Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Disability Discrimination Cases: 8
Plaintiff a prisoner in a Florida state prison, acting pro se, brought claims alleging violations of Title II of the ADA against individual defendants in their official capacities as employees of GEO Care Group. A private prison management corporation operating a Florida state prison. The district court dismissed plaintiffs complaint finding that GEO was not a public entity, and only public entities are liable for violations of Title II. Plaintiff contended that GEO was a public entity under section 12131(1) (B) of the ADA which defines public entity, in part, as an "instrumentality of the State." The court looked to statutory interpretation and determined that "instrumentality" was akin to the other words in the statute, which were "department, agency and special purpose district." Thus, "instrumentality" had to refer to a governmental unit, which GEO was not. A private contractor does not become liable under Title II merely by contracting with the State to provide governmental service and GEO was not liable in this instance as a governmental unit. (Judge Barkett dissented).
Read More
: Lapar, a sixteen year employee of the United States Postal Service brought a five count complaint against her employer and several individual supervisors alleging discrimination and harassment related to her bipolar disorder and panic attacks. There was no claim for retaliation, since at the time of the complaint, plaintiff alleged that she was still employed with USPS, despite assertions to the contrary made by defendants in their Motion to Dismiss.
In Count I, plaintiff alleged a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985 which bars conspiracies between two or more persons interfering with civil rights. The court dismissed this count stating that the Rehabilitation Act, 29 USC
Read More
The hearing impaired plaintiff was terminated from his position and filed a claim with the EEOC which issued an
Read More
Trial court properly found that an action filed pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act is a tort claim that was subject to presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6)(a). Given plaintiff's failure to comply with requirements and inability to timely comply due to passage of time, trial court correctly dismissed claim with prejudice. The court certified a question of great public importance: Are claims filed pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 tort claims and thus subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (2003)?
Read More
The plaintiff sought review of decisions entered by the trial court granting summary judgment for her employer, in a claim alleging defamation and violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff, an ultrasound sonographer, was suspected of drinking on the job and her supervisor required her to take a blood alcohol test. Another sonographer was asked to fill in for the plaintiff pending the test results and was told of the plaintiff
Read More
The plaintiff sought review of decisions entered by the trial court granting summary judgment for her employer, in a claim alleging defamation and violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff, an ultrasound sonographer, was suspected of drinking on the job and her supervisor required her to take a blood alcohol test. Another sonographer was asked to fill in for the plaintiff pending the test results and was told of the plaintiff
Read More
Plaintiff filed complaints asserting discrimination on the basis of handicap and sought recovery under both an administrative action filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The actions were brought against the alleged successor in interest of the employer, Compass Retail. Plaintiff secured an administrative award from FCHR. The alleged successor in interest, Jones Lang argued that plaintiff may not recover both an administrative award and pursue a separate civil action. The court denied the motion to dismiss the civil action because the administrative award was secured against Compass and not the defendant successor in interest. Because of the unusual procedural posture the court ordered the plaintiff to make a more definite statement as to his intent to rest on his administrative award, if it were found to be enforceable, or begin anew under the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Read More
Plaintiff filed complaints asserting discrimination on the basis of handicap and sought recovery under both an administrative action filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The actions were brought against the alleged successor in interest of the employer, Compass Bank. Plaintiff secured an administrative award with FCHR. The alleged successor in interest to Compass argued that plaintiff may not recover both an administrative award and pursue a separate civil action. The court denied the motion to dismiss the civil action because the administrative award was secured against Compass and not the defendant successor in interest. Because of the unusual procedural posture the court ordered the plaintiff to make a more definite statement as to his intent to rest on his administrative award, if it were found to be enforceable, or begin anew under the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Read More
