FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION/UNITED, AFT-AFL-CIO, 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 Florida Department of Education appeals a ruling that invalidated certain teacher certificate revocation rules. The court reversed because the Florida Education Association (FEA/United), which brought the challenge, lacked standing to challenge the rules despite representing affected teachers.
FEA/United lacked standing to bring the action because it failed to demonstrate current or imminent injury. The court held that representing members who might prospectively be affected by the rules does not confer standing where no party has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining direct injury from the challenged rule.
[1] A party must demonstrate injury which is accompanied by continuing, present adverse effects to have standing to challenge administrative rules.
[2] Speculation and conjecture regarding future potential injury are insufficient to confer standing to challenge administrative rules.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“no party has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the challenged rule”
Establishes the court's holding that FEA/United lacked the present or imminent injury required for standing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFEA/United, a confederation representing approximately 30,000 of Florida's 90,000 teachers, filed a Section 120.56 administrative challenge to rules g…
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 Speculative Injury cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Florida Department of Education (DOE) appeals from an order entered after a Section 120.56 proceeding, initiated by appellee (FEA/United), which invalidated certain rules promulgated by DOE. § 120.56, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1978). Since we find that FEA/United had no standing to bring the action, we do not reach the other issues presented on appeal.
The proceedings below concern a rule challenge involving procedures for revocation or suspension of teaching certificates. Fla.Adm.Code Rule 6A-4.37, 6B — 2.01 thru 6B-2.17. FEA/United alleges that the Professional Practices Council (PPC) has no statutory authority to hear certificate revocation or suspension proceedings as provided for in the challenged rules. FEA/Unit-ed is a confederation of bargaining units and represents approximately 30,000 of the 90,000 teachers in Florida. Members may obtain advice and representation concerning revocation and suspension of teaching certificates. DOE initiated about 27 revocation or suspension proceedings in 1977, and 29 proceedings in 1978. In about half of these proceedings, teachers chose to have the PPC hear the case instead of a hearing officer as provided for by Chapter 120. However, no teacher is a party to this case. Accordingly, we find FEA/United lacks standing under the facts and principles stated in Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Jerry, 353 So. 2d 1230, 1235-1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Jerry, a prison inmate, was denied standing to challenge a rule concerning prison disciplinary procedures pursuant to which he had already served his penalty. The fact that he was an inmate and “might” be subject to disciplinary procedures was insufficient to confer standing. After an exhaustive discussion of applicable law, this court concluded:
Jerry, like the plaintiffs in O’Shea v. Littleton [414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674], supra, has failed .to show injury which is accompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects. He has failed to demonstrate, either at the time his petition for administrative relief was filed or at the time of the hearing, that he was then serving disciplinary confinement or that his existing prison sentence had been subjected to loss of gain-time. He has not alleged the Rule is unconstitutionally invalid, rather that the procedure afforded him by the Rule does not comport with the procedure provided by Chapter 120.
* # * * * *
As in O’Shea, Jerry’s prospects of future injury rest on the likelihood that he will again be subjected to disciplinary confinement because of possible future infractions of Rule 33-3.08(2). Whether this will occur, however, is a matter of speculation and conjecture and we will not presume that Jerry, having once committed an assault while in custody, will do so again. To so presume would result only in illusory speculation which is hardly supportive of issues of “sufficient immediacy and reality” necessary to confer standing.
Here, no party has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the challenged rule.
Accordingly, FEA/United is not a “substantially affected” person as contemplated in Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Jerry, supra. The order is REVERSED.
SHIVERS, J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Home Builders Ass'n v. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982)…ected parties and therefore have no standing to challenge the rule.” 392 So. 2d at 22. In reaching this result, the district court relied on its prior decision in Florida Department of Education v. Florida Education Association/United, AFT—AFL-CIO, 378 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), in which the Florida Education Association sought to represent 30,000 of the 90,000 teachers in Florida in a rule challenge proceeding. The district court held that, since no teacher was a party to the action, the teachers’ asso…
-
Fla. Med. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 426 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…same remedy as to rules which have become effective. . Since individual members were parties, the Firefíghter’s opinion indicates that the association had standing under Florida Department of Education v. Florida Education Association United, Inc., 378 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Professional Fireñghters, 396 So. 2d at 396. As to standing of associations, generally, see Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla.1982), reversing the decision of t…
-
Prof'l Firefighters OF Fla., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 396 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…ally affected” as to the two individual appellants is met, and it is unnecessary to determine whether the appellant association alone would have sufficient standing under Florida Department of Education v. Florida Education Association/United, Inc., 378 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), wherein this court held that a teacher’s union was without standing to challenge a disciplinary rule when no individual teacher was a party. The order dismissing the petition is REVERSED. MILLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (U.S. 1974)
- The Fla. Dep't OF Offender Rehab. v. Leroy Jerry and the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, 353 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)