Deininger v. Palm Beach County Florida
Docket: No. 4D05-2028
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; March 21, 2006; Florida; State Appellate Court
A violation of Florida’s Sunshine Act, section 286.011(1), occurred when a panel deliberating the termination of a county employee met privately, as established in Dascott v. Palm Beach County, 877 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Following this precedent, two county employees initiated a legal action seeking remedies for similar violations, aiming to certify a class that would include other county employees subjected to the same termination or disciplinary procedures. The trial court denied class certification, citing that the claims of the plaintiffs were not typical of those of other potential class members; specifically, one plaintiff was demoted due to lack of qualifications, while the other was terminated for alleged violent behavior, which were deemed atypical reasons for termination. The plaintiffs contended that the trial court misunderstood the basis for class certification, arguing that the focus should have been on the common issue of secret meetings violating the Sunshine Law rather than the specific reasons for each plaintiff's termination. They asserted that their claims arose from the same course of conduct and were based on the same legal theory as established in McFadden v. Staley, 687 So.2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The court found the arguments presented by the county insufficient to undermine the fulfillment of the four requirements for class certification under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Consequently, the order denying class certification was reversed, with Judges Stone and Reyes concurring.