This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ight existed, he
concluded that the true issue to be decided was whether the City, as a governmental
entity, could regulate smoking through employment. Because he found that there is no
expectation of privacy in employment and that [**5] the regulation did not violate any
provision of either the Florida or the federal constitutions, summary judgment was
granted in favor of the City.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed. The district court first determined that
Kurtz' privacy rights are involved when the City requires her to refrain from smoking for
a year prior to being considered to employment. The district court then found that,
although the City does have an interest in saving taxpayers money by decreasing
insurance costs and increasing productivity, such interest is insufficient to outweigh the
intrusion into Kurtz' right of privacy and has no relevance to the performance of the
duties involved with a clerk-typist. Consequently, the district court concluded that the
regulation violated Kurtz's privacy rights under article I, section 23, of the Florida
Constitution. We disagree.
Florida's constitutional privacy provision, which is contained in article I,
section 23, provides as follows:
Right of privacy.--Every natural person has the right to be let alone
and free from governmental intrusion into his private life except as
otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit
the [**6] public's right of access to public records and meetings as
provided by law.
This right to privacy protects Florida's citizens from the government's uninvited
observation of or interference in those areas that fall within the ambit of the zone of
privacy afforded under this provision. Shaktman v. State, 553 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1989).
Unlike the implicit privacy right of the federal constitution, Florida's privacy provision is,
in and of itself, a fundamental one that, once implicated, demands evaluation under a
compelling state interest standard. Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wag...
View Full Document
- Spring '08