Garner v. Florida Com'n on Ethics, AL-198
| Decision Date | 02 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. AL-198,AL-198 |
| Citation | 415 So.2d 67 |
| Parties | Dr. Ambrose GARNER, Appellant, v. The FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Trenam, Simmons, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye & O'Neill, P. A., and W. Reynolds Allen for Hogg, Allen, Ryce, Norton & Blue, P. A., Tampa, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Patricia R. Gleason, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Claypool, Staff Atty., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Garner appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to terminate proceedings before The Florida Commission on Ethics on two complaints against him and to enjoin the Commission from disclosing any of the materials connected with the proceedings. We affirm.
Two complaints were filed against Garner, President of Hillsborough Community College, alleging he misused his public position, contrary to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1981), by sexually harassing two female college employees. An additional allegation of the complaints charged that the acts of sexual harassment violated Section 112.313(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), which prohibits the solicitation or acceptance of gifts by public officers or employees.
After considering the complaints at an executive session, the Commission directed its staff to conduct an investigation of the charges. Following the investigation and submission of reports of investigation to the Commission, Garner was advised that the Commission was going to hold a "hearing to determine manner of disposition of complaint" (probable cause hearing) pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 34-5.06.
Garner filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaints, arguing the conduct alleged was not within the Commission's jurisdiction. Upon being informed the Commission would rule on his jurisdictional motions immediately before the scheduled probable cause hearing and then decide whether to proceed on the complaints, Garner filed the injunction action in the Leon County Circuit Court.
The trial court refused to enjoin the Commission's proceedings but did enter a stay enjoining the Commission from disclosing any material connected with the proceedings until Garner's appeal of his ruling could be resolved.
The trial court did not err in refusing to terminate the Commission's proceedings.
First, the conduct alleged in the complaints, misuse of public position to sexually harass and to attempt to obtain sexual favors from subordinate employees, falls within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, prevents a public official or employee from using his or her official position to secure a special benefit, privilege, or exemption for himself or others. See Bruner v. Commission on Ethics, 384 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), which notes the Commission has previously proceeded on complaints alleging sexual harassment. Garner seeks to transform these complaints into charges of sexual discrimination which would be within the jurisdiction of the Florida Human Relations Commission Act, Section 23.161, et seq. The complaints, however, allege sexual harassment, not sexual discrimination.
We find no merit in Garner's contention that Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (1981), is unconstitutionally vague. See Tenney v. Commission on Ethics, 395 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1981).
Likewise, his argument that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C., Section 2000e, et seq., may preempt the Commission's jurisdiction is without merit. New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 100 S.Ct. 2024, 64 L.Ed.2d 723 (1980).
There was no error in the manner in which the Commission conducted its investigations before deciding to hold a probable cause hearing. As noted in Tenney, there is no requirement that Garner be afforded a full-blown adversary type proceeding before a determination of probable cause. "[The statute] requires the Commission inform the public official of the complaint, and it mandates that the Commission undertake an investigation before deciding the question of probable cause."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tribune Co. v. Cannella
...v. Michel, 410 So.2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), and Mills v. Doyle, 407 So.2d 348, 351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).4 Garner v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 415 So.2d 67, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), in contrast to Douglas v. Michel, appears to interpret Shevin as having balanced the public's right to kno......
-
Brown v. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc., WINN-DIXIE
...Human Rights Act. The court properly denied this motion. There is no merit in the claim of preemption, see Garner v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 415 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). These acts supplement rather than supplant existing remedies, Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 94......
-
Commission on Ethics v. Lancaster
...in this case do not constitute an unlawful invasion of any of Lancaster's constitutionally protected rights. Garner v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 415 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Therefore, venue is proper only in Leon When the trial court improperly denies a motion for change of venue,......
-
Garner v. State Com'n on Ethics, 82-2619
...of the Commission under section 112.313(6) and that section 112.313(6) is not unconstitutionally vague. Garner v. Florida Commission on Ethics, 415 So.2d 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), pet. for review denied, 424 So.2d 761 (Fla.1983). We have carefully considered appellant's arguments to the contr......