The Issue Whether the Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Land Sales, Condominiums, and Mobile Homes (Respondent or Division), acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying Christian Welvaert’s (Petitioner or Welvaert) application to be licensed as a yacht and ship salesmen under Chapter 326, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating and licensing of yacht and ship brokers under Section 326.002(2), Florida Statutes. On October 16, 2001, Welvaert submitted to the Division his application for licensure as a yacht and ship salesman. Licensure is a privilege granted to individuals who affirmatively demonstrate good moral character. The Division is authorized to, and does in fact investigate an applicant's criminal background if one exists. This is done so that the state may determine if the individual's criminal history is of a nature which would warrant denial of licensure. To facilitate the state's investigation, applicants are asked to fully disclose any criminal history. It is required that this question, and all the questions on the application, be answered truthfully. Welvaert falsely stated on his application that his only criminal background was "traffic offense." A Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) background check revealed that Welvaert had been arrested on several occasions on charges relating to possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia; domestic battery and resisting an officer without violence; probation violation by possessing drug paraphernalia and cannabis; and driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Welvaert did not offer any evidence to contradict the FDLE's findings in any material way. He asserted that he never violated probation, claiming that he didn’t know when his court date was because he had moved. This experience did not teach Welvaert the importance of attending to his legal affairs. In this case, he blamed his landlady for his failure to respond to the Division's Request for Admissions, which was properly served upon him at the address he had on file in this case. Welvaert stated, "I thought the person, the landlady I was staying with, I thought she was going to call me or tell me if I had something this important in the mail. I guess she didn't." Petitioner testified that he has "changed his life around" and is now rehabilitated. While he did not unequivocally deny the drug charges, he implied that he "just [took] the time" on the advice of the presiding judge. He further stated, "It was at someone's house. I was in a college town at the time." Nothing in Welvaert's testimony constitutes a legally or factually sufficient excuse for his failure to disclose his criminal background.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application to be licensed as a yacht and ship salesman’s be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 4th day of November, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. Garwood, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christian P. Welvaert 7 Kenmore Lane Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Ross Fleetwood, Division Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as an Accountant II on December 1, 1987 and in December of 1993, was promoted to Tax Auditor II. In September of 1991, the Respondent received a complaint regarding Petitioner from a taxpayer. The taxpayer alleged that the Petitioner had accused the taxpayer of attempting to sabotage the Petitioner's van. When questioned about the complaint, the Petitioner stated that the taxpayer had attempted to damage his van because the Petitioner had denied the taxpayer's refund claim. The Petitioner's supervisor investigated Petitioner's claims, counseled him and suggested that the Petitioner participate in the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Petitioner declined assistance. In October and November of 1992, the Petitioner began making bizarre allegations about his co-workers and supervisors engaging in outrageous and deviant sexual conduct and activities, and began to behave strangely. The Petitioner told his supervisors that his co-workers were engaging in sex with his mother, aunt, uncle and other members of his family. According to the Petitioner, these sexual activities were taking place in the office. The Petitioner was upset particularly at one co-worker, who Petitioner stated had moved in next door to him or into his neighborhood in order to spy on Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner stated that the "sex police" were observing him at Walmart. The police would get on top of his van to spy on him according to Petitioner. During this time, the Petitioner filed a "sexual harassment" complaint with the Respondent's Inspector General. Petitioner's statement to the investigators repeated the bizarre accusations outlined above regarding his co- workers. After investigating the Petitioner's claim, the Respondent's Inspector General found no evidence to substantiate these allegations and statements. Because the Petitioner's increasingly bizarre behavior, the Respondent became concerned about the Petitioner's ability to perform his duties as a Tax Auditor I. Therefore, the Respondent requested that the Petitioner go to a psychiatrist for an evaluation. The Petitioner agreed and went to the Apalachee Center for Human Services, where he was examined by Dr. Terence Leland, a psychologist and Dr. Inez Bragado-Spence, a psychiatrist. The evaluation consisted of three, one- hour interviews and various written tests. It was understood that the results of this examination would be shared with Respondent. Dr. Leland reported to the Respondent that the Petitioner had made delusional statements of the type made to and investigated by the Inspector General and found to be baseless. The Petitioner reported that co-workers and others were spying on him. The Petitioner reported alleged sexual liaisons at the office between various employees and supervisors. The Petitioner reported plots against him by various conspirators and "hit men" of the Respondent. Dr. Leland's diagnosis was that the Petitioner suffered from a delusional (paranoid) disorder, persecutory type. It was Dr. Leland's opinion that the Petitioner clearly needed treatment. Dr. Leland felt that the Petitioner could not perform his duties without treatment, and recommended requiring treatment as a condition of the Petitioner's continued employment. During this period, the Petitioner's job performance suffered. Based upon Dr. Leland's reports, the Respondent required that the Petitioner obtain treatment as a condition of continued employment. The Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an agreement which required the following as a condition of continued employment: Seeking psychiatric treatment within 40 days. Furnishing documentation that treat- ment had commenced and was continuing for as long as treatment was recommended. Following the prescribed treatment so long as it was recommended. The Petitioner commenced treatment in June of 1993, Dr. Prasad, a psychiatrist, prescribed medication for the control of Petitioner's illness and Suzan Taylor, a counselor associated with Dr. Prasad, held regular counseling sessions with Petitioner. As a result of his treatment, the Petitioner was asymptomatic, his work improved, and he was promoted to Tax Auditor II in December of 1993. In the summer of 1994, approximately one year after commencing treatment, Dr. Prasad and Suzan Taylor began to suspect that the Petitioner was no longer taking his medication when he again began making delusional statements. At the same time, the Petitioner's supervisor began to notice the reoccurrence of Petitioner's prior conduct. When confronted by his doctors in November of 1994 about the failure to take his medication, the Petitioner stated that he had quit taking it. He was given the option of getting shots of the same medication on a regular basis, but he declined. On November 18, 1994, the Petitioner had an altercation with a co- worker and received a one-day suspension. Dr. Prasad had diagnosed the Petitioner as having major depression with psychotic features of persecution and delusion. Dr. Prasad's opinion was that the Petitioner could not perform his essential job functions without treatment. On or about November 21, 1994, the Petitioner told his supervisor that his last visit to Dr. Prasad was on November 16, 1994. Dr. Prasad was contacted by Petitioner's employer, and Dr. Prasad issued a final report dated November 23, 1994, in which she stated that the Petitioner refused to take any further medication or follow her directions; therefore, there was nothing further she could do to help him if he refused her recommended treatment. She did not release Petitioner from treatment. The Respondent issued its proposed letter of termination based upon the Petitioner's refusal to continue treatment contrary to his agreement and the Petitioner's behavior on the job. In a response to the letter of termination, the Petitioner made bizarre statements about the co-worker with whom he had had the altercation with on November 18, 1994. At a pre-determination conference conducted by William Fritchman, the Respondent's Chief of Personnel and Training (at the time), it was suggested that the Petitioner go to another doctor for evaluation and treatment, if necessary. The Petitioner stated that he would not seek further medical help and stated that he would not take any drugs. The Respondent had real concerns about the Petitioner's ability to perform his job duties, his interaction with taxpayers, and potential harm to fellow employees. Based upon Dr. Prasad's diagnosis and opinion that Petitioner required continuing treatment and Petitioner's declining job performance, Mr. Fritchman issued the Final Action Letter of Termination citing the Petitioner's breach of the conditions of employment, as agreed in the letter of April 30, 1993, which constituted insubordination. Petitioner offered no evidence showing he was sexually harassed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's claim be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack E. Franklin Post Office Box 572 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0572 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32311-6668 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense, and if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. Petitioner is a 38-year-old female who seeks to qualify for employment in a position of special trust with Success for All of Florida, Inc., a service provider regulated by the Agency. Because she wishes to work as a direct service provider, Petitioner was required to undergo a background screening. The results of that screening identified a history of criminal offenses, including a disqualifying offense in 2003. Accordingly, Petitioner filed a request for exemption from disqualification, which triggered the instant proceeding. In a letter dated July 27, 2015, the Agency's Director, Barbara Palmer, notified Petitioner that after reviewing all information that led to her disqualification, her exemption request was denied. The letter advised Petitioner that this decision was based upon Petitioner's failure to "submit clear and convincing evidence of [her] rehabilitation." Resp. Ex. C. Before Director Palmer made her decision, Petitioner's request for an exemption was reviewed by a Department of Children and Families screener who compiled a 34-page report entitled "Exemption Review" dated June 10, 2015. See Resp. Ex. B. The packet of information contains Petitioner’s Request for Exemption, Exemption Questionnaire, various criminal records, and two character references. The Exemption Review did not make a recommendation one way or the other, but simply compiled all relevant information that would assist the Director in making her decision. The report was first given to the Agency Regional Operations Manager in Orlando, who reviewed it and then made a preliminary recommendation to the Director. In 2003, Petitioner had a disqualifying offense, Grand Theft, a third-degree felony, which automatically disqualified her from employment in a position of special trust. Around the same time, she committed a second-degree misdemeanor, Trespassing in a Structure or Conveyance, a non-disqualifying offense. Both offenses occurred at a JC Penney store in Lakeland. Petitioner pled guilty to both offenses and was adjudicated guilty. For the felony conviction, she was placed on probation for 25 months, given credit for time served in jail, and ordered to pay various fines and costs. Petitioner was then 26 years old. Petitioner's account of her disqualifying offense differs in several respects from the account memorialized in the Lakeland Police Department reports and is inconsistent with her plea of guilty. In her Exemption Questionnaire, she stated that the criminal offense was actually committed by her younger sister and not her. She wrote that "I didn't tell on my sister because she was only 16 at the time so I took the charge for her." Resp. Ex. A, p. 3. This version of events was never presented to the court. At hearing, she also stated that she pled no contest to the crime, but court records indicate she pled guilty. In January 2004, while on probation for the Grand Theft charge, Petitioner violated her probation by committing a non- disqualifying offense and was sentenced to 60 days in jail. In November 2005, Petitioner violated her probation a second time by testing positive for cocaine during a probationary drug screening. The record is unclear if Petitioner served any jail time for this violation. In September 2012, or approximately three years ago, Petitioner committed the non-disqualifying offense of Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a first-degree misdemeanor. She pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for 12 months, and ordered to pay various fines and costs. At hearing, Petitioner blamed her cousin for the arrest and stated that she was unaware her purse contained drug paraphernalia (a straw and cocaine residue), as she had not used cocaine since 2005. In any event, she stated that her drug of choice was previously ecstasy and not cocaine, and admitted that she had used that drug while working at Success for All in Florida, Inc., from 2001 until around 2005. Between 2006 and 2014, Petitioner was employed as a warehouse worker by Publix. Along with five other workers, she was terminated by Publix in 2014 for improperly accepting damaged merchandise from a co-worker. There is no record of any employment since that time. Petitioner blamed her criminal arrests on stress in her life, mainly due to a lack of family support and raising two children as a single parent, and being just "plain stupid" while she was young. She expressed remorse for her mistakes and now wishes to help others as a direct service provider. Three witnesses testified on Petitioner's behalf. They described her as being a good worker, a caring individual, dependable, and very determined to improve her life. The Agency's rationale for denying the application is Petitioner's failure to take responsibility for her actions, that is, blaming her arrests on others, and a failure to provide a truthful and full account of the circumstances surrounding her disqualifying offense. The Agency also expressed concerns over Petitioner's lack of specificity regarding her criminal background, and the short period of time (three years) since her latest arrest, albeit for a non-disqualifying offense. Finally, the Agency noted that Petitioner has never had counseling, she lacks any specialized training, and there is no record of employment since being terminated by Publix more than a year ago.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. De La Paz, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) LaShae Thomas 3217 Julia Court Lakeland, Florida 33810-5510 Michael Sauve, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 430 Orlando, Florida 32801-1764 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Mitchell is a highway construction contractor with its principal place of business located in Tallahassee, Florida. FDOT is the agency of the state of Florida which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the roads designated as part of the State Highway System. On July 15, 1994, the parties entered into Contract No. 18,784 (contract) which required Mitchell to resurface the existing roadway, construct four (4) foot wide paved shoulders and perform other related work for $626,347.44 in State Project No. 59100-3512 (project) in Wakulla County, Florida. The contract incorporated by reference special provisions attached thereto and FDOT's Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction (1991) (Standard Specifications). The contract required Mitchell to complete the project within 84 calendar days. Construction began on August 31, 1994, which was contract day one (1). In order to construct and pave the shoulders, Mitchell had to remove the top soil and stabilize the subgrade. After removing the top soil, Mitchell hauled borrow material to the project site. Mitchell spread the borrow along the roadside and mixed it with the existing sub-soil. Mitchell then attempted to attain a certain required density by compacting the shoulders. Mitchell hauled borrow to the project site from October 5, 1994, through October 8, 1994, and on October 13, 1994. Mitchell rolled the surface of the shoulders on October 18, and 20-22, 1994. The contractor was unable compact the subgrade to the required density. On or about October 22, 1994, FDOT refused to pay Mitchell for additional material to reestablish grade on the shoulders. From approximately October 24, 1994, through November 11, 1994, Mitchell remixed and compressed the subgrade soil in an unsuccessful attempt to stabilize the shoulders. From October 25, 1994, through November 7, 1994, Mitchell wrote at least four (4) letters to FDOT discussing the problems at the project site in achieving required density and stabilization of the subgrade on the shoulders. These letters are not a part of the record in this case. However, the hearing transcript from February 15, 1995, clearly shows Mitchell's position: (1) Plastic materials beneath the subgrade (unexpected conditions not contemplated under the contract) were causing a delay on the project and preventing Mitchell from achieving the required density and stabilization of the subgrade; (2) Mitchell would have to excavate the plastic material and haul in additional borrow to reestablish the grade of the shoulders before stabilization could be obtained; (3) Mitchell needed an extension of time in which to complete the project; and (4) Mitchell wanted FDOT to pay for the expenses (not covered under the contract) that Mitchell would incur in curing the problem. On or about November 11, 1994, Mitchell informed FDOT in writing that Mitchell was suspending work on the project. Mitchell suspended work without obtaining FDOT's approval as required by the contract. By letter dated November 14, 1994, FDOT responded to Mitchell's four (4) letters. FDOT's letter did not specifically deny each of Mitchell's requests but made it clear that Mitchell's claims were unsubstantiated. FDOT took the position that Mitchell created the problems with compaction by failing to follow FDOT procedures: (1) Prior to hauling in stabilizing material, Mitchell did not submit a sample of the existing on-site material so that a lime rock bearing ratio (LBR) could be established to determine how much, if any, stabilizing material would be needed to obtain the required LBR; (2) Mitchell did not submit samples or get FDOT's approval of the material used for stabilization before spreading and mixing it on the project site; (3) Mitchell did not sufficiently mix the material used for stabilization so that density could be obtained; (4) Soil samples of the material beneath the area being stabilized, to a depth of approximately three and one half feet, indicated that it was suitable for compaction; (5) The sources of borrow material used in attempting to stabilize the subgrade were not approved as required by the contract; (6) Mitchell added unapproved material, in excess of what was required, to the borrow material hauled to the project site. FDOT wrote this November 14, 1994, letter after investigating the problem and performing certain field and laboratory soil tests. On December 12, 1994, Stephen Benak, District Construction Engineer for FDOT, made a visit to the project site to conduct further investigation. Later that day the parties had a meeting. Mitchell again explained to FDOT that unexpected conditions at the job site were causing problems and preventing the contractor from obtaining density requirements on the subgrade. FDOT again informed Mitchell: (1) The unapproved borrow material that Mitchell previously hauled to the project site was unsuitable and causing the problem; and (2) Mitchell's proposal to under-cut (excavate and haul more borrow material) was a drastic cure and not compensable under the contract. Mitchell did not immediately return to work on the project. With credit for twenty-four (24) rain days, the contract performance time increased to 108 calendar days. Taking the rain days and intervening holidays into consideration, FDOT determined that the contract term expired on December 20, 1994. Mitchell did not return to work at the project site until December 23, 1994. By letter dated December 29, 1994, FDOT gave Mitchell notice of the agency's intent to declare Mitchell delinquent on the project and to suspend its Certificate of Qualification and that of all its subsidiaries. This letter states that Mitchell was making unsatisfactory progress on the contract because the contract time had expired and the work was not complete. The letter refers to section 8-8.2 of FDOT's Standard Specifications and Rule 14- 23, Florida Administrative Code. On January 12, 1995, Mitchell filed a Request for Formal Hearing without making an additional request for extension of contract time. This petition states: Mitchell Brothers has filed timely requests for extension of contract time due to the delays resulting from the lack of constructability and differing site conditions of the project. Therefore, the Department's issuance of the notice of delinquency is invalid. After receiving Mitchell's request for hearing, FDOT designated Tom Kinsella, Esquire, as counsel for the agency. By letter dated January 23, 1995, Mr. Kinsella referred Mitchell's request for a hearing to DOAH. The Hearing Officer issued a Notice of Hearing on January 27, 1995, setting this matter for hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 on February 8, 1995. In order to allow the parties sufficient time for discovery, the Hearing Officer subsequently rescheduled the case for hearing on February 15 and 16, 1995. The parties took depositions every day from February 2, 1995, to February 13, 1995. Bill Carpenter, FDOT's Project Engineer on the project at issue here, was the first deponent. Prior to Mr. Carpenter's deposition, Mr. Kinsella inquired as to whether there were any outstanding time requests. Mr. Carpenter assured Mr. Kinsella that FDOT had addressed and denied all outstanding time requests in FDOT's letter dated November 14, 1995. At the formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 on February 15, 1995, Mr. Benak testified on FDOT's behalf. On direct examination, Mr. Benak testified that Mitchell made no "proper" requests for contract time extensions. During cross-examination, Mitchell questioned Mr. Benak concerning Mitchell's letters written between October 25, 1994, and November 7, 1994. Initially, Mr. Benak testified that Mitchell's letters were not "formal" requests for extension of contract time. The Hearing Officer ruled that two of these letters contained preliminary requests for extension of contract time. Mr. Benak subsequently questioned whether Mitchell's letters were timely pursuant to section 8-7.3.2, Standard Specifications. Without resolving the issue of timeliness, Mr. Benak conceded that the delay was on-going and that the agency had never written to Mitchell requesting more specific information about the delay, i.e. all documentation of the delay and a request for the exact number of days justified to be added to the contract time. Therefore Mitchell was never required to submit a more formal request for contract time extensions. However, Mr. Benak never conceded that Mitchell's preliminary requests were pending at the time the agency issued its notice of intent to declare Mitchell delinquent or that the agency failed to follow its own procedures before issuing that notice. Mr. Benak maintained that the contract did not provide for extensions of contract time for delays due to the fault or negligence of the contractor. He testified that FDOT's letter dated November 14, 1994, effectively denied Mitchell's pending preliminary requests for time extensions and informed Mitchell that the delay was due to the contractor's fault or negligence. Accordingly, FDOT was not required to solicit further information from Mitchell before issuing the December 29, 1994, delinquency letter. As the hearing on February 15, 1995, progressed, it became apparent that the parties disputed a variety issues involving mixed question of fact and law. In ruling on an objection which is not at issue here, the Hearing Officer stated: * * It seems to me the more pertinent, you know, a much more pertinent area -- and we haven't addressed this in terms of the Department's procedures, that would start a request for extension of time, and it appears that the Department has never acted on that. And you've raised a very interesting matter, and that is under the rules, apparently if that process has been initiated, you can't go to delinquency, which means that this activity, this that they've tried to initiate, lacks the appropriate legal predicate. That's a good point. After the hearing in DOAH Case No. 95-289 recessed on February 15, 1995, Mr. Kinsella advised Mitchell's counsel that FDOT would withdraw the delinquency. Mr. Kinsella wanted to alert Mitchell that it was unnecessary for witnesses to attend the hearing the next day. When the hearing resumed on February 16, 1995, FDOT filed its Notice of Withdrawal of Notice of Delinquency and Motion for Relinquishment and Remand of Jurisdiction. The motion states, "The Department is now withdrawing it (sic) notice of intent to declare delinquincy without prejudice, it appearing that all of Mitchell Brothers, Inc., requests for additional time may not have been addressed by the Department." However, competent persuasive record evidence indicates that FDOT made this determination based on the Hearing Officer's prior rulings and statements during the hearing on February 15, 1995. Mr. Kinsella stated on the record: * * After the conclusion of the hearing yesterday on the basis of the matters that came up in terms of whether the preliminary requests for time extensions have been properly met by the Department and evaluated and addressed in the correspondence as pointed out by the Court, we went back and evaluated, and determined that we don't believe those have been fairly met and addressed by the Department, and that this delinquency was premature for that reason. Counsel for Mitchell did not object to the motion to relinquish jurisdiction but requested an opportunity to submit a proposed order. The Hearing Officer stated that Mitchell could file a motion to submit a proposed order and that FDOT would have an opportunity to respond to that motion. The Hearing Officer did not set a date certain for the filing of the posthearing motion but Mitchell's counsel stated that the motion would be filed in a very brief time, within a day or two. February 16, 1995, was a Thursday. The following Monday, February 20, 1995, Mitchell filed a Motion to Permit Submittal of Proposed Findings and for Entry of a Recommended Order, a proposed recommended order for the Hearing Officer's signature, and a Motion for Attorney's Fees. DOAH's Clerk docketed Mitchell's motion to submit proposed findings and the proposed recommended order in DOAH Case No. 95-289. The Clerk docketed Mitchell's motion for attorney's fees under DOAH Case No. 95-1096F. That same day, the Hearing Officer entered an Order Closing File which did not retain jurisdiction over any issue in DOAH Case No. 95-289. Subsequent relevant pleadings and procedures arising in the instant case between February 20, 1995, and June 14, 1995, are set forth above in the Preliminary Statement and incorporated herein. The record indicates that the parties were at an impasse when Mitchell suspended work on the project on or about November 11, 1994. After FDOT's November 14, 1994, letter and the meeting on December 12, 1994, the parties certainly were aware of each other's positions, and were deadlocked as to the reason for the delay in stabilizing the subgrade. The dispute between them involved multiple questions of fact and law which are not at issue here. FDOT's December 29, 1994, delinquency letter gave Mitchell what it was entitled to, i.e., a point-of-entry to challenge, in an administrative proceeding, FDOT's position that Mitchell created the conditions causing the delay in stabilizing the subgrade. FDOT had a reasonably clear legal justification for issuing that letter based on sections 8-7.3.2 and 8-8.2 of FDOT's Standard Specifications and Rule 14-23, Florida Administrative Code. The delinquency letter was not issued and subsequently filed with DOAH for an improper or frivolous purpose. As of February 15, 1995, the 165th calendar day of the project, Mitchell continued to work on the project which was only 36 percent complete and which FDOT had not conditionally accepted. Mitchell has incurred $44,408.50 in attorney's fees and $18,071.13 in cost in litigating DOAH Case No. 95-289 and DOAH Case No. 95-1096F. Mitchell is also obligated to pay $1,045.00 to Carolyn Raepple, Esquire, who testified concerning the reasonableness of the fees and costs that Mitchell incurred in DOAH Case Nos. 95-289 and 95-1096F. FDOT has presented no evidence to rebut the reasonableness of these fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact 6. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 2"4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, 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 Financial 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, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-283-1A, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On October 8, 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. 09-283-1A to CHARLES M. EIDENS, JAMES A. HABAN , RITA ZARNIK, AND RICHARD E. EIDENS, d/b/a PAINT BUSTERS OF THE EMERALD COAST, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PAIN T BUSTERS OF THE EMERALD COAST, INC. (“PAINTBUSTERS”). The Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached as “Exhibit 1” and fully incorporated by reference. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on October 8, 2009, on PAINTBUSTERS. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein PAINTBUSTERS was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On November 13, 2009, the Department served by certified mail an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on PAINTBUSTERS. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 2” and fully incorporated herein by reference. The penalty assessed on PAINTBUSTERS was $98,242.15. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a i Notice of Rights wherein PAINTBUSTERS was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 3. On November 24, 2009, PAINTBUSTERS submitted a Request for F ormal Hearing (“Petition”). The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) and assigned DOAH case number 09-6634. 4. On January 8, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Department’s Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. The 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment superseded the original Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and increased the penalty to $98,336.87. A copy of the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 3” and fully incorporated by reference. 5. On March 25, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File in Case No. 09-6634 as a result of PAINTBUSTERS failing to comply with DOAH’s request for a Status Report. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit 4” and fully incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner has established rehabilitation following a disqualifying offense in order to obtain an exemption pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes (2017), in order to hold a position of trust.
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency that licenses and regulates the employment of persons in positions of trust with respect to the vulnerable population of developmentally disabled adults and children. In order to qualify for a position of trust, Petitioner was required to submit to a level 2 background screening pursuant to section 435.04. Petitioner submitted to a background screening, as required. The screening revealed that Petitioner was ineligible for employment in a position of trust. Specifically, Petitioner had three disqualifying events: (1) on or about November 9, 2005, he pled guilty to grand theft, a third-degree felony, for which adjudication was withheld; (2) on or about January 31, 2012, he pled guilty and guilt was found for grand theft, a third-degree felony; and (3) on or about January 31, 2012, he pled guilty to dealing in stolen property, a felony, for which adjudication was withheld. All three were felonies under sections 812.019 and 812.014, Florida Statutes. All three of the offenses listed above are offenses that would disqualify Petitioner from employment in a position of trust. In addition, also on January 31, 2012, Petitioner pled guilty to and adjudication was withheld to fraud-false statement- false information on Secondary Metals Recycler, a felony pursuant to section 538.23, Florida Statutes. This offense is not a disqualifying offense. On March 6, 2017, Petitioner filed a request for exemption with the Agency in order to seek employment at an entity called Miracles in Motion, which serves persons with disabilities. Petitioner's request for exemption application and accompanying materials were reviewed by APD's regional office, its State Exemption Review Committee, and APD's director. The regional office reviews all material compiled by the Department of Children and Families and APD, including arrest reports, court documents, information provided by the applicant, information provided by the Florida Safe Families Network, and any other information that may be available. The regional office sends its recommendation, in this case a recommendation to deny the application, to the State Exemption Review Committee, which also reviews all of the material compiled regarding the application. The State Exemption Review Committee makes an independent recommendation based on the materials provided. In this case, the recommendation was for denial of the exemption. Both recommendations, along with the entire application, were forwarded to the director of the Agency, who made a final determination to deny Petitioner's application. Ms. Danielle Jones, a management review specialist with APD, testified regarding the State Exemption Review Committee's process in reviewing the application. The Committee looks at the applicant's explanation of the disqualifying offenses, and in this case, had concerns that Petitioner was not forthcoming in his answers regarding his criminal history, and that his story appeared to change several times regarding those offenses. Ultimately, the regional office staff, the State Exemption Review Committee, and the director felt that Petitioner did not present adequate evidence of rehabilitation. Petitioner testified at hearing that he felt he has been rehabilitated since the day the offenses were committed, because he “knew in his heart” that he would not commit such an offense again. Since his disqualifying offenses, he has taken a course to become a certified nursing assistant (C.N.A.), but has not taken the C.N.A. examination because of his criminal history. He is currently working at a Wal-Mart. Petitioner presented the testimony of two former employers, who both testified in terms of his character. Both men appeared to hold Petitioner in high regard. Neither man was aware of his criminal history. Petitioner presented no persuasive evidence in terms of local volunteer efforts or community involvement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 18th day of June, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence Johnson 715 Cristelle Jean Drive North Ruskin, Florida 33570 Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Gypsy Bailey, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 335E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner has been rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s); and, if so, whether the intended action to deny Petitioner's exemption request pursuant to section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ would constitute an abuse of discretion by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the following material Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner was a 52-year-old female who sought to qualify, pursuant to section 435.07, for employment in a position of trust as a direct service provider for physically or mentally disabled adults or children. This position requires the successful completion of a Level 2 background screening. See § 435.04, Fla. Stat. APD is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust. Specifically, the mission of the Agency includes serving and protecting the vulnerable population, including children or adults with developmental disabilities. In conformance with the statute, Petitioner was screened by APD since she applied for a position of special trust as a direct service provider of APD. The screening revealed, and the parties stipulated at the hearing, that Petitioner was convicted of the following disqualifying offenses: Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1987 Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1987 Forgery (4 counts)--Felonies--1993 Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1993 Battery-Family Violence--Misdemeanor-- 1996 Forgery--Felony--1998 The stipulation also included the fact that 17 years have elapsed since the last disqualifying offense was committed. The screening revealed, and the parties also stipulated at the hearing, that Petitioner was arrested or convicted of the following non-disqualifying offenses: Simple Battery--Misdemeanor--arrested-- dismissed--1987 Theft by Conversion--convicted--1993 Driving Under the Influence--convicted-- 1994 Criminal Trespass--Misdemeanor-- convicted--2000 The stipulation also included the fact that 15 years have elapsed since the last non-disqualifying arrest or conviction was committed. Rosita Martin At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was unemployed. She had last been employed at Martin's Group Home as a caregiver of vulnerable children who had disabilities or behavioral problems. Her duties included giving out medicines, assisting clients with bathing, and taking kids on outings and to church. She also helped to cook. She explained that most of her convictions occurred during a period of her life when she was in an abusive marriage and suffered from depression. She acknowledged that, during that time period, she was abusing drugs (cocaine) and alcohol. During that same period of time, she admitted that she had purchased and also possessed marijuana. She explained that her battery conviction in 1996 related to a domestic dispute with her husband. She called the police, and they took them both to jail. Although she said she was defending herself, she admitted that she had been convicted and found guilty of battery. Petitioner testified that she is a "good girl now." She attends church every Sunday and "left her problems with drugs." She got sick and tired and "told God to take it away from me and he did." Petitioner testified that she has not used any type of illegal drugs for 20 years. Her sister operates four group homes for children with disabilities. Petitioner worked at one of the homes, and her sister wrote her a letter of support in this case. The evidence was undisputed that she received "excellent" evaluations while at Martin Group Home. Currently, she lives with her daughter, and a granddaughter who is two years old. As a result of one of Petitioner's various felony convictions, she testified that she was ordered to attend in- house drug treatment at the Willingway Hospital in Statesboro, Georgia. Upon questioning by the undersigned, Petitioner stated that she was in rehabilitation at the hospital for "like 6 months" back in the 1990's.2/ The various letters of support and reference provided by Petitioner came from her relatives. These included her sister and father. The record reflects that Petitioner attended and successfully completed numerous training courses (e.g. medicine administration, CPR training, blood borne pathogens, HIV safeguards, etc.) that related to the caretaker work she performs.3/ Other than two certificates for domestic violence training in 2011 and 2012, the other training and educational completion certificates did not relate to treatment or counseling programs related to her drug use, alcohol use, psychological counseling, or financial training-–the personal issues she struggled with in her past when the disqualifying events took place. The evidence reflected that she had numerous and chronic driving violations, pertaining primarily to failing to pay road tolls. She claimed that all of these toll violations occurred when her daughter was driving her car.4/ On cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that she failed to provide a detailed version of the facts or a full explanation for each criminal offense listed on her exemption form.5/ Petitioner claimed that she was "new at this" and did not understand the details she was supposed to provide. For the criminal offenses involving theft of property, she claimed on the form, and testified, that there was "no harm" to the victim. Again, she claimed some confusion and stated that she thought that they were talking about harm in the "violent" sense. She was also cross-examined about the six-month drug treatment program that she testified she had attended at Willingway Hospital. She was asked why she did not provide that information to the Agency in the exemption form or provide the agency with a copy of a completion certificate. Inexplicably, she was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation during the hearing for why she did not disclose the drug treatment program on the exemption questionnaire. She claimed that since the court had ordered her into treatment, she did not think it was necessary to specifically list or describe it. She was asked why she was not able to provide a letter of recommendation from her church pastor. She did not provide an adequate explanation and simply stated that she attends church but is not a church member, that she just goes to church there every Sunday. She worked briefly at a company called Best Walks of Life. Her supervisor was her son, Mr. Walker. No details were provided concerning what she did there. She acknowledged that much of her criminal activity arose from or was related to problems with monetary or financial issues; yet, she conceded that she had not taken any financial courses or other classes to obtain financial or budgeting training or counseling. After working for her sister at Martin Group Home, she has not made any attempts to work in any other places or group homes since leaving. Darnisha Johnson Petitioner is her mother. The witness is 24 years old and lives with her daughter at her mother's house. She testified that her mother is "a great person today. She's great." She also stated that her mother is a "much better person" then when she was involved in criminal activity.6/ She also felt that her mother is not using any drugs now. She acknowledged that she has a car, but that it is in her mother's name. In the context of who pays the bills today and supports her financially, she characterized her mother's role as being her "support system." She also admitted that any failures to pay tolls while driving the vehicle registered in her mother's name were her responsibility. Molita Cunningham She is a friend of Petitioner's. She works as a certified nursing assistant and is certified as such with the State of Florida. She has known Petitioner for a little over three years and met her at a Family Dollar store. She wrote a letter of support for Petitioner. She was not aware of any facts to suggest that Petitioner was engaged in criminal activity, drug abuse, or abuse of her clients in any manner. She acknowledged she had a background similar to Petitioner's. She was "out there in the streets" and is a convicted felon. Other than being a general character witness, the witness offered no substantive evidence touching upon Petitioner's rehabilitation from the disqualifying offenses. Evelyn Alvarez Ms. Alvarez is employed with the Agency as the regional operations manager for the Southern Region.7/ She obtained a master's degree in public administration from Florida International University in 2000. APD serves individuals that have specific developmental disabilities. The