LASHLEY
v.
DADE COUNTY
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.
Officer Lashley appeals his dismissal from the Dade County Public Safety Department for failing to requalify with his firearm within 90 days. The court reversed the dismissal, finding that the administrative order in effect at the time did not authorize termination for failure to requalify, only reassignment to administrative duties.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that Administrative Order No. 1-77 as it existed at the time of termination did not authorize dismissal for failure to requalify, but only relief from firearm assignment and transfer to administrative duties. Failure to requalify within 90 days, while suffering from temporary family-related disability and achieving scores above the state standard, was insufficient grounds for termination.
[1] Failure to requalify with a firearm within a 90-day period, especially when the officer experiences family problems that may cause temporary disability, is insufficient t…
[2] An administrative order in effect at the time of an employee's termination must be relied upon by the employee.
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“Failure to requalify within a 90 day period, during which time the officer is suffering from family problems which are probably the cause of a temporary disability, is insufficient to support a conclusion that one is incompetent.”
Establishes the court's holding that temporary disability related to family problems does not justify dismissal based solely on failure to requalify within 90 days.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Lashley had been employed by Dade County's Public Safety Department for approximately four years and had successfully qualified with an approv…
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 Temporary Disability cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Officer Lashley, had been employed by appellee, Dade County, in the Public Safety Department for approximately four years.
Since 1959, it had been the policy of the Public Safety Department to require qualification for a firearm once a year. There is no evidence that any officer had ever been dismissed for failure to qualify.
*184On March 25, 1977 Public Safety Department Administrative Order No. 1-77 became effective requiring a showing of competency with every approved firearm with a score of 80% out of a possible 300.
At his annual qualification firings on April 26, 27 and 28, 1977, appellant’s score was 196 — a failure.
On May 13th the officer having received remedial training then fired a score of 220. On the same day he fired 242. (By letter sent him after his termination, it was explained that the qualifying 242 was not official because it was not a timed firing.)
After remedial training, appellant fired the course again in June, with an average score of 215. In July he received additional remedial training but again failed to qualify, averaging 206. On July 29, 1977 he was sent a notice of dismissal from the director of the Public Safety Department.
A personnel hearing was held pursuant to Section 2-47, Code of Dade County. After the hearing, the examiner upheld the termination of appellant as a police officer and recommended that he be reassigned to a position not requiring the use of a firearm.
The county manager upheld the decision of the department dismissing appellant from employment. This appeal is from the decision of the county manager.
Lt. Tagtmeier, a training supervisor, testified to having talked to Officer Lashley and being made aware of his family problems which he felt contributed to his inability to requalify. While appellant was being counseled and undergoing remedial training, he was assigned to administrative duties, which he duly accepted.
The hearing examiner found that Officer Lashley was “a satisfactory public safety officer in all respects except for his ability to use a firearm.” (It is apparent from the transcript of the hearing that the officer qualified with an approved firearm for the years ’73, ’74, ’75, and ’76.)
Failure to requalify within a 90 day period, during which time the officer is suffering from family problems which are probably the cause of a temporary disability, is insufficient to support a conclusion that one is incompetent. During those periods wherein appellant failed to qualify, his scores ranged from a low of 196 to a high of 225 for time firings, and 242 on an untimed firing. According to Sgt. Edward Brown, the state standard of competency is satisfied with a score of 195. So we are not faced with a situation where an officer is so unqualified so as to pose a danger to others.
*185More importantly, the department relies on its Administrative Order No. 1-77 dated March 25, 1977. That order provides essentially that any officer failing to qualify shall be relieved from assignment, prohibited from carrying a firearm and transferred to an administrative assignment. The order does not suggest that any officer otherwise competent in performance of his duties, shall be dismissed for failure to qualify within 90 days after his annual requalifying date. Appellant had a right to rely on the administrative order in effect at the time of his dismissal.
The department admits that after the instant case, and because of it they revised Administrative Order No. 1-77 to make it clear that failure to requalify is a ground for dismissal.
There was another alternative open to the county manager in the event appellant had refused to accept a transfer to an administrative assignment. He could have relieved the officer from duty, without pay, and allowed him a reasonable length of additional time to attempt to requalify at his own expense. That course would have been more consistent with the intent of Adminisrative Order No. 1-77 as it existed on the date of appellant’s termination.
The decision of the county manager is reversed with directions to reinstate appellant.
We note that appellant will now be subject to the new administrative order which makes failure to requalify a ground for dismissal.
Concurring: H. STETTIN, M. TENDRICH, JJ.