Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the request for formal hearing filed by petitioner, Ronald McGahee. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of October 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Jayne C. Weintraub, Esquire 330 Biscayne Boulevard Penthouse Miami, Florida 33132 Donald Papy, Esquire 19 West Flagler Street Suite 802 Miami, Florida 33130 Joseph S. White, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcment Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the Final Hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: On March 3, 1994 Petitioner submitted to the Department an application for licensure as a Limited Surety Agent (Bail Bondsman). In a Denial Letter dated July 20, 1994, the Department notified Petitioner that his application for licensure was denied. The basis for the Department's denial of Petitioner's application was Petitioner's past felony convictions. The evidence established that on or about December 4, 1980, Petitioner was charged in the Circuit Court for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Case Number 80-105 (the "First State Case"), with trafficking in illegal drugs and the use of a firearm during the commission of a felony in violation of Sections 893.135 and 790.07, Florida Statutes. On June 5, 1981, Petitioner pled no contest in the First State Case to trafficking in excess of two thousand (2,000) pounds, but less than ten thousand (10,000) pounds of cannabis. Petitioner was fined and placed on probation for ten (10) years. On or about June 14, 1981, Petitioner was charged in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Numbers 83-6033-CR-EPS and 83-6038-CR-NCR (the "Federal Cases"), with five felony counts of possession with intent to distribute illegal drugs and conspiracy to import illegal drugs into the United States of America, in violation of Title 21, Sections 841(a)(1), 846, 952(a), 960(a), 963, and 843(b), United States Code. On or about November 5, 1981, Petitioner was charged in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Case Number 81-1191 CFG (the "Second State Case") with violation of the Florida Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO"), Section 943.462, Florida Statutes. Although the exact timing is not clear, at some point after his arrest, Petitioner began cooperating with authorities which led to plea bargains and a sentence which did not include any jail time. On April 4, 1984, Petitioner pled guilty to one count in each of the Federal Cases to attempt and conspiracy to import marijuana and methaqualaudes into the United States of America. As a result of his plea in the Federal Cases, Petitioner was fined and placed on 5 years probation. On April 6, 1984, Petitioner pled guilty in the Second State Case, was fined $7,500.00 and placed on probation for fifteen (15) years. This plea was negotiated as part of the plea in the Federal Cases. Petitioner's probation from the First State Case was terminated May 20, 1988. Petitioner's probation from the Federal Cases was terminated on April 21, 1989 and September 11, 1989. Petitioner's civil rights were restored pursuant to Executive Orders of the Office of Executive Clemency dated May 19, 1989 and May 23, 1990. It is not clear from the record if the Executive Orders constitute a "full pardon" as suggested by counsel for Petitioner at the hearing in this matter. Petitioner down plays his role in the elaborate criminal scheme that led to his arrests and convictions. He suggests that all of the charges were related to the same scheme. Insufficient evidence was presented to reach any conclusions regarding the underlying criminal activity and/or Petitioner's exact involvement. Petitioner has been very active in community affairs since his convictions. He has apparently been a good family man and claims to have rehabilitated himself. Subsequent to his conviction, Petitioner and three other investors started a bail bond business. Petitioner claims he did not play an active role in the business. However, when the Department learned of his involvement, it required Petitioner to terminate any affiliation with the company. Petitioner's wife currently owns a bail bond company. Petitioner operates a "court services" business out of the same building where his wife's bail bond business operates. No evidence was presented of any improper involvement by Petitioner in his wife's business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Limited Surety Agent. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-4893 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Subordinate to findings of fact 4 through 10. Subordinate to findings of fact 13. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in the Preliminary Statement. Rejected as vague and unnecessary. Subordinate to findings of fact 14 and 15. Subordinate to findings of fact 14 and 15. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Adopted in substance in findings of fact 1. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2. Adopted in substance in findings of fact 2 through 10. Subordinate to findings of fact 14. Rejected as argumentative and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Dan Sumner Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Julio Gutierrez, Esq. 2225 Coral Way Miami, FL 33145 Allen R. Moayad, Esq. Florida Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint with leave to file an amended administrative complaint alleging post-licensure misconduct only, within twenty days of the order of dismissal. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire P. O. Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert Dempsey, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent, G and F Renovations, Inc. (Respondent), timely challenged Petitioner's proposed agency action; and, if not, whether pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling Respondent is entitled to an administrative hearing to challenge the proposed agency action.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of enforcing and ensuring employers meet the requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The law in Florida requires employers to maintain appropriate workers' compensation coverage for their employees. At all times material to this case, Respondent was doing business in Florida and was represented by Pedro Malaret, attorney at law. Prior to May 1, 2014, Michael Robinson, a compliance investigator employed by Petitioner, visited a job site wherein workers were engaged in the business of construction/roofing. Robinson was advised by the workers at the site that they were employed by Respondent. Robinson then investigated the matter to determine whether the persons at the job site were covered by Respondent's workers' compensation insurance. To do so, he spoke to the supervisor at the site and others to whom he was referred. After verifying the persons on the job site were not on the list of Respondent's covered employees, and consulting with his supervisor, Robinson posted a Stop-Work Order at the job site. The Stop-Work Order provided, in pertinent part: You have a right to administrative review of this action by the Department under sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. To obtain review, you must file a written petition requesting review. If you dispute a material fact contained in this action, you are entitled to a hearing under Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, at which you may be represented by counsel, present evidence and argument on the issue(s), examine witnesses, submit a proposed recommended order, and file exceptions to the recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge. If you do not dispute a material fact contained in this action, you are entitled to a hearing under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, at which you may be represented by counsel, present documentary evidence, and present a written statement in opposition to this action. * * * You must file the petition for hearing so that it is received by the Department within twenty-one (21) days of your receipt of this agency action. The petition must be filed with Julie Jones, DFS Agency Clerk, Department of Financial Services, 612 Larson Building, 200 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390. FAILURE TO FILE A PETITION WITH THE TWENTY-ONE(21) DAYS CONSTITUTES A WAIVER OF YOUR RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE AGENCY ACTION. The Stop-Work Order and an Order of Penalty Assessment was served on Respondent's corporate agent, or authorized agent, by a process server. Respondent did not timely file a petition challenging the agency's proposed action. Instead, by email only, Respondent's counsel directed a letter to Robinson that provided: This firm has the pleasure of representing G & F Renovations, Inc. All papers to be served on G & F should be mailed or delivered to this office. My client wishes to resolve all issues relating to the matter amicably and as quickly as possible. As such, please forward a list of all documents needed to my office so that I may get them to you as soon as possible. Should you require any further documentation, please feel free to contact me either at my office or on my cell . . . I look forward to working with your [sic] to resolve this matter. Contrary to the offer to provide documents to Petitioner, Respondent did not provide business records. Eventually, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was issued and provided by email to Respondent's counsel at his email address of record. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was sent to counsel on or about October 6, 2014. Respondent did not timely file a petition to challenge the proposed agency action. Respondent did not timely challenge the Stop-Work Order and did not timely challenge the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. Respondent did not provide any assistance to resolve the issues presented by the Stop-Work Order. When Respondent failed to timely respond to the Petitioner's requests for information, refused certified mail addressed to its office or corporate representative, and failed to timely challenge Petitioner's proposed action, a final order was entered on or about July 8, 2015. Thereafter, Respondent filed an appeal claiming Petitioner had not properly served notice of its proposed action. This case was initiated in response to the appeal to address the issue of whether the Petitioner lulled the Respondent into inaction and thereby tolled the time within which to file an administrative challenge to the proposed agency action. At no time did Respondent deny allegations pertinent to the instant case, including whether the workers at the construction job site were employed by Respondent. If the workers at the construction job site were appropriately covered by workers' compensation insurance or were exempt from coverage, Respondent did not assert such defense. In fact, Respondent did not cooperate to provide any information to Petitioner that would "resolve all issues relating to the matter amicably and as quickly as possible." Petitioner provided notice to Respondent of the procedural requirements to challenge the agency action and did not lull Respondent into a false sense of security or inaction. To the contrary, Respondent attempted to circumvent its legal responsibilities by refusing certified mail and failing to provide business records in a timely manner. Respondent seeks to benefit from its inaction. Had Respondent provided documents to support any defense to the Stop-Work Order and initial assessment of administrative fine, the issues could have been resolved. The weight of the credible evidence supports the finding that Respondent did not timely challenge the proposed agency action within the 21 days allowed by law. In short, Respondent ignored the Stop-Work Order and the legal claims it presented.
Recommendation Based upon 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 determining that Respondent failed to timely file a petition to challenge the agency's proposed action and its failure to do so was not the result of equitable tolling. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 6th day of December, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Joseph Gordon, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Kelli B. Hastings, Esquire Law Office of Kelli B. Hastings, PLLC 4005 North Orange Blossom Trail Orlando, Florida 32804 (eServed) Pedro Malaret, Esquire Malaret Law Firm, PLC 732 North Thorton Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The issues are 1) whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s); and, if so, 2) whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is seeking employment with The Arc of Alachua County, a service provider regulated by APD. Petitioner’s desired employment is to work as a direct service provider, which requires compliance with background screening requirements. The results of Petitioner’s background screening identified a history of criminal offenses. Petitioner received notification via letter dated April 4, 2016, from the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Respondent’s background screening entity, of her disqualification from employment due to a criminal history. The specific disqualifying offense listed in the letter was Larceny (a violation of section 810.014, Florida Statutes (2016)1/). Florida’s Legislature has designated certain criminal offenses as disqualifying offenses, which would prevent an individual from working as a direct service provider. However, an individual may seek an exemption from the employment disqualification. The granting of an exemption from employment disqualification would allow for Petitioner’s employment as a direct service provider to APD clients. APD’s clients are a vulnerable population, consisting of those individuals whose developmental disabilities are statutorily defined as: intellectual disability, autism, spina bifida, Prader-Willi syndrome, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and/or Phelan-McDermid Syndrome. See § 393.063(12), Fla. Stat. Without APD’s services, these clients would otherwise require institutionalization. APD’s clients often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. These clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve; consequently, employment as a direct service provider to APD clients is regarded as a position of special trust. APD is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust as direct service providers for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. See §§ 110.1127(2)(c)1. and 393.0655, Fla. Stat. Many of the tasks direct service providers perform for, and/or assist individuals with disabilities with, include those of a social, personal needs, and/or financial nature. APD relies on DCF to initially receive exemption from employment disqualification requests and compile documents received related to such requests. On or around May 10, 2016, Petitioner submitted a Request for Exemption, Exemption Questionnaire, a copy of her criminal record, character references, and other various documents (the Exemption Packet) to DCF in order to demonstrate support for the granting of an exemption from employment disqualification. DCF subsequently forwarded the Exemption Packet to APD for review. In beginning its exemption review, APD considered Petitioner’s disqualifying offense. Specifically, in December 1982, Petitioner committed the disqualifying offense of Larceny/Grand Theft (a violation of section 810.014). The court’s final disposition of the case included the withholding of adjudication of guilt, two years’ probation, and payment of costs. In its continued exemption review pursuant to section 435.07(3)(b), Florida Statutes, APD considered the following non- disqualifying offenses which Petitioner committed subsequent to her December 1982 disqualifying offense: an arrest for Worthless Check on December 23, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes); a second arrest for Worthless Check on December 23, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05); a conviction for Worthless Check on December 24, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05); an arrest for Driving While License Suspended/Revoked in June 1996 (a violation of section 322.34(2), Florida Statutes); an arrest for Worthless Check in January 2007 (a violation of section 832.05(4)(a)); and an arrest for Violation of Injunction Domestic Violence/Contempt of Court in August 2012 (a violation of section 741.31(4)(a), Florida Statutes). The Disqualifying Offense Petitioner provided an account of her disqualifying offense, Larcency/Grand Theft, in an addendum to the Exemption Questionnaire, dated August 3, 2015. Petitioner indicated in her account that she relocated to Tampa from Gainesville. She was 22 years old, single, and employed with the State of Florida. She became roommates with another female who was attending college at the University of South Florida. Petitioner stated “I have no explanation as to why the both of us committed a crime of theft.” Petitioner further explained that she received a two- year term of probation and completed all her court-ordered sanctions within a year. Petitioner also noted that “[s]ince that time, I have not committed any further crimes.” Petitioner provided the following record concerning her disqualifying offense: state attorney court record (13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, State Attorney). The Non-Disqualifying Offenses Court records received in evidence indicate a total of six non-disqualifying offenses as previously mentioned. Petitioner did not disclose any of her non-disqualifying offenses, nor did she provide accounts for such on the Exemption Questionnaire, despite the directions specifically requiring an applicant to do so. Petitioner did not provide records of her non- disqualifying offenses. Records of those offenses were obtained by APD as part of its detailed review process. Records of the non-disqualifying offenses obtained included: worthless check affidavit, witness form, copies of check, and no information filed court filing (Sears 12/23/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, and copy of check (Pic’n Save 12/23/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, copy of check, and court judgment (Pic’n Save 12/24/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, copy of check, copy of court diversion judgment and supporting documentation, and copy of dismissal of charge (Publix 1/30/2007); and warrant affidavit for arrest (Alachua County Sheriff’s Office, August 2012). Petitioner indicated that she has no current involvement with any court system; specifically, she stated “I have not experienced any criminal charges since my last event in 1982.” Regarding whether there was any degree of harm to any victim or property, including damage or injuries, Petitioner stated “I have not experienced any harm or damage to anyone or any property since my last event in 1982.” In answering the question about stressors in her life at the time of the disqualifying incident, Petitioner indicated that there were none, other than being on probation. Regarding whether there are any current