UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JANET MOORE, 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 court reversed the Career Service Commission's decision that the notice of charges was vague and overbroad, holding that the notice provided sufficient information to alert the employee of dismissal based on three specific below-standard job performance evaluations.
A notice of dismissal satisfies Florida Administrative Code rule 22A-10.0042 when it identifies specific job performance evaluation ratings and references corresponding correspondence, even without detailed incident information.
[1] A notice of dismissal from public employment satisfies statutory notice requirements when it identifies specific job performance evaluation ratings and references corresp…
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 intelligenceJanet Moore was dismissed from her employment at the University of Florida based on three job performance evaluation ratings below performance standar…
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 Wrongful Termination cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the appealed order of the Career Service Commission, which determined that the notice of charges was vague and overbroad and directed a verdict in favor of appellee, Janet Moore. The notice contained sufficient information to alert Moore that she was being dismissed from her employment on the basis of three specific job performance evaluation ratings of below performance standards. All three incidents were referred to with sufficient information and reference to correspondence between appellant and appellee to comply with the requirements of rule 22A-10.0042, Florida Administrative Code. University of North Florida v. Career Service Commission, 452 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (reference to written reprimand in predetermination letter adequate notice that reprimand would be considered in termination action); Department of Insurance v. Smith, 449 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (specific reason for dismissal may be unsatisfactory evaluations). See also Russo v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 451 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The decision in Florida State University v. Tucker, 440 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), is distinguishable because the notice in that case contained no information to inform the employee of the date, time, or place of the specific incident involved. Here, the dismissal was based on the three specifically alleged unsatisfactory job performance evaluations.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent herewith.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER, and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Susan v. Hoffman, 541 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ght and resultant injury or prejudice by reason of the delay, or a change in position or condition which renders it inequitable to enforce the legal right. Devine v. Department of Prof. Regulation, 451 So. 2d 994 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Smith v. State, 506 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Sorli v. I.M. Skaugen Management Co., 452 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). In determining whether laches is established to bar recovery in child-support cases, courts also consider the length and reasonableness of the del…
-
Booker Birdsong, Jr. v. State, 732 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ould not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence); see also Calloway v. State, 699 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that habeas petition cannot be used to circumvent the limitations period imposed by rule 3.850); Smith v. State, 506 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (holding that laches may bar claim for postconviction relief). Denial of Motion for Postconviction relief, affirmed; Petitions for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and Mandamus, denied.…
-
Williams v. State, 644 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Hickman v. State, 581 So. 2d 942, 942 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (laches may bar habeas corpus petition); Smith v. State, 506 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (laches may bar claim for postconviction relief).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fla. State Univ. v. Tucker, 440 So. 2d 37 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Dep't OF Ins. v. J.F. Smith, 449 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Russo v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 451 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Univ. OF N. Fla. v. Career Serv. Comm'n & John Walton, 452 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)