Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Procedure Cases: 15
[Ch. 760, Ch. 440.205, and 768.28(6)
Read More
[Title VII
Read More
The appellate court reversed the summary judgment entered in favor of the appellant commissioner of the state insurance fund because the fund was a nonparty to a settlement agreement between the estate of a deceased employee and the appellee contractor. A state employee participated in a sting operation conducted in part by the state attorney
Read More
O
Read More
The Florida Supreme Court held that claims filed against a state agency pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 are not subject to the pre-suit notice requirements of Section 768.28(6), Florida Statutes (the sovereign immunity statute).
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
Plaintiff, Tim Schneider, sued the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) for age and gender discrimination and retaliation. FDOC moved to dismiss, arguing that Schneider's complaint failed to state a claim because it was devoid of factual allegations which supported Schneider's boilerplate claims to relief. The court held that a discrimination complaint need only meet the short and plain statement requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and need not allege all of the facts required to support a prima facie case. Here, Schneider only alleged one fact to support his discrimination claims. He alleged that Dr. Tyll, a 38-year-old female supervisor, made comments to him to the effect that she does not like him because he reminds her of her father. The court found this fact fell short of meeting even the liberal standard of Rule 8. However, the court held the same could not be said about his allegations regarding retaliation. In his complaint, Schneider argued that, after he filed an internal charge of discrimination with FDOC, he was unjustly reprimanded and suspended. These allegations, while minimal, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Read More
This was a suit by five migrant workers of farm labor contractors (FLC) who sought monetary relief from two manufacturers of paper products who hired the FLC's to plant tree seedlings in the manufacturers' forests. The employees argued the manufacturers were their joint employers. They also attempted to proceed as a class. The lower court found the manufacturers were not joint employers and, as such, the class certification issue was moot. The appellate court used the seven factors from Martinez-Mendoza v. Champion International Corp. (11th Circuit 2003) to determine the joint employment issue.
In the present case, the court found that only factor 6 weighed slightly in favor of joint employment. As such, it affirmed the district court's decision granting the manufacturers summary judgment on the issue of joint employment. The court then remanded the class certification issue, holding that the lower court erred in holding that a plaintiff's capacity to act as representative of a class was terminated when he lost his case on the merits. If a case or controversy remains, the court may determine that class certification is appropriate.
Read More
An employee filed a charge of discrimination, alleging disparate pay, racial harassment, and retaliation. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
Read More
Consent decree was entered in this protracted piece of employment discrimination litigation surrounding the Alabama Department of Transportation. The appellants were not parties to the consent decree. The court found that non-parties may not be enforced directly or in collateral proceedings by those who are not parties to it even though they were intended to benefit by the consent decree.
Read More
Consent decree was entered in this protracted piece of employment discrimination litigation surrounding the Alabama Department of Transportation. The appellants were not parties to the consent decree. The court found that non-parties may not be enforced directly or in collateral proceedings by those who are not parties to it even though they were intended to benefit by the consent decree.
Read More
The court held it was error to dismiss Hagan's claim for unemployment compensation under chapter 760, wherein plaintiff charged her former employer with discriminatory employment practices arising from her discharge, on ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies after receiving "no cause" determination from the EEOC. The letter from the EEOC indicating that it was unable to conclude that violation occurred did not constitute a finding of "no cause" such that employee was required to pursue an administrative hearing on the determination. The appellate court also certified conflict with Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, 793 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Read More
The Supreme Court found that an employment discrimination complaint need not include specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. The court held that the complaint must contain only a
Read More
The court determined that, based upon language found in the work sharing agreement, that a determination by the EEOC is not a determination by the FCHR. Since the EEOC determination is not a determination by the FCHR, a Plaintiff is not required to file for an administrative hearing within thirty-five days of the EEOC letter as a prerequisite to a lawsuit.
The court further found that the "unable to conclude" language used by the EEOC fell within both the "not reasonable cause" and the "failed to determine" categories, which do not require an administrative hearing prior to suit being filed. Thus, defendant
Read More
On June 6, 1997, Lynchburg College denied tenure to Edelman, who faxed a letter to the EEOC claiming gender based employment discrimination exacerbated by national origin and religion discrimination. After interviewing Edelman, the EEOC sent him a form for review and verification by oath or affirmation. 313 days after the denial of tenure, the EEOC received the verified from which it forwarded to the College for a response. After completing an investigation, the EEOC issued Edelman a notice of right to sue.
Edelman first sued in Virginia state court, but later added a cause of action under Title VII. The College then removed the case to federal court, claiming that Edelman
Read More
