205 B.R. 984 (1997) In re Jose A. ARROYO, Debtor. AT & T UNIVERSAL CARD SERVICES CORP., Plaintiff, v. Jose A. ARROYO, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 96-12873-BKC-AJC, Adv. No. 96-0795-BKC-AJC. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. January 30, 1997. *985 James Miller. James Schwitalla, Miami, FL. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. JAY CRISTOL, Chief Judge. THIS CAUSE came before the Court on November 19, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., for trial upon the Complaint for Nondischargeability of Debt p..
538 So. 2d 454 (1989) Ken AULT, Defendant-Appellant, v. Roy LOHR, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees. No. 71817. Supreme Court of Florida. February 2, 1989. Keith C. Tischler of Parker, Skelding, McVoy & Labasky, Tallahassee, for defendant-appellant. Salvatore Scibetta and Evan I. Fetterman of the Law Offices of Fetterman and Associates, North Palm Beach, for plaintiffs-appellees. OVERTON, Justice. This case is before us on the following question certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the ..
KRAUSE WERK GMBH CO., a German corporation, Appellant, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., RICK MONGEAU, a Florida Resident, DAVID CONSIDINE and THERESA WHITE, his wife, Appellees. No. 4D07-4625. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. January 28, 2009. Diran V. Seropian of Peterson Bernard, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Rosemary Wilder of Marlow, Connell, Abrams, Adler, Newman & Lewis, Coral Gables, for appellee, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. GROSS, C.J., FARMER and DAMOO..
363 So. 2d 49 (1978) LEA INDUSTRIES, INC., a Corporation, Appellant, v. RAELYN INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Wendell E. Ray and Linda Ray, Appellees. No. 77-2276. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. October 10, 1978. *50 Kreeger & Kreeger and Judith L. Kreeger, Miami, for appellant. Levine, Reckson & Reed and Allen P. Reed, Miami, for appellees. Before PEARSON, HENDRY and KEHOE, [*] JJ. PER CURIAM. The following opinion and judgment by NATHAN, J., prepared prior to ..
The issues presented are whether Petitioner engaged in untruthful and unbecoming conduct and committed insubordination in violation of General Order (Rule) 3-1.1, Sections 5.6 and 5.14c and Rule 3-1.3, Section 5.17a, and, if so, whether the proposed discipline is reasonable.Petitioner proved the allegations of untruthfulness and unbecoming conduct, but failed to prove allegations of insubordination and to prove that termination from employment, rather than suspension, was a reasonable discipline under the circumstances.
The issues presented are whether Respondent properly terminated Petitioner from his employment as a deputy sheriff for alleged insubordination in violation of Chapter 89-404, Section 8, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 90-395, Section 8, Laws of Florida (the Civil Service Act) and Respondent's General Order Section 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.17(a), and, if not, whether Respondent should reinstate Petitioner to his former position with back pay, benefits, and seniority.Termination of employment for insubordination was improper in the case in which a direct order was not in evidence, which showed that Petitioner reasonably understood the statement of his superior to be advice rather than an order.
Whether Respondent, John J. Fugate, Sheriff of DeSoto County, willfully violated Subsection 104.31(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), which prohibits an officer or employee of the state, or of any county or municipality, from using his or her official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with an election or a nomination of office or coercing or influencing another person's vote or affecting the results thereof.Candidate for re-election admittedly violated the prohibition on using an official position to influence an employee`s vote, but the violation was technical and did not involve the required "willfullness" to support the imposition of a fine.
Whether there was cause to suspend Petitioner for ten days and place Petitioner on probation for 12 months for alleged violations of the provisions of law, rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the Office of the Pinellas County Sheriff.Petitioner violated the rules of Respondent in relation to duties and responsibilities.
The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner violated the Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office by allegedly failing to perform assigned duties and other responsibilities and by insubordination towards a superior officer.Insubordination and failure to perform responsibilities are sufficient causes to warrant termination of deputy from the sheriff`s department.
The issues for determination are whether Petitioner, Kenneth Davis, made sexually harassing statements and made body contact with a female counselor so as to constitute sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, in violation of Pinellas County Sheriff Office Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Sheriff`s Office`s Administrative Review Board suspended, transferred, and reduced rank of deputy Petitioner for alleged sexual harassment of co-worker. Sheriff failed to carry burden of proof. Recommend Petitioner be restored to previous rank and duty.
