Stevens v. City of Miami, 86-1399
| Decision Date | 30 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1399,86-1399 |
| Citation | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 117,500 So.2d 305 |
| Parties | 42 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 985, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 117 Ronald C. STEVENS, Charles D. Carter and Stephen Vinson, Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI and Robert D. Krause, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Pepe & Nemire and Thomas Pepe, Coral Gables, for appellants.
Lucia A. Dougherty, City Atty. and Albertine B. Smith, Asst. City Atty., for appellees.
Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and DANIEL PEARSON, JJ.
The appellants, police officers for the City of Miami, took certain exams in 1979 the results of which entitled them to be on the registry to be considered for promotion to sergeant. Subsequent to that time a lawsuit was brought in the federal court by the Fraternal Order of Police on behalf of those officers bypassed by the city's affirmative action program seeking to void the affirmative action program promulgated by the City of Miami, or, in effect, a reverse discrimination suit. That litigation was ultimately settled, with the settlement being approved by the membership of the F.O.P. As a result of the settlement, the three appellants were promoted to sergeant and executed a release of all claims against the City. Subsequently, the City promoted three individuals to sergeant who did not agree to the settlement, and did not execute the releases. Upon their promotion they were awarded back pay and seniority to the date they were entitled to promotion, 1980. Thereafter, the instant action was commenced by the appellants seeking back pay from 1980 until the date they were promoted to sergeant. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the City because of a statute of limitation defense, pursuant to Section 95.11(4)(c) of the Florida Statutes (1979). The trial court did not rule on the merits of the release. We affirm. See Carpenter v. Metropolitan Dade County, 472 So.2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
The appellants urge that we should reverse because they have been denied equal protection of the law in that they have been treated differently than others similarly situated, to wit: the other three officers who were promoted and paid back wages with no contention that a claim for wages was time-barred. We disagree. The record shows that these three appellants are in a different status having accepted the benefits of the federal court action and the settlement thereof, than those promoted who did not receive benefits of the federal action or execute any releases.
Although the trial judge did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Miami v. Meynarez
...we reject the city's contention that the release executed by Meynarez was binding upon her under our decision in Stevens v. City of Miami, 500 So.2d 305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). In Stevens, it was determined that certain city officers were bound by claim releases they executed as part of a negot......
- Winters v. State