The Issue The issues in these consolidated cases are as follows: (1) whether Respondents employed Lorene Walker, who had contact with scholarship students and who did not meet the requisite criteria to pass the Level 2 background screening as required by section 1002.421(1)(m) and (p), Florida Statutes (2019), and if so, what is the appropriate remedy; and (2) whether Respondents engaged in fraud in violation of section 1002.421(3)(d) and, if so, whether Petitioner should revoke Respondents' participation in several Florida Scholarship Programs.1
Findings Of Fact Parties, People, and Programs The Department is the government agency charged with administering numerous state scholarship programs pursuant to section 1002.421, Florida Statutes. The Department operates or has administrative responsibilities for the Gardiner Scholarship Program, the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, the Florida Tax Credit (FTC) Scholarship Program, and the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program. See §§ 1002.385, 1002.39, 1002.394, and 1002.395, Fla. Stat. The Gardiner, McKay, FTC, and Family Empowerment scholarships defray tuition and other qualified educational expenses for eligible students who attend charter, private, or other eligible schools in the state of Florida. The Department also operates or administers the Hope Scholarship Program, which provides tuition assistance to victims of school bullying so that they can enroll in another school. See § 1002.40, Fla. Stat. The scholarship funds are awarded to eligible students to be used at eligible schools. The Commissioner is the agency head of the Department and has the authority to revoke or suspend a school's eligibility to receive scholarship monies on behalf of eligible students. The Independent Education and Parental Choice Office, also referred to as the School Choice Office (Office), is a section of the Department which oversees several school choice options outside Florida's public school system. The Office also oversees the administration of various scholarships programs under chapter 1002. The Office is in regular contact with schools that participate in these scholarship programs. Respondents have been operating as private schools for approximately six years. Since the 2013/2014 school year, they have been found eligible and participated in numerous scholarship programs pursuant to section 1002.421. Respondents operate two campuses: (1) School Code No. 4015 located at 1056 North Pine Hills Road, Orlando, Florida (Pine Hills Campus); and (2) School Code No. 8827 located at 5308 Silver Star Road, Orlando, Florida (Silver Star Campus). The Schools serve 40 to 50 scholarship students and receive approximately $200,000 per year in scholarship funds. Judith Shealey is the owner of the Schools. She carries the title of Executive Director, Principal, Headmistress, and/or Owner. Ms. Shealey has family members who are students and teachers at the Schools. Compliance Requirements As explained by RaShawn Williams, the Office, parents, and eligible schools work closely together to access the scholarship funds. The parents apply for the scholarships through the designated agency and enroll their students directly with an eligible school. The school is responsible for enrolling the student in the scholarship program awarded to that student. Essentially, the student must be deemed eligible to receive scholarship funds, and the school must be eligible to receive those scholarship funds. If a private school is deemed ineligible by the Office for participation in a scholarship program, the students at that school do not lose their eligibility for scholarship funds. Rather, they simply cannot use those funds to enroll in the ineligible school. As private school participants in the Florida Scholarship Programs, the Schools were required to register with the State through the submission of a Private School Annual Survey; and then apply for eligibility through the submission of a yearly Scholarship Compliance Form (Compliance Form). The Compliance Form specifies numerous governing statutory requirements including: (1) submitting background screenings for officers, directors, or other controlling persons; (2) certifying all staff with direct student contact have passed an FDLE Level 2 background screening; and (3) terminating or denying employment to all persons who cannot meet this requirement. The Compliance Form is completed by applicant schools online, and then a signed and notarized hard copy is mailed to the Office. The relevant portions of the Compliance Form are found in "Section 4," and involve background checks: * Has each Owner, Operator, and Chief Administrative Officer undergone a Level 2 background screening through the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and submitted the results to the Florida Department of Education in accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes? (Reports must be filed with the private school and made available for public inspection). * * * * Have all employees and contracted personnel with direct student contact submitted their fingerprints to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for state and national background screening in accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes? * In accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes, does the school deny employment to or terminate an employee or contracted personnel with direct student contact if he or she fails to meet the background screening standards under section 435.04, Florida Statutes? * In accordance with section 1002.421(1)(m), Florida Statutes, does the school disqualify instructional personnel and school administrators from employment in any position that allows direct contact with students if the personnel or administrators are ineligible under section 435.40, Florida Statutes? A "No" answer on any of the above questions would, if unresolved, result in a private school's ineligibility for scholarship funds. The evidence establishes that the Schools answered "Yes" for sections 4A, 4C, 4D, and 4E on the notarized Compliance Forms that were submitted on December 18, 2018, and December 11, 2019. In addition to certifying the information above on the Compliance Forms every year, an eligible school must submit to the Office screening documentation for directors, principals, board members, administrators, and officers as part of the renewal of participation in the scholarship programs. Screening documentation related to other employees must be maintained by the schools and is usually only reviewed by the Office during an audit or a site visit of the school. There is no dispute that the Schools never listed Lorene Walker as an administrator for the Schools. There is no dispute the Schools never submitted any background screening information for Ms. Walker until specifically requested by the Office in November 2019. Employment of Lorene Walker Lorene Walker was hired by the Schools in 2013.3 She had children and/or grandchildren who attend the Schools. The Schools claim Ms. Walker was hired from an entity known as "Career Source." Although Ms. Walker believed that she had been cleared to work at the Schools, there is no employment file or documentation that she had undergone the Level 2 background screening required by law before being employed at the Schools. Originally, Ms. Walker worked as a "floater." As a floater, Ms. Walker cooked, cleaned, and did whatever the school needed at the time. It is unclear whether she had direct contact with students in this position. 3 Ms. Walker testified she began working there in 2015, but later stated she started in 2013. Ms. Shealey indicated by 2014, Ms. Walker had transitioned into the current position. Regardless, in 2014, Ms. Walker transitioned into a more active role at the Schools. Although the Schools claim in response to the Complaints that she was simply an administrative assistant to Ms. Shealey, the evidence establishes that Ms. Walker was the Administrator for the Schools during the time relevant to the Complaints. She reminded teachers to send out grades, attended meetings, oversaw the lunch program, and prepared school-related and financial documentation. Ms. Walker was also responsible for the Schools' students' enrollment into the scholarship programs. As Administrator, Ms. Walker also had authority, either explicit or implicit, from the Schools' owner, Ms. Shealey, to represent the Schools when dealing with the Office. She worked directly with Ms. Williams on compliance issues, including fire safety, health inspections, and completion of the Annual Survey and Compliance Form for the Schools. Ms. Walker also responded to requests for information from Ms. Williams and others in the Department. It was clear Ms. Walker was integral to the operation of the Schools. Ms. Shealey and Ms. Walker were the only two individuals with access to the Schools' email accounts that were used to correspond with the Department. The emails from one of the email addresses usually contained Ms. Shealey's signature block indicating either the title of "Principal" or "Headmistress." Ms. Walker's signature line identified her title as "Administrator." Before being hired by the Schools, Ms. Walker had been arrested for numerous offenses between 1978 and 2001 in Florida. Although most of these offenses were dismissed, dropped, and/or abandoned, she pled nolo contendere to and was found guilty of a 1994 charge for unlawful purchase of a controlled substance, a second-degree felony in violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1993). The 1994 charge is a disqualifying offense which rendered Ms. Walker ineligible to be a school employee.4 There was no evidence that Ms. Walker had obtained an exemption for this qualification. As noted above, the Schools never disclosed Ms. Walker's importance in their operations in their Compliance Forms. Prior to November 2019, the Schools had never provided any screening documentation for Ms. Walker to the Office as part of the yearly compliance process. Investigation and Complaints On or around October 14, 2019, the Department received a complaint from another state agency concerning possible abuse by an employee of the School at the Pine Hills campus. Although the abuse investigation was handled outside of the Office, the Office opened an inquiry into the Schools' compliance with background check requirements and other issues. Whitney Blake conducted the investigation on behalf of the Office. The first step in this inquiry was a letter from Ms. Blake's supervisor, dated October 25, 2019, requesting (among other things) a list of all employees (including both teachers and other personnel) and results of current FDLE Level 2 background screenings for all employees. 4 Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, provides the following in relevant part: (2) The security background investigations under this section must ensure that no persons subject to the provisions of this section have been arrested for and are awaiting final disposition of, have been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, or have been adjudicated delinquent and the record has not been sealed or expunged for, any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of state law or similar law of another jurisdiction: * * * (ss) Chapter 893, relating to drug abuse prevention and control, only if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor. On November 4, 2020, Ms. Walker sent the Department a list of all the Schools' staff, including herself as "Administrator," along with the results of her background screening, revealing her previous disqualifying offense. On November 15, 2019, Ms. Blake attempted to contact Ms. Shealey by phone because she was concerned that Ms. Walker, who was the disqualified employee, was the person sending the information from the School. When she called the Schools and requested to speak with the owner (Ms. Shealey), the person who answered purportedly claiming to be the Schools' owner did not have a distinguishable accent. Ms. Shealey was known to have a strong accent, whereas Ms. Walker did not. Regardless, on this call, Ms. Blake instructed the person on the other end of the phone line that the Schools would need to terminate Ms. Walker immediately because of her disqualifying offense. On that same day, Ms. Blake then sent a follow-up email to the Schools (at both email addresses utilized by the Schools) indicating there were outstanding items that had not been provided as requested in the October 25 letter. She also specifically requested proof Ms. Walker was no longer at the Schools. Specifically, the Department stated: Upon review of the Level 2 background screenings, it was determined Lorene Walker has disqualifying offenses pursuant to section 435.04, F.S. An employee or contracted personnel with direct student contact means any employee or contracted personnel who has unsupervised access to a scholarship student for whom the private school is responsible. To certify compliance with this requirement, please submit a signed statement indicating Lorene Walker's employment at your school has been terminated or that individual's role with your school no longer puts he/she in proximity to scholarship students. Your attention to this in the next five days will preempt any further action on our part. (emphasis added). That same date, November 15, 2019, the Schools emailed one of the items requested by Ms. Blake, an abuse poster, to the Office. Although Ms. Walker testified she did not send the email, it had her signature block and was from one of the Schools' two email accounts to which she had access. The undersigned finds Ms. Walker sent this email to Ms. Blake. On November 18, 2019, the Schools sent another item previously requested by Ms. Blake, the teaching qualifications for a teacher, to the Office. Again, although Ms. Walker claimed she did not send the email, it had her signature block and was from one of the Schools' two email accounts to which she had access. The undersigned finds Ms. Walker sent this email to Ms. Blake. Ms. Blake did not receive any proof that the Schools had removed Ms. Walker from her position within five days as requested in the November 15 email to the Schools. As a result, on November 22, 2019, Ms. Blake emailed the Schools reiterating the requirements of section 1002.421, and repeating her request for a signed statement that Ms. Walker had been terminated or had no contact with scholarship students. Ms. Blake also added: "Failure to turn in the requested documentation could impact your school's ongoing participation in the Scholarship Program." During this time, Ms. Blake spoke to Ms. Shealey numerous times on the phone regarding the outstanding requests related to another teacher and the signed documentation that Ms. Walker had been removed from her position. Ms. Shealey indicated it would be difficult to remove Ms. Walker due to Ms. Walker's oversight of the school and her familiarity with the scholarship student information. After Ms. Blake did not receive the requested proof of Ms. Walker's removal from the Schools and two other items related to a teacher, the Office issued a Notice of Noncompliance on December 5, 2019. On December 19, 2019, Ms. Shealey sent to Ms. Blake one of the outstanding items related to the teacher by email. There was no mention of Ms. Walker and no signed proof that Ms. Walker had been removed from her position. The next day, Ms. Blake wrote an email to Ms. Shealey indicating that she did not have authority to exempt Ms. Walker from the background screening requirements. She again asked for the outstanding information related to the other teacher and a signed statement indicating Ms. Walker had been removed and no longer had proximity to scholarship students. On December 23, 2019, Ms. Shealey emailed Ms. Blake that the teacher for which there was an outstanding request had resigned and no longer worked for one of the Schools. Ms. Blake responded with yet another request for the signed statement indicating Ms. Walker had been terminated or was no longer in proximity to scholarship students. In response, Ms. Shealey sent an email to Ms. Blake with an attached letter. The letter titled "Termination of your employment" and dated December 9, 2019, indicates that Ms. Shealey terminated Ms. Walker during a meeting held on December 9, 2019. The letter is unsigned. Ms. Shealey indicated in the text of the email that it was the hardest letter she had to write. Being concerned that they had not received a signed statement, Ms. Blake and Ms. Williams requested that a site visit be conducted at the Pine Hills Campus. A visit was scheduled for February 5, 2020, and the Schools were provided notice of the site visit by certified mail, email, and telephone. Additionally, the Schools were provided a checklist of the documents that should be provided to the inspector during the site visit. On February 5, 2020, Scott Earley from the Office conducted the site visit at the Pine Hills Campus. When he arrived, Ms. Shealey was not there and none of the documentation previously requested had been prepared for review. Mr. Earley testified that once Ms. Shealey arrived, she did not know where all the requested documents were, nor could she produce all of them. For example, when asked about a necessary health form, Ms. Shealey indicated that Ms. Walker would know where the document was, but she could not locate it. Mr. Earley did not recall Ms. Shealey stating during the inspection that Ms. Walker was working from home, but she gave Mr. Earley the impression that Ms. Walker's background screening issue had been resolved. Regardless, the Site Visit Staff/Consultant Worksheet filled out for the February 5 site visit does not disclose Ms. Walker as a member of staff or contracted personnel with the Pine Hills Campus. Although Ms. Walker was not at the Pine Hills Campus during the site visit, Mr. Earley believed based on his observations and conversations with Ms. Shealey that Ms. Walker was still employed by the Schools as a director or principal. Almost two weeks later on February 20, 2020, Petitioner filed the Complaints against the Schools. It was not until March 11, 2020, in response to the Complaints that the Schools submitted for the first time a signed copy of a termination letter dated December 9, 2020. Even after the Complaints had been served on the Schools, however, it was unclear what Ms. Walker's involvement was with the Schools. There may have been some confusion because Ms. Walker had been seen after her purported termination on campus. Ms. Walker claimed she was on campus only to pick up her children and grandchildren. Testimony from two of the Schools' teachers indicated that they noticed Ms. Walker was no longer at the Schools, but knew she was taking care of the Schools' paperwork from her home. Neither teacher could establish a date certain for when Ms. Walker stopped working on campus and/or when she began working at home. Prior to the filing of the Complaints in these proceedings, there was no evidence that the Schools ever reported to the Office that Ms. Walker had been working from home. Nothing in the Petition filed on March 4, 2020, indicates Ms. Walker was still employed at the Schools. It was not until March 11, 2020, in response to the Complaints that the Schools submitted for the first time a signed copy of a termination letter dated December 9, 2020. As part of the March 11 submission, Ms. Shealey sent a signed statement indicating she had not terminated Ms. Walker, but rather "had her work from home." This was the first time Ms. Shealey indicated to the Office that Ms. Walker was still working for the Schools. In the Motion filed April 10, 2020, the Schools indicated they were unaware of the specifics of the Level 2 background screening requirement, and that, once aware, "we took action immediately and terminated the employee in question." There was no indication in the body of the Motion the Schools continued to employ Ms. Walker to work at her home. Attached to the Motion, however, was the same letter submitted on March 11 indicating Ms. Walker was working from home. In the Amended Petition filed on May 15, 2020, the Schools state Ms. Walker was terminated: "I terminated Ms. Lorene Walker due to the Department's information in order to come into compliance with the Florida Department of Education." "I rectified this deficiency by terminating Ms. Walker." "Ms. Lorene Walker was terminated on December 9, 2019, as advised by Whitney Blake." Although the Amended Petition does not explicitly state Ms. Walker continued to work for the Schools at home, it does leave room for this interpretation: "As of December 9, 2019, Ms. Lorene Walker no longer works in the Lion of Judah facility." It is unclear on what date Ms. Walker stopped working from home for the Schools. What is clear is that at the time of the final hearing she was no longer working at the Schools in any location or in any capacity. ULTIMATE FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS The greater weight of the evidence establishes Ms. Walker, in her role as Administrator, should have been disclosed to the Office as an "operator" or "a person with equivalent decision making authority." The Schools were required to send her background screening documentation to the Office as required by the Compliance Form and section 1002.421(1)(p), and they did not. The Schools employed a person with a disqualifying offense in violation of sections 1002.421(1)(m) and 435.04(2)(ss). Specifically, the Schools employed Ms. Walker from 2014 (if not earlier) through December 2019 (if not later) in a position in which she was in the vicinity of scholarship students, knowing that she had been found guilty of a felony and without obtaining or providing documentation related to a Level 2 background clearance. The Schools continued to allow Ms. Walker to remain in a position that placed her in the vicinity of scholarship students after receiving notification of her ineligibility for almost a month (if not more). The greater weight of the evidence establishes the Schools engaged in fraudulent activity, to wit: (1) Ms. Shealey falsely represented to the Office that the Schools complied with Section 4 of the Compliance Form for 2018 and 2019; (2) the Schools falsely obscured Ms. Walker's role at the School and her criminal background; and (3) the Schools failed to honestly disclose Ms. Walker's employment status when they claimed to terminate her on December 9, 2020, but failed to inform the Office that they had retained (or rehired) her to work at home. The Schools made these statements of material fact either knowing they were false or in reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the representations, which were false.