| Page 3.
Staff 1 (S1) denied having been intoxicated during work hours and added, “I have no problem with drug testing.” S1 said, “I’m not coming to work under the influence” and “If staff smelled something, I wasn’t drunk.” S1 acknowledged they might have drunk on Thursday night after work hours and added, “…but I didn’t come to work drunk on Friday. I did not drink before coming to work.” S1 also stated, “I don’t do drugs.” S1 appeared alert and coherent during the interview. The LPAs did not observe any indication that S1 was intoxicated at the time of the interview.
On 4/7/25, LPA Silva interviewed Staff S9, S10, and S11. All three staff stated they did not have any indication to believe that S1 was working while intoxicated. S9 said S1 seemed intelligent and normal. S10 stated that S1 did not exhibit any indication that would suggest S1 was intoxicated during work hours. S11 stated that S1 had been competent from the beginning.
On 4/3/25, S1 emailed LPA Silva the contact information for Adult #2 (A2), whom S1 claimed to have worked with for 11 years. LPA Silva called A2 on 4/18/25 for an interview. A2 could not be reached.
On 4/8/2025, the LPA Silva received a copy of a drug test for S1, dated 3/25/25. The test lists various substances, including a marker for alcohol. The results show negative for all the substances listed.
On 4/15/2025, the LPA called five parents requesting an interview about the allegations listed above. Parent 1 (P1) was reached and interviewed. P1 provided no information that could corroborate or dismiss the allegation. Parents P2, P3, P4, and P5 did not respond to the Department’s request for an interview or could not be reached.
Children were not interviewed because they were non-verbal due to their young age.
Based on the interviews conducted and the records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has not been met. Although the allegations may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violations did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated.
This licensing report and appeal rights were discussed with Mary Chang. A notice of site visit was posted during the visit. The notice of site visit must be posted for 30 consecutive days. Failure to post it will result in civil penalties of $100. The director provided a copy of their appeal rights (LIC 9058 01/16), a copy of this licensing report, and their signature acknowledges receipt of these documents. First-level appeals should be sent to the regional manager at the address listed above. END.
|