The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (Agency) intended action to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Background Petitioner is a 41-year-old male residing in Gainesville, Florida. For the last four months Petitioner has been employed by Plane Techs, where he has been contracted out to Haeco Aviation for repair of interior aviation mechanics. Petitioner wishes to become employed by Successful Living II, an Agency provider which operates residential treatment group homes serving people with both moderate and severe behavioral disabilities. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust. Specifically, the Agency’s mission includes serving and protecting vulnerable populations, including children and adults with developmental disabilities. Disqualifying Offenses Petitioner’s record contains two felony offenses which automatically disqualify him from employment in any position of special trust with children or vulnerable adults. The first offense is the armed robbery of an Arby’s restaurant in Lake City, Florida, in May 1998. Petitioner conspired with his two male cousins, then employees of the subject Arby’s, to rob the restaurant. A first attempt was scrapped due to the number of customers in the restaurant, but Petitioner returned and finished the job just prior to closing. Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of both armed robbery and burglary of an occupied structure. He was sentenced to 32 months in prison, followed by eight months of probation. In the second offense the same month as the first, Petitioner and the same two cousins robbed a man in the parking lot of a hotel in Gainesville. The trio held up the man at gunpoint and deprived him of a duffle bag containing a computer and other valuables, as well as his wallet containing cash and credit cards. Petitioner was tried and convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to 64 months in prison, to be served concurrently with the sentence from the first offense. Petitioner was 22-years old at the time of the disqualifying offenses. Petitioner served 64 months (approximately five years) in a state correctional facility and eight months’ probation. The Department of Corrections terminated his supervision on December 13, 2010. At hearing, Petitioner denied that he and his co- conspirators used a gun during the Arby’s robbery. He failed to appreciate that adjudication of the offense had established a weapon was utilized. At hearing, Petitioner downplayed his involvement in the robbery of the man in the hotel parking lot. Petitioner insisted that he had no idea his cousin was going to rob the man until the robbery was underway. However, Petitioner admitted that he participated in the robbery by ordering the victim to kick over his duffle bag, while his cousin threatened the victim at gunpoint. Subsequent Non-Disqualifying Offenses Petitioner’s background screening revealed several non- disqualifying offenses subsequent to Petitioner’s incarceration.1/ Respondent alleges Petitioner had three probation violations: (1) driving with a suspended license on October 14, 1998; (2) an unspecified violation on March 23, 2004; and (3) failure to appear on May 26, 2004.2/ No court records concerning these alleged probation violations were offered in evidence. According to a letter from the Columbia County Clerk’s office, no records of the alleged violations could be located. Respondent submitted no evidence of the source of information for the alleged probation violations. The record does contain an Affidavit of Probation Violation dated March 3, 2004, in which Probation Officer Aaron Robert attested to Petitioner’s violation of a condition of his probation requiring Petitioner to complete 100 hours of community service within one year of his release from prison. The affidavit states that, as of that date, Petitioner had submitted proof of completion of only 28 hours. The record also contains an Order of Modification of Probation entered on July 8, 2004, finding Petitioner admitted to the violation, was found in violation, and adjudicated guilty of the violation. However, the same terms of probation were reinstated. The record supports a finding that Petitioner is guilty of only one probation violation subsequent to commitment of the disqualifying offenses. 20. (DWLS) in Petitioner was cited for driving with license November and December 2006; October 2009; and suspended February, July, and August 2011. 21. With regard to the November and December 2006 DWLS adjudications, Petitioner’s license had been suspended for lack of insurance. Petitioner claimed not to have known his license had been suspended when he was first stopped in November 2006. For the November 2006 DWLS charge, Petitioner pled guilty and was sentenced to serve 12 months’ probation and ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees. Columbia County Court Judge Tom Coleman presided over Petitioner’s case, and terminated Petitioner’s probation on January 31, 2008, finding Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. Petitioner likewise plead guilty to the December 2006 DWLS charge, was placed on 12 months’ probation, and ordered by Judge Coleman to complete 50 hours of community service and produce a valid driver’s license within 10 months. Judge Coleman allowed the probation to run concurrent with the November sentence. Judge Coleman terminated Petitioner’s probation on January 31, 2008, finding Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. On October 4, 2008, Petitioner was cited for violating a municipal open container ordinance, and ordered to appear in Columbia County Court on October 30, 2008. Although the citation was admitted in evidence, no court record of the violation was produced in response to Petitioner’s records request. Again in 2009, Petitioner’s automobile insurance was canceled for nonpayment, leading to the suspension of his driver’s license. On October 27, 2009, Petitioner was again charged with DWLS and ordered to appear in county court on November 10, 2009. On March 11, 2010,3/ Petitioner was ordered to pay court costs, fines, and fees in the amount of $373.50 by September 9, 2010, or return to court on that date. On November 16, 2010, Petitioner appeared before Judge Coleman on the October 27, 2009 DWLS charge. Judge Coleman withheld adjudication and again sentenced Petitioner to 12 months’ probation and payment of court costs (of which $343.50 was remaining from the partial payment plan), allowing for early termination within six months, if all conditions were met. In 2011, Petitioner became employed at Target and assumed the risk of driving to and from work without a valid license in order to earn an income. Petitioner was stopped by police three separate times that year and cited for driving with a suspended license.4/ During the February 2011 traffic stop, Petitioner falsely identified himself as his cousin, and gave his cousin’s address, in an effort to avoid another citation. However, the police officer discovered Petitioner’s Target employee badge which revealed his correct identity. Petitioner was charged with both giving a false name to law enforcement (Count I) and DWLS (Count II). On March 29, 2011, Judge Coleman entered an order withholding adjudication on Count I, but adjudicating Petitioner guilty on Count II. As to Count I, Judge Coleman sentenced Petitioner to 12 months’ probation and ordered Petitioner to write a letter of apology to the arresting officer, pay court costs and fees, complete 15 community service hours per month until Petitioner either became employed or completed 150 hours, and produce a valid driver’s license within 10 months. As to Count II, Petitioner was also sentenced to 12 months’ probation to run concurrently with the sentence for Count I. Unfortunately for Petitioner, the March 29, 2011, adjudication constituted a violation of the probation order entered on September 16, 2010. On January 24, 2012, Judge Coleman entered a new judgement on the 2009 DWLS violation, sentencing Petitioner to 20 days in county jail, but allowing him to serve the sentence in consecutive weekly installments of 48 hours from 5 a.m. Sundays to 5 a.m. Tuesdays. On June 5, 2012, Judge Coleman terminated Petitioner’s probation under the September 16, 2010, judgement as Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. On April 30, 2013, Judge Coleman terminated Petitioner’s probation under the March 29, 2011, judgement as Petitioner had satisfied all conditions of probation. For Petitioner’s subsequent July 12, 2011, DWLS charge, and August 27, 2011, DWLS charge, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to two consecutive jail terms of 30 days, probation of 12 months, and ordered to pay court costs and fees. Judge Coleman allowed Petitioner to serve the jail time on subsequently designated weekends. Petitioner was released from probation on those charges on January 29 and March 31, 2015, respectively. Petitioner has subsequently obtained a restricted license which allows him to drive to and from work, as well as to pick up his children from school and other activities. Subsequent Employment History Petitioner has had varied employment since his release from prison. He worked for Hunter Panels in Lake City on the insulation assembly line for approximately two years, then Accurate Car Care as Assistant Manager of the detail shop for another year. Petitioner’s last job in Lake City was with Target, where he was terminated for tardiness. After his relocation to Gainesville, Petitioner worked for the Florida Farm Bureau in maintenance before becoming employed by Plane Techs. Petitioner anticipates being laid off by Plane Techs at the conclusion of the current contract with Haeco, due to lack of contract opportunities. In the summer of 2014, Petitioner was certified as a basketball referee by the Mid-Florida Officials’ Association. Petitioner officiates basketball games three to four times a week during basketball season, as well as post-season tournaments. Petitioner had to undergo background screening with Mid-Florida Officials’ Association, and was originally denied certification due to his criminal record. However, the association allowed him to proceed with certification following an exemption review. Subsequent Personal History Petitioner was divorced in late 2015. Petitioner has joint custody of his five children, who reside with him every other weekend, portions of each summer, and certain holidays. For the last ten years, Petitioner has volunteered as a football coach in Lake City (commuting from Gainesville) to remain involved in his son’s life. Additionally, Petitioner has volunteered as a coach for Columbia County little league football for approximately four years. In this capacity, he has worked with children ages five, six, and seven. Petitioner has completed some of his required community service by sharing his experiences with high school students, and encouraging them to make better life choices. Petitioner remarried on November 12, 2016. The couple met approximately four and a half years earlier. Petitioner revealed his criminal history to his new wife on their third date, approximately three years earlier. Petitioner met Diyonne McGraw a little over two years ago through her husband, who is also a volunteer football coach. Ms. McGraw became more familiar with Petitioner through his wife, who is Ms. McGraw’s hairdresser. Ms. McGraw owns Successful Living II, under which she operates three group homes and is working to license a fourth. She specializes in “intensive behavior focus,” meaning she serves clients with mental health issues, sexual issues, and physical and verbal aggression, some of whom have dual and triple diagnoses, and many of whom were recently released from incarceration. Ms. McGraw is a former probation officer. She testified, credibly, that, based on her observation of Petitioner’s interaction with her own children, as well as many other children involved in recreational sports, he has the patience to effectively deal with her clients. Further, she testified that Petitioner has demonstrated a commitment to her agency and a passion for the work it entails. Petitioner’s Exemption Request In his exemption request, in response to the question regarding the “degree of harm to victim or property (permanent or temporary), damage, or injuries,” Petitioner answered, “[n]one.” In response to the question regarding any stressors in his life at the time of the disqualifying offenses, Petitioner also stated, “[n]one.” Petitioner achieved a Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED) while incarcerated. Petitioner reported no further educational pursuits. In his exemption request, Petitioner accepted responsibility for “poor and wrong decision[s] [he] chose early in [his] life.” He admitted that he is embarrassed by his charges, but is not ashamed to talk about his history and advise young people that such mistakes can change the course of your life. Petitioner’s request also demonstrates a dedication to providing life lessons for his children and preventing them from going down the path he chose. In the employment history section, Petitioner listed only his employment with Target in Lake City. Petitioner’s exemption request included two personal reference letters--one from his wife, then Dawn Teasley, and one from Matthew Dillard, a teacher at Lake City Middle School in Columbia County. The letter from Petitioner’s wife described Petitioner as “reliable, honest and responsible” both in his capacity as maintenance and groundskeeper for her salon and as a head coach for her nephew’s football team in Lake City. She also commented on Petitioner’s “ability, patience and genuine concern and care for youth” and his ability to “bring out the very best of every youth he coaches regardless of their skill set of level.” His wife further described Petitioner as an “enthusiastic leader,” as well as “reliable, honest and responsible.” Mr. Dillard’s letter was brief. In the letter, he stated that he has known Petitioner for ten years, has played recreational basketball with Petitioner, and has worked with Petitioner at a local community center volunteering with youth. He noted that he “has never seen [Petitioner] become overwhelmed by a given task or assignment.” Along with his exemption application, Petitioner also submitted a personal letter from Judge Coleman. Petitioner received the unsolicited letter in April 2015 following Petitioner’s release from court supervision. In the letter, Judge Coleman acknowledged that he “cannot remember writing a letter like this before” but wanted to congratulate Petitioner. The letter reads, as follows: As you know, I made several decisions to give you additional time and chances to succeed despite the opposition of others. I had faith in you because I saw something in you - a determination and focus. By your actions you have justified my faith in you and I admire you for that. I am very proud of you and I know that you will go on to accomplish great things with your life. As you know, I see many people daily and I cannot always remember faces, so I request this of you. If you see me somewhere and recognize me, come and see me so I can congratulate you in person. I wish you all the best life has to offer. Keep working hard. Ultimate Facts Many of Petitioner’s recent decisions and pursuits demonstrate a commitment to a life of responsibility to family and community, concern and respect for others, and the importance of steady and reliable work. Petitioner’s volunteerism is commendable, as well as his remarriage and support of his children. Judge Coleman’s letter is evidence of Petitioner’s determination to better himself and to overcome his prior poor decisions. However, many of the facts established about Petitioner are grounds for the Agency to question his fitness to work with the most vulnerable clients. Petitioner’s attempts to downplay his involvement in the 1998 felonies evidence a lack of true remorse for his actions. His willingness to lie to a police officer, as recently as 2011, evidence a lack of respect for law enforcement, and his lack of separation from his cousins, who have been a bad influence in his past, supports the Agency’s uneasiness concerning Petitioner’s future decisions.
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 an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 25th day of January, 2017.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Eugenia Mays, has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she should not be disqualified from employment in a position involving direct contact with developmentally disabled persons; and, thus, whether Respondent’s intended action to deny Petitioner’s request for an exemption from employment disqualification is an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust, and is charged with serving and protecting adults or children with developmental disabilities, sometimes referred to as vulnerable individuals.2/ Vulnerable populations served by APD may include individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, Prader-Willi syndrome, and Down syndrome. Some of APD’s clients are incapable of expressing their needs or unable to express whether something is wrong. APD also has administrative jurisdiction to enforce the laws governing such licensees. Petitioner is a 55-year-old female seeking licensure from APD to serve as a direct care provider for Respondent’s clients. As part of the application process for employment as a direct service provider, Petitioner was subject to a routine pre- employment background screening pursuant to section 435.04, Florida Statutes. The screening revealed the existence of several disqualifying criminal incidents in Petitioner’s past. In 1987, 1990 and 1994, Petitioner was convicted of possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine with the intent to sell, and the sale of cocaine. Additionally, there were several non- disqualifying events in Petitioner’s background. On January 9, 2017, Petitioner executed her Request for Exemption, which was filed with the Department of Children and Families (DCF).3/ DCF conducts the initial screening of all applicants by making sure all the required documents are present and then it conducts the initial background investigation for APD. Background screening and local criminal records revealed a history of involvement with law enforcement. Petitioner admitted and took full responsibility for the offenses in both the paperwork she filed with APD and in her testimony at hearing. DCF then issued a “high level summary” to APD. Among the items submitted by Petitioner in support of her Request for Exemption were her employment history record, information regarding the final court dispositions of the arrest reports and/or charging affidavit; information regarding the completion of sanctions; her proof of rehabilitation; letters of recommendation; her personal history; an executed affidavit of good moral character; the non-disqualifying issues; and an updated local law result. Several letters were sent to Petitioner seeking additional information, and Petitioner responded to the best of her ability to each request for information. Once Ms. Jones received the DCF summary, she reviewed Petitioner’s documentation. She then checked the court and other systems for any additional charges that may not have been included by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Ms. Jones also verified that any court-ordered sanctions were completed. Ms. Jones had access to state and federal government databases, including a comprehensive case information system to ensure that all fines and fees were paid, and she checked the applicant’s “driving record through the DMV.” Additionally, she checked Petitioner’s “eligibilities through AHCA and Medicaid.” Ms. Jones then prepared a summary packet, which was provided to the ROM. The ROM must review the packet within a certain time frame and provide a recommendation to the State Office Committee (SOC). ROM Smith identified the factors that he considered when making his recommendation: the disqualifying offense(s); the circumstances surrounding the offense; any proof or some evidence of rehabilitation or counseling; any show of “some remorse and/or ownership of the charges that have been filed”; the possible consequences to “the health and safety of the individuals that” APD serves; and “any non-disqualifying offenses that may have been charged against the individual.” ROM Smith recommended denial of Petitioner’s exemption request. Upon receipt of the ROM’s recommendation, Ms. Jones then prepared a recommendation summary and presented that to the SOC. The SOC consists of APD’s chief of staff and a program administrator from the regional support unit. An APD attorney was present for legal advice. Ms. Jones identified the factors that APD’s SOC considers in making the recommendation for the denial of an exemption request as: “any arrests or criminal convictions after the original disqualifying offense; the employment history; training and education; professional references”; driving record; other agency exemptions or involvement with other agencies; and any inspections or exemptions of the other agencies. Ms. Jones averred that APD takes “into account those inspections or those exemptions.” Once the SOC made its recommendation, Ms. Jones took the two recommendations (the ROM’s and the SOC’s) to APD’s director who reviewed the material to make the final decision. Ms. Jones averred that “most of the time common sense is used” when APD approached the question of rehabilitation standards. That if the issue involved a drug-related offense, one would look for drug rehabilitation, and if that were missing, “that is a lack of responsibility on the applicant’s part.” A review of Petitioner’s application, and her uncontroverted testimony confirmed that she has been employed in several successful occupations since 1990. Petitioner’s first business, started in 1990, was Precise Nail and Beauty Salon (Salon). When the economy went down, Petitioner determined she needed a second job and that is when she started working for a home companion company in Bradenton. The Salon continues in operation today. Petitioner did research to begin her own home companion company and started Precise Home Companions (PHC). PHC is a non- medical operation, which is certified through the state to go into private homes and provide non-medical home care. This care includes preparing meals, doing laundry, making their beds, helping persons with their bills, taking them to and from doctors’ appointments, and whatever other activities they need. Petitioner successfully completed a Level 2 background screening and took the classes and/or training necessary for the license. Petitioner obtained the requisite insurance and continues to hold the appropriate bond for PHC. In setting up PHC, Petitioner was given access to conduct background screenings to hire more staff. Once the staff was on board, Petitioner had to ensure they had training and were tested for “TB.” Petitioner was responsible for making sure the six employees recorded their work hours in order for the payroll service to issue their pay. Petitioner recognized another area of need when a PHC client needed more attention than PHC could provide. Petitioner researched and opened an adult family care home. Petitioner’s adult family care home (AFCH) is licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). AFCH is Petitioner’s responsibility and she maintains the requisite insurance and bond. AFCH is a home which provides room and board for up to five elderly clients, although only four were in residence on the hearing date. The clients may need assistance with their activities of daily living. AFCH also keeps the residents busy with various activities, outings and events. Disqualifying Offenses Petitioner testified that her “downfall,” as she refers to it, occurred in and before 1994. Between 1987 and 1994, Petitioner (when she was between 25 and 31 years of age) was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, sale of cocaine, and possession of cocaine, all disqualifying offenses. Petitioner steadfastly maintained that she has never used drugs, but possessed and sold them in order to support her children. No evidence was presented to establish that Petitioner ever used drugs. Petitioner admitted that it was her “decision to do wrong,” and she took full responsibility for those actions. However, Petitioner was clear that it was also her determination to change when she realized she had been wrong. Petitioner did change and for the past 23 years has not had a disqualifying offense. Petitioner changed her environment. She joined a church and became very active in it. She divorced her then- husband who she found to be using drugs. Petitioner recently married a man with a bachelor’s degree in rehabilitation counseling. Petitioner completed the sanctions imposed by the courts, and all fees and costs related to the disqualifying offenses were paid. For the past 23 years, Petitioner has not had any disqualifying offenses. Marvin Smith has known Petitioner for approximately ten years, having married Petitioner’s mother. Smith visits in Petitioner’s home once or twice a month, and does not think her residence is a “destructive environment.” Smith has attended church with Petitioner, and sees her lifestyle as “moving in the right direction.” Further, in the ten years Smith has known Petitioner, he has never seen her act in a violent manner.4/ Marvina Johnson-Allen has known Petitioner for over 20 years, and has witnessed Petitioner caring for people in her church and home. Additionally, Johnson-Allen provided insight into the various successful businesses that Petitioner has started, and Petitioner’s volunteer work in the community. Kathy Barnes has known Petitioner for over ten years, having met her at Petitioner’s beauty salon. Barnes was not Petitioner’s employee, but as a customer, Barnes watched Petitioner work hard. In over ten years, Barnes has never seen Petitioner use drugs or alcohol. At one point Barnes had major surgery, and without being asked by Barnes, Petitioner supplied housekeepers to enable Barnes to recover from the surgery. Edward Gresham has known Petitioner for approximately three years, and is now Petitioner’s husband. Gresham works as a rehabilitation counselor in the health care field, and also works in the home that Petitioner operates. Gresham has successfully cleared a Level 2 background check. Further, he has observed Petitioner ensuring that residents are clothed in their own clothes, are fed, and receive their allowances. In the three years he has known Petitioner, Gresham has not seen Petitioner use alcohol or illegal drugs. Non-Disqualifying Offense APD focused on (in addition to the drug rehabilitation issue) Petitioner’s driving record, and her designation as a habitual driving offender. The basis for this focus was a concern that Petitioner might drive a client to an appointment. Petitioner recently completed a driver’s education course, from which she learned a great deal about her responsibilities as a driver. She paid the fines associated with the offender status, and she has a current, valid work driver’s license. Petitioner anticipates obtaining a completely clear driver’s license in June 2018. In denying the request for exemption, APD “considered all available information that led to [Petitioner’s] disqualification, as well as all information provided by” Petitioner regarding the disqualification. APD denied Petitioner’s request because she had “not submitted clear and convincing evidence of [her] rehabilitation.” Other Attributes of Significance Petitioner has worked consistently over a sustained period in a position in which she cares for multiple persons. By all accounts, Petitioner is a reliable, kind, caring and diligent worker, and her current continuous employment demonstrates that she can be trusted to work appropriately in situations involving vulnerable adults. Petitioner is licensed by AHCA. She holds an exemption from AHCA which has been appropriately renewed since its issuance. Petitioner is allowed to participate in the Medicaid program as a provider. Petitioner completed courses necessary to obtain the requisite licenses. Section 435.07, Florida Statutes, the controlling statute regarding the exemptions from disqualification, provides the following, in pertinent part: Exemptions from disqualification.—Unless otherwise provided by law, the provisions of this section apply to exemptions from disqualification for disqualifying offenses revealed pursuant to background screenings required under this chapter, regardless of whether those disqualifying offenses are listed in this chapter or other laws. (1)(a) The head of the appropriate agency may grant to any employee otherwise disqualified from employment an exemption from disqualification for: Felonies for which at least 3 years have elapsed since the applicant for the exemption has completed or been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony; * * * (b) A person applying for an exemption who was ordered to pay any amount for any fee, fine, fund, lien, civil judgment, application, costs of prosecution, trust, or restitution as part of the judgment and sentence for any disqualifying felony or misdemeanor must pay the court-ordered amount in full before he or she is eligible for the exemption. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “felonies” means both felonies prohibited under any of the statutes cited in this chapter or under similar statutes of other jurisdictions. * * * (3)(a) In order for the head of an agency to grant an exemption to any employee, the employee must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the employee should not be disqualified from employment. Employees seeking an exemption have the burden of setting forth clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, the circumstances surrounding the criminal incident for which an exemption is sought, the time period that has elapsed since the incident, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, and the history of the employee since the incident, or any other evidence or circumstances indicating that the employee will not present a danger if employment or continued employment is allowed. The agency may consider as part of its deliberations of the employee’s rehabilitation the fact that the employee has, subsequent to the conviction for the disqualifying offense for which the exemption is being sought, been arrested for or convicted of another crime, even if that crime is not a disqualifying offense. The decision of the head of an agency regarding an exemption may be contested through the hearing procedures set forth in chapter 120. The standard of review by the administrative law judge is whether the agency’s intended action is an abuse of discretion. * * * (5) Exemptions granted by one agency shall be considered by subsequent agencies, but are not binding on the subsequent agency. Rehabilitation is not defined in statute or rule. Petitioner’s last disqualifying offenses occurred in 1994, approximately 23 years ago. At some point, the passage of time itself, without any disqualifying offenses, must be evidence of rehabilitation. While by no means dispositive, the passage of 23 years since the last disqualifying offense is substantial evidence of Petitioner’s rehabilitation. Petitioner’s forthright demeanor and her willingness to discuss her “downfall” and her determination to turn her life around are significant. Petitioner testified convincingly that she has turned her life around, and is not the same person that she was 23 plus years ago. Petitioner has successfully worked with elderly persons in a positive and helpful manner, and currently presents no danger to the vulnerable population served by Respondent. The concerns outlined by Respondent in its decision letter, without the benefit of the hearing testimony, were refuted by the credible testimony adduced at hearing. Common sense tells a huge story of Petitioner’s rehabilitated life. Petitioner meets the objective criteria for an exemption from disqualification as established by section 435.07(1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities granting Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 12th day of January, 2018.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Pertinent to this case, Petitioner, Harold Freeman, was employed by Troy Community Academy (Troy Academy) in April 1995.1 At the time, Troy Academy was not a contract provider of programs for youths for the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) and, therefore, an employment screening pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, was unnecessary.2 In early 1996, Troy Academy entered into a contractual arrangement with DJJ for the provision of programs for youths. Consequently, to be eligible for continued employment, Petitioner was required to submit information adequate to conduct a screening under Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. Apparently, at or about the same time, Troy Academy acquired a new fiscal agent, and Petitioner was required to submit a new employment application to be eligible for continued employment. That application was submitted on February 22, 1996.3 Among the information requested by the application was a response to the question "[h]ave you ever been convicted of any criminal offense other than traffic violations?" Petitioner responded by checking the box labeled "NO." Immediately above Petitioner's signature on the application was the statement "I certify that all statements made in this application are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. " To initiate DJJ's background screening process, Petitioner completed and submitted three documents: a Request for Preliminary FCIC/NCIC and HSMV Screening Check form; a Consent to Background Screening form; and an Affidavit of Good Moral Character form. Pertinent to this case, the Affidavit of Good Moral Character provided: As an applicant for employment as a caretaker with Troy Community Academy, I affirm that I meet the moral character requirements for employment as caretaker, as required by the Florida Statutes and rules, in that: * * * I have not been found guilty, regardless of whether adjudication was imposed or withheld, of any of the offenses listed below, or of any similar offense in another jurisdiction regardless of whether record is sealed or expunged; I have not entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), or had the court enter such a plea, to any of the offenses listed below, or to any similar offense in another jurisdiction regardless of whether the record is sealed or expunged. . . The offenses referenced above are the following sections and chapters of the Florida Statutes: * * * 25. 893 relating to drug abuse prevention and control if the offense was a felony or if any other person involved in the offense was a minor (this includes convictions for possession of controlled substances, the sale of controlled substances, intent to sell controlled substances, trafficking in controlled substances, and possession of drug paraphernalia, etc.) Under the penalty of perjury, I attest that I have read the foregoing carefully and state that my attestation here is true and correct. (signed by Harold Freeman) SIGNATURE OF AFFIANT (Emphasis in original.) The affidavit was sworn to and subscribed before a Notary Public, State of Florida, on July 11, 1996.4 On August 14, 1996, DJJ completed its background screening and concluded that Petitioner was disqualified from working in a position of trust because he had, on May 30, 1990, pled guilty to, and was adjudicated guilty of, possession of cocaine, a third degree felony proscribed by Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes. As to the circumstances surrounding the criminal incident, the proof demonstrated that on June 13, 1987, Petitioner was observed by a Town of Palm Beach police officer seated in the driver's seat of a car with an expired tag. The officer approached the vehicle and requested Petitioner's driver's license. Petitioner initially denied having his license with him, and identified himself as Harold Foreman.5 He did so at the time because there were several warrants outstanding for driving while his license was suspended, and he did not want to be arrested. Eventually, Petitioner produced a paycheck stub with his name on it, and the police officer requested the desk to run both names in the computer. The officer was subsequently advised that a Palm Beach County warrant for a Harold Freeman was outstanding for violation of parole. While the party named in the warrant would subsequently prove not to be Petitioner, he was placed under arrest. Search of the vehicle incident to the arrest revealed a small plastic baggie containing a white powder residue in the console of the vehicle. Upon analysis at the station, the trace powder tested positive for cocaine. Petitioner remained in jail until July 4, 1987, when he made his first appearance in the County Court, Palm Beach County, Florida. At the time, the presiding judge advised Petitioner that formal charges had not been filed, and he was discharged. Petitioner was, however, advised that the State Attorney's Office might file charges at a later date. The State Attorney's Office did subsequently elect to file charges, and they were docketed in the Circuit Court, Palm Beach County, Florida, under Case No. 87-6302. Notice was mailed to Petitioner at his last known address, but returned undelivered. Indeed, Petitioner no longer resided at the address, and he did not learn that the charges had been filed until May 22, 1990. On May 22, 1990, during a "directive patrol" in Marathon, Florida, a Monroe County Sheriff's deputy ran a computer check on the Petitioner which revealed an outstanding warrant for his arrest based on the charges pending under Case No. 87-6302. Petitioner was arrested, returned to Palm Beach County, and jailed. Petitioner remained in jail until May 30, 1990, when he entered a plea of guilty to violating Section 893.13(1)(f), Florida Statutes, possession of cocaine, a third degree felony. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty, sentenced to a term of 26 days, accorded 26 days' credit for the period he had been incarcerated prior to imposition of sentence, and discharged. Following disqualification, Petitioner filed a request for exemption pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes, and was accorded an opportunity to submit information relevant to that request to an Exemption Committee of the Department of Juvenile Justice, Office of the Inspector General, on March 28, 1997. Among the information Petitioner chose to submit was a copy of his resume. (Respondent's Exhibit 6.) That resume purported to reflect Petitioner's professional experience and dates of employment; his education, which, according to the resume, included an Associate Degree in Business Administration from Miami Dade Community College; and, his military service in the United States Navy, which, according to the resume, spanned the period from July 1964 to July 1968, and culminated in an honorable discharge with the rank of Radioman First Class (E-6). Following review, the committee recommended to the Inspector General that DJJ approve Petitioner's request for exemption. The Inspector General, Perry Turner, was suspicious of Petitioner's claim to have attained the rank of Radioman First Class within four years of military service and requested a copy of Petitioner's DD214. Petitioner's DD214 confirmed the Inspector General's suspicions, and revealed that upon discharge Petitioner had not attained the rank of Radioman Fist Class (E-6). Rather, Petitioner had only attained the rank of Seaman Second Class (E-2). The DD214 further revealed that Petitioner's military service had only extended from July 7, 1964, to December 4, 1964, a period of less than five months, as opposed to the four years he claimed on his resume. Upon consideration of the matter, and most particularly the false representation regarding criminal convictions on Petitioner's employment application, the false representations on Petitioner's Affidavit of Good Moral Character, and the false representation on Petitioner's resume, the Inspector General was of the opinion that Petitioner had failed to convincingly demonstrate his entitlement to the requested exemption. Consequently, by May 1, 1997, the DJJ notified Petitioner that his request for exemption from employment disqualification had been denied. The notice further advised Petitioner that if he desired to challenge the denial he could request an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Petitioner requested such a hearing, and these proceedings duly ensued. Consistent with the Inspector General's conclusion, the proof at hearing demonstrated that Petitioner had falsely represented his criminal history on his employment application of February 22, 1996 (Respondent's Exhibit 4), that Petitioner had falsely represented his criminal history on his Affidavit of Good Moral Character (Respondent's Exhibit 5), and that Petitioner had falsely represented his military service on the resume he submitted to DJJ. (Respondent's Exhibit 6.) Additionally, the proof further demonstrated that Petitioner had not completed the coursework required for an Associate Degree in Business Administration, as represented on his resume. Finally, the proof demonstrated that the dates of employment reflected for Petitioner's professional experience are false, having been adjusted by Petitioner to eliminate large and unexplained gaps between employment. Contrasted with the negative impression to be gleaned from the foregoing facts, the proof also provided some positive information. In this regard, the proof demonstrated that following his conviction in 1990, Petitioner completed a drug rehabilitation program, including aftercare, at Camillus House (a homeless shelter), and has been continuously employed since that time at either Camillus House or Troy Academy. Petitioner has also been remarried for 4 years, and his wife is also involved in counseling as an employee of the Switchboard of Miami crisis line. While there are certain accomplishments in Petitioner's life since his conviction which weigh favorably, it must be concluded that the evidence of record demonstrating his recent deception of, and false representations to, his employer and DJJ provide a clearer insight into his character, and provide the more reliable evidence of whether rehabilitation has been shown. Given such proof, it must be concluded that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that he should not be disqualified from employment or, stated differently, that he is currently rehabilitated and will not pose a danger or risk to the social, emotional, and intellectual development of the juveniles in his charge.
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 5th day of November, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of November, 1997.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Tracy Jean (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Florida Hospital Medical Group (Respondent)1/ in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2015).2/
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black female, who is qualified for employment as a Florida-licensed registered nurse (RN). The Respondent is an “employer” as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. At a job fair held on June 9, 2015, the Petitioner met representatives from the Respondent, including Tracy Decker, a manager, and Sarah Emerson, a nurse recruiter, and was interviewed by them in relation to potential employment. Ms. Emerson subsequently called the Petitioner to express an interest in hiring the Petitioner as an RN, and to encourage her to submit an application. On June 23, 2015, the Petitioner submitted an electronic employment application for a position as an RN at Florida Hospital. The Respondent’s online application form included questions calling for disclosure of an applicant’s criminal history. Although the Respondent does not automatically reject an applicant who discloses previous criminal activity, the failure to disclose such activity may be deemed by the Respondent to be a falsification of the information, and may disqualify an applicant from employment. The Respondent’s online application form states as follows: I understand that I will not be automatically disqualified from possible employment if, in response to application questions, I disclose criminal records information. I also understand that any false, misleading, incomplete or omitted information in response to application questions will result in ineligibility for employment or termination of employment as it will be deemed falsification of information. As a result, I hereby confirm that if I failed to disclose any criminal records information, it is because it is not required in response to the application’s questions (e.g., parking tickets) or it is because I am certain that the information has been expunged and thus, will not show up during a background check. Finally, I understand that my mistaken belief about whether the response is required or whether the information has been expunged is not a defense to falsification. Accordingly, if I erroneously omitted information, I will be ineligible for employment or my employment will be terminated for falsification. * * * Employment is subject to completion of pre- employment procedures, including but not limited to; verifying employment/personal references; conducting a background investigation/criminal record check; verifying driving record (if appropriate); and confirmation of licensure or registration. In relevant part, the Respondent’s online application form stated as follows: Have you served any of the following for any criminal offense? (check all that apply): pretrial diversion * * * probation (any type) * * * Any other type of alternative, deferred, suspended, postponed or conditional prosecution, adjudication, disposition, sentence, program or release not listed above, please describe: (if not, type N/A) The Petitioner’s response was “N/A” indicating that she had not served any type of punitive sentence or alternative disposition for a criminal offense. On July 19, 2015, the Respondent extended a written offer of employment to the Petitioner. The letter was issued by Erika Cardona-Geis, a recruiter for the Respondent. The offer was contingent on the completion of various requirements, including a background check. For the Respondent’s purposes, an acceptable background check is one that corresponds with the information disclosed on a potential employee’s application. The Respondent’s focus is on the truthfulness and integrity of potential employees, especially those such as RNs employed to provides services and medications to patients. The Respondent utilized a third-party vendor to perform background checks on potential employees. The Respondent provided the vendor’s website link to the Petitioner so that she could submit her information for the background check, and the Petitioner did so. On July 27, 2015, the Respondent received the results of the Petitioner’s background check from the vendor. The Petitioner’s background check revealed criminal activity that had not been disclosed by the Petitioner in her employment application. According to the background check, the Petitioner was charged with separate counts of Grand Theft, Obstruction of Fire Equipment, and Criminal Mischief on September 7, 2008, in Broward County, Florida (Case No. 08-021191CF10-A). The charges resulted in the Petitioner being placed on probation for 15 months and required to make restitution. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. The background check also revealed that the Petitioner was charged with solicitation to commit prostitution on August 16, 2010, in Miami-Dade County, Florida (Case No. B-10- 042025-B). The Petitioner entered a pre-trial diversion program, and the charge was nolle prossed. The Respondent’s formal policy provided that falsification of background check information in an employment application may result in an applicant being deemed ineligible for employment. Nonetheless, when an applicant’s background check revealed information other than that disclosed on an employment application, the Respondent’s standard procedure was to allow an applicant an opportunity to submit additional information to explain the discrepancy, so that the Respondent could assess the reason for nondisclosure rather than automatically reject the applicant. Because the Petitioner’s background check included information inconsistent with that submitted by the Petitioner in her employment application, Ms. Cardona-Geis contacted the Petitioner and offered her the option to submit a written statement regarding the discrepancies and to provide related court records. In response, the Petitioner submitted a letter of explanation dated July 28, 2015, and related court records, as well as a letter from the Florida Board of Nursing and a letter purportedly written by an attorney. Ms. Cardona-Geis provided the Petitioner’s response and materials to Karla Muniz, the Respondent’s human resources director. Ms. Cardona-Geis also provided the Petitioner’s response and materials to Lorraine Pitre, a lawyer and member in good standing of the Florida Bar, employed by the Respondent as an employee relations consultant. Ms. Pitre was responsible for providing counsel and advice to the management of the Respondent’s Human Relations Department. She was also directly involved in the creation of the Respondent’s human resource policies and practices, including those relevant to the Respondent’s consideration of the Petitioner’s employment application. Ms. Pitre was the Respondent’s employee specifically assigned to review matters involving employment background check discrepancies. Ms. Pitre reviewed the Petitioner’s letter of explanation, wherein the Petitioner stated, in relevant part, as follows: The charges were not disclosed because I sealed & expunged the cases. Under the advice of my attorney, he told me there was no need to disclose this information once I went through the expungement process. Ms. Pitre reviewed the court documents submitted by the Petitioner and publicly-available records accessible through the Broward County Clerk’s Office and determined that the Broward County charges that resulted in the Petitioner’s probationary sentence had not been sealed or expunged. Ms. Pitre also reviewed the letter submitted by the Petitioner and purportedly written by an attorney. The letter, dated August 4, 2015, stated as follows: The set forth individual has retained my services to expunge and seal the mentioned cases. I am not at liberty to disclose the information, but I am aware that my client has revealed her past indiscretions. The client, Tracy Jean, has honestly answered “no” to the set forth employment questions of convictions. Furthermore, my client informed me that she has submitted the appropriate documents and has revealed this information to you, which under Florida Statutes is not necessary. Tracy has honored all of your request [sic], has not knowingly lied on the application, and only wants to be looked at as a professional. The letter contradicted the Petitioner’s assertion that the charges had been expunged or sealed prior to the submission of her application for employment. Although the letter identified the writer as “Eric Volz, ESQ,” the letter was not printed on letterhead and was unsigned. Ms. Pitre, who routinely interacted with attorneys in private practice, was concerned about the authenticity of the letter. Ms. Pitre discussed her findings and concerns with Ms. Muniz and with Ms. Cardona-Geis. Based on the Respondent’s review of the Petitioner’s application, the background check information, and the materials subsequently submitted by the Petitioner, the Respondent determined that the Petitioner had submitted false responses to the criminal background history questions on the application. The Respondent revoked the conditional offer of employment previously extended to the Petitioner. There is no evidence that the Petitioner’s race was a consideration in the Respondent’s decision to revoke the conditional offer of employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 25th day of August, 2016.
The Issue Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration’s (Agency) intended decision to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is required to conduct certain background screenings for employees who provide specific types of services within health care facilities licensed under chapters 400, 408, and 429, Florida Statutes. § 408.809, Fla. Stat. Petitioner seeks employment in a position providing such services to residents of a health care facility licensed by Respondent, and, as such, is required to participate in Respondent’s background screening process pursuant to section 408.809, Florida Statutes. Petitioner submitted to the required background screening, which revealed that in 2006, Petitioner was adjudicated delinquent for the felony offense of Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon, in violation of section 784.045, Florida Statutes, in Franklin County, Florida, Case No. 06000033CJAXMX. In 2010, Petitioner was charged with Child Abuse and Child Neglect, but pleaded guilty to Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor, in Duval County Circuit Court, Case No. 162010CF002633AXXXMA, in violation of section 827.04, Florida Statutes. The two above-referenced criminal convictions render Petitioner disqualified and ineligible to provide the listed services in a health care facility licensed by Respondent unless Petitioner receives an exemption from Respondent, pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes. In addition, Petitioner’s background check revealed that she was arrested in 2014 for Battery, although the charge was dismissed, and Petitioner pleaded no contest to Disorderly Conduct, in Gulf County Court, Case No. 14-100MM. Petitioner was also arrested in 2014 for two (2) counts of Aggravated Battery with a Deadly Weapon, but those charges were dismissed. However, Petitioner pled no contest to the offense of Affray, in Gulf County Court, Case No. 14-179-CF. Petitioner initially submitted an application for exemption to the Agency in accordance with sections 408.809 and 435.07, on or about April 21, 2017, and participated in a telephonic hearing conducted by Respondent on June 13, 2017. Respondent’s witness, Sherry Ledbetter, the operations and management consultant manager for the Background Screening Unit, testified that she attended the telephonic hearing on June 13, 2017. Following the telephonic hearing, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request for an exemption by letter dated June 19, 2017, and Petitioner subsequently requested an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing, Sherry Ledbetter testified that, in making the decision to deny the exemption request, Respondent considered Petitioner’s entire case file, including all submissions received from Petitioner, as well as her explanations of her past offenses. Ms. Ledbetter also testified that the instant denial was separate from, and did not impact, any exemption that Petitioner may receive for her Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) license through the Florida Department of Health. As explained by Ms. Ledbetter, once there is a disqualifying offense or conviction, Respondent is legally authorized to consider all subsequent arrests or convictions, even if those arrests or convictions are not disqualifying offenses. Indeed, Respondent considered Petitioner’s subsequent arrests and convictions during the review of Petitioner’s application for exemption. Ms. Ledbetter testified that Respondent also considered the circumstances surrounding Petitioner’s most recent arrests, even though the charges were not disqualifying under the law. She further testified that the recency of those 2014 incidents was a large factor in Respondent’s decision to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption. Ms. Ledbetter noted that some of Petitioner’s statements conflict with the police reports and other documentation in Petitioner’s exemption file, particularly with respect to the 2010 Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor conviction. Petitioner’s child, who was four months old at the time, was discovered to have a broken leg and a broken arm. At the telephonic hearing, Petitioner was unable to explain what happened and blamed the injuries on the babysitter, although no proof was presented that the babysitter was charged with a crime related to this incident. When determining to deny the exemption request, the Agency was aware of the fact that Petitioner had taken court- ordered anger management courses in 2006, and again in 2014. In summary, Ms. Ledbetter testified that, based on Petitioner’s entire file and her responses during the teleconferences, Petitioner had not satisfied her burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, her rehabilitation subsequent to her disqualifying offenses. Petitioner testified on her own behalf and explained how her past does not define her today, and that she is a changed person. She explained that she has grown up a lot, and has learned to love herself. She also stated that she has learned how to be honest with herself, and to take responsibility for her actions. Petitioner explained that in 2015, her mother had lung cancer and was in hospice. She acknowledged that this experience with her mother was the pivotal moment in her life that changed her. Petitioner professed that she wants nothing more than to help people, and would do so if granted the exemption. Specifically, Petitioner would like to return to her work helping elderly adults. Petitioner called as a character witness her friend since high school, Sheila Long, who testified that Petitioner has grown up a lot, is a good mother, and is trying to be a better person. Petitioner successfully completed a CNA course in March 2017. Included with Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification were several letters of reference, all lauding Petitioner’s good character and geniality. Three of those letters attested to her successful employment in recent years, including two from representatives of the Eisenhower Center, a rehabilitation facility where Petitioner worked as a CNA until her disqualification. A third, from the assistant manager at the Walmart where Petitioner had been employed, praised Petitioner’s pleasant and courteous demeanor, and her honesty in revealing her criminal background. Although Petitioner appeared genuinely remorseful for her criminal convictions and has clearly made an effort to turn her life around, due to the recency of some of the offenses, it cannot be concluded that she is rehabilitated and should not be disqualified from employment. Petitioner has thus failed to meet her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that she should be granted an exemption from disqualification.
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 an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of November, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 28th day of November, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lindsay Worsham Granger, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Mail Stop 7 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Nicole Henry 1609 Chatham Road Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Justin Senior, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
The Issue Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (Agency) intended decision to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 33-year-old female residing in Lake City, Florida. Petitioner has three children, ages 19, 16, and and 12, from her first marriage. Her first husband is deceased. Petitioner was remarried in April 2015. Petitioner and her husband live with, and care for, her three children, as well as two young grandchildren and her seven-year-old niece. Between November 2015 and September 2016, Petitioner was employed at CARC, a residential group home licensed by the Agency.1/ Petitioner provided personal care to the residents, as well as transportation for the residents to doctor’s appointments, shopping, and occasionally to cash their personal checks. In her capacity with the group home, Petitioner had access to and responsibility for the group home van, as well as the corporate credit card for purchasing gasoline. Since being disqualified from employment serving Agency clients, Petitioner has been employed at “Still Waters,” a residential nursing home facility. She works 12-hour shifts, four days on, three days off. Petitioner testified that the hours make it too difficult to care for her children, grandchildren, and niece. Petitioner wishes to return to her employment in the group home as a direct service provider to clients of the Agency. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust. Specifically, the Agency’s mission includes serving and protecting vulnerable populations, including children and adults with developmental disabilities. Disqualifying Offense On May 23, 2005, Petitioner was arrested for forgery and grand theft, stemming from having cashed a forged check. The check was written for $391.83, payable to a third party and cashed by Petitioner at her bank. Petitioner pled guilty to both charges, which are third- degree felonies. In August 2005, the court withheld adjudication, ordered Petitioner to complete two years’ probation, and entered a final judgment for fines and costs in the amount of $373. Petitioner’s fines and costs were later converted to community service hours, which she completed. Petitioner was also required to pay restitution to the bank, which she satisfied. Petitioner completed probation timely on August 22, 2007. Petitioner was 21 years old at the time of the disqualifying offense. The details are sketchy. Neither Petitioner’s testimony nor her exemption questionnaire provide much of an explanation. The explanation in Petitioner’s exemption questionnaire indicates that a friend gave her a check from the friend’s employer, and Petitioner cashed it at Petitioner’s bank and kept the cash. She explained that she was young and dumb and did not know better. Petitioner’s testimony was brief, stating that she had been hanging around with the wrong crowd, and that a friend got a check from McDonald’s which Petitioner deposited in her own account. In the questionnaire, Petitioner indicated no one else was involved in the crime because “I did not tell on my friend.” She answered “n/a” to questions regarding the degree of harm to the victim or property (permanent or temporary), as well as whether there were any stressors in her life at the time of the disqualifying offense. When prompted in the questionnaire to provide any additional comments, Petitioner explained that she knew what she did was wrong; that she does not get in trouble any more; that she has three kids, and only has time to go to work, church, and home; and that she wants to take care of “my people,” which she enjoys. Subsequent Non-Disqualifying Offenses The Agency’s Exemption Review Summary lists two2/ non- disqualifying offenses subsequent to Petitioner’s disqualifying offense.3/ In March 2006, Petitioner was arrested for, and adjudicated guilty of, passing a worthless check to Publix in the amount of $76. On June 8, 2006, Petitioner was ordered to complete 12 months’ probation and pay restitution, court fines, and fees in the amount of $329. Petitioner’s probation was terminated on June 4, 2007, having satisfied all terms thereof. Petitioner wrote the check to Publix on October 3, 2005. Petitioner was 21 years old, caring for her seven-year- old, four-year-old, and infant children, and her husband was incarcerated. Petitioner testified, both in her questionnaire and at final hearing, that she wrote the check knowing she did not have the money to cover it because she needed food for her children and diapers for the baby. On February 20, 2012, Petitioner was charged with leaving the scene of a traffic accident. On March 15, 2012, Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and placed on six months’ probation, ordered to complete an eight-hour driver improvement course, and pay court costs and fines in the amount of $416. Petitioner was released from probation on August 14, 2012, having satisfied all probation conditions. Petitioner was 28 years old at the time of the incident. Petitioner was driving with a friend as a passenger, when she crashed her car in a ditch. Petitioner left her car in the ditch and contacted another friend to give them a ride home. The following day, the police came to her home and charged her with leaving the scene of an accident. Petitioner testified that she left the scene because she had no insurance, and that it was late and dark. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that any other vehicle was involved in the accident, or that the accident resulted in any property damage or injury. Educational and Employment History Petitioner graduated from high school in 2002. Petitioner completed the educational requirements to become a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) at Lake City Community College in 2004. However, Petitioner has not passed the written state board exam to become certified. Petitioner lists no employment history prior to 2011, although there is some evidence that she worked as a caregiver at a “cluster home” in Lake City in 2005. Petitioner worked as a caregiver in a group home known as “Open Heart” from January 2011 to October 2014. Petitioner was subsequently employed as a housekeeper with Holiday Inn in Lake City from February to November 2015. Petitioner left Holiday Inn to become a caregiver at CARC in November 2015. As noted previously, subsequent to Petitioner’s disqualification, she has been employed at a nursing home facility. Subsequent Personal History Petitioner divorced her first husband in 2014 and he is now deceased. Petitioner has full custody of all three of her children and has taken on the responsibility of her 19-year-old daughter’s two children, as well as her seven-year-old niece. In April 2015, Petitioner married her current husband Octavius, who is a 13-year employee of Red Lobster. Petitioner is active in her church where she sings in the choir, attends Tuesday night bible study and Wednesday night worship, and has her niece involved in a praise dance for children program on Saturdays. One of Petitioner’s sons is disabled. Petitioner reports that both sons play football and that she is, or has been, a team mom for the football team. Petitioner’s Exemption Request Petitioner’s exemption questionnaire is bereft of details. Most questions are answered in just a few words or are answered as “not applicable.”4/ Petitioner expresses remorse for her disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses. However, it is not entirely clear that Petitioner understands the ramifications of her forgery offense, since she indicated there was no harm done by her passing of a forged check. Petitioner submitted five personal letters of reference with her exemption application. One is from one of her sons, another from a friend at church, and the remaining letters are from former co-workers at care-giving agencies. Each attests to her compassion for disabled persons and her sincerity in the care of those persons. Petitioner did not submit any letter of reference from a current or former employer or another individual in a position of authority. Petitioner did not offer any witness testimony or additional letters of reference at the final hearing. Ultimate Facts Petitioner’s recent employment history evidences her work ethic and emphasizes a passion for serving persons with disabilities. Petitioner’s personal references support a finding that she is committed to family and community, and has a heart for service. However, Petitioner’s disqualifying offense, and at least one of the subsequent non-disqualifying offenses, involves attempts to attain money to care for her family when times were tough. Petitioner’s failure to describe any stressors in her life at the time, and to clearly distinguish her circumstances at present, substantiates the Agency’s reticence to allow Petitioner to work with the most vulnerable clients. Petitioner has more dependents at present than she did when the disqualifying offenses occurred. The record contains few details of how her situation differs today from the past.
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 an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 11th day of July, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense, and, if so, whether Respondent’s action to deny Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks employment as a direct service provider for persons with developmental disabilities. Petitioner desires to work with Project Choice, LLC, a service provider the Agency regulates. The Agency is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust as direct service providers. See § 393.0655(1), Fla. Stat. A “direct service provider” is a person who has direct contact with and provides services to an Agency client. See § 393.063(11), Fla. Stat. The Agency's clients are a vulnerable population consisting of those persons who are eligible for services and support for developmental disabilities. See § 393.063, Fla. Stat. Agency clients often have severe deficits in their ability to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. Agency clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, exploitation, and neglect because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve. Consequently, employment as a direct service provider is regarded as a position of special trust. The Agency relies on the Department of Children and Families, Background Screening Unit (the “Department”), to initially receive and screen requests for exemption from disqualification from individuals seeking employment as direct service providers. On June 28, 2015, Petitioner submitted a Request for Exemption, with attachments, to the Department. The Department subsequently forwarded Petitioner’s application to the Agency for review. To qualify as a direct service provider, Petitioner must comply with the employment screening requirement established in chapter 435. See § 393.0655(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner's background screening revealed a criminal offense. In September 1978, Petitioner was arrested for felony possession of marijuana in the State of Texas. Petitioner pled guilty and was given a suspended sentence. The court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Petitioner on two years of probation. At the final hearing, the Agency also produced evidence of several non-disqualifying criminal offenses Petitioner committed subsequent to her 1978 drug arrest. Petitioner was arrested for or convicted of the following crimes: 1) a misdemeanor conviction for Possession of Marijuana in 2005; 2) Bail Jumping and Failure to Appear in 2008; 3) Bail Jumping and Failure to Appear in 2010; and 4) Failure to Appear in 2013. In accordance with section 435.04(2), Petitioner’s criminal misconduct, as a “disqualifying offense,” disqualified her from working as a direct service provider for persons with developmental disabilities. Consequently, in order to be employed in such a capacity, Petitioner was required to seek an exemption from disqualification from the Agency. Therefore, Petitioner submitted to the Agency a Request for Exemption from her disqualifying offenses as provided in section 435.07. On February 4, 2016, the Agency issued a letter notifying Petitioner that it denied her Request for Exemption. The Agency denied Petitioner’s application because it did not believe Petitioner submitted clear and convincing evidence of her rehabilitation. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified on her own behalf. Petitioner expressed her desire to work as a caregiver for disabled persons. Petitioner described herself as a giving, helpful, and responsible person. Petitioner further explained that she is seeking a change in her career in light of her recent health challenges. She is also the sole supporter of her family. Petitioner believes that a job as a health care assistant for persons with developmental disabilities will allow her to take care of her family, as well as accommodate her physical limitations. Regarding her disqualifying offense, Petitioner explained that her 1978 felony arrest for marijuana possession occurred when she was only 19 years old. She explained that she had little life experience after growing up in a small town, and she had just started college in Houston. Her boyfriend asked her to carry a suitcase for him in her car on a drive back to college. Unfortunately for Petitioner, a state trooper stopped her car for speeding. Even more unfortunately for Petitioner, the state trooper searched her trunk. The state trooper found her boyfriend’s suitcase. And, inside it, the state trooper found marijuana. Petitioner claimed that she had no knowledge of the contents of her boyfriend’s suitcase. Despite her lack of knowledge, Petitioner pled guilty to the charge. Regarding her four non-disqualifying offenses, Petitioner explained that her 2005 conviction for marijuana possession also involved a car trip near Houston. She disclosed that a friend asked her to carry some Christmas presents in her car. In a lamentable case of déjà vu, a state trooper stopped her car for speeding. The state trooper searched her trunk. The state trooper found her friend’s Christmas presents. And, inside a present, the state trooper found marijuana. Once again, Petitioner stated that she had no knowledge of the contents of her friend’s presents. Despite her lack of knowledge, Petitioner pled guilty to the charge. Regarding the multiple bail jumping and failure to appear convictions, Petitioner explained that she had problems knowing when her court dates were scheduled. In expressing that she has rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense, Petitioner asserts that she has moved past her criminal misconduct, and her record is now clear. She has satisfied all fees, fines, and sentences from her criminal charges. Petitioner stated that she has learned not to expose herself to these bad situations. Furthermore, her crimes did not result in harm to any victims or property. Petitioner testified that there are no present stressors in her life, and she relies on her faith for inner guidance and strength. Petitioner has had a stable work history for the past six years. Petitioner also represented that she has taken several Agency training courses in order to become better prepared to work with disabled persons. Additionally, at the final hearing, Petitioner produced evidence that she voluntarily attended a faith-based, alcohol rehabilitation program in 2006. She sought assist from the rehabilitation program based on her concerns with her alcohol consumption. Petitioner asserted that the rehabilitation program was very helpful and successful. Petitioner also provided four letters of reference attesting to her good character. The letters were written by various individuals, including some in notable positions, who have known Petitioner for several years. The letters describe Petitioner as hard-working, caring, and nurturing. At the final hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of Jeffrey Smith, regional operations manager for the Suncoast Region. Mr. Smith oversees all services to persons with developmental disabilities in his jurisdiction. Mr. Smith’s responsibilities include reviewing requests for exemption from disqualifying offenses. Mr. Smith explained that the Agency serves vulnerable individuals who are highly susceptible to abuse, exploitation, and neglect due to their developmental disabilities. Many of the tasks direct service providers offer Agency clients involve financial, personal, and/or social necessities. Therefore, the Agency must ensure that direct service providers are detail- oriented and trustworthy. When considering a request for an exemption, the Agency must weigh the benefit against the risk of endangerment to its clients. Mr. Smith described the Agency’s process when reviewing a request for exemption from disqualification. Mr. Smith relayed that the Agency considers the disqualifying offense itself, the circumstances surrounding the offense, the nature of any harm caused to a victim, the history of the employee since the incident and, finally, any other evidence indicating that the individual will present a danger if employment is allowed. Specifically regarding Petitioner’s application, Mr. Smith explained that the Agency reviewed all of the documentation Petitioner provided in her Request for Exemption, including the various records documenting Petitioner's criminal history, her work experience, and her character reference letters. In addition to her criminal records, the Agency reviewed Petitioner’s driving record. Mr. Smith advised that a direct service provider will often be tasked to transport clients. Mr. Smith noted that Petitioner's driving record included several traffic related violations. He commented that these records show a pattern of questionable judgment by Petitioner. Mr. Smith further testified that the Agency considered Petitioner’s evidence of rehabilitation, including Petitioner’s statements submitted with her Request for Exemption and the letters of recommendation supporting her application. Mr. Smith explained that, based on its review, the Agency determined that Petitioner's criminal history indicates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of acceptance of full responsibility for her actions. Petitioner’s repeated involvement with the criminal court system reflects a lack of remorse for her misconduct. In addition, the Agency found that Petitioner failed to disclose the full and complete details of her criminal offenses in her application. Mr. Smith testified that inconsistencies in Petitioner’s Exemption Questionnaire, including her unreported attendance at the alcohol rehabilitation program, called her truthfulness into question. Finally, Mr. Smith was concerned about the nature of Petitioner’s offenses (disqualifying and non-disqualifying), as well their close proximity in time with Petitioner’s application. Upon careful consideration of the record evidence, the undersigned finds that Petitioner did not demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense from 1978. While Petitioner has made commendable strides to change her life, her repeated criminal proceedings since 1978 raise serious concerns, and some hesitancy, in finding that she has sufficiently established that she should be employed in a position of special trust with persons with developmental disabilities. Despite the fact that Petitioner's disqualifying and non-disqualifying offenses did not result in harm to another, they do demonstrate a failure to exercise good judgment and responsibility that cannot be discounted. Therefore, based on the evidence set forth, Petitioner has not met her burden of demonstrating that she has rehabilitated from her past disqualifying offense or proven that the Agency should grant her request for exemption from disqualification under sections 393.0655 and 435.07.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2016.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should be fined $11,000.00 and have its license revoked for failing to correct a Class III deficiency and for a Class II deficiency related to the same set of facts.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of ALF's in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is licensed to operate Woodland Field, Inc., as an ALF in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert Cunningham was called as a witness for the Agency. He is a Health Facilities Evaluator II. His duties include performing surveys of different health care facility types. Mr. Cunningham was familiar with Woodland Field because he had surveyed Woodland Field, Inc. Mr. Cunningham identified the Agency's composite Exhibit 1, item 1, as a copy of a letter to Ms. Wallace reporting himself and Audrey Deas, R.N.'s findings of the state appraisal survey of February 14, 2002. Mr. Cunningham found that one staff member on duty at the time of the survey, who was hired in 2001, did not have a Level I background screening on file. See Tag A511, Exhibit 1, item 1. Mr. Cunningham also testified that a staff worker must have a Level I background screening. Mr. Cunningham discussed the employee with Ms. Harriett Wallace and made her aware of the fault, and that it was a Class III deficiency. Mr. Cunningham gave the facility a 30-day period up to and including March 16, 2002, to correct the deficiency. Mr. Cunningham identified the Agency's composite Exhibit 1, item 2, as a copy of a follow-up survey conducted on March 15, 2002, by himself and Audrey Deas. On the follow-up of March 15, 2002, Mr. Cunningham testified that he found Tag A511 uncorrected. The employee who did not meet background screening requirements in February was still there in March. Additionally, it was determined that this person had committed disqualifying offenses. See Tag A1115. Mr. Cunningham testified that he surveyed the facility a day earlier than the full 30 days given for the correction because a plan of correction submitted by the facility showed everything to be corrected on or before March 15, 2002, or a day early. However, the Petitioner had until the following day to effect the correction. Mr. Cunningham cited Tag A1115 because of the police report that he received from Protective Services of Department of Children and Family Services suggested further problems with this particular employee. Robert Dickson was called as a witness for the Agency. Mr. Dickson is employed by the Agency in the Jacksonville Field Office as a Health Facility Evaluator Supervisor. Mr. Dickson supervised Mr. Cunningham and others in the Jacksonville Field Office. Mr. Dickson is familiar with Woodland Field, Inc. Mr. Dickson identified the Agency's Composite Exhibit 1, item 3, as a copy of a recommendation for sanction drafted by himself and approved by his supervisor's designee on March 23, 2002, based on the on-site visits February 14 and March 15, 2002. Petitioner was originally cited for a Class III deficiency, Tag A511. Upon re-inspection, Petitioner was again cited for an uncorrected Class III deficiency, Tag A511, which warranted a fine. The Class II deficiency, Tag A1115, pertaining to the disqualified employee being retained in the facility and a Class III deficiency, Tag A511, pertaining to the employer who was not in compliance with Level I background screening requirements were the bases for levying the second fine on Petitioner. However, it is noted that both cited violations relate to the same factual predicate. Both citations relate to the employment of Pamela Harvey. Petitioner could have come into compliance merely by firing her. At the time of the second inspection, the Petitioner had initiated a background check on Pamela Harvey and been advised by FDLE that Pamela Harvey was cleared for employment. The source of Pamela Harvey's disqualification may have been communicated orally to Wallace by Cunningham, but there is uncertainty about whether the Department had provided Wallace a copy of the disqualifying record. There was no uncertainty about Pamela Harvey's clearance by FDLE. A conflict existed at this point between agencies regarding clearance of Pamela Harvey, and it was incumbent upon the Agency to provide Wallace with a copy of the disqualifying record and resolve the conflict, not just cite Petitioner for an alleged violation. Ms. Wallace had initiated the paperwork for the background screen of the subject employee after the first survey, and around the 1st of March, received notice from Tallahassee that the employee was cleared. Ms. Wallace notified Mr. Cunningham that she had received a clear report from Tallahassee. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Therefore, she had complied with the screening requirement for which she was originally cited. She had appropriate documentation. Mr. Cunningham verbally advised Ms. Wallace about the employee's arrest, but did not provide her a written copy of the file which AHCA had received from the Protective Services of the Department of Children and Family Services. The reviewing personnel in AHCA had the information on the employee; however, the FDLE, from whom an employer requests a background check did not have the record of conviction. Over the next several months, the Petitioner continued to submit information to FDLE and receive back an all clear on Harvey. The Agency's witnesses could not state with certainty that they ever gave the Petitioner a copy of the information from the Department of Children and Family Services.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing both complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 6th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Harriett Wallace, Administrator Woodland Field, Inc. 8236 Moncrief-Dinsmore Road Jacksonville, Florida 32219 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be given an exemption from employment disqualification pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At the age of twenty-eight, Petitioner, Alexander Fonseca (Fonseca), was arrested for felony possession of marijuana on February 21, 1989. For this charge, adjudication was withheld, and Fonseca was credited for time served. Petitioner's other criminal history includes a 1983 arrest for misdemeanor possession of marijuana for which he was credited for time served; a 1988 arrest for driving with a suspended license for which adjudication was withheld; a 1988 arrest for driving with a suspended license for which he was found guilty; and a 1991 arrest for reckless driving for which adjudication was withheld. In April 1999, Fonseca sought employment as a Juvenile Probation Officer with the Department. In conjunction with his application for employment, Fonseca was required to submit to the Department's background screening process since he would be working with juveniles. Fonseca was told by a receptionist with the Department that if he had a criminal record he would not be hired. As part of the application and background screening process, Fonseca submitted a State of Florida application and an Affidavit of Good Moral Character. Fonseca failed to disclose on both of these documents his felony arrest for and adjudication withheld on felony possession of marijuana. The affidavit contained Fonseca's notarized signature dated April 27, 1999, attesting to the following statement: I attest that I have read the above carefully and state that my attestation here is true and correct that neither my adult nor juvenile record contains any of the listed offenses. I understand that it is my responsibility to obtain clarification on anything contained in this affidavit which I do not understand. I am aware that any omissions, falsifications, misstatements or misrepresentations may disqualify me from employment consideration and, if I am hired, may be grounds for termination at a later date. Fonseca did not disclose his criminal history because, based on what the receptionist told him, he did not believe that he would get the job if he revealed that he had a criminal history. His failure to disclose his criminal history was not an error or oversight. It was intentional. A Florida criminal history conducted by the Department revealed Fonseca's 1989 arrest for felony possession of marijuana. As a result, on May 6, 1999, Fonseca was determined to be disqualified and ineligible for a position in the Department working with juveniles. In a letter dated June 1, 1999, the Department advised Fonseca that he could request a desk review to pursue an exemption from employment disqualification. Fonseca was required to submit specified documentation, which he did. As Inspector General for the Department, Perry Turner makes the final departmental decision on exemption requests. In an interoffice memorandum dated July 29, 1999, Fonseca's exemption request was forwarded to Mr. Turner along with Fonseca's complete background screening file. In a desk review, Mr. Turner does not interview the applicant's seeking an exemption. Each applicant has an opportunity to submit to the Department documentation, which he desires the Department to consider in determining whether an exemption should be granted. In reaching his decision, Turner reviewed Fonseca's background screening file and the documentation submitted by Fonseca. On July 30, 1999, Turner denied Fonseca's request for an exemption. The denial was based upon the totality of the circumstances surrounding Fonseca's prior criminal history and his falsification of the notarized Affidavit of Good Moral Character. Mr. Turner notified Fonseca of the denial in a letter dated August 1, 1999. From his early teens until approximately ten years ago, Fonseca was heavily involved with drug and alcohol use and was chemically dependent. He sought help for his dependency and has been clean and sober since 1991. Fonseca is actively involved in the 12-Step Programs of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous. In 1992, Fonseca decided to go back to school. He graduated with a degree in criminal justice in 1998. Fonseca did not present any information to the Department concerning his addiction prior to the denial of his exemption request.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Alexander Fonseca's application for an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 27th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William G. "Bill" Bankhead, Secretary Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Robert N. Sechen, General Counsel Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100 Alan K. Marcus, Esquire 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 540 Miami, Florida 33156 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice Inspector General's Office 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3100
