Cases
Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Total Jurisdiction Cases: 11
The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit
Read More
In Chase, the plaintiff filed a whistle-blower complaint in Broward county because that was the plaintiff's residence when he was employed with Defendant. In the depositions, it turned out that 10 days before the plaintiff filed suit, he moved to Palm Beach County. Chase at 1-2.
"Much later" the defendant made a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that venue was improper and the statute of limitations had now run. The plaintiff asked the court to either deny the motion or transfer venue to Palm Beach County. The Trial court ruled in defendant's favor stating "transfer under these circumstances would violate defendant's right to notice." Chase at 2.
The appeals court agreed with the plaintiff and ruled that:
We think the statutory venue provision based on plaintiff's residence is reasonably understood as including the time when the conduct allegedly violating the Act is said to have occurred. If plaintiff resided in Broward county when the employer allegedly violated the Whistleblower obligation to pay him wages, that would certainly seem sufficient to establish venue in that county. A plaintiff's relocation around the time of filing suit should not defeat venue that was proper when the cause of action accrued.
Chase at 3. This ruling conflicts with the 3rd Circuit's interpretation of the Whistle-blower's venue statute. (Id, n.1).
Despite the different interpretations of the venue statute, the court also held that the case should have been transferred under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(b). The rule grants power to the court to transfer venue when it was filed in the wrong county. The language of the statute says the court "may transfer the action in the manner provided in rule 1.70(j) to the proper court in any county. . ." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(b)
The court reasoned that even though the text of the rules says "may," the "rule functions like should." Chase at 4. The court observed that other courts follow the same rule when interpreting the transfer rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Additionally, the court ruled that the defendant would not be prejudiced because the defendant did not argue that when the motion was made, therefore its right to notice would not be burdened. Chase at 5.
Read More
Where state court complaint alleged damages that exceeded $15,000, but did not otherwise specify an amount of damages, defendant removing case to federal court must show by preponderance of the evidence that amount in controversy will
Read More
In 2000, Appellee and XL Vision Inc. entered into an at-will employment contract. A year later, the assets of XL Vision Inc. were transferred to Appellant. Appellee was guaranteed that he would be hired by Appellant under the same terms as his previous contract. He was terminated only a few months later. He sued Appellants, who moved to dismiss, arguing there was a lack of personal jurisdiction. The lower court denied the motion. Determining whether there is personal jurisdiction is a two part inquiry. It must be determined whether the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of Florida's long arm statute, section 48.193. If the allegations are within the ambit of the statute, it must then be determined whether the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with due process. Under section 48.193, a person submits himself to the jurisdiction of this state by breaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state. Here, Appellee argued he was owed payment for work he was to perform in Florida and he did perform in Florida. Therefore, the allegations supported a finding of personal jurisdiction. Appellants argued, however, that the trial court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing to decide the jurisdiction issue. The appellate court found that, because the affidavit did not dispute the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint, the trial court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing.
Read More
Roland appealed an order dismissing his Florida whistleblower lawsuit on grounds of federal preemption. Roland was employed as a railroad policeman by Florida East Coast Railway (FEC). Roland reported violations of federal and state laws. Roland alleged he was terminated in response to reporting the violations. FEC obtained a dismissal on the grounds that there is a federal whistleblower statute that protects railroad employees, and that the federal statute preempted any state whistleblower act. The appeals court concluded the federal statute allowed a railroad employee to proceed under either a federal whistleblower statute or a state whistleblower statute, but not both; therefore, they reversed and remanded to allow Roland
Read More
The plaintiff alleged the Clinic discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex. Charges were filed with the local and state agencies. The plaintiff received an Order of Determination from the local agency, which concluded there was no reasonable cause to believe there had been a violation of state or federal law. Included in the order was a statement apprising the plaintiff of her right to file a Petition for Re-determination within 20 days. She did not do so and her claim with the local agency was dismissed. The federal agency adopted the findings of the local board and told the plaintiff of her right to bring a federal discrimination suit in federal or state court within 90 days. She never received a letter of determination from the state agency and therefore never requested a hearing under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff then filed this lawsuit in Broward Circuit Court.
The Clinic moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff did not exhaust all of her administrative remedies before filing in state court. The trial court granted the motion, relying on Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, 793 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), which held that a
Read More
Plaintiff is a psychologist who worked for Eckerd Youth Development Center, a private juvenile rehabilitative school that contracted with the Department of Juvenile Justice. Plaintiff sued her former employer in federal court, asserting violations of her First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C.
Read More
The plaintiff was an arab pilot who brought a state law civil rights and whistleblower action against the employer. Pan Am alleged that diversity jurisdiction existed because the complaint alleged that Pan Am was a New Hampshire corporation and that plaintiff was a resident of Florida. However, Pan Am
Read More
The plaintiff was employed as a charter airline pilot. The parent corporation of the charter service also owned a basketball franchise. Prior to being terminated when pornography was found on his work computer, the plaintiff had requested time off to deal with his depression. The plaintiff claimed that his termination was pretextual for denying his FMLA leave. The defendant employer alleged that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the employee was not an "eligible employee" under the FMLA. The appellate court found that defendants' motion to dismiss involved questions of both jurisdiction and the merits of the FMLA claim and was thus reserved for the finder of fact. Thus, the trial court was required to find that jurisdiction existed and deal with the defendant
Read More
The appellate court found it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal, where the issue on appeal was decided by the court in 1994, and its decision about the issue was embodied in key terms of trial court's 1995 modification order, from which no appeal was taken. The appellate court further found that the exception to rule against appealing from a successive motion if there are changed circumstances, new evidence, or change in law did not apply in this case.
Read More
Plaintiffs, employees of Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections, filed their action in November of 2001. Their duties included courtroom security and guard duty at the various correctional facilities in Miami-Dade County. In the past, Plaintiffs have simultaneously worked for the United States Marshal
Read More