CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD FIELDING, EDWARD CAMPBELL, MARY K. BRADFORD, DAVID SAPIN, NEIL VAUGHN, DONALD T. PERDUE, GUY ROPER, JR., AND DOMINICK VILLANI, AS MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF THE CITY OF HOLLYWOOD, APPELLEES
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.
The City of Hollywood appealed a writ of mandamus that ordered the reinstatement of a discharged employee with back pay after the Civil Service Board failed to hear his appeal within the statutory 30-day period. The court held that mandamus was the improper remedy and instead the correct remedy was an order compelling the Board to conduct the hearing and issue findings as required by the Civil Service Act.
The writ of mandamus was improper. The correct remedy is an order directing the Civil Service Board to hold the hearing and issue its findings and decision as required by the Civil Service Act and Rules. If the Board fails to comply with such an order, the court may use its inherent power to force compliance or punish willful noncompliance.
[1] A writ of mandamus is the appropriate remedy to compel a civil service board to hold a hearing as required by statute.
[2] A civil service board's failure to hold a hearing within the statutory timeframe does not automatically entitle a discharged employee to reinstatement.
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“In the Civil Service Act there is no provision for a remedy for the Board's refusal or failure to hold a hearing.”
Establishes that the statutory scheme does not authorize the remedy the trial court imposed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMr. Fielding, a City of Hollywood employee, was discharged and appealed to the Civil Service Board for reinstatement as required by the Civil Service …
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 Inherent Power Of Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
[*363] DAUKSCH, Judge.
Before us is an appeal from a Writ of Mandamus.
The Civil Service Act of the City of Hollywood 1 sets out the procedure an employee, the City and the Civil Service Board must follow when a discharged employee wants to appeal to the Board for his reinstatement. One of the requirements of the Act is that the Board “shall hear the appeal within thirty (30) days” from the filing of the appeal. Because the Board, for various reasons, was unable to obtain a quorum to hear Mr. Fielding’s appeal within the requisite thirty days the appeal was finally scheduled to be heard beyond the thirty day period. Mr. Fielding sued the City and sought the Writ of Mandamus to require the City to reinstate him with back pay and other benefits. The court issued the writ and required, inter alia, the reinstatement of Mr. Fielding to his former employment.
In the Civil Service Act there is no provision for a remedy for the Board’s refusal or failure to hold a hearing. The Civil Service Board is comprised of members not answerable to the City administration and the City has no control over its operation concerning appeals hearings. The City is a party to an appeal hearing just as the aggrieved employee is a party. To order the reinstatement of Mr. Fielding is the wrong remedy. The proper remedy is an order to the Civil Service Board to hold a hearing and issue its findings and decision as required by the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Rules. If the Board fails to act then the court may use its inherent power to force compliance or punish if the noncompliance is deemed wilful.
The Writ of Mandamus is quashed and this matter is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
DOWNEY, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur. . Ch. 65-1689, Special Acts, Laws of Fla.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Tarpon Springs v. State of Fla. ex rel. Thomas Meister & Oscar Taylor, 392 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…us. This is consistent with the decisions of our sister courts that under similar circumstances it is improper for a court to issue a writ of mandamus to require a city or public officer to reinstate a public employee. City of Hollywood v. Fielding, 362 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Moneyhun v. Purdy, 258 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). Inasmuch as mandamus is a remedy to command performance of a ministerial right and conducting the hearing was a ministerial function under the City’s ordinances, the writ is…
-
City OF Miami v. Jean-Phillipe, 232 So. 3d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…e v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 760 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (appeal to circuit [*1143] court by employee); Town of Surfside v. Higgenbotham, 733 So. 2d 1040, 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (appeal to circuit court by employee); City of Hollywood v. Fielding, 362 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (petition for mandamus by employee); Fitzpatrick v. City of Miami Beach, 328 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (petition for certiorari by employee); City of Miami v. White, 165 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (petition for certiorari…
-
City OF Miami v. Hagan, 235 So. 3d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…agan further argues that should the Civil Service Board not hold the hearing within thirty days the effect would be that the employee would be helpless to get her or his motion heard. That is not the case. As stated in City of Hollywood v. Fielding, 362 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), where there is no statutory provision to remedy a Civil Service Board’s failure to hold a hearing, an affected employee may seek an order from the circuit court requiring the board to hold the hearing. Reinstatement of a discipl…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence