JACK CATALDO, APPELLANT,
v.
DAYTONA STATE COLLEGE, 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.
Appellant's appeal of a discrimination complaint dismissal is dismissed because the Commission's late determination, issued after the 180-day statutory deadline, is treated as a favorable determination under the Florida Civil Rights Act, giving the appellant no adverse order to appeal.
A dismissal order issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations more than 180 days after filing is treated as a favorable determination under section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes, and therefore does not constitute an adverse order appealable by the complainant.
[1] When the Florida Commission on Human Relations fails to determine reasonable cause within 180 days of filing a discrimination complaint, a subsequent dismissal order is t…
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 intelligence“In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.”
Section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes, establishing the statutory consequence of the Commission's failure to timely determine reasonable cause.
Jack Cataldo filed a discrimination complaint against Daytona State College on September 21, 2011, alleging violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act…
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 Aggrieved Person cases and more on FLexlaw
Jack Cataldo appeals an order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which dismissed his discrimination claims against Daytona State College. Cataldo filed his complaint on September 21, 2011, alleging violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes (2011) (“the Act”). Two hundred and forty days later, on May 17, 2012, the Commission issued its order dismissing Cataldo’s claims based upon its determination that Cataldo’s complaint failed to state a claim under the Act. Under a unique provision of the Act, this ostensibly adverse determination is actually treated as a favorable determination because it was not made within 180 days after Cataldo filed his claims. See § 760.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2011) (“In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.”). The general rule is that “an appeal may be prosecuted only from a *991decree adverse to the appellant. Fountain v. City of Jacksonville, 447 So.2d 353, 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1894) (citation omitted). Because the Commission’s belated dismissal has the same legal effect as a favorable determination, we see no basis for Cataldo to prosecute this appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
LAWSON, JACOBUS and BERGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fountain v. City OF Jacksonville, 447 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Cecilio v. Cecilio, 447 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)