S. J. v. Malcolm Thomas
16-3635
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Student (appellant S.J.) was removed from his traditional high school by the superintendent via a "disciplinary reassignment" and was required to finish the year at an alternative or virtual school.
- Appellant requested an administrative hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); the hearing officer issued a recommended order to reassign him for the remainder of the school year.
- The School Board adopted the recommended order and filed a Notice of Adoption, but did not issue a written "final order" under section 120.57(7), Fla. Stat., and the Board treated the matter inconsistently with full APA procedures.
- Appellant sued for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the School Board to render a final APA order; the School Board moved to dismiss, arguing the APA did not apply to "disciplinary reassignment" and that reassignment did not affect a substantial interest.
- The trial court dismissed the mandamus claim; the District Court of Appeal reversed, holding the complaint facially alleged facts entitling appellant to mandamus relief and remanding for issuance of an alternative writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a "disciplinary reassignment" that removes a student from a traditional school requires a final order under the APA | Reassignment is functionally equivalent to expulsion or involuntary assignment to dropout prevention/intervention programs and therefore triggers APA protections, including a final order | Legislature did not expressly include "disciplinary reassignment" in the APA procedures; silence means APA protections do not apply | Court: complaint alleges facts sufficiently similar to expulsion/dropout-placement that APA may apply; reversal on dismissal required |
| Whether appellant's reassignment affected a "substantial interest" under section 120.569 | Removal from traditional school to virtual/alternative setting impairs educational quality, extracurricular eligibility, social interactions, record, and location — a real, immediate injury | Reassignment is not the same as transfer between traditional schools and does not necessarily impair substantial interests | Court: pleaded facts establish injury-in-fact and that the injury is of the type the Education Code protects; substantial interest was sufficiently alleged |
| Proper remedy when agency refuses to issue a final APA order after an APA hearing | Mandamus is appropriate to compel issuance of a written final order when APA proceedings have occurred but no final order was rendered | Board argued no duty to issue final APA order because APA doesn't apply | Court: where petition is facially sufficient, trial court must issue an alternative writ directing respondent to show cause; remand for alternative writ |
| Whether the Education Code must be read only by the specific statutory subsection cited by the Board | Plaintiff: the Education Code should be read in pari materia; other provisions show APA protections for comparable alternative placements | Board: reliance on one section to argue legislative intent excluding other alternative placements from APA | Court: statutes must be read in context; legislative silence in one subsection does not negate APA protections elsewhere; comparison to other statutory disciplinary removals controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Holcomb v. Dep’t of Corr., 609 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (facially sufficient mandamus petition requires issuance of alternative writ)
- Radford v. Brock, 914 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (mandamus procedure where agency refuses to act)
- Sowell v. State, 136 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (agency refusal to issue APA final order can be remedied by mandamus)
- Mitchell v. Leon County Sch. Bd., 591 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (absence of a rendition of a proper order leaves nothing for appellate review)
- Blackford v. School Bd. of Orange County, 369 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (transfer between traditional schools, on its face, does not necessarily constitute impairment of substantial interest)
- Fairbanks, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transp., 635 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (two-prong test for whether agency action affects a substantial interest: injury-in-fact and type of injury the statute protects)