Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Cases: 5
An employee filed a charge of discrimination, alleging disparate pay, racial harassment, and retaliation. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
Read More
The plaintiff was 54 years old when hired by Amsouth. The plaintiff was advised to seek other employment opportunities when questions arose as to his performance. An internal memorandum subsequently announced the hiring of a 29 year old woman with nearly the same title as the plaintiff. The plaintiff suspected age discrimination. On December 1, 1999, the plaintiff was advised to meet with human resources to set his final date of employment. Although there had been prior discussions indicating the possibility that the plaintiff might lose his job, the plaintiff asserted that he did not unequivocally understand he was being terminated until he was told to meet with human resources. The plaintiff filed an age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 28, 2000. The appellate court found that it was error to grant patrial summary judgment to the defendant employer based on a late filing of the EEOC complaint where material issues of fact remained as to whether an unequivocal communication of termination had been effectively communicated to the plaintiff (December 1, 1999, or previously). The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of the state law fraud claim alleging failure on the part of the employer to make remuneration in connection with a management incentive program, where the plaintiff had failed to meet his burden of proof in establishing that the employer intended to deceive him. The appellate court also found that there had been no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to compel discovery of all word processing files created, modified and/or accessed by, or on behalf of five Amsouth employees over a two and one half year period, where such a request was overly broad and burdensome. The plaintiff also showed no reasonable showing of relevance for the requested discovery.
Read More
The EEOC and the FCHR have appointed each other as agents for the purposes of receiving, drafting and filing charges. The receipt of charges by the EEOC on behalf of the FCHR triggers the proceedings of both agencies. Where EEOC misplaced paperwork, a filed charge was still considered filed on behalf of both EEOC and FCHR.
Read More
Bach v. UPS, Inc.
28 Fla. L. Weekly S12
2002-12-19
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
For the reasons expressed in the Florida Supreme Court
Read More
Plaintiff was employed as an Administrative Assistant for DOT. While in that position, Plaintiff alleged she was sexually harassed by a coworker. Plaintiff lodged a complaint but the employer determined there was insufficient evidence to find
Read More
