Cases

(4th DCA) Lower court granted employer/carrier's Motion for Summary Judgment in regards to employee's claim of retaliatory discharge under Section 440.205, Florida Statutes.  Basically, the lower court found no prima facie case of retaliation because the employer terminated the employee before the employee filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits.  Because a material issue of fact existed as to the employer's reason for discharging the employee, court determined that summary judgment was not proper at this juncture of the case.  Accordingly, lower courts granting of final summary judgment was reversed.

There was a dispute in regards to why the claimant/employee was terminated by the employer.  In order to make a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements: 1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity; 2) the plaintiff was thereafter subjected by his employer to an adverse employment action; and 3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.  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.

The fact that the employee did not file a formal claim for workers' compensation benefits until after his termination does not automatically preclude a claim for retaliatory discharge.  Accordingly, the plaintiff in this case established a prima facie case by proving the protected activity and the negative employment action were not completely unrelated. The burden then shifts to the employer to offer a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action.  The employer testified that the claimant was discharged because he threatened a co-worker.  The plaintiff denied such activity.  Accordingly, there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding the entry of a summary judgment.