Deshazior v. School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 4190
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2017Background
- In August 2014 Darryl Deshazior, an employee of the Miami‑Dade School Board, sued the School Board for breach of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
- The School Board moved for summary judgment in February 2016, submitting affidavits and other evidence that Deshazior failed to timely initiate or exhaust the grievance process required by the collective bargaining agreement.
- Deshazior served opposing evidence untimely (after the rule deadlines), and the trial court declined to consider it.
- The trial court entered final summary judgment for the School Board, concluding no genuine issue of material fact remained and that the administrative remedy was not exhausted.
- On appeal, the district court reviewed the contract interpretation de novo and affirmed, holding that failure to timely follow and exhaust the grievance procedures barred the lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact exist to defeat summary judgment | Deshazior contended facts supported his breach claim and opposition evidence should be considered | School Board argued affidavits and record conclusively show no triable issue | No genuine issue; affidavits and evidence were legally sufficient to support summary judgment |
| Whether untimely opposition evidence should be considered | Deshazior argued the late evidence should be considered in opposition | School Board argued evidence was untimely under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c) and should be excluded | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding untimely evidence |
| Whether the grievance process was a jurisdictional prerequisite | Deshazior argued he could litigate breach despite grievance timing | School Board argued the CBA required timely initiation/exhaustion of grievance process before suit | Court held CBA required timely initiation and exhaustion; failure barred the claim |
| Whether the trial court erred in interpreting the CBA | Deshazior claimed misinterpretation denied him relief | School Board defended interpretation and application of CBA terms | De novo review affirmed trial court’s interpretation and application; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Buzzi v. Quality Serv. Station, Inc., 921 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (affidavit competency and sufficiency on summary judgment)
- Alvarez v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass’n, Inc., 661 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (affidavit need not state personal knowledge when affiant is in position to possess it)
- Independent Fire Ins. Co. v. Rogers, 580 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (trial court may decline to consider untimely affidavit opposing summary judgment)
- Binford v. City of Winter Springs, 969 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (affidavit filed on day of hearing is untimely; court may disregard)
- Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (de novo review standard for contract interpretation on appeal)
- Bello v. Miami Dade Cty., Fla., 167 So. 3d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (employees bound by CBA must exhaust administrative remedies before litigating)
- Public Health Trust v. Hernandez, 751 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (same principle regarding exhaustion under CBA)