ROBERT REINSHUTTLE, APPELLANT,
v.
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE; BARBARA WATSON, APPELLANT, V. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE; LORI COOPER, APPELLANT, V. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE; JUDITH PAGE JOLLY, APPELLANT, V. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE; EARNEST BARKLEY, APPELLANT, V. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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 denial of administrative hearings and remanded for proceedings to determine whether Career Service employees were properly reclassified to Selected Exempt status under Florida's Service First legislation without a point of entry into the administrative process.
Career Service employees reclassified to Selected Exempt status under Florida Statute section 110.205(2) must be provided a point of entry into the administrative process to challenge whether their positions met statutory exemption criteria.
[1] Career Service employees reclassified to Selected Exempt status must receive a point of entry into the administrative process to challenge whether their positions met sta…
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 intelligenceFive Career Service employees were reclassified to Selected Exempt status under Florida's Service First legislation effective July 1, 2001, and were s…
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 Statutory Exemptions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these five consolidated appeals, Appellants occupied permanent Career Service positions with the State of Florida prior to July 1, 2001. As a result of Florida’s “Service First” legislation, Appellants were reclassified from Career Service to Selected Exempt status under the authority of Florida Statute section 110.205(2) (2001). After working as Selected Exempt employees for various periods of time, Appellants were fired without cause. Appellants filed petitions for sections 120.57 and 120.569 administrative hearings, which their employing agencies denied. Appellants claim they were wrongfully denied a point of entry into the administrative process, and they are therefore now entitled to administrative hearings to determine whether their positions fell within the statutory exemptions to Career Service status. We agree that Appellants should have been provided a point of entry into the administrative process when their positions were reclassified as Selected Exempt. Because of this omission, we reverse and remand to allow for administrative proceedings to determine factually whether Appellants’ positions at the time they were reclassified to Selected Exempt status met the Legislature’s specific statutory criteria of Career Service exemptions pursuant to Florida Statute section 110.205(2) (2001). We have considered all of the other various issues raised by the parties and find that they are without merit. Burgess v. Department of Commerce, 400 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fuller v. Dep't OF Educ., 927 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…assified to SES. The Department reversibly erred in modifying the ALJ’s factual findings because the findings are supported by CSE and the adversarial hearing before the ALJ complied with the dictates of Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). See § 120.67(1)(Z), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, we reverse the Department’s order and remand with instructions that the Department adopt the ALJ’s recommended order. REVERSED and REMANDED. LEWIS, J., concurs; ERVIN, J., concurs a…1 / 2
-
Klein v. Dep't OF Educ., 908 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…We agree. See Patz v. Dep’t of Health, 864 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Appellant was clearly afforded the opportunity to seek remedies afforded him under chapter 120, Florida Statutes, see Reinshuttle v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 849 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), but failed to pursue them. AFFIRMED. ERVIN, PADOVANO and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In re The Matter of Lee Ann Burgess v. Dep't OF Commerce, 400 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)