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.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Gabe H. Kaimowitz, Esquire, pro se Post Office Box 140119 Gainesville, Florida 32614-0119 For Respondent: Carla D. Franklin, Esquire 4809 Southwest 91st Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608
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 Petitioner has cause to terminate the Respondent's employment as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 20, 1998.
Findings Of Fact On August 14, 1998, Respondent, a teacher employed by Petitioner, entered a plea of guilty to the charge of exploitation of an elderly person, which is a first degree felony pursuant to Section 825.103, Florida Statutes. At the same time, Respondent also entered a plea of guilty to the charge of petit theft over $100.00, which is a first degree misdemeanor. In entering these pleas, Respondent advised the court, pursuant to Rule 3.172(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, that she believed the pleas were in her best interest and that she was maintaining her innocence to the charges. The court withheld adjudication of guilt as to the charge of exploitation of an elderly person, adjudicated her guilty of petit theft, sentenced her to one day of time served, placed her on probation for 20 years, and required that she pay restitution to the Estate of Lillie Keller in the amount of $52,000.00. 1/ By letter dated October 21, 1997, Petitioner reassigned Respondent to a position with no direct contact with children pending the outcome of the criminal charges. Following an investigation, the superintendent of schools recommended to the school board that Respondent's employment be suspended without pay and terminated. On October 7, 1998, the school board voted to adopt that recommendation. The recommendation and the subsequent vote to adopt the recommendation were based on Respondent's plea of guilty to the charge of exploitation of an elderly person. Petitioner followed its procedural rules in investigating this matter and in voting to terminate Respondent's employment. As of October 7, 1998, Respondent held a professional services contract and had been employed by Petitioner for approximately 13 years as a teacher. Section 231.02(1), Florida Statutes, requires school board employees to be of good moral character. Respondent, as a teacher, is required by Section 231.02(2), Florida Statutes, to be fingerprinted and screened by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Section 435.03(2), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (2) Any person for whom employment screening is required by statute must not have been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, any offense prohibited under any of the following provisions of the Florida Statutes or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction: * * * (v) Section 825.103, relating to exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult, if the offense was a felony. Petitioner's Rule 3.12, pertaining to criminal background checks of current and prospective employees, has been duly enacted and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Definitions: For the purposes of this policy: * * * b. "Conviction" means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. * * * 3. A prospective or current employee may be disqualified or may be terminated from continued employment if the prospective or current employee has been convicted of a crime classified as a felony or first degree misdemeanor directly related to the position of employment sought or convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude or any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 435, Florida Statutes. Section M of the collective bargaining agreement between the Petitioner and the Palm Beach County Classroom Teachers' Association provides for progressive discipline of covered employees such as Respondent. Section M provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Without the consent of the employee and the Association, disciplinary action may not be taken against an employee except for just cause, and this must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence which supports the recommended disciplinary action. * * * 7. Except in cases which clearly constitute a real and immediate danger to the District or the actions/inactions of the employee constitute such clearly flagrant and purposeful violations of reasonable school rules and regulations, progressive discipline shall be administered as follows: Verbal Reprimand With a Written Notation. . . . Written Reprimand. . . . Suspension Without Pay. A suspension without pay may be issued to an employee when appropriate, in keeping with the provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable law. ... Dismissal. An employee may be dismissed (employment contract terminated or non-renewed) when appropriate in keeping with provisions of this Section, including just cause and applicable law. Section 435.06(2), Florida Statutes, requires an employing agency, such as the Petitioner, to take the following action when an employee has failed to meet the requirements of Section 435.03(2), Florida Statutes: The employer must either terminate the employment of any of its personnel found to be in noncompliance with the minimum standards for good moral character contained in this section or place the employee in a position for which background screening is not required unless the employee is granted an exemption from disqualification pursuant to s. 435.07. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that terminates Respondent's employment based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 20th day of August, 1999.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, by committing the felony of armed trespass while employed as a deputy sheriff, failed to fulfill his duties and responsibilities as an employee of the Petitioner, and, if so, whether the termination of the Respondent's employment was consistent with applicable disciplinary policy.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Petitioner as a deputy sheriff. The Respondent had been employed for 12 to 13 years as a law enforcement officer prior to his employment with the Petitioner. He was employed by the Petitioner for more than six years prior to the termination at issue in this proceeding. In September 2009, two undercover law enforcement officers, one of whom was the Respondent, went from a public alleyway through a privacy fence and into the private backyard property of a Pinellas County citizen. The entry occurred at night. The alley and backyard area were unlit. The Respondent was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt and was armed with a gun. The officers had no search warrant authorizing their entry onto the private property. The Respondent's entry into the private backyard was an act of trespass. The commission of a trespass while armed constitutes a third degree felony. The Respondent did not report the trespass to any superior officer within the Petitioner's chain of command. The Respondent has asserted that he was merely following the other officer's lead on the night when the trespass occurred and did not think that he had acted improperly. During a deposition for an unrelated criminal case, the Respondent was questioned about whether he had observed another officer engage in a similar trespass. The Respondent resisted answering the question, sought legal advice from an assistant state attorney, and then declined to answer the question. Even after being questioned about the issue during the deposition, the Respondent still failed to report the incident to any superior officer within the chain of command. After a complaint of misconduct was filed against the Respondent, the Petitioner commenced an administrative investigation. During the investigation, the Respondent acknowledged the trespass, but attempted to minimize his participation in the incident and to assign responsibility for the trespass to the other law enforcement officer. Bob Gualtieri, the sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, is responsible for operation of the Petitioner and is authorized to impose discipline on the Petitioner's employees who violate rules or regulations adopted by the Petitioner in accordance with a Civil Service Act. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 3-1 to establish a standard of conduct for the Petitioner's employees and has categorized misconduct into disciplinary levels based on the severity of a transgression. "Level 5" violations reflect serious misconduct. The Respondent's participation in the felony trespass and his failure to report the incident to his superiors constitute separate level 5 violations. The Respondent violated Rule 5.4, which requires that employees be aware of their assigned duties and responsibilities and take prompt and effective action in carrying them out. The Respondent violated Rule 5.5, which requires that employees observe and obey all laws and ordinances and report violations by written memorandum upon their first duty shift following a violation. The Petitioner has adopted General Order 10-2 to establish a point system to be followed by the Petitioner's Administrative Review Board for the imposition of discipline based on adopted guidelines. The Respondent has accumulated 75 disciplinary points, 60 of which are based on the trespass incident underlying this proceeding. Termination from employment is within the range of discipline established by the Petitioner's rules and procedures applicable to the facts of this case. The Respondent has asserted that the sheriff's exercise of discretion in terminating his employment was severe and unreasonable. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The basis for the Respondent's termination was the Respondent's commission of the felony of armed trespass and his failure to inform any superior officer within the chain of command of the incident. The sheriff's decision to terminate the Respondent from employment was clearly warranted. There is no evidence that the sheriff inappropriately applied the Petitioner's rules and procedures or that any similarly-situated employee has been subjected to lesser discipline by Sheriff Gualtieri for comparable conduct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order terminating the Respondent from employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of March, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Grant Rozelle, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Carole Sanzeri, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert F. McKee, Esquire Kelly and McKee Post Office Box 75638 Tampa, Florida 33675
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner should be permitted to take the examination for licensure as a real estate sales associate.
Findings Of Fact In September 2003, the Petitioner filed an application for licensure by the State of Florida as a real estate sales associate. In an application section titled "Background Information" question 1 asks in relevant part, "[h]ave you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere . . ." to which the Petitioner responded in the affirmative. "Background Information" question 4 in relevant part asks, "[h]as any license, registration, or permit to practice any regulated profession, occupation, vocation, or business been revoked, annulled, suspended, relinquished, surrendered, or withdrawn . . ." to which the Respondent replied in the affirmative. Question 1 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the incident(s) by completion of "form 0050-1." Question 4 directs an applicant who responds in the affirmative to disclose the full details of the termination(s) by completion of "form 0060-1." The disclosure forms completed by the Petitioner (if any) are not in the Respondent's files and are unavailable for review. The Petitioner's application package was presented to the Commission on December 16, 2003. After considering his presentation, the Commission denied his application and instructed him to return with additional information related to the disclosed charges. The Petitioner apparently sought reconsideration, and his application package was again presented to the Commission on March 17, 2004. After reconsidering the Petitioner's background, the Commission again denied his application. The Petitioner then sought an administrative hearing to challenge the denial of his application. On or about July 26, 2000, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with stalking. The Commission's records indicate that the Petitioner completed a pretrial program and was sentenced to 50 hours of community service. At the administrative hearing, the Petitioner testified that he was placed on probation for six months, and had to complete a six- month psychological evaluation. The stalking charge was nolle prossed. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that at the time of the stalking charge, he was working at a retail establishment. The object of his attention was a 16-year-old female who was working in the vicinity. The Petitioner was approximately 36 years old. The Petitioner asserted that he did not know the female was 16 years old at the time. He denied that he "stalked" the female, but stated that he merely spoke to her a few times in person and attempted to contact her once by telephone. He continued to express surprise at the stalking charge. On or about June 6, 2001, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with burglary of an unoccupied conveyance, a felony, and criminal mischief. He was sentenced to two years of probation, six months of psychological evaluation, and was required to pay court costs. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. At the hearing, the Petitioner stated that he went to the home of an ex-girlfriend to collect a $500 debt she allegedly owed to him. He testified that he knocked on her door and got no response. As he left her residence, he saw that her automobile was unlocked. He opened the hood of the ex- girlfriend's vehicle and ripped out the spark plug cables. He asserted that he "didn't steal anything" because he threw the cables away and didn't keep them. On or about September 5, 2001, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, entered an order based on the Petitioner's stipulation, revoking his Class "D" Security Officer's License, based on the burglary charge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate sales associate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfonso Santana, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 801N Orlando, Florida 32801-1757 Fernando Freire 5242 Millenia Boulevard, No. 304 Orlando, Florida 32839 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Juana Watkins, Acting Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 802 North Orlando, Florida 32808-1900
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2003), and is responsible for licensing employees of pari-mutuel facilities. Respondent is a card dealer holding Florida occupational license number 6927724-1012 for employment as a card dealer at the Tampa Bay Downs racetrack. By application filed at the racetrack on December 3, 2003, Respondent applied for the referenced license. Persons unknown apparently conducted the application process for all employees of the facility. Employees completed the applications and submitted them at the racetrack, again to persons unknown. The application includes a section titled "Background Information." Question 1 asks in relevant part the following question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contender (no contest) to, even if you received a withhold of adjudication? Question 1 further provides as follows: YOUR ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION WILL BE CHECKED AGAINST LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RECORDS. FAILURE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ACCURATELY MAY RESULT IN DENIAL OR REVOCATION OF YOUR LICENSE. IF YOU DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THIS QUESTION, CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY OR CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT. Respondent answered the question in the affirmative. The question provides that if the applicant responds in the affirmative to the question, "form 0050-1" should be completed to disclose additional information about the convictions. Form 0050-1 includes space to list three criminal convictions. The application instructions related to the form state: "[i]f you have more than seven offenses to document on form 0050-1, attach additional copies . . . as necessary." Respondent completed a form 0050-1. On the form, he stated that he had been convicted of a misdemeanor in 1987. The Respondent identified the offenses as "trespassing," "suspended license," and "cashed check." Respondent stated that the penalty had been probation, which was violated, and that he was required to finish the sentence. Respondent initially identified the location of the conviction as Pasco County, but crossed through the writing and changed it to Hillsborough County. Above Respondent's signature on the application is a statement that in material part provides as follows: I hereby certify that every statement contained herein is true and correct and that I understand that any misstatement or omission in this application may result in denial or revocation of my pari-mutuel license. Other than the information on the application, there was no evidence offered at the hearing that Petitioner was convicted of a misdemeanor in 1987 in Hillsborough County. Petitioner asserts that at the time he filed the application, he completed a second form 0050-1 on which he disclosed additional information related to felony convictions. At the hearing, he testified that an unidentified person allegedly involved in the application process instructed him to make the felony disclosures on a second form. Although there is no evidence contradicting Respondent's account of the events, the application submitted through the racetrack to Petitioner did not include a second form 0050-1. In 1983, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of felony charges, including Forgery and Uttering a Forged Check in Pasco County, Florida (Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 8101927CFAWS). In 1990, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of a felony charge of Grand Theft, Third Degree in Hillsborough County, Florida (Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 90-279). In 1991, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of a felony charge of Grand Theft in Pasco County, Florida (Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 8701762CFAWS). A few days after the application was completed, Respondent met with an employee of Petitioner (identified as "Nick") to discuss the felony convictions. "Nick" did not testify at the hearing. As filed with Petitioner, Respondent's application failed to include a second form 0050-1 and did not disclose the felony convictions identified herein. There is no evidence that Respondent has had any involvement in criminal activity since 1991.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order suspending Respondent's occupational license for a period of three months. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ralf E. Michels, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Stefan Thomas Hoffer Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Jerry M. Bonett 7801 Willowbrook Court Hudson, Florida 34667 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, should grant the applications of the Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, for a Class "C" Private Investigator License and for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. Specifically, under Section 493.6118(3), Fla. Stat. (1991), the issue as to each application is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the Petitioner lacks good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, was a municipal law enforcement officer from approximately 1975 through the middle of 1977. He was a deputy sheriff and, later, a detective with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office from approximately June, 1978, through April, 1979, and from May, 1980, through August, 1992. Background checks when he was employed with the Sheriff's Office revealed no evidence of facts that would establish a personal history of dishonesty, unfairness, or disrespect for the rights and property of others or for the laws of Florida or of the nation. Nor is there any evidence, during the course of his employment through approximately May, 1992, that the Petitioner had a personal history of dishonesty, unfairness, or disrespect for the rights and property of others or for the laws of Florida or of the nation. During the summer of 1992, and for some time before, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office was involved in a substantial multiple-law-enforcement- agency investigation. In approximately June or July, 1992, the law enforcement agencies involved learned that the subjects of the investigation not only knew about it but had been given copies of four pages of notes made by members of the Sheriff's Office involved in the investigation that listed, by name and in some cases additional identifying information, some 15 "suspects" and 22 "possible targets." The disclosure seriously compromised the investigation, to say the least. An internal investigation was launched to determine the source of the damaging disclosure. It was revealed that a copy of the notes had been in the copying room of the identification and records section of the Sheriff's Office for approximately six to eight weeks prior to the disclosure. An employee recalled: seeing it on a work table in the copying room at the beginning of that time period; looking at it and realizing it was something important that should not be made public; thinking that whoever put it there would be back for it soon; and finishing his business in the copying machine, leaving the notes where he had found them. He also recalled returning to the copying room the next day and not seeing the notes where he had left them. He assumed at the time that whoever had put them there had returned and removed them. But later, in July, 1992, he read in the local newspapers that copies of documents sounding much like what he had seen in the copying room had been given to the suspects under investigation. He returned to the copying room and found the notes in a stack of miscellaneous papers. Several people, including the Petitioner, were questioned under oath during the course of the internal investigation. The Petitioner was questioned in a deposition conducted by an assistant state attorney on or about July 30, 1992. During the deposition, the Petitioner was shown copies of the four pages of notes that were recovered from the copying room and was asked whether he had ever seen a copy of them. The Petitioner looked at all four pages carefully (the deposition transcript indicates a pause in the proceedings) and answered, "no." After the deposition, the four pages of notes recovered from the copying room were processed for latent fingerprints. The Petitioner's left thumb print appeared on the left side of one of the pages, labeled at the top "Possible Targets," about two-thirds of the way up the page. On the list of 14 "possible targets" on that page were the names Vincent Loscalzo, who the testimony indicates is reputed to be involved in organized crime in the Tampa area, and several others whom the Petitioner either knew personally or whose names he would have recognized. The Petitioner's left thumb print also appeared on the left side of the next page of the list of "possible targets," also about two-thirds of the way up the page. On the list of eight names on that page were at least two names the Petitioner would have recognized. One was the husband of the mayor of the City of Tampa. The Petitioner knows Vincent Loscalzo personally. While employed with the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, the Petitioner also was in business for himself distributing an oil re-refiner. The Petitioner is concentrating on that business now that he has "retired" from the Sheriff's Office. (The Petitioner tried to give the false impression that his "retirement" in August, 1992, had nothing to do with the internal investigation and that the Petitioner had been planning for some time to retire in August, 1992, to concentrate on his business.) The product was manufactured by a company in which Vincent Loscalzo has an ownership interest. Loscalzo has an office above a lounge he owns in Tampa, called the Brothers Lounge, and the Petitioner has had conversations with him there. It is found that the Petitioner testified falsely on his deposition that he had never before seen copies of the four pages of notes recovered from the copying room. Many people, besides the Petitioner, had access to the copying room during the six to eight weeks that the notes were there. Most had legitimate Sheriff's Office business to conduct, and they would not have been questioned or supervised. Others, not having legitimate Sheriff's Office business to conduct, also could have entered the copying room unquestioned and unsupervised during that time period. Two other person's fingerprints were identified on the notes- -the person who brought the notes into the copying room and left them, and the person who saw the notes and recovered them after reading about them in the newspaper. Not all people who touched the notes necessarily would have left fingerprints that could be lifted and identified. Many factors would enter into the question whether someone who touched the notes would leave prints that could be lifted and identified. In addition to those identified, some unidentifiable prints were left on the notes. Under these facts, the Respondent concedes in its proposed recommended order that it was unable to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Petitioner criminally disclosed the existence of a substantial criminal investigation to the subjects of the investigation. On or about January 23, 1993, the Petitioner was stopped for driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol consumption. As the arresting officer approached the Petitioner's vehicle, from the rear, the Petitioner opened the driver-side door and got out. As he did, his left pant leg got caught on an object that appeared to be under the pant leg at the Petitioner's ankle, and the pant leg bunched up and bulged. The Petitioner identified himself to the arresting officer as a retired deputy sheriff. Based on the arresting officer's experience and knowledge, particularly that off-duty law enforcement officers often concealed their firearms under the pant leg in an ankle holster, the arresting officer asked if the bulge he saw under the pant leg was a firearm. The Petitioner acknowledged that it was. In answer to the officer's question whether the Petitioner had a permit to carry a concealed firearm, told the officer that he did. In fact, the Petitioner did not even apply for a concealed firearm license until March 30, 1993, and one was not issued to him until April 6, 1993. It is found from the clear and convincing totality of the evidence in this case, taken as a whole, that the Petitioner lacks a personal history of honesty, fairness, and respect for the rights of others and for the laws of Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of State, Division of Licensing, enter a final order denying the applications of the Petitioner, Ricky O. Dawes, for a Class "C" Private Investigator License and for a Class "G" Statewide Firearms License. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2048S To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected as not proven that the resignation was totally voluntarily. Also, no party questioned about it at the hearing knew the procedures for licensure by a former law enforcement officer. In any event, the procedures are matters of law, not fact, and are set out in Section 790.06, Fla. Stat. (1991). Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary. Rejected in part as not proven and as being conclusions of law. Fact of the pendency of criminal proceedings, a ruling suppressing evidence, and the State's appeal accepted but unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as contrary to facts found and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the firearm was visible. (It was only detectable.) Part of the rest is rejected as being conclusions of law, and the other part of the rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary that the Petitioner has been charged but not convicted. The rest is rejected as being argument and conclusions of law. Accepted (the questions to the witnesses excluded reference to the charges leveled in this case) and subordinate to facts found. Rejected in part as being argument and conclusions of law and in part as not proven and as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected in part as being argument but otherwise accepted but in part subordinate to facts contrary to those found and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third sentence, rejected as being argument and not proven and contrary to facts found and contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected for the same reasons as in 3., above. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. 3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 4.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 11.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 15.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 17. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellis Faught, Jr., Esquire 206 Mason Street Brandon, Florida 33511 Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