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commissioner enter a final order (1) upholding the suspension; and (2) revoking the eligibility of Lion of Judah Academy (4015) and Lion Of Judah Academy (8827) to participate in the following Florida Scholarship Programs: John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program, Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program, Gardiner Scholarship Program, Hope Scholarship Program, and/or Family Empowerment Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2020, 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 3rd day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Jason Douglas Borntreger, Esquire Department of Education Suite 1544 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32310 (eServed) Judith Shealey Lion of Judah Academy 1056 North Pine Hills Road Orlando, Florida 32808 Shawn R. H. Smith, Esquire Law Office of Shawn R. H. Smith, P.A. Post Office Box 547752 Orlando, Florida 32854 (eServed) Chris Emerson, Agency Clerk Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1520 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Matthew Mears, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed) Richard Corcoran Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's lottery prize is subject to an outstanding debt owed to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent applied for a student loan in the amount of $2,500 under the Florida Guaranteed Student Loan Program in an application dated August 8, 1986. Respondent needed the loan to pay the cost of her attendance at Roffler Hair Design College (school) for the period of September 1986 through January 1987. Petitioner guaranteed Respondent's loan. The loan number is 0000522112. Glendale Federal Savings and Loan Association (Glendale) issued the loan proceeds in two equal disbursements. The first disbursement took place on or about September 26, 1986. The second disbursement took place on or about November 7, 1986. Glendale subsequently sold the loan to Student Loan Marketing Association/Student Loan Services (SLS). The loan accrues interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year unless Respondent is in deferment status, i.e. attending school on a minimum part-time basis. In this case, Respondent dropped out of school for a period of time in 1987. On or about June 25, 1987, the school returned $632.52 of the Respondent's loan to the lender. This sum represented the unused portion of Respondent's loan. Respondent's account was credited accordingly. The last day that Respondent attended the school was May 27, 1988. By letter dated September 1, 1988, SLS notified Respondent of the repayment schedule for her loan. Her first payment was due on December 27, 1988. Respondent made no payments on the loan to Glendale or SLS. Accordingly, SLS declared Respondent's loan in default and filed a claim dated August 14, 1989, with Petitioner. On February 20, 1992, Petitioner, as guarantor of the loan, paid SLS for Respondent's defaulted student loan. On that date, the claim principal was $1,864.48 ($2,500 less the $635.52 credit) and the outstanding interest due was $469.95. After Petitioner acquired the loan, the outstanding interest was capitalized resulting in a balance of $2,334.43. This sum accrues interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year. Respondent made no payment on her loan after Petitioner acquired it until a portion of her lottery winnings was applied to her account. By letter dated August 31, 1998, Petitioner notified the Department of Lottery about Respondent's outstanding defaulted loan in the amount of $3,561.89, including principal and interest. Petitioner requested the Department of the Lottery to transmit a portion of Respondent's prize money to be credited toward Respondent's debt. Thereafter, the Department of the Lottery transmitted $3,561.89 of Respondent's prize money to Petitioner. By letter dated September 14, 1998, Petitioner notified Respondent that it was in receipt of $3,561.89 of her $5,000 lottery prize. Petitioner applied Petitioner's winnings to her outstanding balance. Respondent has applied for and received at least one other loan which is held by the United States Department of Education (USDE) in the Federal Direct Consolidation Loan Program. The loan which is the subject of this proceeding is not the same loan which is held by USDE.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner was authorized to apply $3,561.89 of Respondent's lottery prize toward her outstanding debt for a student loan. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 12th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald E. Stowers, Esquire Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dollie M. Tunsil 5813 Pompano Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Tom Gallagher Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on Petitioner's disability.
Findings Of Fact Mr. McMahon was a member of Suncoast beginning in approximately 1986. In 2008 and 2009, Mr. McMahon had a checking account, a VISA card, a savings account, and a loan with Suncoast. Mr. McMahon claims that he is disabled and that he suffers from personality disorders, post-traumatic stress, passive aggression, and obsessive compulsive disorder. No medical evidence was presented to substantiate his claims. He has been receiving benefits from the Social Security Administration based on a personality disorder since approximately 1996. Suncoast perceived Mr. McMahon as having a disability, based on his repeated assertions that he was disabled. In November 2008, Mr. McMahon filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau of West Florida, Inc. (BBB), alleging that Suncoast was discriminating against him by not accommodating his communication disability. The BBB investigated and found that Suncoast had blocked access to Mr. McMahon's accounts because he was delinquent on a loan. The BBB contacted Suncoast concerning the complaint, and Suncoast provided Mr. McMahon a three-month payment due date extension on the loan, lowered his monthly payments, and unblocked his account. In January 2009, Mr. McMahon was delinquent on his loan. Again Suncoast tried to help Mr. McMahon with his delinquent account. At some point, Mr. McMahon's loan payments were put on automatic payments in order to reduce his delinquencies. Money would automatically be taken out of his account to make the monthly loan payments. Mr. McMahon had a direct deposit for his Social Security benefits payments. After the loan payments began being deducted automatically, Mr. McMahon canceled his direct deposits into the account from which his payments were automatically being deducted. Thus, there was no money in the account to make the monthly payments on his loan, and Mr. McMahon ceased making payments on the loan and again became delinquent on his loan. When one of Suncoast's members becomes overdrawn with regards to either a checking or savings account or credit card, or is delinquent in making payments on any credit card or loan obligation, that member loses access to his or her services, including use of all internet services, ATM cards, ATM machines, credit cards, and debit cards. The member would also be unable to access his or her account balance or make deposits into overdrawn accounts if the member attempted to make a deposit via ATM, as those services are suspended. These restrictions are typically automatically placed upon the accounts of any member with a delinquent loan account after 60 days of delinquency, and within 30 days of any overdrawn share draft account. Any member with a delinquent or overdrawn account, where services were suspended would be prevented from applying for a mortgage loan. If the member contacted Suncoast staff to apply for a mortgage loan or to utilize any other services, the member would be directed to the loss mitigation section of Suncoast, and loss mitigation would attempt to collect the debt or rectify the delinquency. Because Mr. McMahon again became delinquent on his loan payments after stopping the direct deposits, his accounts were restricted, meaning that he could not access the accounts. Mr. McMahon began a campaign of making repeated calls to Suncoast, screaming and yelling at Suncoast representatives, talking over the representatives, making vulgar statements, and using profanity. Mr. McMahon attributes his behavior to his communication disability and requested on numerous occasions that Suncoast accommodate his disability with "patience and understanding." A note was placed in the loss mitigation's note system and in Suncoast's host system, so that all employees of Suncoast who were working with Mr. McMahon could see and accommodate his request for patience and understanding. Suncoast representatives did provide Mr. McMahon with an abundance of patience and understanding. However, nothing seemed to appease Mr. McMahon, and his repeated calls were unproductive. Because of the repeated nature of Mr. McMahon's calls and his behavior during the telephone calls, there were numerous complaints by Suncoast's representatives to management. Jacqueline Gilbert (Ms. Gilbert), vice president of loss mitigation, determined that in order to protect Suncoast's representatives from Mr. McMahon's harassing behavior that all calls should be directed to her; Linda Fales (Ms. Fales), vice president of risk management, cardholder disputes, and DSA compliance for Suncoast; or Ben Felder (Mr. Felder), Suncoast's general counsel. Suncoast's representatives were advised that Mr. McMahon's calls should be transferred to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Fales, or Mr. Felder. When the representatives would tell Mr. McMahon that they could not help him and that his call would have to be transferred, Mr. McMahon was verbally abusive to the representatives. Many times, if Mr. McMahon was going to be transferred, he would hang up and call right back to speak with a different representative. Sometimes, Mr. McMahon would call and hang up when a representative answered the call. At different times, Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Fales, and Mr. Felder talked with Mr. McMahon to attempt to discuss the reasons that his account was restricted. However, they had little success in communicating with Mr. McMahon because of his behavior. Although Mr. Felder was not able to service Mr. McMahon's account, he decided to handle all Mr. McMahon's requests and assign any work to be done to the appropriate employee because Mr. McMahon's behavior toward Ms. Gilbert and other Suncoast employees was unacceptable. Mr. McMahon did not make any loan payments between May 2009 and August 2009. During this same time period, Mr. McMahon's VISA credit card was well overdrawn. Carolyn Stepp (Ms. Stepp) had cosigned on Mr. McMahon's loan. On or about September 4, 2009, Suncoast exercised its "right of offset" and used funds in both Mr. McMahon's and Ms. Stepp's accounts to pay off the loan. There was still an outstanding balance of $1,046.86 on his VISA credit card. On September 10 and 14, 2009, Mr. McMahon asked to apply for a mortgage loan by telephone. He was not sure that Suncoast would give him a loan because of his delinquent accounts, but he felt that he should have the opportunity to apply because the loan had been satisfied when Suncoast exercised its right of offset. Although the loan was satisfied, Mr. McMahon still had an outstanding balance on his VISA credit card, which he had not been able to use for several months because his accounts had been restricted. He was advised that he would have to contact Mr. Felder to discuss the status of his account. On September 11, 2009, Mr. Felder and Mr. McMahon discussed his account. Part of the discussion concerned Suncoast's writing off Mr. McMahon's loan and VISA credit card balance, returning the offset amounts to Mr. McMahon's and Ms. Stepp's accounts, disbursing the remaining amounts in Mr. McMahon's account to him, and closing Mr. McMahon's accounts. At the conclusion of the conversation, Mr. Felder understood that Mr. McMahon was in favor of this solution and began to take steps to accomplish the tasks. Mr. Felder advised Mr. McMahon by telephone on September 17, 2009, that the tasks had been completed and that Mr. McMahon's accounts with Suncoast were closed, meaning that services at Suncoast were terminated and that Mr. McMahon's access to information was no longer available. Mr. Felder followed up the telephone conversation with a letter dated September 17, 2009, confirming the telephone conversation. Individuals who are not members of Suncoast are not qualified to apply for a mortgage loan with Suncoast. At the time that Mr. McMahon applied for a mortgage loan on September 14, 2009, his accounts at Suncoast were in the process of being closed. Mr. McMahon's requests to apply for a mortgage with Suncoast were not denied because Mr. McMahon was disabled. They were denied because Mr. McMahon had various account delinquencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Suncoast did not commit an unlawful housing practice and dismissing Mr. McMahon's Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 April, 2011.
The Issue Whether the State of Florida, through its agencies, collected the money owed it by the Petitioner prior to receipt of a letter from her doctor certifying her disability.
Findings Of Fact On or about June 21, 1990, the Petitioner, Therese L. Hodge, applied for a student loan to pursue educational courses at Career City College in Gainesville, Florida. The loan applied for was a Stafford Loan, a student loan administered by the Department of Education (DOE) through the Office of Student Financial Assistance (OSFA). Under the Stafford Loan program, DOE through OSFA, serves as the guarantee agent performing its responsibilities in accordance with regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Education (USDOE). The essential elements and operation of the loan program are that a participating bank or financial institution agrees to make a loan to a student on the condition that the DOE will issue a written guarantee that it will repay the loan to the lender if the student defaults on the loan. When DOE repays a defaulted loan to the lender, DOE acquires the promissory note and the right to collect from the student. DOE is required by USDOE to pursue collection in order to receive reimbursement from USDOE of the amount paid to the lender. On or about July 7, 1990, OSFA issued its guarantee of a student loan to the Petitioner, and Florida Federal loaned her $1,213.00. While enrolled in her first term at college, the Petitioner suffered a stroke. The Petitioner was observed at the hearing and it was apparent that she had some moderate limitations on her ability to communicate, comprehend, and remember. Petitioner lives on Social Security disability income. Her brother- in-law, who had accompanied her to the hearing, assisted in presentation of Petitioner's case without objection from the Respondents. After the Petitioner defaulted on her student loan, the Petitioner won $5,000 in a Florida lottery game. The Petitioner made demand for payment of the prize money. The Department of Lottery checks winnings of more than $600 to determine if the winner owes any money to the State. In the course of its comparison, the Department of Lottery determined that the Petitioner owed the State money on the defaulted student loan. The Department of Lottery confirmed the indebtedness with the Department of Education, and it was determined that the Petitioner owed $1,231.98 including interest on the defaulted student loan. On January 9, 1993, the Department of Lottery forwarded the $5,000 to the Office of the Comptroller, and notified the Petitioner of her right to request a formal hearing to controvert the Department's collection of the indebtedness. On January 12, 1993, the Petitioner called the Department of Lottery and advised the Department that she was disabled. The Department forwarded to the Petitioner medical forms on January 20, 1993. Subsequently, the Petitioner's physician certified to the state that she was totally and permanently disabled. Documents introduced at hearing show that the Petitioner advised the lending bank on June 17, 1991 that she was disabled due to a stroke and unable to work. The bank sent the Petitioner medical forms in order for her to have her disability certified. The Petitioner did not return the forms due to her financial inability to obtain the required physical. After the Department of Education had repaid the student loan and had turned the matter over to a collection agency, the Petitioner advised the collection agency that she was disabled and the collection agency sent her medical certification forms which she did not have completed due to her financial inability. After she had won the lottery, the Petitioner had the medical certification forms which were forwarded to her by the Department of Education completed by a physician and these were returned to the State after the end of January, 1993 certifying that the Petitioner was totally and permanently disabled.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of the Comptroller return to the Petitioner the amount $1,231.98. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-1218 The Petitioner's sister wrote a letter in the Petitioner's behalf which was read and considered, and is treated as a final argument. The Department of Education filed a proposed order which was read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted, or rejected for the reason stated: Respondent's (DOE) Proposed Findings: Recommended Order: Paragraph 1-6 Adopted Paragraph 7 Irrelevant Paragraph 8 Adopted Paragraph 9 The Department was on notice of the Petitioner's disability. Total and permanent disability is a medical determination based upon medical certification. The lender was on notice of Petitioner's disability on June 17, 1991. The purpose of the bank sending Petitioner the medical forms was to confirm the medical determination. Paragraph 10-15 Adopted COPIES FURNISHED: Therese L. Hodge and 5855 West Wood Lawn Street Post Office Box 36 Dunnellon, FL 34433 Ocklawaha, FL 32179 Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Louisa Warren, Esquire Department of Lottery 250 Marriott Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Leslie A. Meek, Esquire Office of the Comptroller The Capitol, Room 1302 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 Gerald Lewis, Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance Tha Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Cordelia Brown, is eligible to receive a scholarship offered by the 2015 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Legislature created the Scholarship Program during its 2015 Session. Through the 2015 General Appropriations Act, the Legislature adopted proviso language in Specific Appropriation 99A (“Appropriation 99A”) allocating $44,022,483.00 to “award a maximum of 4,402 teachers with a $10,000 scholarship based on high academic achievement on the SAT or ACT.” See Ch. 2015-232, § 2, 99A, at 27, Laws of Fla. To be eligible to receive the scholarship, Appropriation 99A stated that, “a teacher must have scored at or above the 80th percentile on either the SAT or the ACT based upon the percentile ranks in effect when the teacher took the assessment.”2/ Appropriation 99A further provided that an “eligible teacher” was to apply to the employing school district no later than October 1, 2015. Thereafter, each school district was to submit to the Department the number of eligible teachers who qualified for the scholarship by December 1, 2015. By February 1, 2016, the Department was to disburse scholarship funds to each school district for each teacher who was to receive the scholarship. By April 1, 2016, each school district was to pay the scholarship award to each eligible teacher. Appropriation 99A further stated that if the number of eligible teachers exceeded the total appropriated amount ($44,022,483.00), the Department was to prorate the per teacher scholarship amount. On September 3, 2015, Petitioner timely applied to the School Board to receive the scholarship award under the Scholarship Program. On November 11, 2015, the School Board notified Petitioner that it had been determined that she did not qualify for the Scholarship Program. The School Board explained that Petitioner was not a “classroom teacher.” Therefore, she was not eligible to receive the scholarship. Petitioner is a first-year employee with the School Board. The School Board hired her at the start of the 2015-2016 school year. The School Board hired Petitioner as a speech- language pathologist. Prior to working for the School Board, Petitioner taught in Fulton County, Georgia. One factor in her decision to accept the School Board’s offer of employment and relocate to Florida was the Scholarship Program. For the 2015-2016 school year, Petitioner entered into a “Probationary Contract of Employment for Instructional Personnel of the Public Schools” with the School Board.3/ Petitioner holds a two-year, temporary teaching certificate issued by the Department in the area of Speech-Language Impaired. For the 2015-2016 school year, the School Board assigned Petitioner to work as a speech language pathologist at Brentwood Elementary. All of Petitioner’s students were identified as exceptional student education or “ESE” students. At Brentwood Elementary, Petitioner led two class subjects, Speech Therapy and Language Therapy. In her Speech Therapy class, Petitioner addressed her students’ problems with speech and fluency (e.g., stuttering). Petitioner’s Language Therapy class focused on the content of what is being said (i.e., expressive and receptive language). Petitioner instructed students in areas including reading, reading aloud, and analysis. Petitioner instructed a total of 25 students over six class periods. Her classes consisted of small groups of two-to- four students. Petitioner’s students ranged in age from pre- kindergarten through fifth-grade. For her six classes, Petitioner prepared daily lesson plans. Her lesson plans targeted the goals and objectives on each of her students’ individualized education plans. She aligned her lesson plans with Florida state standards. Some of the state standards are general education grade-level standards, and some are specific to speech or language therapy. Each lesson plan included sections addressing “Setting the Purpose for Learning,” “Instruction and Assessment,” “Teacher Supported Guided Instruction,” and “Application.” Petitioner submitted her lesson plans to her assistant principal for a quarterly review. Petitioner was observed and evaluated by her assistant principal using the same form used for evaluating other teachers at Brentwood Elementary. Petitioner was observed and evaluated on criteria related to the instruction she provided to her students as well as the culture of her classroom. The School Board reported that Petitioner is “outstanding” in her role and was doing “a great job” according to the Brentwood Elementary administration. The School Board further relayed that “there is no question that [Petitioner] is an up-and-coming great professional.” The School Board denied Petitioner’s application because it did not consider a speech language pathologist to be eligible for the Scholarship Program. The School Board explained that it understood the term “teacher” as used in Appropriation 99A to mean a “classroom teacher” as that term is defined in section 1012.01(2)(a). The School Board did not believe that Petitioner fit into the definition of a “classroom teacher.” The School Board described a “classroom teacher” as a “person who is in charge of the whole classroom who is doing the daily instructional services to the kids.” In contrast to a “classroom teacher,” the School Board considers speech-language pathology as a type of “related service.” Related services are services provided to exceptional- education students to assist them in accessing and benefiting from classroom instruction. The School Board considers its “classroom teachers” and speech language pathologists to possess different skill-sets, bases of knowledge, and job goals and responsibilities. Speech-language pathologists have a specific role to support other teachers by helping students meet their educational goals. The School Board described Petitioner’s job duties as “therapeutic services.” In general, speech-language pathologists are professionals who assess, diagnose, and provide therapeutic treatment for various speech, language, and hearing disorders. In her role at Brentwood Elementary, Petitioner provided a comprehensive program to her ESE students to treat those students’ specific speech or language impairments. Petitioner’s Speech Therapy and Language Therapy classes were provided to two- to-four students at a time who were evaluated and deemed to have a disability that impacted their educational classroom performance. Petitioner taught her selected students specific skills or coping mechanisms that would allow them to overcome their impairments in order to better access instruction and curriculum. In other words, Petitioner’s focus was to give her students the ability to learn. The School Board further explained that Petitioner’s “lesson plans” are referred to in the therapy setting as “plans of care.” Plans of care are similar in form to lesson plans created by classroom teachers, but they differ in substance. Classroom teachers’ lesson plans set forth strategies for an educator to deliver instruction to an entire classroom. Speech- language pathologists’ plans of care, on the other hand, set forth tailored therapy plans that address an individual student’s specific impairment. In addition, Petitioner’s class roster is referred to as a “caseload.” Furthermore, while the Petitioner’s Speech Therapy and Language Therapy classes were assigned course codes similar to general education course codes, her two classes were specially coded. Petitioner’s students did not receive course credit for attending her classes with the therapy course code designation. Testimony at the final hearing, however, revealed that in an academic setting the goals and responsibilities of a speech-language pathologist have objectives similar to a “classroom teacher’s.” Sonia Figaredo-Alberts, the School Board’s executive director of pupil support services, who is also a speech-language pathologist, recognized that Petitioner “is instructing students with communication disorders.” Ms. Figaredo-Alberts explained that “we, as speech and language pathologists assist with very specific targeted areas . . . we do a very therapeutic intervention. We’re teaching [our students]. There’s no question that our therapy is about teaching that student specific skills . . . in a very thorough and specialized area.” According to Appropriation 99A, the Legislature gave the decision regarding a “teacher’s” eligibility to receive a scholarship to the school districts. Appropriation 99A directed each Florida school district to receive teacher applications for the Scholarship Program and to submit the number of eligible teachers who qualified for the scholarship to the Department. While processing applications, several school districts sent questions to the Department regarding the implementation of the Scholarship Program. In particular, the Department received inquiries regarding who should be considered a “teacher” for purposes of the scholarship. Although the Department administered the Scholarship Program, Appropriation 99A did not grant the Department rulemaking authority. Therefore, the Department did not adopt rules regarding what teachers were eligible for the scholarship. The Department, however, did prepare and issue a memorandum addressing school districts’ commonly asked questions. On July 27, 2015, Hershel Lyons, chancellor of the Division of Public Schools for the Department, issued a memorandum entitled “Guidance on Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship” (the “Memorandum”) to the Florida School District Superintendents. The Memorandum provided that “[t]eachers eligible for the Best and Brightest Teachers Scholarship Program are classroom teachers as defined in [section] 1012.01(2)(a), F.S., who are employed by Florida school districts, charter schools, or the [Florida School for the Deaf and Blind].” The Department based its interpretation of the term “teacher” on the various classes of employees set forth in section 1012.01(2)(a). The Department determined that the term “classroom teacher” in section 1012.01(2)(a) provided the best definition of the word “teacher” for purposes of the Scholarship Program. On September 4, 2015, Chancellor Lyons issued a second memorandum to School District Superintendents with an attached Frequently Asked Questions document. The Frequently Asked Questions provided, in relevant part: What are the eligibility criteria for the Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program? In order to meet eligibility requirements for the scholarship, the individual must: Be a classroom teacher as defined in section 1012.01(2)(a), Florida Statutes . . . * * * According to section 1012.01(2)(a), F.S., what is the definition of a classroom teacher? Classroom teachers are staff members assigned the professional activity of instructing students in courses in classroom situations, including basic instruction, exceptional student education, career education and adult education, including substitute teachers. Upon reviewing the Memorandum, the School Board believed the Department confirmed its view that “classroom teachers” were the only individuals eligible for the Scholarship Program. The Department did not follow up to determine whether any school district followed its guidance. The Department did not believe that Appropriation 99A gave it that authority. The Department received the names of 5,332 teachers that the school districts determined were eligible for the scholarship awards. Appropriation 99A directed the Department to act as the fiscal agent for the Scholarship Program. As Appropriation 99A directed, the Department disbursed scholarship funds by February 1, 2016.4/ The Department prorated the scholarship funds so that each eligible teacher received approximately $8,300. Based on the evidence and testimony presented during the final hearing, Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence that she qualifies for the Scholarship Program. Accordingly, the School Board should take the necessary steps to ensure that Petitioner receives the appropriate scholarship award contained in Appropriations 99A.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Sarasota County, Florida, issue a final order fulfilling its responsibilities under Appropriation 99A, i.e., submitting Petitioner’s name to the Department of Education as a teacher eligible for the scholarship created by the 2015 Florida Best and Brightest Teacher Scholarship Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 13th day of June, 2016.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint. If so, what punitive action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Licensure Respondent holds Florida teacher's certificate number 472770, covering the area of Elementary Education. His certificate is valid until June 30, 1999. Employment At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was employed pursuant to professional services contract by the School Board of Broward County (School Board) as a Foreign Student Advisor (initially on a part-time basis and ultimately full-time) at the Atlantic Vocational Technical Center (AVTC). Fees for Translation Services AVTC is an educational unit of the School Board providing educational opportunities for residents of Broward County. AVTC has a large population of foreign-speaking students, including those of Haitian and South American origin. The Haitian students, for the most part, speak Creole and the documentation they have reflecting their educational experiences in Haiti is in French. As a general rule, the South American students speak Spanish, and the documentation they have reflecting their educational experiences in their native countries is in Spanish. Respondent is fluent in French and Spanish (as well as in English) and is also able to converse in Creole. In order to properly place the foreign speaking students in AVTC's vocational programs, the students' language skills must be assessed. In addition, their educational background in their native countries, as reflected by the documentation from the institutions they attended, must also be assessed to make sure that the students are qualified for placement in the programs in which they are placed. As the Foreign Student Advisor, Respondent was the "point person" for any foreign speaking student entering AVTC. It was Respondent's obligation to counsel and intake the student, to provide needed language assessments, to review the documentation the student possessed reflecting his or her educational background, and to then provide AVTC with a written evaluation or statement of the student's educational credentials certifying, where appropriate, that the student "had attained a level of academic education . . . at least equal to that of high school completion in the United States' system of education." Respondent's written job description, which the Director of AVTC, Robert Crawford, reviewed with Respondent on several occasions, made reference, in general terms, to these duties. It read as follows: JOSUE NARVAEZ FOREIGN STUDENT ADVISOR -Provide for foreign student recruitment, advisement and placement within the guidelines of federal and state laws as well as school board policies -Serve as foreign student liaison for faculty, administration, county-level staff, feeder school personnel and community-at-large -Serve as liaison between students and Immigration and Naturalization Services -Offer assistance with curriculum to instructors of foreign student population -Provide tours of campus for ESOL students -Assist with orientation programs, scheduling and registration procedures -Process FAFTF applications -Process Fee Waiver and Deferred Payment forms -Insure that basic skill information is provided to all students within respective programs -Assist in coordination of VESOL and Pre-Core programs -Coordinate Refugee and SLIAG programs -Coordinate multi-cultural activities -Provide translation assistance as needed -Work together with ESOL/VESOL Department Head, instructors and aides to offer services to students -Attend faculty, staff and other related meetings to keep abreast of updated regulations, policies and procedures, techniques and information needed to provide adequate services to student population for specific disciplines -Participate in workshops, public relations events, career exploration days, job expos, tours, etc. -Perform all other duties as assigned by Student Service Director/Center Director Respondent routinely advised students who sought from him an evaluation and certification of their foreign academic credentials, which Respondent in his capacity of Foreign Student Advisor was obligated to provide to them, that he would not provide the service absent a written translation (into English) of their foreign certificates, diplomas or other documentation. Respondent further advised these students that, for a fee, he could provide the translation service, or that they could use the services of an outside translator. In those instances where he (for a fee) provided the service, Respondent routinely did the translations at his home, but he had the written translations notarized by one of the registrars at the school during the school day, and he delivered the documents to the students at the school during the school day. For such services, Respondent generally charged from $20.00 to $50.00, depending on the number of documents that were translated. Respondent's refusal to evaluate and validate the prior level of academic achievement of foreign students, absent a written translation into English, was, as he should have known, contrary to his job duties as Foreign Student Advisor. Furthermore, his advice to foreign students that such a written translation was required for an evaluation was false and deceptive. The use of such deception was instrumental in his obtaining fees from students (for his own personal gain and advantage) that were otherwise not required by the school or for an evaluation of the students' educational status. Claims for Medical Expenses Reimbursement Incident to his employment with the School Board, Respondent participated in the School Board's medical expenses reimbursement account program (Program). The Program gives employees the opportunity to save tax dollars by designating a portion of their anticipated yearly wages (which will not be taxed as income by virtue of such designation) for placement in an account from which the employees may seek reimbursement for medical expenses not covered by insurance. The School Board essentially funds an employee's medical expenses reimbursement account as of January 1st of the tax year, and has to recover the funded monies over the course of the year by monthly salary redirection, provided the employee continues to be employed by the School Board. For the 1993 tax year, Respondent elected to participate in the Program at a rate of $100.00 each month for a total of $1,200.00 annually. In accordance with the applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, Respondent's entire $1,200.00 annual commitment, although sheltered at $100.00 each month, was available on January 1st of the tax year to pay non-reimbursed medical expenses. On or about January 7, 1993, Respondent submitted to First Benefits, Inc., which administers the Program for the School Board, a claim for $1,165.00 for eye care services Respondent claimed were rendered by Dr. Jerry Siegel, an optometrist for whom Respondent's wife worked at the time. Attached to the claim were two statements, one reflecting a date of service of January 4, 1993, for Respondent with a total charge of $595.00, and a second reflecting a date of service of January 6, 1993, for Respondent's daughter with a total charge of $570.00. The statements were on forms to which Respondent's wife had access as an employee of Dr. Siegel. At $1,165.00, the claim Respondent submitted in January of 1993, was only $35.00 short of his annual participation that year and, if accepted for payment, would have required the School Board to effectively pay Respondent the amount of the claim, with the expectation that such sums would be recovered over the course of the year from Respondent's monthly salary reduction. On January 25, 1993, First Benefits, Inc., denied Respondent's claim for reimbursement predicated on advice from Dr. Siegel that, contrary to the assertions made in the claim and the statements for services appended thereto, "the services in question were not rendered on the dates enclosed." The assertions made in Respondent's claim for reimbursement were fabrications and the statements for services appended thereto were forgeries. Dr. Siegel rendered no services to Respondent on January 4, 1993, nor did he render any services to Respondent's daughter on January 6, 1993. Accordingly, as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint, "Respondent submitted false claims for medical reimbursement to the administrator of the School Board's medical reimbursement account." He submitted these claims with the intent to deceive knowing that these claims were false. Termination of Employment Following investigations of Respondent's fee-charging and fraudulent claim-filing activities, the School Board suspended Respondent and initiated action to terminate his employment. The matter was publicized in local newspapers. Following a Section 120.57(1) hearing, the School Board took final action to dismiss Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint and punishing him for committing these violations by revoking his license and denying him the right to teach for a period of six years, after which he may apply for a new certificate in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of February, 1998.
