owned vehicle. The Petitioner began his probationary status with the Respondent in January 2000. During the probationary period, the Petitioner received monthly job performance evaluations. After approximately 5 months and while still during his probationary status, the Petitioner was not retained as a Consumer Protection Inspector. Instead, he was returned to the Parks Department where he continued employment with the County until he began his current position with the Port. The Petitioner considered the return to Parks a "demotion" based upon his alleged disability. It is undisputed the Petitioner requested a larger vehicle during his tenure with the Respondent. The Petitioner maintained the mileage logged in small vehicles was damaging to his knee and uncomfortable. The Petitioner claims he was entitled to an accommodation under the ADA because of his alleged disability. During his time with the Respondent, the Petitioner did not make a formal request for an accommodation. In fact, the credible evidence supports a finding that the Petitioner obtained the form but did not file it with supporting medical documentation as advised by the County's ADA specialist. The Petitioner maintains that the small vehicle assigned for his use required him to frequently stop and stretch. Such stops were necessary because the interior of the vehicle did not allow for an extension of his leg. There is no evidence that the employer refused to allow the Petitioner to make such stops or that the Petitioner was adversely evaluated because of the stops. During the Petitioner's probationary period, the Respondent did not have a larger vehicle readily available to assign to the Petitioner. Vehicles that might have become available would have been assigned based upon seniority with the Respondent. The Petitioner went back to Parks prior to such vehicles becoming permanently available to the Respondent. The Petitioner's impairment rating has not affected his abilities to walk every day, to drive to and from his place of employment, to shop, to engage in leisure activities, or to go to a gym once a month for workouts. There is no evidence of any life activity that Petitioner cannot perform as a result of his knee impairment. The Petitioner was fully able to perform the functions of his job. The Petitioner performed his job with the Respondent even when using a small vehicle. The Respondent never refused a request for an accommodation from the Petitioner. The Petitioner's informal inquiry regarding how to seek an accommodation was never formally filed. The Petitioner's size as well as any knee impairment contributed to the uncomfortable nature of the small vehicle used by the Respondent. This was especially true when the Petitioner was required to share the vehicle with another employee.
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 dismissing the Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2002, 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 30th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, 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 Carlos A. Mangual 1290 Northeast 135th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Consumer Services Miami Dade County 140 West Flagler Street, Suite 901 Miami, Florida 33128 Eric A. Rodriquez, Esquire 111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1993 Ana M. Urrechaga, Esquire Urrechaga, P. A. 8603 South Dixie Highway, Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33143
The Issue Whether Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, Richard Charles Gaston, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the rule at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent stipulated that the Petitioner has standing to institute this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code. Section 944.292, Florida Statutes, provides that the civil rights of persons convicted of a felony as defined in Section 10, Article X of the Constitution of the State of Florida, are suspended "until such rights are restored by a full pardon, conditional pardon, or restoration of civil rights granted pursuant to s. 8, Art. IV of the State Constitution." Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Florida, authorizes the Governor to grant pardons restoring civil rights with approval of three members of the Cabinet. The initiation of the process for consideration of whether an inmate should have his or her civil rights restored pursuant to Section 8, Article IV of the Constitution of the State of Florida, is governed by Section 944.293, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 944.293, Florida Statutes (1989), provides the following: Initiation of restoration of civil rights. --With respect to those persons convicted of a felony, the following procedure shall apply: Prior to the time an offender is discharged from supervision, an authorized agent of the department shall obtain from the Governor the necessary application and other forms required for the restoration of civil rights. The authorized agent shall insure that the application and all necessary material are forwarded to the Governor before the offender is discharged from supervision. In implementing Section 944.293, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has promulgated Rule 33-7.005, Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Challenged Rule"). The Challenged Rule provides, in pertinent part: Discharge of an Inmate. When an inmate has completed all combined sentences imposed upon him or is released by parole, pardon or court order, the Secretary or his designated agent shall furnish such inmate with a certificate of discharge upon his release from custody. All qualified inmates shall be given the opportunity at the time of their release to complete an application for restoration of civil rights, Form DC4-322, Restoration of Civil Rights. Form DC4-322 is hereby incorporated by reference. A copy of this form may be obtained from any institution or from the Bureau of Admission and Release, Department of Corrections . . . . The Respondent releases approximately 40,000 to 45, 000 inmates each year. The release of an inmate, including an inmate convicted of a felony, involves a somewhat lengthy process and the completion of a number of forms, including a form for restoration of civil rights. The date upon which an inmate is to be released from prison becomes "frozen" seven days prior to the inmate's release. Even after the release date is determined and considered "frozen", however, that release date may be modified because of conduct of the inmate after the date is "frozen" but before the inmate is actually released. The completion of the forms necessary to institute a determination of whether an inmate's civil rights should be restored begins approximately 120 days prior to the inmate's projected release. Pursuant to the Challenged Rule, the Respondent has designated an employee of the Respondent at Marion Correctional Institute to interview inmates to be released and provide a Form DC4-322, Restoration of Civil Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"), to inmates to be released. A completed Application is mailed by the Respondent to the Florida Parole Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") on the date that the inmate is released from prison. The Respondent does not send the completed Application until the day the inmate is actually released from prison because the release date may change at any time prior to the actual time the inmate is released. The weight of the evidence failed to prove, however, that the Respondent cannot inform the Commission after it has forwarded an application that the inmate's proposed release date has been modified or that the Commission would not ignore an application upon such notification. Some, but not all, inmates convicted of felonies may not be eligible for restoration of their civil rights at the time of their release from prison; these inmates are subject to supervision after leaving prison. Some inmates convicted of felonies, such as the Petitioner, have, however, completely served their sentences and are released from all supervision at the time they are released from prison. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that such inmates are not eligible for restoration of their civil rights immediately upon their release from prison.
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner has been rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s); and, if so, whether the intended action to deny Petitioner's exemption request pursuant to section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ would constitute an abuse of discretion by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the following material Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner was a 52-year-old female who sought to qualify, pursuant to section 435.07, for employment in a position of trust as a direct service provider for physically or mentally disabled adults or children. This position requires the successful completion of a Level 2 background screening. See § 435.04, Fla. Stat. APD is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust. Specifically, the mission of the Agency includes serving and protecting the vulnerable population, including children or adults with developmental disabilities. In conformance with the statute, Petitioner was screened by APD since she applied for a position of special trust as a direct service provider of APD. The screening revealed, and the parties stipulated at the hearing, that Petitioner was convicted of the following disqualifying offenses: Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1987 Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1987 Forgery (4 counts)--Felonies--1993 Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1993 Battery-Family Violence--Misdemeanor-- 1996 Forgery--Felony--1998 The stipulation also included the fact that 17 years have elapsed since the last disqualifying offense was committed. The screening revealed, and the parties also stipulated at the hearing, that Petitioner was arrested or convicted of the following non-disqualifying offenses: Simple Battery--Misdemeanor--arrested-- dismissed--1987 Theft by Conversion--convicted--1993 Driving Under the Influence--convicted-- 1994 Criminal Trespass--Misdemeanor-- convicted--2000 The stipulation also included the fact that 15 years have elapsed since the last non-disqualifying arrest or conviction was committed. Rosita Martin At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was unemployed. She had last been employed at Martin's Group Home as a caregiver of vulnerable children who had disabilities or behavioral problems. Her duties included giving out medicines, assisting clients with bathing, and taking kids on outings and to church. She also helped to cook. She explained that most of her convictions occurred during a period of her life when she was in an abusive marriage and suffered from depression. She acknowledged that, during that time period, she was abusing drugs (cocaine) and alcohol. During that same period of time, she admitted that she had purchased and also possessed marijuana. She explained that her battery conviction in 1996 related to a domestic dispute with her husband. She called the police, and they took them both to jail. Although she said she was defending herself, she admitted that she had been convicted and found guilty of battery. Petitioner testified that she is a "good girl now." She attends church every Sunday and "left her problems with drugs." She got sick and tired and "told God to take it away from me and he did." Petitioner testified that she has not used any type of illegal drugs for 20 years. Her sister operates four group homes for children with disabilities. Petitioner worked at one of the homes, and her sister wrote her a letter of support in this case. The evidence was undisputed that she received "excellent" evaluations while at Martin Group Home. Currently, she lives with her daughter, and a granddaughter who is two years old. As a result of one of Petitioner's various felony convictions, she testified that she was ordered to attend in- house drug treatment at the Willingway Hospital in Statesboro, Georgia. Upon questioning by the undersigned, Petitioner stated that she was in rehabilitation at the hospital for "like 6 months" back in the 1990's.2/ The various letters of support and reference provided by Petitioner came from her relatives. These included her sister and father. The record reflects that Petitioner attended and successfully completed numerous training courses (e.g. medicine administration, CPR training, blood borne pathogens, HIV safeguards, etc.) that related to the caretaker work she performs.3/ Other than two certificates for domestic violence training in 2011 and 2012, the other training and educational completion certificates did not relate to treatment or counseling programs related to her drug use, alcohol use, psychological counseling, or financial training-–the personal issues she struggled with in her past when the disqualifying events took place. The evidence reflected that she had numerous and chronic driving violations, pertaining primarily to failing to pay road tolls. She claimed that all of these toll violations occurred when her daughter was driving her car.4/ On cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that she failed to provide a detailed version of the facts or a full explanation for each criminal offense listed on her exemption form.5/ Petitioner claimed that she was "new at this" and did not understand the details she was supposed to provide. For the criminal offenses involving theft of property, she claimed on the form, and testified, that there was "no harm" to the victim. Again, she claimed some confusion and stated that she thought that they were talking about harm in the "violent" sense. She was also cross-examined about the six-month drug treatment program that she testified she had attended at Willingway Hospital. She was asked why she did not provide that information to the Agency in the exemption form or provide the agency with a copy of a completion certificate. Inexplicably, she was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation during the hearing for why she did not disclose the drug treatment program on the exemption questionnaire. She claimed that since the court had ordered her into treatment, she did not think it was necessary to specifically list or describe it. She was asked why she was not able to provide a letter of recommendation from her church pastor. She did not provide an adequate explanation and simply stated that she attends church but is not a church member, that she just goes to church there every Sunday. She worked briefly at a company called Best Walks of Life. Her supervisor was her son, Mr. Walker. No details were provided concerning what she did there. She acknowledged that much of her criminal activity arose from or was related to problems with monetary or financial issues; yet, she conceded that she had not taken any financial courses or other classes to obtain financial or budgeting training or counseling. After working for her sister at Martin Group Home, she has not made any attempts to work in any other places or group homes since leaving. Darnisha Johnson Petitioner is her mother. The witness is 24 years old and lives with her daughter at her mother's house. She testified that her mother is "a great person today. She's great." She also stated that her mother is a "much better person" then when she was involved in criminal activity.6/ She also felt that her mother is not using any drugs now. She acknowledged that she has a car, but that it is in her mother's name. In the context of who pays the bills today and supports her financially, she characterized her mother's role as being her "support system." She also admitted that any failures to pay tolls while driving the vehicle registered in her mother's name were her responsibility. Molita Cunningham She is a friend of Petitioner's. She works as a certified nursing assistant and is certified as such with the State of Florida. She has known Petitioner for a little over three years and met her at a Family Dollar store. She wrote a letter of support for Petitioner. She was not aware of any facts to suggest that Petitioner was engaged in criminal activity, drug abuse, or abuse of her clients in any manner. She acknowledged she had a background similar to Petitioner's. She was "out there in the streets" and is a convicted felon. Other than being a general character witness, the witness offered no substantive evidence touching upon Petitioner's rehabilitation from the disqualifying offenses. Evelyn Alvarez Ms. Alvarez is employed with the Agency as the regional operations manager for the Southern Region.7/ She obtained a master's degree in public administration from Florida International University in 2000. APD serves individuals that have specific developmental disabilities. The disabilities include intellectual disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and the like. Her role in this case was to review the background information gathered by both the Department of Children and Families and APD on Petitioner. After her review, the package of information was sent to an exemption committee. That committee then independently reviewed the exemption package and made its own recommendation to the Director of APD. Before deciding on the exemption request, the Director reviewed both Ms. Alvarez's recommendation and the recommendation of the exemption committee. She correctly acknowledged that the applicant for an exemption from disqualification must prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. She also correctly noted that the Agency should consider the circumstances of the disqualifying offense(s), the nature of the harm caused to any victims involved, the history of the employee since the incident and any other evidence indicating that the employee will not present a danger to the vulnerable or disabled adults or children they serve. APD was concerned that Petitioner failed to follow directions and provide the details for each disqualifying criminal event.8/ Also, Ms. Alvarez was concerned that Petitioner's failure to acknowledge that someone was "harmed" by the theft or forgery crimes ignores that there were victims involved, and the response fails to show an acceptance of responsibility for the crime(s). Ms. Alvarez testified that the Agency has no idea what happened with each of the disqualifying events, or of any circumstances that were happening at the time that would allow APD to understand why Petitioner would commit the offenses, and that there was no acknowledgment of any harm to any victims. In the opinion of Ms. Alvarez, the training certificates provided by Petitioner were not persuasive evidence of rehabilitation. More specifically, they were only indicative of employment training and did not include anything in terms of addressing Petitioner's substance abuse issues, her inability to manage her finances, or her involvement in acts of domestic violence. In APD's opinion, the lack of any treatment or professional counseling for those issues militated against a finding of rehabilitation. Likewise, Petitioner did not describe her alleged six- month, in-house drug rehabilitation program in the exemption application, nor was there any certificate of completion of drug treatment provided. APD concluded that Petitioner used poor judgment during an incident when she invited her friend, Ms. Cunningham, to spend a day on the job at Martin Group Home with Petitioner's disabled and vulnerable children. APD felt that this was a breach of client confidentiality, HIPAA rights, and may have put some of the children at risk around a visitor who did not have a background check or clearance to be at the facility. There were no professional references or letters of support offered by Petitioner from past employers (other than from group homes involving her relative). Likewise, there were no letters attesting to her good moral character from her church or other faith-based relationships she may have established. Ms. Alvarez testified that the reason the Agency wants letters of reference from individuals who do not have a conflict of interest is to show her character. Examples of letters of reference would be from a pastor or from an organization where someone had volunteered. The letters provided by Petitioner, while useful, did not reflect an impartial view of her character.9/ The Agency determined that it had no basis of reference for the character of Petitioner due to her failure to provide more impartial references.10/ In Ms. Alvarez's opinion, after reviewing the completed application, Petitioner had not provided any evidence, and APD had no knowledge, to support a finding of rehabilitation. Furthermore, APD did not have any knowledge of any financial planning or budgeting courses that Petitioner may have taken to show rehabilitation in the area of her finances. APD considered it significant during its review that Petitioner had been charged with driving while license suspended ("DWLS") (a criminal traffic offense) in 2012 and again in 2013, less than two years before the application. (Both DWLS offenses were subsequently dismissed.) Respondent's Exhibit 9, Petitioner's Florida Comprehensive Case Information System driving record, reflects in excess of 20 failures to pay required highway tolls in a two-year period from 2012 to 2013.11/ Petitioner did not provide any explanation for her driver's license problems to the Agency at the time of her Exemption Application. The Agency had no knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the DWLS citations. Ms. Alvarez testified that traffic offenses and driving habits are important considerations, since direct service providers are often required to transport persons with developmental disabilities In essence, APD concluded that Petitioner had fallen short of her burden of showing rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities confirm its previous intended denial and enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of July, 2016.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darryl James McGlamry, is an inmate under the supervision of the Respondent. The Petitioner is incarcerated at Dade Correctional Institution. The Respondent is the Department of Corrections, an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioner has challenged Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rule governs the visitation privileges of unmarried inmates. The Petitioner has alleged that the Challenged Rule "impairs the Petitioner's substantial interest in that it restricts the Petitioner's First Amendment Right of Freedom of Association, as it substantially limits the number of female visitors that the Petitioner may have." The Petitioner has also alleged that the Challenged Rule is invalid because the restriction on visitation of the Challenged Rule is: . . . contrary to the Civil Rights Act of Florida, Chapter 760.01, Florida Statutes. 11. As such, it is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority". The Respondent does not have the authority to pass rules that are contrary to other statutes. This amounts to vesting unbridled discretion to the agency in violation of Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes. The Amended Petition is devoid of any alleged facts which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule is invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, M.B. Doral, is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2019); and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 2018, Petitioner MB Doral filed a Petition Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-4.020 and Determination Regarding Unadopted Rule, in DOAH Case Number 18-6768RX. On January 25, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Proceedings, which stayed MB Doral’s unadopted rule challenge pending the proposed rulemaking that would promulgate ABT Form 6017. On October 16, 2019, amendments to rule 61A-4.020 became effective, which promulgated ABT Form 6017. On November 6, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Dismissing Unadopted Rule Challenge and Retaining Jurisdiction, which dismissed MB Doral’s remaining unadopted rule challenge and retained jurisdiction to consider a request for attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). On December 3, 2019, MB Doral filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Motion), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the unadopted rule challenge pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). The Motion alleges that MB Doral advised the Department, in writing on at least seven occasions prior to filing the rule challenge petition, and beginning on May 19, 2015, that the Department’s failure to adopt ABT Form 6017 constituted an unadopted rule. The Motion also alleges that the Department did not file a notice of rulemaking until January 28, 2019. The Motion further alleges that the Department has never alleged that the federal government required ABT Form 6017 to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. On December 10, 2019, the Department filed its Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. On February 11, 2020, the Department filed a Notice of Filing Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which included the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Joint Stipulation states that the Department agrees to the entry of a final order assessing the sum of $7,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the unadopted rule challenge, which the undersigned bifurcated from the existing rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX, which is currently pending before the First District Court of Appeal in Case Number 1D19-0820. The Joint Stipulation further states that the parties agree that this Final Order should direct the Department to seek immediate approval for payment within 30 days of this Final Order, and that the undersigned retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Final Order.
The Issue Whether a proposed amendment to Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority?
Findings Of Fact Standing. The Petitioner, W. Gerry Hargrove, is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is housed in Tamoka Correctional Institution. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the proposed rule amendment at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing visiting hours and privileges and all other aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. The Proposed Amendment to Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code. Section 944.23, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: The following persons shall be authorized to visit at their pleasure all state correctional institutions: The Governor, all Cabinet members, members of the Legislature, judges of state courts, state attorneys, public defenders, and authorized representatives of the commission. No other person not otherwise authorized by law shall be permitted to enter a state correctional institution except under such regulations as the department may prescribe. . . . [Emphasis added]. Pursuant to the authority of Sections 944.09 and 944.23, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has adopted Chapter 33-5, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-5.006(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: Upon being committed to the custody of the Department, each inmate shall be given the opportunity to submit a list of persons from whom he wishes to receive visits. The initial list . . . shall be limited to members of the inmate's immediate family. Once the inmate has been assigned to a permanent institution, additional relatives and friends, business associates and others may be considered, but only after a criminal history background inquiry has been made. Rule 33-5.006(7), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (7) Inmate visits with approved family members or friends should be encouraged for the positive purpose of maintaining home and community ties, which after release should provide a deterrent to recidivism. To the extent that it is safe and practicable to do so, such visiting should be allowed to take place in a relaxed atmosphere. Rule 33-5.006, Florida Administrative Code, also provides certain circumstances when a person may be excluded from an inmate's visitors list. For example, persons convicted of a felony may be excluded. Rule 33-5.006(5), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 33-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, is titled "Visitation Denial." Pursuant to this rule, it is provided that visitation may be denied under certain circumstances, i.e., if a visit would present a clear and present danger to the security and order of an institution. Rule 33-5.007, Florida Administrative Code, also provides: (3) No visit should be denied: . . . . (c) for any reason unrelated to the security, order or rehabilitative objectives of the institution. At issue in this proceeding is a proposed amendment to Rule 33- 5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code: (8)(a) An unmarried i[I]nmate[s] [not married] may be allowed to have one single non-immediate family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval. A married inmate may be allowed to have one single, non-immediate family member of the opposite sex on the visiting list, after approval, if a pending divorce or separation of long duration can be verified and the spouse is removed from the list. Married or unmarried inmates may have non- immediate family member couples on the visiting list after approval, but the member of the couple who is the opposite sex of the inmate may not visit the inmate without the spouse. New proposed language of the rule is denoted by underlining and words or letters removed are indicated by brackets. In this proceeding the Petitioner has only challenged proposed paragraph (c) of Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rule Amendment"). The Respondent has indicated it proposed the addition of paragraph (c) to Rule 33-5.006(8), Florida Administrative Code, because of security concerns. As explained by a representative of the Respondent the following are those security concerns: One spouses (i.e., the wife) may be visiting an inmate without the knowledge of the other spouse (i.e., the husband). If the husband becomes aware of the fact that his wife is visiting an inmate the husband may become alarmed and complain to the Respondent and his wife about the visitation. When the husband complains to his spouse or the Respondent and the inmate learns of the problem, the inmate may become upset. The Respondent indicated that there have been a few instances where inmates who, upon learning that husband of the inmate's visitor has been making it difficult for the visiting spouse to continue with visitation, have attempted to escape to get to the husband. The evidence failed to prove that there is a significant security problem if inmates are allowed to have visitation from a married visitor without requiring that both spouses visit the inmate at the same time. The evidence concerning escape attempts (at best, 5 to 10 attempts during the past thirty years) was speculative. No specifics concerning such attempts were provided when the Petitioner asked for specifics. Nor did the evidence prove that the Respondent's security is inadequate to handle the relatively low number of such escape attempts or that any such escape attempt has been successful. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Proposed Rule Amendment included a "Summary of the Estimate of Economic Impact of the Rule". Although the Petitioner challenged the adequacy of the Respondent's determination of the economic impact of the Proposed Rule Amendment, the evidence presented during the final hearing of this case failed to prove that the economic impact statement was inadequate.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Hearing was filed on September 18, 1991. The Petition was filed by Ervin James Horton. In the Petition Rule 33-3.018, Florida Administrative Code, and Policy and Procedural Directive No. 2.02.15 were challenged. The Challenged Rule is titled "Inmate Bank Trust Fund". The Challenged Rule is lengthy and provides for the "policies of the Department with respect to money received for the personal use or benefit of inmates . . . ." The Directive deals with the same general subject. The Petition is, to say the least, confusing. This confusion is caused by the Petitioners frequent use of legal terms and phrases with little in the way of factual explanation. As an example, paragraph 4, State of the Case and Facts, provides the following: 4. That the (Petitioner) seek to challenge D.O.C. Policy and Procedure Directive $2.02.15 entitled (Administration on Inmate Trust Funds) as being invalid, arbitrary, capricious, that goes beyond the powers, functions, duties, to exceed legislative authority. This paragraph is fairly typical of most of the Petition. Although it contains some "legalize", it does not, read alone or in conjunction with all of the Petitioner's pleadings, adequately put the Respondent on notice as to what the Petitioner is challenging or the basis for his challenge. Apparently, the Petitioner is complaining of the actions of three employees of the Respondent, J. L. Ward (see paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition), R. E. Davis (see paragraphs 14 and 23 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition), and B. E. Goss (see paragraph 24 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition). See also paragraphs 13-14 and 18 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition. The Petitioner has also attempted to raise constitutional arguments to support his challenge to the Challenged Rule and the Directive. See paragraphs 17, 22 and 25 of the Statement of the Case and Facts of the Petition and most of the portion of the Petition labeled "Affect the Petitioner [sic] Interest." The statements concerning constitutional issues consists of mere statements that constitutional rights are being violated without any facts to support an argument that the Challenged Rule or the Directive are unconstitutional. Finally, the following relief was requested in the Petition: The Petitioner demand [sic] relief of: That D.O.C. #2.02.15 et. seq. be declared invalid, arbitrary, capricious, to delegate outside the scope of Florida Statute and Constitution. Any and all other applicable authority that's statutory protected or judicial mandate under Federal mandate as [unreadable] v. Wainwright, TCA-75-3 (11/18/77). Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F. 2d 118 (2nd Cir. 1978) (Cite omitted). That the Respondents, be required to incorporate State Constitution and Federal Constitution protection as statutory mandated at 944.09 120.54 et. seq. (1991). Insufficient alleged facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rule and the Directive are an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. On November 1, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend and Cancelling Formal Hearing was entered. On November 21, 1991, a pleading titled "Amended Petition as Ordered November 1st 1991" was filed by the Petitioner. The First Amended Petition is very similar to the Petition and suffers from the same deficiencies. Additionally, it is more apparent in the First Amended Petition that the Petitioner is challenging alleged actions of certain employees of the Respondent and not the Challenged Rule or the Directive. The First Amended Petition is devoid of a sufficient statement of the alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the First Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule and the Directive are invalid under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. On December 9, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition was entered dismissing the First Amended Petition and giving the parties an opportunity to file proposed final orders. On December 13, 1991, the Petitioner filed a document titled "Amended Petition". This Second Amended Petition does nothing to correct the deficiencies of the Petition or the First Amended Petition.