stressors in her life, Petitioner stated “I have no current stressors with the law.” Petitioner indicated that her current support system and living arrangements include being married and having one daughter and numerous grandchildren. Petitioner also explained that her community activities/volunteer efforts include volunteering with the school system (field trips/activities) and attending church and performing functions for the church’s treasury department. Regarding educational and training achievements, Petitioner stated that she graduated from high school, started a career with the State of Florida, and attended a word processing/information course where she received the Most Outstanding Student Award. The Exemption Questionnaire asks whether an applicant has ever received counseling for any reason. Petitioner indicated that she has not received counseling for any reason; if she felt stress, she would call the Employee Assistance Program. Petitioner noted she has not experienced any “major post- traumatic [stress].” As to whether she has used and/or abused drugs or alcohol, Petitioner replied that she has “not abused any type of drugs or alcohol in [her] life.” Petitioner indicated the following regarding feeling remorse/accepting responsibility for her actions: “I am the type of person to feel remorse towards everything and every person that I have contact with. I always take full responsibility for any action(s) that I encounter when I am in the wrong.” The Exemption Questionnaire asks for an applicant’s prior three years’ work history. Petitioner provided the following information: 4/2016 to 5/2016--The Arc of Alachua County (support tech/direct care); 11/2007 to 7/2014--DCF--North Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center (Human Services Worker III); 3/2004 to 7/2007—DCF--State of Florida Foster Care (word processor/data management specialist); 4/1998 to 9/2003-- American Psychiatric Association (membership coordinator/secretary). In addition to the criminal record submitted, Petitioner also provided the following additional documents that were included in her Exemption Packet: local law background checks, a volunteer award (Head Start), three letters of reference attesting to Petitioner’s character, and an Affidavit of Good Moral Character. The letters were written by persons who have known Petitioner for several years; they described Petitioner as devoted, loyal, honest, kind, and trustworthy. Finally, Petitioner submitted a copy of an exemption letter she received from DCF, dated February 12, 2016. Leslie Richards, regional operations manager for APD’s Northeast Region, advised that APD reviewed all documentation provided by Petitioner in her Request for Exemption, the information indicated in Petitioner’s Exemption Questionnaire, the various records documenting Petitioner’s criminal history, her volunteer award, character letters, and exemption from DCF. Following a review of Petitioner’s Exemption Packet, Agency Director Barbara Palmer, advised Petitioner by a letter dated September 26, 2016, that her request for an exemption from her disqualifying offense was denied. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of her rehabilitation. Petitioner sent APD a request for hearing on or around October 11, 2016. APD received this request timely and subsequently forwarded this appeal to DOAH. Along with her request for hearing, Petitioner submitted a personal statement explaining her reasons for disputing the denial and requesting the hearing, a copy of the denial letter, and a copy of a training certificate summary for APD-approved courses through her former employer, the Arc of Alachua County. At hearing, Ms. Richards explained APD’s process of reviewing exemption requests and the consideration of Petitioner’s application for such. Per Ms. Richards, APD considers the disqualifying offense, the circumstances surrounding the offense, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, the history of the applicant since the incident, and finally, any other evidence indicating that the applicant will not present a danger if employment is allowed. Additionally, Ms. Richards testified that APD looks for consistency in the applicant’s account of events in his or her Exemption Questionnaire, the passage of time since the disqualifying incident, whether the applicant accepts responsibility for his/her actions, and whether the applicant expresses remorse for his or her prior criminal acts. Because an applicant will be occupying a position of special trust if granted an exemption, APD weighs all of these factors in its determination. Ms. Richards testified that all of Petitioner’s submissions were reviewed and taken into consideration; she noted that the starting point of APD’s review began with the date of the disqualifying offense and any criminal conduct occurring thereafter. Ms. Richards emphasized that in APD’s review, it was noted that Petitioner failed to disclose sufficient details of the account of her disqualifying offense. Specifically, Petitioner provided what appeared to be background information about the time frame surrounding the offense and the person whom she committed the offense with, but indicated in her statement “I have no explanation as to why the both of us committed a crime of theft.” Petitioner provided other details about this time in her life, but nothing specific about the crime itself. Ms. Richards stated that it left APD with a concern that Petitioner was not forthright with disclosure of the circumstances involving the crime. Ms. Richards also explained that APD took note that Petitioner failed to disclose any of her non-disqualifying offenses, and that this fact was also of concern. APD obtained records of the non-disqualifying offenses and considered them in its review. Ms. Richards noted that the nature of the offenses, particularly the Worthless Checks and the Violation of the Injunction Domestic Violence/Contempt of Court, were troubling because those offenses involved monetary transactions and interpersonal relations. Ms. Richards observed that the individuals APD serves are highly susceptible to abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and a person who is in a role as a direct service provider would be assisting those individuals in a social and financial capacity. APD reviewed Petitioner’s involvement with three DCF investigations involving allegations of abuse toward a vulnerable adult, Petitioner’s spouse. Although there were no findings against Petitioner in these cases, based on the issues presented, DCF did make the recommendation for Petitioner to pursue family counseling. Ms. Richards noted that there is no evidence that Petitioner followed through with DCF’s recommendation, and by Petitioner’s own admission on the Exemption Questionnaire, has “not received counseling for any reason.” In addition to both the criminal offense and DCF- related information, APD noted Petitioner’s less than stellar driving record. Ms. Richards advised that a direct service provider will often be in a position to transport clients, and Petitioner’s driving record reflects a series of both moving and non-moving violations, which pose a concern. The record reflects a total of five driving-related violations: driving while license suspended/revoked (previously mentioned); tag not assigned (criminal traffic); red light camera citation; unlawful speeding; and a second red light camera citation. Ms. Richards testified regarding APD’s consideration of Petitioner’s prior employment history with DCF, and the subsequent exemption for employment granted to Petitioner by DCF. At hearing, APD presented employment evaluations and records of written disciplinary action taken against Petitioner by DCF while in its employ. Ms. Richards specifically noted that some of the disciplinary issues for which Petitioner was cited included: sleeping on the job while employed at a forensic facility; not securing the front door of a building at a forensic facility; tardiness; inappropriately streaming media on a state-owned computer; insubordination (refusal to work a shift); failure to report to work; and poor performance/negligence (failure to answer phones/answer front door of facility). Petitioner ultimately was dismissed from DCF due to her inability to perform her job functions because of an injury. Ms. Richards explained that these disciplinary issues gave APD great pause in considering granting Petitioner an exemption, as they were indicators for potential behaviors that could pose a great risk to individuals served by APD, many of whom are unable to communicate their wants and needs. The setting in which Petitioner committed these workplace violations mirrors those in which clients of APD are served. Ms. Richards did state that APD considered the exemption granted by DCF to Petitioner, however, the weight of the prior disciplinary issues outweighed that decision when compared to the possible jeopardy in which APD clients could be placed. Should Petitioner obtain future successful employment with DCF, APD would consider that in a subsequent exemption application review. Petitioner testified on her own behalf at the hearing. She spoke about the circumstances surrounding the disqualifying offense, reiterating her statement from the addendum to the Exemption Questionnaire. She provided no new information or surrounding details about the crime. Again, she stated that she has not had any legal issues since 1982. Regarding her non- disqualifying offenses, Petitioner remarked that she “didn’t consider those bad checks as crimes,” and though she denied being convicted of such, she admitted having overdrafted checks. Petitioner also stated that regarding the DCF investigations and the Injunction Violation/Contempt of Court charge, “that’s not why we are here today, so I am not going to talk about that.” Petitioner did admit to the driving infractions on her record, but stated that two of them, running red lights, were due to the fault of her daughter, as she was the driver at the time, rather than Petitioner. Petitioner stated that she is older and wiser and has changed. She enjoyed working at the adult day care program with the Arc of Alachua County. She indicated that any bad checks she has written, she “took care of.” Petitioner offered explanations for the disciplinary situations involving her prior employment with DCF, attempting to minimize her role. She explained that she and her husband, who Petitioner described as a vulnerable, disabled adult, no longer have domestic issues; however, they are currently homeless. Petitioner stated that APD’s denial is keeping her in an adverse financial situation, stating “I cannot find a job right now because of this denial.” When cross- examined by counsel regarding her ability to obtain gainful employment with DCF and its covered providers, Petitioner admitted that she can seek a job under DCF’s purview. Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses. Her sister, Sherry McCrae, a retired police officer, stated that she lived with her sister the entire time she was in college; Petitioner provided a source of support to her during this period. Ms. McCrae stated that her sister has been working all the years since the disqualifying incident. She affirmed that their maiden name is Williams, Petitioner’s last name at the time of the disqualifying incident. Petitioner’s second witness, Faye Williams, testified that after Petitioner’s disqualifying incident, she got a job and was active in the community. Petitioner has a desire “to be a part of something.” She loves people, especially children. Petitioner asserted that she enjoys working with individuals with disabilities; at her last place of employment, she believed she found her “purpose and mission.” She loves helping people. She admits she made some mistakes, but that was long ago. Petitioner argued that she “really only committed one crime”; she has rehabilitated herself and that should be enough for APD. She believes APD abused its discretion in denying her request for exemption. The individuals APD serves are vulnerable and highly susceptible to abuse, neglect, and exploitation, due to their developmental disabilities. APD’s representative observed that APD’s clients must be assigned to direct care providers without fear of their endangerment. This necessarily requires reliance on a caregiver’s good character and trustworthiness. Individuals who provide direct care are frequently responsible for assisting individuals in making decisions of a financial, medical, and social nature. APD must weigh the benefit against the risk when considering granting an exemption. Ms. Richards cautioned that Petitioner’s criminal history reflects a pattern of poor judgment. Petitioner’s failure to disclose certain details in her account regarding her disqualifying offense calls into question her trustworthiness. Additionally, failure to disclose her non-disqualifying offenses, along with a failure to recognize that those offenses are truly crimes, is not only troubling, but calls into question Petitioner’s trustworthiness. It also demonstrates a complete lack of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for her actions. Petitioner did not admit to any of the harm she caused to her victims. Petitioner’s minimization of the discipline she received while employed by DCF also gives great pause, as the individuals she was charged with caring for were clients in a forensic setting, a clear parallel to the clients she would serve should an exemption be granted by APD. Petitioner’s multiple driving citations are concerning as well, and demonstrate a pattern of questionable decision- making, especially when considering her for a position where she could potentially transport clients. All of the aforementioned factors, along with proximity in time of her application to her last arrest (2012), caused APD to question Petitioner’s fitness for providing services to the vulnerable individuals for which it is responsible, the most vulnerable population in the state. Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation, and therefore, the denial of the exemption was proper.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities issue a final order upholding the denial of Petitioner’s exemption request. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of February, 2017.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED William W. Tharpe, Jr., Esquire Department of Insurance Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dock Blanchard, Esquire Post Office Box 24 Ocala, Florida 32678 The Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner, M.B. Doral, is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2019); and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 2018, Petitioner MB Doral filed a Petition Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-4.020 and Determination Regarding Unadopted Rule, in DOAH Case Number 18-6768RX. On January 25, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Proceedings, which stayed MB Doral’s unadopted rule challenge pending the proposed rulemaking that would promulgate ABT Form 6017. On October 16, 2019, amendments to rule 61A-4.020 became effective, which promulgated ABT Form 6017. On November 6, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Dismissing Unadopted Rule Challenge and Retaining Jurisdiction, which dismissed MB Doral’s remaining unadopted rule challenge and retained jurisdiction to consider a request for attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). On December 3, 2019, MB Doral filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Motion), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the unadopted rule challenge pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). The Motion alleges that MB Doral advised the Department, in writing on at least seven occasions prior to filing the rule challenge petition, and beginning on May 19, 2015, that the Department’s failure to adopt ABT Form 6017 constituted an unadopted rule. The Motion also alleges that the Department did not file a notice of rulemaking until January 28, 2019. The Motion further alleges that the Department has never alleged that the federal government required ABT Form 6017 to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. On December 10, 2019, the Department filed its Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. On February 11, 2020, the Department filed a Notice of Filing Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which included the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Joint Stipulation states that the Department agrees to the entry of a final order assessing the sum of $7,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the unadopted rule challenge, which the undersigned bifurcated from the existing rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX, which is currently pending before the First District Court of Appeal in Case Number 1D19-0820. The Joint Stipulation further states that the parties agree that this Final Order should direct the Department to seek immediate approval for payment within 30 days of this Final Order, and that the undersigned retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Final Order.
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. The Agency's clients are a vulnerable population, consisting of those individuals whose developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, spina bifida, Prader- Willi Syndrome, cerebral palsy, and/or Down Syndrome. They often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self- care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. Also, they are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of developmental disabilities. Therefore, employment as a direct service provider to Agency clients is regarded as a position of special trust. Petitioner is a 27-year-old female who seeks to qualify for employment with Trust and Hope, a service provider regulated by the Agency. To work in a position of special trust, an individual must undergo a background screening. Petitioner's screening identified a history of criminal offenses, including a disqualifying offense in 2009. Accordingly, on July 29, 2015, Petitioner filed a request for exemption from disqualification, which triggered the instant proceeding. See Resp. Ex. D. Before a decision was made by the Agency, Petitioner's request for an exemption was reviewed by a Department of Children and Families (DCF) screener who compiled a 46-page report entitled "Exemption Review" dated October 6, 2015. See Resp. Ex. B. The packet of information contains Petitioner's Request for Exemption, Exemption Questionnaire, various criminal records, and letters from 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 Deputy Regional Operations Manager in Orlando, who reviewed it and then made a preliminary recommendation to deny the application. In a letter dated December 16, 2015, the Agency's Director notified Petitioner that in light of 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. The disqualifying offense occurred on January 17, 2009, when Petitioner, then 20 years of age, was arrested in Sanford, Florida, for Burglary with Assault and Battery, a violation of section 810.02(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and Aggravated Battery, a violation of section 784.045. Both offenses are felonies and constitute disqualifying offenses under section 435.04(2). On April 13, 2009, an Information was filed by the State Attorney charging Petitioner with Burglary of Dwelling with an Assault and Battery. The other charge was not prosecuted. On August 12, 2009, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to Burglary of a Structure. The court withheld adjudication, placed her on probation for 24 months, and imposed a number of conditions that applied during the probationary period, including a prohibition against having contact with the victim due to the nature of the crime. She later received a Certificate of Eligibility to Petition for a Seal or Expunge Order from the Florida Department of law Enforcement to seal the charges. Petitioner contends that because she successfully completed probation, and the arrest has been sealed, it should not be considered. After her August 2009 conviction, Petitioner was arrested for a number of offenses. On July 3, 2009, she was arrested for Aggravated Battery Using a Deadly Weapon (a knife), but no information was filed. On July 12, 2012, Petitioner was arrested for Neglect Child without Great Harm, but no information was filed. On December 21, 2013, she was arrested for Battery Domestic Violence, but no information was filed. In addition, she has a string of traffic violations beginning in May 2012 and continuing through July 2014. The driving record of a caregiver is relevant because she may be asked to transport a client in a motor vehicle. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that she was arrested on multiple occasions after the disqualifying offense, but contended that because she was never prosecuted for those crimes, they should not be considered. However, in determining whether an individual has demonstrated rehabilitation, the Agency may also consider whether the applicant, after the conviction for the disqualifying offense, has been "arrested for or convicted of another crime, even if that crime is not a disqualifying offense." § 435.07(3)(b), Fla. Stat. Therefore, the Agency may consider subsequent arrests, even if they are not prosecuted. At the same time, it considers "the history of the [applicant] since the incident, or any other evidence or circumstances indicating that the [applicant] will not present a danger if employment or continued employment is allowed." § 435.07(3)(a), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is currently working in the telemarketing field. The Exemption Report indicates that she worked as a patient care tech with John Knox Village Center from 2011 to 2013 and as an assistant manager at a Dunkin Donuts store from 2008 until 2010. Prior to that, she was employed for three years as a bank teller at a bank in Sanford. Petitioner received an Associate Degree in Science in Medical Assisting from Southern Technical College in June 2011 and is currently enrolled in classes to earn a degree in psychology. In 2006, she was certified by Homestead Job Corps Center in Phlebotomy, EKG, Vitals, Patient Care, and Medical Terminology. Through testimony by its Deputy Operations Manager for the Orlando office, the Agency explained its rationale for denying the application. As explained above, the Agency regulates direct care providers who are at a higher risk of abuse than others, and who are most vulnerable. Because many clients are unable to adequately communicate if they are hurt or abused, the Agency requires that workers must be trustworthy and have a background to ensure that clients are treated properly. Although Petitioner had only one disqualifying offense, and all other arrests were not prosecuted, in making its decision, the Agency considered Petitioner's pattern of conduct since 2009 and her multiple arrests. The Exemption Questionnaire requires an applicant to give a detailed version of the events underlying the disqualifying offense in 2009. The Agency considered Petitioner's explanation to be extremely brief and substantially different from the police report. It simply stated that her "best friend [Ms. Meadows] and [Ms. Meadows'] boyfriend [Mr. Herring] got into an altercation b/c he got caught cheating. I got brought into it for him not to get arrested she changed and put it all on me, thus me going to jail. (This is the only charges that I have obtained.)" Resp. Ex. A., p. 003. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that after arriving at Mr. Herring's apartment, Petitioner began arguing with him and then struck him in the head with a table leg, causing an injury to Mr. Herring. The victim then pressed charges against Petitioner. Although Petitioner indicated in the Exemption Questionnaire that no one had ever suffered any "real harm" from her actions, she acknowledged at hearing that Mr. Herring suffered an injury to his head during the incident. Police reports indicate that on two other occasions, individuals suffered physical harm due to her aggressive behavior. The Exemption Questionnaire also requires an applicant to provide a detailed explanation of any subsequent arrests, even for non-disqualifying offenses. Petitioner's explanation of subsequent arrests in 2010, 2012, and 2013, which were not prosecuted, are also very brief, and they omit facts found in the police reports. See Resp. Ex. A, pp. 3-4. The Agency's characterization of her explanations as "half-truths" and "incomplete" is a fair one. Petitioner denied that there were stressors in her life at the time of the disqualifying offense. Other than stating that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, she was falsely accused, or she was "child minded," Petitioner did not express remorse or take responsibility for any of her actions. She has not received counseling for any of her past behaviors. Finally, in her Questionnaire, she denied any drug or alcohol history or use. This statement conflicts with a DCF report dated October 17, 2011, which revealed that Petitioner tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Petitioner did not dispute this report. Petitioner presented the testimony of three witnesses. All testified that she "is a good person." Despite having knowledge of Petitioner's entire criminal record, one witness described her as a "peaceful person," but qualified that she was always peaceful with him. Given Petitioner's lack of specificity regarding her criminal offenses, her lack of accountability, and the pattern of conduct since her disqualifying offense, there is less than clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation.
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 22nd day of March, 2016, 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 22nd day of March, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. De La Paz, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Whitney Brown 719 East 8th Street Sanford, Florida 32771-2019 Jeannette L. Estes, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities Suite 422 200 North Kentucky Street Lakeland, Florida 33801-4906 (eServed) Andrew F. Langenbach, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S430 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 Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Department), is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Jeffrey D. Ahl, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0155081. The last license issued was as a broker-salesperson, c/o Data Pak Systems & Services, Inc., 1050 South Federal Highway, Delray Beach, Florida 33483. On September 12, 1991, respondent was found guilty of eleven counts of lewd assault, a second degree felony, in violation of Section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes. The Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida, adjudicated the respondent guilty on each count and committed the respondent to the Palm Beach County Jail for a term of 364 days, followed by a term of probation of 10 years. Notwithstanding his conviction on September 12, 1991, it was not until March 13, 1992, that respondent, through his attorney, informed petitioner of his conviction of the aforesaid felony. According to respondent, whose testimony is credited, the myriad of personal problems that befell him during this time period, including the remorse he was suffering, his divorce, a foreclosure, and his conviction, preoccupied his mind such that he overlooked his obligation to notify petitioner upon his conviction. Notably, respondent did not practice such profession following his conviction, and upon receipt of the renewal notice for his broker's license immediately recognized his oversight and had his attorney promptly inform petitioner of his conviction. Respondent served eight months and one week of his 364-day sentence in the Palm Beach County Jail, and was released from custody in May 1992. Currently, pursuant to the court's commitment order, respondent is on probation for a term of 10 years, the first year of which he is under community control. So controlled, respondent is required to report to his probation officer every Monday and secure approval of his weekly schedule of activities. Except for work, church and two hours of shopping each week, respondent is confined to his residence. Following successful completion of community control, respondent will be on a more relaxed form of probation, with monthly reporting to his probation officer. The court's commitment order further required that respondent continue psychological/psychiatric treatment, pay any medical expenses for his daughter's psychological/psychiatric treatment, and remain current on his child support payments. Respondent has duly abided by such obligations. The offense for which respondent stood convicted involved the touching and fondling of his daughter during times when he believed her to be asleep. Such activity occurred during the period of time she was 9 to 13 years of age, and ceased in approximately 1986, when respondent realized his daughter knew what was occurring. Disclosure of his activities apparently occurred in September 1990, during the course of his divorce proceedings. Upon disclosure of what had occurred, respondent was referred by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to Helen Bush, a marriage, family and sex therapist, for counseling. Since such initial referral in September 1990, respondent has been regularly and responsibly counseled through Ms. Bush, except for that period of time in which he was incarcerated. In the opinion of Ms. Bush, which is credited, respondent suffers from a psychological disorder, regressed pedophilia, which, precipitated by stress, was the cause for his misconduct towards his daughter. Such disorders are treatable and where, as here, the offender is genuinely remorseful about what occurred, has the motivation to rehabilitate himself, and the support of his family, the likelihood of respondent being successfully treated is great. Currently, respondent has remarried, and continues to fulfill his responsibilities to continue treatment and to remain current in his support obligations. It is respondent's desire to once again practice as a real estate broker so that he might reasonably support his new family, as well as remain current with his obligations, and he would like to associate himself with William W. Harris, another licensed real estate broker. Mr. Harris testified at hearing, is aware of respondent's conviction, and is most amenable to respondent being associated with his office. Considering the quality of proof offered in this case, it is found that, notwithstanding respondent's conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, respondent possesses the requisite honesty, truthfulness, trustworthiness, good character and good reputation for fair dealing required for licensure as a real estate broker. In reaching such conclusion the seriousness of the offense with which respondent stands convicted has not been overlooked; however, neither has the fact that the conduct which precipitated such offense had its genesis in a psychiatric disorder that is treatable and that respondent is currently experiencing success in such treatment. Under such circumstances, respondent's conviction does not detract from the conclusion that he possesses those worthy attributes of honesty, trustworthiness and fair dealing the public is entitled to expect when dealing with a real estate broker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding respondent guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(f) and (p), Florida Statutes, not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and imposing the penalty set forth in paragraph 18, supra. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September 1992.
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)
