HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-85-1187P.-
J•-85-1151
11/26/85
RESOLUTTON NO. 8,"'-t1L87
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THP' DIRECTOR OF
FINANCE TO PAY TO JAMES COX THE SUM OF STX
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6.000), WITHOUT THE
ADMISSION OF LIABILTTY, TN FULL AND COMPLETE
SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST
THE CITY OF MIAMI AND ANY OF ITS AGENTS OR
EMPLOYEES, AND UPON EXECUTION OF A RELEASE BY
EACH AFOREMENTIONED PARTY RFLFASINr THE CITY
OF MIAMT AND ANY OF ITq AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES
FROM ALL CLAIMS AND DEMANDS.
WHEREAS, JAMES COX, through his attorney, Robert D.
Klausner, Esq., filed a lawsuit against the City of Miami and
Robert D. Krause, for back wages, d amagPs, and other claims and
demands resulting from the alleged wrongful acts of. the City of
Miami in failing to award Veteran's Preference Points, as
required by Chapter 295 of the Florida Statutes to augment the
score achieved by JAMES COX on the Civil Service Examination
administered on March 19, 1979, for promotion to the rank of
Lieutenant of Police, and in failinq to promote JAMES COX based
on his augmented scorei and
WHEREAS, the above claim has been investigated by the Labor
Relations Office, the City Attorney's Office, and the Department
of Human Resources, said offices and department having
recommended that these claims be settled without the admission of
liability for the sum of Six Thousand Dollars (S6.000);
NOW, THEREFORE., BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to pay to JAMES COX the sum of Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000),
without the admission of liability, in full and complete
settlement of all. claims and demands against the City of Miami
and any of its agents or employees, upon the execution of a
release by JAMES COX releasing the City of Miami and any of its
agents or employees from all claims and demands.
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
DEC 19 1985
r.�.a..1aL� dt'}`Ix J1+ ...._ • F'
: w
r�
} of Dec�e�-- . 1985.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ]Atlj day
_ VIER SUAREZ
MAYOR
ATTEST
MATT HIRAI
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
C_4�
ALBERTINE B. SMITH
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVF, T4 FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
tUr-TA A. DWGHERTY
CITY ATTO NEY
ABS/wpc/ab/B490
85--ILIL 7
CITY C'Ir- MIAMI. FLORMA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Members F November 250 1985 CIF
of the City —Commission
Resolution of the Claim of
q t
JAMES COX for Veteran's
Preference Points
ucia A• Dou erty R"r'-t'4' Eyl
City Attor y
f•:.:i<,_A,-':'. (Resolution)
James Cox, a Sergeant of Police in the City of Miami Police
Department, is also a veteran of the United States Armed Forces.
On March 19, 1979, James Cox took a civil service examina-
tion for promotion to Lieutenant. He passed the examination and
sought to have his score augmented by veteran's preference points
in accordance with State law. The Department of Human Resources
did not add preference points to James Cox's score on the 1979
examination. (A copy of the 1979 Lieutenant's promotional
register is attached.)
The awarding of veteran's preference points is governed by
Chapter 295 of the Florida Statutes. An amendment of Section 295,
specifically 295.09(c), which was in effect between June 20, 1978
and July 5, 1980, provided for the awarding of preference points
on a veteran's first promotion after employment, reinstatement,
or reemployment. (Before June 20, 1978, the law provided, as it
does now, that preference points are awarded on a veteran's first
promotion after reinstatement or reemployment without excep-
tion.) Under the law, an eligible veteran was entitled to have
five preference points (or ten if disabled) added to his examina-
tion score and to be "promoted ahead of all those who appear in
an equal or lesser position on the promotional register".
Because there was confusion over the applicability of the
amended statute, the City Attorney's Office requested an opinion
from the Attorney General on the following questions:
1. Does Section 295.09, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter
78-372, Laws of Florida, entitle eligible Veterans and other
qualified persons to receive Veteran's Preference Points on
promotional examination regardless of whether such persons
have already been awarded Preference Points on examinations
required for entrance into employment?
a Y
Y
5 z
_ ni �b ♦. i� �F
To: Mayor and Members of
the City Commission
Re: James Cox
-2- November 25, 1985
2. Does Section 295.09, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter
78-372, Laws of Florida, provide that eligible Veterans and
other qualified persons who are now entitled to Veteran's
Preference Points on promotional examinations, may apply
such Points to their first promotion since the effective
date of the amendment regardless of whether such person may
have received any earlier promotions?
The Attorney General's Opinion is summarized below:
1. Section 295.09, Florida Statutes (1978), entitles
certain Veterans and other eligible persons to receive
Preference Points toward their first promotion after
employment, as well as after reinstatement or reemploy-
ment, regardless of whether such persons received
Preference Points upon their entrance into employment.
2. Under Section 295.09, Florida Statutes (1978), certain
Veterans and other eligible persons who have not yet
been awarded Veteran's Preference Points towards their
promotion as authorized under the amended Statute, are
entitled to the benefit of such Points until the
receipt of the "first" promotion under the Act regard-
less of whether such persons received any prior
promotions.
The City Attorney, in a legal opinion on the same questions,
General's Opinion had been received,
rendered after the Attorney
contradicted the Attorney General's Opinion and stated the City's
position as follows:
"If a person [such as a Sergeant of Police]
has received a promotion after employment with
no interfering military service, he is not
entitled to Veteran's Preference Points on any
other promotion." (MIA-79-17, May 15, 1979).
It was the City's position that the Attorney General's
General had
Opinion was advisory only and that the Attorney
lawsuits challenging the
misconstrued the statute. However, when
City's interpretation of the amended statute were filed, the
Courts agreed with the Attorney Generalthat
er,thesprovis'ons of
referred to a person's first promotion
the amended statute.
,.r' '�94�k it 5 '�t�x:2 4 F •' _
85-118'7
ra
To:
Re:
Mayor. and Members of
the City Commission
James Cox
-3- November 25, 1985
Two early lawsuits filed by City employees concerning
Veteran's Preference Points under the provisions of the amended
Statute were Farrington vs. City and Joyce vs. City. The City
lost both cases in Circuit Court and appealed to the Third
District Court of Appeal. The Third District Court of Appeal
affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court in each case. The
City then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.
In December, 1981, after the Supreme Court declined to
review the action of the Third District Court of Appeal in the
Farrington and Joyce cases, the City complied with the orders of
the Circuit Court Judges which provided that Farrington and Joyce
be awarded Veteran's Preference Points, promotions, and back pay.
Costs and attorney's fees were also awarded as required by
§295.14(2), F.S. (1978).
James Cox, who was eligible to have preference points added
to nis score on the 1979 examination, just as Farrington and
Joyce were eligible to receive the Points, filed a lawsuit
against the City on July 25, 1983.
The issues involved in this case are complicated by the fact
that Homer Lanier, a non -veteran who was number 21 on the 1979
Lieutenant's register, was promoted on June 23, 1980. Cox, at
number 19 on the register, scored higher than Lanier even without
the preference points. The promotion of Lanier on June 23, 1980
exacerbated the situation because in addition to the City's
failure to add preference points to Cox's score on the 1979
examination, a non -veteran, whose score was lower than Cox was
promoted and Cox was not.
I have been informed that Homer Lanier's promotion was the
result of an oral agreement between Lanier's attorney and City
officials to settle Lanier's lawsuit regarding the 1977 examina-
tion for Lieutenant of Police. However, the notation 116/23/80"
beside Lanier's name on the 1979 register and similar notations
of dates beside the names of all persons who were promoted
suggest that he (Lanier) was promoted from the 1979 register.
Additionally, when Robert Krause was asked, while testifying at a
Civil Service Board hearing, whether Homer Lanier was promoted
from the 1979 register, his answer was, "Yes and no". Addition-
ally, the attached memorandum from Kenneth Harms to George Knox
dated January 31 1980, indicates that Lanier was promoted from
the 1979 Lieutenant's Register.
2
1 p fi
f*� t
85 -118'7
To: Mayor and Members of -4- November 25, 1985
the City Commission
Re: James Cox
According to calculations received from Department of Human
Resources' Senior Personnel Officer Jeffrey Williams, the amount
of back pay to which Cox would be entitled from June 23, 1980,
the date of Lanier's promotion, is $19,000.
Cox would also have been entitled to attorney's fees as
provided by §295.14(2) F.S. or §448.08 F.S. and to Court costs as
well.
In light of the above, the City Attorney's Office recommends
adoption of the attached Resolution in full and complete settle-
ment of this claim.
ABS/f1/701
ENCLS.
cc: City Manager
85 1187
R I S
OF EXAMINATION
�•� r:ia.p .:�•
-SUL
,
OF POLICE
L1 EL`•ir:A1.;i2
? 5
V.
.-o �.. ••. r .. , ;' ;.::.....��• Dote lot
:losing dole lei'.u'r
Examination
i
Alm?'! .. .
No. Cernpeling
APPL. 1• fl•
NO. NO.
'.63-1677
25
:69-3755
47
-69-2657
24
:64-•3375
31
-63-2321
44
:73••CO12
70
:Gv-2S27
2
:72-3719
54'
'67-3233
3
'65-1234
5
151-2574
43
:55 ' 1735
8
:57-3763
48
:55-0202
6
'55-0202
.22
:54-0519
45
-68-n651
9
:69-1351
29
C58-2312
7
C67-3329
1
C69-0114
56
c'63-3223
15
C67-3899
52
C66-7727
58
C68-1785
59•
-63-2109
34
:73-2487
23
-59-1259
39
:67-1749
14
:67-2968
46
:56-1756
68
C69-072
33
C60-326
30
C60-342
49
C,65-313
53
• r . DNA: 10
67 '' No. Passed 47 No. Foiled 20 INELIG: o
Dote Approved
NAME
VETS.
FINAL
REG. '
PREF:
GRADE
PASSED:
Iratae, 7r.orr sa 44 Al!
0
102.41
1
r Englis��, Tt=V're A. AN
G
0
101.46
2
3
telly, !' cIrn21 J. -2-3 -q0 All
0
97.20
Sullivan, 1-1.ert AH
0
96.33
•4
?tstzauE, F: -:rterick AM
0
94.31
5
6
Sheparce. 7/y3/ N.�(r•7`.� fJ
0
93.39
Anderson, l'zrry L. PH
0
91.R4
7
I:Ptldvin, cteven I.. All
A
89.63
8
Jonex, M.1 chnip: A. AIM
0
C9. 22
9.
Nelson, 211liaa G. W1
0
67.57
10
CzWh=r-, ' rank-11,o E. AN
0
87.49
11
Farz3ag ton, vil3-lain IR. 3 - 0 d7 - "✓ AN
0
37. U2
12
Eraaa, Tdhr tt• M. AN
0
R6: ? 1
13
Carter. !'I.-elr AF
0
95.55
1L
La::e, Lail ton J. AM
D
79.95
15
..- Tsadak, Ual! er A. AM
0
79. P12
36
Dyer, Rob+.r: H. AM
0
79.49
17
Gross, :lichael W. AH
0
79.45
]8
• Cur, Jpmed A. AM
0
79.08
19
• AC-Itley, Renald AM
-
0
73.19
2n
Lanler, }toner - (o`Z3 BLS
0
75.92
21
Miloney, Michael E. AH
0
75.50
22
Carberry. Eduard J.• AH
0
75.12
23
ruff, Eduard H. AM
0
74.99
24
grown, Ronald R.. AH
0
74.U5
25
Obrien, John E. AH
0
71.35
26
_Reynolds, Charles W. M
0
71.35
27
Sampson, Alexander R.. BM
0'
70.78
2R
Landis, - Vincent A. &M
0
69.47
29
Srnith, Vincent J. ty
0
67.50
30
t.casburz. •Russell E. AM
0
66.72
31
Tankert, Urry P. AH
0
• 65.87
32
Davie, Nornan E. 85-JLJL87 i--m
0
' 65.72
33
Vance,, P•obcrt S. ' -. AH
0
63.94
34
If
RC S UI S OF - XAMINA I C '
• '•
.
.+
OF 1'01.1 CE
�� •'.�..Y
;.:`.�-�_=.�� �' i f.•.i Dote lot
:.
....
" '"•L'
.a . .-1 �,
: 1 ' E:o
y . �:'`��
Closing Dolt for. •'
�_ •� fi., �inatiot►
,�:..�:- - -
•
- DN
Ar
- �t�'.j•r
•
.r 1�•t`�i SIG:
No• FOlitd IN
•
./. ....• Nb.-Possei
Ns. Con+pslie� • - •
�
APM
NO.
iC67-2010
C69-1211
CGS-3692
C56-1654
C69-0468
C70-1220
C62-0524
C69-0762
C70-0547
C72-3519
7_63-3819
:67-3157'
:66-905
:70-379
.166=3324
:53-2305
'57-3065
:72-391E
:65-231E
:56-127j
:72-163`.
.71-438(
64-3101
-61-259:
:59-199
.64-42&
:57-978
:.159-318
:50-569
.56-253
:18-549
•59-332f1
I.D.
NO.
69
51
27
18
32
64
28.
19
12
41
IM 13
0916
0917
0910
0919
0924
0925
0980
U929
0932
0934
0938
0948
0949
0959
0960
0961
0982
0986
0987
0923
Dote APprored
NlllE
PASSED
Rice, Douglas Uo
Daniels, Charles E.
Alvarez, No J.
Casale, Louis A.
1.hite, Paul
March, William E.
Chamberlain. Ralph
�:artinez, Walter D.
Telle=, Eugene
17illi2m9, Robert D.
FAILED:
Ahearn, Michael
Apte, Robert
Hach, Harvey S.
Baez, Julio
-Bailey, Daniel H.
Bodea, Alex
Boyd, Robert Allen
Cabrera, Emilio
Campbell,' V. T.
Chapek, John H.
Christopher, Il. L.
Diaz, Manuel Wayne
Ilatton, John Carl
Natton, Lacey Lee
-Lee, C. K.
Liles, Kenneth E.
Love, Norris E.
Veal, Nathaniel
llebb, Robert E.
viggins, Bruce R.,`_.. -
:;.
Eishop, Harold William
rm..sa si,-�s -.n
VETS.I FINAL I REG.
PREF: GRADE
A.1
0
1
59.74
38
P,.t
0
58.55
39
LH
0
58.75
4n
Ay
0
57:74
•41 .
AM
1'0
57:42
42
a•i
0
57.17
43
AM
0
56.44
44
Ly
0
55.86
45
Ut
0
52.82
46
vt
0
52.46
47
AM
AM
AM
Lll
BM
AM
BM `
L14
AM
AM
All ;
LM
All -
.AM
BM
AM
All
Bll
AM
All 1.
1 85'"'1�87
A%i
n.•
� 1
�,� - S• OF"1 XANAIN
�..�:.� f �.`��:: �' �'.y:� �.y.•;r ,;P;t t, ]L'UTf.T""'I �F i`01.10E
.. y �!• fir• • Ms: s; ; , 1r uur
.�►r r•.• Sow . t y • '�. �. i ' • �••y ;i'�•�1 . • C i� •t••..1 Ir ` :..+
% �;= �i,i .L �` , f'�fl••: 11 .r%. •'. �•• • •'�,�•, �� V, •ir. •'1.!�•.• '••-'mil. '.� .t+•, i ► .... ' f
* i:i•'i�+,r'1.• � •��. �•„� •�..1t•r, ,�., �.�, �..• ... •..:�Li�:1,•Z1 t•t �:✓' � r.�- ••.•fN .�'+ Dc C .��..:..
.•• ... ••. rM. ��• �• • •. .. fii+IJ � t lil. ,•1 tM�.• � ,� Vi 7t� ��•M•. :. i�•• CiO� •�
♦• .o...—,•�... •':• �ii.r _ i• .'�,�'� t %� irate S• • i1h0.1011
t • ..�� L �• rp.•�i?f.•;••4+ •it • L.• � , �.Iy\a f*/r�11!u A..••
O
i� �7—
G1nil+� VaIL•�r tir�+� �y//+�'.•l�1M3ia�+ �T.rid:..�. �' i ��.��;.►avj.• .�ai • ._•• � j. ..
,;/ + �• .' 9�i �.'� _ •► � • '•. .ram: •S^•P f•z •!!•� •y • �•'.. • •+�!
_._f .. •
Will i' ,� 4r:U:.af!•+ . 1
.,1,,• .....�•y�R`t..,�ill w,v 9 w� . ����ti4'a,'� '�. ao. Foiled
•�aS 'r!�• it0. Poeslt�.�.1•�•
�'i0. C•7flttfl111� ;•� � y 1�r�,'iat..�«_�-�•""__ �.._•___ ._ �-----�------
• N: �ria•4 .. � •ter _ ,
r Dole
• IN _ VETS.. r' pcC.
APPL. D NAME^nEF• CgAOE_
NO.
DIV NOT APPEAR (Con' _.
' A�i
0967 Ranelp. RonalAH d W*
C60-534 0950 11unt, Joe ve Fy
`5673652 0951 Ingram. Hobert D. A
C59-375 0954 1;r••l�a_r, Edgar C. � M
C62-1225 tias:berg, Charles L.. A?1
101011
C57-1905 0960 Tr.•l�•ig, Steven L. Ri '
�C66497 0983 vivion, Ernest V. ; AM _
C66:198 �..n• aco rh, l?illiT.
IC56-1729 0934 .
• INELICIELE:
Anders=. ?==rick F. AF
C72-430 genets. Juditb H. A`i
C71-5401 nerE1; . Milli�a R• AM
Crubb,• Hrend= J. - LH
72-3691 Ibrahim, AnIl"a E. Ay
C72-4064 pey-holds, C• To AM
CG9-1G10 Seaman* Theodore C. AIM ,
C65-660 t'v, Edgard
9-1336
iC6'
fi
yf
.t
1}J
ya&.
t J
.�
CITY OP 1- %Nli. FLO�tiDN
INtER-OFFIC _ MEMORANDUM\
10. George F . Knox p Jr.
City attorney
44-t d. WC-,CL440
Kenneth I. Harms
FRGM
Chief of Police
DATE J^ 1 3 i:BJ
SUBJECT
REFERENCES
ENCLOSURES
FILE:
Sergeant Homer Lanier
The following represents my understanding of, and my obligations
under the agreement that your office has negotiated with Jerome
Wolfson, counsel for Homer Lanier. In exchange for Lanier's
dismissing his Complaint In Interriention, Case No. 75-3096-CIV-JWK,
I agree to the following:
1. For the life of the current promotional register
for the position of Lieutenant, I will fill every
available opening for the position of Lieutenant
until a Lieutenant's position is offered to
Sergeant.Lanier.
2. From the date of this memo, the third opening for
the position of Lieutenant, during the life of
the current promotional register for the position
of Lieutenant, will be offered to Mikele Carter.
If Ms. Carter declines this offer, this same
opening will be offered to Sergeant Lanier. If
Ms. Carter accepts the position, the fifth open-
ing for the position of Lieutenant from the date
of this memo, and during the life of the current
register,will be offered to Sergeant Lanier.
KIfi: mm
8" '118'7'