The Issue Should Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of trust or responsibility be granted?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of requiring security background investigations of persons employed by employers under the Department's jurisdiction and licensing powers in positions designated by law as positions of trust or responsibility. The purpose of the security background screening is to determine if there are individuals who have committed an offense which would disqualify the individual from working in positions designated by law as positions of trust or responsibility. Petitioner was employed in a position of trust or responsibility by Polk Opportunity Council (the Council) located in Polk, County, Florida. The Council cared for children which required licensure by the Department. Petitioner's job with the Council required that she be screened in accordance with level 2 standards for screening set forth in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. The screening revealed Petitioner's arrest on September 14, 1992, for spouse battery (domestic violence), under Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. The screening further revealed that on December 3, 1992, Petitioner: (a) entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of spouse battery, a misdemeanor; (b) was adjudicated guilty and; (c) placed on probation for a period of one year. After being placed on probation, Petitioner successfully completed, although not timely, the community service hours and the Domestic Violence Program required by the court's probation order. Petitioner timely completed all other requirements of her probation. On January 5, 1994, the court terminated Petitioner's probation but due to the untimely completion of the Domestic Violence Program and the community service hours the record reflects that her probation was terminated unsatisfactorily. The arrest and subsequent adjudication of guilt disqualified Petitioner from employment in a position of trust or responsibility. Subsequent to the screening, the Department notified Petitioner and the Council of Petitioner's disqualification. Thereafter, Petitioner was discharged from her employment with the Council. The Council has agreed to hire Petitioner back in her old position if she is granted exemption from disqualification by the Department. Petitioner would be working in the kitchen in the morning and working with children in the afternoon. There is no record of Petitioner being charged with any other crime (domestic violence or otherwise) since her arrest on September 14, 1992. Petitioner is no longer married to the person involved in the incident on September 14, 1992, which resulted in Petitioner's arrest. In fact, her former husband was charged and served time with the Department of Corrections for subsequently beating Petitioner. Since Petitioner completed her probation, she has worked to support her children. Petitioner is presently supporting her seven children. It appears that the Department or its predecessor, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, has, since Petitioner's completion of probation, allowed Petitioner to care for children in her home. Petitioner has worked hard and diligently to stay off of welfare, to support her children, and to better her and her children's position in life. In addition to her regular work, Petitioner is always first to volunteer for charitable projects. Petitioner has been sufficiently rehabilitated so as to be employed in a position of trust and responsibility and that she will not present a danger if allowed to be employed in a position of trust or responsibility
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in positions of trust and responsibility. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Stacey C. Andrews, pro se Post Office Box 3298 Lakeland, Florida 33802 Jack Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the actions charged in the Administrative Complaint in the case of Respondent Kenneth Manderville, (Mr. Manderville), demonstrate that he does not have the moral character to qualify as a correctional and law enforcement officer as provided in Sections 943.1395(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Manderville holds correctional and law enforcement certificates issued by the Commission pursuant to the power vested in the Commission by Section 943.12(3). Mr. Manderville was employed as a deputy with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office for eight years, achieving the rank of sergeant. He was terminated for cause on October 11, 2000. Pursuant to Section 943.12(3), the Commission is empowered to certify and to revoke the certification of officers. Betty Prevatt (Mrs. Prevatt) is a resident of Palatka, Florida. On or about June 25, 2000, Mrs. Prevatt and her husband were involved in a domestic dispute. During the course of this dispute, her husband reached for his shotgun. As a result, Mrs. Prevatt fled her residence and ran down the adjacent highway. A helpful citizen rescued her by providing her with an automobile ride to the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Later in the evening of June 25, 2000, at the Putnam County Sheriff's Department, Mrs. Prevatt came into contact with Sergeant Manderville, during the course of filing a domestic violence complaint with the Putnam County Sheriff's Office. Subsequently, Sergeant Manderville caused the arrest and incarceration of Mr. Prevatt. Thereafter, Sergeant Manderville gave Mrs. Prevatt a ride in his patrol car to her home. While at the Prevatt home, Mrs. Prevatt told Sergeant Manderville that she did not wish to spend the night in her home so he told her to return to the Sheriff's Department in her automobile. Mrs. Prevatt came to the Sheriff's Department, as instructed by Mr. Manderville, around 11:30 P.M. Mr. Manderville told her to follow him in her car. He led her to a house owned by Mr. Manderville's parents. They entered the house. Mr. Manderville was in uniform and on duty. Subsequently he removed his uniform and engaged in sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt. Thereafter, he telephoned a woman's shelter and Mrs. Prevatt spent the night there. Subsequently Mrs. Prevatt called Mr. Manderville, on more than one occasion during the course of the next few days, and inquired as to the process required to extract her husband from the Putnam County Jail. Eventually Mr. Manderville told her that he would help her win the release of her husband, and ostensibly to facilitate that purpose, instructed her to meet him at the Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant after sunset. She did as requested and he told her to return to his parents' house. She complied with his direction. Upon entering his parents' house, he insisted on having sexual intercourse again. She submitted. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Afterwards, she returned to the shelter in which she was then residing, which was located in St. Augustine. On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Manderville asked Mrs. Prevatt to meet him at the Sheriff's Department, allegedly for the purpose of finishing paperwork regarding Mr. Prevatt. In response, she met him as requested. Thereafter, he took her to an interview room, had sexual intercourse with her, withdrew, and ejaculated on the carpet. Except during the period in which he was engaged in sexual acts, he was in uniform and on duty. Mrs. Prevatt's husband was released from jail a few days after his arrest but Mrs. Prevatt continued to live in the shelter. After a period of about two months, she went to the sheriff's office to retrieve her husband's shotgun. During a conversation at the Sheriff's Department, Mr. Manderville asked her to meet him after dark at the post office in Palatka. She did as asked. Mr. Manderville asked her to get in his patrol car and he then took her to his house in Mannville. After arriving at Mr. Manderville's house in Mannville, he required her to disrobe, had intercourse with her twice, and took pictures of her bent over the hood of his patrol car, while nude. All of this occurred while he was on duty and, except during the sexual activity, he was attired in his uniform. This was the last time that they had sexual contact. Almost three months later, Mrs. Prevatt again established a relationship with her husband. Mr. Prevatt began to inquire about Mrs. Prevatt's relationship with Mr. Manderville and she revealed what had occurred. On September 28, 2000, she gave a detailed report of the matter to Lieutenant Roger W. Sassaman and Detective Walter Perkins of the internal affairs section of the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. On October 11, 2000, Mr. Manderville was discharged from his employment with the Putnam County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Manderville asserted that Mrs. Prevatt's statements with regard to sexual activity were fabrications. He claimed that Mrs. Prevatt was infatuated with him. He asserted that she called him on many occasions in furtherance of what she wanted to be a continuing romantic relationship but that he had resisted her. Mrs. Prevatt is a woman whose life has been beset with problems. At the time of the hearing she had endured an abusive marital situation for eighteen years. She has experienced problems maintaining steady employment and she has abused prescription drugs. Nevertheless, it is concluded that Mrs. Prevatt's version of the story was, in pertinent parts, true, and that Mr. Manderville's version lacks credibility. In arriving at that conclusion, the following matters were considered: Mrs. Prevatt was able to describe with particularity the interior of Mr. Manderville's parents' house and the interior of Mr. Manderville's residence. If she had not been taken to these places, she would not have been able to glean these details. Moreover, Mrs. Debbie Manderville, who married Mr. Manderville in 1996, in her attempt to discredit Mrs. Prevatt's knowledge of the interior of the two houses, succeeded only in demonstrating that Mrs. Prevatt did have an accurate recollection of the interiors. Mrs. Prevatt was aware that Mr. Manderville was married to a nurse because she heard him call her at the local hospital from Mrs. Manderville's home. This call was undoubtedly made for the purpose of insuring that Mrs. Manderville would not intrude while he was present there with Mrs. Prevatt. Mrs. Prevatt knew that Mr. Manderville's entire body, except for the pubic area, was cleanly shaved, at times pertinent. Mr. Manderville confirmed this in his testimony. Had she not seen him in the nude, she would not have been aware of this. Mrs. Prevatt was able to point out a spot on the interview room carpet where she claimed semen residue would be found. Mr. Manderville, when questioned about this at the hearing, did not deny that semen residue was found at that exact spot she identified. He stated, however, that it was produced not from illicit activity with Mrs. Prevatt, but through self- abuse. His version regarding the presence of the semen was unbelievable. Upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances elicited at the hearing, it is found by clear and convincing evidence that on four occasions Mr. Manderville had sexual intercourse with Mrs. Prevatt while he was on duty, when she was emotionally distraught, and under circumstances where he used his power as a law enforcement officer to take advantage of her in a stressful situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that a final order be issued revoking the certification of Mr. Manderville as a law enforcement and correctional officer. DONE AND ORDERED this 19th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Delegal, III, Esquire Delegal Law Offices, P.A. 424 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Laurie B. Binder, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Rod Caswell, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professionalism Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant and whether Respondent violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office rules and regulations; and, if so, whether the proposed penalty is reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a constitutional officer for the State of Florida, who is responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within Pinellas County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Petitioner employed Respondent as a Detention Deputy. Effective January 31, 1999, Petitioner promoted Respondent from the rank of sergeant to the rank of lieutenant and assigned Respondent to the Corrections Training Section. Respondent reported to Director Herman Vincent. The promotion was subject to a one-year probationary period pursuant to Laws of Florida, Chapter 89-404, Section 4 (3). As a lieutenant, Respondent supervised a number of employees of lesser rank that were responsible for other functions within the Training Section. Among those were Sergeant Wayne Poorman (Poorman), and Detention Deputies Mechelle Sabin (Sabin), Richard Main (Main), David Clarke (Clarke), and David Chant (Chant). In May 1999, Petitioner reassigned Sabin from her position at the Detention and Corrections Bureau to the Corrections Training Section. Sabin had previously applied for the position and was recruited for the position by Respondent. Even before the selection process had begun, Respondent indicated his intention to select Sabin for the position in the Training Section. In June 1999, while at lunch with Sabin, Respondent made unwanted and unsolicited sexual advances to Sabin. Respondent stated that he would "like to get into [Sabin's] pants" and made related statements. Respondent also engaged in other sexually related conversations with Sabin in which Respondent discussed his own sexual practices between himself and his wife and inquired of certain aspects of Sabin's sexual life with her husband. Sabin initially attempted to "laugh off" the statements of Respondent, but he returned to the subject again and again. Sabin ultimately rebuffed his advances. Respondent did not renew his advances, but began to harshly criticize Sabin and to question her work. None of Sabin’s co-workers or her immediate supervisor, Poorman, were similarly critical of Sabin. They found her work to be at least satisfactory and oftentimes superior or excellent. Contrary to Respondent’s characterization of Sabin as "resistant," Sabin's co-workers found her to be eager to help. Respondent could not identify any significant deficiency in Sabin’s job performance. Over time, Sabin grew uncomfortable in the presence of Respondent. Each of Sabin’s co-workers observed the change in the working relationship between Sabin and Respondent. They further observed the apparent discomfort of Sabin while in the presence of Respondent and her reluctance to engage in eye contact with Respondent. On one occasion, Respondent refused to assist Sabin in performing a new task with which she was unfamiliar. The task related to the processing of forms for new recruits. Instead of responding to her requests for guidance in processing the forms or telling her what to do with the forms, Respondent repeatedly stated ". . . think about it, Mechelle, you really need to tell me where this needs to go." Respondent did this in the presence of recruits who Sabin was responsible for processing and training. On other occasions, Respondent chided Sabin for refusing to look him in the eye, and badgered her to a degree beyond what any of her co-workers deemed appropriate and in a manner unlike that demanded of other employees. On one occasion, the badgering escalated to the point that Respondent "got in Sabin’s face" and backed her down a hallway as he spoke to her. Respondent disapproved of a request by Sabin to assist in and attend a meeting regarding a field-training program. Respondent made comments about the sexual orientation of the sergeant with whom Sabin sought to work. On another occasion, Respondent asked Sabin to leave a room ahead of others. Respondent explained to everyone in the room, including Sabin, that ". . . the view was better from behind." In August 1999, Poorman asked Sabin to teach a class for him due to a conflict in Poorman's schedule. Poorman neglected to advise Respondent of the change in assignment. When Respondent looked for Sabin at the office, he was unable to locate her. At a later meeting of the training staff, Respondent complained that Sabin had not made Respondent aware of the schedule changes. When Poorman sought to defend Sabin and advise Respondent that the error was his, Respondent responded by stating, ". . . don’t fucking stick up for her. She has a goddamn mouth. She can speak for herself if she has something to say." The comments were made in the presence of other persons assigned to the Training Section. On another occasion, Sabin agreed to perform a task related to completing forms for recruits to obtain their gym clothes. Respondent refused to provide Sabin with the paperwork she needed to complete the task. When explaining tasks to Sabin, Respondent repeatedly asked in a demeaning manner, "Do you understand what I am saying to you?" Respondent engaged in other behavior toward Sabin in the presence of other employees that was demeaning and disrespectful. Respondent did not engage in similar treatment of other personnel in the Training Section. Respondent contended that Sabin needed to be "toughened up." However, no other supervisor perceived such a need. Sergeant Poorman was Sabin’s immediate supervisor and Respondent’s immediate subordinate and attempted to resolve the conflict without success. After Respondent repeatedly asked Sabin if she wanted to transfer out of the Training Section, Sabin requested reassignment from the Section in an effort to escape the environment. Respondent then sought to enforce a one or two-year commitment to the Training Section that was customary for those transferring into the Section. This occurred during a meeting between Respondent, Sabin, and Poorman. After further discussion, Respondent agreed to allow Sabin to remain in the unit for the remainder of her one-year commitment. However, Respondent later stated to Poorman that Respondent wanted to transfer Sabin back to the jail if Sabin requested reassignment to a position in road patrol. At this point, Sabin told Poorman of the advances made by Respondent and of the conduct that followed. Poorman reported the matter to his supervisor, Director Vincent. Director Vincent contacted the Inspections Bureau, Administrative Inspections Division of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. The Administrative Inspections Division conducted an investigation into the conduct of Respondent. The initial allegations against Respondent included charges that Respondent propositioned Sabin and made other inappropriate comments to her with regard to his sexual life and practices and with regard to her sexual life and practices. Subsequently, and during the course of the investigation, additional allegations were made against Respondent. The subsequent allegations charged that Respondent treated Sabin more harshly than her male counterparts after she rebuffed his advances. The allegations also charged that Respondent made derogatory comments about another female employee, Donna Hughey. Respondent allegedly stated that Hughey had engaged in inappropriate conduct in order to obtain a desired assignment. Petitioner expanded the scope of the investigation conducted by the Administrative Inspections Division to include the new allegations. Representatives of the Administrative Inspections Division notified Respondent of the new allegations prior to his interview. During the course of interviews with other persons assigned to the Training Section, it was revealed that Respondent stated to Sabin that on one occasion a female applying for a position with the Petitioner placed her head in his lap and made reference to what she would do to obtain the position sought. In his statement to Sabin, Respondent did not identify the person who engaged in this conduct, but did describe a female applying for the position in the Training Section. In a similar statement to Poorman, Respondent identified the female applying for the Training Section as Donna Hughey. Respondent cautioned each of these persons against telling anyone else. Hughey denied ever engaging in such conduct and expressed a desire to file a complaint with regard to these allegations made by Respondent. As a result of the investigation, Respondent was provided a Board hearing concerning the charges against him. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board determined that Respondent violated portions of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act and the Rules and Regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. The Board determined that Respondent committed three violations. First, Respondent violated Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4, provisions of law or the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the office of the Sheriff by engaging in conduct unbecoming a public servant. Second, Respondent violated Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.3 (a Level Three violation), 060, by bringing discredit to the agency as a result of inappropriate comments to and about other members, i.e., Donna Hughey. Third, Respondent violated Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.3 (a Level Three violation), 069, by failing to treat Sabin with appropriate respect. The Board did not discipline