5D00-1659opCREEL-DISTRICT

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D00-1659opCREEL-DISTRICT

Case Date: 06/04/2001

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2001

LLOYD CREEL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D00-1659 THE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BREVARD COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Appellee. / Opinion filed June 8, 2001 Administrative Appeal from the District Board of Trustees of Brevard Community College. Patrick F. Roche of Frese, Nash & Hansen, P.A., Melbourne, for Appellant. Jesse S. Hogg of Hogg, Ryce & Hudson, Coral Gables, for Appellee. SAWAYA, J. Lloyd Creel appeals the final order entered by the District Board of Trustees of Brevard Community College (the Board) terminating his employment as a maintenance supervisor at Brevard Community College. The Board's final order adopted the

recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Creel argues (1) that the ALJ erred in his recommended conclusion of law that Creel had no reasonable expectation of employment after June 30, 1999, and (2) that there was no competent substantial evidence in the record to support such a conclusion. Because the issue of Creel's employment expectations was not properly before the ALJ, we set aside that portion of the Board's

order terminating Creel's employment.1 Creel, a nineteen-year employee at Brevard Community College with average to outstanding reviews, was terminated from his employment because his driver's license was suspended for six months following a DUI conviction. The DUI occurred after work hours and while Creel was in his own vehicle. Creel asserted that termination was too severe a disciplinary action under the facts and circumstances and challenged his termination in a hearing before the ALJ. At the hearing, Creel introduced evidence that he had a hardship driver's license and had not missed a single work obligation because of the suspension of his license. He further introduced evidence of three other Brevard Community College employees who had received DUI convictions but who had not been terminated from their employment because of their convictions. The ALJ agreed that termination was too harsh and recommended that the appropriate sanction be suspension without pay. However, the ALJ went one step further. It also ruled that because Creel was employed on an annual basis and was not an instructional employee, "no rule, statute or policy gave [Creel] the expectancy of continued employment beyond the fiscal year ending June 30, 1999." Accordingly, the ALJ ruled that the Board could properly terminate Creel's employment at the end of the fiscal

See

Download 5D00-1659opCREEL-DISTRICT.pdf