The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against based on retaliation for participation in a protected activity in violation of Chapter 760.10(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner (Holden) is an African-American female. At all times relevant to this petition, Holden was employed in a probationary status by the Florida Department of Corrections at Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI) as a Correctional Officer. Probationary officers are not entitled to progressive discipline, but can be terminated for any reason. At the hearing, Holden withdrew her claims that the Department had discriminated against her based on her race and sex. On or about July 22, 2001, Captain Tullis Scipper responded to a call from the Medical Unit at ACI. Upon his arrival, he observed Officer Holden in front of the Suicide Watch Isolation Cell. She was cussing at the inmate with whom she had a previous confrontation. Scipper explained to her that she was not to argue or verbally abuse the inmate and that she should stay away from the cell. On at least one other occasion that night, Captain Scipper responded to the Medical Unit and observed similar actions by Holden. The next day, Captain Scipper received a call from Warden Adro Johnson, who inquired as to what had happened in the Medical Unit the night before. Warden Johnson had received a complaint from Nurse Carla Weeks that Officer Holden had been cussing the inmates and he was checking into the complaint. Warden Johnson asked Captain Scipper to bring Officer Holden to his office. The purpose of the meeting was not to ascertain whether Officer Holden had been cussing at inmates. The Warden had two eye-witness, staff accounts of her behavior. When confronted, she advised Warden Johnson that she had become angry and had cussed the inmate. Warden Johnson counseled Holden about her behavior. Warden Johnson testified that he felt that Holden was unreceptive to his counseling and that she was argumentative. He believed that she was not displaying the attitude that a good officer displays when he/she is being counseled by a warden. Holden also was upset and crying, and, as a result, Warden Johnson informed her that she needed to adjust her attitude and come back to see him the next day. Warden Johnson testified that he had not made up his mind as to what action he would take against Holden for her actions with the inmate. After the meeting with Warden Johnson, Captain Scipper observed Officers Holden and Shiver arguing with each other. Holden testified that she had asked Shiver about why her tour was changed, and this led to the incident observed by Scipper. In Scipper’s opinion, Holden was the “aggressor” because she continued to advance on Shiver, even though Shiver had his hands in the air and was stating words to the effect that he did not have anything to do with whatever they were arguing about. Knowing that Holden had just had a counseling session with the Warden, Scipper was surprised that Holden would almost immediately be involved in an altercation with a staff member. He relieved Holden of her duties for the rest of her scheduled shift. The next day Holden met as scheduled with Warden Johnson. Captain Scipper did not attend this meeting. Johnson had been informed of the previous day’s incident between Officers Holden and Shiver. He asked Holden if she was willing to change her attitude. He had not determined prior to the meeting if he would take any action at all against Holden. Johnson felt that Holden's response to him was disrespectful, and that she did not have the right attitude. Johnson terminated Holden based on what he perceived to be her poor attitude. He knew that Holden was approaching the end of her probationary status and that if he wanted to terminate her before she attained career service status with its attendant protections, he needed to do so at that time. Petitioner complained in an incident report filed before the Warden the first time that Captain Scipper refused to listen to her when he counseled her about a prior staff altercation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 24th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Holden 2103 Vista Road Marianna, Florida 32448 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner may be granted an exemption to work in a position of special trust.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been continuously employed with North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center (NFETC) since November 9, 1994. NFETC is a facility operated by DCF. NFETC houses mentally unstable, criminally charged adult male patients. Petitioner began work at NFETC as a custodial worker. In 1996, he was sought out by his superiors to be trained as a Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Specialist (UTR). UTRs have direct care and treatment of patients. He completed 180 training hours on or about December 31, 1996. In early 1997, he was promoted to the position of UTR. On January 10, 1997, Petitioner was certified as having completed ACT training. ACT involves DCF-approved methods for safely subduing violent patients. Since his promotion to UTR, Petitioner has performed adequately as a UTR. He has never been involved in a violent incident involving patients. He has not had any disciplinary actions taken against him. A letter from Petitioner's supervisor at NFETC was admitted in evidence without objection. That letter attests to a four-year working relationship