Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenged the dismissal of her employment discrimination complaint by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which concluded there was no reasonable cause for unlawful practices. The appellant was notified that she could contest this finding by filing a petition within 35 days. However, she submitted her petition late, arguing that she was misinformed about the deadline by a Commission staff member and that she should receive an additional five days to file because the decision was mailed. The court rejected these arguments, noting that while equitable tolling can apply, the appellant failed to demonstrate the necessary criteria, such as being misled or prevented from timely filing. Furthermore, the court clarified that Rule 28-106.111 precludes the application of the five-day extension when a specific response time is mandated, as supported by case law including Cann v. Dep’t of Children and Family Services. The dismissal was affirmed due to the absence of an adequate record on appeal and the principle that an order not fundamentally erroneous must be upheld.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.103subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant argued for a five-day extension based on the rule due to the decision being mailed, but the court found this rule inapplicable when a specific response time is mandated by Rule 28-106.111.
Reasoning: Regarding the five-day extension, the rule does allow for additional time under certain conditions, but exceptions apply. Specifically, no extra time is granted when the notice is provided under criteria outlined in Rule 28-106.111.
Clarification of Rule 28-106.111 through Case Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court referenced prior case law, such as Cann v. Dep’t of Children and Family Services, to clarify that the five-day mailing extension is inapplicable when a specific response time is mandated.
Reasoning: Rule 28-106.111 specifies that notices to individuals seeking a hearing on agency decisions affecting their substantial interests do not grant the five-day extension to petitioners like Watson.
Equitable Tolling in Administrative Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected the appellant's claim for equitable tolling because she did not meet the necessary criteria, such as being misled or prevented from timely filing her petition.
Reasoning: The court notes that while the deadline is not jurisdictional and equitable tolling can apply, Watson's claims do not meet the necessary criteria.