The Issue Whether the Agency’s 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 57-year-old female residing in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner wishes to open her own group respite care home for adults with developmental disabilities. As such, Petitioner seeks to become a direct-care provider to the Agency’s clients with developmental 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. For the last 29 years, Petitioner has been employed by Vistakon, a division of Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. Her current position is Distribution Operator II, fulfilling customer orders for shipping. Petitioner is a long-term member of Faith United Miracle Temple in Jacksonville, where she serves on the usher board, greets churchgoers on Sunday mornings, and teaches children’s Sunday school classes. Petitioner is involved in many community service projects including Habitat for Humanity, Florida Blood Drive, feeding the homeless, and supporting her employer’s diversity and inclusion programs. The Disqualifying Offense On December 26, 2003, Petitioner, then known as Mamie Faith Fields, was arrested at her home and charged with domestic battery on her husband, Gregory Fields. Petitioner’s mother witnessed the incident. Petitioner was 44 years old at the time of the offense. The facts surrounding the incident are in dispute and there was insufficient reliable evidence for the undersigned to make any findings of fact relative to the details of the incident.1/ Petitioner pled no contest to the offense of domestic battery, was sentenced to eight months’ probation, and ordered to attend a batterer’s intervention course and pay court costs of $480. On June 26, 2004, Petitioner completed the Hubbard House First Step Program, a 24-class batterer’s intervention course. Petitioner’s probation was terminated early on July 26, 2004. Subsequent Non-Disqualifying Offense On May 8, 2007, Petitioner was involved in another physical altercation with Mr. Fields. The incident occurred while Petitioner was a right front-seat passenger in the vehicle Mr. Fields was driving. Petitioner was arrested and charged with domestic battery. The arresting officer observed scratches on Mr. Fields’ face and on the back of his right shoulder. The arresting officer observed no injury to Petitioner. Petitioner was 48 years old at the time of her arrest. The charges against Petitioner were dropped by the State Attorney’s Office and Petitioner was not prosecuted for any crime.2/ Subsequent Personal and Professional History Petitioner and Mr. Fields were divorced in 2011. Petitioner reported having attended six weeks of marital counseling with Mr. Fields, but the record does not support a finding of the timeframe in which the counseling occurred. Petitioner’s employment has not changed since the disqualifying offense. In 2014, Petitioner sought, and was granted, an exemption from disqualification from the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”). Her reported interest was in opening, or working in, a day care facility. By May 2015, Petitioner had completed over 50 hours of child care training, including child care facilities rules and regulations, early literacy, and family child care home certificates. Petitioner has not been employed with any child care provider subsequent to receiving the exemption from DCF. In response to questioning by the undersigned as to why Petitioner had not pursued employment with a DCF provider, Petitioner stated that there were “way too many restrictions” and that she had discovered that “if a kid says you hit them, an action could be taken against you.” Petitioner’s current interest is in opening a group home to provide respite care services for the Agency’s adult clients with developmental disabilities. Petitioner filed two previous applications with Respondent--in 2010 and 2014--for exemption from disqualification, but was denied both times. In 2016, Petitioner completed four courses required by the Agency for providers of direct-care services to its clients: Introduction to Developmental Disabilities; Health and Safety; HIV/Bloodborne Pathogens; and Zero Tolerance. The Agency has certified that Petitioner has completed a course required for providers in the Medicaid Waiver program. Earlier this year, Petitioner also completed HIPAA training and three hours of classroom training in “Personal Outcome Measures-Overview: Choices and Rights.” Petitioner’s Exemption Request The Exemption Questionnaire presented by the Agency to Petitioner listed three offenses to which she was to respond: the 2003 disqualifying offense, the 2007 non-disqualifying arrest, and an earlier 1994 arrest for aggravated battery/domestic violence. The 1994 offense involved Petitioner, then known as Mamie Faith Lundy, and her previous husband, John Lundy. The 1994 offense resulted in an arrest, but charges were later dropped and Petitioner was not prosecuted. In response to a request for her detailed version of the events of the 2003 disqualifying offense, Petitioner explained that “it was Christmas Day, my ex-husband was upset about me spending too much money. I didn’t want to hear him talk about it he got upset. We [had] guest[s] and it got out of control. Charges were dropped and we forgave each other.” Charges for the 2003 offense were not dropped and Petitioner pled no contest to domestic battery. The offense of battery requires an intentional touching of another person against their will, or intentionally causing harm to another person. See § 784.03(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015).3/ Petitioner’s version of the disqualifying offense does not contain any relevant detail regarding the offense. At hearing, Petitioner testified only that “he pushed me and I pushed him back.” In response to the question regarding the degree of harm to the victim or property, Petitioner stated “there is no property, no victim harm.” According to the observations of the police officer at the scene in 2007, Petitioner scratched her then-husband’s face and right shoulder. With regard to stressors in her life at the time of the disqualifying offense, Petitioner wrote “there were divorce[s] in both marriage[s].” With regard to current stressors, Petitioner revealed, “No current stressors. My support system is my family, God, children, job, friends, church family, Bible. I [am] living alone now.” When requested to list her educational achievements and training, Petitioner responded that she attends “Word of Life students’ bible school.” Regarding counseling she has received, she listed “Alison Behrens, six weeks.” Apparently Ms. Behrens is the marriage counselor she saw with Mr. Fields, but the record does not reveal whether the counseling was before or after the 2003 offense, or even after the 2007 non-disqualifying offense. The most relevant answer given by Petitioner on her exemption questionnaire was with respect to accepting responsibility, and expressing remorse, for her actions. Tellingly, Petitioner stated, “I feel very bad about my action, not to leave when people get upset. Try not to let people know what going on in my family. And I feel responsibility for let[ting] things go to[o] far. I feel very remorse about it. I’m very much ashamed as a mother, and a Grandmother that I allowed this to happen to me.” Petitioner’s explanation sounds more like regret for allowing others to learn the details of incidents involving battery on her husband, rather than remorse for losing her temper and striking out at another person. Furthermore, Petitioner’s statements express regret for what has happened to her, rather than harm she has inflicted on others. Similarly, at hearing, Petitioner testified that in 2003 she had left her home, but that her mother called her and asked her to return. Petitioner stated that it was a “mistake” for her to have returned to the house, but she did not describe as mistakes the actions she took upon her return. Along with her exemption application, Petitioner submitted two character reference letters.4/ Anthony Howard, an Elder in Petitioner’s church, described her as “kind, compassionate, and a hard working person” and applauded her commitment to the church as an active member, Sunday School teacher, and usher. A letter from Michelle Dunnam describes Petitioner as the “most kind hearted person I know” and applauds her volunteerism. The letter does not reveal how long she has known Petitioner or in what capacity. There is no record evidence of Ms. Dunnam’s relationship to Petitioner, whether family, friend, employer, or otherwise. Along with her request for a hearing, Petitioner submitted one additional character reference letter. Eric Mitchell, her employer’s Diversity and Inclusion Community Ambassador, submitted a “letter of appreciation” for Petitioner’s continuous service to the Jacksonville community through Habitat for Humanity, Florida Blood Drive, feeding the homeless, and supporting the Employee Resource Groups in their message of diversity and inclusion and at her church. When asked if any of those who submitted character references were aware of her disqualifying offense, Petitioner was defensive and seemed concerned that someone at the Agency might reveal her background to them. Final Hearing At final hearing, Petitioner presented very little testimony and no witnesses on her behalf. Petitioner presented two additional character reference letters: One each from both of her ex-husbands. In his letter, Mr. Lundy described Petitioner as an excellent mother, caring, intelligent, motivated, and “more than capable of managing a group of people.” He cited her long-term employment and her involvement with the church as evidence of her dedication to family and community. He explained that Petitioner had asked for forgiveness and that they have forgiven each other. Mr. Fields wrote that Petitioner has expressed that she is truly sorry, that he has forgiven her, and that he hopes for her to have a successful life. Despite Petitioner’s obvious commitment to her church and community, Petitioner’s case for rehabilitation is thin. Petitioner was involved in a subsequent domestic battery incident, in which she caused minor injury to her husband, after completing a batterer’s intervention course. There is no evidence of Petitioner pursuing anger management or any other counseling subsequent to the 2007 incident. Furthermore, the 2007 incident took place in a car while Mr. Fields was driving, which put Petitioner, her husband, and other drivers at risk, a fact which was not acknowledged by Petitioner. Petitioner was not forthcoming with the details of any of the incidents in question, yet denied the details as recorded in the police reports. Petitioner was middle-aged when the 2003 and 2007 incidents occurred, thus eliminating any explanation on the basis of lack of maturity. Petitioner’s community volunteer work is laudable and she has reason to be proud of her service. However, the work does not demonstrate Petitioner’s ability to calmly handle day- to-day difficult situations with developmentally-disabled clients. Even Petitioner admitted that she has not encountered behavioral issues with the children in her Sunday school class because their “parents are right there.”
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 8th day of November, 2016, 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 8th day of November, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that she has been rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s), and, if so, would it be an abuse of discretion for the agency to deny her exemption application under section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") is the state agency required to conduct background screenings for employees who provide certain types of services related to health care under chapters 400, 408, and 429, Florida Statutes. § 408.809, Fla. Stat. Petitioner seeks employment in a position providing services to residents of a health care facility or under a license issued by Respondent. As such, Petitioner is required to participate in Respondent’s background screening process pursuant to section 408.809. Petitioner submitted to the required background screening, which revealed that in 2004, Petitioner was convicted of the felony offenses of grand theft and burglary, in violation of sections 812.014 and 810.02, Florida Statutes (2004) respectively, in Dade County, Florida, Case No. 132004CF030578C000XX. These offenses were used by the agency as the disqualifying offenses under chapter 435. Petitioner was subsequently convicted of felony grand theft in 2007, in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2007), in Broward County Circuit Court, Case No. 062007CF013247A88810. In 2013, Petitioner was convicted of theft in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (2013), in Dade County, Florida, Case No. 132013CF0268560001XX. The criminal convictions in 2004 disqualified Petitioner and made her ineligible for licensure or to provide services in a health care facility licensed by Respondent. She was disqualified unless she applied for and received an exemption from AHCA, pursuant to section 435.07. In addition, Petitioner’s background check revealed that she was arrested in 1997 for Battery and Resisting Arrest; in 2009 for Petit Theft involving unemployment compensation, which was ultimately dropped; and in 2012 for retail theft. Petitioner initially submitted an application for an exemption to Respondent in accordance with sections 408.809 and 435.07 on June 9, 2017. She participated in a telephonic hearing to discuss her application conducted by Respondent on August 1, 2017. Respondent’s witness, Kelley Goff, a health services and facilities consultant for the Agency’s Background Screening Unit, testified that she was the analyst assigned to Petitioner’s case and attended the telephonic hearing on August 1, 2017. Respondent’s Exhibit R1-1 through R1-75, is AHCA's file for Petitioner’s exemption request. It contains: the exemption denial letter; internal agency notes; panel hearing notes from the August 1, 2017, teleconference; Petitioner’s criminal history; Petitioner’s exemption application; personal attestations; arrest affidavits; conviction records; probation records; court records; education records; and several letters in support of Petitioner’s requested exemption. After the telephonic hearing and discussion, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request for an exemption by letter dated August 4, 2017. Subsequently, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. In making the decision to deny, Respondent considered Petitioner’s entire case file, including all submissions received from Petitioner and her explanations during the teleconference. Respondent also considered Petitioner’s other arrests and convictions, in addition to the disqualifying offenses. The history of Petitioner’s theft-related crimes and the recent 2012 and 2013 theft-related incidents were significant factors in Respondent’s decision to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption. The agency concluded that Petitioner was not particularly candid during the August 1, 2017, teleconference, and that some of Petitioner’s statements during the teleconference conflicted with the police reports and other documentation in Petitioner’s exemption file. This was true particularly with respect to the 2012 retail theft incident at Home Depot, which Petitioner attributed to actions by a client during the teleconference. During the telephone interview, Petitioner stated that she could not remember the arrests and/or convictions from the time period from 1997 through 2007. Although Petitioner had some positive letters of recommendation, she did not have anyone speak on her behalf during the telephonic discussion in August 2017. Based on Petitioner’s entire file and her responses during the teleconference, the agency concluded that Petitioner had not satisfied her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence of demonstrating rehabilitation from her disqualifying offenses. Goff testified that, while preparing for the hearing, she researched Petitioner’s 2007 criminal case and discovered that Petitioner still owed outstanding fines in that case in Broward County, and felt that Petitioner was not eligible to apply for an exemption until those fees were paid. During the final hearing Petitioner presented the testimony of her former client, Yohandra Sota. She testified that she had known Petitioner during the time of the 2012 incident of theft at Home Depot, that she was not with Petitioner during that time, and that she had never witnessed Petitioner involved in theft. Sota testified that Petitioner is a nice person who does not do bad things and has never fought, fussed, or threatened her. Petitioner testified on her own behalf and admitted that she has things on her record and is not happy with them. She explained that everyone does things that he or she does not necessarily have a choice over. Petitioner explained that she is asking for a second chance to get her life back on track and to get her life together. Petitioner explained that she was not aware of the outstanding fines and that when she went to Broward County Courthouse, they told her they could not find information on the case. Petitioner further explained that she is raising her three grandchildren and needs to provide for them and that she is unable to do that without a job. Petitioner stated that she is unable to work with her client because of this situation (the present disqualification). Petitioner explained that everyone makes mistakes and no one is perfect and that she had a rough childhood and had to raise herself. Petitioner then presented the testimony of her brother, Jamvar Thomas. He testified that he has seen Petitioner go through a lot of changes and that she has made some mistakes in her life. He felt that the fact that Petitioner asked for his help shows tremendous growth in her. Thomas testified that Petitioner is trying to put herself in a position so that she will not have to go back to her old habits and that she needs a second chance. Thomas stated that Petitioner has worked with Yohandra Sota for 15 years and helped Sota cope with her life. Thomas testified that helping people has helped Petitioner become a better person and that Petitioner has paid for her past mistakes and has come a long way. Thomas requested that Petitioner be given the opportunity to do the right thing and that granting the exemption would allow Petitioner to work in her field of expertise. Although Petitioner professed that she was remorseful for her criminal convictions and wants to move forward with her life, the undersigned is not persuaded by clear and convincing evidence that (1) she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses, or (2) that it would be an abuse of discretion for the agency to deny the exemption.1/ The undersigned finds that under the facts presented Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that she should be granted an exemption from disqualification.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification for employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 2018.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent engaged in conduct unbecoming a public servant in violation of Chapter 89-404, Section 8, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 90-395, Section 8, Laws of Florida (the "Civil Service Act") and Rules 3-1.1 and 3-1.3 of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office ("Rules 3-1.1 and 3-1.3").
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a constitutional officer of the State of Florida who is responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within Pinellas County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent was employed by Petitioner. On September 6, 1999, Respondent responded as backup deputy sheriff to the apartment of Mr. Cornell Cunningham and Ms. Karen Stewart. The purpose of the response was to arrest Mr. Cunningham on a civil warrant for failure to pay child support. Deputy Ward Snyder was the primary deputy on the call. Deputy Snyder is also employed by Respondent. It was raining outside when the two deputies arrived at Mr. Cunningham's residence. Mr. Cunningham invited both deputies inside. Once inside, Deputy Snyder talked to Mr. Cunningham and advised him of the civil arrest warrant. Deputy Snyder also contacted the Sheriff's Office to confirm that the warrant was still valid. While Deputy Snyder was talking to Mr. Cunningham and the Sheriff's Office, Respondent conducted a security search of the residence to confirm that no one else was present in Mr. Cunningham's apartment. By the time Respondent completed the security search, Deputy Snyder had finished his telephone call. Respondent concluded his search of the residence in the kitchen. While standing in the kitchen, Respondent stood adjacent to and viewed a countertop that separated the kitchen from the dining area. The kitchen and counter top were well lit with florescent lighting. Respondent observed a marijuana seed on the countertop. Respondent picked the seed up from the countertop and held it up for Deputy Snyder to see. Respondent said, "We got a problem here." Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham were standing in the dining room adjacent to the countertop that separated the kitchen from the dining room. Deputy Snyder had a clear and unobstructed view of the countertop. A Nike shoebox was on the countertop inside the kitchen. The shoebox contained a hinged top that opened from one side and also contained circular holes in the sides. Respondent, Deputy Snyder, and Mr. Cunningham were within two or three feet of the shoebox. The top on the shoebox was closed. There was no other access into the shoebox other than through the top of the shoebox. Respondent removed his flashlight from his belt, turned it on, shined the light into the holes in the side of the shoebox, and observed the contents of the shoebox. Respondent then opened the shoebox and looked inside the shoebox. Respondent observed a small bag of marijuana and a small scale inside the box. Respondent then told Deputy Snyder that there was "a problem." Respondent then showed Deputy Snyder the contents of the box. Mr. Cunningham denied ownership of the shoebox as well as any knowledge of its contents. The deputies arrested Mr. Cunningham based on the civil warrant for failure to pay child support. Mr. Cunningham protested his arrest and asserted that the matter had been taken care of. However, he did not physically resist, did not threaten either deputy, and did not display any intent to flee. Neither deputy charged or arrested Mr. Cunningham at the time with any offense related to the marijuana or the scale. Deputy Snyder transported Mr. Cunningham to the Pinellas County Jail on the original civil warrant. While Deputy Snyder was transporting Mr. Cunningham to jail, Respondent contacted Deputy Snyder by radio. Respondent told Deputy Snyder that Respondent was going to charge Ms. Stewart with criminal offenses related to the possession of marijuana and the scale. Mr. Cunningham overheard the radio conversation between the two deputies and stated that he would claim ownership of the marijuana and scale. Upon hearing this, Deputy Snyder advised Mr. Cunningham of his rights. Mr. Cunningham then denied ownership of the contraband. While Deputy Snyder transported Mr. Cunningham to jail, Respondent remained at Mr. Cunningham's residence and awaited the arrival of Ms. Stewart. With the consent of Ms. Stewart, Respondent conducted a further search of the residence. The further search revealed additional marijuana in a drawer located in the kitchen where the shoebox was located. Respondent combined the marijuana found in the drawer with the seed on the countertop and the marijuana previously found in the shoebox. Respondent then seized the contraband and proceeded to the jail where he charged Mr. Cunningham with felony possession of marijuana and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Respondent prepared an arrest report stating that Respondent had observed marijuana "scattered" on top of the kitchen counter. Respondent also stated in the report that, "Laying next to the scattered marijuana in a partially opened Nike shoebox, was a clear plastic baggie filled with marijuana and also laying next to that baggie was a silver hand-held weight scale." Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Robert Helmick, approved the report on the same day that Respondent prepared the report. On the following day, September 7, 1999, Deputy Snyder prepared his supplemental report of the events occurring at the Cunningham residence. In his report, Deputy Snyder stated that Respondent "pointed out a seed on the kitchen countertop. There was a Nike shoebox also on the countertop. Deputy Broome used his flashlight to illuminate the inside of the box by shining the light through a hole in the box. Deputy Broome then opened the box and displayed a bag of what appeared to be marijuana and a small balance scale." Deputy Snyder’s report also recited the events occurring in his vehicle as he transported Mr. Cunningham to jail. Sergeant Helmick, who was off duty that day, did not review or approve Deputy Snyder's report. Rather, Corporal Larry Weiland approved Deputy Snyder's report. Sergeant Helmick did not see Deputy Snyder’s report until much later. Three days later, on September 10, 1999, Respondent participated in a pre-filing investigation conducted at the office of the State Attorney for Pinellas County. Assistant State Attorney Patricia Cope conducted the investigation. As part of the investigation, Ms. Cope took the sworn testimony of Respondent. In his testimony to Ms. Cope, Respondent repeated the same version of events found in his report. Respondent testified to Ms. Cope that he had observed marijuana scattered on the countertop and that the top of the shoebox on the countertop was ajar. Respondent further testified that he was able to see the marijuana and the scale inside the shoebox through the space created by the partially open top of the shoebox. Ms. Cope specifically asked Respondent whether the shoebox was open or closed in order to confirm that Respondent's search was within the scope of the plain view doctrine. Respondent testified that the shoebox was open. Ms. Cope did not speak with Deputy Snyder or review his report. As a result of the investigation and the information provided by Respondent, Mr. Cunningham was charged with felony possession of marijuana and misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Sometime after Ms. Cope's conversation with Respondent, Deputy Snyder spoke with Sergeant Helmick concerning the discrepancies between the two reports filed by Deputy Snyder and Respondent. Sergeant Helmick advised Deputy Snyder to allow the discrepancies to be worked out by the state attorney’s office and to allow the criminal process to run its course. Sergeant Helmick did not report the discrepancies to the state attorney’s office, to his supervisors, or to anyone else. At the time, Sergeant Helmick did not initiate any complaint or investigation against either Respondent or Deputy Snyder. In June 2000, depositions were set in the criminal prosecution of Mr. Cunningham. Ms. Cope contacted Deputy Snyder to inquire about the possibility of having the shoebox tested for fingerprints. At that time, Deputy Snyder directed Ms. Cope's attention to the discrepancies in the respective reports prepared by Deputy Snyder and Respondent. Ms. Cope reviewed the reports and the discrepancies between the two reports. Ms. Cope concluded that the discrepancies would create a problem in the criminal prosecution of Mr. Cunningham. The discrepancies between the accounts by Respondent and Deputy Snyder created the possibility that Respondent had conducted an illegal search of the shoebox that would render the evidence seized as a part of that search inadmissible. The plain view doctrine applicable to the law of search and seizure would allow the search of the shoebox if the top had been ajar and the contents of the shoebox could be observed. However, the search would not be lawful if the shoebox top was closed and observation of the contents could have only been accomplished by shining a light through the holes in the box. The differing statements in the reports of the two deputies placed the credibility of Respondent in question. No independent evidence was available, including the testimony of Mr. Cunningham, from which it could be ascertained which deputy was being truthful. The State Attorney’s Office deemed it unfair to the defendant, the court, and the witnesses to proceed on a case where the prosecution could not be certain if the evidence was properly seized. Ms. Cope referred the matter to Mr. Robert Lewis, her supervisor. Mr. Lewis reviewed the reports of the two deputies and agreed with Ms. Cope's assessment that the discrepancies precluded any further criminal prosecution of Mr. Cunningham. Ms. Cope cancelled the depositions set in the Cunningham case on the grounds that Respondent had been accused of lying and that the two investigating police officers recalled two inconsistent views of the events that occurred at Mr. Cunningham's residence. Mr. Lewis then instructed Ms. Cope to enter a nolle prosequi of the charges against Mr. Cunningham. After the State Attorney's Office filed the nolle prosequi, the State Attorney’s Office referred the matter to the Sheriff's Office. The matter was brought to the attention of Major Samuel F. Lynn, the commander of the road patrol division. Major Lynn prepared an administrative inquiry form that disclosed the allegations communicated to him by the State Attorney’s Office. Thereafter, the Administrative Investigation Division of the Sheriff’s Office ("AID") initiated an investigation. During the investigation, Respondent and Deputy Snyder each provided a sworn statement to the investigators. The investigators also obtained a sworn statement from Ms. Cope and a letter from Mr. Lewis. The investigators were unable to locate Mr. Cunningham and therefore did not interview him or ascertain his account of the matters at issue in this proceeding. During the investigation, Respondent had the opportunity to offer additional information or comments. Respondent’s attorney placed a statement on the record at the conclusion of Respondent’s sworn statement. Respondent did not offer any witnesses on his behalf or provide the investigators with any information pertaining to the location of Mr. Cunningham. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Board conducted a hearing concerning the charges against Respondent. The charges were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the office of the Sheriff; Violation of Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.1 (Level Five violation), 006, relating to untruthfulness by being untruthful in relation to the seizure of narcotics at the Cunningham residence. Violation of Rule and Regulation of the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, 3-1.3 (Level Three violation), 060, relating to standards of conduct by bringing discredit upon the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office by being untruthful and by inaccurately documenting facts and circumstances submitted to the State Attorney’s Office. Respondent was present at the hearing, had an opportunity to offer a statement, responded to questions, and presented additional evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board determined that Respondent violated the Civil Service Act and Rules 3-1.1 and 3-1.3. The violations resulted in a cumulative point total of 65 points under the progressive discipline policy of the Sheriff's office. The 65 points were added to 23 discipline points that the Sheriff's Office had previously assessed against Respondent for a total of 88 progressive discipline points. When a deputy has 88 progressive discipline points, Petitioner's progressive discipline policy authorizes discipline that ranges from a ten-day suspension to termination. Petitioner terminated Respondent's employment. Respondent violated relevant portions of the Civil Service Act and Rule 3-1.1 by being untruthful in relation to the seizure of narcotics at the Cunningham residence. Respondent conducted an improper search at the residence of Mr. Cunningham. Respondent then charged Mr. Cunningham with a felony and misdemeanor offense related to the fruits of that search. Respondent then prepared a false report relating the events occurring at Mr. Cunningham's residence and then provided false testimony under oath to the State Attorney’s Office. Respondent violated relevant portions of the Civil Service Act Rule 3-1.3 and