Woodworth v. Department of Education, Office of Blind Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woodworth v. Department of Education, Office of Blind Services

369 So. 2d 1040, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14530

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 25, 1979

DocketNo. 78-728

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 369 So. 2d 1040 (Woodworth v. Department of Education, Office of Blind Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Woodworth v. Department of Education, Office of Blind Services, 369 So. 2d 1040, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14530 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an Opinion and Order from the Career Service Commission which affirmed the action of the appel-lee of dismissing the appellant from his employment as a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Our scope of review is limited and defined by Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1977) and within those guidelines we find no error. There were certain disputed facts which were resolved by the factfind-ing body and after a resolution of those disputed facts there is substantial compe[1041]*1041tent evidence to warrant the finding of guilt. There was evidence the appellant disobeyed proper orders of his superior, failed to follow established standards of communications within the agency by “going over his supervisor’s head” to voice grievances and otherwise caused disruption, all of which led the employer to determine appellant’s presence was counter-productive. Appellant urges he was motivated by a proper consideration for his clients best interests and any breaches of the rules were not such to warrant such a harsh penalty as dismissal. We have no authority to review the penalty so long as it is within the limits allowed by law. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201. (Fla.1978). The penalty was within the limits of the authority of the appellee. Section 110.-061(1). Florida Statutes (1977).

AFFIRMED.

CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from an Opinion and Order from the Career Service Commission which affirmed the action of the appel-lee of dismissing the appellant from his employment as a vocational rehabilitation counselor. Our scope of review is limited and defined by Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1977) and within those guidelines we find no error. There were certain disputed facts which were resolved by the factfind-ing body and after a resolution of those disputed facts there is substantial compe[1041]*1041tent evidence to warrant the finding of guilt. There was evidence the appellant disobeyed proper orders of his superior, failed to follow established standards of communications within the agency by “going over his supervisor’s head” to voice grievances and otherwise caused disruption, all of which led the employer to determine appellant’s presence was counter-productive. Appellant urges he was motivated by a proper consideration for his clients best interests and any breaches of the rules were not such to warrant such a harsh penalty as dismissal. We have no authority to review the penalty so long as it is within the limits allowed by law. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201. (Fla.1978). The penalty was within the limits of the authority of the appellee. Section 110.-061(1). Florida Statutes (1977).

AFFIRMED.

CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 So. 2d 1040, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodworth-v-department-of-education-office-of-blind-services-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack