Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

497 So. 2d 1349

497 So.2d 1349

11 Fla.L.Weekly 2521

Sulcer v. McFatter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 3, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-12-03

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently November 1994

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The school boards of the several districts are authorized to provide legal services for officers and employees of said boards who are charged with civil or criminal actions arising out of and in the course of the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities. The school board shall provide for reimbursement of reasonable expenses for legal services for officers and employees of said boards who are charged with civil or criminal actions arising out of and in the course of the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities upon successful defense by the employee or officer.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 599 So. 2d 220 - Werthman v. SCH. BD. OF SEMINOLE CTY.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-12-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1At issue is whether a county school board has the discretionary authority to award attorney’s fees and costs to an employee who prevails in an administrative proceeding. We hold that the board does have such discretion and reverse the board’s holding to the contrary.

¶2Under the provisions of Section 230.03(2), Florida Statutes (1985) a school board has full governmental authority and “may exercise any power except as expressly prohibited by the State Constitution or general law.” That authority, in our view, includes the authority to reimburse employees for attorney’s fees and costs in instances deemed appropriate.

¶3We reject the school board’s assertion that Section 230.234, Florida Statutes (1985), which was enacted before the current provisions of section 230.03(2) became law, bars such a policy. Section 230.234 was enacted at a time when the school board had limited powers and a specific legislative authorization was necessary to provide for legal services to employees. This section specifically authorized fees for employees who were “charged with civil or criminal actions arising out of and in the course of the performance of assigned duties and responsibilities.” Such a grant of authority is unnecessary under the current provisions of section 230.03(2), and the existence of such a specific grant does not bar the award of fees in other appropriate situations. Our holding should not be construed as mandating an award of fees. Rather, we are holding that the board possesses the authority to award fees.

DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., and WILLIS, BEN C., Associate Judge (Retired), concur.
/497/so2d/1349 · .json · Public domain