SAYDEL MAS, APPELLANT,
v.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 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.
Saydel Mas appealed his termination from employment with Miami-Dade County School Board after an administrative hearing judge found the charges against him unproven. The court reversed and remanded because the administrative agency failed to reinstate Mas or award backpay despite dismissing the charges, and failed to address his exceptions to the recommended order.
The court held that allowing an employee to request a hearing is meaningless if charges are dismissed but reinstatement and backpay are not provided. The court also held that the School Board was required to rule explicitly on each exception filed to the recommended order, and the administrative order must specify a remedy for wrongful termination.
[1] An administrative agency must explicitly rule on each exception filed by a party that identifies a disputed portion of a recommended order.
[2] When charges against an employee are dismissed following an administrative hearing, the employee is entitled to reinstatement and back pay.
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“We agree with Mas that allowing him to request a hearing to appeal his termination is meaningless if the charges against him are dismissed but he is not reinstated with back pay.”
Establishes the court's core holding that procedural fairness requires meaningful remedies, not just dismissal of charges
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe School Board suspended Mas and initiated dismissal proceedings in July 2008, alleging he received funds from a vendor and viewed inappropriate mat…
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 Just Cause For Discharge cases and more on FLexlaw
Saydel Mas appeals the Final Order of the appellee Miami-Dade County School Board adopting the Recommended Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). We reverse and remand the case with instructions that the DOAH issue an order addressing Mas’ exceptions and providing Mas with a remedy.
By letter dated July 23, 2008, the School Board of Miami-Dade County informed Mas that it had suspended him and initiated proceedings to dismiss him from all employment with the Miami-Dade Public Schools, effective at the close of the work day on August 4, 2008. The letter stated that the School Board was taking action for just cause, including allegations that Mas received funds directly from a vendor while employed by the School Board and that he viewed inappropriate material on a School Board computer.
*74By letter dated August 15, 2008, Mas requested a formal hearing. At the hearing, the School Board called five witnesses and offered into evidence eleven exhibits. Mas called one witness and stipulated to the School Board’s exhibits. The parties submitted proposed recommended orders. In his proposed recommended order, Mas requested reinstatement and backpay. The transcript of the hearing was submitted to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On April 16, 2009, the ALJ issued his recommended order, finding that the School Board failed to prove that Mas violated any of the cited rules or statute as to the computer pornography and failed to prove that Mas violated any of the cited rules or statute regarding accepting pay from a vendor while employed with the School Board. The ALJ recommended that “Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Notice of Specific Charges.”
On April 27, 2009, Mas timely filed Exceptions to the Proposed Order, specifically requesting that he be made whole by reinstating him and awarding him back pay from August 4, 2008, to the date of reinstatement, based on his pro rata salary of $56,000.00 annually. The record is silent regarding the DOAH review of Mas’ Exceptions, and Mas’ exceptions were never addressed.
On June 18, 2009, the School Board issued a Final Order adopting DOAH’s Recommended Order and dismissing the charges against Mas. Mas was not reinstated or provided backpay.
We agree with Mas that allowing him to request a hearing to appeal his termination is meaningless if the charges against him are dismissed but he is not reinstated with back pay. State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002). Mas prevailed at the DOAH hearing, and the charges against him were dismissed.
In addition, the exceptions Mas filed to the Proposed Order were never addressed, and the DOAH’s Final Order failed to specify any remedy 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 terminating him without just cause.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gootee v. Sch. Bd. OF Monroe Cnty., 201 So. 3d 115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…the action. With respect to the School Board’s ten exceptions to the ALJ’s recommended order, the School Board was required to, and did, rule explicitly on each exception after a review of the complete record. See Mas v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd., 26 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Our own review of the resulting final administrative order is governed by section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2014). We find that the exceptions were well taken and based upon the record. The Teachers were receiving 10.6 hours .of…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Goode, 830 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 2002)
- Boundy v. The Sch. Bd. OF Miami-Dade Cnty., 994 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)