ROBERT CORTE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION AND STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, APPELLEES
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.
Robert Corte, a career service employee, was discharged by the Department of Environmental Regulation but was reinstated by the Career Service Commission. The court affirmed the Commission's denial of back pay from the period between his discharge and reinstatement, holding that the Commission had discretion under Florida law to order reinstatement with or without back pay.
The court affirmed the Commission's decision, holding that Section 110.309(3), Florida Statutes, grants the Commission discretion to order reinstatement 'with or without back pay,' and Corte failed to demonstrate an abuse of that discretion. The appellate court will not substitute its judgment for the Commission's on matters within the agency's discretionary authority.
[1] A Career Service Commission has discretion to order reinstatement of an employee with or without back pay upon finding just cause did not exist for suspension or dismissa…
[2] An appellate court will not reverse a Career Service Commission's decision regarding back pay unless the court finds that the agency abused its discretion.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Upon a finding just cause did not exist for the suspension or dismissal, the commission may order the reinstatement of the employee with or without back pay.”
The statutory basis for the Commission's discretionary authority to grant reinstatement with or without back pay.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Corte was employed as an administrative assistant for the Department of Environmental Regulation's Pensacola district office and had achieved c…
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 Administrative Agency Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Retired).
Robert Corte was employed as an administrative assistant for the Department of Environmental Regulation in their Pensacola district office. He had been so employed for a sufficient period of time to come within the career service protections. On December 28, 1978, he was discharged by the district manager, and he appealed pursuant to the proper procedures to the Career Service Commission. A hearing was held, and the Commission ordered that Mr. Corte be reinstated effective January 26, 1979; to his former class or position or to a comparable class for which he is qualified. The Commission, however, specifically ordered that back pay should not be awarded for the period from September 28, 1978, to January 26,1979. It also granted him costs in this matter in the amount of $322.62 and said that this sum represents costs incurred in the pursuit of this appeal, meaning the appeal he took to the Commission. Mr. Corte appealed and asked this court to reverse the Commission regarding back pay from September 28, 1978, to January 26, 1979, and to award him all costs incurred as a result of his appeal. He also assigned as error the fact that the Commission allowed agency notes but disallowed his summary of notes, charts, documents, and so forth, wherein he attempted to show poor working conditions, insufficient staffing, and continued harassment by his superior. We affirm the Commission’s action for the reason that Section 110.309(3), Florida Statutes, specifically states:
“Upon a finding just cause did not exist for the suspension or dismissal, the commission may order the reinstatement of the employee with or without back pay.” (Emphasis supplied)
See also, Section 22A-10.07, Florida Administrative Code. Accordingly, it rests within the sound discretion of the Commission, when reinstating an employee, to do so “with or without back pay,” and this court shall not reverse or substitute its judgment for that of the Commission unless the court finds that the agency has abused it discretion. Section 120.68(12), Florida Statutes; Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Career Service Commission, 289 S.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Appellant has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the Commission. It heard all the testimony, made findings of fact in an order, and acted within the scope of its authority in disallowing back pay. While this court might have decided the case differently, we are constrained from substituting our judgment for that of the Commission on a matter of discretion.
Therefore, for the reasons expressed above, the Commission’s order is
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canter v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 409 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…istrict court of appeal only upon a clear showing of “exceptional circumstances” rendering the Commission’s action an abuse of discretion. Section 120.68(12), Administrative Procedure Act; Corte v. Dept. of Administration, Career Service Commission, 386 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . It should be noted that under the express provisions of Section 120.52(10)(d), Florida Statutes, prisoners (and parolees) have no access to Section 120.57 proceedings, and are thus barred from the remedy — available generally…
-
Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Hankerson, 423 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…e Services v. Career Service Commission, 289 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), and this court’s task on appeal is merely to determine whether the Commission acted within the ambit of its discretionary authority. See Corte v. Career Service Commission, 386 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this regard the inquiry is whether the Commission action is supported by competent substantial evidence. Cf., Edrington. In the present case the record evidence supports the Commission’s determination that appellee falsified…
-
Dick A. LEE v. Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 438 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…hat “[u]pon a finding that just cause did not exist for the suspension or dismissal, the commission may order the reinstatement of the employee, with or without back pay.” This provision was expressly upheld in Corte v. Department of Administration, 386 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) where the court went on to note that “it rests within the sound discretion of the Commission, when reinstating [*407] an employee, to do so ‘with or without back pay,’ and this court shall not reverse or substitute its judgment f…