Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Walton v. Health Care District of Palm Beach County, Florida
28 Fla. L. Weekly D2840 (Fla. 4th DCA December 10, 2003)
Employee filed a three-count complaint against the District for wrongful termination, violation of due process and violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The trial court dismissed all three counts with prejudice on the ground that the only remedy available to Walton was to file a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the termination decision and the time for filing the petition had passed. Walton appealed. If a public employee has availed himself of available administrative procedures and has been afforded a quasi-judicial hearing, then he may not file an independent action collaterally attacking the employer's decision. The District contends its decision to terminate Walton was quasi-judicial because Walton was afforded notice and a hearing. However, whether a termination decision is quasi-judicial turns not upon whether the employee was provided notice and a hearing, but upon whether the employee was entitled to such notice and hearing. The District is a special taxing district created by special law and no known statute or ordinance requires that an employee of a special taxing district be afforded notice and a hearing prior to termination. Thus, the court held the District's decision to terminate Walton was not quasi-judicial and he could maintain an independent cause of action. The second issue was determining whether the allegations of Walton's complaint were sufficient to state a cause of action and, if not, whether they could be cured by amendment. The trial court found that Walton was an "at will" employee and therefore subject to termination for any reason or no reason at all. Because there was no express language in the employee handbook or procedures manual which would make a separate employment agreement, the lower court was correct to dismiss the first count for wrongful termination, although it erred in dismissing the claim with prejudice. Walton should be given the chance to amend his complaint to state a cause of action for wrongful termination. Count II was also properly dismissed because the availability of a state law remedy precluded Walton from stating a federal due process claim. Finally, Walton alleged his employer violated Section 215 of the FLSA when he said he would not pay him for any overtime worked. However, his complaint does not allege that he actually worked overtime for which he was not paid. Thus, the lower court correctly dismissed Count III.
Topic(s)
