Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. 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.
Sylvain v. Florida Agricultural & Mechanical University Board of Trustees
Citations: 204 So. 3d 162; 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17382Docket: No. 1D16-450
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 20, 2016; Florida; State Appellate Court
Aisha Sylvain, the Appellant, contested a trial court's summary judgment that dismissed her civil complaint against the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Board of Trustees, the Appellee, on the grounds of failing to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellant was dismissed from the University for five years in 2013 due to her involvement in a hazing incident. Following an emergency hearing, the Vice President for Student Affairs upheld her dismissal, informing her of the right to seek judicial review via certiorari in circuit court. The dismissal was later reduced to a two-semester suspension, with the same right to seek judicial review communicated. Instead of pursuing certiorari review, the Appellant filed a civil complaint, prompting the Appellee to move for summary judgment, asserting that she had not exhausted her administrative remedies. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The Appellant contended that the internal review procedures sufficed for exhausting her remedies, which contradicted established case law, specifically Robinson v. Department of Health and other precedents that mandate pursuing available appeal methods. The court held that the Appellant was explicitly informed of the need to seek certiorari review of the final disciplinary orders, and her failure to do so constituted a lack of exhaustion of her administrative remedies. The Appellant's claim that seeking certiorari would have been futile was also rejected. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment was affirmed, with judges Roberts and Winokur concurring.