by bringing discredit upon the Sheriff's Office. Respondent was untruthful by inaccurately documenting facts and circumstances submitted to the State Attorney’s Office. Respondent's conduct discredited the Sheriff's Office by encouraging mistrust of law enforcement officers and by creating the appearance that persons in law enforcement engage in improper tactics to effectuate an arrest. Respondent's untruthfulness resulted in the improper arrest and prosecution of an individual. Truthfulness on the part of a deputy sheriff is an important part of the job. It is necessary in order to maintain discipline and to preserve the integrity of the agency and the functions performed. Respondent's untruthfulness violated those essential elements and exposed the Sheriff's Office to the potential for civil liability for an improper arrest. Although much of Respondent's testimony was credible and persuasive, there were significant parts of Respondent's testimony that were neither credible nor persuasive. The flawed part of Respondent's testimony was inconsistent with prior statements by Respondent and with the testimony of Deputy Snyder. For the most part, no one inconsistency in Respondent's testimony, standing alone, would be sufficient to adversely affect Respondent's credibility. However, the cumulative effect of all of the inconsistencies deprives Respondent's testimony of credibility and persuasiveness concerning material issues in this case. In an earlier sworn statement to AID, Respondent testified that he found marijuana on the countertop in Mr. Cunningham's apartment, showed the seed to Deputy Snyder, and then looked inside the shoebox. At the final hearing, however, Respondent testified that he found the marijuana seed on the countertop, saw the marijuana in the shoebox, and then walked over to Deputy Snyder to show him the marijuana seed. Respondent further testified at the final hearing that he could not recall whether he picked up the seed first or saw the marijuana in the shoebox first. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the location of Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham at the time that Respondent found the seed and searched the shoebox. At the final hearing, Respondent insisted that Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham never got within ten to fourteen feet of the shoebox. In an earlier sworn statement to AID, however, Respondent indicated that Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham were two to three feet from the shoebox. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the position of the top of the shoebox at the time that Respondent found the seed and searched the shoebox. Respondent testified at final hearing that the shoebox was open between 1.5 and 2.0 inches. In a sworn statement to AID, however, Respondent testified that the top of the shoebox was open less than one inch. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the manner in which he shined light from his flashlight into the shoebox. At final hearing, Respondent testified that he shined light into the holes on the side of the shoebox. In an earlier deposition, however, Respondent testified that he shined the light in the top of the shoebox where the top was open and could not remember if the shoebox had holes. Respondent made inconsistent statements regarding the location of the marijuana on the countertop. At the final hearing, Respondent indicated that the marijuana was spread out into the center of the dark countertop where there was a white paint spot, as shown in one of the photographs in evidence. However, the drawing provided during the course of Respondent's earlier deposition did not indicate that marijuana was spread into the center of the dark countertop where the white paint spot was located. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the location of the shoebox. Respondent placed the shoebox close to the wall where it may have been more difficult for Deputy Snyder to view the box. Deputy Snyder placed the shoebox in the middle of the countertop where it was more easily seen. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the vantage points of Respondent and Deputy Snyder. Respondent placed Deputy Snyder ten to fourteen feet from the shoebox and stated that Deputy Snyder could not see the shoebox or the marijuana from that vantage point. Deputy Snyder placed himself within two to three feet of the shoebox and stated that he had an unobstructed and clear view of the countertop and the shoebox. Deputy Snyder's testimony was consistent with an earlier sworn statement to AID by Respondent indicating that Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham were two to three feet from the shoebox. See Finding of Fact 43. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the amount of marijuana on the countertop. Respondent stated there was a considerable amount or marijuana on the countertop. Deputy Snyder stated there was no marijuana on the countertop except the seed displayed to him by Respondent. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the actions taken by Respondent in looking into the shoebox. Respondent testified that he identified the debris, saw the marijuana in the shoebox, showed the seed to Snyder, and then looked into the shoebox. Deputy Snyder testified that Respondent showed him a seed, shined his light into a hole in the shoebox, and then opened the shoebox. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the actions of Respondent after discovering the marijuana and the shoebox. Respondent claimed he walked from the kitchen into the living and dining area to display the seed to Deputy Snyder. Deputy Snyder testified that Respondent remained in the kitchen and displayed the seed across the countertop. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the issue of whether Respondent had his flashlight out before he looked into the shoebox or removed it in order to look inside the shoebox. Respondent testified he had the flashlight out the entire time he was in the residence. Deputy Snyder stated that Respondent removed the flashlight from his belt in order to look into the shoebox. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the issue of whether Deputy Snyder was on the telephone when Respondent observed the marijuana and shoebox and pointed these items out to Deputy Snyder. Respondent stated that Deputy Snyder was on the telephone when these events occurred. Deputy Snyder testified that he had completed his call by the time Respondent arrived in the kitchen. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding the ability of Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham to be in the dining room and close to the countertop. Respondent claimed that the dining room table and chairs did not allow sufficient room for Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham to be within two or three feet of the countertop in the dining room. Deputy Snyder and other testimony by Respondent concerning the dimensions of the dining room and table and chairs indicated there was sufficient room for Deputy Snyder and Mr. Cunningham to stand in the dining room within two or three feet of the shoebox. The testimony of Respondent differed from that of Deputy Snyder regarding Respondent's testimony that he searched the shoebox, in part, because he was concerned over the existence of booby traps in the shoebox. Deputy Snyder saw no such concern indicated in Respondent’s actions. Respondent's testimony that he was concerned the shoebox contained booby traps is neither credible nor persuasive. Respondent testified that the room was sufficiently well lit to allow him to clearly see the marijuana inside the partially open shoebox without shining his flashlight into the shoebox before opening it. Respondent attempted to explain why he used his flashlight in a well-lit kitchen by expressing concern that the shoebox may have contained booby traps. Regarding the discrepancies between the testimony of Respondent and Deputy Snyder, there is no apparent motive for Deputy Snyder to fabricate his version of the events or to attempt to create any form of disciplinary problem for Respondent. Respondent had no prior experience with Deputy Snyder that would create a reason for Deputy Snyder to be untruthful. Respondent suggested that Deputy Snyder fabricated his report and testimony in exchange for a transfer to a position as a detective. That testimony is neither credible nor persuasive. Deputy Snyder’s transfer occurred months before any concerns arose pertaining to Respondent. There is no evidence that Deputy Snyder played any role in the initiation of the investigation. Deputy Snyder's initial disclosure to his supervisor did not result in any investigation or action against Respondent. The transfer to the detective unit was a lateral transfer without any increase in rank, pay, or benefits. The evaluation system in effect at the Sheriff's Office provided a specific component for self-initiated arrests. The arrest of Mr. Cunningham in this case falls into the category of self-initiated arrests and could have resulted in a positive evaluation component for Respondent, who already had 23 disciplinary points against him. Respondent has a prior disciplinary history. In June 1999, Respondent received a one-day suspension and five disciplinary points for violating rules that are not relevant to this proceeding. In January 2000, Respondent received a three- day suspension and 15 disciplinary points for violating rules that are not relevant to this proceeding. The two violations resulted in 20 progressive points with a range of discipline from reprimand to a three-day suspension. In August 2000, Respondent received a seven-day suspension for violating rules that are not relevant to this proceeding. The violations consisted of three level three violations resulting in the assignment of 40 disciplinary points. The 40 points were combined with ten "modified points" from the prior violations and resulted in a total of 50 progressive points with a range of discipline from a five-day suspension to termination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of conduct unbecoming a public servant and terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard C. Millian, Esquire Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire Tew, Zinober, & Barnes, L.L.P. 2655 McCormick Drive, Prestige Professional Park Clearwater, Florida 33759 B. Norris Rickey, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34756 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186
The Issue Whether Respondent violated chapter 440, Florida Statutes (2016), by failing to secure payment of workers’ compensation coverage, as alleged in the Stop-Work Order (“SWO”) and Third Amended Order of Penalty Assessment (“Third AOPA”); and, if so, whether Petitioner correctly calculated the proposed penalty assessment against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence admitted at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Background The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the Workers' Compensation Law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. The Department is the agency responsible for conducting random inspections of jobsites and investigating complaints concerning potential violations of workers’ compensation rules. Gregg Construction is a corporation engaged in business in the State of Florida. Gregg Construction has been operating as a business since November 9, 2007. William Gregg is the owner of Gregg Construction and its sole employee. The address of record for Gregg Construction is 166 Big White Oak Lane, Crawfordville, Florida 32327. On June 15, 2017, the Department’s investigator, Lewis Johnson, conducted a routine visit to a jobsite to conduct a compliance investigation. Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg use a table saw, measure, and cut a piece of wood. Mr. Johnson then observed Mr. Gregg nail the wood to the exterior wall of the home at the jobsite. After Mr. Johnson inquired about the work Mr. Gregg was performing, Mr. Gregg ultimately told Mr. Johnson that he was working as a subcontractor for Respondent. Based on Mr. Johnson’s observations, Mr. Gregg was performing construction-related work at the job site. Mr. Johnson then conducted a search of the Department’s Coverage and Compliance Automated System (“CCAS”), which revealed that Respondent did not have active workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg. Based on the results of his investigation, on May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson issued a SWO to Respondent for failure to maintain workers’ compensation coverage for its employees. On May 10, 2017, Mr. Johnson hand-served a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculations (“Records Request”) on Respondent. The Records Request directed Respondent to produce business records for the time period of May 10, 2015, through May 11, 2017. While Respondent provided tax returns, it did not provide sufficient business records to the Department. Penalty Assessment To calculate the penalty