LOUIS TOTH, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, 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.
Louis Toth, an at-will environmental scientist for the South Florida Water Management District, was demoted and reprimanded in 2003. He challenged the agency action through administrative proceedings, but the court affirmed dismissal of his petition because at-will employees without contractual rights or statutory protections lack standing to seek administrative review.
An at-will employee without a contract or statutory provision creating a substantial interest in their position lacks standing to challenge administrative agency employment decisions. Toth was not entitled to an administrative hearing because he had no contract and no statute or rule giving him the required substantial interest.
[1] An at-will employee, lacking a contract or statutory/regulatory right, does not possess a substantial interest sufficient to obtain review of administrative agency action…
[2] A petitioner must demonstrate that their substantial interests have been determined by an administrative agency to obtain judicial review of agency action.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In order to obtain review of the action of an administrative agency, a person's 'substantial interests' must have been determined.”
Establishes the legal standard for standing in administrative review under Florida Statutes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceToth served as chief environmental scientist in the Kissimmee division of the South Florida Water Management District. In September 2003, he received …
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 Petition For Administrative Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Toth, the chief environmental scientist of the Kissimmee division of the District, was given a written reprimand in September, 2003, and demoted and transferred to a different geographical region. He filed a petition for administrative hearing challenging this agency action, but it was dismissed because, as an at-will employee, he had no standing. We affirm.
In order to obtain review of the action of an administrative agency, a person’s “substantial interests” must have been determined. § 120.52(12)(a) and § 120.57(l)(e)l, Fla. Stat. (2003). The District dismissed Toth’s petition because he had no contract of employment and there was no statute, rule or policy which would give him a substantial interest.
In Sickon v. School Board of Alachua County, 719 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), a teacher who had been band director during 1996 and 1997 was assigned as assistant band director the next year. Her petition for administrative hearing was denied for lack of substantial interest because she had no contractual right to be band director and there was no school board or Florida Administrative Code rule which would give her a required substantial interest. Similarly, in Fertally v. Miami-Dade Community College, 651 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), it was held that the petitioner, whose annual contract had not been renewed, could be dismissed without cause and was therefore without a substantial interest. See also Jones v. Miami-Dade Cty., 816 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Toth has not attempted to distinguish these cases. He relies primarily on Hasper v. Department of Administration, 459 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Hasper is distinguishable, however, because in Has-per the petitioner was in a Senior Management Service Position, and at that time, section 110.403(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1984) provided a method for removing people in Senior Management Service Positions for poor performance. There is no analogous provision to section 110.403(l)(c) in the present case.
Because Toth was an at-will employee, and there is no statute or rule which would give him the required substantial interest, he was not entitled to an administrative hearing. We accordingly affirm the dismissal of his petition.
STEVENSON and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnold v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 910 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…M. We affirm the South Florida Water Management District’s final order dismissing appellant’s petition for an administrative hearing to challenge termination of his employment with the District. See Toth v. South Florida Water Management District, 895 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that an employee of the District who was demoted and transferred to a different region was not entitled to an administrative hearing because he was an “at will” employee of the District, and there was no statute, rule, o…
-
Schwartz v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 53 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. See Toth v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 895 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“In order to obtain review of the action of an administrative agency, a person’s ‘substantial interests’ must have been determined”); Sickon v. School Bd. of Alachua County, 719 So. 2d 360, 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“The allegati…
Authorities Cited
- Sickon v. The Sch. Bd. OF Alachua Cnty., 719 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Pacharee K. Hasper v. Dep't OF Admin. & Dep't of Labor & Emp. Sec., 459 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Fertally v. Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll., 651 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Jones v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 816 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)