GORDON E. LITTLEFORD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES, 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.
Gordon Littleford, a 34-year veteran of the Florida Highway Patrol, appeals his dismissal by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms the Public Employees Relations Commission's decision upholding his dismissal for misconduct including verbal abuse, profanity, use of racist or sexist epithets, and making a false statement under oath.
The court affirmed the Commission's decision upholding dismissal. An agency's failure to meet procedural benchmarks such as investigation deadlines does not prevent disciplinary action unless the delay prejudices the employee. Littleford's mental distress and loss of confidence in the fairness of the process do not constitute the substantive prejudice required to overturn the dismissal, and his lengthy service record does not provide legal basis to reverse the disciplinary action.
[1] An agency's failure to meet procedural benchmarks, such as investigation deadlines, will not prevent disciplinary action unless the delay has prejudiced the employee.
[2] Allegations of mental distress and loss of confidence in an agency's fairness do not constitute the substantive prejudice required to invalidate disciplinary action due t…
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“an agency's failure to meet such procedural benchmarks as investigation deadlines will not prevent disciplinary action unless the delay has prejudiced the employee”
Establishes the legal standard that procedural violations do not prevent discipline absent actual prejudice to the employee
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLittleford served with the Florida Highway Patrol for 34 years and supervised a motorcycle squad in Orange County from 1987 to February 2000. In Febru…
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 Mitigation Of Penalty cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Gordon Littleford [“Littleford”] appeals a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission [“Commission”] upholding his dismissal by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles [“the Department”]. We find no error and affirm.
Littleford had been with the Florida Highway Patrol [“FHP”] for thirty-four years. From 1987 until February 2000, Littleford was the supervisor of a FHP motorcycle squad assigned to Orange County, which consisted of nine to eleven members.
In February 2000, members of the squad met with Major Rick Gregory, the troop commander, to complain about Lit-tleford’s conduct and demeanor. An investigation ensued and Littleford was reassigned to other duty. By letter dated October 20, 2000, Littleford was advised that the Department was proposing to dismiss him. He requested a predetermination conference which was held by Major Grady Carriek at the FHP’s Orlando station. According to the Department, no additional facts were presented by Little-ford which caused the Department to change the proposed disciplinary action.
By letter dated December 19, 2000, Lit-tleford was informed that the Department was dismissing him effective January 11, 2001. The dismissal was based on a series of incidents of verbal abuse, profanity, use of racist or sexist epithets and one incident of making a false statement under oath during the investigation.
Littleford complains that the FHP condoned his conduct or failed to adequately warn him of the severity of the consequences of his misconduct. He also complains that his excellent record of service over a thirty-four year career should have mitigated the penalty of dismissal. There is no legal basis to reverse the Commission’s decision on these issues.
We address briefly Littleford’s first issue on appeal. He contends that he should be relieved of any disciplinary action because the FHP failed to follow its own rules and procedures in disciplining Littleford. For example, FHP policy calls for such investigations to be completed within thirty days, or with a thirty-day extension, but Littleford’s investigation dragged on several months. Florida law has long been clear, however, that an agency’s failure to meet such procedural benchmarks as investigation deadlines will not prevent disciplinary - action unless the delay has prejudiced the employee. See Carter v. Department of Professional Regulation, 633 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1994); Department of Business Regulation v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla.1982). Here, there has been no prejudice to Littleford. His claim of mental distress due to the duration of the proceedings and loss of confidence in the fairness of the FHP are not the substantive prejudice contemplated.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renick v. State Ret. Comm'n, 827 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…has held that Florida law has long been clear that when an agency fails to meet procedural benchmarks the delay must cause prejudice to the party in order for the party to obtain relief. See Littleford v. Dep’t of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 814 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Here, despite this lengthy delay, Ms. Renick has failed to show how the delay in the issuance of the final written order of [*292] the Retirement Commission caused prejudice. In fact, at the time the final order was written, he…
-
Nima Heshmati, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 983 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…eet procedural benchmarks, the delay must cause prejudice to the party in order for the party to obtain dismissal. See Renick v. State Retirement Comm’n, 827 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 5th DCA2002); Littleford v. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 814 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). On August 19, 2005, Appellant’s license was temporarily suspended. Eleven months later, on July 13, 14, and 17, 2006, the hearing was conducted before the ALJ. Appellant was found to have violated section 458.381, Florida Statut…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Hyman, 417 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1982)
- Carter v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 633 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1994)