Cases

Plaintiff filed retalitory discharge cause of action against employer under Section 440.205, F.S.  Final summary judgment was entered in favor of the defendant employer.  On appeal, summary judgment reversed since there existed genuine issues of material fact precluding entry of a summary judgment.

Court determined that the standard of review for an order granting a Motion for Summary Judgment is de novo.  Summary judgment is proper only if 1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, viewing every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment has been entered and 2) the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.  If the record reflects the existence of any genuine issue of material fact or the possibility of any issue, or if the record raises even the slightest doubt that an issue might exist, summary judgment is improper.

Section 440.205, F.S., precludes an employer from discharging, threatening to discharge, intimidating or coercing any employee by reason of such an employee's valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the workers' compensation law.  In order for an employee to prove a violation of this provision, three elements are required:  1) the employee engaged in statutorily protective activity 2) An adverse employment action occurred; and 3) the adverse action and the employee's protected activity were causally related.  In order to establish a claim under Section 440.205, F.S., the employee's pursuit of workers' compensation need not be the only reason for discharge.  A cause of action under this provision may exist even if there may also be other reasons for a discharge.  The actual discharge is not a condition for such a claim since there is a cause of action for intimidation or coercion even in the absence of a discharge.  The employee need not establish a specific retalitory intent in order to prevail.  Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for proving a cause of action, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to proffer a legitimite reason for the adverse employment action.

The court determined that there were genuine issues of fact concerning the liability of the employer for a Section 440.205, F.S. cause of action if the reasons for discharging the claimant were questionable.  The employer asserted that the injured worker was discharged because he failed to obtain a report from his authorized treating physician concerning his medical condition and fitness to return to work.  According to the employer, this amounted to neglect of duty warranting discharge.  However, the obtaining of medical information on the claimant's ability to return to work following a workers' compensation accident is not the responsibility of the injured worker but rather the employer.  Basically, the employer discharged the injured worker for allegedly failing to perform a function that was the obligation of the employer.  There was also evidence of the fact that the doctor's report was in fact sent to the employer. 

The injured worker was also discharged by the employer allegedly because he was absent from work without leave.  However, the employee testified that because of medication that he was taking, he could not perform his responsibility on the job and the supervisor instructed the claimant to leave work and return home.

There was also emails in the employer's records of the negative attitude toward the injured worker by his supervisory personnel.  The case was referred to the state for the investigation of alleged insurance fraud.  Based upon this evidence, the court determined that the injured worker's discharge be determined by a jury to be pretextual.

In support of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the employer asserted that a significant period of time lapsed between the claimant's filing of a workers' compensation claim and his discharge thus proving that there was no causal connection between the claimant's protected activity of filing a workers' compensation claim and the adverse employment action of discharging him.  Notwithstanding this, the court determined that the plaintiff/injured worker would still be entitled to a trial. 

The court determined that employee actions for a retalitory discharge claim under Section 440.205, F.S., are often ill suited to final disposition on a Motion for Summary Judgment.  Since the employer failed to establish the non-existence of a material fact concerning whether the injured worker's discharge was causally related to his filing of a workers' compensation claim, it was error to grant the Summary Judgment in favor of the employer in this instance.