with Petitioner during which he has always been "intelligent, creative, dedicated, energetic, and resourceful. . . . He has always remained calm and served as a stabilizing force for others." Prior to the summer of 1998, the position of UTR was not considered a "position of special trust." In the summer of 1998, DCF authorities at NFETC designated all UTR positions as "positions of special trust," and a screening revealed Petitioner's criminal record, which barred him from employment as a UTR. Since then, and pending resolution of the issue herein, Petitioner has continued to be employed at NFETC in a non-direct care position, at a lesser rate of pay. Petitioner's disqualifying criminal offense involved his plea of nolo contendere to a charge of domestic battery (statute number unspecified) on June 16, 1995. At that time, the court withheld an adjudication of guilt; placed Petitioner on probation for one year, with a special condition that he attend the Batterer's Intervention Program; and waived all court costs. On October 4, 1995, Petitioner was in court for violating his probation. Although Petitioner testified that this court appearance was the result of missing or being late for a scheduled meeting with his probation officer due to his brother's death, court documents indicate that Petitioner once again had been arrested for domestic battery (statute unspecified), a charge to which he plead guilty. Petitioner conceded that he spent seventeen days in jail on this occasion. Where Petitioner's version of the facts differs from the court documents admitted in evidence, I find the court documents to be more credible. However, the court documents also show that on this occasion, Petitioner was reinstated to supervised probation. By July 1996, Petitioner had completed all 26 sessions of the Batterer's Intervention Program, spanning six months. Apparently, he did not begin the program until after the last act of domestic violence. During these sessions, Petitioner participated in "acting out" possible physical altercation scenarios and was trained in new methods of avoiding them, new ways of dealing with anger, and how to anticipate ways in which to handle similar situations without violence in the future. On August 5, 1996, a Petition for Unsuccessful Termination of Probation was presented to the court, because Petitioner "would be unable to comply with the [probation] requirements in a timely manner." As a result of this petition, the court discharged Petitioner from probation unsuccessfully and waived the remaining costs of supervision. The most information that can be gleaned from the court documents and Petitioner's testimony concerning the reasons behind the unsuccessful termination of his probation in 1996, is that Petitioner was unable to pay all supervision costs on time, had lost some period of reporting to his probation officer due to his jail time in October 1995, and had unsuccessfully completed his probation due to the domestic battery guilty plea on October 4, 1995. Petitioner testified that he has not been arrested since October 4, 1995. However, he also acknowledged that prior to the initial June 16, 1995, domestic violence charge, there may have been as many as three other arrests as a result of physical altercations with his ex-wife. Petitioner testified that the nature of the June 1995 incident which gave rise to the disqualifying offense was merely that he "put his hands on" his wife to stop her from hitting him, during a period of time in which he was under great stress due to several deaths in his immediate family, the birth of a new baby, and his job as a long-haul trucker. His ex-wife confirmed each of these elements of stress in Petitioner's life at that time, but she was asked no questions concerning the physicality of the disqualifying June 1995 incident, and Petitioner's continuous employment at NFETC since November 1994, would seem to negate his story of being a long-haul trucker in June 1995. Upon all the evidence, I do not find Petitioner credible as to his description of the disqualifying incident. Upon all the evidence, I also do not find credible Petitioner's and his ex-wife's testimony that Petitioner did not strike his wife after 1994. At some point subsequent to October 1995, the couple divorced. Petitioner pays his child support regularly. His NFETC employment provides insurance for his two children. He visits his children regularly at his ex-wife's home and entertains them in his own home. He has a good relationship with both children. He has become friends with his ex-wife Petitioner lives with and cares for his aged and infirm mother. Petitioner attends no church regularly but does attend several churches occasionally. He contributes to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America through the United Way collection at NFETC. He has completed sixteen hours of a writing class in spelling and grammar, which should enhance his performance as a UTR.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a Final Order denying the requested exemption to work in a position of special trust at this time and specifying therein the earliest date that Petitioner may reapply (one year from his last application) if he chooses to do so. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 5th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lucy Goddard, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1000 Northeast 16 Avenue, Box 3 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Willie Williams, Jr. 821 Southeast 12th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent should take final action to deny Petitioner's application for a real estate sales associate license on the ground that Petitioner was found guilty, in the State of Georgia, of the crime of theft by taking.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On June 12, 2006, Petitioner was working as a clerk at a UPS store in Cherokee County, Georgia, when he "gave in to temptation" (as he described it at hearing) and stole $500.00 in cash from an envelope given to him by a customer for shipment to the customer's former wife in Kansas. When the customer's former wife received an empty envelope, she notified the customer, who, in turn, called the police. On June 16, 2006, the police went to the UPS store to investigate the matter. When questioned by the police during their visit to the store, Respondent admitted to stealing the $500.00. He was thereupon placed under arrest and, thereafter, criminally charged. On October 16, 2007, in Cherokee County, Georgia, State Court, Petitioner was found guilty of the misdemeanor crime of theft by taking and sentenced to 12 months' probation. Among the conditions of his probation was that he provide "proof of repay[ment]" of the $500.00 he had stolen. Petitioner has not been arrested again, and he has returned to its rightful owner the $500.00 he had stolen and has otherwise completed his probation. The record evidence, however, does not reveal how long ago Petitioner's probation was completed; nor, more importantly, does it shed any light on what Respondent has done with his life (other than completing his probation and not getting arrested) since the theft which led to his being placed on probation, or what his present reputation is for honesty, trustworthiness, and fair dealing. The record evidence, therefore, is insufficient to establish that there is reason to believe that, notwithstanding his commission of the aforementioned theft, it is not likely he would act dishonestly or in any other manner endangering the public were he to be granted the real estate sales associate license he seeks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission issue a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kevin Vaughn, Jr. 931 Village Boulevard, Apartment 905-203 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Tom Barnhart, Esquire Special Counsel Office of the Attorney General Plaza Level 01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Roger P. Enzor, Chair, Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801 Layne Smith, General Counsel, Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to the allegations of the. administrative complaint, Respondent, Michael James Hanly, was a licensed registered nurse, license no. RN 78035-2. On or about November 18, 1987, the Board of Nursing entered a final order regarding disciplinary action against this Respondent. The final order found the Respondent guilty of improper conduct and specified the following penalties: The licensee shall pay an administrative fine of $500.00 within 6 months. The licensee is hereby placed on PROBATION for a period of two years, subject to the following terms and conditions: The licensee shall not violate any Federal or State law, nor any rule or order of the Board of Nursing. The licensee shall submit written reports to the Board, which contain the licensee's name, license number, current address, current employer's name, address and telephone number, and a statement by the licensee describing his nursing employment and performance These reports shall be submitted quarterly, as scheduled by the Board probation section. The licensee shall enroll in and successfully complete, in addition to normally required continuing education courses, courses in the following subject areas: medical ethical considerations and legal aspects of nursing within six (6) months from the filing of this Order. * * * While employed as a nurse, the licensee shall be responsible for causing reports to be furnished by his employer to the Board; these reports shall set out the licensee's current position, work assignment, level of performance, and any problems. The reports shall be submitted every three months as scheduled by-the Board probation section. If employed otherwise than as a nurse, the licensee shall report the position, employer and place of employment to the Board section on the scheduled quarterly dates. If not employed, the licensee shall so notify the Board probation section on the scheduled quarterly dates. Any deviation from the requirements of this probation without the prior written consent of the Board shall constitute a violation of this probation. Subsequent to the entry of the final order, the Respondent did not submit reports, did not complete the continuing education, and did not pay the administrative fine. On June 10, 1988, the Department wrote to the Respondent to notify him that the terms of the final order had not been met. This letter was received by the Respondent on June 14, 1988. On June 29, 1988, the Department again wrote to the Respondent to advise him that he was delinquent and in violation of the final order. This letter was received by the Respondent on July 12, 1988. Upon receipt of the correspondence described in paragraph 3, Respondent replied to the Department by stating that the matters addressed in the final order were on appeal to the district court of appeal. The Respondent did not pay the administrative fine nor seek additional time within which to comply with the remaining terms of the final order. Finally, the Department wrote to Respondent on July 22, 1988, acknowledged that the final order had been appealed, but informed Respondent that he was required to comply with the final order unless a stay were entered by the appellate court. Respondent did not obtain a stay from the appellate court and, as of the date of the hearing, had not complied with the terms of the final order entered November 18, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Nursing enter a final order which finds Respondent guilty of the violation alleged in the administrative complaint, imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250, and lengthens the period of Respondent's probation to four years. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 5th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 and 2 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 3, it is accepted that the Respondent filed an appeal which was assigned case no. 88- 1069; whether that appeal was timely or complied with the provisions of Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, is unknown and not a part of this record. It is accepted that the parties, for purposes of the hearing, believed the appeal to be proper. Paragraphs 4 through 11 are accepted. The Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. An ex parte communication was submitted on June 19, 1989, which is rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone' Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729 M. James Hanly, R.N. Post Office Box 1472 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent has violated Sections 491.009(2)(h) and (u), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely comply with a prior Board Order and, if so, the determination of an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, David Pesek, is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in the State of Florida, and has been so licensed at all times relevant and material to this proceeding. His license number is NT 192. On September 7, 1988, the Petitioner filed an earlier Administrative Complaint against the Respondent in DPR Case No. 0055334. On February 14, 1990, the Respondent signed a stipulation providing for a stipulated disposition of DPR Case No. 0055334. The Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling approved the stipulated disposition at a meeting on April 27, 1990, and on Nay 23, 1990, a Final Order was rendered in DPR Case No. 0055334. The Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334 included the following pertinent language: Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the Executive Director of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling within sixty (60) days of the filing of the Final Order herein. Respondent shall be placed on probation for one (1) year, with the condition of probation that Respondent's billing records and documents be reviewed by a consulting practitioner. The one (1) year probation shall begin to run when consulting practitioner is approved. Such consultant shall submit a written report to the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling six (6) months following the rendition of the Final Order. The consulting practitioner shall be selected by Respondent, subject to approval of the Board. Pursuant to the terms of the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334, the deadline for paying the administrative fine was July 23, 1990. On November 27, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation sent a letter to the Respondent reminding him that he had not complied with the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. By letter dated December 6, 1990, and received on December 13, 1990, the Respondent transmitted his check in the amount of one thousand dollars in payment of the fine. 2/ The fine was paid approximately four and a half months after it was due. By letter dated January 23, 1991, the Respondent advised the Chairman of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling of the name of a consulting practitioner who was willing to perform the review and reporting functions required by the Final Order in DPR Case No. 0055334. The letter of January 23, 1991, was two months after the deadline for the consultant's report. By letter dated April 1, 1991, the Respondent was advised by staff of the Department of Professional Regulation that his choice of a consulting practitioner had been approved, that the consultant's report would be due six months from the date of the letter, and that the Respondent's one-year probation period would begin as of the date of the letter. /3
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent did not violate Section 491.009(2)(h), Florida Statutes, and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint. Concluding that the Respondent did violate Section 491.009(2)(u), Florida Statutes, and finding him guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint. Imposing a penalty consisting of: (1) an administra- tive fine in the amount of $500.00 (Five Hundred Dollars), (2) issuance of a public reprimand, and (3) a six-month period of probation, which period shall begin on the first day following the Respondent's current probation period and shall be subject to such reasonable conditions of probation as may seem appropriate to the Board. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January, 1992. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1992.
The Issue Is Petitioner disqualified from adopting a child under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, and, if so, should Petitioner be granted an exemption from disqualification?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Since the dissolution of his marriage to Selma Mingus, Petitioner has remarried. However, Petitioner's present wife, Karin Mingus, is unable to conceive a child. Therefore, Petitioner and Karin Mingus wish to adopt a child. In early 2001, Petitioner and Karin Mingus attempted to qualify for the adoption of a child through the Department under Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. In accordance with Section 435.045, Florida Statutes, the Department conducted a criminal records check of Respondent's background equivalent to a level 2 screening required in Section 435.04(1), Florida Statutes. By letter dated July 30, 2001, Jennifer J. Farr, the Department's District 14 Screening Coordinator, gave Petitioner Notice of Ineligibility for a Position of Special Trust. The letter advised Petitioner that his criminal identification record had revealed an Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence dated April 13, 1994, and that he could not have contact of any kind with children or developmentally disabled persons not related to Petitioner. On December 12, 1993, Selma Mingus, Petitioner's wife at the time, filed a verified Petition for Injunction Against Domestic Violence (Petition I) with the Circuit Court, Polk County, Florida, Civil Division, alleging that Petitioner had committed certain acts against her, which put her in fear of violence from Petitioner. The Petition was assigned Case No. GC-F-94-2188. On December 13, 1993, without notice or hearing, the court the Petition I. Thereafter, the court determined that it appeared that an immediate and present danger of domestic violence existed. Therefore, in accordance with Section 741.30(5)(a), Florida Statutes, the court entered a Temporary Injunction for Protection and Notice of Hearing (Ex Parte) (Temporary Injunction). Petitioner was served with a copy of the Temporary Injunction, which advised Petitioner that a Temporary Injunction had been entered and that a hearing would be held on January 4, 1994, wherein the court would consider, among other matters, whether to continue the Temporary Injunction for a period not to exceed one year. On January 4, 1994, the court held a hearing wherein the allegations contained in Petition I were heard. Although Petitioner had notice of the hearing, he elected not to attend the hearing and explain to the court his side of the story or to deny the allegations made against him by Selma Mingus in Petition I. After considering the evidence presented during the hearing, the court granted Petition I and ordered that the Injunction remain in force until January 4, 1995. The court did not order Petitioner to participate in treatment, intervention, counseling services, or batterers' intervention program. There is no evidence that Petitioner violated either the Temporary Injunction issued on December 13, 1993, or the Injunction entered on January 4, 1994. On April 13, 1994, Selma Mingus, now Petitioner's ex- wife, the dissolution of marriage having become final, filed a verified Petition for Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence with the Circuit Court, Polk County, Florida, Civil Division (Petition II) alleging that Petitioner had committed certain acts against her, which put her in fear of violence from Petitioner. The Petition was assigned Case No. GC-F-94-2188. The Department's Composite Exhibit 10 contains the cover page of a Temporary Injunction for Protection and Notice of Hearing (Ex Parte) indicating that this Temporary Injunction contains two pages. However, Composite Exhibit 10 contains only the first page. The second page, which is apparently the signature page, is missing. From the cover page it appears that this matter was heard on April 13, 1994. This incomplete Temporary Injunction is apparently the Injunction cited in the Notice of Ineligibility for Position of Special Trust dated July 30, 2001. There is no evidence that Petitioner was ever given notice of a hearing or that a hearing was ever held on the continuation of this incomplete Temporary Injunction or that the court made any factual findings that Petitioner committed the acts against Selma Mingus as alleged in Petition II. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the court ever ordered a continuation of the Temporary Injunction, with or without a hearing. Petitioner denies that he committed any act of violence towards Selma Mingus and refuses to accept any responsibility for the stormy relationship between him and his first wife. Furthermore, Petitioner refuses to accept the need for rehabilitation on his part. Petitioner has had, and continues to have, a problem with controlling his anger, notwithstanding his testimony to contrary. So far, Petitioner has failed to address his anger problem. Petitioner has never been charged, arrested or convicted of any crime, including domestic violence. Petitioner is in law enforcement and has been commended for his work in the area of law enforcement. Since the dissolution of his marriage to Selma Mingus, Petitioner has become involved in the church and civic affairs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 Edward D. Mingus, Jr. Post Office Box 2574 Eaton Park, Florida 33840 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from working in a position of special trust pursuant to Section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At some point in time, Petitioner married Antonio Sharod Washington. They had two children. In July 1999, a judge in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida, entered a Final Judgment of Injunction for Protection Against Domestic Violence (After Notice) against Petitioner pursuant to Section 741.30, Florida Statutes. The injunction states that it shall remain in full force and effect permanently or until further order of the court. The judge entered a similar injunction against Mr. Washington. After the injunctions were issued, Mr. Washington went to visit Petitioner at her apartment. Petitioner understood that Mr. Washington wanted a reconciliation. Based on her conversation with Mr. Washington, Petitioner petitioned the court to dissolve the injunction against Mr. Washington. Petitioner mistakenly believed that Mr. Washington had filed a similar petition to dissolve the injunction against her. On August 14, 1999, Petitioner went to Mr. Washington's apartment. At that time, Petitioner learned that Mr. Washington was living with another woman. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she became angry and raised her voice but denied that any type of physical violence against another person occurred. A warrant was issued for Petitioner's arrest on September 23, 1999. On October 18, 1999, Petitioner was arrested pursuant to the outstanding warrant. Petitioner was charged with violation of the domestic violence injunction pursuant to Section 741.31, Florida Statutes. Petitioner admitted the following facts: (a) on November 18, 1999, Petitioner pled no contest to the charges against her; (b) the judge withheld adjudication of guilt; (c) the judge sentenced Petitioner to four months' probation, requiring her to participate in an anger control program and prohibiting any violent contact. In time Petitioner met a new friend who became her "significant other." The new friend is the father of Petitioner's third child. Petitioner began working as a caretaker of children at a private school in September 2001. Petitioner's new friend provided her with a motor vehicle so that she would have transportation to and from work. In order to maintain her job as a child care worker, Petitioner had to undergo Level 2 background screening. By letter dated November 29, 2001, the school advised Petitioner that she was ineligible for continued employment as a childcare worker due to her conviction for violating the domestic violence injunction and for engaging in criminal mischief. Petitioner continues to work for the school, performing cleaning services at night. She has no other employment. Petitioner regularly attends church. She has not violated the domestic violence injunction since she was arrested.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner an exemption from employment disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Tonya Washington 2707 Cobblestone Forrest Circle, West Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Peggy Sanford, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact 13. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 11, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 5, 2009, the 2"4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 11, 2009 and the 3 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 30, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief F inancial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-036-D1, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 11, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. 2. On February 11, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 5, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $196,980.30 against BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. 4. On March 16, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 11, 2009, the Department issued a 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. The an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $50,968.94 against BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. . 6. On March 26, 2009, the 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. The Employer requested a formal hearing on April 6, 2009. A copy of the Request for Hearing is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 8. On April 21, 2009, the request for formal hearing was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge. The matter was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Barbara Staros and given case number 09-2138. 9. On October 30, 2009, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-036-D1 to BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $10,179.61 against BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. 10. On October 30, 2009, the 3™ Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served on legal counsel for BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. A copy of the 3" Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 11. On November 9, 2009, BEST WELDING AND FABRICATION, INC. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. A copy of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 12. On November 12, 2009, an Order Closing File was entered. The Order Closing File relinquished jurisdiction to the Department. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
