From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bloodworth v. Suggs

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B
Oct 14, 1952
60 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1952)

Summary

finding that employees placed into positions in violation of competitive hiring process accrue no rights or entitlement to benefits

Summary of this case from City of Miami v. Martinez-Esteve

Opinion

October 14, 1952.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Stanley Milledge, J.

Franklin Parson and Edward L. Semple, Miami, for appellant.

Hickey, Newbold Christie, John E. Cicero, Olavi M. Hendrickson and Pat Cannon, Miami, for appellees.


The question here is on the authority of the City Manager of the City of Miami to give permanent civil service status as a "detective" to seventeen patrolmen who have served varying periods of from one to five years as plain-clothes men in the Detective Bureau in the Division of Police in that city.

At the time of the adoption of civil service, all members of the police force, except the Chief, were required to be selected from a list of eligibles prepared by the civil service board. In 1946, however, the civil service board discontinued the examination for the position of "detective," and thereafter the City Manager simply assigned patrolmen to plain clothes duty, at no additional salary but with a monthly clothes allowance. This was with the knowledge and approval of the Civil Service Board, as shown by the following excerpt of the minutes of their meeting of July 8, 1947: "The following notice of assignment to be sent to each Patrolman assigned to work as plain clothesman was also approved: `This is to confirm your assignment as plain clothesman in the Division of Police, Department of Public Safety, City of Miami, Florida. This assignment is not a promotion and you may at any time be assigned back to duty as a Uniformed Patrolman.'"

Thereafter, at a meeting of April 23, 1951, the Civil Service Board determined to re-establish the system of open competitive examinations as a means of filling openings in the "detective" classification and to abolish the practice of assigning policemen to that classification. Subsequently, on July 16, 1951, the City Manager, appellant here, directed a letter to the Executive Secretary of the Board advising that he was giving "permanent detective appointment to those men now serving in the Detective Bureau who have served in such capacity for a period for one year or more."

The instant suit was filed by the appellee J.P. Suggs, on behalf of the classified civil service employees of the police department, and by the Civil Service Board, for the principal purpose of having such appointments declared to be invalid. The lower court so held, and the City Manager has appealed.

Section 16 of the Charter of the City of Miami empowers the City Manager "to appoint and remove, except as herein provided, all directors of the departments and all subordinate officers and employees in the departments in both the classified and unclassified service; all appointments to be upon merit and fitness alone, and in the classified service all appointments and removals to be subject to the civil service provisions of this charter." Section 24 of such Charter provides that "* * * the members of the police force, other than the Chief, shall be selected from the list of eligibles prepared by the civil service board, and in accordance with such rules as the said board may prescribe * *."

It appears to us that these and other provisions of the Charter require that all members of the Division of Police of that City, except the Chief of Police, shall be classified competitive civil service employees, and that all appointments, promotions, and removals shall be in accordance with the civil service provisions of such charter and the valid rules and regulations of the Civil Service Board.

The appellant admitted in his answer that the patrolmen given permanent status as detectives by him were not selected from any eligible list and had not taken any competitive examination as "detective." Thus, his action in so appointing such patrolmen to the positions of detectives must be held invalid, and without force and effect, unless under the circumstances shown in the record these policemen acquired some rights that entitled them to permanent status as detectives, and thus vested power in the City Manager to recognize such permanent status.

The bases upon which claim is made as to the right to such permanent status are as follows: (1) The policemen received extra compensation while serving in the Detective Bureau; (2) The "Police Manual" provides for selection of plain-clothes men from ranks of regular police, and continuation in such assignment as long as conduct and quality of work, as shown by reports of superior officers, merits such assignment; (3) The policemen served for varying periods of from one to four years in the Detective Bureau; (4) All the policemen served in the Detective Bureau for a period more than the probationary period for employees in the Police Division; (5) Many of the policemen served with unusual distinction as detectives, as evidenced by their several citations; (6) During their period of service in the Detective Bureau, these policemen were issued "Detective" badges and made investigations and arrests under authority thereof; (7) The policemen were employed in the Detective Bureau with the knowledge and consent of the Civil Service Board, and no protest was made of such employment by said Board; and (8) The Civil Service Board has given no examinations for detectives for a period of more than four years, and no eligible list has been prepared by said Board for the position of Detective.

It is clear that the contentions of the appellant numbered (1) through (6) above do not show any rights in the assigned police to any permanent status as "detectives," since every fact which is the basis of such contentions is entirely consistent with such policeman being on temporary assignment to the Detective Bureau and subject to re-assignment to work in uniform at any time by their superior officers.

As to the contention under (7), it has been heretofore noted that the Civil Service Board, in approving an allowance for clothes to the policemen assigned to plain-clothes duty and in confirming the assignment, expressly stated that "This assignment is not a promotion and you may at any time be assigned back to duty as a Uniformed Patrolman." And it is clear from the record that the understanding of the Civil Service Board and the former City Manager was that such assignment was not a promotion and no civil service rights were acquired by such assignment.

As to contention numbered (8) above, the fact that no examination for the position of "detective" was given for four years, in accordance with the policy of the Board not to do so, does not preclude the Board from now changing its policy and requiring such an examination; and since the 17 policemen here involved have failed to show that they have acquired any rights above and beyond those of the other members of the police force, they will have to take their chances with such other members.

We do not think it amiss to state that the record of the 17 policemen here involved, as reflected by the transcript, denotes outstanding proficiency and ability in the performance of the duties of detectives, and they could no doubt continue to perform these duties with the same degree of efficiency. Their record of achievement certainly shows the merit of the system under which they were selected. This is, however, a government of laws and not of men, and we are compelled to recognize that, under the present law, these 17 policemen — regardless of their outstanding record of achievement — have not yet obtained a right to permanent appointment as "detectives," under the civil service laws and rules now existing and controlling.

For the reasons stated, the decree appealed from should be and it is hereby

Affirmed.

SEBRING, C.J., and MATHEWS, J., and HOCKER, Associate Justice, concur.


Summaries of

Bloodworth v. Suggs

Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B
Oct 14, 1952
60 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1952)

finding that employees placed into positions in violation of competitive hiring process accrue no rights or entitlement to benefits

Summary of this case from City of Miami v. Martinez-Esteve

finding that employees placed into positions in violation of competitive hiring process accrue no rights or entitlement to benefits

Summary of this case from City of Miami v. Martinez-Esteve
Case details for

Bloodworth v. Suggs

Case Details

Full title:BLOODWORTH v. SUGGS ET AL

Court:Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B

Date published: Oct 14, 1952

Citations

60 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1952)

Citing Cases

Guilford v. City of Miami

"3. The Plaintiffs do not come under the provisions of Rule VIII, Sec. 8, page 31 of the Civil Service Rules…

City of Miami v. Martinez-Esteve

In the present case, the City simply failed to characterize the position of project manager as competitive or…