The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services improperly awarded a contract to National Health Laboratories, Inc. for the reasons set forth in the petition.
Findings Of Fact By Invitation to Bid mailed March 26, 1993 (ITB), the Dade County Public Health Unit requested bids on an annual contract for the performance of clinical laboratory test services. The Dade County Public Health Unit is under the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). The contracting agency shall hereafter be referred to as HRS. The ITB called for the opening of bids on April 12, 1993. Six bids were timely submitted. The apparent low bid was submitted by National Health Laboratories, Inc. (NHL). The NHL bid was $202,271. The second low bid was submitted by Continental Medical Laboratory, Inc. (CML). The CML bid was $241,100. HRS issued a notice of intent to award the contract to NHL. CML timely protested. There is no issue as to the responsiveness of the CML bid. The only issue as to the responsiveness of the NHL bid concerns the matters raised by CML. CML's petition alleges that the bid of NHL was defective because the Sworn Statement Pursuant to Section 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes, on Public Entity Crimes (Public Entity Crime Affidavit) was incomplete, an agreement attached to the Public Entity Crime Affidavit did not relieve NHL from disqualification concerning CHAMPUS fraud, and NHL should be disqualified from bidding because it failed timely to inform the Department of Management Services of the company's conviction of a public entity crime. Paragraph 10 of the General Conditions of the ITB allows HRS to "waive any minor irregularity or technicality in bids received." However, special conditions provide, in part: PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES Any person submitting a bid or proposal in response to this invitation must execute the enclosed [Public Entity Affidavit], including proper check(s), in the space(s) provided, and enclose it with the bid/proposal. Failure to complete this form in every detail and submit it with your proposal will result in immediate disqualification of your bid. The Public Entity Crime Affidavit completed by NHL and submitted with its bid was executed and notarized on April 9, 1993. Paragraph six of the form affidavit states: Based on information and belief, the statement which I have marked below is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement. [Indicate which statement applies.] Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement, nor any of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, nor any affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members or agents who are active in the management of the entity, or an affiliate of an entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. However, there has been a subsequent proceeding before a Hearing Officer of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings and the Final Order entered by the Hearing Officer determined that it was not in the public interest to place the entity submitting this sworn statement on the convicted vendor list. [attach a copy of the final order] The next paragraph of the Public Entity Crime Affidavit form states: I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE PUBLIC ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH I (ONE) ABOVE IS FOR THAT PUBLIC ENTITY ONLY AND, THAT THIS FORM IS VALID THROUGH DECEMBER 31 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH IT IS FILED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ENTITY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT PROVIDED IN SECTION 287.017, FLORIDA STATUTES FOR CATEGORY TWO OF ANY CHANGE IN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FORM. In completing the Public Entity Crime Affidavit, NHL penned in, just over the second alternative that discloses a conviction, "See Attached." The attachment was a copy of an Agreement dated December 31, 1992, between NHL and the "state of Florida" (Settlement Agreement). The agreement was executed by an NHL officer and the Director, Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Auditor General Office. The Auditor General's Office is not part of the Department of Management Services. The Settlement Agreement concerns invoices from NHL to the Florida Medicaid program for certain cholesterol and iron tests from January 1, 1987, through November 30, 1992. The Settlement Agreement requires NHL to pay as restitution to the State of Florida $1,470,917. In return, the state of Florida, for itself and on behalf of its agents and assigns, will release and forever discharge NHL, its current or former officers, directors, employees, agents, shareholders, affiliates, assigns and successors from any and all claims, actions, demands or causes of action including penalties or interest against any of them, either civil or criminal, as regards Medicaid reimbursement [for certain cholesterol and iron tests] between January 1, 1987 and November 30, 1992, except that nothing contained in this Settlement Agreement shall preclude the state Medicaid program from seeking recoupment of payments made [for certain cholesterol tests] during the period covered by this Settlement Agreement, subject to the understanding that NHL will contest any such recoupment action on the grounds that such payments were appropriate. The Settlement Agreement also provides: The state of Florida agrees that neither the Settlement Agreement nor any federal criminal conviction or other sanction of the corporation or a current or former officer or employee of NHL as regards claims for Medicaid reimbursement [for certain cholesterol and iron tests] [b]etween January 1, 1987 and November 30, 1992 will be the basis for a state exclusion of NHL from the Florida Medicaid program. NHL is a company that provides laboratory testing nationally and receives payment for many of its services from government sources, such as Medicaid, Medicare, or CHAMPUS. CHAMPUS is the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services. During the period of 1987 through 1992, NHL supplied certain cholesterol and iron testing, in addition to that specifically requested by the health-care provider, at little or no cost to the health-care provider. But NHL invoiced various government payors at higher rates. On December 18, 1992, NHL entered guilty pleas to two counts of criminal fraud involving these practices as they concern the CHAMPUS program. These pleas were the bases of a conviction and sentence that included a criminal fine of $1,000,000. One or two former officers entered guilty pleas to charges of criminal fraud involving these practices as they concern the Medicaid program. As part of the settlement, NHL paid the United States the sum of $100,000,000. At the same time, NHL was negotiating with various states, including Florida, with respect to the above-described billing practices. On December 8, 1992, the Director of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit in the Florida Office of the Auditor General wrote a letter to NHL confirming a proposed settlement. The conditions of the settlement are incorporated in the above- described Settlement Agreement. On December 17, 1992, the Assistant Secretary for Medicaid in HRS mailed a letter to NHL agreeing that HRS would not take administrative action for the above-described cholesterol and iron claims submitted for reimbursement by NHL to the Florida Medicaid program. NHL did not inform the Department of Management Services of the guilty plea, conviction, and $1,000,000 criminal fine. However, based probably on information received in early February 1993 from another governmental entity in Florida, the Department of Management Services, on February 8, 1993, sent a letter to NHL advising it that the Department had received information that NHL had been convicted of a public entity crime and requesting copies of the charges and final court action. NHL complied and the Department's investigation is continuing. On February 18, 1993, HRS Deputy Secretary for Health, sent a memorandum to all of the County Public Health Units directors and administrators advising them of concerns about laboratory fraud and attaching a recent report concerning the NHL case. The report described the NHL guilty pleas, conviction, and sentencing, as well as the business practices that led to the prosecution. By memorandum dated March 18, 1993, HRS Assistant Secretary for Medicaid informed HRS Depute Secretary for Health that the Auditor General had entered into the Settlement Agreement. The memorandum states that, on December 17, 1992, the Assistant Secretary signed an agreement with NHL not to terminate it from the Florida Medicaid program, which was the "same treatment afforded many other providers--including [County Public Health Units]--who overbilled the Medicaid program. The Assistant Secretary's memorandum describes the settlement as requiring NHL to make "full restitution," although the $1.4 million in restitution involves only the iron test and the State of Florida and NHL may still litigate whether any reimbursement is due for the cholesterol tests. The failure of NHL to check the second alternative on the Public Entity Crime Affidavit did not confer an economic advantage on NHL in the subject procurement. The material attached to the affidavit sufficiently informed HRS of the criminal conviction of NHL. Likewise, the omission of any mention of CHAMPUS claims in Paragraphs two and three of the Settlement Agreement did not confer any economic advantage on NHL in the procurement. The purpose of mentioning only Medicaid in the Settlement Agreement is that Florida has no jurisdiction over the CHAMPUS program. NHL was concerned only that Florida not terminate NHL's participation in the program over which Florida had jurisdiction--the Medicaid program. These references to "Medicaid reimbursement" are merely descriptive and are not intended to limit the scope of the exoneration purportedly effectuated in the Settlement Agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order dismissing the bid protest of Continental Medical Laboratory, Inc. ENTERED on August 24, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3951BID Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent and Intervenor 1-8 and 11: adopted or adopted in substance. 