19-005806 Department Of Children And Families vs. Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy Of Hope
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Wednesday, September 2, 2020.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner proved that cook who provided meals for both daycare and private K-12 school was "child care personnel" subject to background screening requirements; Petitioner did not prove same with respect to member of board of directors.

1A PPEARANCES

3For the Department of Children and Families :

11Ste f anie Beach Camfield, Esquire

17Department of Children and Families

22Building 2, Suite 204

261317 Winewood Boulevard

29Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

34For Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy of Hope :

43Erroll Washington, pro se

47Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy of Hope

54907 Southwest 3rd Street

58Ocala, Florida 34471

61S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

68Whether Respondent’s 1 religious exemption from licensure as a child care

79facili ty, pursuant to section 402.316, Florida Statutes, should be revoked as

91alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 18, 2019.

100P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

104On March 18, 2019, the Departmen t of Children and Families

115(“Petitioner” or “Department”), issued an Administrative Complaint

122(“Complaint”) notifying the Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy of Hope

132(“Respondent” or “ the Academy” ), it intended to revoke Respondent’s religious

144exemption for a child care facility based on Respondent’s failure to comply with required background screenings of child care personnel. Respondent

165timely requested an administrative hearing to contest the revocation.

174Respondent subsequently notified the Department that it intended to

183operate as a child care facility under the religio us exemption provision; and,

1961 Re ferences herein to Petitioner are to the Department of Children and Families, and

211references to Respondent are to Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy of Hope.

223on May 23, 2019, the Department issued to Respondent a Notice of Denial of

237said notification, based on the pending prior Complaint. On June 14, 2019,

249Respondent requested an administrative hearing to contest the denial.

258On Oct ober 30, 2019, the Department referred both cases to the Division

271of Administrative Hearings (“Division”) to conduct an administrative hearing.

280The cases were assigned to the undersigned, who entered an Order of

292Consolidation of the two cases on November 1 3, 2019. The final hearing was

306scheduled for March 12, 2020, but was subsequently rescheduled to April 14,

3182020, at the request of Respondent. The final hearing was heard, in part, on

332April 14, 2020, and was continued to, and concluded on, June 11, 2020, v ia

347Zoom Conference.

349At the final hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Shelley

360Tinney and Barbara Brinkley. Department Exhibits A through D and G were

372admitted into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Erroll Washington. The unders igned held the record of the proceeding open for

393submittal of Respondent’s Composite Exhibit 1, which was timely received,

403and the record was closed on June 18, 2020.

412The final hearing was recorded and the Department ordered the

422Transcript. A Notice of Fi ling Transcript was filed on June 30, 2020. On

436July 10, 2020, the Department filed an Unopposed Motion for Extension of

448time for the parties to file p roposed recommended orders (“PRO s”), which was

462gra nted and the filing date for PRO s was set for July 30, 2 020. On July 30,

4812020, the Department filed a second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to fil e PRO s, which was granted.

5012

5022 In the Motion, the Department represented that Respondent had not received the

515Transcript, which was filed on June 30, 2020, until July 29, 2020. The M otion did not contain

533a reason for the delay .

539Petitioner timely filed a PRO on August 20, 2020, which has been

551considered by the undersigned in preparation of this Recommended Order.

561Respondent did not timely file a PRO .

569Except as otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the 2018

580codification of the Florida Statutes, which was in effect when the Complaint

592was filed.

594F INDINGS OF F ACT

5991. The Department is the state agen cy responsible for licensing and

611disciplining “child care facilities,” as that term is defined in section 402.302, Florida Statutes (2020).

6272. Respondent is an entity which operates both a Pre - K through 12th

641grade private school (“the school”) and a child care facility, Dr. D.D. Brown

654Christian Academy of Hope Early Learning Center (“the daycare”), in Ocala,

665Florida.

