GERARDO C. SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
JOAQUIN AVINO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS COUNTY MANAGER OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-10-09
No. 90-451
Before BARKDULL, LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ.
572 So. 2d 1 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990)

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.

Synopsis

An employee of Metropolitan Dade County appealed the dismissal of his mandamus petition seeking temporary reinstatement after his termination was upheld by the county manager. The court reversed, holding that because the first termination decision had been quashed in a prior proceeding, the subsequent decision by the new county manager was untimely under the ordinance requiring a decision within thirty days of the hearing officer's recommendations.


Holding

The court held that because the first county manager's termination decision was quashed by the court, it became a nullity, meaning no valid termination decision existed until the new county manager's June 1989 decision—well beyond the thirty-day requirement. Therefore, the county manager did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 2-47, and Smith was entitled to temporary reinstatement with back pay.


Headnotes

[1] A county manager's decision to terminate an employee is rendered void when it is quashed by an appellate court.

[2] An employee is entitled to temporary reinstatement with back pay when a county manager fails to render a timely decision on a hearing officer's recommendation for reinsta…

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

Key Quotes

“the county manager shall reach his decision within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the hearing examiner's recommendations. In the event the county manager does not reach a decision within thirty (30) days of receipt of the hearing examiner's recommendations, the dismissed employee shall be entitled to temporary reinstatement until such time as the decision by the county manager is reached.”

Establishes the mandatory statutory requirement at issue—the thirty-day deadline for county manager decision-making.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Gerardo Smith was discharged from his county job on October 22, 1986. A hearing officer found the charges unproven and recommended reinstatement on Ap…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Gerardo Smith, an employee of Metropolitan Dade County, appeals the circuit court’s order dismissing his Petition for Writ of Mandamus directed to the present county manager, Joaquin Avino, to compel temporary reinstatement with back pay. We reverse.

Smith was discharged from his employment on October 22, 1986, for allegedly violating various rules and regulations of the County Civil Service. Smith appealed his discharge, and a hearing was held before a hearing officer. The hearing officer found that the County had not proven by competent and substantial evidence the charges that resulted in Smith’s termination. On April 30, 1987, he recommended that Smith be reinstated.

Under Section 2-47 of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, a county manager must make a determination as to any final disciplinary action within thirty days from the receipt of the hearing officer’s recommendations, otherwise the dismissed employee is entitled to temporary reinstatement.1 Smith was eventually given temporary reinstatement pursuant to this ordinance because the former county manager, Sergio Pereira, did not reach a decision within the thirty day time period.

The former county manager did reach a decision, however, on June 23, 1987, in a letter of dismissal which overturned the recommendation of the hearing officer. The letter did not set forth any findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the specific acts of misconduct for which Smith was terminated. After unsuccessfully appealing this decision to the circuit court, Smith appealed to this Court for certiorari review of the former county manager’s decision. See Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County, 532 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). This Court, in an earlier case, granted certiorari, quashed the former county manager’s determination, and remanded with directions that the circuit court require the present county manager, Joaquin Avino, to review the matter and set forth the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the final decision is based. Smith v. Metropolitan Dade County, 532 So. 2d at 84. Although Smith had been temporarily reinstated after the former manager failed to render a timely decision, Smith was not again temporarily reinstated after that same decision was quashed by this Court.

After this Court’s ruling in the first Smith case, the present county manager reached a final decision on the matter on June 28, 1989, and affirmed Smith’s termination. Smith then sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel his temporary reinstatement. The circuit court denied the writ.

Since this Court, in the first Smith case, “quashed” the former county manager’s first decision to terminate, the first “decision” of the former county manager became void. See Holland v. Webster, 43 Fla. 85, 29 So. 625 (1901); Hood v. French, 37 Fla. 117, 19 So. 165 (1896). Because the first county manager’s decision was a nullity after having been quashed, in effect, there was no termination decision actually rendered until the most recent decision made by the present county manager in June of 1989. Therefore, the county manager did not comply with the specific and mandatory language of Section 2-47 requiring either a determination within thirty days of the hearing officer’s recommen dations or, under that same ordinance, a reinstatement with back pay.

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Smith’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and remand to the trial court with directions to grant the Petition.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

. Section 2-47 specifically states that:

The county manager shall reach his decision within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the hearing examiner's recommendations. In the event the county manager does not reach a decision within thirty (30) days of receipt of the hearing examiner’s recommendations, the dismissed employee shall be entitled to temporary reinstatement until such time as the decision by the county manager is reached.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw