1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 | LPA received the complaint on 3/27/23. RP send an email to the complaint unit without leaving any contact information, therefore LPA cannot interview RP or gather more information. However, RP mentioned in the email that one of the staff brought the dog inside the kitchen while staff are preparing meal.
LPA interviewed four kitchen staff. Three out of four stated that they are not aware that there is a dog in the kitchen. S2, S3, and S4 stated that there are no dogs that are present in the kitchen area, while food is being prep. However, S1 admitted that S1 brought S1 dog to the facility, but the dog is kept locked inside S1 office the entire time. S1 asked Executive Director (ED) for permission for S1 to bring the dog to the facility. ED strictly asked S1 to put the dog in S1 office and lock the door. Ed constantly monitor the floor and kitchen to make sure whenever the dog is in S1 office it is kept lock inside. S1 showed LPA the back door that S1 brought the dog to S1 office and demonstrated that the dog would not be able to roam around the kitchen, nor able to get out of S1 office. LPA observed that the dog cannot cross the kitchen area from S1 office to the back door.
Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did occur, therefore the allegation is UNSUBSTANTIATED.
|