Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner, who was injured in the course of his employment with Respondent, prevailed in his workers’ compensation claim through the assistance of his attorney. The fee awarded to Petitioner’s attorney amounted to only $1.53 per hour. Petitioner had no ability to challenge the reasonableness of the hourly rate, and both the Judge of Compensation Claims and First District Court of Appeal were precluded by Fla. Stat. 440.34, which mandates a conclusive fee schedule for awarding attorney’s fees to the claimant in a workers’ compensation case, from assessing whether the fee award was reasonable. The First Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of section 440.34, which creates an irrebuttable presumption that precludes any consideration of whether the fee award is reasonable to compensate the attorney. The Supreme Court held that the mandatory fee schedule in section 440.34 is unconstitutional under as a violation of due process under both the state and federal Constitutions. Remanded for entry of a reasonable attorney’s fee. View "Castellanos v. Next Door Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant, her former employer, alleging that Defendant took adverse employment actions against her after she revealed that she was pregnant. The trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s lawsuit for failure to state a cause of action. The court of appeal affirmed, concluding that Florida law does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination in employment practices. The Supreme Court quashed the court of appeal’s decision and remanded with directions that the trial court reinstate Plaintiff’s complaint, holding that the provision in the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) making it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate based on an individual’s sex includes discrimination based on pregnancy, which is “a natural condition and primary characteristic unique to the female sex.” View "Delva v. Continental Group, Inc. " on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the constitutionality of certain provisions of chapter 2011-68, Laws of Florida, which converted the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from noncontributory by employees to contributory, required all current FRS members to contribute three percent of their salaries to the retirement system, and eliminated the retirement cost-of-living adjustment for creditable service after the effective date of the act. The circuit court held that the challenged amendments were unconstitutional, where the amendments violated three provisions of the Florida Constitution, and ordered Appellants - the governor, state board of administration, and the secretary of the department of management services - to reimburse all funds deducted or withheld pursuant to chapter 2011-68 from the compensation or cost-of-living adjustments of employees who were members of the FRS prior to the effective date of the act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the legislature did not violate the Florida Constitution in enacting the challenged provisions of chapter 2011-68. View "Scott v. Williams" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the Third District's summary dismissals of his unfair labor practice (ULP) claim. The court concluded that because it found that the actions alleged in petitioner's claim were sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of Florida Statute 447.501, the court concluded that the Third District incorrectly affirmed the Public Employees Relations Commission's dismissal of petitioner's charges; the totality of the circumstances alleged in petitioner's charge were sufficient to demonstrate prima facie evidence that he suffered from an adverse employment action; petitioner's allegations regarding his transfer provided sufficient evidence of adverse employment action to survive summary dismissal; and petitioner sufficiently alleged a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.

This case arose from a fatal automobile-truck collision. Petitioners, as personal representative of the estate of the deceased and other individuals, filed an action against Airgas, a foreign corporation, and the Airgas employee that drove the truck that struck the deceased. The district court certified the following question: "Where an individual, non-resident defendant commits negligent acts in Florida on behalf of his corporate employer, does the corporate shield doctrine operate as a bar to personal jurisdiction in Florida over the individual defendant?" The court answered the question in the negative and concluded that Airgas employees were subject to the personal jurisdiction of Florida courts pursuant to Florida Statute 48.193.