JOSE A. VAZQUEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HOMESTEAD, 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.
Jose A. Vazquez, a public employee of the Housing Authority of Homestead, appealed the dismissal of his petition for certiorari challenging his demotion. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that Vazquez received adequate due process through counsel-assisted hearings and that the circuit court properly declined jurisdiction to review the disciplinary action.
The court denied the petition for certiorari, holding that the circuit court correctly declined jurisdiction and that Vazquez received adequate due process. The adoption date of the employee handbook, not its distribution date, controls whether the new handbook applied. Even though Vazquez was an "at will" employee not entitled to pre-demotion hearings, the counsel-assisted hearings he received adequately protected any due process rights.
[1] A court may treat an appeal filed with the circuit court, appellate division, as a petition for certiorari review by a higher court when appropriate under appellate rules…
[2] An "at will" public employee is subject to disciplinary action by their employer's executive director without specific entitlement to pre-disciplinary hearings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“At the time of the contested demotion, Vazquez, along with all other employees of the Housing Authority of Homestead, were designated "at will" employees, subject to disciplinary action, without judicial oversight, by the Executive Director of the Authority.”
Establishes Vazquez's employment status and the limited right to judicial review of disciplinary actions against "at will" employees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVazquez was a long-time public employee of the Housing Authority of Homestead. On March 18, 1997, the Board of Commissioners approved a new employee h…
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 At-Will Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We treat the appeal filed by Jose A. Vazquez from a decision of the circuit court, appellate division dismissing his petition for certiorari review of a public-employment disciplinary action as a petition for certiorari review by this Court, see City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982); Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c), and deny the petition.
The circuit court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to review the disciplinary action taken against Vazquez, a long-time public employee of the Housing Authority of Homestead, Florida. Under the circumstances of this case, we believe that the circuit court afforded Vazquez due process and applied the correct law and therefore deny the requested writ of certiorari in this case. See See Jesus Fellowship, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, 752 So. 2d 708, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Metropolitan Dade County v. Mingo, 339 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
At the time of the contested demotion, Vazquez, along with all other employees of the Housing Authority of Homestead, were designated “at will” employees, subject to disciplinary action, without judicial oversight, by the Executive Director of the Authority. It is undisputed on the record that the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Homestead approved an employee handbook including the “at will” designation on March 18, 1997, and that the disciplinary action involved here was not instituted until April 23, 1997.
Vazquez contends that the “old” employee handbook and its different disciplinary procedures for “key” employees applies because the “new” handbook was not physically distributed to employees until May 1997. We defer to the finding of the hearing officer below on what was essentially a credibility determination that the employees were made aware of the “new” policies shortly after the adoption of the handbook even though they did not actually receive a hard copy of the handbook at that time. The timing of the distribution of the handbook does not control here. Its adoption does.
Vazquez was afforded counsel-assisted hearings to contest his demotion both before the person with final authority over disciplinary actions (the Executive Director) and before a hearing officer, the chairman of the Housing Authority. Even though he was an “at will” employee and, thus, not specifically entitled to any pre-demotion hearing, he was, nevertheless, allowed to present evidence and engage in argument on the record before a hearing officer who, ultimately, confirmed the disciplinary action taken by the Executive Director. These voluntary procedures did not turn the Executive Director’s executive decision into a quasi-judicial proceeding; however, under these circumstances, we believe that any due process rights assert ed by Vazquez were clearly protected. As such, the decision of the circuit court declining jurisdiction was correct. See De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 915 (Fla. 1957); Payne v. Wille, 657 So. 2d 964, 964-65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Board of Pub. Instr. of Dade County v. McQuiston, 233 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LEE Cnty. v. Harsh, 44 So. 3d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…n evidence and argument made at a hearing for which notice is required. City of St. Pete Beach v. Sowa, 4 So. 3d 1245, 1247 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citing DeGroot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912, 915 (Fla.1957)); Vazquez v. Hous. Auth. of City of Homestead, 774 So. 2d 813, 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Bldg.Code Advisory Bd. v. S. Bldg. Prods., Inc., 622 So. 2d 10, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). While certio-rari relief is available for quasi-judicial decisions, it is not available for executive decisions “because, ‘[a]s a practi…
-
Walton v. Health Care Dist. of Palm Beach Cnty., 862 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…becomes judicial or quasi-judicial, as distinguished from executive, when notice and hearing are required and the judgment of the board is contingent on the showing made at the hearing”)(emphasis added); Vazquez v. Hous. Auth. of City of Homestead, 774 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(holding that the City’s voluntarily affording employee counsel and a hearing did not render the executive director’s demotion decision quasi-judicial); Bldg.Code Advisory Bd. v. S. Bldg. Prods., Inc., 622 So. 2d 10, 13 (Fla. 4th D…
-
Ric L. Bradshaw v. Mickins, 946 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…een entitled to and timely requested a hearing, [*1239] he would not be entitled to the relief sought, under Payne, because the sheriff has sole discretion to overrule the findings of the board). See also Vazquez v. Hous. Auth. of City of Homestead, 774 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (denying petition for writ of certiorari, challenging circuit court’s denial of certiorari petition from demotion of at-will employee of local housing authority, where although employee was afforded a hearing and allowed to presen…
Authorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Sergeant Gerald Mingo, 339 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Jesus Fellowship, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 752 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Emory Payne v. Wille, 657 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- The Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty. v. McQUISTON, 233 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)