THE SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, ET AL., 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.
The School Board of Seminole County appeals the Unemployment Appeals Commission's decision awarding unemployment benefits to a teacher's aide. The court reverses, holding that the employee is estopped from relitigating the fact of sexual misconduct with a student, which had been conclusively established in a prior final court decision upholding his termination.
The employee is estopped from relitigating the fact of sexual intercourse with the student, as that fact was conclusively established in a final prior court adjudication. Therefore, the employee cannot qualify for unemployment benefits on the ground that the misconduct did not occur, and the UAC's award of benefits is reversed.
[1] A prior judicial determination of facts between an employer and employee is binding on the parties in subsequent administrative proceedings concerning unemployment compen…
[2] A finding of fact by an appellate court in a prior proceeding is final and binding on the parties regarding those facts and issues.
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 final decision of this court, upholding the school board's final administrative order finding that the employee was properly terminated because of his sexual intercourse with the student, is final and binding on the parties (the school board and the employee) as to the facts and issues upon which our adjudication was made.”
Establishes that the prior court decision is conclusive and binding on the parties regarding the factual findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA male teacher's aide was terminated by the School Board of Seminole County for engaging in sexual intercourse with a female juvenile student-detainee…
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 Employee Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
After an adversarial administrative hearing appellant, school board, upheld its own action as employer in terminating the employment of a male teacher’s aide because it found that the employee had engaged in sexual intercourse with a female juvenile-student-detainee. That finding was appealed and affirmed by this court in Miller v. School Board of Seminole County, 518 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).
The employee sought unemployment compensation. The school board defended on the ground the employee had been terminated for misconduct. The Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) upheld the appeals referee’s affirmance of the claims examiner’s decision, which found that the employer had failed to substantiate these charges of misconduct. The appeals referee found (1) the testimony of the student-detainee was not credible, (2) that the sexual intercourse did not occur, and (3) that the employee was not guilty of misconduct, and concluded the employee therefore was entitled to unemployment benefits. We reverse.
The final decision of this court, upholding the school board’s final administrative order finding that the employee was properly terminated because of his sexual intercourse with the student, is final and binding on the parties (the school board and the employee) as to the facts and issues upon which our adjudication was made.1 Those findings are simple and specific: the teacher (employee) had extramarital sexual intercourse with a student.2 The employee is estopped to relitigate that fact with the school board. See United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company v. Odoms, 444 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). We agree with Judge Ervin’s separate opinion in Marion County School Board v. Clark, 378 So. 2d 831, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) although we could distinguish Marion County because in the present case, this court’s prior decision is the prior final adjudication of the issues between the parties, not merely the administrative order of the school board.
The decision of the UAC, holding that the employee is entitled to unemployment compensation, is
REVERSED.
COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur. . See Rimes and Lannon, Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel in Administrative Proceedings, 62 Fla.Bar Journal 41 (April 1988).
. As a matter of law, this is misconduct by a teacher-employee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Archer v. State, 681 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Assuming, without deciding, that an administrative determination may be entitled to res judicata effect in a de novo judicial proceeding in some circumstances, see School Bd. of Seminole County v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 522 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), but see Dykes v. Quincy Telephone Co., 539 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), no reason has been demonstrated for doing so here. See generally Thomson v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 511 So. 2d 989 (Fla.1987). On appeal,…
-
VLX Props., Inc. v. S. States Utils., Inc., 792 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…de by the deputy in his prior order have become the law of the case”); see also Mulato v. Mulato, 734 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Thomas v. Perkins, 723 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); School Bd. of Seminole County v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 522 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (“The final decision of this court ... is final and binding on the parties ... as to the facts and issues upon which our adjudication was made.”). Clearly none of the land in which GAGC had a fee simple or contract vendee intere…
-
Maniccia v. Brown, 171 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1999)…d. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984)). Florida courts recognize the preclusive effect of state court decisions upholding administrative determinations. See, e.g., School Bd. of Seminole County v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 522 So. 2d 556, 556-57 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988). In addition, the record indicates that Appellant had counsel at both the administrative hearing and on petition for certiorari to the Florida circuit court. The CSB allowed her to testify, call witnesses, and cross-ex…
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
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Odoms, 444 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Stewart v. Stewart, 378 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Marion Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Clark, 378 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)