City of Fort Lauderdale v. Campbell, 78-557

• Citation: 362 So.2d 716
• Decision Date: 27 September 1978
• Docket Number: No. 78-557,78-557
• Parties: CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Florida, and Richard E. Anderson, as City Manager of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Petitioners, v. Charles J. CAMPBELL, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 716

362 So.2d 716

CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, Florida, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Florida, and Richard E. Anderson, as City Manager of the City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Petitioners, v. Charles J. CAMPBELL, Respondent.

No. 78-557.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 27, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1978.

Sydney H. McKenzie III, City Atty., and Bryson K. Lovejoy, Asst. City Atty., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Richard L. Kopel, Hollywood, for respondent.

DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 9.030(b)(2)(B), Fla.R.App.P., the City of Fort Lauderdale and Richard E. Anderson have filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a final order of the Circuit Court of Broward County granting certiorari and directing reinstatement of respondent with payment of all back pay since the date of his discharge by the petitioners.

Respondent was hired as a participant under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act of 1973 (CETA), 29 U.S.C. § 801, et seq. by the City of Fort Lauderdale on February 14, 1975, to be a Community Service Police Aide for the City of Fort Lauderdale Police Department. At the time of employment respondent was advised that the term of his employment was for approximately one year which coincided with the CETA funding period. However, apparently by mistake the Personnel Director sent respondent a form letter welcoming respondent to City employment and advising him that at the end of a year he would become a regular city employee.

To implement the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act the Department of Labor promulgated certain rules and regulations which in pertinent part required that each prime sponsor (the City here) shall establish a procedure for resolving any issue arising between it and a participant (respondent here) under the act. The procedure envisioned required certain steps to be taken before a participant could be discharged. ¹

On October 25, 1976, the City Manager wrote respondent notifying him that his employment was terminated due to incompetency and inefficiency in the performance of his duties. At that time the City had not promulgated any discharge procedures as required by Section 98.26 of Department of Labor Rules and Regulations. After respondent's counsel demanded a hearing concerning respondent's discharge, the City Personnel Director on March 2, 1977, notified all City Department Heads of termination procedures to be followed in terminating CETA participants. On March 22, 1977, the City Personnel Director notified respondent as follows:

"In accordance with Section 98-26 of the Federal Register and per your attorney's request, an informal hearing has been scheduled for Friday, March 25, 1977, at 10:00 a. m. in the Civil Service Conference Room, 8th floor, City Hall, regarding your recent termination from employment with the City of Fort Lauderdale. Those in attendance at the hearing will be the City's Personnel Director (and/or his representative), the Affirmative Action Officer, and your former supervisor.

"Please be advised of your rights to bring any witnesses (and/or documents) to speak on your behalf.

"If further information is required concerning your scheduled informal hearing, kindly contact me at the above stated address."

Thereafter a full scale hearing was held which respondent attended and participated in through counsel. The City's Affirmative Action Officer notified the City Manager of the hearing and furnished a resume of what took place and advised the City Manager that the recommendation was that respondent's termination be upheld. The City Manager in due course notified respondent that his dismissal was confirmed.

Respondent then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Circuit Court as a result of which that court found respondent had been denied procedural due process because 1) no procedure had been set up by the City for handling termination of CETA employees as required by the Rules and Regulations Department of Labor and 2) the termination of respondent from employment deprived respondent of a property interest without sufficient notice as to what actions respondent took that constituted incompetency or inefficiency in the performance of duties and failed to provide respondent an opportunity to respond prior to his termination.

It is our conclusion from reviewing the record presented here that, while the City failed to set up the required termination procedures before respondent was terminated, the City did, at respondent's urging, set up such procedure and did...