Findings Of Fact Respondent Hostetler holds Certificate #432348 covering the areas of business education, physical education, and administration and supervision. Said certificate is valid through 1987. On or about October 2, 1978, Respondent pled guilty to child molestation in the State of Georgia and was placed on five years probation by the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. See Exhibit 4.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Barry L. Hostetler, guilty of violating Section 231.28, Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the teaching certificate of the Respondent be revoked. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy L. Glass, Esquire 1400 66th Street, North, Suite 480 Post Office Box 10008 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Mr. Barry L. Hostetler 360 24th Street, NW, #1031 Winter Haven, Florida 33880 Donald L. Griesheimer, Director Education Practices Commission 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION RALPH D. TURLINGTON, as Commissioner of Education, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-1468 BARRY L. HOSTETLER, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Wise abused his position as a treating psychiatrist for five young women by using his influence over them to engage in sexual relationships with them in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes, (1979), [now codified as Section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987)] and whether he is therefore guilty of unprofessional or immoral conduct in violation of Section 458.1201(1), Florida Statutes, (1969) [now codified as Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, (1987)]. If Dr. Wise is guilty of any of these activities, he would also be guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1987), which proscribes the violation of any portion of Chapter 458. Sexual misconduct with patients would also constitute gross or repeated malpractice, which is forbidden by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Wise has been a licensed medical doctor, holding license ME0008520. He has been licensed in Florida since 1957 and practices in the area of Adult and Child Psychiatry in Miami. He has been a board certified psychiatrist in since 1965. Patient L. H. From July 1969 through April 1971, Dr. Wise treated L.H, who was 21 years of age. When she began treatment, she was experiencing panic attacks and had other problems resulting from sexual molestation as a child, rape, alcoholism, and family problems. At first she had visited Dr. Wise weekly, but toward the end of her 1 1/2 years of therapy, she saw him every other week. L.H. alleges that shortly before she terminated her treatment with Dr. Wise she had a severe panic attack which caused her to telephone Dr. Wise, who then offered to provide therapy at Dr. Wise's apartment. When she arrived, she says Dr. Wise was in his bathrobe, took her to the bedroom, told her to place her hand on his penis and had sexual relations with her. She also maintains that Dr. Wise saw her on one other occasion in his office, when no sex occurred. L. H. said nothing about Dr. Wise's conduct at the time the incident was to have taken place. Fourteen years later, L.H. was seeing a psychologist in St. Louis, Missouri, Dr. Gertrude Williams. In the course of therapy with Dr. Williams, L.H. stated that she had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wise while she was his patient. This disclosure to Dr. Williams is consistent with the testimony L. H. gave at the final hearing. In October of 1985, L.H. filed a complaint against Dr. Wise with the South Florida Psychiatric Society alleging sexual misconduct, but after a two-day hearing a panel of twelve doctors found against L.H. and in favor of Dr. Wise. The testimony of L. H. was no more persuasive in this case than it was before the Psychiatric Society. In October, 1985, L.H. also filed a complaint which the Department investigated, but found the charges unsubstantiated. No disciplinary action was initiated against Dr. Wise at that time. The evidence in the instant case with respect to the allegations of misconduct by Dr. Wise with L.H. was not clearly convincing or persuasive. Patient S.P. Dr. Wise treated S.P. from July, 1980 through July, 1981 at his office in Miami. She was then approximately 19 years old and had complaints of nervousness, insomnia and hyperventilation. She saw Dr. Wise approximately two times per week (on Tuesdays and Thursdays) for therapy. Although originally seen in the morning, her appointments were changed to late in the afternoon. S.P. alleges that within two months after beginning treatment, while she was sitting on the couch during a therapy session, Dr. Wise got up from another couch, sat down next to her and began to kiss her. She also alleges that during subsequent visits Dr. Wise had sexual intercourse with her. S.P. filed a civil lawsuit for malpractice against Dr. Wise alleging the same sexual misconduct alleged here as the basis for her damage claim. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Wise. S.P.'s marriage failed while she was seeing Dr. Wise. She had often stayed out late, and told her husband that she was at therapy sessions with Dr. Wise. It is not clear whether these late night absences from home were actually the result of appointments with Dr. Wise or were the result of other appointments which she justified to her husband by claiming they were appointments with Dr. Wise. After terminating treatment with Dr. Wise, S.P. began seeing a Roman catholic priest who was also trained as a counselor. She told him that she had been seeing a local psychiatrist who, after a few sessions, had engaged in sexual intimacy with her. After moving back to her mother's home due to her breakup with her husband, S.P. also told her mother that she and Dr. Wise had been sexually intimate. These statements by S. P. were consistent with her testimony at final hearing; that the testimony is consistent, however, does not make it persuasive. Taken as a whole, the evidence that Dr. Wise may have engaged in a sexual relationship with S. P. is not clearly convincing. Patient L. M. Dr. Wise treated L.M. during the period from late 1972 through February of 1973. She was sixteen years old and was seeking to improve her relationship with her parents. She alleges that during one of her early visits Dr. Wise questioned her about the pimple on her forehead, and asked whether she had pimples on any other area of her body. She says she responded that she had a pimple on her back, and alleges that Dr. Wise then asked to see her back. When she lifted her pullover, she says Dr. Wise fondled her breasts briefly. Viewing the testimony of L.M. as a whole, the evidence is not clearly convincing that Dr. Wise ever fondled her breasts. Patient K. M. Dr. Wise treated K.M. from 1982, when she was 18 years old, until 1984. K. M. came to see Dr. Wise because of problems including an abortion she had when she was 15 years old, as well as a prior incestuous relationship with her brother. K.M. testified that she would go to Dr. Wise's office for treatment late in the evening, when they also would engage in sexual intercourse. She also testified that in 1985, after she terminated her therapeutic relation with Dr. Wise, she told her general practice physician, Dr. Peter Shea, during an office visit, that she had an affair with Dr. Wise. As with the foregoing witnesses, the statement made to Dr. Shea is consistent with K. M.'s testimony at final hearing, but that consistency does not enhance K. M.'s testimony. The testimony of K.M. concerning liaisons with Dr. Wise is not clearly convincing. Patient L. G. L.G. saw Dr. Wise beginning in April, 1974 when she was 21 years old. When she first came to Dr. Wise she complained of depression, unhappiness, and confusion. She told Dr. Wise that she was lonely and did not have a good relationship with men. Dr. Wise also treated L.G.'s sister, Joan. After about two months of seeing her on a weekly basis, L.G. alleges that Dr. Wise came over to the couch where she was sitting, embraced her, and during the course of the treatment, their physical relationship became more intimate. The intimacies were to have included oral sex which L.G. performed on Dr. Wise, which she thought was therapy for her psychological problems with sexual intimacy. L.G. terminated her relationship with Dr. Wise and began seeing a psychologist at the University of Miami, Edward Rappaport. During the course of treatment L.G. reported to Dr. Rappaport that she had been sexually involved with Dr. Wise. The testimony of L.G. at final hearing is consistent with the statement she made to Dr. Rappaport during therapy that Dr. Wise engaged in sex with her while she was seeing Dr. Wise for professional help. The consistency of the testimony does not make it persuasive. Considering the testimony of L.G. and Dr. Rappaport, the evidence offered to show that Dr. Wise had engaged in sexual intimacies with L.G. while she was seen as a patient is not clearly convincing.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the second amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY 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 22rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed by the Department of Professional Regulation Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Accepted in findings of fact 2, 6, 10, 11 and 12. Covered in finding of fact 11. 6-7. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. 13 Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 7, of the facts stated that are rejected. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. The proposals concerning the telephone calls are rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 24. The proposal concerning the telephone calls is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 26.-29. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 13, although the proposals are rejected because L.G.'s testimony was not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. is not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 13. 39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Covered in finding of fact 13. 41.-42. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. was not clearly convincing. 43. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because of the testimony of the complaining witnesses has not been clearly convincing. 50.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed By Dr. Wise Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2 Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12, to the extent necessary. Covered in finding of fact 14. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Sewell, Esquire Law offices of Mark P. Lang 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 707 Post Office Box 2127 Orlando, FL 32802-2127 Jonathan King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750A =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Andrew Anthony Taylor (“Petitioner”), timely filed a petition under the Victims of Wrongful Incarceration Act, chapter 961, Florida Statutes (2016)(“the Act”); and, if so, whether Petitioner demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence, his actual innocence, thereby entitling him to monetary compensation under the Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks compensation pursuant to the Act after serving a prison term of 25 years for the sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, C.J. The jury verdict was vacated after C.J., in 2014, recanted her accusation that Petitioner sexually abused her in 1990, when she was eight years old. The undersigned will begin with a discussion of the events in 1990, when C.J. first reported the allegation of sexual abuse against Petitioner to Dr. Valerie Rao, a rape treatment medical examiner. On the evening of March 10, 1990, C.J. was brought to the Jackson Memorial Hospital Roxcy Bolton Rape Treatment Center by her mother and grandmother, at which time C.J. came under the care of Dr. Rao. Dr. Rao obtained a detailed history from C.J., during which C.J. reported that she had been sexually abused by her stepfather, “Andrew,” at two different locations--her old house and her new house. According to C.J., the most recent sexual encounter was when she was awoken by Petitioner on “Friday night,” March 8, 1990, and told to get up and go to her mother’s bed. C.J. did so, and Petitioner then told her to take off her pajamas, which she did. According to C.J., Petitioner got on top of her, put his “private part” in her, began kissing her, and put his mouth on her “private part.” C.J. also stated Petitioner made her touch his “private part,” and that he touched her in the anal area. C.J. also stated Petitioner often put his “private part” in her mouth. C.J. also stated Petitioner told her that if she told anyone, he would kill her. After obtaining the history, Dr. Rao examined C.J. and observed multiple bruises on her right arm and thighs, and abrasions on her back and on her left breast. The bruises and abrasions were caused when C.J.’s mother beat her with a baseball bat after C.J. told her mother of Petitioner’s sexual abuse. Dr. Rao immediately reported the mother to law enforcement, and C.J.’s mother was arrested at the rape treatment center for aggravated child abuse. Dr. Rao conducted a vaginal examination of C.J. and used a colposcope to observe and document the status of C.J.’s hymen. Dr. Rao observed and documented several healed tears of the hymen, which made the opening of C.J.’s hymen bigger than it should be for a child of her age. According to Dr. Rao, C.J. did not show any natural signs of progression of the hymen tissue that might be present due to a child approaching puberty. Dr. Rao persuasively and credibly testified at hearing that C.J.’s history was consistent with her physical examination. According to Dr. Rao, the healed tears could have resulted from Respondent “trying to push his penis into her” consistent with C.J.’s history. Dr. Rao acknowledged the tears also could have been caused by a finger, a pencil, or any object that is bigger than the opening of the hymen. However, no evidence was presented at hearing indicating that a finger, pencil, or any other object was placed in the opening of C.J.’s hymen. Dr. Rao further acknowledged there was no physical evidence that she could discern or collect that identified Petitioner as the assailant in this case. However, in 1990, obtaining DNA samples and the gathering of other types of physical evidence in an effort to specifically identify perpetrators of sexual abuse were not as advanced and reliable as it is today. Following Dr. Rao’s examination on March 10, 1990, C.J. was separated from her mother, and her mother no longer had custody of her. C.J. lived with her maternal great grandmother, and without her mother in her life, until she was 16 years old. On March 27, 1990, Mercy Restani, a trained interviewer who was employed by the Dade County Children’s Center within the office of the State Attorney, interviewed C.J. at the children’s center. C.J. provided a detailed history to Ms. Restani. C.J. told Ms. Restani that the sexual abuse by Petitioner happened in the old house and at the new house. C.J. told Ms. Restani that Petitioner would get her out of her bedroom and take her into her mother’s bedroom. C.J. told Ms. Restani that Petitioner would touch her “pocketbook” (the child’s word for a vagina) with his “private” (the child’s word for penis). C.J. told Dr. Restani that Petitioner got on top of her, that he moved very fast, and that it hurt when he did so. C.J. said Petitioner touched her breasts, put his mouth on her “pocketbook,” and his “private” in her mouth. C.J. also told Ms. Restani that Petitioner told her he would kill her if she told anyone. Ms. Restani asked C.J. if she had told her mother or anyone about what had happened to her. C.J. told Ms. Restani that she did not tell her mother because she was afraid. C.J. told Ms. Restani that her mother “had been asking her for several days if Andrew had been messing with her.” When C.J. eventually told her mother what had happened, C.J. said her mother beat her with a baseball bat. On April 3, 1990, C.J. was interviewed by a clinical forensic psychologist, Manuel E. Alvarez, Ph.D. The purpose of the interview was to assess C.J.’s current mental status and emotional therapeutic needs. According to Dr. Alvarez, C.J. was able to distinguish between the truth and a lie. C.J. had the intelligence to comprehend what had happened to her, to be able to relate it to others, and she was competent to testify. C.J. provided a detailed history to Dr. Alvarez. Dr. Alvarez observed that C.J. was able to provide a synopsis of her living arrangements at the time of the incidents. C.J. identified her stepfather, “Andrew,” as the perpetrator of the sexual abuse. C.J. told Dr. Alvarez it occurred at the old house and current house. C.J. told Dr. Alvarez it occurred when Petitioner would wake her, take her into the room, and tell her to get onto the bed. C.J. was reluctant to verbally tell Dr. Alvarez what Petitioner did to her, but C.J. wrote it down on a piece of paper (Petitioner’s Exhibit 4) in her own handwriting: He would get on me. He would start moving fast on me. He would take out his private part. On my private part and In my mouth. C.J. also told Dr. Alvarez that after the incidents, Petitioner threatened to kill her if she told anyone about it. On April 5, 1990, C.J. executed an affidavit, attesting to the fact of her name, that she was eight years old, that she lived with her mother and Petitioner at a specific street address in Dade County, Florida, and that: Early in the morning on Friday, March 9, 1990, Andrew woke me up and took me to his bedroom. Andrew told me to take off my panties. He touched my breasts. He put his private part into my pocketbook. It hurt. He kissed me on my mouth and on my pocketbook. He had done this before. He told me he would kill me if I told. My mother asked me if anyone was messing with me. For several days I wouldn’t tell her. When I did tell her what Andrew did, she beat me with a baseball bat. In August 1990, C.J.’s mother entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated child abuse against C.J. She was adjudicated guilty, sentenced to community control, and ordered not to have any contact with C.J. until approved by the court. On October 22, 1990, C.J. gave a videotaped deposition in Petitioner’s criminal case, in which she provided details of the sexual abuse by Petitioner. In the deposition, C.J. described how Petitioner woke her up, took her to her mother’s room, touched her “pocketbook” with his mouth, and placed his “wee-wee” in her “pocketbook.” C.J. testified he moved his body around while putting his “wee-wee” in her “pocketbook,” and that it hurt when he did so. She testified that on another evening, Petitioner woke her up again, took her to her mother’s room, and touched her “pocketbook” with his hand moving up and down as he did so. She testified it happened at the new house and at the old house. Petitioner’s criminal jury trial was held in March 1991, before the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida, in the case of State of Florida v. Andrew Anthony Taylor, Case No. F90-009928. At Petitioner’s criminal trial, C.J. testified via closed circuit television that Petitioner came to her bedroom, woke her up, and took her to her mother’s room. C.J. testified that she was wearing pajamas and panties and that Petitioner removed them. Using anatomically correct dolls, C.J. showed the jury that Petitioner touched her vagina with his hand and put his mouth on her breasts. She further indicated that Petitioner put his mouth on her vagina and demonstrated how he put his penis in her mouth and vagina. C.J. testified that it hurt when Petitioner placed his penis in her “private part.” She testified she did not tell her mother about this that night because Petitioner said he would do something bad to her. C.J. testified that another incident occurred that same week where Petitioner did the same things to her. C.J. also testified Petitioner put something “greasy” on his “private part” before he put his “private part” in her “private part.” C.J. indicated Petitioner’s sexual abuse of her also occurred at the old house. C.J. testified that when she told her mother about Petitioner’s sexual abuse of her after the last incident, her mother became upset and hurt her. C.J. testified that when she told Dr. Rao she got all the bruises when her mother hit her with a baseball bat, it was the first time her mother ever hit her with a bat. C.J. testified she has not been able to live with or have contact with her mom since her mother hurt her. C.J.’s mother did not testify at the criminal trial against Petitioner because she had an open warrant for her arrest at the time for violating her community control. Petitioner testified at his criminal trial. Although Petitioner denied he sexually abused C.J., he acknowledged that he was C.J.’s stepfather; he married C.J.’s mother in 1989; he had a son with C.J.’s mother in 1998; he was having an extramarital affair with another woman; and while he divided his time between Maryland and Miami because of work, he was sleeping in the same home as C.J. during the timeframe that C.J. indicated she had been sexually abused by him. Following the criminal trial, Petitioner was convicted on March 15, 1991, of three counts of capital sexual battery and one count of lewd and lascivious behavior for the sexual abuse of C.J. Petitioner was sentenced to life in prison on the three capital offenses. The judgment and sentences were per curiam affirmed on appeal in Taylor v. State, 610 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). After reporting the incidents of sexual abuse, C.J. went through counseling two times per week for several years. At no time did C.J. tell any therapists that she was not sexually abused by Petitioner. In 2006, C.J. was approached at her grandmother’s home by a male private investigator for Petitioner. The investigator wanted to ask C.J. questions about what happened with Petitioner, but C.J. refused to speak with the investigator. In either late 2013 or early 2014, C.J. was again approached by a private investigator for Petitioner, this time a female who came to C.J.’s place of employment (“Walmart”). The investigator wanted to ask C.J. if anything had happened with Petitioner. In response, C.J. immediately told her “no.” The investigator then gave C.J. a card, and C.J. told the investigator she would call her in couple of weeks. On February 17, 2014, C.J. executed an affidavit formally recanting the accusation that Petitioner sexually abused her when she was eight years old. In this affidavit, C.J. asserted now, at the age of 32, that she made the allegation because her mother was either drunk or high on drugs who would ask her “if anybody touched me inappropriately.” C.J. asserted that late one night after telling her mother that nobody touched me, her mother beat her with a baseball bat and started yelling, “did Andrew touch you.” C.J. asserted that after telling her mother no, her mother began to beat her and beat her for hours. C.J. asserted that after an extensive beating, she told her mother that “Andrew” had touched her so that she would stop beating her, and after telling her that Andrew touched her, the beating stopped. However, by this time, C.J. had developed a close relationship with her half-brother Andrew Taylor, Jr. C.J. further asserted: A while back, I began to talk with my half- brother, Andrew Jr., and would see him interacting with his own son. This started me thinking about what I had done and only I knew the real truth that Andrew was innocent. My conscience started bothering me every time I would see Andrew, Jr. playing and interacting with his son and it got to the point where I couldn’t sleep and hardly eat. I finally called my half-brother, Andrew Jr., and told him I needed to meet with him and explain what had happened regarding his father. I told Andrew Jr. that his father never touched me or bothered me sexually and that I was so sorry for his dad not being in his life because of what I did. I asked Andrew Jr. to forgive me and he agreed. I also asked Andrew Jr. what I should do and who I could write in order to correct this situation. Investigator Jeannie Rogers came to see me a few months ago and spoke to me about coming forward. I have finally gotten the courage to stand up and do what is right. On June 23, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Post- Conviction Relief Based on Newly Discovered Evidence in Case No. F90-009928. The newly discovered evidence was C.J.’s recantation of the sexual abuse allegation against Petitioner. On April 2, 2015, an evidentiary hearing was held on the motion before Circuit Court Judge Diane Ward. At the hearing before Judge Ward, Petitioner presented the live testimony of C.J., who testified she made up the allegation that Petitioner sexually abused her because her mother beat her with a baseball bat to make her provide a false allegation against Petitioner. C.J. testified she told her mother Petitioner sexually abused her because she wanted the beating to stop. However, C.J. also testified when she told her mother that Petitioner sexually abused her, the beating did not stop, and her mother continued to beat her with the baseball bat for not telling her about the sexual abuse sooner. During the hearing before Judge Ward, C.J. acknowledged she provided specific details of sexual abuse by Petitioner to Dr. Rao, Ms. Restani, Dr. Alvarez, and in her prior testimony in the underlying criminal proceedings involving Petitioner. C.J. was asked how she could have had such knowledge of sexual activity as an eight year old in order to provide the details that she did to Dr. Rao, Ms. Restani, Dr. Alvarez, and in her testimony in the underlying criminal proceedings. In response, C.J. testified she came up with the details by watching cable television and walking in on her mother and Petitioner while they were having sex. At the hearing before Judge Ward, Respondent presented the live testimony of C.J.’s mother, who acknowledged she was a cocaine addict in March 1990. C.J.’s mother testified on direct examination that she recalled an incident in which she had returned home one night on March 5, 1990, and found C.J. lying in bed with her hands covering her front “private parts.” She testified that she could smell a “sexual scent” in the room and that she asked C.J. “what was wrong.” She testified C.J. did not indicate anything was wrong, but she was still suspicious something was wrong because of the sexual odor in the room. C.J.’s mother testified that due to this suspicion, she asked C.J. a second time on March 9, 1990, if “anyone had been messing with her.” According to C.J.’s mother, C.J. indicated this time that Petitioner “[h]ad been bothering her,” which meant that he had been sexually molesting her. C.J.’s mother testified on direct examination that when C.J. began telling her specific details of the abuse by Petitioner, she became irate and beat C.J. with a baseball bat. However, C.J.’s mother’s testimony as to when she began to beat C.J. with a baseball bat is inconsistent. C.J. and her mother acknowledged their relationship over the past several years has been good, and there is no current animosity between them. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, Judge Ward orally announced her ruling that C.J.’s change in testimony is newly discovered evidence. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Ward specifically found C.J.’s testimony “reliable and credible.” Judge Ward commented she “had the opportunity to view her, and observe her during the testimony, and as well as consider any motive that she had for the recantation of her testimony.” On the other hand, Judge Ward specifically found the live testimony of C.J.’s mother to be “incredible.” In reaching this conclusion, Judge Ward commented that at the time of the events, she was by her own admission using drugs, and she had a poor recollection of the events, which is attributable to her drug use rather than to the passage of time. Judge Ward further stated: There were multiple lengthy pauses between the attorney’s questions and her answers where she seemed to be searching in her memory for answers. The Court observed that she seemed very hesitant and unsure of her own recollection of the events, and I further find that this is attributable to her extensive drug use, and that, and her intoxication on drugs at the time that this occurred. With regards to the beating, but with a baseball bat, although at some times she did acknowledge, did state that she beat her child with the baseball bat after she implicated the Defendant in the sexual assault, there were times that she said that she couldn’t recall and it could have been before she implicated her. And this is the most damaging testimony you could possibly have given the fact that there was no direct evidence otherwise implicating the Defendant as the person who sexually assaulted her. She did have six healed tears on her hymen which could have occurred at any time, and been caused by any other person. There was no DNA, blood evidence, semen, eyewitnesses, or a confession, so the only evidence that the State had, or the strongest evidence that the State had was the victim’s testimony, which was obviously obtained through a beating with a baseball bat by her mother when she was a very tiny child. The pictures of her are very sad at such a young age. There is no doubt that if a jury were to hear that the victim, hear from the victim that the Defendant was not the person that sexually abused her, and that she lied because her mother beat her with a baseball bat when she was eight years old, would have produced an, could have, would have produced an acquittal on retrial, and that the Defendant would probably be acquitted on retrial, so based on the foregoing I’m going to grant the motion for post-conviction relief. We need to schedule it for trial now. I think it has to be set in ninety days; isn’t that correct? Okay, I’ll answer my own question yes. Pet. Ex. 14, pp. 245-247. On April 2, 2015, a written order was entered vacating the finding of guilt, judgment, and sentence, and a hearing was scheduled for April 10, 2015, at which time a new trial date would be set. On April 10, 2015, the State announced a nolle prose of all criminal charges against Petitioner. On June 30, 2015, Petitioner timely filed a Petition to Establish Wrongful Incarceration in Case No. F90-009928. On July 31, 2015, Respondent filed a response contesting the petition. After the filing of the initial petition, a grand jury returned an indictment recharging Petitioner for the same crimes. C.J. was notified of the grand jury proceeding, but she did not appear or request a continuance. After the criminal case was re-filed, Respondent and Petitioner were unable to reach a settlement. On December 12, 2016, the second set of charges were nolle prossed. On January 25, 2017, Petitioner filed an amended petition. On March 17, 2017, pursuant to section 961.03(4)(a), Judge Ward issued an “Order Finding That Defendant Was a ‘Wrongfully Incarcerated Person’ and Is ‘Eligible for Compensation’ Pursuant to Section 961.03, Florida Statutes.” Judge Ward held that the petition was timely filed and that Petitioner met his burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, his “actual innocence” of the charges. Central to Judge Ward’s conclusion that C.J.’s recantation is reliable and that Petitioner met his burden of establishing his actual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence is that she had the opportunity to observe C.J. and her mother’s demeanor when they testified live at the April 2, 2015, evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief. Judge Ward’s findings are largely based on credibility assessments of C.J. and her mother based on observations of their demeanor while testifying. In concluding that Petitioner established his “actual innocence” by a preponderance of the evidence, Judge Ward relied on the evidence presented at the April 2, 2015, evidentiary hearing on Petitioner’s motion for post-conviction relief. In the instant proceeding, however, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing his actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. Whether Petitioner is actually innocent turns on whether Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence that C.J.’s recantation is reliable. The evidence presented in this case does not clearly and convincingly establish the reliability of C.J.’s recantation. To begin with, C.J. consistently provided details about sexual conduct perpetrated against her by Petitioner in her visits with Dr. Rao, Ms. Restani, and Dr. Alvarez, and in her prior deposition and trial testimony in the underlying criminal proceeding against Petitioner. C.J. gave details about how Petitioner would wake her up and take her to another room. She gave details about oral sex by Petitioner on herself and that she performed on Petitioner. She gave details about Petitioner using a lubricant on his penis. She gave details about how he would place his penis in her vagina and move up and down really fast. She said it hurt when he did so. Dr. Rao persuasively and credibly testified that the injuries to C.J.’s hymen were consistent with her history. C.J. consistently stated in 1990 and 1991 that her mother beat her with a baseball bat after she told her of the sexual abuse by Petitioner. Over 20 years later, C.J.’s story changed, and she stated that her mother beat her with a baseball bat before she told her of the sexual abuse by Petitioner. In her recantation affidavit, C.J. stated that after telling her mother that Petitioner touched her, the beating stopped. However, in the hearing before Judge Ward, C.J. testified that her mother continued to beat her with the baseball bat after she told her about the abuse for not telling her about the abuse sooner. From March 10, 1990, when C.J. was removed from her mother until she was 16 years old, C.J. had many opportunities to come forward and recant the allegation of abuse against Petitioner. During this time, there was no reason for C.J. to fear her mother because her mother was not in C.J.’s life. Subsequently, C.J. and her mother developed a good relationship. However, Petitioner waited almost 24 years to recant. C.J. recanted after developing a relationship with her half-brother, Andrew Taylor, Jr. When Andrew Taylor, Jr., turned 18 years old, he began a relationship with his father, Petitioner. Prior to recanting, C.J. regretted her half-brother did not get to spend quality time with Petitioner because Petitioner was in prison. C.J.’s development of a relationship with her half-brother and her desire that he have a strong relationship with Petitioner could be a motive for her recantation. C.J. did not appear before the grand jury, she did not request a continuance, and she was not called as a witness at either of the hearings in the instant matter. The undersigned lacked the opportunity to observe C.J.’s demeanor because she was not called to testify as a live witness. However, the undersigned had the opportunity to observe C.J.’s demeanor while testifying in her videotaped deposition in 1990, at which time she testified credibly and persuasively to facts demonstrating that Petitioner sexually abused her. Petitioner was called as a witness at the August 8, 2017, hearing, at which he was simply asked on direct examination if he ever molested C.J., to which he responded no. Petitioner’s testimony at the hearing was unpersuasive.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent made false reports to the Florida Abuse Hotline in violation of section 39.206, Florida Statutes1/; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for managing the Florida abuse hotline and investigating allegations of abuse, abandonment, and neglect of children. Respondent is the biological mother of E.W., a minor child. Respondent called the Florida abuse hotline on August 14, 2014, and reported that the father of E.W., Derwin Worley, was physically abusing E.W. and exposing her to drunken behaviors. In response to the call, the Department generated Intake Report number 2014-213532-01 (First Case), which contains the following allegation narrative: The father spanks [E.W.] and leaves bruises. The father closes and locks the door when he spanks [E.W.]. The father may be using his hand or whatever he can pick up when he spanks [E.W.]. Two days ago, four bruises were observed on [E.W.’s] butt that were caused by the father. The bruises were red. [E.W.] also has bruises on her legs that were explained to have been caused by tubing down the river. It is not believed that the injuries match the explanation. The bruises are small and greenish. [E.W.] also has a bruise under her eye that goes from one side to the other. It was explained that the bruise was from a mosquito bite. The explanation does not match the injuries. The father drank Saturday or Sunday night and law enforcement had to be called to the home. When [E.W.] pees in her diaper, the father lets her sit around in the diaper. It is unknown how long she had been in the diaper. The father curses around [E.W.]. [E.W.] curses because the father curses around her. The mother was allowing the father to babysit more and more, because she doesn’t trust babysitters. The father will not give [E.W.] back to the mother. He has kept [E.W.] from her for one night. The mother has full custody. The mother was trying to move in with he[r] grandmother. The father does not work. He gets disability income. The mother does not believe in spanking a child of [E.W.’s] age. Investigation of the First Case was assigned to Department Child Protective Investigator Sheila Ferguson. During her investigation, Investigator Ferguson found that there had been ongoing custody disputes over E.W. between Respondent and Mr. Worley, and that there were apparently times that Respondent needed assistance in getting E.W. back from Mr. Worley. According to Investigator Ferguson, custody was Respondent’s primary motivation for making the allegations against Mr. Worley. Investigator Ferguson testified that, during her investigation in August of 2014, although Respondent claimed that she had photos of E.W.’s bruises, including injuries to E.W.’s eye and buttocks, Respondent delayed for over two months in providing any photographs, and when she did, Respondent only provided photos of E.W.’s legs. According to Investigator Ferguson, the photos only showed bruises on E.W.’s legs and shins, which are common childhood injuries and not indicative of abuse. At the time of the August 2014 allegations, Respondent and E.W. were living in the home of Mr. Worley and Loretta Worley, his wife, who was E.W.’s stepmother. Investigator Ferguson said that when she questioned Respondent about the delay in showing the photos, Respondent explained that she delayed because she was afraid that the Worleys would put her out of their home. Investigator Ferguson felt that Respondent’s explanation of delay did not make any sense. Inspector Ferguson reported that she examined the child for marks and bruises and fully investigated the home and care given to E.W. by the Worleys and found no reason to question the child’s safety. According to Inspector Ferguson, she observed a very loving and appropriate relationship between Mr. Worley and E.W. Because of purported lack of evidence to support Respondent’s allegations, and a belief that Respondent did not produce clear facts or timelines and was motivated by a custody dispute, Inspector Ferguson felt that the First Case was a false report. Inspector Ferguson’s supervisor, Holly Cummings, agreed. However, because the First Case was the first report called in by Respondent, Inspector Ferguson only warned Respondent against making false reports and closed the case as “No Indicators.” According to the Department’s internal operating procedures manual, “no indicators” means there was no evidence to support the allegations.2/ On August 27, 2015, Respondent was involved in another call made to the hotline regarding Mr. Worley and E.W. The second report was assigned Intake Report number 2015-229587-01 (Second Case). The reporter who made the call in the Second Case identified herself as Respondent’s friend and asked that the case not to be assigned to Inspector Ferguson. Respondent was in the background during the call at the location where the call originated. The allegation narrative in the intake report from the Second Case states: The father is an alcoholic. The father drinks alcohol to the point of intoxication every day. When the father drinks, he becomes aggressive and belligerent. Law enforcement has been called out to the home several times. When the father drinks he slurs his words and can barely talk on the phone. There are pictures of finger prints on the legs of [E.W.]. The pictures also depict a hand print to the inside thigh of [E.W.]. The pictures were taken about a month ago. It is unknown how the injuries were sustained. There are pictures of [E.W.] being held by her uncle. The uncle is a registered sex offender. There are no indications that the uncle has ever been left alone with [E.W.] or has been sexually abused by him. The mother and father do not get along. The mother temporarily signed over custody to the father but now the father refuses to allow the mother to have custody of [E.W.]. The mother is taking the father to court on 09-30-2015. The Second Case was also investigated by Inspector Ferguson, who once again found that the evidence did not support the allegations. In addition, the Second Case was assigned to the Child Protection Team, a subcontractor of the Gulf Coast Children’s Advocacy Center affiliated with the Florida Department of Health’s Children’s Medical Centers. The Child Protection Team is a separate entity from the Department and its employees are independent from Department personnel. Inspector Ferguson again suspected false reporting because custody was still at issue and Inspector Ferguson did not believe that Respondent produced evidence to support the allegations. However, as in the First Case, instead of concluding that the report was false, the Second Case was also closed with a conclusion of “No Indicators.” On January 19, 2017, Respondent made another call to the Florida abuse hotline and reported that Mr. Worley had sexually abused E.W. The intake report from that call was assigned Intake Report Number 2017-018546-01 (Third Case). The allegation narrative in the Intake Report from the Third Case states: The father has been touching [E.W.’s] vagina and buttocks when she gets up in the morning and while she is asleep. When [E.W.] takes a bath she cries. [E.W.] has been playing with herself. It was reported that [E.W.] learned this behavior from her father. [E.W.] does not feel safe in the father’s home. Three weeks ago, [E.W.] fell and hit a bed or dresser after jumping up and down on a mattress. She sustained a bruise on her head. The bruise looks like a handprint. She was taken to an emergency room. She had bruises on her body in the past. The father has back and heart problems. An additional, related call came into the hotline on February 12, 2017, and was assigned Intake Report number 2017- 044728-01 (Fourth Case). The allegation narrative from the Fourth Case’s Intake Report states: The father has been sexually abusing [E.W.]. The father touches her private area while she sleeps. [E.W.] has been scratches [sic] her private area a lot lately, it is believed this is from the father sexually abusing her. [E.W.]’s private area are [sic] red. The mother is aware the father sexually abusing [E.W.] and is allowing her to go back to the father’s house today, 02/12/2017. The Fourth Case was based on the same allegations as the Third Case, but was reported by a Jackson County Sheriff’s Office deputy after the Sheriff’s office had received notice of Respondent’s allegations of sexual abuse against Mr. Worley. Law enforcement officials are mandatory reporters.3/ The Fourth Case was eventually closed because the Third Case, based on the same allegations, was already opened. Investigation of the Third Case was assigned to Department Child Protective Investigator Daniel Henry. Given the nature of the allegations, Investigator Henry responded “immediately,” which, according to the Department’s protocol, requires investigation within four hours. Investigator Henry arrived at Mr. Worley’s home to investigate the allegations within four hours of the call, and, based upon his meeting with Mr. Worley and E.W., Investigator Henry concluded that E.W. was not in danger. According to Investigator Henry, interactions between E.W. and her father were very “comfortable and free” and the child did not seem afraid of her father in the least. Allegations of sexual abuse, especially when made against a parent, are considered severe in nature and taken very seriously by the Department. Because of this, the Department once again referred E.W. to the Child Protection Team for a “forensic interview.” Angela Griffin with the Child Protection Team conducted the forensic interview of E.W. According to Ms. Griffin, a forensic interview is “a legally-sound interview, non-leading.” From the interview, Ms. Griffin concluded that E.W. had not been abused by Mr. Worley. Ms. Griffin testified that she found E.W. to be very forthcoming and truthful with no hesitation in her statements. She recalled asking E.W. about anyone touching her inappropriately and no disclosures were made. Ms. Griffin reported that she saw no evidence of sexual abuse of E.W. According to Ms. Griffin, after observing E.W. with Mr. Worley, she had no concerns. She reported that E.W. and Mr. Worley appeared to be bonded with a loving and appropriate father-daughter relationship. Ms. Griffin’s interview with E.W. was recorded and offered into evidence at the hearing. Although the recording was delivered to the undersigned at the hearing, ruling on the evidentiary value of that recording was reserved. After the hearing, the undersigned reviewed the recorded interview. Based upon that review, and considering the context and manner in which the recording was offered into evidence, it is found that the recording is non-corroborative hearsay4/ that does not support a finding that Respondent made false accusations or a false report against Mr. Worley.5/ E.W.’s kindergarten teacher, Amy Glass, who has had daily contact with E.W. in her kindergarten class, is of the opinion that E.W. is a well-cared for child and is not concerned that E.W. has been abused. She described E.W.’s father and stepmother as loving and appropriate caregivers. Ms. Glass believes that E.W. is the type of child that would tell her if she was being abused. According to Ms. Glass, E.W. has never told her that she has been abused by her father or stepmother. While Ms. Glass further testified about statements made by E.W. concerning Respondent, those statements, and any other statements attributed to E.W., are hearsay and were not considered. E.W.’s stepmother, Loretta Worley, also testified. Ms. Worley’s testimony confirmed that there have been ongoing disputes between Respondent and Mr. Worley regarding custody of E.W. Ms. Worley testified that she and Mr. Worley provide a loving home for E.W., where E.W. is well cared for. She said that neither she nor Mr. Worley spank E.W. Ms. Worley also testified that Respondent’s accusations against Mr. Worley were false and motivated by Respondent’s desire to gain custody of E.W. Ms. Worley further testified that Respondent has been ordered to pay child support to Mr. Worley for E.W., and that Respondent is over $4,000 behind in those payments. Respondent confirmed that she is behind on child support payments. On the other hand, Ms. Worley’s testimony provided support for Respondent’s allegations regarding Mr. Worley’s drinking. Ms. Worley confirmed that law enforcement has been called to their home on a number of occasions, both before and after 2014. Ms. Worley testified that law enforcement had been called a couple of times while Respondent was living with them for six to eight months in 2014, when Mr. Worley would get angry with Respondent while he and Respondent were bickering back and forth. Ms. Worley also testified that law enforcement had been called “three or four times, maybe” since 2014, because of Mr. Worley’s drunkenness. According to Ms. Worley: Yeah. I mean, I’m not for sure how many - - but I know it ain’t been like she’s claiming; that they’re out there every single day. Her daddy does not drink every single day. Ms. Worley’s testimony regarding Mr. Worley’s drunkenness is credited and inconsistent to departmental investigative findings of “no indicators” in the first two cases. Ms. Worley also offered testimony about things that E.W. allegedly told her that Respondent had said. That evidence, however, was not considered because it is hearsay, is not corroborative of other non-hearsay evidence, and is not otherwise reliable. Notably, while it is found that the video recording of Ms. Griffin’s interview of E.W. offered by the Department is non-corroborative hearsay as to the Department’s case, the video provides statements from E.W. that are contrary to Ms. Worley’s assertion that Mr. Worley does not spank E.W. When asked whether she gets along with everybody in the house, E.W. stated during the recorded interview, “Daddy get me in trouble.” When asked what happens when she gets in trouble, E.W. replied, “He pop my butt.” When asked what her daddy pops her butt with, E.W. responded, “With his hand.” When asked does something happen to her butt when he pops her with his hand, E.W. stated, “When I be bad, he pops me.” When further asked whether something happens to her butt when he pops her, E.W. shook her head from side to side, and Ms. Griffin stated, “No?” in confirmation of E.W.’s head gesture. When asked if something else happens when he pops her, E.W. changed the subject. Aside from being hearsay that should not be considered because it does not corroborate any competent evidence, even if the video of E.W.’s “forensic interview” is taken into account, it does not support a finding that Respondent’s reports were false, and does not disprove Respondent’s allegation that Mr. Worley was sexually abusing E.W. Contrary to the Department’s findings of “no indicators,” the evidence adduced at the hearing provided support for Respondent’s allegations regarding Mr. Worley’s drinking behavior, as well as for alleged bruises and E.W’s contact with a sex offender while in Mr. Worley’s custody. In addition, although the Department made an issue of the timing of Respondent’s presentation of photographic evidence in support of her allegations, Respondent provided photographs of bruises to E.W.’s legs and a photograph of Mr. Worley’s brother, a convicted sex offender, holding E.W. These photos were presented by Respondent to the Department prior to the hearing, as well as at the hearing. In fact, during the time period of one of Inspector Ferguson’s investigations, Respondent went to the Department’s local office and attempted to present the photographs, but Department personnel involved in the investigation were too busy to see her. Respondent also presented a compact disk that purportedly has a recording of E.W. making statements about sexual abuse by her father. That recording, however, is unintelligible and is otherwise non-corroborative hearsay. The facts that Respondent and Mr. Worley were having ongoing custody disputes and that Respondent was behind on child support payments raise suspicions about Respondent’s motive in calling in the reports. Those suspicions, however, are not more persuasive than the evidence supporting the first two calls to the hotline. The Department’s failure to acknowledge that evidence in its investigations, instead finding “no indicators,” undermines the Department’s preliminary determinations and the reliability of its case against Respondent. And, while the evidence does not prove that E.W. was subjected to sexual abuse, the Department’s submissions were insufficient to support a finding that E.W. was not sexually abused. In sum, the Department did not prove that Respondent called in false reports to the hotline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 2nd day of February, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Lincare, Inc., is liable to Petitioner, Sharon Ford, for subjecting her to a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Complaint Allegations Lincare is a Tampa-based company that focuses on home- healthcare services. It has an annual revenue of over $3 billion and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of a company based in Germany. Ms. Ford, a married woman with children, is an accountant and an attorney. Lincare first hired her as its acquisition counsel in 2001 and promoted her to director of acquisitions in 2002. She held that position for almost 15 years before she left the company on January 27, 2017. Mr. Tripp, a married man with children, served as an Arabic linguist in the Army before obtaining his law degree. Lincare hired Mr. Tripp to replace Ms. Ford as its acquisition counsel in 2002 and promoted him to general counsel in 2013. He still holds that position. On January 19, 2018, almost a year after leaving Lincare, Ms. Ford filed a Complaint with the Commission alleging a hostile work environment. She alleged that Mr. Tripp, over a 15-month period from December 2015 through March 2017, subjected her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment. On July 13, 2018, the Commission issued its notice of determination of no reasonable cause and mailed it to Ms. Ford. The notice advised her that she “may request an administrative hearing . . . by filing a Petition for Relief within 35 days of the date the determination was signed by the Executive Director.” Ms. Ford received the notice in the mail on July 16, 2018. On August 16, 2018, 34 days after the Commission issued its notice, Ms. Ford requested an administrative hearing by mailing her Petition to the Commission via U.S. mail. The Commission received the Petition on August 20, 2018. On the same day, the Commission generated its transmittal letter. But, instead of transmitting the Petition to DOAH, the Commission advised Ms. Ford that the Petition appeared to be untimely because it was received three days beyond the 35-day deadline under section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes. After Ms. Ford responded that she timely requested a hearing by post-marking her Petition before the 35-day deadline, the Commission transmitted the case to DOAH on September 21, 2018. The transmittal letter, dated August 20, 2018, did not dismiss the Petition as untimely but rather requested assignment of a judge to “conduct all necessary proceedings required under the law.” Lincare’s Structure and Policies Between 2015 and 2017 Lincare had three officers: chief executive officer (“CEO”), chief financial officer (“CFO”), and chief operating officer (“COO”). The corporate chart had the CEO at the top and the CFO and COO, who reported to the CEO, immediately thereunder. The second tier of the chart listed six department heads, none of whom were corporate officers: corporate compliance officer, head of business innovation, head of human resources, head of public relations & communications, general counsel, and director of acquisitions. These managers were equal on the hierarchy chart and all reported directly to the CEO. As director of acquisitions, Ms. Ford brought in the deals, negotiated the business side, and quarterbacked them to closing. She helped move the deals along by ensuring that Lincare personnel communicated and accomplished their required tasks. She provided business advice to the legal department and worked closely with the acquisition attorney (on smaller deals) and the general counsel (on larger deals). Ms. Ford received a salary and an objective bonus tied to the deals that closed.2/ As the general counsel, Mr. Tripp oversaw legal affairs and supervised five lawyers in the legal department, but had no control over any other department. As to the deals, Mr. Tripp handled the legal aspects, such as contracts, due diligence, and compliance, provided legal advice, and assessed risks. The CEO, COO, and CFO had sole authority to decide whether a deal closed. Mr. Tripp received a salary and a discretionary bonus tied to the company’s financial success in a given year. Although Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp gave each other advice, they were equals on the corporate chart. Mr. Tripp had no authority over Ms. Ford and lacked the power to hire, discipline, promote, transfer, fire, or control her compensation. They were coworkers who both answered directly to the CEO. The head of human resources (“head of HR”) ran the HR department and its roughly 15 to 18 employees. Directly under the Head of HR was the employee relations director, Ms. Adams. Among other things, the HR department oversaw the employee handbook and investigated reports of discrimination and harassment. The handbook included a detailed anti-harassment policy forbidding sexual harassment by any employee at work or at work-related events outside the office. Harassment was defined to include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for conduct of a sexual nature, and other unwelcome behavior that was personally offensive and interfered with work effectiveness done in person or through electronic means. The policy prohibited any employee from making employment decisions based on the submission to or rejection of sexual advances, and noted in bold that any violation would subject an employee to discipline up to an immediate discharge. The handbook contained a detailed reporting procedure for employees who believed, had concerns, or suspected they or anyone else may have been harassed. The policy required them “to immediately notify” a named individual based on their location, which included the employee relations director or the HR Manager for employees in the corporate office. The handbook required employees to follow the procedure and noted that the failure to do so could adversely affect their rights to pursue a claim. Lincare took harassment allegations seriously. Once an allegation was reported, the employee relations director or HR managers investigated; the legal department was not involved unless a particular legal question arose. They obtained as much information as possible from the victim, spoke to potential witnesses, reviewed available documents, and interviewed the accused. If the investigation uncovered no corroborating evidence and the accused denied any wrongdoing, a report would be added to the accused’s personnel file; upon a second allegation, the accused would be terminated. If a supervisor retaliated against an employee for reporting harassment, that supervisor would be terminated. Lincare disseminated the handbook and updated versions to employees and required them to sign a form acknowledging that they received the handbook and would abide by its policies. Ms. Ford signed such forms each time she received a revised handbook, including in 2015——the version in effect until she left Lincare in January 2017. She knew about the harassment policy, the reporting requirement, and the fact that her failure to so report could adversely affect her rights. Friends and Coworkers for Over 15 Years Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp worked closely together at Lincare for 15 years and they became good friends in the process. When Lincare hired Mr. Tripp as acquisition counsel in 2002, he worked closely with Ms. Ford on hundreds of deals. They were in constant, daily contact to strategize, handle diligence and compliance issues, advise each other on the tasks they both had to complete, and ensure the deals closed. They also had a close friendship. They regularly went to lunch alone and with others, as often as three days per week, attended social events with mutual friends, and spoke on the phone and texted about business and personal matters. They had much in common as married parents with kids around the same age and they enjoyed each other’s company. When Mr. Tripp became general counsel in 2013, Ms. Ford initially worked closely with the new acquisition counsel. In late 2014, however, she and Mr. Tripp resumed working closely together when Lincare began negotiating larger transactions. Project Maverick was the largest acquisition of Ms. Ford’s career and it closed in March 2016. Project Falcon was the largest divestiture of her career and it closed in August 2016. These two deals, and others, required Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp to work even more closely together from 2015 until she left the company in January 2017. They often met multiple times per day. Ms. Ford sought Mr. Tripp’s assistance on the legal side and he sought her assistance on the business side. As before, she remained the quarterback shepherding the deal forward. Their friendship continued during this period. They invited each other to lunch regularly, alone and with coworkers. They attended social events with friends, including holiday dinners in 2015 and 2016. On out-of-town work trips, they rented cars together and sometimes spent time alone, such as for meals. They continued to text and speak on the phone about business and personal matters. They talked about their families, children, and other personal matters much like longtime friends do. They checked in on each other when personal crises occurred. And, when Ms. Ford began tense negotiations with the CEO about her compensation, which ultimately led her to leave Lincare, she relied on Mr. Tripp as a sounding board and for moral support. Even after Ms. Ford left the company in January 2017, she maintained contact with him. They had lunch alone at least once. For months, they continued to text each other, even about personal matters such as when she texted him after he had been in a car accident. However, their communication largely ceased once Ms. Ford filed a lawsuit against Lincare over her compensation. Ms. Ford’s Testimony Accusing Mr. Tripp of Sexual Harassment The first incident occurred on December 11, 2015. In that 10 to 20 minute conversation in her office, Mr. Tripp professed strong feelings for her and that he desired a confidential, sexual relationship with her. She rejected him and said they were just friends. She immediately called her husband and spoke to him all the way home. She felt humiliated, embarrassed, and angry. She did not attend a football game that weekend with other coworkers to avoid Mr. Tripp and kept her communications with him to e-mail for the next week. The second incident occurred in her office later in December 2015. While discussing another affair that may be happening at work, Mr. Tripp said he could not report the other employee because he wanted to do the same thing with Ms. Ford, notwithstanding the professional and personal risks. She again rejected him. For the next few weeks, Ms. Ford tried to avoid him as much as possible, but she had to face him because the deals began to lag. She said he continued to make comments here and there, but she offered no specific details. The third incident occurred in January 2016, after a conference call in Mr. Tripp’s office. He said he knew Ms. Ford was avoiding him, but he could not function. He told her he was willing to leave his wife, but she again rejected him. Over the next few months, the comments and innuendo pretty much ceased so Ms. Ford decided to go back to being friends to ensure that the Maverick and Falcon deals closed. However, a fourth incident occurred in the parking lot after a late conference call in June 2016. Mr. Tripp professed that his feelings were stronger now and that he was waiting for Ms. Ford to change her mind. She said her feelings had not changed and he said he understood. For the remainder of 2016, Ms. Ford testified generally that Mr. Tripp continued to make comments about his inability to function and that he got more obsessive as the year progressed. But she offered little detail about the comments or where and when they occurred, except that she had to be around Mr. Tripp’s wife several times and she and Mr. Tripp agreed it was uncomfortable. The fifth incident occurred in October 2016 when Mr. Tripp told her he was learning Hebrew to “connect” with her in her native language. He tried to communicate with her in Hebrew in person and via text, despite her telling him to stop because it made her very uncomfortable. As a result, she again started to avoid him at the office, though he texted her to see if she was alright and admitted to acting like a high school student. In January 2017, Mr. Tripp continued with innuendo, spoke in Hebrew, and told Ms. Ford that he might move closer to her. She believed he was obsessed, which made her nervous about his stability and her safety. But she offered no specific dates on which these events occurred. Mr. Tripp came to Ms. Ford’s office twice that month after she had heated meetings with the CEO, including on her last day at the company, January 27, 2017. He cried because he could not imagine how he would go on if she left, as she was the only reason he came to work every day. That evening, he told her on the phone that he now knows what a divorce feels like. Mr. Tripp continued to harass her following her departure, including taking his family to the same ski resort in March 2017. She testified that she stayed in her room to avoid him and never initiated contact with him while there, though text messages admitted into evidence confirm she texted him several times, about a security breach and generally about his vacation. In January 2018, a year after she left the company during a mediation of her lawsuit against Lincare, Ms. Ford for the first time accused Mr. Tripp of sexual harassment. She had not reported the allegations pursuant to Lincare’s policy, though she knew it required her to do so. She never informed other coworkers either. In fact, the only person she said she told was her husband, though he did not testify at the hearing. Ms. Ford testified that she did not report the allegations because she had a contentious relationship with the CEO during this period and she believed the CEO would terminate her. She also was concerned that Mr. Tripp was unstable and could decide to kill the deals to ensure she missed out on her bonuses. Lastly, she thought reporting would be futile due to Lincare’s culture of harassment, including by one of the two individuals to whom she was directed to report, the head of HR. Mr. Tripp’s Testimony Denying the Alleged Sexual Harassment Mr. Tripp said that he never harassed Ms. Ford. Indeed, no one has ever accused him of harassment. He said he never expressed romantic feelings for her, suggested having a sexual relationship with her, or did anything to scare her. Ms. Ford’s allegations against him came as a shock. He believed they had been good friends for over 15 years and she never indicated otherwise. They enjoyed each other’s company, had children around the same age, and spoke often about business and personal things, like friends often do. Even during the period of alleged harassment, he noticed no changes in her behavior. They continued to invite each other to lunch regularly, often eating together alone, and continued to discuss deeply personal matters about their families. They texted each other often and attended holiday dinners with friends. She chose to sit next to him at a work event at a hotel in the fall of 2016. The same could be said for business trips during this period. On a March 2016 trip to New York, Ms. Ford left a group dinner early with him because he was sick, they worked out the next day, and had breakfast. On an August 2016 trip to Nashville to celebrate the closing of the Maverick deal, they rented a car together and went to dinner alone after Ms. Ford invited him. On a trip to New York in August/September 2016, Ms. Ford stayed with Mr. Tripp to retrieve his briefcase from the office and went to the airport together after the rest of the team left. Mr. Tripp admitted to learning some Hebrew, but because he liked languages (he was an Arabic linguist in the Army), not to become romantically connected to Ms. Ford. He practiced with her because she was the only person he knew who spoke Hebrew, just as he did with other coworkers who spoke another language. She never said it made her uncomfortable. Mr. Tripp also admitted that his wife suggested moving closer to Plant High School because it had a beneficial program for their son. The idea had nothing to do with Ms. Ford, who did not live nearby, and they decided not to move in any event. Even on her final days at Lincare, they had usual interactions. Mr. Tripp admitted calling Ms. Ford the evening of her last day (but said he had not come down to her office earlier) to express concern for his friend and sadness that they would no longer be working together. He did not recall commenting about a divorce, but if he had, it only related to her being a friend. For a few months after she left Lincare, Mr. Tripp believed their relationship had not changed. They continued to text each other and had lunch alone at least once. Though he took a ski trip to the same resort in March 2017, his wife chose the resort and Ms. Ford reached out to him several times during that trip to see how he was doing. Ms. Ford also texted him after he had a car accident in March/April 2017. It was not until several months after Ms. Ford left Lincare and filed her lawsuit against the company that he noticed a change in her attitude. At one point, he invited her to lunch with a mutual friend, but she did not respond and he later learned they had lunch without him. Ms. Ford also told him on the phone that he was going to hate her someday, though he had no idea then what that meant. After a hurricane in August/September 2017, he reached out to make sure she was safe; she thanked him and wished his family well too. That was their last communication before the sexual harassment allegations were made. Credibility Findings as to the Conflicting Testimony After hearing the conflicting testimony from Ms. Ford and Mr. Tripp and observing their demeanor, the undersigned found it exceedingly difficult initially to determine who is telling the truth and who is quite an effective storyteller. Ms. Ford’s conviction in her accusations against Mr. Tripp was equal to his conviction in his denials. But, when considering all of the record evidence and testimony, the scales of credibility tip in Mr. Tripp’s favor for several reasons. For one, Ms. Ford cultivated a professional and personal relationship with Mr. Tripp throughout the alleged harassment period and continued to do so even after she left Lincare. Although she said she maintained contact because they had to work together and she wanted him as an ally, she also accused him of stalker-like, obsessive, humiliating, and unstable behavior. Her efforts to maintain a friendship with him, even after leaving Lincare, are at odds with someone who feels humiliated and fears for their safety. Ms. Ford’s testimony also veered from the affidavit she filed with the Commission. She testified that he generally made comments between November 2016 and January 2017, yet her affidavit offered more specifics as to the comments allegedly made. Her testimony about him moving to her neighborhood was entirely omitted from her affidavit. Her testimony about his efforts to sometimes communicate with her in Hebrew was at odds with the affidavit’s claim that he did so “continuously.” And, her testimony about the comments he made on her last day at Lincare differed as to substance and degree from her affidavit. Further, Ms. Ford’s testimony was directly refuted by other evidence. She testified that she did not affirmatively communicate with him about anything personal in March 2017, but text messages confirm that she checked in with him several times during the trip about his vacation and engaged in more friendly conversation than initially admitted. Ms. Ford’s reasons for waiting until a year after she left Lincare to report the accusations also call her credibility into doubt. Though she testified that she feared Mr. Tripp would kill two large deals and her bonuses therefrom, those deals closed in March and August 2016, and yet she never reported the allegedly ongoing harassment before she left Lincare at the end of January 2017. It also cannot be ignored that she waited until January 2018 to report the accusations and did so during the mediation of her compensation lawsuit against the company. Lastly, though not fatal to her claim, Ms. Ford’s failure to present any corroborating evidence cannot be ignored. She testified that she lost weight, suffered hair loss, and could not sleep, and said that it was the worst year of her life. Yet, the record is devoid of evidence that any other friends or coworkers noticed such changes, that she missed work or social events, or that she suffered at work in any way. She said he sent her inappropriate text messages, but provided no proof of them. She apparently kept a journal about work issues, but did not document the harassing incidents. And, though she said she immediately told her husband in December 2015, she chose not to present his testimony even though he was the only person who could corroborate her accusations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Sharon Ford, failed to timely file her Complaint and, regardless, that Ms. Ford failed to establish that Respondent, Lincare, Inc., committed an unlawful employment practice against her, both of which warrant dismissal of her Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 17th day of May, 2019.
The Issue Is the Respondent unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness or as a result of any mental or physical condition? If yes, what is the appropriate disciplinary response to that impediment?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, in accordance with Chapters 20, 455, and 458, Florida Statutes, regulates the practice of physician's assistants in Florida. The Respondent practices as a physician's assistant in Florida. His license number is PA002355. PRESENT EMPLOYMENT At present, the Respondent works as a physician's assistant for Michael Dulaney, M.D. Dr. Dulaney is a board- certified family practitioner. The Respondent has worked for Dr. Dulaney for approximately one year. Dr. Dulaney has been satisfied with the Respondent's work. Dr. Dulaney has had no reports of problems with the Respondent's conduct reported by patients or other office staff. In particular, Dr. Dulaney does not have any specific knowledge concerning complaints made about Respondent related to sexual misconduct from the period February, 1992 forward. At present, the Respondent's practice in Dr. Dulaney's office is limited to treatment of adults; however, Dr. Dulaney would not be opposed to having the Respondent treat minors and adults. Dr. Dulaney is aware of the reasons for the present restrictions on the Respondent's practice, limited to care of adults. These limits are as had been imposed by the Physicians Recovery Network (PRN) based upon the Respondent's mental health status. The controls that are in place by Dr. Dulaney to limit the Respondent's present practice to adults include an inquiry by office staff when an appointment is made by a patient as to the age of the patient and another check when the patient arrives for the appointment as to the patient's age. The Respondent is also required to check the patient's age before rendering care. The protocol followed by Dr. Dulaney in his practice is to the effect that no female patient is examined by a doctor or a physician's assistant without a second staff member being in attendance. The second staff member would be a female. Should the Respondent not be allowed to provide care to minors in the future, Dr. Dulaney would allow the Respondent to remain as a physician's assistant and treat adults only. HISTORY On or about June 18, 1992, following allegations regarding custodial sexual battery of his 14-year-old stepdaughter, K.B., the Respondent entered into a monitoring contract with the PRN. The Respondent had also sexually abused his six or seven-year-old daughter from his first marriage. The Respondent was sexually abused by male and female siblings as a child. Raymond Pomm, M.D. specializes in general psychiatry, as well as addiction psychiatry. Among other duties, Dr. Pomm is a staff psychiatrist for the PRN. While under the terms of the monitoring contract in connection with the State of Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation's Impaired Practitioner's Program, Dr. Pomm consulted the Respondent's physician employers on occasion to determine the Respondent's conduct as a physician's assistant. Dr. Pomm never received a report from the employers that the Respondent was acting inappropriately. On these occasions, the employers would indicate that they were satisfied with the Respondent' s work. When the Respondent signed the monitoring contract with the PRN, he agreed not to see patients under 18 years of age; to have a supervising physician report to the PRN on a quarterly basis regarding his behavior. The Respondent's supervising physician was responsible to make sure that patient information forms were handed out to patients to allow the patients to give immediate feedback concerning their perception of the Respondent's behavior. The supervising physician was to review 10 percent of the Respondent's charts on a quarterly basis. The Respondent was to receive ongoing therapy from John Vallely, Ph.D., a psychologist. On December 28, 1993, Dr. Goetz, the Director of the PRN, wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to advise the Secretary that Dr. Goetz was convinced that the Respondent's impairment seriously effected the public health, safety and welfare. This was followed by action by the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, to bring the Administrative Complaint, under Case No. 93-07340, charging the Respondent with being unable to practice his profession as a physician's assistant with reasonable skill and safety to patients based upon his illness and mental status. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to the opinion of Dr. Vallely. The opinion of Dr. Vallely which promoted the complaint was that the Respondent carried an Axis II Diagnosis of Mixed Personality Disorder with Obsessive- Compulsive, Anti-Social and Paranoid Features, and that the Respondent would need long-term therapy. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to a recommendation by Dr. Vallely that the Respondent's practice be limited to patients 18 years of age and older. Dr. Vallely did not testify in this proceeding to render his opinion concerning the Respondent's fitness to practice. Testimony on this subject was presented by Barbara A. Stein, M.D., testifying for the Petitioner. She is board-certified in general psychiatry and forensic psychiatry. In opposition to that testimony, the Respondent presented the testimony of Keith R. D'Amato, Ph.D., who is a clinical and forensic psychologist, who treated the Respondent. The Respondent also presented the testimony of Gini Fort, M.A., in counseling psychology, who worked with Dr. D'Amato in treating the Respondent. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to findings by George Bernard, M.D., who examined the Respondent and diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from pedophilia, opposite sex, non-exclusive type. Dr. Bernard did not testify in this proceeding. The Administrative Complaint makes reference to a determination on July 8, 1993, when the Respondent was evaluated by Gene Abel, M.D., of the Behavioral Medicine Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, in which Dr. Abel recommended that the Respondent not be in a medical setting, where the Respondent had proximity to girls under 18 years of age, nor in proximity to his former victim, taken to mean the Respondent's stepdaughter, until the Respondent had further treatment. Dr. Abel did not testify in this proceeding. Finally, the Administrative Complaint makes reference to the reference by Dr. Vallely, on December 16, 1993, in which Dr. Vallely described the Respondent as "a highly dangerous sex offender with pedophilic desires and attractions". The Respondent was also seen by Michael J. Herkov, Ph.D. at the time the Respondent was seen by Dr. Bernard. Dr. Herkov is a psychologist. Dr. Herkov did not testify in this proceeding. The treatment and evaluations performed by Drs. Vallely, Bernard, Herkov and Abel were all in association with the monitoring performed by the PRN. Although the health care providers associated with the Respondent that have been mentioned in the prior paragraph did not testify in this proceeding, their insights assisted Drs. Stein and D'Amato and Ms. Fort in arriving at their opinions concerning the Respondent's condition. Consequently, it is to some advantage to describe the history of treatment and evaluation by those health care providers, notwithstanding the inability to rely upon their independent judgment in determining the Respondent's present ability to render care with reasonable skill and safety. The Respondent began seeing Dr. Vallely in June, 1992 and received treatment off and on until December, 1993. For the benefit of the PRN, Dr. Vallely indicated that the Respondent carried a diagnosis of pedophilia and mixed personality disorder with obsessive- compulsive, antisocial and paranoid features. Dr. Vallely tried to address these conditions. Other attempts were made by the PRN to assist the Respondent. On December 9, 1992, the Respondent saw Drs. Bernard and Herkov. They diagnosed the Respondent as having pedophilia, opposite sex, non-exclusive type. At that time, according to a report by these health care providers, there was no information indicating that the Respondent was being presently sexually inappropriate with patients or any indication that he would engage in that behavior in the future. The recommendation by Drs. Bernard and Herkov was that the Respondent continue to be restricted in seeing children under the age of 18, be they male or female, until such time as the Respondent's treating therapist felt that the restriction was no longer necessary. The Respondent was initially treated by Dr. Vallely through June 18, 1993, at which time, Dr. Vallely suspended the Respondent's care. At that juncture, Dr. Vallely expressed the view to the PRN that the Respondent was manipulating therapy in attempting to gain closer contact with his stepdaughter. At that time, the Respondent expressed the view to the PRN that he did not believe that he was being heard by Dr. Vallely and that Dr. Vallely was overreacting. The Respondent requested another therapist to resolve this conflict. The PRN recommended that another evaluation be performed by a professional. This led to an evaluation by Dr. Abel in Atlanta, Georgia. The evaluation by Dr. Abel took place on July 8, 1993. Dr. Abel is recognized as an expert in the treatment of child sexual abusers. Although Dr. Abel did not arrive at a formal diagnosis, he summarized his belief of the continuing existence of pedophilia on the Respondent's part and a concern about the Respondent's manifest symptoms of arousal in relation to minor females. That concern was addressed through a penile plethysmophgraphy performed on the Respondent, in which the Respondent evidenced arousal to young girls. In his conclusions, Dr. Abel recommended that the Respondent should not be allowed to treat girls under 18 years of age. The Respondent then returned to receive therapy from Dr. Vallely. The Respondent and Dr. Vallely continued to have conflict concerning the Respondent's relationship with his stepdaughter and the Respondent's intention to remarry his ex-wife. Eventually, the Respondent was expelled from the program administered by Dr. Vallely. This expulsion took place on December 16, 1993 and was followed by the correspondence of December 28, 1993 by Dr. Goetz recommending that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation find that the Respondent's condition seriously effected the public's health, safety and welfare. The Respondent was referred to Dr. D'Amato from the State Attorney's Office. This was in association with the case of State of Florida v. Stephen Allan Newbern, in the Circuit Court of Duval County, Florida, Case No. 92-3347CF CR-C, as agreed to by the Respondent's counsel. The day Dr. D'Amato first saw the Respondent was February 10, 1994. The case described was the case in which the Respondent was accused of custodial sexual battery directed to his stepdaughter, K.B. Following the Respondent's decision to remarry his ex-wife, the Respondent was arrested in association with the aforementioned Circuit Court case, in which he had previously been allowed probation to participate in the program conducted by Dr. Vallely. The reason for the Respondent's arrest was premised upon a report by Dr. Vallely concerning the Respondent's decision to remarry his ex-wife. The Circuit Court case was then disposed of on June 24, 1994, in which an order was entered by the court following the Respondent's plea of guilty to a lesser included offense in Count I, lewd and lascivious act. For that plea, the Respondent had his guilt withheld; the Respondent was placed on community control for a period of two years, followed by eight years probation; and the Respondent was ordered not to have contact with his stepdaughter, directly or indirectly, without consent from his counselor or the Community Control Officer. The Respondent was ordered to pay for his stepdaughter's counseling or treatment through a treatment facility or counselor to which the stepdaughter had been referred, as directed by the Community Control Officer. The Respondent was ordered to continue his psychosexual counseling through Dr. D'Amato, who had substituted for Dr. Vallely. In this connection, the Respondent, in February of 1992, had voluntarily hospitalized himself based upon panic attacks and depression. Subsequently, an investigation was conducted by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and the INS of the Navy; and the Respondent was arrested and incarcerated for 21 days for sexually abusing his stepdaughter. As a consequence, he was referred to the KIDS Sexual Offender Program, in Jacksonville, Florida, and directed to receive treatment from Dr. Vallely. In March or April of 1992, the Respondent was advised by his Naval Preceptor, Dr. Carrierre, to refer himself to the PRN. The Respondent accepted that advice and took the referral in May, 1992 and signed a contract in June, 1992 to monitor his mental health status. The Navy found him guilty of the sex offense and allowed him to remain in the service on active duty until his retirement on October 31, 1992. During this time, he served as a physician's assistant but was limited in his practice to adults only. When the Respondent attempted to reunite with his ex-wife in February, 1993, Dr. Vallely suspended him from the KIDS Program. In June, 1994, the Respondent was accused of violating his probation associated with the case in which he was a participant in the KIDS Program. The allegation of violation of probation was in relation to the Respondent's decision to stay with his ex-wife and stepdaughter in January, 1994. The Respondent was not prosecuted for this violation because he agreed to enter Dr. D'Amato's sexual offender program. In turn, he entered a nolo contendere plea to lewd and lascivious act and had the order entered on June 24, 1994 setting the terms of continued probation. The Respondent received treatment from Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort for approximately two years. In his practice, Dr. D'Amato specializes in the treatment of sexual offenders and has treated 500-700 persons with those conditions. Of those persons, two to three percent have been referred for a jail sentence and another two to three percent have been terminated from the treatment program. To deal with the Respondent's pedophilia, Dr. D'Amato conducted an initial clinical interview. Dr. D'Amato performed a number of tests to gain an impression of the Respondent's condition, to include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Columbia Sexual Screening Questionnaire, the Jackson Incest Blame Questionnaire, the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire, the Sexual History Questionnaire, and the Sexual Interest Card Sort. Following the initial assessment, Dr. D'Amato entered the Respondent into a treatment program, which had four levels. Level I was designed to insure safety of the community by restricting movement and by insuring that the Respondent owned up to and took responsibility for the sexual offense that had been committed against his stepdaughter. Levels II and III were devoted to psycho-educational activities, where the Respondent was expected to learn to identify antecedents to the sexual misconduct that had been committed. Level IV was a relapse-prevention process to allow the Respondent to develop a comprehensive plan that could "offshoot" any problems, stresses or arousals that would lead the Respondent to re-offend in the future. During the first phase of the treatment received by the Respondent, an abuse letter was written, a meeting was held with the victim to confront the abuse, history of the abuse was taken, and an apology letter was written. During the second and third phases, the Respondent learned to identify stresses that may lead to problems and to develop empathy for the victim. The emphasis of Dr. D'Amato's program that he administered to the Respondent was cognitive in nature. The program was anticipated to last between two and five years, depending on the person receiving the therapy. Patients in the program are seen in group treatment and, in some instances, receive marital or family therapy individually. The Respondent had polygraphs administered to him to attempt to determine if there was ongoing sexual abuse and to determine if the types of fantasies that the Respondent was entertaining when he entered the treatment program were still in evidence. In treating the Respondent, Dr. D'Amato did not use behavioral therapy to any large extent. This choice was made because having the Respondent undergo polygraphs and looking at the Respondent's psychological assessments which were done over the years, led Dr. D'Amato to believe that the primary problem that the Respondent had was in distorting information. It was observed, through the polygraph examinations, that the Respondent was not showing deviant sexual arousal. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to offer treatment to deal with that form of problem. It was deemed more important to deal with cognitive restructuring of the Respondent and his view of life and people and interpersonal relationships. The Respondent did receive some behavioral training in his treatment by Dr. D'Amato, referred to as covert desensitization and role playing. Dr. D'Amato believes that cognitive therapy is the best approach to treating pedophilia, non-exclusive type, which the Respondent evidenced. Non-exclusive pedophiles, as defined in DSM-IV, have age-appropriate relationships, whereas fixated pedophiles focus exclusively on children. The Respondent was last seen by Dr. D'Amato in March, 1996. At that time, Dr. D'Amato diagnosed the Respondent as having a mixed personality disorder, NOS., with slight depression, not of a clinical nature, that the Respondent still suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and pedophilia, non-exclusive type in remission. Dr. D'Amato does not believe that the Respondent needs to undergo further treatment to address the Respondent's condition, in that the Respondent is not showing any active symptoms, has acted in a responsible manner in his work and life, and has integrated back into his family. To require therapy when it is not needed would cause the Respondent to be more resistant, and the Respondent would not grow from the experience, according to Dr. D'Amato. Dr. D'Amato believes that the Respondent has good relapse prevention skills and has shown that he is implementing those skills in his life. Dr. D'Amato relied upon the polygraph examinations to determine whether the cognitive therapy received by the Respondent was successful. In doing so, Dr. D'Amato recognizes that the polygraph measures physiological responses following the subject's answer to a question. Dr. D'Amato did not refer to the prior penile plethysmophgraphy testing to confirm the Respondent's status and did not administer that test. He sees the latter test as being a measurement of sexual response to pictures, which is less important to Dr. D'Amato than the question of whether the Respondent is having sexual fantasies or acting out in a sexually-inappropriate way, which Dr. D'Amato believes the polygraph examination would uncover. Dr. D'Amato has experienced 95 percent success in the treatment of sexual offenders. Nonetheless, he recognizes that this success does not establish that persons who are pedophiles, who have not been known to re-offend, are cured. Dr. D'Amato is not aware of any reports concerning misconduct by the Respondent in treating patients. Dr. D'Amato does not believe that the Respondent should have his practice restricted to adults only. Dr. D'Amato was impressed with the Respondent's ability to deal with stress in relation to a death within the Respondent's family, various legal problems associated with the Respondent's sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, his work load, and the re-unification of the Respondent's family, without committing further sexual abuse based upon the stress. Dr. D'Amato saw the experience which the Respondent had in re-unifying his family as being helpful to his treatment by giving the Respondent the opportunity to deal with the realities of those relationships and to reconstruct those relationships in a positive manner. Dr. D'Amato observed that the Respondent's religious convictions assisted the Respondent in his rehabilitation by sharing the experience with his family and providing a code of conduct to follow. Dr. D'Amato recognized that the Respondent's character structure would not change over time but believed that the Respondent would change his behavior based upon new strategies and coping lessons that he had learned in the treatment. Dr. D'Amato expressed the opinion that if the Petitioner automatically revoked or suspended the Respondent's license to practice as a physician's assistant, the Respondent would not come forward and seek treatment in the future if he experienced a problem, and the result would be more sexual abuse. Ms. Fort expressed the opinion that the Respondent was a low or no- risk candidate for recidivism. Further, she indicated that the Respondent had successfully handled stress related to his older son coming home and financial difficulties. Ms. Fort expressed the belief that given the Respondent's successful completion of therapy, the Respondent could be in close contact with children in private. In performing her evaluation of the Respondent, Dr. Stein spoke to Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort concerning the care they rendered to the Respondent. Dr. Stein saw the Respondent on referral from the Physicians Resource Network, formerly known as the Physicians Recovery Network. Dr. Stein examined the Respondent in February, 1996. Dr. Stein's evaluation included an interview with the Respondent and preparation of a history. Dr. Stein also had access to collateral information from other treatment professionals who had seen the Respondent. Dr. Stein contacted individuals who were familiar with the Respondent's professional and private life. Dr. Stein arranged for Flora Zaken- Greenberg, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist, to perform a clinical interview, record review, and psychological testing by use of a WAIS-R, Beck anxiety inventory, Beck depression inventory, MMPI-2, MCMI-III, and Roschach. Dr. Stein took all of these matters into account in preparing a report of her forensic psychiatric examination. That report was rendered on March 9, 1996. Dr. Stein, in her report, and at hearing, expressed the opinion that the Respondent suffers from pedophilia, non-exclusive type, DSM-IV 302.2, and personality disorder, not otherwise specified, which includes narcissistic, antisocial and dependent personality traits. Dr. Stein pointed out that pedophilia is a type of sexual deviant disorder, which lasts for at least six months, in which setting, the individual has strong urges, behaviors or fantasies of having sex with a prepubescent child, and this impairs the life of the pedophile. In a non-exclusive type of pedophilia, the individual may also have relationships with adults. Dr. Stein described the Respondent's personality disorder as being a circumstance in which the Respondent has difficulty viewing and interacting with the world. The Respondent sees the world through a distorted view, thinking in a distorted way, interacting in a distorted way, being impulsive and having a tendency to have mood problems from time to time. Those traits endure and impair him. That disorder does not necessarily mean that the Respondent could not work. In Dr. Stein's opinion, pedophilia cannot be cured and is a disease that has a very high relapse rate, notwithstanding that there are periods in which the pedophile does not have urges or behaviors or fantasies directed to prepubescent children. Dr. Stein holds the opinion that the Respondent will, given his condition of pedophilia, be at greater risk of sexually acting out inappropriately regardless of whether it is in the workplace or elsewhere. Dr. Stein expresses this opinion with the knowledge that the Respondent has learned a great deal from his sexual offender treatment and that the experience that he has had in participating in the treatment has lowered the risk for him to re- offend. Nonetheless, according to Dr. Stein, his psychological testing shows an underlying character structure that creates a potential for sexual deviance, impulsivity, antisocial acts, and impaired interpersonal relations, particularly so when under stress; and that set of circumstances has not changed overtime. Dr. Stein believes that the Respondent should have his practice as a physician's assistant restricted to adults only and the practice monitored. Dr. Stein believes that the monitoring should include biannual polygraph examinations, in which the following questions are asked: (1) have you had sexual feelings towards children under the age of 18 accompanied by your adult patients?; (2) have you concealed any relevant sexual history from your therapist?; (3) have you attempted to access those or other children under the age of 18?. Finally, Dr. Stein believes that the Respondent should participate in a relapse prevention group for the next 12 months and at least at quarterly intervals beyond that point for an indefinite period. She believes that this would assist the Respondent in relapse prevention, to build a repertoire to decrease his risk for re-offending and to protect society from a professional in his position of trust who has a disorder which cannot be cured. Dr. Stein believes that the additional 12-month therapy, followed by quarterly therapy for an indefinite period, is necessary to preserve a degree of continuity and to reinforce the skills achieved by the Respondent in addressing his condition and promotes the further recognition by the Respondent that he knows that he has to answer to people, and that there are external controls in a setting in which his internal controls are not as good as they need to be. The use of a polygraph on a biannual basis would be a means to aid in the process of exerting controls over the Respondent's conduct. Dr. Stein does not believe that it is necessary to revoke or suspend the Respondent's license completely to address his condition and protect the public. From the views held by Drs. Stein and D'Amato and Ms. Fort, it is clear and convincing that the Respondent has a mental condition which effects his practice as a physician's assistant and the ability to render care with reasonable skill and safety to his patients. According to the evidence, the Respondent has performed his practice in an acceptable manner when limited to treating adults only. Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort believe that the Respondent could practice as a physician's assistant in contact with children. Dr. Stein disagrees with that opinion. The experts also disagree concerning recidivism rates for pedophiles. Dr. D'Amato and Ms. Fort believe that the rate is low for their program. Dr. Stein does not generally hold that opinion. Given the seriousness of the Respondent's illness and the risk it presents to children, the lack of ability to cure his condition, and the possibility of relapse, however slight, there is a real concern about patient safety should the Respondent be allowed to practice as a physician's assistant treating children. To that end, Dr. Stein's opinion is more compelling when she urges restrictions on the Respondent's practice. Although Dr. D'Amato does not believe that a relapse prevention program is needed for the Respondent, if determined to be needed, he is persuaded that a program should only extend for six months. Having considered the views held by Drs. Stein and D'Amato, a further relapse prevention program of six months provided by Dr. D'Amato, together with quarterly therapy for an indefinite period beyond that point, with biannual polygraph tests of the sort recommended by Dr. Stein, is appropriate to insure that children, who are treated in the office where the Respondent practices, remain safe. No evidence was produced which would suggest that the Respondent should be completely denied the privilege to practice as a physician's assistant based upon concern that he would not proceed with reasonable skill and safety by reason of his mental illness. The restrictions that are discussed above adequately protect the public without depriving the Respondent of his livelihood.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Thaw, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes, restricting his practice as a physician s assistant to adults only, requiring the Respondent to undergo an additional six months of relapse prevention therapy, followed by quarterly therapy sessions for an indefinite period and biannual polygraph examinations. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. Garwood, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Terry D. Bork, Esquire 200 West Forsyth Street, Suite 1100 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4308 Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street1 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be sanctioned for an alleged violation of section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes, in that Respondent knowingly failed to report actual or suspected child abuse as alleged in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint. Whether Respondent's educator's certificate should be sanctioned for an alleged violation of section 1012.795(1)(j), in that Respondent violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules as alleged in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented and the record as a whole, the undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant facts: Parties' Statement of Agreed Facts Respondent holds Florida Educator's Certificate 632878, covering the area of elementary education, which is valid through June 30, 2017. At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent was employed as a part-time interventionist teacher at Brownsville Middle School ("BMS"), Miami-Dade County School District. Respondent has been a certified teacher for 25 years. On March 9, 2015, Respondent was informed by Y.H., a sixth-grade female student, that her stepfather comes into her room and lays on top of her with his clothes on without touching her in any inappropriate way, when her mother was not present. On March 9, 2015, Y.H. also informed Respondent that her stepfather pushed her toward a wall causing her to fall into a chair and then he pulled her by the hair. Respondent went to Counselor Sonya Durden's office on March 9, 2015, to discuss what she had heard from Y.H. and the other two students. Respondent did not immediately report the student's accusation on March 9, 2015, to the Department of Children and Families or the Child Abuse Hotline. Facts Adduced at the Hearing The Commissioner is responsible for investigating and prosecuting allegations of misconduct against individuals holding educator's certificates under section 231.2615, Florida Statutes. During Castella's 25 years of teaching, she testified that she had never received training concerning suspected child abuse or related reporting requirements. This testimony is rejected. The more persuasive and credible evidence revealed that all school employees at BMS, with no exceptions, received regular training at the beginning of each school year, which includes their reporting duties when child abuse is suspected. The more persuasive evidence also demonstrated that various posters on child abuse reporting were posted around the school to remind teachers at BMS of their reporting requirements in cases of suspected child abuse. Respondent's Exhibits B and C are examples of those posters. Respondent's Exhibit B is a colorful poster with the title Child Abuse Look for the Signs. The poster gives information on various signs of physical and sexual abuse, as well as the procedure to follow when a child speaks of abuse. The evidence revealed that this poster was posted at the designated faculty sign-in area at BMS at all times relevant to this incident. Principal Ebony Dunn testified that "all of the employees have to sign-in whether they're hourly, whether they're full-time, non-instructional." Thus, Castella would have been required to sign in at this designated area at the beginning of each day where the poster was prominently displayed. The undersigned finds that based on the more persuasive evidence, Respondent was aware of the poster's content. Respondent's Exhibit C is another poster with the title Reporting Child Abuse is Everyone's Responsibility. This poster details various signs of child abuse and how someone can report an instance of child abuse. The undisputed evidence indicated that this poster was also displayed at the student services building/main learning center at all times relevant to the incident. The more persuasive evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence indicate that Respondent was aware of both of these posters and knew of her duty to report suspected child abuse. March 9, 2015, Incident On March 9, 2015, Castella was approached by three girls at lunch, one of whom was Y.H., a sixth-grade female student. Castella observed that the other two girls were prodding Y.H. to speak to Castella. During this encounter, Castella was informed by Y.H. that her stepfather comes into her room and lies on top of her with his clothes on without touching her in any inappropriate way, when her mother was not present.2/ Y.H. also informed Castella at lunch that her stepfather pushed her toward a wall causing her to fall into a chair and then he pulled her by the hair. After lunch, Castella went to another teacher, Philogene, to report the incident because "she wasn't sure what to do," and she wanted to know the other teacher's thoughts on Y.H.'s statement.3/ Castella contends that she was not aware that what Y.H. told her amounted to child abuse. However, when asked why she told Philogene about the incident, Castella responded, "I wanted to ask Ms. Philogene what she thought because what Y.H. told me was odd, weird." The record indicates that after hearing about the incident, Philogene told Castella to report the incident to Counselor Durden.4/ Castella testified that on March 9, 2015, she went to Counselor Durden's office to discuss what she had heard from Y.H. and the other two female students. However, Castella asserted that despite her efforts, she was not able to report the incident to Counselor Durden because she was not in her office. Significantly, Castella left the school that day without reporting the incident to any administrator on campus.5/ Inexplicably, Castella did not immediately report the female student's information on March 9, 2015, to the Department of Children and Families or to the Child Abuse Hotline. Respondent claims that she did not know the protocol for reporting child abuse. The undersigned rejects this claim as incredible and spurious. Rather, the credible and more persuasive evidence shows that it was common knowledge among the school staff, based on training and posted notices, that an incident of child abuse should be reported immediately. March 10, 2015, Incident The next day, Castella went to Counselor Durden's office immediately upon arriving at the school to report what Y.H. had told her the day before. According to school policy, Castella was mandated to report the incident to a school administrator. Counselor Durden was not an administrator, nor was she Castella's supervisor. After disclosing the nature of her visit, Counselor Durden questioned Castella about the incident and why Castella did not report the incident when she became aware of it the day before. Counselor Durden testified that, "[Ms. Castella] said a young lady, a sixth-grader, had told her during lunch that the stepfather comes into the room every night drunk and holds her down and climbs on her. So I said, 'She told you when?' And she said, 'Yesterday during lunch.' And I said, 'You didn't call it in?' And she said, 'No I didn't.' And I think she was talking about like, you know she's friendly with the kids, and she didn't want to lose her confidence, they trusted her." Castella testified that she was reluctant to immediately report the incident because she did not want to violate the female students' trust. Counselor Durden proceeded to call the Department of Children and Families while Castella was still in her office. Both joined in reporting to the Department of Children and Families what had occurred. Later that afternoon, the Department of Children and Families held a meeting at the school with Y.H., the other two girls who were with Y.H., and Castella to gather details of the suspected child abuse and to determine how to proceed with the incident. Contact With News or Media Outlets Castella contacted and voluntarily appeared on a number of local news broadcasts. She detailed the suspected child abuse incident and proceeded to give the name of the school. Petitioner's Exhibit 8, which is a Notice of Investigation signed by Castella and delivered to her, states that a faculty member may be terminated if they speak to a number of subjects about a pending investigation. The document specifies, "You are not to discuss this matter with any witnesses, parents, staff, students, or the complaining party to avoid interference with the investigation." Castella asserts that she did not violate the notice because it did not specify she could not speak to news stations. However, Principal Dunn testified that anyone, including the listed parties, had the ability to watch the news broadcast. Therefore, the undersigned finds that her appearance on the news stations violated the spirit and intent of the notice because it could have had an indirect, adverse impact on witnesses and interfered with the internal investigation by the school district.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding Diana Castella in violation of Counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Amended Administrative Complaint and placing her license on a one-year probationary status, during which time she be ordered to attend and successfully complete, at her expense, training related to her reporting obligations under section 1012.795(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of March, 2017, 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 17th day of March, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner (“Holly Mathis” or “Ms. Mathis”), in contravention of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01 through 760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ experienced sexual harassment and/or disparate treatment during her employment at Respondent, O’Reilly Auto Parts (“O’Reilly”).
Findings Of Fact O’Reilly is a retail distributor of automobile parts headquartered in Springfield, Missouri. On approximately August 11, 2014, Ms. Mathis began working at an O’Reilly’s store in Panama City Beach, Florida (“store no. 4564”). Her duties included pulling automobile parts from the store’s inventory and using an O’Reilly’s-owned vehicle to deliver automobile parts to mechanics in the surrounding area. Ms. Mathis was the only female employee at store no. 4564. Upon beginning her employment with O’Reilly, Ms. Mathis received a copy of the O’Reilly Auto Parts Team Member Handbook (“the Handbook”) detailing policies, benefits, and the responsibilities of O’Reilly’s employees. One portion of the Handbook specifies that O’Reilly’s employees “are not discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, age, military obligation, disability, or other protected class as defined by federal, state or local laws.” Another portion of the Handbook addressed harassment and stated that “[a]buse of other team members through ethnic, racist, or sexist slurs or other derogatory or objectionable conduct is unacceptable behavior and will be subject to progressive discipline.” This portion of the Handbook continued by describing sexual harassment as follows: Sexual harassment is a specific form of harassment that undermines the integrity of the employment relationship – it will not be tolerated. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when: Submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an individual’s employment. Submission to or rejection of the conduct is the basis for an employment decision affecting the harassed team member. The harassment substantially interferes with a team member’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. This portion of the Handbook also instructed employees how to report harassment: If you feel you have been discriminated against or have observed another team member being discriminated against due to race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sex, age or veteran status, you should immediately report such incidents to your supervisor/manager, local Human Resources representative, the corporate Human Resources Department, or anonymously via the company’s T.I.P.S. Hotline at 1-800-473-8470 without fear of reprisal. A prompt, thorough investigation will be made as confidentially as possible. Appropriate action, up to and including termination, will be taken to ensure that neither discrimination nor harassment persists . . . . The Handbook instructs an O’Reilly’s employee with work-related concerns to bring them to the attention of his or her supervisor. If the work-related concern involves that employee’s supervisor, then the Handbook instructs the employee to “speak directly with the next level of supervision.” Store no. 4564 had a poster notifying employees that sexual harassment is illegal. The poster stated that: If you experience or witness sexual harassment, report it immediately to your supervisor or the Human Resources Department without fear of retaliation. The company will promptly investigate all complaints as confidentially as possible. If the company concludes that sexual harassment did occur, disciplinary action will be taken with the offender(s) up to and including termination. The poster listed two “hotline” phone numbers that O’Reilly’s employees could utilize to report sexual harassment. Also, the Handbook states that “[s]moking, eating, and drinking are not allowed in company vehicles, and team members are not permitted to possess food or beverages, including water, within the cab of a store delivery vehicle.” As noted above, Ms. Mathis began working for O’Reilly on approximately August 11, 2014. She typically worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. Ms. Mathis’ hiring by O’Reilly was probably facilitated by the fact that she had previously worked with the store’s general manager (Paul Stephenson) at an Advance Auto Parts store. Ms. Mathis considered Mr. Stephenson to be a “big brother.” However, in September of 2014, Mr. Stephenson began directing sexual comments toward Ms. Mathis, and inappropriate conduct by Mr. Stephenson continued through April of 2015.2/ During Ms. Mathis’ employment with O’Reilly, Mr. Stephenson was the highest-ranking employee at the Panama City Beach store. Therefore, Mr. Stephenson had supervisory authority over Ms. Mathis. On April 4, 2015, Ms. Mathis and Mr. Stephenson were working at store no. 4564. When Ms. Mathis asked to leave early so that she could spend time with her newborn, Mr. Stephenson repeatedly asked her to expose her breasts to him. Ms. Mathis refused Mr. Stephenson’s requests but was eventually allowed to leave work early. However, Ms. Mathis had been under the impression that she would not be allowed to leave early unless she complied with Mr. Stephenson’s request. On approximately April 13, 2015, Ms. Mathis applied for a position at an Autozone store approximately five minutes from store no. 4564. By April 14, 2015, Ms. Mathis had secured a new position at that Autozone store and submitted a letter of resignation to O’Reilly on April 14, 2015. Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct did not stop after Ms. Mathis submitted her letter of resignation. As discussed in her Petition for Relief, Mr. Stephenson attempted to touch her in an inappropriate manner many times on April 15, 2015, and succeeded in doing so on April 16, 2015. Ms. Mathis reaffirmed that statement during her testimony at the final hearing. The undersigned finds Ms. Mathis’ testimony regarding Mr. Stephenson’s conduct in April of 2015 to be credible. April 16, 2015, was Ms. Mathis’ last day of work at store no. 4564, and she began working for Autozone on April 17, 2015. In addition to Mr. Stephenson’s inappropriate conduct, Ms. Mathis asserts that she was subjected to disparate treatment by her direct supervisor, William Yohe. Specifically, Ms. Mathis testified that Mr. Yohe would belittle her by calling her “stupid” in front of co-workers and customers. Male employees did not experience such verbal abuse. In addition, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to decline deliveries without giving Ms. Mathis the same option. When a male driver declined a particular delivery, then Ms. Mathis was required to handle it. Also, Mr. Yohe allegedly allowed male drivers to have food and beverages in the O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. However, Mr. Yohe sent Ms. Mathis home early on April 10, 2015, for having a Gatorade in a delivery vehicle. With the exception of family and friends, Ms. Mathis told no one (including no one with authority over Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Yohe in O’Reilly’s chain-of-command) of the sexual harassment and disparate treatment she experienced at store no. 4564. Ms. Mathis did not report the sexual harassment and disparate treatment to anyone associated with O’Reilly because she was worried that Mr. Stephenson or Mr. Yohe would learn of her complaints and fire her. As a single mother of a newborn, she could ill afford to be out of work. As for the anonymous T.I.P.S. Hotline in the Handbook, Ms. Mathis was concerned that her anonymity could not be maintained because she was the only female employee at store no. 4564. The undersigned finds that Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Stephenson sexually harassed her in April of 2015 as described above. There was no reliable evidence to rebut Ms. Mathis’ allegations regarding Mr. Stephenson. For example, another driver at store no. 4564 testified that he never observed any behavior towards Ms. Mathis that amounted to a violation of O’Reilly’s policies. However, that testimony and his written statement were of little use because the other driver worked Mondays and Tuesdays while Ms. Mathis usually worked Wednesday through Friday. Mr. Stephenson did not testify during the final hearing. He did give a written statement to O’Reilly in which he denied any inappropriate conduct of the nature described by Ms. Mathis. However, and as explained in the Conclusions of Law below, Mr. Stephenson’s written statement was hearsay, and it did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. In addition, several other O’Reilly’s employees submitted written statements explaining that they had never seen any discrimination at their workplace and/or that they were unaware of any discrimination occurring at their workplace. However, those employees did not testify, and their written statements did not supplement or corroborate any non-hearsay evidence. Mr. Yohe gave a written statement in which he noted that no one had complained to him about being sexually harassed. However, and as noted above, Ms. Mathis told no one other than friends and family about her experiences at store no. 4564. While Ms. Mathis proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Stephenson during her employment at O’Reilly, she did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was subjected to other types of disparate treatment. Mr. Yohe denied verbally abusing Ms. Mathis, and O’Reilly’s witnesses persuasively testified that male and female drivers were treated equally with regard to having prohibited items in O’Reilly-owned delivery vehicles. As for Ms. Mathis’ assertion that she was forced to make deliveries that male drivers declined, Mr. Yohe rebutted that assertion by testifying that Ms. Mathis was unable to successfully work the front counter at store no. 4564 because she had yet to accumulate sufficient knowledge of automobile parts. Therefore, if the front counter was short-staffed at certain times, then a male driver would be asked to work the front counter and Ms. Mathis would have to handle all of the deliveries during that time period. The undersigned also finds O’Reilly had reasonable measures in place to prevent and promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior. It is also found that Ms. Mathis failed to take advantage of the preventative or corrective opportunities offered by O’Reilly.
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 Holly Mathis’ claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 July, 2016.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has presented clear and convincing evidence that he is of good moral character so as to receive an exemption from disqualification from employment with children or adults who are developmentally disabled, under Section 397.451, Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks an exemption for employment in a position of special trust for which a security background check is required under Florida law. In 1977, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a misdemeanor sexual assault for fondling an adolescent. He was sentenced to probation. Petitioner was 22 years old at the time. In 1986, Petitioner pled guilty to a felony sexual assault of a 15 year old boy, in the state of New Hampshire. Petitioner was 31 years old at the time. After serving 2 years of a 3~ to 7 year sentence, Petitioner was released from prison in 1989. Petitioner successfully completed parole and was released in March, 1993. Petitioner has not been arrested for any crime since 1986. Petitioner stated he received therapy in prison in a sexual offender program. However, Petitioner presented no evidence of attending a sexual offender program while in prison or afterwards, nor did he submit records of his treatment while in prison. Petitioner explained the circumstances surrounding the 1986 conviction for sexual assault. While working as an athletic trainer, Petitioner took advantage of a situation while he was performing massage therapy on a fifteen year old boy, he fondled and performed oral sex on the boy. Petitioner stated the victim consented, as much as a 15 year old can consent. Petitioner did not explain the circumstances surrounding the 1977 incident. Petitioner did not express remorse for any sexual misconduct that he committed other than the 1986 offense. He addressed his 1977 charge only to say that had he received more than a slap on the wrist, the 1986 sexual assault might not have occurred. Petitioner stated he was sexually abused as a child. In 1993, Petitioner received a Masters Degree in social work from Salem State College in Massachusetts. Petitioner explained he studied for his masters in social work because he would no longer be eligible for licensure as an athletic trainer. Petitioner stated it would not be appropriate for him to put his hands on adults or children, which is necessary as an athletic trainer. He feels it wouldn't be appropriate for him to be in a position where he could possibly be aroused by an adult, an adolescent or a child. Although Petitioner states he has never been aroused or interested in anyone other than what would be considered a mature adolescent or an adult. Petitioner is licensed as an independent clinical social worker in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 1994, Petitioner moved to Florida to work for the Indian River Memorial Hospital in Vero Beach in the psychiatric unit of the Center for Emotional and Behavioral Health. Petitioner has been denied a license as a clinical social worker in Florida based on his history of sexual misconduct. As a result of his denial of a license, Petitioner must perform his duties under the supervision of another licensed clinical social worker. Working under someone else's supervision means he may continue to work with clients in group or individual therapy. Kathy Palezuelos, a licensed clinical social worker, has known Petitioner for two and a half years. They worked together at the Center for Emotional and Behavioral Health. She was qualified as an expert in the area of clinical social work. Ms. Palezuelos performed a mental health status examination on Petitioner on May 2, 1996. She discussed his homosexuality and the sexual offense at the time she did the mental status exam. Ms. Palezuelos described herself as more a friend than a colleague. They only worked together about six months. She was sometimes present while he did therapy if they were doing group therapy. He trained her when she first came on the job. Petitioner did not inform her of his past criminal history while they worked together. At the Center for Emotional and Behavioral Health supervision was structured loosely where the therapists would give each other feedback after presenting cases. Sara Billings is a licensed clinical social worker. She was qualified as an expert in the area of clinical social work. Ms. Billings met Petitioner in January, 1994, at the Center for Emotional and Behavioral Health. She has supervised Petitioner since that time. Ms. Billings worked with Petitioner for two years before he disclosed his criminal history involving sexual assaults. During those two years Petitioner did therapy on children as well as adults. In January, 1995, she asked Petitioner to join her in her private practice in Melbourne, Florida. Ms. Billings is not present while Petitioner does therapy. She did not feel the children being treated and their parents should be told about Petitioner's criminal history. A child is anyone under the age of 18. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM IV) is an accepted textbook for practicing psychologists. DSM IV states that guidelines for pedophilia are an age difference of 5 plus years between the offender and the victim. Ms. Billings admitted Petitioner meets the criteria for a pedophile as set forth in the DSM IV. However, she does not believe he is a pedophile because the child Respondent molested was as physically mature as an adult. She bases this opinion on what Petitioner has related to her about his case. Dr. Deborah Day is a licensed clinical psychologist, licensed mental health counselor and a certified family mediator. Her specialty is clinical and forensic psychology specializing in physical and sexual abuse. She was the consultant for the Child Protection Team and the Sexual Abuse Treatment Program. She is presently on the Board of the Sexual Abuse Treatment Program. She has dealt with approximately 1000 cases involving sexual abuse. She was qualified as an expert in the area of sex offenders and sexual abuse. Dr. Day reviewed a file provided by the Respondent that included the mental health status exam and copies of the Petitioner's criminal records. The issues presented in the file are issues she commonly deals with in her practice. Petitioner has not provided sufficient information to make an assessment on whether he is a risk to re-offend. The Mental Status Exam only addresses current levels of functioning. Full responsibility in the course of treatment for a sex offender means getting past the defense mechanisms offenders use initially in treatment in order to keep their ego safe. Full responsibility for a person's conduct is saying the child or adolescent had nothing to do the adult's conduct. The offenders' responsibility was solely to say "no". Most homosexuals are not pedophiles. Homosexuals generally either withhold their sexuality or they hide it from the general public. A sex offender with a history of being molested as a child is common. A convicted sexual offender who has applied to work with children in a therapeutic relationship is a risk to the offender and the child. It sets up a trusting relationship where boundaries have to be closely monitored. Petitioner's statement that he was confused about his homosexuality in 1986, when he sexually assaulted the 15-year old boy, is minimization, rationalization and demonstrates a superficial understanding of what really happened. It is denial for a convicted sexual offender to say he is not aroused by children. There has to be sexual attraction if you sexually abuse a child. Petitioner will be able to continue to work as a social worker and a therapist as long as his clients are adults. Whether or not he discloses his past to adult patients is an ethical matter and not one for the present case. Petitioner has not testified with candor as to his past conduct. Moreover, Petitioner made conflicting statements and rationalizations with respect to the circumstances surrounding the crimes. He has not produced treatment records to support his claim that he received treatment in a sexual offender program. Petitioner has not demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he is rehabilitated and will not present a danger to children or disabled adults.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request for an exemption be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip S. Paul 537 Wilson Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 Carmen Muniz Sierra, Esquire District 7 Legal Office Department of Children and Families 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
