16-006424EXE Sonya Nicole Samuels vs. Agency For Persons With Disabilities Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, February 27, 2017.

Summary: Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to exemption.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SONYA NICOLE SAMUELS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 6424EXE

AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On December 20, 20 16, an administrative hearing in this

case was held in Leesburg, Florida, before Lawrence P.

Stevenson, a duly - appointed Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Sonya Nicole Samuels, pro se

4 96 Goss Avenue

Leesburg, Florida 34748

For Respondent: Jeannette L. Estes, Esquire

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

Suite 422

200 North Kentucky Avenue

La keland, Florida 33801

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether it would be an abuse of

discretion to deny Petitioner's request for exemption from

employment disqualification.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By letter dated September 26, 2016, Barba ra Palmer, the

Director of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (the

ÐAgencyÑ), denied the request of Petitioner for exemption from

employment disqualification. Petitioner timely filed a Request

for Administrative Hearing in which she disputed the fac ts on

which the Agency relied in making its decision to deny the

exemption and requested a formal administrative hearing. The

Agency forwarded the Request for Administrative Hearing to the

Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") on November 2,

2016.

The hearing was scheduled for December 20, 2016, on which

date it was convened and completed.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified on her own behalf and

presented the testimony of her daughter, Candace Chatman.

Petitioner offered no exhibits. The Agency presented the

testimony of its Deputy Regional Operations Manager for the

Central Region, Michael Sauvé. The AgencyÓs Exhibits A

through D were admitted into evidence.

No Transcript was ordered. The Agency timely filed its

Proposed Recommended Order on December 30, 2016. Petitioner

made no post - hearing filing of any kind.

Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Florida

Statutes are to the 2016 edition.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Petitioner is seeking employment with the Lake County

Board of County Commi ssioners, in a service provider function

that is regulated by the A gency. As a prospective direct

service provider, Petitioner was required to comply with

background screening requirements.

2. The Agency's clients are a vulnerable population,

consisting of persons with the following statutorily defined

developmental disabilities: intellectual disability, autism,

spina bifida, Prader - Willi syndrome, cerebral palsy, Down

syndrome, and/or Phelan - McDermid Syndrome. § 393.063(12), Fla.

Stat. Without the Ag ency's services, these clients would

otherwise require institutionalization.

3. The Agency's clients often have severe deficits in

their abilities to complete self - care tasks and communicate

their wants and needs. Such clients are at a heightened risk of

abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental

disabilities and inability to self - preserve. Consequently,

employment as a direct service provider to the AgencyÓs clients

is considered a position of special trust.

4. The Agency is respon sible for regulating the employment

of direct service providers in positions of special trust such

as that sought by Petitioner. See §§ 110.1127(2)(c)1 . and

393.0655, Fla. Stat. Many of the tasks undertaken by direct

service providers for individuals wit h disabilities are of a

social, personal needs, and/or financial nature.

5. The background screening unit of the Department of

Children and Families (ÐDCFÑ) performs background screenings for

the Agency. Petitioner received notification from DCF, via

let ter dated January 8, 2016, of her disqualification from

employment due to her criminal history. The specific

disqualifying offense listed in the letter was aggravated

battery with a weapon, in violation of section 784.045, Florida

Statutes, a second degre e felony.

6. Because PetitionerÓs screening indicated a

disqualifying offense, Petitioner was required to seek an

exemption from disqualification in order to proceed with her

application to work as a direct service provider.

7. On or about February 26, 2 016, Petitioner submitted to

DCF a Request for Exemption form, a completed Exemption

Questionnaire form, various criminal records, character

references, and other documents in support of granting of

exemption from employment disqualification. DCF subseque ntly

forwarded these materials to the Agency for review.

8. The Agency began its exemption review by considering

Petitioner's disqualifying offense. In June 1988, Petitioner

committed the disqualifying offense of aggravated battery with a

weapon. The po lice report of the incident stated that

Petitioner stabbed her husband in the shoulder with a knife

during an argument. The stab wound was serious enough to

require treatment at the hospital and a subsequent visit to a

specialist. On her Exemption Questi onnaire form, Petitioner

indicated that her husband suffered permanent scarring from the

wound.

9. An arrest affidavit for probable cause was issued by

the Leesburg Police Department. Petitioner later pled nolo

contendere to the disqualifying offense a nd adjudication was

withheld. She was sentenced to thirty - six (36) months of

probation, payment of fines, court costs, mental health

counseling, and a drug and alcohol program. Petitioner

successfully completed her probation on August 29, 1991.

10. In t he Exemption Questionnaire form, Petitioner set

forth her version of the circumstances involved in the

disqualifying offense:

At 21 years of age, I was dealing with

regular occurrences of mental distress

within the home, such as emotional, mental,

verbal a nd physical abuse by my ex - husband.

On the day of this offense, my ex - husband

entered our home in a rageful [sic] manner.

Fear gripped me. He began to argue. He

also went into the closet, pulling out a

motorcycle chain. He began to strike me

with it. After running outside, my ex -

husband chased me with his belt off, hitting

me with the belt buckle. A girl scoutÓs

knife was already in my hand. He continued

to hit me with the belt buckle, swinging his

arm. As I turned around in self - defense, my

ex - hus band was struck with the girl scoutÓs

knife. Realizing what happened, I began to

cry frantically, (my concern was to get

medical attention for him), apologizing and

begging for forgiveness.

11. PetitionerÓs record indicates no other criminal

offenses of any kind, whether disqualifying or non -

disqualifying.

12. The Exemption Questionnaire form requires applicants

to describe the degree of harm to any victim of their

disqualifying offenses. Petitioner wrote, ÐThanks be unto God,

my ex - husband sustained n on - life threatening injuries with

permanent scarring.Ñ

13. The Exemption Questionnaire form requires applicants

to describe any stressors in their lives at the time of the

disqualifying incident and at present. Petitioner wrote that

there were stressors in her life at the time of the

disqualifying incident. She did not elaborate, but in answer to

another question she wrote that at age 21 she Ðhad begun to

abuse chemical substances.Ñ She stated that her drug use was

short - lived and that she ceased it per manently after the

stabbing incident.

14. Regarding whether there are any current stressors in

her life, Petitioner wrote that she is "practising [sic]

unhealthy habits." Again, Petitioner did not elaborate as to

the nature of these unhealthy habits, bu t at the hearing she

explained that she was referencing overeating and not

exercising.

15. Petitioner wrote that she is single and lives with her

mother, and that her community activities include her family,

women's group, church, art workshops, poetry and prose writing,

and volunteering for the community development center when

needed.

16. The Exemption Questionnaire form asks for an

applicant's prior three years' work history and an explanation

of any job changes. PetitionerÓs employment record indic ated

she had driven a school bus for several years. Petitioner

provided the following explanation for changing jobs: "changed

careers from transportation to medical industry to procure an

immense financial gain. Have also decided to strive above and

bey ond my comfort zones to secure a position of my dreams."

17. The Exemption Questionnaire form requires the

applicant to list his or her educational history and any

specialized training. Petitioner listed the following:

Office Support Technology, special izing in

Professional Leadership Development; Master

Security Officer, specializing in Basic

Supervisor, Leadership, & Advanced Manager;

Patient Care Technician, specializing in

Pharmacy Aide, EKG Aide and Unit

Secretary/Coordinator; and Private

Investig ation, specializing in Legal

Assistant & Fraud Insurance.

18. Petitioner listed no specific institution for these

certifications or specializations, but other documents submitted

by Petitioner indicate that the Office Support Technology and

Patient Care Technician courses were provided by Lake Technical

College in 1996 - 97 and 1999, respectively; the Master Security

Officer certification was provided by Barton MSO in 2003; and

the Private Investigator diploma was received from City College

in 2011.

19. I n response to the Exemption Questionnaire formÓs

requirement that the applicant document any history of

counseling, Petitioner wrote that she received mental health

counseling in 1988 and anger management counseling in 2007.

20. Finally, under the heading ÐRemorse/accept

responsibility,Ñ the Exemption Questionnaire form requires the

applicant to document any relevant information related to the

acceptance of responsibility for his or her offenses. Petitioner

wrote as follows:

The harm done to my ex - husband caused me to

feel very awful. Because of the forgiveness

from my trespasses, the acceptance of the

offense towards my ex - husband subsided day by

day. Taking responsibility for my actions

made me realize that I must become a better

person and live a bett er life by improving

myself so that I would someday become a

productive citizen and asset to society and

my family.

21. Petitioner listed the following specific employment

record: CareMinders Home Care, February 2015 to August 2015

(certified nurse assi stant); Interim Healthcare, December 2014

to June 2015 (certified nurse assistant); Lake County School

Board, October 2005 to August 2013 (school bus driver).

22. In support of her exemption request, Petitioner also

submitted a copy of a ÐLake County Head Start Parent of the

YearÑ award she received in 1999, a copy of an ÐInternational

Poet of MeritÑ award she received in 2000, and reference letters

from previous employers and longtime friends. PetitionerÓs

friends described her as hard - working, compassio nate,

respectful, and considerate.

23. By letter dated September 26, 2016, the Director of the

Agency informed Petitioner that her request for an exemption from

disqualification had been denied Ðbased on a Background Screening

that was performed on 1/07/2 016 . . . . The Agency considered

all available information that led to your disqualification, as

well as all information provided by you regarding your

disqualification. The Agency has denied your request for an

exemption because you have not submitted clear and convincing

evidence of your rehabilitation.Ñ

24. The DirectorÓs letter informed Petitioner of her right

to request an administrative hearing to dispute the AgencyÓs

proposed action. Petitioner timely filed a Request for

Administrative Hearing.

25. At the hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of

Michael Sauv, the AgencyÓs Deputy Regional Operations Manager

for the Central Region. Mr. Sauvé testified that the Agency had

reviewed all of the documentation submitted by Petitioner in

response to the Exemption Questionnaire , as well as additional

documents she submitted with her Request for Administrative

Hearing. These additional documents included an exemption from

disqualification, dated March 26, 2013, granted by the Department

of Health, Board of Nursing ; and a letter of disqualification

from employment from the Agency for Health Care Administration,

dated December 30, 2015.

26. Mr. Sauvé testified that in reviewing exemption

requests, the Agency considers the disqualifying offense, the

c ircumstances surrounding the offense, the nature of the harm

caused to the victim, the history of the applicant since the

incident, and any other evidence indicating that the applicant

will not present a danger to a vulnerable population if the

exemption i s granted. Mr. Sauvé also stated that the Agency

seeks consistency in the applicant's account of events in his or

her Exemption Questionnaire, and considers the passage of time

since the disqualifying incident, whether or not the applicant

accepts respons ibility for his or her actions, and whether the

applicant expresses remorse for his or her prior criminal acts.

27. Mr. Sauvé testified that the Agency noted marked

inconsistencies between Petitioner's account of her

disqualifying offense and the stateme nts found in the police

report. However, the police report of the incident consists of

hearsay within hearsay, i.e., the responding officerÓs narrative

of events as told to him by the involved parties. The police

report may not be relied upon in this tri bunal for the truth of

the matters asserted therein. It is of no use in establishing

that PetitionerÓs version of events is untruthful or minimizes

the seriousness of the incident.

28. In any event, the inconsistencies noted by the Agency

were relatively minor critiques of PetitionerÓs written

narrative. For example, Petitioner stated in her Exemption

Questionnaire that she ran outside as her husband chased her and

hit her with his belt buckle and that she already had a Girl

Scout knife in her hand. She offered no explanation as to how

or why the knife came to be in her hand. Given that she freely

admitted to stabbing her husband, PetitionerÓs failure to detail

exactly when she picked up the knife , as he hit her with a

motorcycle chain and a belt buckle , seems of little importance.

29. Mr. Sauvé testified that the Agency was also concerned

that Petitioner appeared to minimize the seriousness of the

incident when she wrote that her husband suffered Ðnon - life

threatening injuries with permanent scarring.Ñ Mr. Sauvé

contrasted PetitionerÓs statement with the police report stating

that the victim was Ðstabbed deep enough that he had to go to

[the hospital] for treatment and then to have a specialist work

on him due to the seriousness of the cut.Ñ The cut w as on the

back of the victimÓs shoulder and in no account was the incident

described as Ðlife threatening.Ñ PetitionerÓs description may

have lacked detail but was more or less consistent with the

police report.