disabilities include intellectual disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and the like. Her role in this case was to review the background information gathered by both the Department of Children and Families and APD on Petitioner. After her review, the package of information was sent to an exemption committee. That committee then independently reviewed the exemption package and made its own recommendation to the Director of APD. Before deciding on the exemption request, the Director reviewed both Ms. Alvarez's recommendation and the recommendation of the exemption committee. She correctly acknowledged that the applicant for an exemption from disqualification must prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. She also correctly noted that the Agency should consider the circumstances of the disqualifying offense(s), the nature of the harm caused to any victims involved, the history of the employee since the incident and any other evidence indicating that the employee will not present a danger to the vulnerable or disabled adults or children they serve. APD was concerned that Petitioner failed to follow directions and provide the details for each disqualifying criminal event.8/ Also, Ms. Alvarez was concerned that Petitioner's failure to acknowledge that someone was "harmed" by the theft or forgery crimes ignores that there were victims involved, and the response fails to show an acceptance of responsibility for the crime(s). Ms. Alvarez testified that the Agency has no idea what happened with each of the disqualifying events, or of any circumstances that were happening at the time that would allow APD to understand why Petitioner would commit the offenses, and that there was no acknowledgment of any harm to any victims. In the opinion of Ms. Alvarez, the training certificates provided by Petitioner were not persuasive evidence of rehabilitation. More specifically, they were only indicative of employment training and did not include anything in terms of addressing Petitioner's substance abuse issues, her inability to manage her finances, or her involvement in acts of domestic violence. In APD's opinion, the lack of any treatment or professional counseling for those issues militated against a finding of rehabilitation. Likewise, Petitioner did not describe her alleged six- month, in-house drug rehabilitation program in the exemption application, nor was there any certificate of completion of drug treatment provided. APD concluded that Petitioner used poor judgment during an incident when she invited her friend, Ms. Cunningham, to spend a day on the job at Martin Group Home with Petitioner's disabled and vulnerable children. APD felt that this was a breach of client confidentiality, HIPAA rights, and may have put some of the children at risk around a visitor who did not have a background check or clearance to be at the facility. There were no professional references or letters of support offered by Petitioner from past employers (other than from group homes involving her relative). Likewise, there were no letters attesting to her good moral character from her church or other faith-based relationships she may have established. Ms. Alvarez testified that the reason the Agency wants letters of reference from individuals who do not have a conflict of interest is to show her character. Examples of letters of reference would be from a pastor or from an organization where someone had volunteered. The letters provided by Petitioner, while useful, did not reflect an impartial view of her character.9/ The Agency determined that it had no basis of reference for the character of Petitioner due to her failure to provide more impartial references.10/ In Ms. Alvarez's opinion, after reviewing the completed application, Petitioner had not provided any evidence, and APD had no knowledge, to support a finding of rehabilitation. Furthermore, APD did not have any knowledge of any financial planning or budgeting courses that Petitioner may have taken to show rehabilitation in the area of her finances. APD considered it significant during its review that Petitioner had been charged with driving while license suspended ("DWLS") (a criminal traffic offense) in 2012 and again in 2013, less than two years before the application. (Both DWLS offenses were subsequently dismissed.) Respondent's Exhibit 9, Petitioner's Florida Comprehensive Case Information System driving record, reflects in excess of 20 failures to pay required highway tolls in a two-year period from 2012 to 2013.11/ Petitioner did not provide any explanation for her driver's license problems to the Agency at the time of her Exemption Application. The Agency had no knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the DWLS citations. Ms. Alvarez testified that traffic offenses and driving habits are important considerations, since direct service providers are often required to transport persons with developmental disabilities In essence, APD concluded that Petitioner had fallen short of her burden of showing rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities confirm its previous intended denial and enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2016, 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 27th day of July, 2016.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's employment with the Respondent was terminated in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was an employee of FRSA. On or about September 26, 1989, Petitioner's employment with FRSA was terminated and the charges of discrimination were filed. Prior to termination, Petitioner's work performance with the company had been acceptable. In fact, for the performance review issued on January 31, 1989, Petitioner received a superior rating in eight of the eleven categories, a good rating in two categories, and an outstanding rating in one category. At the time of her termination with FRSA, Petitioner earned an annual salary of $35,000. Petitioner claims a total of $83,568 for the lost wages and benefits resulting from her termination with FRSA. At the time of her termination, Petitioner was pregnant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the charge of discrimination filed by the Petitioner in this cause against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Rubeis Reno Rubeis 4350 Wyndcliff Circle Orlando, Florida 32817 Susan McKenna Garwood & McKenna, P.A. 322 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1992. Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