assessment, the Department uses a two-year auditing period looking back from the date of the SWO, May 10, 2017, also known as the look-back period. Generally, the Department uses business records to calculate the penalty assessment. If the employer does not produce records sufficient to determine payroll for employees, the Department uses imputed payroll to assess the penalty as required by section 440.107(7)(e) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.028. Eunika Jackson, a Department penalty auditor, was assigned to calculate the penalty assessment for Respondent. Based upon Mr. Johnson’s observations at the jobsite on May 10, 2017, Ms. Jackson assigned National Council on Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) classification code 5645 to calculate the penalty. Classification code 5645 applies to work involving carpentry. Ms. Jackson applied the approved manual rates for classification 5645 for the work Mr. Johnson observed Mr. Gregg perform. The application of the rates was utilized by the methodology specified in section 440.107(7)(d)1. and rule 69L- 6.027 to determine the penalty assessment. The manual rate applied in this case was $15.91 for the period of May 11, 2015, through December 31, 2017; and $16.92 for the period of January 1, 2016, through June 10, 2017. The statewide average weekly wage, effective January 1, 2017, was used to calculate the penalty assessment. Mr. Johnson discovered that Mr. Gregg previously held an exemption, which expired on April 26, 2013. Although Mr. Gregg currently has an exemption, his exemption was not in effect during the audit period. On June 6, 2017, the Department issued its first AOPA that ordered Respondent to pay a penalty of $46,087.72, pursuant to section 440.107(7)(d). On August 1, 2017, Petitioner issued the Second AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent, which reduced the penalty assessment to $14,752.62. After this matter was referred to the Division, on January 23, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment and issued the Third AOPA based upon records submitted by Respondent. Based on the Department’s calculation, the record demonstrates that the penalty assessment, based on records provided by Respondent, would be $9,785.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order finding the following: that Respondent failed to secure and maintain workers’ compensation coverage for Mr. Gregg; and that Respondent shall pay a penalty of $9,785.50.1/ DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 23rd day of March, 2018.
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 The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure should be granted.
Findings Of Fact l. Petitioner became a certified law enforcement officer and was employed by the Metro-Dade Police Department in 1981. He worked for that agency through 1994, and his employment was terminated in 1996. During his employment with the Metro-Dade Police Department, he was trained as an investigator and was specifically trained in traffic accident investigation and reconstruction. He subsequently became an instructor for the Department and trained other police officers. During his employment with that agency, he received 12 commendations for good deeds and heroism. Initially, he received above-satisfactory evaluations. During his last seven years, he was rated as an outstanding employee. Although no longer employed by the Police Department, he continues to be used by the Metro-Dade Police Department, by the County Attorney's Office, and by the State Attorney's Office as a consultant on a regular basis and testifies on behalf of those agencies as an expert in traffic accident reconstruction. In 1994 he was charged with several felonies in Broward County. The jury found him not guilty of those charges, but he was convicted of lewd and lascivious behavior on June 10, 1995. The convictions were for five misdemeanors. Petitioner has engaged in no criminal activity either before or after his conviction and continues to maintain his innocence regarding the activity for which he was convicted. Petitioner was given six months' probation and has completed all conditions of that probation. None of the conditions of probation involved contact with people or restrictions on the employment in which he can engage. For the past three years, Petitioner has been employed in an administrative capacity by an investigative and security agency licensed by the Department. For a while he worked there under temporary licensing by the Department without incident. The agency which employs Petitioner performs a substantial amount of investigation and traffic accident reconstruction for insurance carriers. If licensed, Petitioner would perform that work in the field. Petitioner's ability to perform the duties of that employment is enhanced by his extensive educational background and experience. Petitioner even has a degree in photography, which further enhances his ability to perform surveillance, investigations, and traffic accident reconstruction. Petitioner's employers, who are both certified law enforcement officers, rely on Petitioner's "outstanding" investigative abilities and guidance. He is considered very knowledgeable in the requirements of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, the framework for investigative and security services administered by the Department. His skills are considered superior, and he is respectful to all with whom he comes in contact. He conducts himself with the utmost professionalism. Petitioner respects the law and asserts that he has never knowingly broken it. He further respects the rights of others as evidenced by his testimony, the testimony of other law enforcement officers, and the many awards, letters of praise from citizens, and commendations from his superiors admitted in evidence. There is no relationship between the misdemeanors for which Petitioner was convicted and the licenses for which he has made application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner's application and issuing to him a Class "C" Private Investigator license, a Class "D" Security Officer license, and a Class "G" Statewide Firearm license. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: C. Michael Cornely, Esquire Hartman and Cornely, P.A. 10680 Northwest 25 Street, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33172 Kristi Reid Bronson, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza 2 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
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.
