You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Schimenti v. School Board of Hernando County

Citations: 73 So. 3d 831; 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 17206; 36 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2369Docket: No. 5D10-3694

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; October 28, 2011; Florida; State Appellate Court

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil
Linda M. Schimenti appeals the termination of her employment as a teacher by the School Board of Hernando County, claiming a denial of due process due to lack of fair notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the charges against her. The appellate court affirms the School Board's decision, noting that Schimenti was employed under a professional services contract, which afforded her a protected property interest in her job. The court clarifies that due process in employment termination is flexible and contingent on the circumstances involved, as established in relevant case law.

In Florida, termination procedures for school board employees are outlined in section 1012.33 of the Florida Statutes and require that the employee receives written notice of any charges against them. The employee must request a hearing within fifteen days of receiving this notice, which must occur within sixty days. The law does not mandate a formal delivery method for written charges. Additionally, Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.2015(1) requires that an administrative complaint be served before any final disciplinary actions against a licensee, but it allows for non-traditional methods of service if necessary. The court concludes that Schimenti was afforded the due process required under these statutes and rules.

Due process requires that respondents receive notice and an opportunity to respond before any adverse employment actions, particularly termination. A tenured public employee is entitled to oral or written notice of charges, an explanation of the evidence, and a chance to present their case. More extensive requirements prior to termination would unduly hinder the government's ability to swiftly remove unsatisfactory employees. In this case, Ms. Schimenti was notified of a pre-determination conference regarding her work absence, which she failed to attend or respond to. The School Board hand-delivered the administrative complaint to her home mailbox and sent it to two email addresses on file. The complaint outlined the disciplinary charges, supporting evidence, and informed her that failure to request a hearing would be considered an admission to the charges, leading to termination. Ms. Schimenti did not respond, resulting in her employment termination. The conclusion affirms that the School Board provided adequate notice prior to her termination.