LEE COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY, APPELLANT,
v.
JIMMIE R. WRIGHT, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1995-04-19
No. 94-02785
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
653 So. 2d 1104 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1995) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Topics
Deprivation Of Property Interest Employment Contract Property Interest In Employment Due Process

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deprivation Of Property Interest cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The Lee County Port Authority appeals a final summary judgment which ordered the Authority to rehire Jimmie R. Wright, a terminated employee. We reverse because the record contains no evidence that Wright was other than an “at will” employee with no protected property interest in his employment.

Wright’s complaint alleged that he was terminated from his employment “with no notice whatsoever” which “deprived him of a legitimate property interest in employment without any vestige of due process....” The evidence offered in support of his motion for summary judgment, however, did not show any factual basis for the alleged property interest. Wright did not show that his employment relationship with the Authority was subject to any employment contract or statute or set of rules which either specified a term of employment or gave rise to an expectation of continued employment, such that Wright possessed a property interest of which he could not be deprived without due process. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 598, 96 S.Ct. 2094, 48 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972).

The summary judgment entered in favor of Wright is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Tourte v. Oriole OF Naples, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
    …e days a week in a construction trailer from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at an annual salary of $22,000. There is no dispute-that the terms of employment were oral, and that Ms. Tourte was legally an at-will employee. See Lee County Port Auth. v. Wright, 653 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). After the first few months, the managers at Oriole changed its plans for Ms. Tourte. They wanted her to work as the secretary for the sales department. A1 though she would still work in a trailer, the physical conditions would b…
  • McMahon v. City of Edgewater, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (M.D. Fla. 1999)
    …w. See id. Under Florida law, an employee does not have a property interest in his or her employment unless a contract or state or local law provides something more than an “at-will” relationship. See Lee County Port Authority v. Wright, 653 So.2d 1104, 1105 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995) (per curiam). The Court finds that Section 2-2 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Edge-water, Florida, as incorporated into Section 8 of the Agreement, as amended, is unambiguous in allowing the City to termina…
  • Eli Schanley v. City of Sarasota (M.D. Fla. 2025)
    …other set of rules giving rise to an expectation of continued employment-does not have a protected property interest in his employment.” Hollis v. W. Acad. Charter, Inc., 782 F. App'x 951, 957 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing Lee Cnty. Port Auth. v. Wright, 653 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). Here, the Amended Complaint does not identify a statute, ordinance, or contract that provided Plaintiff with anything more than an “at-will" relationship with the City. See id. (affirming dismissal when the plaintiff fail…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw