SOUTHERN RECORDS & TAPE SERVICE, et al., Petitioners, v. Murray GOLDMAN, etc., Respondent, 502 So. 2d 413

McDONALD, Chief Justice. We have for review Southern Records & Tape Service v. Goldman, 458 So.2d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), which the district court certified as being in conflict with Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Ferris, 408 So.2d 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), review denied, 419 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1982). We have jurisdiction pursuant to

article V,

section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution. The issue presented is whether the district court properly denied Southern’s petition for writ of prohibition. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying prohibition and approve the district court’s opinion. Emérita Abreu worked for Southern. When she became pregnant, she informed Southern of her pregnancy and inquired about maternity benefits. Southern then fired her, allegedly to avoid providing medical benefits during her pregnancy.

Abreu filed a discrimination complaint with the Metropolitan Dade County Fair Housing and Employment Appeals Board. The board investigated the complaint and, after a trial before the board, found that Southern had terminated Abreu’s employment to avoid providing maternity benefits to her. The board ordered Southern to make restitution to Abreu for back pay and her medical expenses, to expunge Abreu’s employment record of any references to the discrimination charge, and to pay Abreu’s reasonable attorney’s fees. Southern failed to comply with the board’s orders or to appeal those orders.

The board then filed a petition for rule nisi in the circuit court for enforcement of its orders. Southern moved for dismissal, alleging lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, and Southern petitioned the district court for a writ of prohibition. The district court denied the petition, holding that, because the circuit court’s jurisdiction could be challenged on appeal, the merits of the petition need not be reached. We agree with the district court’s resolution of this matter.

Prohibition is an extraordinary writ and is designed to keep courts from acting when they have no jurisdiction to act. English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293 (Fla.1977); Sherlock v. City of Jacksonville, 17 Fla. 93 (1879). It is not available to prevent an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or if another appropriate and adequate legal remedy exists. McCrary. Prohibition is not a writ of right, but, rather, is a discretionary writ. State ex rel. Washbum v. Hutchins, 101 Fla. 773, 135 So. 298 (1931); State ex rel. Florida Real Estate Commission v. Anderson, 164 So.2d 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964).

The district court acknowledged these general rules applicable to prohibition and then held that the circuit court’s jurisdiction had been invoked properly, that a challenge to that jurisdiction could be addressed by plenary appeal, and that the writ of prohibition, therefore, should be denied. When it went into circuit court, the appeals board asked for more than $11,000 in damages and for equitable relief. Its pleadings put the case within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Art. V, § 20, Fla. Const.; § 26.012, Fla.Stat. (1985).

Southern has failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the requested writ, and we refuse to disturb that court’s decision, which we hereby approve. It is so ordered. ADKINS, SHAW, EHRLICH and BARKETT, JJ., concur. OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, in which BOYD, J., concurs.