9-10 and 12-15: rejected as subordinate. 16-31: adopted or adopted in substance. 32-37: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 38-43 and 45-48: rejected as irrelevant and legal argument. 44: adopted. 49-50: adopted as to absence of material variations. 51: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-14 and 16-17: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: rejected as legal argument and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-21: rejected as subordinate, repetitious, and legal argument. 22-27: adopted in substance. 28: rejected as irrelevant. 29 (first sentence): rejected as repetitious and irrelevant. 29 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 30: adopted, but the period of the delay of DMS review in this case was too short to make any difference. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence with respect to a delay of such a short duration. 32: rejected as legal argument inviting a remedy far in excess of any remedy provided for or envisioned by 287.133. 33: rejected as legal argument inviting a remedy far in excess of any remedy provided for or envisioned by 287.133, at least under the facts of the present case. 34: rejected as irrelevant. 35: rejected as legal argument and unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Geoffrey Kirk Adorno & Zeder, P.A. 2601 S. Bayshore Dr., Ste. 1600 Miami, Florida 33133 Morton Laitner, District Counsel District 11 Legal Office 401 NW 2d Ave., Ste. N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Thomas F. Panza Seann Michael Frazier Panza, Maurer 3081 E. Commercial Blvd., Ste. 200 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33308 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a law enforcement officer and he was employed by the City of Tampa Police Department. Respondent was married to Stephanie Brown and is the father of two of her children. Marital problems arose and in June 1983 they separated. At the time, Stephanie Brown owned and operated a barbershop. Each time Respondent and his wife met they argued. At a judicial hearing Respondent was directed to pay child support to his wife. The check he gave Stephanie in the presence of the judge, Respondent tried to recover when he left the courthouse. He was quite angry when Stephanie refused to return this check to him. That same evening, which Stephanie identified as October 24, 1983, Respondent came to the barber shop shortly before closing. Respondent was very angry and demanded return of the money he had been directed to pay as child support, told Stephanie he was sick and tired of her, and did not intend to lose his job because of her complaints. At this time Stephanie was sitting behind her desk at the salon and Respondent was standing in front of the desk. During the argument Respondent tilted the desk toward Stephanie and a letter opener fell off the desk. This letter opener, which was described by Stephanie as having a metal blade approximately, eight inches long, was picked up by Respondent and waved around by him as they argued. Stephanie testified that Respondent was close enough to cut her with the letter opener and that she was afraid he would: however, no evidence was presented that Respondent made any attempt to use a letter opener as a weapon or made any specific threat to harm Stephanie with the letter opener. Ms. Jackson, a customer of Stephanie's who knew Respondent, came in from the back part of the salon and saw Respondent and Stephanie arguing, with Respondent holding the letter opener. She attempted to calm Respondent and apparently succeeded since 'Stephanie testified that after Ms. Jackson calmed Respondent down he cried and was upset. Stephanie also testified that on another occasion Respondent came in the salon shortly before closing and they again got into an argument. Although Respondent was off duty, Stephanie knew he was armed because he "always carried his pistol the course of this argument Stephanie never saw Respondent draw his pistol, have it in his hand, or even have the pistol exposed where she could have seen it. Stephanie testified that an employee' of hers, Yvette Spann, came in while she and Respondent were arguing and later told Stephanie that she had seen a gun in Respondent's hand. This hearsay testimony was corroborated no admissible evidence. The police officer who investigated the charges Stephanie had made against Respondent was the second witness called by Petitioner. This officer had no first-hand knowledge of either of the assault charges preferred against Respondent. As a result of Sergeant Wilkinson's investigation Respondent was discharged from the Tampa Police Department.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Three Rivers Legal Services engaged in unlawful employment practices with regard to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Attorney Kaimowitz was born on May 5, 1935. He attended the University of Wisconsin, served in the U. S. Army, and was a journalist early in his career. He worked to obtain voting rights for African-Americans in the Deep South as a volunteer for the Congress of Racial Equality in the summer of 1964. He attended law school at New York University and while attending law school worked for the New York Civil Liberties Union as an investigator. Upon graduating from law school in 1967, he applied for membership in the New York State Bar Association and was eventually admitted. He was employed as a staff attorney with the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law in New York City. He was suspended from that position. In 1970 he was awarded a Reginald Heber Smith Fellowship which took him to Michigan Legal Services in Detroit, Michigan. He remained there until he took a sabbatical so that he could complete a Legal Services Corporation Research Fellowship in 1979 and 1980, which was located at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He could have returned to his employment at Michigan Legal Services but instead sued that entity. He also sued Pennsylvania Legal Services, Legal Services of North Carolina, and the Mental Health Law Project of the District of Columbia for alleged age discrimination in hiring. From December 1980 until 1984 he was employed as associate counsel for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York and Connecticut. He left there because of a "labor dispute." In March of 1985 he was hired as director of the Greater Orlando Area Legal Services (GOALS). He was fired in 1986. He sued GOALS, and obtained a financial settlement. Subsequently he applied for jobs with Broward County Legal Services and Central Florida Legal Services. When he was turned down for those jobs, he sued both entities based on age discrimination. The action against Central Florida Legal Services ended in 1999 or 2000 with a confidential settlement involving the payment of money to Attorney Kaimowitz. At some point he also entered into a confidential settlement with Broward County Legal Services. Attorney Kaimowitz claims that the suits he filed against various legal services programs were based on his personal mission to reform the hiring practices of legal services programs, and he avers that he has been on that mission since 1980. Although he claims to have instituted these suits for altruistic motives, many of them resulted in monetary settlements that benefited him personally. None of these suits were tried to the point that a verdict resulted. After being fired by GOALS he obtained a master's in communications from the University of Central Florida in 1988. While attending school he worked as a journalist for the "Orlando Weekly," a publication targeted to African-Americans in the Orlando area. Subsequently Attorney Kaimowitz represented African- Americans in civil rights actions, including employment discrimination in the Orlando area. He was in private practice of law at that time although he had no office. In 1989 or 1990 a court assessed fees against him for engaging in frivolous litigation. Attorney Kaimowitz moved to Gainesville because his domestic partner was seeking a Ph.D. at the University of Florida. From May 14, 1999, until February 7, 2002, he worked for Alachua County as an investigator into citizen complaints of discrimination in housing and public accommodation. He was terminated from that job because of accusations of "serious misconduct." He claimed his discharge from this job was in retaliation for whistle blowing. He sued, and received a monetary settlement. He subsequently and unsuccessfully sought employment with the City of Gainesville, the University of Florida, and with the State of Florida. He had a dispute with the University of Florida based on the University's failure to publish written material that he submitted. He filed suits pro se based on age discrimination against Gainesville for failing to hire him and against the University of Florida and the Florida Board of Regents because of the publication dispute and because they refused to hire him. The suit against the Board of Regents was settled by a monetary payment to him of a confidential sum, according to Attorney Kaimowitz. In 1997, Judge Maurice Paul, a U. S. District Judge, entered an order forbidding Attorney Kaimowitz from filing pro se lawsuits in his court. Prior to 2003, Attorney Kaimowitz was disciplined by the Florida Supreme Court on two occasions. A Florida Bar report dated January 29, 2002, reported a finding on January 3, 2002, of professional misconduct. He was reprimanded for making a statement he knew to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the integrity of a judge. He had been previously reprimanded by the Florida Supreme Court in 1998. Attorney Kaimowitz is proud that he has filed countless motions to disqualify judges. He claims he has succeeded in disqualifying, at one time or another, every judge in the Middle District of Florida, and several in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, which includes the Gainesville area. Attorney Kaimowitz agrees with the notion that he is, "the most well-known offensive personality in the Eighth Judicial Circuit," but asserts that this reputation was not fully achieved until 2004. This self-characterization is accepted based on the evidence adduced in this case. Attorney Kaimowitz suffered a hearing loss and began using hearing aids in 1992. It is found as a fact that he hears well enough to try a case, which was demonstrated in this case. At his request, counsel table was moved close to the bench. He subsequently announced that this accommodated his hearing deficiency. Attorney Kaimowitz was arrested for causing a disturbance in a Gainesville City Commission meeting in 2002. He is very proud of being arrested. On November 16, 2004, Eighth Judicial Circuit Judge Larry Gibbs Turner entered an order entitled Sentence on Judgment of Guilty of Direct and In-Direct Criminal Contempt, following a Judgment of Guilty of eight separate allegations of direct and indirect criminal contempt on October 13, 2004. This Order recited the following language: A review of the fifteen (15) volumes of the record in this cause clearly demonstrates that throughout these proceedings Mr. Kaimowitz carefully, willfully, and with calculation and premeditation abused his status as a lawyer/pro se litigant in filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings including, but not limited to, his repeated motions to recuse every judge associated with this case. Mr. Kaimowitz's most recent effort to recuse this undersigned judge was framed by his GABE KAIMOWITZ'S APPLICATION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE LARRY G. TURNER, FROM TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER - LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL - BECAUSE THE JURIST HAS BEEN AND CURRENTLY APPARENTLY IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, AND/OR ITS SUCCESSOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND AFFIDAVIT/CERTIFICATE WITH GABE KAIMOWITZ'S APPLICATION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE LARRY G. TURNER, FROM TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER - LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL - BECAUSE THE JURIST HAS BEEN AND CURRENTLY APPARENTLY IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, AN/OR ITS SUCCESSOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. The motions/applications seeking recusal of each of the judges in this cause provide ample evidence of Mr. Kaimowitz's "style" of litigation in which he intentionally confuses, obfuscates, insults, defames, and makes scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims against parties, judges, witnesses, and others related and unrelated to the litigation. Further evidence is found in his VERIFIED MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT BASED ON FRAUD COMMITTED UPON THIS COURT. Beginning at page 10 of that motion Mr. Kaimowitz claims that he ". . . has learned that repeated motions for recusal as evidence pours in eventually tends to work in his favor. For instance, after Judge Jopling finally recused himself, Kaimowitz had little difficulty resolving at mediation the underlying cases. They were assigned to Judge Turner at the time, but all he did was agree to the parties' stipulated willingness to proceed to mediation." Over the following several pages, Mr. Kaimowitz recites his history of recusal litigation in other state and federal cases. Judge Turner permanently enjoined Attorney Kaimowitz from filing further pro se litigation in the county and circuit courts of the Eighth Judicial Circuit. Although Judge Turner based his finding on Kaimowitz v. The Florida Board of Regents, Eighth Circuit Case No. 01-1996-CA-3260, he noted a number of cases involving Attorney Kaimowitz going back to 1996, including Eighth Judicial Circuit Case No. 01-2003-CA-2400-A, Gabe Kaimowitz v. Gainesville, Florida, and the Gainesville Sun, in which Judge Toby S. Monaco outlined abuses as a basis for his dismissal of Attorney Kaimowitz's Complaint with prejudice. The Respondent and Its Executive Director, Allison Thompson TRLS exists pursuant to Title 42 U. S. Code, § 2996 et seq. It is governed, inter alia, by Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1600.1, et seq. Its mission is to provide equal access to the system of justice so that those who are otherwise unable to afford adequate counsel may have high quality legal assistance to seek redress of grievances. It receives funding from the Legal Services Corporation in Washington, D.C., the Florida Bar Foundation, United Way, and other local and national government sources. TRLS is headquartered in Gainesville, Florida, and serves eleven mostly rural counties surrounding Alachua County, as well as Alachua County. It works with other volunteer agencies and with pro bono attorneys. It is essential to the success of TRLS that it maintain cordial relations with the community and the bar. Ms. Thompson hires all of the TRLS management team. TRLS does not use an application form when seeking applicants for jobs. Advertisements for positions solicit resumes. TRLS does not maintain a "pool" of applicants for any particular job. The number of employees at TRLS fluctuates depending on funding. The racial, age, and gender composition of TRLS personnel from May 2003 to May 2004, was as follows: Whites 20 Blacks 19 Asian 2 Hispanic 2 Male 11 Female 32 Of the above, the oldest was born in 1947. Three of the above were born in that year. Since 2003, new attorney hires, (including law school graduates not admitted) were as follows: Whites 10 Blacks 6 Asian 0 Hispanic 1 Male 4 Female 13 Of these, the oldest was born in 1958. TRLS has hired, since Ms. Thompson has been Executive Director, at least one person who was over the age of 70. TRLS does not have quotas or a diversity plan that requires certain races, genders, or ages to be given preference in hiring. TRLS is guided in this regard by Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1616.1, et seq. Specifically, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1616.6 requires that TRLS adopt, "employment qualifications, procedures, and policies that meet the requirements of applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, and shall take affirmative action to insure equal employment opportunity." The hiring record of TRLS, taken as a whole, demonstrates compliance with this requirement and does not indicate any pattern of discrimination. Ms. Thompson has been the executive director of TRLS since 1996. She is an African-American. She graduated from the University of Florida Law School and was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1974. She has extensive experience in the delivery of legal services to the poor. She worked for Tampa Legal Services beginning in 1973. It became a Legal Services Corporation program while she was employed there. She began working for Rhode Island Legal Services in 1976, practicing primarily family law. Ms. Thompson worked for Philadelphia Legal Services for five years and then, beginning in 1982, worked for a number of years in the U. S. Virgin Islands where she was litigation director. She was appointed Executive Director of TRLS in December of 1996. Job applications with TRLS in 2003 and earlier Attorney Kaimowitz applied for a managing attorney position with TRLS in 1997. Ms. Thompson interviewed him and determined that he was an "interesting person" but was not the type of person who would work well with others. She concluded he would be difficult to manage. She noted that if she had a job which did not require working well with others, she might wish to hire him in the future. Attorney Kaimowitz applied for a job as a staff attorney in 2001. He received a letter dated May 13, 2001, from Ms. Thompson, advising him that he was not selected and that she would keep his resume on file. Attorney Kaimowitz responded to this letter with a letter dated August 15, 2001, that pointed out two settlements he had received from legal services programs in Florida based on their alleged discrimination against him because of his age. He also discussed his whistle blowing with regard to GOALS and stated, "I include this information to indicate that when there really is a will, there is a way." Ms. Thompson took this as a threat. Attorney Kaimowitz applied for a job as a managing attorney in the TRLS Lake City office in 2002. He was not interviewed for that position. TRLS advertised for a fair housing attorney and a fair housing testing coordinator in various publications during April 2003. Attorney Kaimowitz applied for both of these jobs. He interviewed with Ms. Thompson and Mary O'Rourke, a staff attorney with TRLS, on May 30, 2003. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. O'Rourke to sit in as a witness to the interview because she was concerned that Attorney Kaimowitz would sue TRLS if she did not hire him. Initially, Attorney Kaimowitz expressed an interest in both the fair housing attorney job and the fair housing testing coordinator job. However, during the interview Attorney Kaimowitz stated that he did not wish to apply for the fair housing attorney position, but wished to be considered only as an applicant for the fair housing testing coordinator position. The occupant of this position was expected to supervise individuals who would determine if discrimination in housing was occurring. Attorney Kaimowitz claimed during his testimony that he told Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke that his ability to hear was impaired. He claimed he told them he required an accommodation for his hearing loss. He stated that he had a discussion with Ms. O'Rourke during the interview about an electronic system where a court reporter would record words spoken, and the words would be displayed on a monitor so that he could read what was being said. Attorney Kaimowitz appeared at the interview wearing one hearing aid. Ms. Thompson said that Attorney Kaimowitz said that one of his hearing aids was "in the shop." Ms. Thompson testified that he announced during the interview that his hearing loss was corrected by his hearing aids. Ms. Thompson said it was clear that he had no difficulty in understanding her with only one hearing aid. In no event did she perceive him as being hearing impaired. Ms. O'Rourke stated that the conversation claimed by Attorney Kaimowitz regarding an electronic monitor system to aid hearing never occurred. Based on Ms. O'Rourke's testimony, Ms. Thompson's testimony, and Attorney Kaimowitz's credibility, which is addressed in detail below, it is found that at the time of this interview Attorney Kaimowitz did not claim the need for an accommodation based on an alleged hearing impairment and he was not perceived as being hearing impaired. Ms. Thompson wanted employees at TRLS who would maintain a good relationship with the local bar. Even though the housing testing coordinator position was not a job requiring the incumbent to be a licensed attorney, it is not helpful for TRLS to have employees who are at odds with the local bar or community. She was looking for an employee who was a team player, who could get along with the other employees at TRLS, the local bar, and with persons in the community. She also wanted someone with good references. The fair housing testing coordinator required training in Jacksonville. Ms. Thompson believed Attorney Kaimowitz could not be trained because, "He already knew everything." She believed he couldn't take orders. She was troubled because he had no references from people who had supervised him. Although attorneys who have their own practice cannot give references of supervisors, they usually can give a judge or judges as a reference, but Attorney Kaimowitz did not provide any judges as references. Attorney Kaimowitz provided a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit and a professor named Joe Little as references. Ms. Thompson called Professor Little but did not feel it would be worthwhile calling his co-plaintiff, who was embroiled in a lawsuit at the time. She was concerned because Attorney Kaimowitz told her, with regard to references, "everyone in Gainesville was suspect." Moreover, he did not provide any references from his time as director of GOALS, which was a job where he had a supervisor who could comment on his work. Ms. Thompson was aware of Attorney Kaimowitz's arrest during a Gainesville City Commission meeting, and was aware of at least one of his Florida Supreme Court reprimands at the time she decided not to hire him. She was also aware that he would occasionally write in "black English," and she found that offensive. She believed him to be a disruptive force. She stated she would not hire him if he was "the last man on earth." She stated that an equally obnoxious black man would often apply for positions at TRLS, and she would not hire him for the same general reasons that she would not hire Attorney Kaimowitz. Ms. Thompson thought Attorney Kaimowitz would be a liability to her organization. She noted that, "He makes comments without any basis. He makes sweeping comments when he knows nothing. He doesn't even check." Brenda Scafadi was eventually hired for the housing testing coordinator. She was, at the time, a 50-year-old white woman who had a disability in the form of fibromyalgia. She was not an attorney. She was hired because she was perceived to be a team player and she had good references. Ms. Scafadi resigned after about eight months and was replaced by Steve Malu, a 50-year-old Nigerian, who also was not an attorney. Attorney Kaimowitz was a person Ms. Thompson had personally known for about six years at the time of the interview. She also knew about him from his letters to the "Gainesville Sun" and numerous e-mails he sent to her and to others. She was aware of his reputation in the community. She refused to hire him because she did not believe he would be a good employee. Neither his age, nor his race, nor his claimed hearing loss was a factor in her decision. Attorney Kaimowitz received a letter from Ms. Thompson dated July 22, 2003, advising him that she had, "decided to offer the position to different applicants who I thought would be more appropriate for our needs." The Americorps positions On August 1, 2004, Americorps positions in Gainesville and Jacksonville were advertised. These jobs were targeted at inexperienced attorneys and paid "living expenses" and a promise of scholarship help rather than a salary. During the evening of August 2, 2004, Ms. Thompson offered testimony before the Gainesville City Commission. After her testimony she departed, although the meeting continued. After exiting the building, she heard footsteps behind her and turned to see Attorney Kaimowitz following her. There were no other people in the area. He stated that he wanted to "mediate our situation" but was informed by Ms. Thompson that there was nothing to mediate because she did not discriminate. She told him she was tired of him making disparaging comments about her program and her staff. Attorney Kaimowitz expressed an interest in the Americorps positions in an e-mail to Ms. Thompson dated August 5, 2004, which was in the nature of a resume. In this letter he said, "I certainly will refrain from any action I suggested I might take through this month of August, so that we can see if we can reach an accommodation in that time." Ms. Thompson regarded this as a threat. Ms. Thompson did not interview him for the Americorps positions because the "resume" e-mail of August 5, 2004, did not match the requirements of the job. Three of the positions were designed for attorneys TRLS could train so that they could recruit students from the law school to assist in the delivery of services. The other two positions required no litigation skills and were designed to provide limited legal services over the