MARIA F. G. MENDOZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE-CROSS APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI AND DAVID KENNEDY, AS CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ET AL., ETC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS-CROSS APPELLEES
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 court affirmed the unconstitutionality of a civil service rule excluding aliens from employment and affirmed the award of attorney fees, but remanded for consideration of fees on appeal.
An alien sued the City of Miami for discrimination in employment practices based on a civil service rule excluding aliens. The trial court found the r…
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 Constitutional Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
These are cross-appeals from a summary judgment entered against the Mayor, the City Manager, and the Chairman of the Civil Service Board of the City of Miami, Florida, in a suit brought by the appellee, an alien, concerning discrimination against aliens in the City’s employment practices. We affirm.
1. The Court correctly held the civil service rule excluding aliens from employment to be unconstitutional. Sugarman v. Douglass, 413 U.S. 634, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973). The unconstitutionality of excluding aliens being the only issue in the case, the District Court’s order striking Rule V, Section 3 of the City of Miami Civil Service Rules and Regulations must be construed to affect only the clause pertaining to citizenship.
2. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in finding that $2,800 was sufficient compensation to be awarded the cross-appellants’ attorneys, which amount was supported by the affidavits introduced into evidence.
3. The City of Miami and the City of Miami Civil Service Board were properly dismissed from the suit due to improper service of process: wives are not authorized to receive service for the respective chief executive officers in their official capacities. F.R.Civ.P. 4(d) (6) ; F.S.A. §§ 48.111 and 120.071.
4. The cause is remanded to the District Court for consideration of an award of attorney’s fees for the prosecution of this appeal.
Affirmed and remanded for consideration of attorney’s fees.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norman v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988)
-
Amen v. City OF Dearborn, 532 F.2d 554 (6th Cir. 1976)
-
Mesa Petroleum Co. v. Coniglio, 629 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1980)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (U.S. 1973)