30. Mr. Sauvé testified that the Agency ex amined

PetitionerÓs driving record and found three speeding tickets.

Such violations are a concern to the Agency because individuals

who are granted exemptions could be called upon to transport

clients. The Agency must be confident that these clients wil l

be transported safely.

31. More than her written statements, PetitionerÓs

testimony caused the undersigned to share the AgencyÓs concern

about Petitioner minimizing her disqualifying offense. She

seemed much more concerned with explaining the speeding tickets

than in expanding upon her brief written statement regarding

aggravated battery with a weapon. Petitioner simply read aloud

her written statement about stabbing her husband, then launched

into a detailed discussion of her speeding tickets. Also,

Petitioner could not recall whether her driverÓs license had

ever been suspended. When confronted with documentation that it

had, Petitioner stated that her license had never been suspended

Ðfor cause.Ñ None of this testimony was helpful in establishing

PetitionerÓs unvarnished veracity or her appreciation of the

seriousness of her disqualifying offense.

32. Mr. Sauvé testified that the Agency had a concern with

PetitionerÓs statement that she had changed careers to the

medical field to "procure an immen se financial gain." Mr. Sauvé

noted that it is not unreasonable for a person to seek a decent

income, but that it is highly unusual and somewhat disconcerting

for a person to enter the field of serving persons with

disabilities with the idea of Ðimmense f inancial gain.Ñ

33. Mr. SauvÓs concern on this point was well taken. In

another case, the undersigned might be inclined to find that the

applicant had merely chosen an unartful way to express her hope

of bettering her station in life, but Petitioner p resents

herself as the professional author of two books. She may be

presumed to understand the form of the thoughts she puts to

paper. Petitioner said nothing at the final hearing to allay

the concern Mr. Suave expressed about her stated motivation for

e ntering the field.

34. Mr. Sauvé also discussed three DCF reports involving

Petitioner in allegations of abuse. The first report, dated

1989, involved a verified finding of sexual battery against

Petitioner's then - husband. According to the report, a rel ative

told the investigator that the husband had a history as a sexual

perpetrator. The report stated that Petitioner allowed access

to her daughter and that the husband had fondled the child. The

report stated that Petitioner had been made aware of what

happened but chose to forgive the husband. She remained in the

home with him, allowing continued access to the child. DCF

cited Petitioner for failure to protect her child. The husband

was subsequently arrested and charged with sexual battery.

35. Pet itioner testified that her actions should be viewed

in light of the fact that she herself was an abuse victim. She

stated that she took steps to protect her children as soon as

she learned her husband was abusing them.

36. Petitioner presented the testim ony of her daughter,

Candace Chatman, who stated that she was the child victim

identified in the 1989 DCF report. Ms. Chatman testified that,

contrary to the report, her mother did not know about the abuse

when it was occurring. She stated that she was e ight years old

and was living with her grandmother at the time of the abuse,

which she recalled occurring only once. Ms. Chatman stated that

she did not tell her mother about the abuse; rather, she told

another child at school about it. Ms. ChatmanÓs tes timony was

credible.

37. The second DCF report, dated 1996, involved

allegations that Petitioner hit her daughter in the head,

resulting in migraine headaches. According to the report, the

daughter stated that Petitioner "does hit her in the head" and

on ce threw a bowl at her, hitting her in the face. DCF rendered

findings of Ð some indicators Ñ for the maltreatments of beatings,

physical injury, and family violence that threatens a child,

though the report assessed the risk as ÐlowÑ because of the

presenc e of family members to monitor the situation.

38. Neither Petitioner nor Ms. Chatman directly addressed

the 1996 report in their testimony. The hearsay report may not

be relied upon for the truth of the matters asserted therein,

but the undersigned is entitled to take notice of PetitionerÓs

silence as to the very serious allegation made in the report.

39. Mr. Sauvé discussed the final DCF report, dated 2002.

This incident pertained to an allegation involving Petitioner's

sons, who were then aged 13 and 8. The older boy had been

sexually abused by PetitionerÓs spouse, and was now believed to

be sexually Ðacting outÑ with his younger brother. The DCF

report states that Petitioner denied any knowledge of an

incident between the boys, and that Petitioner alternatively

admitted and then denied having knowledge of the older boyÓs

prior molestation. Child services authorities advised

Petitioner to separate the boys at any time they might be

unsupervised. The younger child started going to his

grandmotherÓs house after school, where he stayed until

Petitioner picked him up on her way home from work.

40. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she had

never seen the 2002 DCF report. She first denied that any abuse

was occurring in her home in 2002, then st ated that she had not

been aware of anything untoward. Petitioner denied any

knowledge that her older son had been molested by her husband.

She testified that her admission to the authorities that

molestation had occurred Ðwas a way to get him counseling Ñ

because of the way he had been acting out in school.

41. During cross - examination, Petitioner denied knowing

why child services advised her to separate the boys. She stated

that she did not ask why. The authorities simply told her that

everything woul d be all right if she separated them and so she

complied.

42. PetitionerÓs testimony as to the 2002 DCF report

cannot be credited. This finding is not based on any

contradiction between PetitionerÓs testimony and the facts as

stated in the hearsay DCF re port; rather, it is based on the

inherent lack of credibility in PetitionerÓs statements.

Especially problematic is her claim that she did not even ask

the authorities why her sons should be kept apart. PetitionerÓs

unwillingness to admit any knowledge o f , or even curiosity as to

what the authorities alleged was happening in her home , raises

serious concerns as to her character and judgment.

43. PetitionerÓs overall presentation tended to undermine

her case. As noted above, she seemed unduly preoccupied with

traffic tickets as opposed to the far more serious matters that

concerned the Agency. Her testimony was rambling, discursive,

and argumentative. The undersigned could not help but note that

Ms. Chatman often interjected comments, sotto voce , in an effort

to keep her mother on point during her testimony. As the

hearing progressed, Petitioner became increasingly angry at the

Agency for failing to recognize her Ðcompassion.Ñ

44. PetitionerÓs initial burden is to demonstrate, by clear

and con vincing evidence, that she is entitled to an exemption.

The Ðclear and convincingÑ standard requires evidence sufficient

Ðto convince the trier of fact without any hesitancy.Ñ In re

Adoption of Baby E.A.W. , 658 So. 2d 961, 967 (Fla. 1995), cert.

denied , 516 U.S. 1051, 116 S. Ct. 719, 133 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1996).

PetitionerÓs presentation clearly failed to rise to this

standard. Petitioner appears to have turned her life around

somewhat after a history of abuse, but she failed to convince

either the Agency or the undersigned that she is sufficiently

rehabilitated to be trusted to work with persons who are

vulnerable and highly susceptible to abuse, neglect , and

exploitation due to their developmental disabilities.

45. In light of all the evidence presente d at the hearing,

it cannot be found that the Agency abused its discretion in

denying Petitioner's request for an exemption. Taken in its

entirety, the evidence supports the Agency's determination that

the evidence of Petitioner's rehabilitation was insuf ficient.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

46. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and 435.07, Fla. Stat.

47. Section 435.04, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant

part as follows:

(1)(a) All employees required by law to be

screened pursuant to this section must

undergo security background investigations

as a condition of employment and continued

employment which includes, but need not be

limited to, fingerprinting for statewide

criminal history records checks through the

Department of Law Enforcement, and national

criminal history records checks through the

Federal Bureau of Investigation, and may

include local criminal records checks

through local law enforcement a gencies.

* * *

(2) The security background investigations

under this section must ensure that no

persons subject to the provisions of this

section have been arrested for and are

awaiting final disposition of, have been

found guilty of, regardless of adj udication,

or entered a plea of nolo contendere or

guilty to, or have been adjudicated

delinquent and the record has not been

sealed or expunged for, any offense

prohibited under any of the following

provisions of state law or similar law of

another jurisd iction:

* * *

( i ) Chapter 784, relating to assault,

battery, and culpable negligence, if the

offense was a felony.

48. In this case, PetitionerÓs disqualifying offense was

aggravated battery with a weapon, in violation of section

784.045, Florida Statutes, a second degre e felony.

49. Section 393.0655(1), Florida Statutes, requires the

Agency to conduct Level 2 employment screening under chapter 435

for direct service providers who are unrelated to their clients.

Section 393.0655(5) provides a list of disqualifying offen ses

for purposes of the AgencyÓs screening:

The background screening conducted under

this section must ensure that, in addition

to the disqualifying offenses listed in

s. 435.04 , no person subject to the

provisions of this section has an arrest

awaiting final disposition for, has been

found guilty of, regardless of adjudication,

or entered a plea of nolo contendere o r

guilty to, or has been adjudicated

delinquent and the record has not been

sealed or expunged for, any offense

prohibited under any of the following

provisions of state law or similar law of

another jurisdiction:

* * *

(i) Section 784, relating to assa ult,

battery, and culpable negligence if the

offense was a felony.

50. Under appropriate circumstances, an exemption from

disqualification may be available. Section 435.07(1) provides,

in relevant part:

(1)(a) The head of the appropriate agency

may gra nt to any employee otherwise

disqualified from employment an exemption

from disqualification for:

1. Felonies for which at least 3 years have

elapsed since the applicant for the

exemption has completed or been lawfully

released from confinement, supervis ion, or

nonmonetary condition imposed by the court

for the disqualifying felony.

51. Section 393.0655(2) provides: ÐThe agency may grant

exemptions from disqualification from working with children or

adults with developmental disabilities only as provid ed in

s. 435.07 .Ñ

52. Section 435.07(3) sets forth the standards to be

applied by an agency head in considering a request for

exemption, and the standard of review to be applied in a DOAH

proceeding reviewing the agency head's preliminary decision:

(3)(a) In order for the head of an agency

to grant an exemption to any employee, the

employee must demonstrate by clea r and

convincing evidence that the employee should

not be disqualified from employment.

Employees seeking an exemption have the

burden of setting forth clear and convincing

evidence of rehabilitation, including, but

not limited to, the circumstances

surrou nding the criminal incident for which

an exemption is sought, the time period that

has elapsed since the incident, the nature

of the harm caused to the victim, and the

history of the employee since the incident,

or any other evidence or circumstances

indic ating that the employee will not

present a danger if employment or continued

employment is allowed.

(b) The agency may consider as part of its

deliberations of the employeeÓs

rehabilitation the fact that the employee

has, subsequent to the conviction for the

disqualifying offense for which the

exemption is being sought, been arrested for

or convicted of another crime, even if that

crime is not a disqualifying offense.

(c) The decision of the head of an agency

regarding an exemption may be contested

thro ugh the hearing procedures set forth in

chapter 120. The standard of review by the

administrative law judge is whether the

agencyÓs intended action is an abuse of

discretion.

53. In this case, the agency head determined that

Petitioner did not clearly a nd convincingly establish that she

is sufficiently rehabilitated to warrant an exemption from

disqualification from employment in a position of special trust

at this time.

54. The Ðabuse of discretionÑ standard of review has been

cogently described as fol lows, in the context of appellate review

of a trial judge's discretionary rulings:

If reasonable men could differ as to the

propriety of the action taken by the trial

court, then the action is not unreasonable

and there can be no finding of an abuse of

dis cretion. The discretionary ruling of the

trial judge should be disturbed only when

his decision fails to satisfy this test of

reasonableness.

* * *

The trial court's discretionary power is

subject only to the test of reasonableness,

but that test requ ires a determination of

whether there is logic and justification for

the result. The trial courtsÓ discretionary

power was never intended to be exercised in

accordance with whim or caprice of the judge

nor in an inconsistent manner. Judges

dealing with c ases essentially alike should

reach the same result.

Canakaris v. Canakaris , 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980).

55. The undersigned concludes that the agency head's

determination that Petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly

establish her entitlement to an exemption from disqualification

was not an abuse of discretion.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Fin dings of Fac t and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities

enter a final order denying the request of Petitioner for

exemption from employment disqualification.

DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax F iling (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 27th day of February , 2017 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Jeannette L. Estes, Esquire

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

Suite 422

200 North Kentucky A venue

Lakeland, Florida 33801

(eServed)

Sonya Nicole Samuels

496 Goss Avenue

Leesburg, Florida 34748

(eServed)

Michele Lucas, Agency Clerk

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

B arbara Palmer, Director

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

Richard Ditschler, General Counsel

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

Tallahassee, Flo rida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency tha t

will issue the Final Order in this case.