telephone to a large volume of clients. Another reason Ms. Thompson found Attorney Kaimowitz to be unsuitable for this job were statements he made to her, such as claiming she hired an "incompetent black male." She had seen, and was familiar with, another widely circulated writing in which he stated, "The real 'piece of work' is Three Rivers Legal Services, and their foolish young attorney of color Glorimil Walker, everyone's favorite minority attorney since she speaks her mind--even if it is against the adults and children at University Centre." The Americorps attorneys hired during this period, instead of Attorney Kaimowitz, included Shelly E. Beach, who was a 26-year-old white female, Melissa B. Long, a 29-year-old black female, and Julie A. Santioni, a 26-year-old white female. Ms. Thompson, and TRLS did not discriminate or retaliate against Mr. Kaimowitz in refusing him an Americorps position. He was not hired because the job was unsuitable for him and because he was unsuitable for employment at TRLS. Retaliation Attorney Kaimowitz's original claim of retaliation was based on his view that TRLS would not hire him because he had sued Central Florida Legal Services and that Ms. Thompson knew and would not hire him because of that lawsuit. Ms. Thompson denied this. Attorney Kaimowitz's second claim of retaliation was based on the complaint to the Commission concerning the refusal of TRLS to hire him for the fair housing testing coordinator position. For reasons that are abundantly clear herein, there were numerous reasons for not hiring him other than retaliation. Attorney Kaimowitz's Credibility Attorney Kaimowitz claims that he applied for the fair housing attorney position as well as the fair housing testing coordinator. Both Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke stated that at his interview he said he wished to apply only for the fair housing testing coordinator. Attorney Kaimowitz also claims that he informed Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke at his interview that he was hard of hearing and required an accommodation. Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke both said that during the interview he asserted that any hearing problems he had were resolved by hearing aids. Attorney Kaimowitz has demonstrated through his pleadings and actions in court, and before this Administrative Law Judge, that he has a low regard for the truth. As an example, he claims to believe in the equality of mankind, but during his examination of Ms. Thompson, he threw a document at her and stated that, "And then you could never find discrimination unless I don't want a nigger in here." As a consequence all issues involving credibility are resolved against Attorney Kaimowitz. That being the case, it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not seek the fair housing attorney position in 2003 and that he did not assert during the interview that he was hard of hearing and thus required an accommodation.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitions be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carla D. Franklin, Esquire 4809 Southwest 91st Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608 Gabe H. Kaimowitz, Esquire Post Office Box 140119 Gainesville, Florida 32614-0119 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner’s request for an exemption pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Saunders seeks an exemption for employment in a position for which a security background check is required pursuant to Sections 397.451 and 435.04, Florida Statutes. Presently, Mr. Saunders is employed as an intern human service worker at Reliance House, an adult residential facility located in Panama City, Bay County, Florida. In addition to working at Reliance House, Mr. Saunders is enrolled at Gulf Coast Community College working toward a degree as a Certified Addition Associate Professional. Mr. Saunders sought this exemption so that he could work with children receiving substance abuse services. In 1990, Mr. Saunders was charged with and plead nolo contendere to the charges of burglary, possession of burglary tools, and carrying a concealed weapon. Mr. Saunders was placed on two years' probation. In 1991, Mr. Saunders pled guilty to the charges of burglary of a structure, attempted burglary of a structure, grand theft, criminal mischief, and burglary of a business. In 1992, Mr. Saunders was charged with burglary of a liquor store. Mr. Saunders testified that the burglary charge was reduced to a charge of criminal trespass and that he remained under court supervised probation until October, 1996. Mr. Saunders expressed remorse for his criminal behavior and accepted complete responsibility. He also believes that he shares some of the same problems that are exhibited by the residents of Reliance House and that he would be a good role model because he is attempting to correct his life. Christiane LeClair is a background screening coordinator employed by the Department of Children and Families. As part of her duties, Ms. LeClair reviews employment applications to determine if an applicant is worthy of a position of special trust. Ms. LeClair determined that Mr. Saunders was not qualified because of his conviction of grand theft. She also noted that Mr. Saunders has been released from supervision of the courts for only three months and that it is too early to determine if he has been rehabilitated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order and therein DENY Mr. Saunders’ request for an exemption.DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certification of correctional officers within the State of Florida. Respondent holds Correctional Certificate No. 200857, issued to her by Petitioner. Shortly after 2:00 a.m., on January 8, 2005, Corporal Andrew Markham of the City of Sebring Police Department was dispatched to the scene of a reported traffic crash at the intersection of Center Street and Northeast Lakeview Drive in Sebring, Florida. Corporal Markham found no vehicles in the intersection or any evidence of a crash there. Adjacent to the intersection, in the parking lot of the Sebring Public Library, Corporal Markham saw a car with its brake lights illuminated. He approached the car to determine whether the occupants could provide any information about the reported traffic accident. Corporal Markham observed that the front of the car was damaged from its collision with a low barrier wall that bordered the parking lot. The windshield was also damaged from what Corporal Markham concluded was the impact of the occupants' heads with the windshield when the car hit the barrier. When Corporal Markham approached the car, he saw Respondent exit the driver's seat and begin to walk away. Corporal Markham stopped Respondent to speak with her. Respondent had blood on her face, as did the other occupant of the car. At the time of the incident, Respondent denied being the driver of the car. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she was the driver. During his conversation with Respondent at the scene, Corporal Markham smelled the odor of alcohol on Respondent, noted that she was unsteady, and that her eyes were red. When Corporal Markham asked Respondent to take field sobriety tests, she continued to insist that she was not the driver of the car and would not take the tests. Based on his observations at the scene, his training, and his 13 years of experience as a police officer, Corporal Markham believed Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. Therefore, he arrested Respondent for the offense of driving under the influence of alcohol. Corporal Markham first transported Respondent to the Highlands County Medical Center to receive treatment for her injury. At the Medical Center, Respondent refused medical treatment, and Corporal Markham transported her to the Highlands County Jail. At the jail, Respondent was taken to the area where breath tests are conducted. Corporal Markham read Respondent the "Implied Consent" that informed her that if she refused to take the test, she could lose her driving privilege for up to one year. Respondent refused to take a breath test at the jail. Deputy Loran Danielson of the Highlands County Sheriff's Office was the officer on duty to conduct the breath tests at the jail. When Deputy Danielson met Respondent, he noted that her breath smelled strongly of alcohol, her eyes were bloodshot, her speech was slurred, and she was unsteady on her feet. Based on his observations of Respondent, his training, and his 10 years of experience as a Deputy Sheriff, Deputy Danielson was of the opinion that Respondent was under the influence of alcoholic beverages to the extent that her normal faculties were impaired. During the time that Deputy Danielson talked to Respondent, she told him that she had consumed "many" drinks, and if she took the breath test, it would show "I'm drunk." On September 27, 2004, less than four months before the incident at issue in this case, Petitioner issued Respondent a Letter of Acknowledgement for an earlier driving under the influence (DUI) violation by Respondent. At the hearing, Respondent admitted that she had "a few drinks" with friends at a bar just prior to her arrest, but she denied that she was intoxicated. Respondent said the crash occurred because she had taken her eyes off the road to speak to passengers in the back seat. Respondent said she refused to take the field sobriety tests or the breath test at the jail because she was scared. Respondent explained that one term of her probation for the prior DUI conviction was that she was not to drink alcohol. Respondent expressed remorse for her behavior on January 8, 2005, and claimed she has stopped drinking alcohol. Respondent stated that her career as a correctional officer is very important to her, and she requested another opportunity to prove she is a responsible person and capable correctional officer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a final order finding that Respondent Tena D. Grant failed to demonstrate good moral character as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and ordering that her certification as a correctional officer be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 April, 2006.
The Issue In this case, the Petitioner seeks to impose discipline against the Respondent's certificate to be employed as a correctional officer based upon the allegation that the Respondent has committed acts which evidence a failure to maintain the qualifications incumbent upon a correctional officer working in Florida. In particular, it is alleged that the Respondent committed acts which demonstrated a lack of good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Facts Deemed Admitted The Respondent was certified as a corrections officer by the Petitioner on or about August 16, 1985 and was issued Corrections Certificate No. 28-85- 502-02. The Respondent was employed as a sworn corrections officer with the Alachua County Department of Corrections from June 17, 1985 to August 8, 1991. The Respondent, on or about April 20, 1990, was found guilty by a jury for the crime of resisting arrest without violence, a misdemeanor. The court withheld adjudication and sentenced the Respondent to six months of probation. The Respondent, on or about July 8, 1991, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the criminal charges of resisting arrest without violence and battery, both misdemeanors. The court sentenced the Respondent to one year of probation and withheld adjudication. On or about August 6, 1991, the Respondent became involved in a dispute with members of his family at his residence. The Respondent had consumed one or more alcoholic beverages immediately prior to and/or during the above-referenced family dispute. The dispute turned into a verbal and physical disturbance involving the Respondent and members of his family. The police were called to the Respondent's residence due to the above- referenced disturbance. After the police arrived with regard to the above-referenced disturbance, the Respondent barricaded himself inside his residence by locking the doors. After barricading himself inside his residence, the Respondent armed himself with a knife. The Respondent threatened to kill the police officers at the scene of the above-referenced disturbance if the officers attempted to apprehend him. Other Facts The offense described in paragraph 3 to these facts is related to the allegations contained in paragraph 2.(a) to the Administrative Complaint. The offense described in paragraph 4 to these facts is related to the allegations contained in paragraph 2.(b) to the Administrative Complaint, with the exception that paragraph 2.(b) makes no mention that a battery was committed. The offense described in paragraph 4 to these facts was considered in the Circuit Court of Union County, Florida, Case No. 90-29-CF. In addition to the service of one year of probation, the Respondent was ordered to successfully complete Anger Management as instructed by the Respondent's probation officer. On August 2, 1989, at approximately 9:30 p.m., in Alachua, Florida, Officer Lisa Brown, in pursuing her duties as a sworn officer, stopped the Respondent for a traffic violation. The Respondent was stopped because he had run two stop signs in Alachua. The stop signs were run at Northeast 8th Avenue crossing over State Road 235 and at Northwest 8th Avenue at Main Street. Officer Brown is now Officer Lisa Brown Haefner. At times relevant, Officer Haefner was serving as a police officer with the City of Alachua. Officer Haefner made the traffic-violation stop on Northwest 8th Avenue, off of Main Street, in Alachua. When the traffic-violation stop was made, Officer Haefner was assisted by Sergeant Cindy Dennison of the City of Alachua. Sergeant Dennison and Officer Haefner were driving separate patrol units on that night. Both officers observed the Respondent run the stop signs. Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison did not know Respondent when the traffic stop was made. After the stop, Officer Haefner asked the Respondent to exit his vehicle. The Respondent exited the vehicle. At that time, Officer Haefner asked the Respondent for identification. The Respondent replied that he "had none". Officer Haefner asked the Respondent for his name. The Respondent stated that he "didn't have a name". When the Respondent was contacted about the traffic violations, Officer Haefner asked for his driver's license, and the Respondent told Officer Haefner that he did not have a driver's license. The Respondent was acting irrational and irritated in the presence of Sergeant Dennison and Officer Haefner. Officer Haefner detected an odor about Respondent's person which she believed to be cannabis. Officer Haefner determined to arrest the Respondent for resisting or obstructing arrest without violence based upon the Respondent's failure to give information concerning his identity and the belief that she had cause to arrest Respondent. After informing the Respondent that he was being arrested for resisting or obstructing arrest without violence, Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison attempted to place handcuffs on the Respondent. This was a normal procedure. The Respondent resisted the placement of the handcuffs by twisting and stiffening his body and leaving his arms in front of him, which obstructed the officers' ability to secure the Respondent's arms behind him, as they desired. Under the circumstances, Officer Haefner sought the assistance of Officer Clovis Watson, Jr. (later Sergeant Watson) and Officer VanHorn. The other officers who were summoned for assistance were employed by the City of Alachua Police Department. The Respondent was eventually handcuffed, placed in Officer Watson's patrol car, and taken to the police station. When at the police station, he continued to be irrational and irritated. At one point in the encounter between Officer Haefner, Sergeant Dennison, and the Respondent, the Respondent offered to obtain identification from the back seat of his vehicle. The officers declined that request in that the Respondent was acting irrational and irritated; and based upon a fear for her personal safety, Officer Haefner would not allow the Respondent to access his vehicle. Respondent's offer to obtain identification came about at the point in time at which Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison attempted to handcuff the Respondent. The nature of the Respondent's irrationality and irritability was manifested by his being "real vocal, not wanting to cooperate, agitated as far as being stopped" and asking the officers "why are you harassing me?". The Respondent manifested this attitude notwithstanding that Officer Haefner had told him that he was being stopped for a traffic violation. The Respondent also manifested his irritability by having an agitated appearance. Before the Respondent was arrested for resisting or obstructing arrest without violence, he had been told several times not to return to his vehicle; however, he continued to walk toward his vehicle. It is at that point that Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison physically grabbed the Respondent and tried to restrain and handcuff him. The Respondent's actions prohibited Officer Haefner and Sergeant Dennison from performing their law-enforcement duties in making the traffic- violation stop. The Respondent continued to struggle when the officers were attempting to place the handcuffs on him after Officer Watson arrived at the scene by swaying back and forth. In the course of that struggle, Sergeant Dennison fell to the ground and the Respondent and Officer Watson fell on top of her. As a consequence, Sergeant Dennison sustained a concussion. The Respondent held his hands close to his body as a means to restrict the ability of the officers to handcuff him. The Respondent shook back and forth and this caused the officers and the Respondent to fall, injuring Sergeant Dennison. While the officers were attempting to handcuff the Respondent, he did not strike out at the officers. The Respondent resisted, in part, because he did not wish to be taken to the jail where he worked. On May 5, 1990, the Respondent, together with his brother and a friend, went to Union County, Florida, to a nightclub. When they arrived they were confronted by a number of persons who were already at the club. A fight ensued and the Respondent's brother was injured. The Respondent then took his brother to Ramadan Hospital to have his brother treated for injuries sustained in the fight at the club. Ramadan Hospital was located in Lake Butler, Union County, Florida. Union County Sheriff Jerry Whitehead received a call on his beeper at around 1:00 to 1:30 a.m. on the morning in question. He called the Union County Jail and was told about the fight at the local nightclub. He was also told that all of the deputy sheriffs had been dispatched to the nightclub. In turn, Sheriff Whitehead got dressed and started toward Lake Butler. Ramadan Hospital is located between his home and the Union County Jail. About a mile from the hospital, Sheriff Whitehead received a call from the sheriff's office dispatcher indicating that there was a disturbance at the hospital. Sheriff Whitehead responded to that call. When Sheriff Whitehead entered the emergency room at the hospital, the Respondent, his brother and the friend were in the waiting area of the hospital. The Respondent was standing in the hallway at that time, cursing and saying that he had just contacted his supervisor, taken to mean supervisor at the Alachua Correctional Facility, and that the Respondent was "fixing to have some people come over and they were going to get the situation straight". Sheriff Whitehead identified himself to the Respondent and asked the Respondent what the problem was. The Respondent indicated that he had been involved in an incident at the local nightclub and that there had been a fight and his brother had been injured. The Respondent told Sheriff Whitehead that he was going to "take this thing into his own hands". The Respondent was also indicating "things" that he wanted to have done concerning the incident. Respondent was cursing and using foul language. Sheriff Whitehead told the Respondent that he had to calm down or leave the premises. Sheriff Whitehead repeated this remark a number of times. After a time Sheriff Whitehead went to a telephone in the hospital and called the sheriff's office dispatcher and asked that a deputy sheriff be sent. During the course of these circumstances, the Respondent was belligerent and had the smell of alcohol about his person. The Respondent was being very belligerent in telling the nurses something to the effect that he was going to "tear that place up if they didn't get this done." This related to the Respondent's concern that a doctor was not available to attend to his brother at the hospital. The disturbance which the Respondent was causing was primarily directed to the hospital staff. The Respondent continued his outbursts for several minutes. In the course of this event, the Respondent identified himself as a law enforcement officer. Sheriff Whitehead told the Respondent that he needed to calm down and to let the Union County Sheriff's Department take care of the situation. Finally, Sheriff Whitehead believed that he had lost control over the Respondent's conduct and told the Respondent that he was going to place the Respondent under arrest. The Respondent replied that "he did not need to be arrested, wasn't going to be arrested." Sheriff Whitehead then placed his arm on the Respondent's arm and the Respondent snatched his arm away from Sheriff Whitehead. At that point Sheriff Whitehead took the Respondent through a set of doors to exit the hospital emergency room. They struggled out onto a patio area and onto the asphalt parking lot and then onto a grassy area where Sheriff Whitehead took the Respondent down and held him until a deputy sheriff arrived to assist. Sheriff Whitehead told the Respondent that he was being arrested for breach of the peace, an offense which Sheriff Whitehead believed he had reasonable cause to arrest the Respondent for. After the Respondent had been subdued and handcuffs placed on him, the Respondent became cooperative and acted remorseful, again explaining to Sheriff Whitehead that he was a correctional officer and that he was afraid he was going to lose his job because of the incident. The Respondent was then taken by a deputy sheriff to be transported to the Union County jail. When Sheriff Whitehead was trying to talk to the Respondent, the Respondent would swing his arms and on several occasions made cursing remarks toward the nurses, which Sheriff Whitehead believed was because doctors were not available to attend the Respondent's brother at that time. On August 6, 1991, Officers Glen Hammond, Donald Rice and Price responded to an alleged domestic disturbance call at 305 N.E. Fifth Street in Alachua, Florida. Those officers were working for the City of Alachua Police Department when they made the response. The alleged domestic disturbance involved the Respondent, his mother, sister and brother. When the officers arrived at the scene the other family members told the officers that the Respondent had been involved in a physical altercation with them and had battered them. The Respondent's mother told Officer Hammond that the Respondent had been smoking crack cocaine prior to the arrival of the officers. The family members told the officers that the Respondent was located in a wooded area near the residence. The officers went to find the Respondent so they could talk to him concerning the complaint by his family. Officer Wallace located the Respondent and brought him back to the residence. While standing in front of the residence, the Respondent was arguing with his mother and using profanity. In addition, he yelled at Officer Hammond a few times to the effect that the Respondent wasn't going to be taken into custody. At that juncture there was no intention by the officers to arrest the Respondent. At this time Officer Hammond did not observe anything about the Respondent's demeanor to suggest that the Respondent had consumed alcoholic beverages. After a short period, the Respondent left the area adjacent to the residence and returned to the woods. The officers again went to find the Respondent so that they could discuss the complaint. While the officers were trying to locate the Respondent for the second time someone started yelling that the Respondent had returned to the residence and was inside the residence. The officers then returned to the residence. When Officer Hammond walked up to the front of the residence to an area adjacent to a porch on the front of the residence, the Respondent opened the door and stepped out holding a knife which appeared to be a steak knife. The Respondent told Officer Hammond that Officer Hammond was not going to arrest him and that if Officer Hammond tried to come on the porch, the Respondent would kill Officer Hammond. The Respondent also mentioned the possibility that he would do harm to himself. While standing on the porch, the Respondent was not acting in a rational manner. After the Respondent threatened to kill Officer Hammond, the officer backed away from the residence and called for assistance from other law enforcement officers. Officer Hammond did this being fearful for his safety. A second brother of the Respondent arrived at the residence when the Respondent went in the house from the front porch. The second brother went inside to try and talk to the Respondent to defuse the situation. The second brother managed to have the Respondent come out of the house, at which point, the Respondent was charged with disorderly intoxication. At about the time the Respondent was arrested, Officer Hammond was close enough to the Respondent to notice that the Respondent had an odor of alcohol about the Respondent's person. When Office Wallace found the Respondent in the woods on the first occasion, the Respondent did not resist the officer in any manner and agreed to go back to the residence with the officer. When the Respondent returned to the residence on the first occasion, he stated that he would kill somebody first before he would go to jail. It is at that point that the Respondent broke from the scene and ran into the woods. While on the porch, the Respondent stated that he would kill any officer or take his own life, and that the Respondent was not going to go to jail. When the Respondent was first approached in the woods, Officer Wallace did not have grounds to arrest the Respondent. When the Respondent came back from the woods the first time, Officer Hammond was trying to interview the Respondent concerning the circumstances between the Respondent and his family that had caused the officers to be summoned. When the Respondent returned to the woods for the second time, the officers did not have cause to arrest the Respondent. When the Respondent told the officers that he was not going to be arrested or go to jail, upon the conversation that the officers held with the Respondent after he returned from the woods on the first occasion, the Respondent had not been told that he was being arrested. When the Respondent went back in the house from the front porch, he locked the doors to the residence and still had possession of the steak knife. The residence in question was reported to the officers as being the Respondent's mother's residence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Certificate No. 28-85-402-02 be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 31st day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 94-5306 The following discussion is given concerning the proposed findings of fact by Petitioner. Petitioner's Facts: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 5 through 30 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 31 and 32 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 33 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 34 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraph 35 constitutes a conclusion of law. Paragraph 36 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 37 through the first sentence in Paragraph 42 are subordinate to facts found. The second sentence in Paragraph 42 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 43 through 50 are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Johnston, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489 Joseph W. Little, Esquire 3731 Northwest 13th Place Gainesville, FL 32605 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1489
Findings Of Fact On November 22, 1989, T. L. James & Company, Inc. was convicted of conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition. This is a public entity crime. T. L. James executed a Public Entity Crimes Affidavit on July 24, 1994. On the affidavit T. L. James disclosed the conviction. Pursuant to Section 287.133, Florida Statutes, the Department of management Services (DMS) shall investigate public entity crimes to determine if the convicted company should be placed on the convicted vendors' list. After receiving the affidavit from T. L. James, DMS conducted an investigation and discovered mitigating factors as defined and listed in Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. These factors are: payment of fines and damages totalling $600,000, cooperation with the officials criminally investigating and prosecuting the case, cooperation with DMS' investigation, instituting safeguards in the bid estimation process to prevent further irregularities, and providing full and accurate notice. All other facts stipulated to by the parties pursuant to the Joint Stipulation previously filed in this case are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer.
Findings Of Fact On December 11, 1995, Petitioner, GEORGE S. BARNES, filed an application for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer with Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING. Petitioner has been employed in the security business since 1988. Petitioner is also an ordained minister and works with Earth Mission, Inc., a community organization assisting troubled juveniles. Petitioner currently resides in St. Petersburg, Florida. Petitioner's application was filed with the Respondent's Tampa Regional Office. Respondent, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF LICENSING, is the agency of the State of Florida having statutory authority for the administration of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, including the licensure of Class "D" Security Officers. Petitioner's application reflected that in October of 1993, Petitioner had previously been issued a license as a Security Officer in the State of Florida. The application stated that Petitioner was employed by Weisser Security beginning in 1993. Petitioner's application further reflected that Petitioner had been convicted of possession of marijuana in 1987 in Pinellas County, that Petitioner had been convicted of battery in 1994 in Pinellas County, and that Petitioner was currently on probation. Petitioner signed the application affirming that the information contained in the application was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. Petitioner's signature was notarized by Cyndi Lynn Cutchall, a Notary Public of the State of Florida, Commission No. CC511419. Petitioner has a criminal record evidencing three misdemeanor convictions. On February 15, 1988 Petitioner pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Case No. CTC 87- 27269, County Court, Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner was ordered to pay a $250 fine. On May 25, 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor battery. Case No. 94-33011MMF, County Court, Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner was placed on probation for one year, ordered to participate in the Family Violence Program, pay a fine of $150, and to have no contact with the victim, or with his step-daughter Starleetha Williams. On December 6, 1995, Petitioner pled nolo contendere and was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor battery. Case No. CRC-95-021199CFANO-K, County Court, Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner was placed on probation for one year, ordered to undergo mental health counseling, successfully complete all treatment, and to have no further contact with his step-daughter, Starleetha Williams. Petitioner was at the time of the filing of his application for licensure, and is currently, on probation. On December 11, 1995, Petitioner went to Tampa, Florida for the purpose of filing an application for licensure as a security officer with Respondent. Petitioner had obtained a computer printout of his criminal record from Pinellas County. The computer printout reflected his prior convictions for possession of marijuana and his first conviction for misdemeanor battery. The printout did not at that time reflect Petitioner's second conviction for misdemeanor battery which had occurred only five days earlier on December 6, 1995. Petitioner sought the assistance of Cyndi Lynn Cutchall in completing the application. The record indicates that Cyndi Lynn Cutchall was a Notary Public in the State of Florida. Petitioner assumed that Ms. Cutchall, who was located in the state office building, was employed by the Respondent; however, Ms. Cutchall was not called as a witness, and there is no evidence indicating that she was an employee of Respondent. Petitioner partially completed the application himself; however Section V of the application was completed by Ms. Cutchall. Section V indicates that Petitioner was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1987, and battery in 1994. Petitioner testified that he informed Ms. Cutchall of his second conviction for battery, but that she instructed him that because his second battery conviction was not yet on the computer printout, it was not necessary to include the second battery conviction on his application. Petitioner knew that his application was inaccurate, but nonetheless signed his application affirming the truth and correctness of the information contained therein. Ms. Cutchall notarized Petitioner's signature. Petitioner's misdemeanor conviction for possession of marijuana occurred in 1988. This conviction resulted from an incident in which Petitioner was stopped while driving a relative's car in which a marijuana cigarette was discovered. Petitioner paid the fine imposed by the court. It appears that Petitioner obtained a license as a security officer in October 1993, subsequent to this offense. Petitioner's two convictions for misdemeanor battery in 1995 arose from family problems. The first incident resulted from a domestic dispute between Petitioner and his wife in which his wife slipped and fell on their kitchen floor during the dispute. The second incident initially involved very serious felony child sexual abuse charges; however, during Petitioner's trial, the charges were reduced to misdemeanor battery to which Petitioner pled nolo contendere. Petitioner denies both battery charges, and specifically denies any inappropriate contact with the child in question. Petitioner and his wife are currently separated, and Petitioner has no contact with the child involved in the second battery case. Although it appears that Petitioner may have had previous contact with the victim of the second battery, it now appears that Petitioner is complying with the terms of his probation in accordance with the order of the court. There is no evidence that Petitioner's probation was ever revoked for a violation. Petitioner is not employed as a security officer, pending resolution of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer with leave for Petitioner to reapply for licensure upon successful completion of Petitioner's current probation. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Ted J. Starr, Esquire Post Office Box 12827 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Michelle Guy, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Sandra B. Wortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
