LEWIS STEWART, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS COMMISSION (INTERESTED PARTY), 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 trial court erred in not applying the doctrine of equitable tolling when appellant's attorney filed a notice of appeal one business day late.
Appellant's attorney filed a notice of appeal one business day after the time limitation had expired. The agency did not allege prejudice from this la…
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 Equitable Tolling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse. Where appellant’s attorney filed a notice of appeal to the Public Employees Relations Commission one business day after the time limitation had run, the trial court erred in not applying the doctrine of equitable tolling and allowing appellant to pursue the appeal of his dismission of employment.
In Machules v. Dept. of Admin., 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla.1988), the supreme court held that equitable tolling focuses on the plaintiffs excusable ignorance of the limitations period and on the lack of prejudice to the defendant. It concluded that “equitable tolling, unlike estoppel, does not require active deception or employer misconduct, but focuses rather on the employee with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights.”
In the instant case, appellant’s attorney filed one day late, which neither party alleged caused the agency prejudice. Therefore, reasonably prudent regard for appellant’s rights dictates that the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied, and that the appellant be allowed to pursue his appeal.
REVERSED.
WALDEN, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.