Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1990

Stewart v. Department of Corrections

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided May 9, 1990 · Per Curiam

561 So. 2d 15; 1990 WL 58593 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Environmental Resource Assoc. v. Dgs (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA v. Hillman (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)
O'Donnell's Corp. v. Ambroise (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)
Vantage Healthcare v. Health Care Admin. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Abusalameh v. DEPT. OF BUS. REG. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
Abusalameh v. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)
General Motors Corp. v. Gus Machado Buick-GMC, Inc. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

561 So.2d 15 (1990)

Lewis STEWART, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and Public Employees Relations Commission (Interested Party), Appellees.

No. 89-3129.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 9, 1990.

*16 Robert L. Saylor of Saylor & Lerman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Lynne T. Winston, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Corrections, Tallahassee, for appellee Dept. of Corrections.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse. Where appellant's attorney filed a notice of appeal to the Public Employees Relations Commission one business day after the time limitation had run, the trial court erred in not applying the doctrine of equitable tolling and allowing appellant to pursue the appeal of his dismission of employment.

In Machules v. Dept. of Admin., 523 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court held that equitable tolling focuses on the plaintiff's excusable ignorance of the limitations period and on the lack of prejudice to the defendant. It concluded that "equitable tolling, unlike estoppel, does not require active deception or employer misconduct, but focuses rather on the employee with a reasonably prudent regard for his rights."

In the instant case, appellant's attorney filed one day late, which neither party alleged caused the agency prejudice. Therefore, reasonably prudent regard for appellant's rights dictates that the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied, and that the appellant be allowed to pursue his appeal.

REVERSED.

WALDEN, GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.