Hadley v. Department of Administration, No. 60321

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; ADKINS
Citation411 So.2d 184
PartiesHoward HADLEY, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, Career Service Commission, and Department ofProfessional & Occupational Regulation, Respondents.
Docket NumberNo. 60321
Decision Date04 March 1982

Page 184

411 So.2d 184
Howard HADLEY, Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, Career Service Commission, and Department ofProfessional & Occupational Regulation, Respondents.
No. 60321.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 4, 1982.

Page 185

Geoffrey B. Dobson of Meredith, Dobson & Cushman, St. Augustine, for petitioner.

Drucilla E. Bell, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By notice invoking our discretionary jurisdiction, we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (Hadley v. Department of Administration, etc., 392 So.2d 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), on grounds that it expressly and directly conflicts with a prior decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District (Engel v. State Department of Transportation, 341 So.2d 1020 (Fla.3d DCA 1977)). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.

Petitioner, Howard Hadley (hereinafter petitioner), was chief counsel for the Florida Real Estate Commission headquartered in Orlando from 1974 to 1979. In 1979, as part of the reorganization of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (hereinafter department), petitioner and all other attorneys employed by the real estate commission were notified that they were to become department staff and would be transferred to the department's Tallahassee headquarters. The changes also required that petitioner be demoted from the position of Attorney IV to that of Attorney III.

The department mailed petitioner a certified letter explaining the planned transfer on September 26, 1979. Petitioner never claimed the letter, which contained insufficient postage, from the post office, but learned of his transfer and demotion at a meeting with two departmental representatives on September 27, 1979.

On October 22, 1979, the department, in response to a letter from petitioner dated October 5, 1979, confirmed the transfer and demotion and informed him that he was to begin work in Tallahassee on November 19, 1979. He was also notified that failure to report on that date would result in application of Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which provides:

An employee who is absent without authorized leave of absence for 3 consecutive workdays shall be deemed to have abandoned the position and to have resigned from the Career Service. An employee who separates under such circumstances shall not have the right of appeal to the Career Service Commission; however, any such employee shall have the right to petition the Department of Administration for a review of the facts in the case and a ruling as to whether the circumstances constitute abandonment of position.

Page 186

By notice dated November 5, 1979, petitioner appealed his transfer and demotion to the Career Service Commission (hereinafter commission). In reviewing the appeal, the Director of Personnel, Career Service Commission, Department of Administration, found that petitioner had been notified of the transfer by the department's letter of September 26, despite his failure to claim the same from the post office, inasmuch as he had admitted to knowledge of the information which the letter contained. The director thus rejected petitioner's appeal because it did not comply with Rule 22A-10.05(a), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that such an appeal be filed within twenty days of notice of the action being appealed.

On December 12, 1979, petitioner was notified by the department that because of his failure to report for work in Tallahassee on November 19, he was considered to have abandoned his position. Petitioner appealed the abandonment ruling to the commission, contending that, in fact, he had been improperly dismissed by the department. On review, the director of personnel disagreed, finding that petitioner's "refusal and failure to report for duty constitutes willful abandonment of position, as contemplated by the State Personnel Rules and Regulations."

Following the Department of Administration's final decision, petitioner appealed the same to the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, arguing that the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation's failure to affix sufficient postage to its letter of September 26 prevented the same from constituting notice. The district court agreed, but found the question moot because petitioner had "voluntarily abandoned his position by failing to report for work in Tallahassee." Hadley v. State at 1025. The court further observed as follows:

There is no procedure enunciated in chapter 110, Florida Statutes, or in the Personnel Rules implementing chapter 110 which provides that notice of appeal to the Career Service Commission stays the effect of a department decision ordering a transfer. Appellant's proper course of action would have been to file his notice of appeal and report as ordered. By failing to report, appellant voluntarily abandoned his position and with it, his right to appeal.

Id. at 1025. The petition for review by this Court followed the district court's decision.

Petitioner argues that the due process clauses of the United States and Florida constitutions require that a career service employee found to have "abandoned" his job pursuant to Rule 22A-7.10(2)(a), be given a hearing before the commission. We do not agree, however, that petitioner's due process rights were violated, and are of the opinion that the procedures followed herein, which were those established by the rules, provide adequate safeguards for one in his situation.

Petitioner cannot question the propriety of the personnel director's ruling on his appeal of transfer. Although he failed to timely file his petition for appeal and thus had the same rejected, he was given the opportunity for a hearing on the rejection. We find no shortcomings in that portion of the proceedings.

Regardless of the preceding, petitioner contends that the commission's failure to provide him a hearing on the department's determination of abandonment violated his due process rights. We disagree.

As noted earlier, under the terms of rule 22A-7.10(2), one who is deemed to have abandoned his job and resigned by virtue of an unauthorized absence of three consecutive workdays has no right of appeal to the commission. Such a person may, however, petition the Department of Administration for review of the facts in the case and a ruling as to whether the circumstances constitute abandonment. Petitioner did so here, and the director of personnel affirmed the finding of abandonment after...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, Nos. 77,308
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 15, 1991
    ...protections apply vary with the character of the interests and the nature of the process involved. Hadley v. Department of Admin., 411 So.2d 184, 187 (Fla.1982); accord Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). There is no single, inflexible test by wh......
  • Jennings v. Dade County, Nos. 88-1324
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 6, 1991
    ...full judicial hearing is entitled. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Hadley v. Department of Admin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982). Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. See Astore v. Florida Real Estate Comm'......
  • Betts v. City of Edgewater, No. 85-273-CIV-ORL-18.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • October 23, 1986
    ...of each case." Id.; see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Hadley v. Department of Administration, 411 So.2d 184, 187 (Fla. 1982). The court did not find the one-sentence termination letter of plaintiff's supervisor insufficient notice of his unsatisfacto......
  • Machules v. Department of Admin., No. 70311
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 31, 1988
    ...review with the Department of Administration without being in conflict with the decision in Hadley v. Department of Administration, 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982), and other decisions upholding the validity of the presumption of abandonment and 20 day time requirement in rule Id. at 440. We have ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, Nos. 77,308
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • August 15, 1991
    ...protections apply vary with the character of the interests and the nature of the process involved. Hadley v. Department of Admin., 411 So.2d 184, 187 (Fla.1982); accord Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). There is no single, inflexible test by wh......
  • Jennings v. Dade County, Nos. 88-1324
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 6, 1991
    ...full judicial hearing is entitled. See Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Hadley v. Department of Admin., 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982). Quasi-judicial proceedings are not controlled by strict rules of evidence and procedure. See Astore v. Florida Real Estate Comm'......
  • Betts v. City of Edgewater, No. 85-273-CIV-ORL-18.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Florida
    • October 23, 1986
    ...of each case." Id.; see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); Hadley v. Department of Administration, 411 So.2d 184, 187 (Fla. 1982). The court did not find the one-sentence termination letter of plaintiff's supervisor insufficient notice of his unsatisfacto......
  • Machules v. Department of Admin., No. 70311
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • March 31, 1988
    ...review with the Department of Administration without being in conflict with the decision in Hadley v. Department of Administration, 411 So.2d 184 (Fla.1982), and other decisions upholding the validity of the presumption of abandonment and 20 day time requirement in rule Id. at 440. We have ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT