MARTHA H. WEBSTER, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District reversed the termination of a Water Management District employee, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements apply to employment dismissals because they affect private interests despite the internal management memoranda exemption.
Employment termination by a government agency is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act's procedural requirements because dismissal affects a person's private interests, even if characterized as internal management.
[1] Employment termination by a government agency affects private interests and is subject to Administrative Procedure Act requirements despite exemption for internal managem…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“dismissal from employment affects a person's private interests with a vengeance”
The court explaining why the internal management memoranda exemption does not apply to employment termination
Martha Webster was employed by the South Florida Water Management District and was terminated without compliance with Chapter 120.57(1) of the Adminis…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Private Interests cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
Martha H. Webster, formerly employed by the South Florida Water Management District had her employment terminated without compliance with Chapter 120.57(1) of the Administrative Procedure Act, said District arguing that its action is not covered by the Act. We reverse.
The District’s position is that Section 120.52(14)(a) Florida Statutes (1977) specifically excludes areas of “internal management memoranda.” With this position we have no dispute; however, the very same sentence continues “. . . which do not affect either the private interests of any person . . . There may be instances where we would be hard put to decide whether internal management memoranda did or did not affect the private interests of any person. Not so here, for we have no doubt that dismissal from employment affects a person’s private interests with a vengeance. Likewise we do not agree that the Act does not cover employees of the Agency affected but only covers those members of the individual public outside it. Martha Webster would have to be included within the term “any person” and we note that the First District Court is in full agreement. See State Department of Administration v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
CROSS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue v. Novoa, 745 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…to afford guidance and not to have the force and effect of law. See Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Florida Police Benevolent Ass’n, 400 So. 2d 1302, 1303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). See also Webster v. South Fla. Water Management Dist., 367 So. 2d 734, 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (holding that the internal management memorandum exception did not apply to agency policy implicated in an employee’s dismissal because “dismissal from employment affects a person’s private interests with a vengeance”). Whe…
-
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Caluwe, 459 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…memoranda exception under section 120.52(15)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), so as to be excluded from the definition of a rule. Thus, we decline the District’s suggestion to reconsider our prior holding in Webster v. South Florida Management District, 367 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).…
-
Johnson v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 403 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ded employee, he would necessarily have the right to waive any objection to a delay. The time periods involved in this case are neither condoned nor condemned as that is not an issue before us. . Cf. Webster v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 367 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)