City of Miami v. Kory

• Decision Date: 17 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-1474,80-1474
• Citation: 394 So.2d 494
• Parties: CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation; Howard Gary, as Director of the Department of Management and Budget of the City of Miami; and Manohar S. Surana, as Assistant Director of the Department of Management and Budget of the City of Miami, Florida, Appellants, v. Delores KORY, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 494

394 So.2d 494

CITY OF MIAMI, Florida, a municipal corporation; Howard Gary, as Director of the Department of Management and Budget of the City of Miami; and Manohar S. Surana, as Assistant Director of the Department of Management and Budget of the City of Miami, Florida, Appellants, v. Delores KORY, Appellee.

No. 80-1474.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1981.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1981.

Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson and Peter J. Hurtgen, for appellants.

Weinsoff & Klausner and Robert D. Klausner, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, SCHWARTZ and NESBITT, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Judge.

This is an appeal by the City of Miami from a declaratory judgment, rendered after a non-jury trial, which determined that Delores Kory's resignation as a probationary city employee was void because it was executed under duress. We reverse.

The facts are almost entirely undisputed. Under the civil service rules, an employee may be discharged without cause or explanation at any time during the first six months of employment, after which he attains permanent civil service status. On October 1, 1978, the appellee began work for the city in the Department of Management and Budget. At 1:00 p. m. on March 30, 1979, the last working day of Ms. Kory's probation, her supervisor, Manohar S. Surana, the Assistant Director of the Department, handed her a memorandum, signed by him, which stated that she would be terminated "effective 2:00 p. m. today, Friday, March 30, 1979." After reading the memo, and without prompting from Surana, Ms. Kory told him that she was seeking another position with the city. She asked if, in order to avoid being fired, which would have precluded her securing another city job, it would be possible for her to resign instead. Surana replied that he had no objection to a resignation but that the decision was entirely up to her. After going out to lunch to "give this some thought," Ms. Kory returned at 1:50 p. m with a handwritten resignation, which bore the time "1:55 p. m.," intended specifically to become effective prior to her discharge. The note stated:

As I can no longer comply with the requirements of the position I occupy, I am tendering my resignation, effective immediately.

Surana accepted the resignation.

During April Ms. Kory made several attempts to obtain other employment from the city and to extend her probationary status with the Department of Management and Budget. ¹ After all such efforts proved unsuccessful, she sought the advice of counsel on April 26, 1979. It was then that she first learned the fact which the trial court found to be decisive in granting her relief; although, he testified at the trial, he (like Ms. Kory) did not know it at the time, Surana, as the assistant director of his department, did not have the authority to discharge a probationer. Under the city code, only the director of a department, with the approval of the City Manager, possesses the power to do so. ² Thus, if Surana's letter had been the cause of Ms. Kory's termination, it would have been ineffective as contrary to the requirements of the city's own regulations. City of Hialeah v. Stola, 330 So.2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

This was the basis of Ms. Kory's action below, which was to set aside the instrument which did end her employment with the city, her own resignation of March 30. She contended essentially that the resignation was the product of duress created by the invalid notice of dismissal. The trial judge agreed, ³ set aside the resignation, and ordered the plaintiff restored to the position she would have occupied had it not been tendered that is, as a non-probationary civil service employee with full back pay and emoluments. We are unable to approve this conclusion.

An early, and often-cited definition of duress is contained in Herald v. Hardin, 95 Fla. 889, 116 So. 863, 864 (1928):

Duress is a condition of mind produced by an improper external pressure or influence that practically destroys the free agency of a party and causes him to do an act or make a contract not of his own volition.

Accord, e. g., Cooper v. Cooper, 69 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1954); Corporacion Peruana de Aeropuertosy Aviacion Comercial v. Boy, 180 So.2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). As this formulation of the rule and all the equivalent ones ⁴ indicate, there are in essence two factors which must coexist in order to establish duress one which deals with the party allegedly under duress; the other, with the party allegedly imposing it. It must be shown (a) that the act sought to be set aside was effected involuntarily and thus not as an exercise of free choice or will and (b) that this condition of mind was caused by some improper and coercive conduct of the opposite side. "(U)nderlying all definitions of 'duress' is the dual concept of external pressure and internal surrender or loss of volition in response to outside compulsion." 17 C.J.S. Contracts, § 168 at 943 (1963). Although both elements of this duality are indispensable to a finding of duress, we think that neither existed in the present circumstances.

Resignation Voluntary Act of Plaintiff.

As was said in Azalea Drive-In Theatre, Inc. v. Sargoy, 394 F.Supp. 568, 574 (E.D.Va. 1975), rev'd on other grounds, 540 F.2d 713 (4th Cir. 1976):

The authorities are in agreement that the ultimate fact to be determined whenever the question of duress is raised is whether the purported victim's will was so overcome as to deprive him of free choice. See generally 25 Am.Jur.2d (Duress and Undue Influence), § 3, at 353 and 355-57; 17 C.J.S. (Contracts § 168), at 948.

On the facts of this case it is clear that Ms. Kory's resignation was to the contrary of this requirement, entirely the product of her own choice. The idea of her resigning was initiated entirely by her, and was not suggested, much less forced upon her by Surana. The case is thus completely different from those cited by the appellee, in which the resignation was affirmatively requested, indeed required by the employer as the only alternative to a similarly unlawful discharge. See, e. g., Paroczay v. Hodges, 219 F.Supp. 89 (D.D.C. 1963); Motto v. General Services Administration of U.S., 335 F.Supp. 694 (E.D.La. 1971), aff'd without opinion, 502 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 927, 95 S.Ct. 1125, 43 L.Ed.2d 398 (1975). In a word, Surana did not tell Ms. Kory to "quit or be fired;" he said, "you're going to be fired," and Ms. Kory asked, "may I quit first?" Furthermore, after she herself raised the possibility of resignation, the plaintiff made a conscious decision to take that course for reasons which seemed to render it in her own best interests to do so. ⁵ When, as here, a particular course of action is raised on one's own volition, see, Taylor v. United States 591 F.2d 688 (Ct.Cl. 1979); Joseph F. Egan, Inc. v. City of New York, 18 A.D.2d 357, 239 N.Y.S.2d 420, 423 (App.Div.1963), rev'd on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 90, 268 N.Y.S.2d 301, 215 N.E.2d 490 (1966), and is finally decided upon in a deliberate and considered choice between alternatives, see, Coffman v. Bolger, 590 F.2d 1366 (5th Cir. 1979); Johnson, Drake & Piper, Inc. v. United States, 209 Ct.Cl. 313, 531 F.2d 1037 (1976); McGucken v. United States, 407 F.2d 1349 (Ct.Cl. 1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 894, 90 S.Ct. 190, 24 L.Ed.2d 170 (1969); Autera v. United States, 182 Ct.Cl. 495, 389 F.2d 815 (1968), no finding of involuntariness, and thus no conclusion of duress may be sustained.

Resignation not Product of Improper Conduct of City.

Turning to the other side of the coin, the conduct of the city, we find the plaintiff's case equally inadequate. As has been demonstrated, the act supposedly coerced must be caused by some improper or illegal conduct of the defendant. See also, Fuller v. Roberts, 35 Fla. 110, 17 So. 359 (1895). In this regard, it is not improper and therefore not duress to threaten what one has a legal right to do. Spillers v. Five Points Guaranty Bank, 335 So.2d 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), and cases and authorities cited; Scutti v. State Road Department, 220 So.2d 628, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). To the extent that any action of the city brought about Ms. Kory's resignation, it was obviously and only her proposed discharge. But it is undisputed that the city had the perfect right to do just that, fire Ms. Kory as a then-probationer without cause. See, City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 378 So.2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1113 (Fla. 1980). The only aspect of that anticipated action which was arguably improper was the means by which it was about to be effected, that is, by Mr. Surana, rather than the head of the department. It was demonstrated, however, that this irregularity had absolutely nothing to do with Ms. Kory's decision to resign. To carry the burden of establishing the required causal connection between the unlawful conduct of the defendant and a resulting coerced action of the plaintiff, Ms. Kory would have had to show that she would not have resigned if the memo had been executed by the proper official, and thus that she was forced into resigning by the fact that it was signed by the wrong one. The record shows the exact opposite. Ms. Kory was not aware of the procedural deficiency ⁶ and her actions were completely unrelated to its existence. A voluntary action cannot be deemed the result of duress because the surrounding transaction involves a technical impropriety which is discovered long afterwards and which has no influence on the result. See, Mills v. Forest Preserve Dist. of Cook County, 345 Ill. 503, 178 N.E. 126 (1931).

Even if, as it did not, the "improper" feature of the discharge had something to do with the resignation, the actions of Surana could not be deemed coercive. As the trial judge found, he was totally unaware of the contrary rule, and believed in good faith that he had the authority himself to fire the plaintiff. Thus, the principle...