STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND PATRICIA B. HARVEY, RESPONDENTS
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.
A hearing officer in administrative proceedings can authorize discovery for rule validity challenges, but not for constitutional claims against the rules.
[1] Administrative proceedings for a rule or order allow for discovery by any means available to the courts, as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
[2] An administrative hearing officer cannot authorize discovery to resolve constitutional questions, such as Fourteenth Amendment claims, raised in an agency rule validity p…
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 intelligenceRespondent challenged agency rules for discrimination and lack of hearing, seeking extensive discovery. The hearing officer allowed broad discovery, w…
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 Determination cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
This petition for review of a procedural ruling by a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, Department of Administration, raises basic questions concerning the scope of discovery allowable in proceedings for an administrative determination of the validity of an agency rule. We have entertained the appeal notwithstanding that our review has interrupted and delayed the proceedings in midstream because review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy to the petitioning Division of Personnel, Department of Administration. Sec. 120.68(1), F.S.1973 (1974 Supp.).
Respondent Harvey, whom the Division of Personnel declared ineligible for the positions of Administrative Assistant I and Information Specialist II in the Career Service System, ch. 110, F.S.1973, petitioned the Division of Administrative Hearings for an administrative determination that the application of work experience requirements promulgated by rule for the two positions discriminates against women on the basis of sex and that Rule 22A-5.04A.7., Personnel Rules and Regulations of the Career Service System, violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by authorizing removal of a name from the classification register without a hearing.
At issue on this appeal is the propriety of the hearing officer’s order overruling objections by Division of Personnel to extensive requests for admissions and interrogatories propounded by respondent Harvey. Sec. 120.58(1) (b), F.S.1973 (1974 Supp.) provides that in “agency proceedings for a rule or order”
“. . .a hearing officer has the power to . . . effect discovery on the written request of any party by any means available to the courts and in the manner provided in the Florida rules of civil procedure.”
An administrative determination and declaration of the validity or invalidity of a rule on grounds specified in § 120.56(2) is an “order” as that term is defined in the Administrative Procedure Act, § 120.52(8). Such a proceeding is therefore among those for which § 120.58(1) contemplates discovery in appropriate cases, as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Yet it does not follow that a hearing officer named by the Division of Administrative Hearings to determine disputes cognizable under the Administrative Procedure Act is empowered to authorize the exhaustive discovery procedures that often attend judicial inquiry into constitutional questions formulated in Fourteenth Amendment terms of equal protection of the laws and due process of law. Neither the Division of Administration nor its hearing officer has power to declare a rule of the Division of Personnel unconstitutional on those grounds. Canney v. Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, 278 So. 2d 260 (Fla.1973); Otto v. Harllee, 119 Fla. 266, 161 So. 402 (1935); State ex rel. Watson v. Caldwell, 156 Fla. 618, 23 So. 2d 855 (1945), 157 Fla. 70, 24 So. 2d 797 (1946); Art. II, Sec. 3, Fla.Const.; § 20.-02(1), F.S.1973.
The request for admissions and interrogatories propounded by respondent Harvey fall into three general categories: those which are calculated to establish or discover facts pertaining to the constitutional questions raised in Harvey’s petition; those which are calculated to establish or discover facts demonstrating that respondent Harvey is “substantially affected” by the rules which she seeks to invalidate [§ 120.56(2), F.S.1973 (1974 Supp.)]; and those which seek to establish or discover facts pertaining to the manner in which the Division of Personnel promulgated the rules in question and applied them to persons other than respondent Harvey. Discovery in the first area mentioned is improper and should have been foreclosed by the hearing examiner because the administrative process cannot resolve a Fourteenth Amendment attack on the rules in question. Discovery in the second area is proper if the petitioner Division of Personnel seriously contests that the challenged rules were applied detrimentally to respondent Harvey and so substantially affected her interests. Discovery in the third area mentioned is proper, subject to reasonable restraints against burdensome and repetitious inquiry, in administrative proceedings to determine whether the rules under attack were formulated in violation of the authority delegated to the Division of Personnel by the legislature.
We leave to the hearing examiner the application of these general standards to particular requests for admissions and interrogatories now pending.- The case will be remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Remanded with directions.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Revenue OF Fla. v. Young Am. Builders, 330 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…. Art. II, § 3, Fla.Const.; State ex rel. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. State Board of Equalizers, 84 Fla. 592, 94 So. 681 (1922) ; State of Fla., Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Personnel v. State of Fla., Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Admin. Hearings, et al., 326 So. 2d 187 (Fla.App. 1st, 1976), and cases cited. This interlocutory appeal having been found to be without substantial merit (Rule 4.2c, F.A.R.), it is DISMISSED. BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.…
-
State v. Stevens, 344 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)…ever, that the power to adjudicate that a rule is unconstitutional is a judicial power rather than quasi-judicial and such adjudication may not be made by an administrative officer or agency. State, Dept. of Adm., etc. v. State, Dept. of Adm., etc., 326 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1 DCA 1976). Also, it should be noted, as we have heretofore pointed out, that the Legislature by Chapter 76-131, Florida Statutes, withdrew from the hearing officer authority to determine the invalidity of a rule on the ground that the rule i…
-
Dep't OF Transp. of the State of Fla. v. Morehouse, 350 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…tion nor its hearing officer would have had the power to declare the rule unconstitutional. State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Personnel v. State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Administrative Hearings, 326 So. 2d 187 (1st DCA 1976), and cases cited therein. Moreover, the separation of powers provision of the Florida Constitution, Article II, Section 3, stands as a permanent bar to administrative determination of fourteenth amendment problems. The Administrative…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Canney v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Alachua Cnty., 278 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Millard F. Caldwell, 156 Fla. 618 (Fla. 1945)
- State v. Johnny Duncan alias Tompkins, 156 Fla. 584 (Fla. 1945)
- Otto v. Harllee, 119 Fla. 266 (Fla. 1935)
- State v. Millard F. Caldwell, 157 Fla. 70 (Fla. 1946)