ROBERT BOUNDY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, 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.
Robert Boundy, a suspended teacher, appealed the School Board's adoption of an administrative law judge's recommended order upholding his thirty-day suspension. The Florida appellate court reversed because the School Board failed to explicitly rule on each of Boundy's exceptions to the recommended order, as required by statute.
The School Board violated section 120.57(k) by failing to include in its Final Order an explicit ruling on each of Boundy's exceptions. When an exception clearly identifies the disputed portion of a recommended order by page number or paragraph and identifies the legal basis with appropriate record citations, the agency must rule explicitly on that exception.
[1] An agency must explicitly rule on each exception to a recommended order that clearly identifies the disputed portion by page number or paragraph.
[2] An agency may adopt a recommended order as its final order, but must state with particularity reasons for rejecting or modifying conclusions of law or interpretations of…
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“the School Board is nevertheless required to rule explicitly on each exception which identifies the disputed portion of the Recommended Order by page number or paragraph. See § 120.57(k), Fla. Stat. (2006).”
Establishes the core statutory requirement that triggered reversal—explicit rulings on each clearly identified exception.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Boundy, a long-time science teacher at Nautilus Middle School, was suspended for thirty days without pay effective March 15, 2006, for violatin…
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 Administrative Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Robert Boundy, a long-time science teacher at Nautilus Middle School, was suspended by his employer, the Miami-Dade County School Board, for thirty days without pay, effective March 15, 2006, for violating School Board rules. After he was suspended from employment, he requested an administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings to challenge his suspension. On September 27, 2006, an administrative hearing was conducted. On April 30, 2007, the administrative law judge entered a Recommended Order supporting the thirty-day suspension without pay. On May 10, 2007, Boundy filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. On July 11, 2007, at a regular School Board meeting, his exceptions were heard. The School Board members voted to deny his exceptions and adopt the Recommended Order as a Final Order suspending Boundy for thirty days without pay. Boundy appeals from the Final Order of the School Board. We reverse the Final Order of the School Board and remand for the School Board to enter an order in compliance with sections 120.57(k)1 and 120.57(0,2 Florida Statutes (2006).
Boundy argues on appeal, and we agree, that the School Board failed to include in its order an explicit ruling on each of his exceptions. Although the School Board “may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the [School Board],” see § 120.57(Z), and need only state with particularity reasons for rejecting or modifying conclusions of law or interpretation of an administrative rule, the School Board is nevertheless required to rule explicitly on each exception which identifies the disputed portion of the Recommended Order by page number or paragraph. See § 120.57(k), Fla. Stat. (2006).
We find that Boundy’s exceptions, which disputed and, accordingly, cited to specific portions of the Recommended Order, identified with sufficient clarity the disputed portions of the Recommended Order to require the School Board to rule specifically on each one in accordance with subsection (k) of section 120.57.
Therefore, we reverse the Final Order of the Miami-Dade County School Board entered on July 11, 2007, and remand for the purpose of ruling with particularity on each of Boundy’s Exceptions to the Recommended Order. Reversed and remanded with directions.
. 120.57. Additional procedures for particular cases
(1) Additional procedures applicable to hearings involving disputed issues of material fact.—
(k) [T]he final order shall include an explicit ruling on each exception, but an agency need not rule on an exception that does not clearly identify the disputed portion of the recommended order by page number or paragraph, that does not identify the legal basis for the exception, or that does not include appropriate and specific citations to the record.
. (Z) The agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law over which it has substantive jurisdiction and interpretation of administrative rules over which it has substantive jurisdiction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Saydel MAS v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 26 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…for Mas. The School Board is required to rule explicitly on each exception which identifies the disputed portion of the Recommended Order by page number or paragraph. See § 120.57(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (2008); Boundy v. School Bd. of Miami-Dade County, 994 So. 2d 433, 434-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Accordingly, we reverse the Final Order of the Miami-Dade County School Board entered on June 18, 2009, and remand the case to the DOAH for a ruling on Mas’ exceptions and entry of an order providing Mas a remedy for ter…
-
Doster v. Hand Arendall Harrison Sale LLC (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)