6663. The daycare is a “child care facility” as defined by section 402.302.

6794. The daycare is exempt from licensure by the Department as a facil ity

693“which is an integral part of a church,” pursuant to section 4 02.316 . The

709Department has issued to the Academy child care license exemption number

720X05MA0214 for the daycare.

7245. All child care facilities with a religious exemption are subject to the

737bac kground screening requirements, set forth in sections 402.305 and

747402.3055, for all child care personnel. “Failure by a facility to comply with such screening requirements shall result in the loss of the facility’s exemption

772from licensure.” § 402.316, Fla . Stat.

7796. Exempt facilities are also subject to “school readiness inspections”

789performed by the Department for child care facilities which receive public

800school readiness funding.

8037. On March 18, 2019, the Department issued the Complaint against the

815Acade my for failure to comply with the background screening requirements

826for Erroll Washington and Jeanette Crowell. In the Complaint, the

836Department alleged that Mr. Washington was screened on March 8, 2019,

847and was determined to be ineligible to work in the f acility. The Complaint

861alleged that Ms. Crowell “has not yet been screened.”

870The Campus

8728. The Academy is owned and operated by the Greater Apostolic Outreach

884Holy Church of God, Inc. (“the Church”), a non - profit corporation organized

897under Florida law in September 1991. Dr. Deborah Brown - Washington is the

910Church President and Registered Agent.

9159. The daycare and the school are located on the same grounds as the

929physical church building. The property will be hereinafter referred to as “the campus.”

94210. The daycare and school are connected by a sidewalk. Entry to the

955daycare and the school can be obtained from the sidewalk, independent of the other buildings.

97011. A cafeteria is located on the campus between, and connected to both,

983the daycare and the school .

98912. From the daycare, one can access the cafeteria via a covered

1001breezeway connecting the two buildings.

100613. Access to the school from the cafeteria can be obtained either through

1019double doors at the back of the cafeteria (which open into the administra tive

1033offices of the school) or via the sidewalk.

104114. The cafeteria is integral to both the daycare and the school because it

1055is the location in which the students are served meals on a daily basis.

106915. The church is freestanding and located across the park ing lot from the

1083daycare and school.

108616. In addition to the Academy, the Church also operates other churches,

1098at least one of which is located in Texas, and another in Atlanta, as well as

1114some small businesses. These operations are not located on the camp us and

1127are not the subject of the Complaint.

1134Ms. Crowell

113617. Jeanette Crowell is a cook employed by the Academy to prepare meals

1149served to the children enrolled at both the daycare and the school.

116118. Barbara Brinkley is employed by the Department as a fam ily services

1174counselor in the child - regulation unit in Marion County. Ms. Brinkley

1186conducts annual inspections, school readiness inspections, and complaint

1194inspections of exempt child care facilities.

120019. On or about March 1, 2019, Ms. Brinkley conducted a school readiness

1213inspection of the daycare, including the cafeteria. Ms. Brinkley observed Ms. Crowell in the kitchen along with several children from the daycare. One

1236of the children was Ms. Crowell’s granddaughter, who is enrolled at the

1248daycare.

124920. On the date of Ms. Brinkley’s inspection, Ms. Crowell did not have

1262background screening documentation in her employee file.

126921. Ms. Brinkley again visited the facility on April 3, 2019, and observed

1282Ms. Crowell interacting with children from the day care. On that date,

1294Ms. Crowell’s employee file again contained no documentation of a required

1305background screening.

13073

130822. Ms. Crowell is an employee of the Academy who prepares and serves

1321meals to children enrolled at the daycare. Because the cafeteria is integral to

1334the daycare, Ms. Crowell “works in the daycare.”

1342Mr. Washington

134423. During Ms. Brinkley’s March 1, 2019 school readiness inspection of the

1356daycare, she noted that there was no employee file for Mr. Washington, and

1369she inquired whether he had been screen ed for employment in child care.

138224. Despite the fact that Mr. Washington does not agree that he is

1395required to undergo background s creening, on March 8, 2019,

14053 The record was insufficient to establish whether Ms. Crowell has subsequently undergone

1418the background screening process and , if so, whether she has been found eligible to work in

1434child care .

1437Mr. Washington completed the background screening process and was

1446determined to be ineligible t o work in child care.

145625. Mr. Washington is the Vice President and a member of the Board of

1470Directors of the Church. He testified that he is an employee of the Church,

1484rather than the Academy. 4

148926. Mr. Washington maintains an office in the administrative offices of the

1501school.

150227. Prior to 2012, the daycare director had unfettered discretion in all

1514decisions regarding daycare operations.

151828. In 2012, following an incident in which a prior daycare director

1530contracted for services to be provided to the da ycare, without the knowledge

1543of the Church, and which resulted in a lawsuit against the Church, the

1556Church authorized Mr. Washington, rather than the daycare director, to sign

1567all legal documents obligating the Church in any capacity.

157629. To that end, Mr. Washington has taken it upon himself to be present,

1590when possible, for inspections of the daycare by government officials (i.e., the

1602Early Learning Coalition, the Fire Marshal, and the Department). The stated

1613purpose of his presence is to keep the Church’s Board of Directors informed of

1627issues associated with the daycare.

163230. In that capacity, Mr. Washington is familiar with the employees of the

1645daycare and the children enrolled therein. Mr. Washington has knowledge of

1656the location of employee files at the daycare.

166431. Mr. Washington is the signatory on the documents attesting that child

1676care personnel employed by the daycare have been background screened and found eligible to work in child care.

169432. Ms. Brinkley conducted inspections of the daycare in Febru ary, March,

1706April, May, and June 2019. Each time she arrived at the daycare, she met first with then - director, Joyce Johnson. After her arrival at the daycare,

17334 The record is insufficient to establish the business relationship between the Church and the

1748Academy. Presumably, the Academy is a wholly - owned subsidiary of the Church.

1761Ms. Johnson contacted Mr. Washington and requested him to come to the

1773daycare to meet with Ms. B rinkley. Mr. Washington provided some of the

1786information sought by Ms. Brinkley during her inspections, accompanied her

1796on at least one walk through of the daycare, and showed her the location of

1811employee and student files at the daycare.

181833. During one of her inspections, Ms. Brinkley met with Mr. Washington

1830to review security camera footage. That technical equipment is housed in the

1842administrative offices of the school, which is located in the building next to

1855the cafeteria.

185734. Ms. Brinkley testified, s everal times, that a determination whether an

1869individual is child care personnel at a child care facility depends on their interaction with children in the child care facility. Ms. Brinkley explained

1893that “[t]hose persons who were in contact with children who are in care at a

1908facility” are required to be background screened.

19155 She was emphatic that

1920employees “have to be interacting with the children to be considered child care personnel.

1934[ 6 ] ” She confirmed that “[i]f they were not with the children,

1948they are not required to be background screened. [ 7 ] ”

196035. Further, Ms. Brinkley relies upon her personal observations of persons

1971in the child care facility to make the determination that someone is child care personnel.

198636. Ms. Brinkley testified that she observed Mr. Washington in contact

1997with the children the day she requested to look at employee files at the

2011daycare. Those files are kept in a small office just off the infant room; thus,

2026both Ms. Brinkley and Mr. Washington had to enter the infant room of the

2040dayc are. To the extent this constitutes “contact with the children,” it is incidental.

20555 T.50:22 - 25.

20596 T.106:5 - 7.

20637 T.101:23 - 24.

206737. Ms. Brinkley did not testify to any other observation of

2078Mr. Washington interacting with children at the daycare.

208638. Instead, Ms. Brinkley testified that her conclusi o n that

2097Mr. Washington needed to be background screened was based on her

2108observations of his role at the daycare, which she characterized as

2119operational. For example, she noted that he signed the paperwork attesting

2130to the required background screening of child care personnel employed at the daycare, that daycare staff frequently referred her to Mr. Washington to

2153answer her questions, and that he reviewed employee files with her and

2165accompanied her on inspection tours.

217039. In her paperwork concerning the da y care, Ms. Brinkley listed

2182Mr. Washington as the director. However, on all of her visits to the facility,

2196she met with Ms. Johnson, the now - former director, as well as

2209Mr. Washington.

221140. Following the discovery that Mr. Washington had not passed the

2222back ground screening process, the Department prepared a safety plan for

2233consideration by Respondent. The safety plan would allow Respondent to

2243continue operating the daycare as a religious exempt facility under certain

2254conditions.

225541. Ms. Brinkley visited the campus on either the 29th or 30th of May

22692019, to present the safety plan. At that time, she met with Ms. Johnson, as well as Dr. Brown and Mr. Washington.

229142. Ms. Brinkley again met with Dr. Brown, Ms. Johnson, and

2302Mr. Washington on the campus regarding t he safety plan in June 2019.

231543. It is Ms. Brinkley’s understanding that Ms. Johnson left the facility as

2328director in June 2019, presumably after the last meeting relating to the

2340safety plan.

234244. Mr. Washington is not, nor has he ever been, a director of t he facility.

2358Nor does he instruct, supervise, or otherwise care for, children enrolled at the

2371facility.

237245. No evidence was introduced to suggest that Mr. Washington managed

2383the day - to - day operations of the daycare, such as processing enrollment

2397applicatio ns, meeting with parents (prospective or otherwise), billing,

2406supervising student drop - off and pickup, hiring or disciplining daycare

2417workers, or scheduling staff days.

2422C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

242746. The Division has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subje ct

2440matter of this proceeding. See §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

245147. Petitioner, as the party seeking to remove Respondent’s exemption

2461from licensure, has the burden to prove the allegations in the Complaint by a

2475preponderance of the evidence. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

248448. Section 402.316 provides that child care licensing requirements

2493“ except for the requirements regarding screening of child care personnel,” do

2506not apply to a child care facility “which is an integral part of church.”

2520§ 402.316( 1). Fla. Stat. However, exempt facilities “shall meet the screening

2532requirements pursuant to sections 402.305 and 402.3055.” The statute

2541concludes that “[f]ailure by a facility to comply with such screening

2552requirements shall result in the loss of the faci lity’s exemption from

2564licensure.” Id .

256749. Section 402.305 provides that child care personnel must meet

2577minimum standards, including “good moral ch aracter” established by a

2587level II background screening process that includes employment history

2596checks and se arches of criminal history records, sexual predator and sexual

2608offender registries, and child abuse and neglect registries.

261650. Section 402.302 defines “child care personnel” as “all owners,

2626operators, employees, and volunteers working in a child care f aci lity.”

2638§ 402.302(3), Fla. Stat.

264251. Contrary to Ms. Brinkley’s belief, the term is not limited to persons

2655with direct contact with children. See Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v., GC

2668Academy, Inc. , Case No. 19 - 0975 (Fla. DO AH June 4, 2019; Fla. DCF

2683Sept. 13, 201 9); Dep’t of Child. & Fams. v. Royal Academy Preschool , Case

2697No. 19 - 0158 (Fla. DOAH Apr. 8, 2019; Fla. DCF Aug. 12, 2019) appeal

2712pending , Royal Academy Preschool v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams . , Fla. 5th DCA

2726Case No. 19 - 2721. A person employed to perform mainte nance at a daycare

2741facility while children are present meets the statutory definition of “child care

2753personnel,” and is required to undergo background screening. See GC

2764Academy , R.O. at ¶ 37.

276952. The Department proved that Ms. Crowell is child care pers onn el: she

2783is an employee of the Academy who works in the daycare. Thus, Ms. Crowell

2797is subject to the background screening requirements of section 402.305.

280753. Whether Mr. Washington is child care personnel depends, not on

2818whether he has contact with childre n enrolled at the daycare, but rather on

2832whether he is (1) an owner, operator, or employee of the daycare; and, if so,

2847(2) whether he works in the daycare. The determination requires a two - part

2861analysis.

286254. The Department did not prove that Mr. Washington is child care

2874personnel.

287555. Section 402.302(13) defines the “[o]wner” as the person “licensed to

2886o perate the child care facility. ”

289356. In this case, the daycare is not licensed, but the Department has

2906issued the religious exemption certificate to the Aca demy.

291557. Mr. Washington is not the owner of the daycare. According to the

2928statutory definition, the Academy — in the name of which the exemption is

2941he ld — is the owner of the daycare.

295058. The statute defines “operator” as “any onsite person ultimately

2960respons ible for the overall operation of a child care facility, whether or not he

2975or she is the owner or administrator of such facility.” § 402.302(13)

298759. The Department did not prove that Mr. Washington is the onsite

2999person ultimately responsible for the op erat ion of the daycare.

3010Mr. Washington has many other responsibilities on the campus, as well as

3022off - campus at other businesses run by the Church. The Academy employs a

3036daycare director to manage the operation of the daycare. The preponderance

3047of the evidence demonstrated that the daycare director is responsible for day -

3060to - day operation of the daycare.

306760. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Johnson was the onsite director

3078of the facility at the time Ms. Brinkley conducted her inspections of the daycare and when the Complaint was issued. Further, it was Ms. Johnson,

3103not Mr. Washington, who initially met with Ms. Brinkley when she appeared

3115for inspections of the daycare.

312061. The Department did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence

3132that Mr. Washington i s onsite at the daycare managing operations thereof

3144with any regularity.

314762. Assuming, arguendo, Mr. Washington is the operator of the daycare,

3158that fact is insufficient to determine he is child care personnel. The statutory

3171definition requires a second fi nding — that Mr. Washington “work[s] in the

3184daycare.”

318563. The facts do not support a finding that Mr. Washington works in the

3199daycare. Mr. Washington’s role with respect to the daycare is limited to authorizing contracts and other instruments obligating the Church

3219financially and otherwise. Mr. Washington is employed by the Church, and,

3230in that capacity, has responsibilities for all the entities owned or operated by

3243the Church, whether in Ocala or Texas.

325064. By employing Ms. Crowell without the required backg round screening

3261and allowing her to work in the daycare, Respondent violated section

3272402.316. The statute provides that failure of a facility to comply with

3284background screening requirements, “ shall result in the loss of the facility’s

3296exemption from licen sure.” § 402.316, Fla. Stat. The statute does not afford

3309discretion either to the Department or the undersigned. 8

3318R ECOMMENDATION

3320Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

3333R ECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Children and Families, enter a

3344final order revoking the religious exemption for the daycare operated by the

3356Academy, and not recognize the Academy’s Notice of Child C are Facility

3368Operation as Religious Exemption.

3372D ONE A ND E NTERED this 2nd day of September , 2020 , in Ta llahassee,

3387Leon County, Florida.

3390S UZANNE V AN W YK

3396Administrative Law Judge

3399Division of Administrative Hearings

3403The DeSoto Building

34061230 Apalachee Parkway

3409Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3414(850) 488 - 9675

3418Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3424www.doah.state.fl.us

3425Fil ed with the Clerk of the

3432Division of Administrative Hearings

3436this 2nd day of September , 2020 .

34438 H owever, if Ms. Crowell has subsequently undergone the required background screening

3456and has been found eligible to work in child care, the Department may consider that fact

3472when determining how to act on this Recommended Order.

3481C OPIES F URNISHED :

3486Stefanie Beach Camfield, Esquire

3490Department of Children and Families

3495Building 2, Suite 204

34991317 Winewood Boulevard

3502Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

3507(eServed)

3508Errol Washington Dr. D.D. Brown Christian Academy of Hope

3517907 Southwest 3rd Street

3521Ocala, Florida 34471

3524(eServed)

3525Lacey Kantor, Agency Clerk

3529Department of Children and Families

3534Building 2, Room 204Z

35381317 Winewood Boulevard

3541Tallaha ssee, Florida 32399 - 0700

3547(eServed)

3548Ivory Avant, Esquire

3551Department of Children and Families

3556Building 2, Room 204Q

35601317 Winewood Boulevard

3563Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

3568(eServed)

3569Javier A. Enriquez, General Counsel

3574Department of Children and Families

3579Building 2, Room 204F

35831317 Winewood Boulevard

3586Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

3591(eServed)

3592Chad Poppell, Secretary

3595Department of Children and Families

3600Building 1, Room 202

36041317 Winewood Boulevard

3607Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0700

3612(eServed)

3613N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

3624All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

3637the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

3648Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2021
Proceedings: Stipulation for Dismissal filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/07/2021
Proceedings: Motion for Extension of Time to File Initial Brief Due to Respondent and Appellant in Settlement Negotiations filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2021
Proceedings: Appellee's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2021
Proceedings: New Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to File Initial Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2021
Proceedings: Second Amended Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to File Initial Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/28/2021
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to File Initial Brief (to correct Scrivener's error) filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/27/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Agreed Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Second Agreed Extension of Time to File Initial Brief filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2021
Proceedings: Directions to Clerk filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Clifford Taylor) (filed in Case No. 19-005807).
PDF:
Date: 04/07/2021
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Clifford Taylor) filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondent's Opposition to the Recommended Order filed by the Department of Families and Children Services (filed in Case No. 19-005807).
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondent's Exception to the Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 19-005807).
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 19-005807).
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondent's Opposition to the Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed by the Department of Families and Children Services.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Respondent's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed. (Filed in Case No. 19-5807)
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed. (Filed in Case No. 19-5806)
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2021
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held March 12, 2020). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 09/02/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2020
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Supplement the Record.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2020
Proceedings: Motion to Expand the Record (filed in Case No. 19-005807).
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 19-005807).
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2020
Proceedings: Motion to File Proposed Recommended Order out of Time (filed in Case No. 19-005807).
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/31/2020
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 07/30/2020
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/13/2020
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2020
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/30/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 06/29/2020
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2020
Proceedings: Order Closing Record.
Date: 06/17/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibit 1 filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 06/11/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).  Confidential document; not available for viewing.
Date: 06/11/2020
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 06/10/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/01/2020
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for June 11, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Gainesville; amended as to Hearing Type).
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended Emergency Motion for Hearing by Video Teleconference filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/29/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Hearing by Video Teleconference filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2020
Proceedings: Procedural Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2020
Proceedings: Procedural Notice.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Javier Enriquez) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2020
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Rescheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for June 11, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Gainesville and Tallahassee, FL).
Date: 04/08/2020
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 04/08/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for April 8, 2020; 1:00 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Pre-Hearing Conference Call filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2020
Proceedings: (Corrected) Petitioner's Additional Witness filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Witnesses and Exhibits (signed) filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/03/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Additional Witness filed.
Date: 03/12/2020
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to April 14, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL.
PDF:
Date: 03/12/2020
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for April 14, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Gainesville and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to Date).
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2020
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Witnesses and Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to the Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/16/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Ivory Avant) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/30/2019
Proceedings: Petitioner's Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2019
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 12/02/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for March 12, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; Gainesville and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2019
Proceedings: Department's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/18/2019
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 11/15/2019
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2019
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 19-5806 and 19-5807)
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2019
Proceedings: Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/01/2019
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2019
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2019
Proceedings: Statement Requesting Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/30/2019
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
SUZANNE VAN WYK
Date Filed:
10/30/2019
Date Assignment:
11/01/2019
Last Docket Entry:
10/26/2021
Location:
Gainesville, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):