BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ACTING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAY COFFEY AND CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Board of Regents of the University of Florida appealed a Career Service Commission's decision that reinstated employee Ray Coffey with a six-month suspension for violation of university rules and awarded him attorney's fees. The court affirmed the reinstatement and suspension but reversed the attorney's fee award, finding that Coffey was not "sustained" within the statutory meaning required for such fees.
The court affirmed the commission's authority to reduce the dismissal to a six-month suspension under section 110.061(3)(b) and affirmed the reinstatement. However, the court reversed the attorney's fee award because Coffey was not "sustained" within the statutory meaning required by section 110.061(3)(c).
[1] A Career Service Commission's finding of fact, supported by competent, substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal.
[2] A Career Service Commission has the statutory authority to reduce an employee's dismissal to a suspension.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the Career Service Commission's finding that Mr. Coffey did not intend the bumpers to be constructed from university property and was not guilty of stealing.”
Establishes the court's deference to the commission's factual findings regarding Coffey's intent and guilt of theft.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRay Coffey, a university employee, asked a co-worker to construct van bumpers. The co-worker constructed the bumpers from materials at no cost. Coffey…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutes In Derogation Of Common Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Board of Regents appeals the Career Service Commission’s order reinstating appellee/Ray Coffey to his former position, suspending him for six months and awarding him attorney’s fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Mr. Coffey asked a friend and co-worker, who had done carpentry work for him in the past, to construct bumpers for his van. When Mr. Coffey picked up the bumpers, he was told there was no charge for the materials. At this point, Mr. Coffey suspected, but did not know, that the bumpers had been constructed from university materials. Rather than confirm his suspicion and jeopardize his friend’s job, he chose to “take the bumpers and duck”. The university fired him for stealing and he appealed to the Career Service Commission.
The commission found that Mr. Coffey was not guilty of stealing, but was guilty of violating the university’s rules and committing a serious error in judgment. He was reinstated to his former class of position but suspended for six months without pay beginning the date of his dismissal.
The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the Career Service Commission’s finding that Mr. Coffey did not intend the bumpers to be constructed from university property and was not guilty of stealing. We, therefore, do not disturb this finding. Section 120.68(10), Florida Statutes (1977), Fitzpatrick v. City of Miami Beach, 328 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1976).
Appellant’s argument that the commission did not have authority to reduce the dismissal to a suspension is without merit. Section 110.061(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1977), specifically authorizes the commission to reduce dismissals to suspensions. Therefore, the commission order suspending Mr. Coffey for six months was appropriate. We affirm.
However, we find merit in appellant’s contention that the award of attorney’s fees was improper. Section 110.-061(3), Florida Statutes (1977), in pertinent part states:
(3) The Career Service Commission may:
(a) • • •
(b) . . .
(c) . . . The order may include an amount, to be determined by the commission and paid by the agency, for reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees, and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the prosecution of an appeal against an agency in which the commission sustains the employee.
On the record before us, we do not find that Mr. Coffey was sustained within the meaning of this statute.
It is well settled that statutes awarding attorney’s fees are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed. Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), Sunbeam Enterprises, Inc. v. Upthegrove, 316 So. 2d 34 (Fla.1975). The award of attorney’s fees is reversed.
McCORD, Acting C. J., and ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Hall, 409 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ther hand, HRS referred below to a three-day suspension, as did the Commission in its order granting attorney’s fees. . Subsequently, HRS- agreed to purge Ms. Hall’s employment file of all reference to the suspension. . Board of Regents v. Coffey, 378 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), relied upon by HRS, is readily distinguishable from the present controversy. In that case, Coffey was fired by the Board of Regents for stealing. On appeal, the Commission found him not guilty of theft but nonetheless guilty of…
-
Rudolph v. Unger, 417 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…umbered by mortgage is not a satisfaction. The statute is in derogation of the common law and should be strictly construed. Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla.1977); Board of Regents of the State of Florida v. Coffey, 378 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Stone v. Town of Mexico Beach, supra; Lendsay v. Cotton, 123 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960). Attorney’s fees are only recoverable under this statute when the lein created by the mortgage is “fully paid”. Then a successful mortga…
-
Jimenez v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n, 616 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…uccessful results in a lack of incentive by attorneys to represent claimants with viable claims and thus, penalizes those claimants who are unable to afford their own counsel. Appellee relies upon Board of Regents of the State of Florida v. Coffey, 378 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). The facts in that case show that Coffey was fired for stealing by the university which employed him. When he appealed to the Career Service Commission, the commission found that he had violated the university’s rules by committi…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sunbeam Enters., Inc. v. Mr. and Mrs. Walter Upthegrove, 316 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 1975)
- Silas R. Stone and Charles R. Krisher v. Town OF Mexico Beach, 348 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Fitzpatrick v. City OF Miami Beach, 328 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)