Home/Fifth Circuit/Mendoza v. City of Miami

Mendoza v. City of Miami

483 F.2d 430, 6 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 492, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 793, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8346, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8769
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedAugust 14, 1973
DocketNo. 73-1672
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 483 F.2d 430 (Mendoza v. City of Miami) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mendoza v. City of Miami, 483 F.2d 430, 6 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 492, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 793, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8346, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8769 (5th Cir. 1973).

Opinion

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.

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

Related

Mattie Norman, Clara Marshall, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. The Housing Authority of the City of Montgomery
836 F.2d 1292 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988)
Katherine Amen v. City of Dearborn, a Municipal Corp.
532 F.2d 554 (Sixth Circuit, 1976)
6 Fair empl.prac.cas. 492, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8769 Maria F. G. Mendoza, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. City of Miami and David Kennedy, as Chief Legislative Officer of the City of Miami, Etc., Defendants-Appellants-Cross
483 F.2d 430 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
483 F.2d 430, 6 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 492, 17 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 793, 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 8346, 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendoza-v-city-of-miami-ca5-1973.