LANCE WOODWORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF BLIND SERVICES, 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 Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a vocational rehabilitation counselor for insubordination and disrupting agency communications, finding substantial competent evidence supported the Career Service Commission's decision and the penalty was within statutory authority.
An employer may dismiss an employee for disobeying proper orders and disrupting established agency communications procedures, and appellate courts lack authority to review the penalty imposed if it falls within statutory limits.
[1] An appellate court reviewing an employment dismissal under Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, lacks authority to review the penalty imposed if it is within the statutory l…
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 intelligenceLance Woodworth was employed as a vocational rehabilitation counselor by the Department of Education, Office of Blind Services. He was dismissed after…
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 Chain Of Command cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an Opinion and Order from the Career Service Commission which affirmed the action of the appel-lee of dismissing the appellant from his employment as a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Our scope of review is limited and defined by Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1977) and within those guidelines we find no error. There were certain disputed facts which were resolved by the factfind-ing body and after a resolution of those disputed facts there is substantial compe tent evidence to warrant the finding of guilt. There was evidence the appellant disobeyed proper orders of his superior, failed to follow established standards of communications within the agency by “going over his supervisor’s head” to voice grievances and otherwise caused disruption, all of which led the employer to determine appellant’s presence was counter-productive. Appellant urges he was motivated by a proper consideration for his clients best interests and any breaches of the rules were not such to warrant such a harsh penalty as dismissal. We have no authority to review the penalty so long as it is within the limits allowed by law. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201. (Fla.1978). The penalty was within the limits of the authority of the appellee. Section 110.-061(1). Florida Statutes (1977).
AFFIRMED.
CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty. v. Walter B. Noble & the State Bd. of Educ., 384 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…. Com’n, 320 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Florida A. & M. University v. Lewis, 327 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Collins v. Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation, 355 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Woodworth v. Department of Education, 369 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), holding that the employing agency has sole discretion to determine whether to suspend or dismiss an employee, subject only to just cause, while the reviewing tribunal’s function is limited only to determining whether there was c…
-
Pagan v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 374 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ce, Board of Review, 365 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Silver Springs, Inc. v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 366 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); and Woodworth v. Department of Education, Office of Blind Services, 369 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).…
-
Wilhelmena Webber v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 444 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…is competent, substantial evidence to support each of the findings made by the board. Having determined the existence of such evidence, we have no authority to interfere with the fact-finding authority of the board. Woodworth v. Dept. of Education, 369 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We also see no basis in law to overturn the board’s denial of appellant’s motion to disqualify the school board attorney from participating in the proceedings. Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712 (1975)…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Casimir Szpak v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978)