Arnette v. Florida State University, AG-476
| Citation | 413 So.2d 806 |
| Decision Date | 26 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AG-476,AG-476 |
| Parties | 4 Ed. Law Rep. 685 Andrew J. ARNETTE, Appellant, v. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY and the Career Service Commission of the State of Florida, Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Charles W. Dodson, of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Gerald B. Jaski, Gen. Counsel, Florida State University, Arthur C. Wallberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the Career Service Commission dismissing, for untimeliness and lack of jurisdiction, an appeal for the recovery of lost wages.
After a predisposition conference at which appellant was orally informed that he would be suspended, he was notified by letter dated February 29, 1980, that he was suspended without pay from his position with Florida State University until the adjudication of a pending grand theft charge against him. The letter stated that he had a right to appeal to the Career Service Commission within twenty days of receipt of the notice. No appeal was taken from the suspension. On May 21, 1980, a directed judgment of acquittal was entered in the criminal action and appellant was reinstated at Florida State University the following day. Shortly thereafter, appellant and his attorney made oral inquiries regarding back pay, but were informed that none would be forthcoming. By letter dated March 17, 1981, appellant, through another attorney, requested back pay. This request was refused by the University on April 1, 1981, and appellant appealed to the Career Service Commission. After an initial hearing on the issue of jurisdiction, the appeal was dismissed because it was not filed within twenty days of the notice of suspension. This appeal followed.
Relying on McDaniel v. Career Service Commission, 379 So.2d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), appellant argues that the refusal to conduct a hearing on the merits was a denial of due process. In McDaniel, the employee had been suspended for thirty days because a criminal charge had been brought against him. The suspension notice informed him of his right to appeal and stated that extension of suspension until final disposition of the criminal charges would be requested. The suspension was subsequently extended indefinitely, although the extension was not achieved in compliance with the rules. The charges were nolle-prossed in December, 1978, and he was reinstated in January, 1979. His attorney then sought information from the employer regarding back pay. When the information was not provided, McDaniel filed an appeal with the Career Service Commission requesting that he be reinstated with back pay. The Career Service Commission found that it was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This court reversed, holding that because of the peculiar fact situation, denial of a hearing on the facts would deny him due process.
While there are similarities between McDaniel and the instant case, we hold that the differences are crucial so that the circumstances of this case do not render the denial of the appeal a denial of due process.
In this case, appellant was represented by counsel from the predetermination conference through this appeal. In fact, he relies heavily on his, and his counsel's, testimony that after the predetermination conference they were under the impression that if he was exonerated of the criminal charges he would be reinstated with back pay. If they were in fact laboring under such an impression, the written notice of suspension, which specifically stated that it would be without pay, should...
To continue reading
Request your trial