DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM J. GERMAN AND CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION, 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 Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles appeals a Career Service Commission order requiring reinstatement of a disabled Highway Patrol trooper with an offer of demotion to radio-teletype operator. The court reverses, holding that the Commission exceeded its authority by ordering reinstatement based on the employee's ability to perform a different position rather than the position from which he was dismissed.
The Commission's order was erroneous because it limited its inquiry to whether German could perform radio-teletype operator duties rather than whether he could perform Highway Patrol Officer I duties, the position from which he was dismissed. The Commission also lacked statutory authority to require the Department to offer an alternative position. The dismissal must be affirmed.
[1] A Career Service Commission's inquiry into an employee's dismissal should be limited to whether the employee could perform the duties of the position from which they were…
[2] A Career Service Commission may only determine whether there was competent substantial evidence to sustain an agency's dismissal action or whether the facts establish jus…
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“the agency has sole discretion to determine whether to dismiss or to suspend an employee, subject only to just cause. On appeal, the [Career Service] Commission may only determine whether there was competent substantial evidence to sustain the agency action or whether the facts establish just cause.”
Establishes the limited scope of the Commission's authority to review dismissals—it can only determine whether just cause existed, not substitute its judgment on alternative employment options.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam German was hired as a Highway Patrol Officer I in March 1981 and injured on duty in December 1981. Unable to perform trooper duties, he was of…
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 Dismissal For Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles appeals an order of the Career Service Commission which required the reinstatement of a disabled Florida Highway Patrol trooper. We reverse.
William German was first employed by the Department as a Highway Patrol Officer I on March 2, 1981. He was injured while on duty on December 12, 1981. As a result of the injuries, German was unable to adequately perform the duties of a trooper and was subsequently offered a demotion to the position of radio-teletype operator. Although he accepted this offer, he was never actually transferred to the position. On March 31, 1983, German was dismissed from the position of Highway Patrol Officer I because of his inability to perform assigned duties.
German appealed his dismissal to the Career Service Commission. Following a hearing, the Commission found that German was qualified and able to perform the duties of a radio-teletype operator. The Commission thereupon ordered that he be reinstated as a Highway Patrol Officer I, and further ordered the Department to comply with its earlier commitment by offering German the position of radio-teletype operator. The Department appeals this order. We first note that German, a career service employee, could only be dismissed for cause, which includes inability to perform assigned duties. § 110.227(1), Fla. Stat. (1981). It was the function of the Commission to determine whether just cause existed for the dismissal on March 31, 1983. § 110.309, Fla.Stat. (1981). In doing so, the Commission should have limited the scope of its inquiry to whether German could perform the assigned duties of the position of Highway Patrol Officer I, the position from which he was dismissed. Nothing concerning the purported demotion was before the Commission. It was, therefore, error for the Commission to order the Department to reinstate the trooper to the position of Highway Patrol Officer I upon a finding that he was able to perform the assigned duties of a radio-teletype operator. In Collins v. Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation, 355 So. 2d 131, 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), the court held:
“[T]he agency has sole discretion to determine whether to dismiss or to suspend an employee, subject only to just cause. On appeal, the [Career Service] Commission may only determine whether there was competent substantial evidence to sustain the agency action or whether the facts establish-just cause.” (quoting from Florida A & M University v. Lewis, 327 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976))
The record in the present case clearly indicates that German was unable to perform the assigned duties of a Highway Patrol Officer I. The Department, therefore, had just cause to dismiss him from that position, § 110.227, and the Commission was required to affirm the dismissal. § 110.-309(2).
We also find error in the Commission’s order requiring the Department to offer German the position of radio-teletype operator. First, as previously stated, nothing concerning the purported demotion was before the Commission. Additionally, a regulatory body has only that authority delegated to it by statute. Since neither section 110.309 nor any other statute gives the Commission the authority to require the Department to offer German another position, the order was made without lawful authority. Department of Transportation v. James, 403 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we reverse the order under review and remand with directions to the Commission to affirm German’s dismissal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lavery v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 523 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ient basis for FDHSP to terminate Lavery’s employment as a trooper, § 447.208(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1986); § 110.227(1), Fla.Stat. (1985); Fla.Admin.Code Rules 15-3.001, 22 A-7.010(7)(b); cf. Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. German, 451 So. 2d 1013, 1014-15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); (c) the fact that Lavery, commendably, was making a good faith effort to rehabilitate himself from admitted drug dependence involving cocaine and alcohol permitted, but did not compel, FDHSP to retain him as a trooper pe…
-
Solomon v. Dep't OF Transp., 541 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…on or inaction is related.” Florida cases have held that PERC has no statutory authority to mitigate a dismissal by directing an agency to employ a disabled employee in another capacity. See Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. German, 451 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Department of Corrections v. Dixon, 436 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Department of Transportation v. James, 403 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The order is affirmed. THOMPSON and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Transp. v. James, 403 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Fla. A & M Univ. v. Althea M. Lewis, 327 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Collins v. Fla. Dep't OF Offender Rehab., 355 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)