Florida Statute 435.06 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXI
LABOR

Chapter 435
EMPLOYMENT SCREENING

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 435.06

435.06 Exclusion from employment.—

(1) If an employer or agency has reasonable cause to believe that grounds exist for the denial or termination of employment of any employee as a result of background screening, it shall notify the employee in writing, stating the specific record that indicates noncompliance with the standards in this chapter. It is the responsibility of the affected employee to contest his or her disqualification or to request exemption from disqualification. The only basis for contesting the disqualification is proof of mistaken identity.

(2)(a) An employer may not hire, select, or otherwise allow an employee to have contact with any vulnerable person that would place the employee in a role that requires background screening until the screening process is completed and demonstrates the absence of any grounds for the denial or termination of employment. If the screening process shows any grounds for the denial or termination of employment, the employer may not hire, select, or otherwise allow the employee to have contact with any vulnerable person that would place the employee in a role that requires background screening unless the employee is granted an exemption for the disqualification by the agency as provided under s. 435.07.

(b) If an employer becomes aware that an employee has been arrested for a disqualifying offense, the employer must remove the employee from contact with any vulnerable person that places the employee in a role that requires background screening until the arrest is resolved in a way that the employer determines that the employee is still eligible for employment under this chapter.

(c) The employer must terminate the employment of any of its personnel found to be in noncompliance with the minimum standards of this chapter 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.

(d) An employer may hire an employee to a position that requires background screening before the employee completes the screening process for training and orientation purposes. However, the employee may not have direct contact with vulnerable persons until the screening process is completed and the employee demonstrates that he or she exhibits no behaviors that warrant the denial or termination of employment.

(3) Any employee who refuses to cooperate in such screening or refuses to timely submit the information necessary to complete the screening, including fingerprints if required, must be disqualified for employment in such position or, if employed, must be dismissed.

(4) There is no reemployment assistance or other monetary liability on the part of, and no cause of action for damages against, an employer that, upon notice of a conviction or arrest for a disqualifying offense listed under this chapter, terminates the person against whom the report was issued or who was arrested, regardless of whether or not that person has filed for an exemption pursuant to this chapter.

History.—s. 47, ch. 95-228; s. 40, ch. 2010-114; s. 65, ch. 2012-30; s. 11, ch. 2012-73.

F.S. 435.06 on Google Scholar

F.S. 435.06 on Casetext

Amendments to 435.06

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 435.06

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 435.06.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 435.06

Total Results: 15

J. J. v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2023-12-27T00:00:00-08:00

Snippet: having contact with any vulnerable people. See § 435.06, Fla. Stat. (2023). As soon as an employer becomes…employee is still eligible for employment." § 435.06(2)(b). The employer must terminate or reassign …disqualification pursuant to s. 435.07." § 435.06(2)(c). "In section 435.07, the legislature

Allstate Fire and Casualty Ins. Co. v. Hallandale Open Mri, LLC

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2017-04-19T00:53:00-07:00

Snippet: ” Theisen, 468 So. 2d at 435. 6 In the present case

Florida Dept. of Revenue v. NAVAL AVIATION

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2005-07-18T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 907 So. 2d 586

Snippet: institution owned by the federal government. Id. at 435-6. Ten years after McCulloch, the Court struck down

Sledge v. Department of Children & Families

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2003-12-05T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 861 So. 2d 1189

Snippet: person involved in the offense was a minor. Section 435.06(1) states: When an employer or licensing agency…of mistaken identity. (Emphasis added). Section 435.06(2) requires the employer to either fire the disqualified…termination exist based on background screening. § 435.06(1). DCFS has no burden to prove disqualification

Wise v. Wise

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 2002-12-12T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 834 So. 2d 887, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 18207, 2002 WL 31769141

Snippet: appeal in Wise I. See Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 So. 455, 459 (1889). As a result, the statement

Florida Public Emp. v. Dept. of Children

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1999-11-21T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 745 So. 2d 487

Snippet: afford them an adequate remedy, because section 435.06(2) requires termination of employment of any personnel

Edgewater Beach Owners Ass'n v. Board of County Commissioners

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1997-01-22T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 694 So. 2d 43, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 172

Snippet: . 1st DCA 1983). See Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 So. 455, 459 (1889). When the present case was

EDGEWATER BEACH OWNERS v. Walton County

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1997-01-21T23:53:00-08:00

Citation: 694 So. 2d 43

Snippet: . 1st DCA 1983). See Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 So. 455, 459 (1889). When the present case was

The Florida Bar v. Rood

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1993-06-24T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 620 So. 2d 1252

Snippet: a non-exempt tax assessment value of $223,435. * * * * * * 6. That at the time of the transfer of the

Josephson v. Sweet

Court: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Date Filed: 1964-09-09T00:53:00-07:00

Citation: 173 So. 2d 463

Snippet: 1952, 60 So.2d 747; Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 So. 455. 63-822 District Court of Appeal

State Ex Rel. Dixie Inn, Inc. v. City of Miami

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1946-01-11T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 24 So. 2d 705, 156 Fla. 784

Snippet: may be conferred upon municipalities. 30 Am. Jur. 435-6, par. 343. It has the power to regulate and even

Schleman v. Guaranty Title Company

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1943-07-06T00:00:00-07:00

Citation: 15 So. 2d 754, 153 Fla. 379, 149 A.L.R. 1029, 1943 Fla. LEXIS 640

Snippet: Fla. 650, 122 So. 110; Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 So. 455. Therefore, the question raised on this

Ex parte Amos

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1927-01-11T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 93 Fla. 5, 112 So. 289, 1927 Fla. LEXIS 1058

Snippet: . S.) 275, text 287; Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 South. Rep. 455; People v. Case, 220 Mich. 379,…. Rep. 225. See also Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 South. Rep. 455. The general language used in Kirkland

Ex Parte Amos

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1927-01-11T00:00:00-08:00

Citation: 112 So. 289, 93 Fla. 4

Snippet: (U.S.) 275, text 287; Hart v. Stribling,25 Fla. 435, 6 So.2d Rep. 455; People v. Case, 220 Mich. 379, ….2d Rep. 225. See also Hart v. Stribling, 25 Fla. 435, 6 So.2d Rep. 455. The general language used in Kirkland

Johnston v. Eichelberger

Court: Fla. | Date Filed: 1869-07-01T00:00:02-07:52:58

Citation: 13 Fla. 230

Snippet: on Con., 803, et seq., and 1 Parsons on Con. 435 and 6, 441, 443. It is the written instrument alone