HERNANDO COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
KEVIN MILLS, RESPONDENT
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.
Hernando County sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from hearing a dispute with its former employee Kevin Mills, arguing that the Florida Public Employer Relations Commission (PERC) had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter as an unfair labor practice claim. The court denied the petition because Mills's complaint was too vague to determine conclusively that it alleged only an unfair labor practice, and Mills could potentially assert a circuit court claim (such as a procedural due process claim) that would fall outside PERC's exclusive jurisdiction.
The court denied the petition for prohibition because the complaint was too vague at that procedural juncture to determine conclusively that Mills could not assert a claim falling within the circuit court's jurisdiction, such as a procedural due process claim that would fall outside PERC's exclusive jurisdiction.
[1] A circuit court may retain jurisdiction over a dispute if the complaint, despite alleging an unfair labor practice, also raises claims outside the exclusive jurisdiction…
[2] A complaint for a procedural due process violation must sufficiently allege a property right in employment and how that right was violated.
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“Petitioner correctly asserts that unfair labor practices claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERC.”
Establishes the general rule that PERC has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practice claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKevin Mills, a former road maintenance employee of Hernando County, was discharged. Mills alleged the discharge violated the Collective Bargaining Agr…
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 Property Right In Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks prohibition to prevent the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over its dispute with Respondent, its former employee. Petitioner argues that The Florida Public Employer Relations Commission (“PERC”) has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter because Respondent’s complaint merely alleges an unfair labor practice, a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERC.
Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss Respondent’s complaint, raising the jurisdiction issue prior to filing an answer or any motion testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint itself is not a model of clarity. Respondent alleged that he was wrongfully discharged from his position as a road maintenance employee in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Petitioner and The International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The CBA prohibits discharges, except upon “just cause,” and provides a multiple-step grievance process that culminates in binding arbitration as the final step. In this case, Respondent alleges that he pursued the grievance through the penultimate step, which was resolved in Petitioner’s favor. Respondent further alleges that he requested binding arbitration, the final step, but it was not afforded to him. Respondent does not allege why he was not afforded binding arbitration, but his complaint seeks only a declaration that there was no just cause for his firing as well as money damages.
Petitioner correctly asserts that unfair labor practices claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of PERC. Browning v. Brody, 796 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The dilemma we have in addressing the issue here is that the complaint is too vague to determine the precise legal theory upon which it is based. For example, the complaint alleges violations of both *1027“procedural” and “substantive” due process. As for the procedural due process claim, the complaint does not identify the source of the alleged property right, nor does it state how the alleged right was ostensibly violated. See McRae v. Douglas, 644 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1994) (complaint for procedural due process violation must sufficiently allege property right in employment).1 Although Respondent admits that a due process claim is not the “heart” of his claim, he does not abandon that potential claim. On the other hand, Petitioner concedes that a due process claim would not fall within PERC’s exclusive jurisdiction but nevertheless agrees that Respondent does not make a due process claim. We agree with Petitioner on both points but cannot conclude at this procedural juncture that Respondent cannot assert a claim that falls within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. For that reason, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
PALMER, TORPY and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…rom proceeding in a case where it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and where no amendment to Francati’s complaint would cure the jurisdictional defects of lack of a proper defendant and lack of a justiciable controversy. Cf. Hernando Cty. v. Mills, 114 So. 3d 1026, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (denying a writ of prohibition where it was possible that a complaint could be amended to assert a claim that would fall within the jurisdiction of the circuit court). Francati has failed to allege a justiciable claim, and…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Lauderhill v. Rhames, 864 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- McRAE v. Douglas, 644 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Guffey v. State, 796 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)