1
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA APPELLATE DIVISION HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, CASE NO.: DIVISION: Petitioner, v. Lower Tribunal Case No.:18-834 (Hillsborough Civil Service Board) HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE BOARD, Respondent. ________________________________/ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Petitioner, the Office of the Hillsborough County Administrator
(“
the County
”), by and
through its undersigned counsel, and pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. Rules 9.030(c)(3), 9.100(c) and 9.190(b)(3), seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a quasi-judicial order of the Respondent
Hillsborough County Civil Service Board (“
CSB
”)
, in which the CSB reinstated County employee Travenski Lawson to his position as a Residential Services Coordinator
for the County’s Children’s Services Department
. In support thereof, Petitioner states as follows:
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Certiorari is available to review quasi-judicial orders of local agencies and boards not made subject to the Administrative Procedures Act, when no other method of review is provided. Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995). This first-tier certiorari review is not discretionary but rather is a matter of right.
Broward County v. G.B.V. Int’l.
, 787 So.2d 838, 843 (Fla. 2001). The appropriate standard of review on a petition for certiorari requires the Court to determine whether (1) the County was provided procedural due process by the CSB;
Filing # 81416480 E-Filed 11/29/2018 04:22:05 PM
K18-CA-11650
1/430
: ectroncay e: soroug ountyt uca rcut age
2 (2) the essential requirements of law were observed during the proceedings before the CSB; and (3) the administrative findings and judgment by the CSB were supported by competent substantial evidence. Florida Mobile Home Relocation Corp. v. City of South Daytona, 80 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 1
st
DCA 2012); Broward County, 787 So.2d at 843.
Statement of Facts
On March 3, 2018, Lawson slapped a thirteen year old child (A-49) while on duty and
supervising children for the Children’s Services Department of Petitioner Hillsborough County.
Lawson was in charge of the supervising staff on the night of the incident. After an evidentiary hearing the CSB
1
voted to reinstate Lawson to his position supervising children and their caregivers.
This Petition presents the County’s concerns that during the CSB hearing the CSB denied
the County its right to procedural due process.
The County was denied procedural due process by the CSB
In two ways, the CSB violated
the County’s procedural due process rights during
the hearing. First, after the CSB had already decided an issue with a final vote in favor of the County,
over the County’s objection the CSB Chair lobbied the rest of the CSB to
re-vote, which resulted in the County losing the case
.
Second
, the CSB’s General Counsel served as
legal counsel for the CSB as well as sitting as the evidentiary judge, assuming authority outside the bounds of the
General Counsel’s
statutory duties and authority.
1
The Hillsborough County Civil Service Board (“CSB”) was
created by Act of the Florida Legislature. The CSB promulgated Rules governing the conduct of evidentiary hearings.
2/430
:
ectroncay e: soroug ountyt uca rcut age
3 1.
The CSB re-voted on an issue that was already decided
. A
fter a lengthy evidentiary hearing the CSB’s six members voted
3-3
to confirm Lawson’s
termination for slapping the child.
The CSB’s Rules delineate a tie vote results in a ruling in
favor of the non-moving party, here, the County.
2
Then the Chair, declaring that all of the witnesses had
“zero credibility” and stating that the County had failed to meet its burden of proving its case “beyond a reasonable doubt
3
” (
A-311), asked the other board members to reconsider their vote so the CSB would not have to
“send that man home for him to tell his five kids that he’s no longer got a job with the county.” (
A-331).
According to the CSB’s Rules, t
he CSB may ONLY decide one of two things. First, the CSB may decide that the employee violated a County rule or regulation. Second, the CSB may
decide that the employee did not violate a County rule or regulation, thus vacating the County’s
disciplinary action and placing the employee back in his or her former position. The CSB has no authority to return an employee to a different position. The Chair
wanted to reinstate Lawson to a job with the County but didn’t want him to be
returned to his former job:
“Children’s Services can get what they want by making sure that Mr. Lawson is no longer employed with Children’s Services, and I think Mr. Lawson can get what he
2
“In the event of a three/three tie as to any rule or policy—
in other words, three votes finding cause and three votes finding no cause
—
in that event, the appellant [Lawson] does not prevail because the appellant has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the
evidence, and so a three/three tie is resolved in favor of Hillsborough County.” (A
-22) See also CSB Rule 15.20(3). (A-404)
3
It may reasonably be inferred
from the Chair’s comments
that the Chair of the CSB was
not aware that the CSB’s standard of review was “preponderance of the evidence” and not “reasonable doubt”.
Rule 15.20(1), CSB Rules. The Chair seemed to view this case as a criminal trial, with the County as prosecutor, rather than as a quasi-judicial administrative hearing, requiring
Lawson to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not violate any of the County’s
Rules.
Notably, the Board’s legal advisor did not correct the instruction.
3/430
:
ectroncay e: soroug ountyt uca rcut age