Mathos v. School Board of Miami-Dade County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mathos v. School Board of Miami-Dade County

861 So. 2d 520, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19200, 2003 WL 22956441

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 17, 2003·No. No. 3D03-1188·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Because the appellants had no cognizable, substantial rights in the particular positions in which they were employed by the School Board, the Board properly denied their section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2001), request for hearing challenging their reassignments to other executive positions. See Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); City of Lauderhill v. Rhames, 864 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA Case no. 4D02-101, opinion filed, October 22, 2003); Muncy v. City of Dallas, 335 F.3d 394 (5th Cir.2003).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Because the appellants had no cognizable, substantial rights in the particular positions in which they were employed by the School Board, the Board properly denied their section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2001), request for hearing challenging their reassignments to other executive positions. See Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); City of Lauderhill v. Rhames, 864 So.2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA Case no. 4D02-101, opinion filed, October 22, 2003); Muncy v. City of Dallas, 335 F.3d 394 (5th Cir.2003).

Affirmed.

Mathos v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, 861 So. 2d 520, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19200, 2003 WL 22956441 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

861 So. 2d 520 (Mathos v. School Board of Miami-Dade County) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related