Respondent for the conduct related to unwelcome and unsolicited sexual remarks made to Sabin. The Board found those charges were unsubstantiated by the investigation. The violations resulted in a cumulative point total of 25 points. A 25-point violation authorizes a suspension without pay of up to five days. Respondent had no prior discipline during the course of his employment with Petitioner. The Board imposed disciplinary action of a five-day suspension which is the maximum discipline allowed under Petitioner's rules. The Board based its decision on the nature of Respondent’s conduct, his status as a supervisor, and his rank. The Board also demoted Respondent to the rank of Detention Sergeant and assigned him to the Detention and Corrections Bureau of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. During the investigation, the Board extended Respondent’s one-year probationary period in his promoted position of lieutenant for an additional six months until July 31, 2000. Pursuant to Laws of Florida, Chapter 89-404, Section 4 (4), it is within the discretion of Petitioner to extend the probation of a promoted employee for six months beyond the initial one-year probationary term. Respondent remained in the extended probationary rank of lieutenant at the time of his Board hearing and at the time of the imposition of discipline by Petitioner. The nature of the conduct engaged in by Respondent, particularly as it related to his actions and methods as a supervisor, warranted a five-day suspension without pay and the loss of Respondent's promotion. Respondent engaged in a method of supervision designed less to train and guide and more to intimidate and control. Since Respondent’s demotion and reassignment from the Training Section, the Section again operates as a team without the level of agitation seen during Respondent’s tenure as supervisor.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document, suspending Respondent for five days without pay from his employment as a Detention Deputy with the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, and demoting Respondent from his probationary rank of lieutenant to the rank of sergeant. DONE AND ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, Tischler, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Thomas E. Reynolds, Esquire Law Offices of Edward D. Foreman, P.A. 100 Second Avenue, North, Suite 300 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent has violated Sections 491.009(2)(h) and (u), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely comply with a prior Board Order and, if so, the determination of an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David Pesek, is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in the State of Florida, and has been so licensed at all times relevant and material to this proceeding. His license number is NT 192. On September 7, 1988, the Petitioner filed an earlier Administrative Complaint against the Respondent in DPR Case No. 0055334. On February 14, 1990, the Respondent signed a stipulation providing for a stipulated disposition of DPR Case No. 0055334. The Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling approved the stipulated disposition at a meeting on April 27, 1990, and on Nay 23, 1990, a Final Order was rendered in DPR Case No. 0055334. The Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334 included the following pertinent language: Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the Executive Director of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling within sixty (60) days of the filing of the Final Order herein. Respondent shall be placed on probation for one (1) year, with the condition of probation that Respondent's billing records and documents be reviewed by a consulting practitioner. The one (1) year probation shall begin to run when consulting practitioner is approved. Such consultant shall submit a written report to the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling six (6) months following the rendition of the Final Order. The consulting practitioner shall be selected by Respondent, subject to approval of the Board. Pursuant to the terms of the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334, the deadline for paying the administrative fine was July 23, 1990. On November 27, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation sent a letter to the Respondent reminding him that he had not complied with the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. By letter dated December 6, 1990, and received on December 13, 1990, the Respondent transmitted his check in the amount of one thousand dollars in payment of the fine. 2/ The fine was paid approximately four and a half months after it was due. By letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent advised the Chairman of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling of the name of a consulting practitioner who was willing to perform the review and reporting functions required by the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. The letter of January 23, 1991, was two months after the deadline for the consultant's report. By letter dated April 1, 1991, the Respondent was advised by staff of the Department of Professional Regulation that his choice of a consulting practitioner had been approved, that the consultant's report would be due six months from the date of the letter, and that the Respondent's one-year probation period would begin as of the date of the letter. /3
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent did not violate Section 491.009(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 491.009(2)(u), Florida Statutes, and finding him guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Imposing a penalty consisting of: (1) an administra- tive fine in the amount of $500.00 (Five Hundred Dollars), (2) issuance of a public reprimand, and (3) a six-month period of probation, which period shall begin on the first day following the Respondent's current probation period and shall be subject to such reasonable conditions of probation as may seem appropriate to the Board. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 7th day of January, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Clarence Goosby, suffered racial discrimination when he was terminated from employment for fighting.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Clarence Goosby, is an African-American, who was employed by Respondent from October 13, 1999, until he was terminated on February 17, 2000. Respondent, Florida Extruders International, Inc., a manufacturing company located in Sanford, Florida, employs approximately 500 employees and is an "employer" as defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Some of the manufacturing activities at Respondent's plant are dangerous. One of these activities, melting aluminum scrap, takes place in the Cast House, which is noted as a "restricted area." Workers in the Cast House wear fire- protective clothing. On February 17, 2000, an African-American employee, Broderick Demps ("Demps"), was noticed in the Cast House where he had gone to use the restroom. A Caucasian supervisor, William Wilson ("Wilson"), questioned Demps regarding his presence in a restricted area and was advised by Demps that his supervisor had given him permission to use the restroom. Demps exited the Cast House and was followed by Wilson to another building, the Warehouse, Demps' workstation. Wilson met another supervisor, Frank Witherspoon ("Witherspoon"), as he entered the Warehouse. Wilson and Witherspoon located Demps' supervisor, Warren Lawrence ("Lawrence"), who advised that he had not given Demps permission to enter the Cast House. At this point, Demps began yelling at Wilson; his language was obscene and racial. The other supervisors tried, without success, to control Demps. Petitioner, hearing the altercation, left his work area in the same building, and recognized Demps (who he referred to as his "God-brother"), who continued yelling obscenities at Wilson. Petitioner's supervisor, Kenneth McKinney ("McKinney"), told Petitioner to return to his work area. Petitioner ignored McKinney's directive. Petitioner approached Wilson and the other supervisors and began yelling obscenities and racial slurs at Wilson. While standing in close proximity to Wilson and shouting at him, Petitioner made a quick move with his hand and arm. Wilson, believing that Petitioner was attempting to strike him, responded by striking Petitioner. Demps then struck Wilson in the head, knocking him to the floor. Both Petitioner and Demps jumped onto Wilson, striking and kicking him. Witherspoon, McKinney, and Lawrence physically pulled Petitioner and Demps off Wilson. Petitioner and Demps continued yelling obscenities and racial slurs at Wilson as they were being removed from the Warehouse. Petitioner officiously injected himself into a volatile situation involving Demps and his supervisors. By his confrontational conduct, Petitioner precipitated a physical altercation among himself, Wilson, and Demps. Witherspoon contacted Dana Lehman ("Lehman"), operations manager and highest-level executive at Respondent's plant, by radio and advised him of the altercation. Lehman immediately went to the Warehouse, where a crowd of employees had gathered in addition to the individuals mentioned hereinabove. Lehman inquired of several employees regarding the altercation but no one reported having seen it. Lehman attempted to speak to Petitioner and Demps about the incident. Petitioner and Demps were confrontational; Lehman obtained no relevant information from them. Lehman questioned McKinney, Lawrence, and Witherspoon and received their reports regarding the incident, which are detailed hereinabove. Wilson confirmed the descriptions and observations of the three supervisors/witnesses. McKinney, Petitioner's supervisor, recommended to Lehman that Petitioner be terminated for unauthorized leaving of his work area and instigating a fight with a supervisor. Respondent had in the past terminated several employees of different ethnicities for fighting. Respondent's employees' handbook (Policies and Procedures Handbook) reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Conduct Meriting Immediate Discharge Certain actions are such serious breaches of responsibilities to the company that no prior warnings or probation notices are required and may result in immediate discharge. For example: * * * Fighting or hitting another employee, or similar disorderly conduct, during work hours or on company premises. Willful disobedience (insubordination) Petitioner was aware of Respondent's prohibition against fighting and insubordination. Lehman discharged Petitioner on the day of the incident for fighting and insubordination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Glasser, Esquire Glasser and Handel Suite 100, Box N 150 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 James W. Seegers, Esquire Valencia Percy Flakes, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's request for exemption from employment disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact In or about December 1998, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) initiated an employment screening pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, incident to Petitioner's application for employment at a child day care center in Delray Beach, Florida. That screening revealed that on September 28, 1998, Petitioner was arrested for exposure of sexual organs, a violation of Section 800.03, Florida Statutes, and unnatural and lascivious acts, a violation of Section 800.02, Florida Statutes. The screening further revealed that on October 20, 1998, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charges; adjudication was withheld; and Respondent was placed on probation for a term of 6 months. Given the screening results, the Department notified Respondent by letter of December 14, 1998, that he was ineligible for continued employment in a position of special trust (working with children or the developmentally disabled), and accorded him an opportunity to request an exemption under the provisions of Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. Petitioner requested such an exemption, and the Department duly-convened a hearing to consider Petitioner's request. Subsequently, the Department advised Petitioner by letter of January 29, 1999, that his request for exemption was denied, and these proceedings ensued at Petitioner's request to challenge the Department's decision. As observed in the preliminary statement, neither Petitioner nor anyone on his behalf appeared at hearing, and no proof was offered to support his claim for exemption. Such failing is dispositive of the case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's request for exemption from employment disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry C. Cornelius 2315 Southwest 22nd Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33445 Colleen Farnsworth, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 111 South Sapodilla Avenue, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from working in a position of special trust pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At some point in time, Petitioner married Antonio Sharod Washington. They had two children. In July 1999, a judge in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, entered a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence (After Notice) against Petitioner pursuant to Section 741.30, Florida Statutes. The injunction states that it shall remain in full force and effect permanently or until further order of the court. The judge entered a similar injunction against Mr. Washington. After the injunctions were issued, Mr. Washington went to visit Petitioner at her apartment. Petitioner understood that Mr. Washington wanted a reconciliation. Based on her conversation with Mr. Washington, Petitioner petitioned the court to dissolve the injunction against Mr. Washington. Petitioner mistakenly believed that Mr. Washington had filed a similar petition to dissolve the injunction against her. On August 14, 1999, Petitioner went to Mr. Washington's apartment. At that time, Petitioner learned that Mr. Washington was living with another woman. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she became angry and raised her voice but denied that any type of physical violence against another person occurred. A warrant was issued for Petitioner's arrest on September 23, 1999. On October 18, 1999, Petitioner was arrested pursuant to the outstanding warrant. Petitioner was charged with violation of the domestic violence injunction pursuant to Section 741.31, Florida Statutes. Petitioner admitted the following facts: (a) on November 18, 1999, Petitioner pled no contest to the charges against her; (b) the judge withheld adjudication of guilt; (c) the judge sentenced Petitioner to four months' probation, requiring her to participate in an anger control program and prohibiting any violent contact. In time Petitioner met a new friend who became her "significant other." The new friend is the father of Petitioner's third child. Petitioner began working as a caretaker of children at a private school in September 2001. Petitioner's new friend provided her with a motor vehicle so that she would have transportation to and from work. In order to maintain her job as a child care worker, Petitioner had to undergo Level 2 background screening. By letter dated November 29, 2001, the school advised Petitioner that she was ineligible for continued employment as a childcare worker due to her conviction for violating the domestic violence injunction and for engaging in criminal mischief. Petitioner continues to work for the school, performing cleaning services at night. She has no other employment. Petitioner regularly attends church. She has not violated the domestic violence injunction since she was arrested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption from employment disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Tonya Washington 2707 Cobblestone Forrest Circle, West Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
