HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-85 WS
MINtJl'ES <F 'mE CITY <IH<<SSICfi ~ HEW :F'FlRJARY 19, 1985
.
~: Mayor lson, Corrmissioners Cox, Rodgers, Bateman, and Hager, City Attorney
Fox (Acting), City Manager Griffin, and Deputy Clerk Louloudis.
ABSmT: None
CALL 'ID <HER
Mayor lson called the Workshop to order at 6:28 p.M..
Ill\SSXR? vs. 'mE CITY OF OCOEE
Mr. Nonnan Burke, Attorney, began saying the Dassdorf case began in 1977, and
in 1984 the City suffered an adverse ruling. Mr. Burke continued to give the
background of the Dassdorf case, bringing the Carrmission up to date. Mr .
Burke then stated his six points of argui\ent for his appeal, if the Carmission
decides to appeal the case judgerrent. They were as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
. 5.
6.
A portion of the award monies should be withdrawn as Ms. Dassdorf was a full
time student at Rollins College and not available in the v..urk force.
Res judicata - the question had already been litigated once in court and
now .!\1s. Dassdorf is trying the same question.
Orange County was so slow, if they hadn't taken 18 rronths the City might
have settled with Ms. Dassdorf, when the backpay was nominal.
The administrative law judge didn't require sufficient burden of proof to
fall upon the governrrent lawyer.
To challenge the initial judge's decision, whether the evidence supported his decision.
To argue that the City should not have to pay the prejudgement interests,
for 28 m:mths the judge did not render his decision.
These argument Hr. Burke stated are in order of impact or likelihood of suceeding.
!I1r. Burke also stated that to settle the case will cost less rronies fran the
City nON than any time in the future.
The \OC>rkshop was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.. M. t I,,,
~V~ e~~
Mayor Ison
ATI'EST:
0~~()~~~
Deputy Clerk oudis
.