CopyCited 107 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 641, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1751, 2000 WL 1227755
...Biggins of Mowrey & Minacci, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, for Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund, Amicus Curiae. QUINCE, J. We have for review a decision on the following question certified by the First District Court of Appeal to be of great public importance: DOES THE SECTION 760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS "AFTER THE DATE OF DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE BY THE COMMISSION" APPLY ALSO UPON THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION AS TO "REASONABLE CAUSE" WITHIN 180 DAYS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 760.11(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), SO THAT AN ACTION FILED BEYOND THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD IS TIME BARRED? Joshua v....
...section
95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1995), applies to actions filed pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, if the Commission on Human Relations does not make a reasonable cause determination on a complaint within the 180 days contemplated by section
760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...City of Gainesville (City). In January 1995, Joshua filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the Commission) alleging racial discrimination by the City in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (the Act), sections
760.01-
760.11, Florida Statutes (1995)....
...On January 20, 1998, Joshua filed a civil action in the circuit court alleging race-based discrimination arising from the above-stated actions. On February 12, 1998, the City, in response to the circuit court complaint, filed a motion to dismiss alleging the action was time barred under section 760.11(5). The City maintained the civil action should have been filed by January 17, 1997, the last day of the one year plus 180-day period the City argued is allowed by a reading of sections 760.11(3) and 760.11(5)....
...of law, Joshua automatically obtained a determination of reasonable cause. According to the City, Joshua had until January 17, 1997, to file her complaint; her filing on January 20, 1998, was one year too late. In the trial court, Joshua argued that section 760.11(5), which provides for the filing of a civil complaint within one year after receiving a reasonable cause determination, was not applicable to her case....
...She reasoned that the one-year period was not applicable because she did not receive a reasonable cause determination from the Commission based on her July 1995 claim nor did she receive any other communication regarding the status of her complaint within the 180-day period provided for in section 760.11(3). She further argued that section 760.11(8), which permits claimants who do not receive a reasonable cause determination to follow the options of filing a civil action or requesting an administrative hearing as provided in section 760.11(4), is permissive, not mandatory. Thus, Joshua opines she was not limited by the one-year limitation contained in section 760.11(5). Joshua argued the permissive "may" used in subsections (4) and (8) of section 760.11 did not require her to file a civil action within one year after the 180-day period; the permissive "may" only gave her the option of doing so....
...ion involved. (Emphasis added.) We are guided by the Legislature's stated purpose for enacting this chapter and its directive that the Act be liberally construed in reaching our decision. This case revolves around four statutory provisions, sections 760.11(3), 760.11(4), 760.11(5) and 760.11(8). Each describes a separate step in the procedure that is triggered once an individual files a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Section 760.11(3) requires the Commission to make a reasonable cause determination within 180 days of the filing of a claim. Section 760.11(4) [2] explains *436 steps that claimants may take if the Commission has determined there is reasonable cause to believe that the discriminatory action occurred. Section 760.11(5) outlines the right to file and the limitations on the filing of civil actions. Section 760.11(8) describes how claimants who do not receive a reasonable cause determination within 180 days may proceed....
...[3] It is clear from a plain reading of the language of the Act that a complainant who receives a favorable reasonable cause determination within 180 days from the filing of a complaint with the Commission has one year from the date of the determination to bring a civil action. See § 760.11(5)....
...mmission to bring a civil action. Joshua, on the other hand, argues that when the various subsections of the Act are read together, there is no basis to conclude that the complainant must proceed within the time period stressed by the City. Although section 760.11(8) purports to address this circumstance, it is less than clear that a complainant is bound to proceed in the manner outlined. The term "may" in section 760.11(8) can be read to give a complainant the option to proceed under section 760.11(4) but does not require one to do so....
...nvestigation. See §
760.06(5)-(6). Furthermore, the Legislature's desire that aggrieved persons avail themselves of the remedies provided by the Commission prior to seeking court action is made clear in section
760.07. Thus, despite the language of section
760.11(8), which allows a complainant to proceed to circuit court without a reasonable cause determination, the entire statutory scheme seems to favor exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to court action....
...80 days of the filing of the complaint was placed in a different section of the Act, the substance of the provision, including the permissive "may" language, remained the *438 same. However, one of the changes in the statute includes that portion of section 760.11(5) which provides for the commencement of a civil action "no later than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission." When this provision of the Act was promulgated, the Legislature was well aware of th...
...The Act demonstrates the Legislature's intent that one claiming a deprivation under its terms would have the Commission make a preliminary reasonable cause determination, notify the claimant of its findings, and inform the claimant of the possible next steps that can be taken. See § 760.11(3), (4)....
...on has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section. [2] Section 760.11(4) provides: In the event that the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, the aggrieved person may either: (a) B...
...hearing under ss.
120.569 and
120.57. The election by the aggrieved person of filing a civil action or requesting an administrative hearing under this subsection is the exclusive procedure available to the aggrieved person pursuant to this act. [3] Section
760.11(8) provides: In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause. [4] Section
760.11(7) states: "If the commission determines that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred, the commission shall dismiss the complaint." [5] "[I]f from a view of the who...
CopyCited 94 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 WL 3087215
...We agree.
Section
760.07 of the FCRA provides that “[a]ny violation of any Florida
statute making unlawful discrimination because of . . . handicap . . . in the area[] of
. . . public accommodations gives rise to a cause of action for all relief and
damages described in §
760.11(5), unless greater damages are expressly provided
57
for.” Section
760.02(11) provides that “[f]or the purposes of §§
760.01-
760.11 and
509.092” -- i.e., for purposes of §
760.07 --
“Public accommodations” means places of public accommodation,
lodgings, facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the
premises, gasoline stations, places of exhibition or entertainment, and other
covered establishments....
...Relations] within 365 days of the alleged violation . . . . [or] with the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission or with any unit of government of the state
which is a fair-employment-practice agency under 29 C.F.R. §§ 1601.70-1601.80.”
Id. § 760.11(1). “Within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the commission
shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that [a] discriminatory
practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.” Id. §
760.11(3)....
...“In the event that the commission determines that there is reasonable
cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred . . ., the aggrieved
person may . . . [b]ring a civil action . . . in any court of competent jurisdiction . . .
.” Id. § 760.11(4)(a) (emphasis added)....
...However, “[i]f the commission determines
59
that there is not reasonable cause . . ., the commission shall dismiss the complaint. .
. . If the aggrieved person does not request an administrative hearing within . . . 35
days, the claim will be barred.” Id. § 760.11(7).
Although Sheely timely filed a complaint with the Commission, it
apparently concluded that there was not reasonable cause to believe that a
discriminatory practice had occurred in violation of the FCRA....
...urther action on your
inquiry.”31 There is no evidence in the record that Sheely provided the
Commission with further information within 10 days under the terms of the letter,
or that she requested an administrative hearing within 35 days under § 760.11(7).
As a result, Sheely failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Act.32
31
Although the Commission’s July 21, 2005, letter to Sheely did not expressly state that
the Commission found no “reasonable cause,” and although § 760.11(8) provides that if “the
commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint
under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may
proceed under subsection (4...
CopyCited 87 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 27 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 834, 2002 Fla. LEXIS 1967, 2002 WL 31259952
...Phoenix Medical Products, Inc.,
797 So.2d 11, 13-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal. The Third District in Woodham also certified the following question to be of great public importance: WHETHER A CLAIMANT MUST PURSUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROVIDED IN SECTION
760.11(7), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHEN THE CLAIMANT HAS FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS AND THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION JOINTLY, AND HAS RECEIVED AN EEOC "DISMISSA...
...ge. After Woodham filed a complaint in circuit court, BCBS filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted BCBS's motion, finding that Woodham's claim was barred because Woodham failed to request an administrative hearing as required by section 760.11(7) of the FCRA....
...eneral welfare of all. Id. at 435 (citations omitted). As a prerequisite to bringing a civil action based upon an alleged violation of the FCRA, the claimant is required to file a complaint with the FCHR within 365 days of the alleged violation. See § 760.11(1). Under section 760.11(3), the FCHR is then required to determine within 180 days whether or not reasonable cause exists....
...When the commission determines whether or not there is reasonable cause, the commission by registered mail shall promptly notify the aggrieved person and the respondent of the reasonable cause determination, the date of such determination, and the options available under this section. § 760.11(3), Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied). If the FCHR makes a "reasonable cause" determination, section 760.11(4) provides the claimant with two options: he or she may (1) bring a civil action or (2) request an administrative hearing....
...tive hearing under ss.
120.569 and
120.57. The election by the aggrieved person of filing a civil action or requesting an administrative hearing under this subsection is the exclusive procedure available to the aggrieved person pursuant to this act. §
760.11(4), Fla. Stat. (1999). On the other hand, under section
760.11(7), if the FCHR makes a determination that there is not reasonable cause ("no cause"), the claimant may request an administrative hearing, but must do so within 35 days of the date of the "no cause" determination....
...curred, the aggrieved person may bring, within 1 year of the date of the final order, a civil action under subsection (5) as if there has been a reasonable cause determination or accept the affirmative relief offered by the commission, but not both. § 760.11(7), Fla. Stat. (1999) (emphasis supplied). Finally, if the FCHR fails within 180 days to make a determination either way regarding whether reasonable cause exists, section 760.11(8) states that the claimant may proceed under subsection (4) as if the FCHR made a "reasonable cause" determination....
...or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause. § 760.11(8), Fla....
...n if the FCHR fails to timely render a reasonable cause determination. ANALYSIS The first issue presented in this case is whether the EEOC dismissal and notice of rights received by Woodham satisfies the requirements of a "no cause" determination in section 760.11(3) and (7). BCBS contends, and the Third District assumed without discussion, that the EEOC dismissal and notice of rights received by Woodham does satisfy the requirements of a "no cause" determination in section 760.11(3) and (7)....
...Thus, BCBS asserts, and the Third District concluded, that Woodham's receipt of the notice foreclosed her ability to sue in court, and left as her only remedy the request of an administrative hearing for review within 35 days after receipt of the notice, as required under section 760.11(7)....
...In construing the same EEOC Form 161, the Fourth District agreed with Cisko. See White v. City of Pompano Beach,
813 So.2d 1003, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In White, the court recognized the conflict between Cisko and Woodham, and stated that the answer to the conflict "lies in the plain language of section
760.11(3)." White,
813 So.2d at 1007....
...Prudential-Bache Secs., Inc.,
656 So.2d 470, 471 (Fla.1995). Second, as stated in Joshua, "[w]e are guided by the Legislature's stated purpose for enacting this chapter and its directive that the Act be liberally construed in reaching our decision."
768 So.2d at 435. Additionally, because section
760.11(7) purports to abridge an individual's right of access to the courts, that section must be narrowly construed in a manner that favors access. See Weinstock v. Groth,
629 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla.1993). We construe the language of section
760.11(7) to require a specific determination " that there is not reasonable cause " to believe a violation occurred. §
760.11(7)....
...trict access to the courts. In addition, the notice provided to Woodham does not comply with the notice requirement in subsection (3), which requires the FCHR to "promptly notify the aggrieved person ... of the options available under this section." § 760.11(3)....
...vailable to her upon dismissal of her complaint. See Cisko,
797 So.2d at 14; White,
813 So.2d at 1007. Thus, we hold that the EEOC dismissal and notice of rights form in this case does not satisfy the requirements of a "no cause" determination under section
760.11(3) and (7)....
...earing within 35 days. Rather, Woodham was permitted to proceed under subsection (4) "as if the FCHR made a `reasonable cause' determination," because the FCHR failed to make a determination either way regarding whether reasonable cause existed. See § 760.11(8)....
...section
95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1995), applies to actions filed pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, if the Commission on Human Relations does not make a reasonable cause determination on a complaint within the 180 days contemplated by section
760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995). Id. When the FCHR fails to act within 180 days, subsection (8) applies, allowing the claimant to proceed under subsection (4) and file a lawsuit as if the FCHR determined that there was reasonable cause. §
760.11(8)....
...all statutory provisions and construe related statutory provisions in harmony with one another." Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist.,
604 So.2d 452, 455 (Fla. 1992). Critically, in rendering its decision, the Third District stated: "Section
760.11 of Florida's Civil Rights Act, contains three pertinent subsections regarding civil and administrative remedies: §§
760.11(4), (7), and (8)." Woodham,
793 So.2d at 43 (emphasis supplied)....
...rative remedies. Subsection (3) provides: Within 180 days of filing the complaint, the commission shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. §
760.11(3) (emphasis supplied). This subsection must be construed in "harmony" with the other provisions, see Forsythe,
604 So.2d at 455, to "achieve a consistent whole." M.W.,
756 So.2d at 101. Giving effect to all provisions of section
760.11 presents the following cohesive view *899 of the FCRA: The FCHR must determine whether or not reasonable cause exists within 180 days. See §
760.11(3). If the FCHR makes a "reasonable cause" determination, the claimant may bring a civil action or request an administrative hearing. See §
760.11(4). However, if the FCHR makes a "no cause" determination, the claimant may request an administrative hearing, but must do so within 35 days, otherwise the claim will be barred. See §
760.11(7). Finally, if the FCHR fails to make a determination regarding whether reasonable cause exists within 180 days, the claimant may proceed under subsection (4) as if the FCHR made a "reasonable cause" determination. See §
760.11(8)....
...In the present case, it is undisputed that the EEOC dismissal and notice of rights was not issued within the 180 days provided by subsections (3) and (8). Thus, Woodham should have been permitted to proceed with her civil action even if EEOC Form 161 had satisfied the requirements of a "no cause" determination under section 760.11(3)....
CopyCited 51 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 232, 108 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 111, 2010 WL 20987
...sexual harassment, as Myers had by that
time withdrawn her claim for false imprisonment.
2
A litigant under the FCRA must file a complaint with the state of Florida or the EEOC
within 365 days of the purported violation. Fla. Stat. § 760.11(a)....
...V. Statute of Limitations
Because Myers filed her complaint with the EEOC on September 14, 2001,
the defendants could only be held liable for sexual harassment that had occurred on
or after September 15, 2000, under the FCRA, see Fla. Stat. § 760.11(a), and on or
after November 19, 2000, under Title VII....
CopyCited 42 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 81 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1302
...al opportunity for all persons regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status." §
760.05, Fla. Stat. (1997). Any person alleging discriminatory practices may file a complaint with the Commission. See id. §
760.11(1). If the Commission finds reasonable grounds to believe that a discriminatory act has occurred, the aggrieved party may file suit in circuit court or request an administrative hearing. See id. §
760.11(4). If the party requests an administrative hearing, the Commission may hear the case or request that the case be heard by an administrative law judge. See id. §
760.11(6)....
CopyCited 35 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 6 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1701, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4561, 1996 WL 173026
...Thus, it found that to the extent the injuries are separable, they should be enforced separately. See also Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett,
494 U.S. 638,
110 S.Ct. 1384,
108 L.Ed.2d 585 (1990). The Florida Civil Rights Act prohibits both sex discrimination and handicap discrimination. See Fla.Stat. §
760.11....
CopyCited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 2005 WL 673677
...chapter [760] and its directive that the Act be liberally construed...."). Under certain circumstances, the Act creates a statutory right to maintain a civil cause of action when a violation occurs. However, the Act first requires that the claimant comply with a set of presuit administrative procedures. See §
760.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). [3] Further, although a claimant who brings a civil action may receive compensatory damages, section
760.11(5) expressly states that the total recovery against the State cannot "exceed the limitation as set forth in s.
768.28(5)." The question in this case is whether the Legislature intended a claimant who is suing a state agency for a civil rights violation to comply not only with the administrative presuit requirements of section
760.11, but also with the notice requirements of section
768.28(6)....
...ivil rights claims brought pursuant to section 1983 of Title 42, United States Code). Second, the Act sets forth its own administrative notice requirements that operate as a prerequisite to the State waiving its sovereign immunity under the Act. See § 760.11, Fla....
...The FCHR is required to send a copy of the complaint to the named defendant within five days of the complaint being filed. See id. The FCHR must also "investigate the allegations in the complaint" and "determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that [a] discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the [Act]." § 760.11(3), Fla....
...If the FCHR either determines that reasonable cause exists to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred or fails to make a reasonable cause determination, the claimant has the right to either bring a civil action or request an administrative hearing under section
760.11(4), Florida Statutes (2003). See §
760.11(4); §
760.11(8), Fla. Stat. (2003) (providing that if the FCHR fails to make a reasonable cause determination within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the claimant "may proceed under subsection (4)"). Section
760.11(4) provides in pertinent part: (4) In the event that the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, the aggrieved person may either: (a) Bring a civil action against the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) Request an administrative hearing under ss.
120.569 and
120.57. §
760.11(4), Fla....
...The two procedures set forth in subsection (4) are the exclusive procedures available to the claimant pursuant to the Act. See id. Neither of these procedures incorporates the presuit notice requirements contained in section
768.28(6). The presuit requirements in section
760.11 mandate that the State receive notification of the claim within approximately one year of the alleged violation and require the FCHR to investigate the allegations of the complaint....
...[2] Section
768.28(6)(a), Florida Statutes (2003), provides in pertinent part that "[a]n action may not be instituted on a claim against the state or one of its agencies or subdivisions unless the claimant presents the claim ... within 3 years after such claim accrues." [3] Section
760.11(1) provides in full: Any person aggrieved by a violation of ss....
CopyCited 21 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19019, 1996 WL 529300
...In opposing summary judgment, Ayers contends that the FCRA's filing requirements are not jurisdictional prerequisites, but are "conditions precedent," which are subject to equitable modification. Two sections of the Florida Civil Rights Act provide the basis for a plaintiff to pursue a claim in court. Section 760.11(4) provides that, where the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, the aggrieved person may "bring a civil action ... in a court of competent jurisdiction" or "request an administrative hearing." Fla.Stat.Ann. § 760.11(4). If the commission fails to "determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint" within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the complainant may proceed as if the commission had determined there was reasonable cause. Fla.Stat.Ann. § 760.11(8)....
...thirty-five days to request an administrative hearing to determine whether a violation occurred. In the instant case, Ayers did not receive a cause determination, nor seek an administrative hearing. At issue is whether Ayers properly proceeded under § 760.11(8), which allows her to file suit after 180 days if the commission has not yet made a determination whether reasonable cause exists....
...Wal-Mart argues that the failure to wait the entire 180 before filing bars Ayers' claim under the FCRA. Ayers argues that, by amending her Complaint (on September 18, 1995) after the 180 day period elapsed (on April 13, 1995), Wal-Mart's arguments are invalid. There is no Florida state court or federal case interpreting § 760.11(4) that is directly on point....
...e is true or *1167 that a violation has occurred, the statutes differ significantly in the plaintiff's recourse after dismissal. Under the FCRA, the complainant's only recourse once her complaint is dismissed is to request an administrative hearing. § 760.11(7) (within 35 days)....
...Russell,
547 F.Supp. 1191 (N.D.Ga.1982); Beeck v. Aquaslide "N" Dive Corp.,
562 F.2d 537 (8th Cir.1977); McKellar v. Clark Equipment Co., 101 F.R.D. 93 (D.Me.1984); Baker v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 11 F.R.D. 440 (S.D.N.Y.1951). [2] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). [3] Fla.Stat. §
760.11(7)....
...[4] The pertinent portion reads, "If a charge ... is dismissed by the Commission ... within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. [5] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). [6] Fla.Stat. § 760.11(8)....
CopyCited 19 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 112249
...it "ineffective and prohibitive." Nor does he explain how the mere fact that a claimant must first be given leave of court to plead for punitive damages creates any conflict at all with section
817.41. On the other hand, Kraft calls our attention to section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1993), in which while authorizing punitive damages in employment discrimination cases the legislature has also expressly stated that "The provisions of ss.
768.72 and
768.73 do not apply to this section." We agree with Kraft that, as section
760.11(5) betrays, when the legislature intends to waive the "no-punitive-damage-claim-with-out-leave-of-court" requirement, it obviously knows how to say so in unmistakable language. It follows that the presence of the quoted text in section
760.11(5), coupled with the absence of such an expression in the text of section
817.41, must be taken as an intent that the pleading limitation requirement be enforced as to any other statute granting a right for punitive damages unless the granting statute says otherwise....
CopyCited 18 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13906, 1998 WL 764170
...rge of Discrimination with the deferral agency, the Florida Commission on Human Relations. She waited the requisite time required under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, prior to bringing this action and Plaintiff is timely in bringing this action. See § 760.11, Fla....
CopyCited 17 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8251, 98 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 459, 2006 WL 1458929
...summary judgment is sought. [2] This is a difficult bar to reach for a moving party and it is meant to be so. Florida has a *79 long-standing policy favoring jury trials and determinations on the merits. [3] This policy is expressly incorporated in section 760.11(5), which provides that in civil actions brought under this chapter, "[t]he right to trial by jury is preserved in any such private right of action in which the aggrieved party is seeking compensatory or punitive damages and any party...
...In contrast, the Florida statute simply provides that punitive damages may be awarded. The court may also award compensatory damages including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries, and punitive damages. Section
760.11 further limits punitive awards to $100,000 and exempts recoveries of punitive damages under this chapter from the limitations and restrictions imposed on other civil awards pursuant to sections
768.72 and
768.73....
...NNOUNCED IN MERCURY MOTORS EXPRESS, INC. v. SMITH,
393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981), UNDER WHICH AN EMPLOYER CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BASED UPON THE WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEE, APPLY TO PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS UNDER SECTION
760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES? AFFIRMED....
...[36] No other court has applied Mercury Motors in this context or held that an employer's mere negligence justifies punitive damages in a coworker harassment claim. The majority's approach is contradicted by a federal case interpreting Florida law, which addressed punitive damages under section 760.11(5) and expressly applied federal law to conclude that, under Kolstad v....
...violations. Kolstad,
527 U.S. at 533-34,
119 S.Ct. 2118 (citations omitted). Shortly after Title VII was revised to allow punitive damages, the Florida Legislature passed chapter 92-177, Laws of Florida, which revised the Act. The legislature created section
760.11(5), which provided: In any civil action brought under this section, the court may ....
...It is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action. . . . Notwithstanding the above, the state and its agencies and subdivisions shall not be liable for punitive damages. § 760.11(5), Fla....
...In analyzing the Act's language, the court must presume that the legislature stated in chapter 760 what it meant, and meant what it said. Klonis v. Dep't of Revenue,
766 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). "If the statutory wording is unambiguous, then judicial inquiry is complete." Id. Arguably, there is ambiguity here; section
760.11(5) does not explicitly provide that the award of punitive damages must be construed in accordance with caselaw discussing Title VII....
...sive in interpreting analogous language of the Act). The legislature revised the Act and provided for punitive damages shortly after Title VII did the same. In revisions since 1992, the legislature has never revisited the punitive damages portion of section 760.11(5) to countermand the rule that Title VII caselaw applies to interpretation of the Act. The statute does not incorporate mere negligence for punitive damages anywhere in section 760.11(5), nor has it ever done so....
...The effect of this rule would allow the jury to consider punitive damages in every coworker harassment case because a finding of employer liability would automatically mandate allowance of punitive damages. This interpretation would require one to accept that: (1) the legislature, by creating section 760.11, adopted a standard opposed to the Title VII standard; (2) the legislature, rather than restricting punitive damages to a "narrow class of cases," provided for punitive damages in virtually all cases arising under the section; and (3)...
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 WL 2693505
...rt that Hudson’s “utter inability to support
his claims” made them “little more than frivolous.” No. 05-16738 (11th Cir. Apr.
28, 2006). ICN then moved for attorneys’ fees against Hudson and his attorneys
under § 1132(g)(1) of ERISA, § 760.11(5) of the FCRA, and 28 U.S.C....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1298940
...ory practice has occurred in violation of the F.C.R.A., "the aggrieved person" may request an administrative hearing or, like the appellant, may bring a civil action "against the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction." § 760.11(4)(a), Fla....
...Fifth, the Florida Legislature expressly provided that "the state and its agencies and subdivisions shall not be liable for punitive damages," while "[t]he total amount of recovery against the state and its agencies and subdivisions shall not exceed the limitation as set forth in s.
768.28(5)." §
760.11(5), Fla....
...Sixth: In any civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to this section, a finding that a person employed by the state or any governmental entity or agency has violated s.
760.10 shall as a matter of law constitute just or substantial cause for such person's discharge. §
760.11(15), Fla....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11239, 1996 WL 444930
...(4) In the event the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the (Act), the aggrieved person may ... *1370 (a) Bring a civil action against the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction; .... Fla. Stat. § 760.11....
...or more employees ... and any agent of such a person, .... 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) (1994). [2] The plain wording of the statute limits complainants to 365 days after an alleged violation within which to file a complaint with the commission. Fla.Stat. § 760.11(1)....
CopyCited 15 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 6299, 2007 WL 1213418
...Appellant appeals the trial court's order awarding appellees attorney's fees and costs associated with their lower court action for employment discrimination, which was filed pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), as amended. See §§
760.01-
760.11, Fla....
...ge presented by the E/C relates to whether the FCRA permits the award of a multiplier. A review of the pertinent law leads us to conclude that contingency fee multipliers are not permitted under the FCRA. As this issue deals with the construction of section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes, it is reviewed by this Court de novo. See Agency for Health Care Admin. v. HHCI Ltd. P'ship,
865 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that the application of undisputed facts to a statute allowing for the award of attorney's fees is reviewed de novo ). Section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes, specifically states that "[i]n any action or proceeding under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." This subsection is the...
...However, in the sentence immediately following the statutory grant of authority to award attorney's fees, the statute states, "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action." § 760.11(5), Fla....
...is not harmonious with the spirit of the Florida legislation. By stating, " [i]t is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent *729 with federal case law involving a Title VII action," § 760.11(5), Fla....
...appellees are entitled to fees for time spent litigating their entitlement to such fees. We find that appellees' argument on this point has merit and reverse the trial court's order on this point. Whether attorney's fees may be awarded, pursuant to section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes, for time spent litigating appellees' entitlement to attorney's fees is a question of law to be reviewed de novo....
...; see also Agency for Health Care Admin. v. HHCI Ltd. Partnership,
865 So.2d 593, 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that the application of undisputed facts to a statute allowing for the award of attorney's fees is reviewed de novo). As stated above, section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes, the attorney's fees provision, expressly states that it is to be construed in conformity with federal case law relating to Title VII....
...1979) (concluding "[a]ttorney's fees may be awarded for time spent litigating the fee claim"); see also Fewquay v. Page,
907 F.2d 1046 (11th Cir.1990); Aubin v. Fudala,
821 F.2d 45 (1st Cir.1987); Cunningham v. County of Los Angeles,
879 F.2d 481, 490 (9th Cir.1988). Accordingly, as a matter of law, section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes, permits appellants to receive an award of attorney's fees for time spent litigating their entitlement to such fees....
CopyCited 14 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...in violation of the FCRA,
the individual seeking relief must file a complaint with the Florida Commission on
Human Relations (“Commission”) within 365 days of the alleged violation and
exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the FCRA. § 760.11(1), (4);
Woodham, 829 So....
...Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
each agency has authorized the other to accept discrimination charges or
complaints on the other’s behalf. In this context, the date the complaint is filed
with the Commission is the earliest date of filing with the EEOC or the
Commission. § 760.11(1).
Once this filing occurs, the Commission has 180 days to investigate the
allegations in the complaint and determine if reasonable cause exists to believe that
a discriminatory practice has occurred. § 760.11(3)....
...able cause” exists, the
claimant has two options: (1) bring a civil action in a court of
competent jurisdiction or (2) request an administrative hearing under
sections
120.569 and
120.57, Florida Statutes. §
760.11(4).
(2) If the Commission determines that “no reasonable cause” exists, it
must dismiss the complaint. §
760.11(7)....
...he date the complaint is filed,
the claimant may proceed with the remedies provided as if the
Commission determined that there was reasonable cause (i.e., bring a
civil action or request administrative review). § 760.11(8).
A civil action brought under the FCRA must be filed “no later than 1 year after the
date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission.” § 760.11(5)....
...It is only after
8
the Commission determines there is reasonable cause to believe that unlawful
discrimination occurred, or the charge remains unresolved for 180 days, that an
aggrieved party may seek redress in court. § 760.11(4), (8)....
...On the other hand, if
the Commission determines, within the 180-day period, that there is no reasonable
cause, the claimant is limited to review before an administrative law judge under
Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and cannot file a civil action unless that review is
successful. § 760.11(7)....
...The EEOC did not make a cause
determination on Ms. Sheridan’s claim. Accordingly, the right-to-sue notice did
not abrogate the Commission’s statutory mandate to determine if there is
reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation
of the FCRA. See § 760.11(3)....
...2d at 897. Had the EEOC’s determination constituted a “no
cause” determination by the FCHR, the claimant’s only recourse would have been
through administrative review, not the courts. Id. The Court reasoned, however,
that the plain language of section 760.11(7) requires a specific determination “that
there is not reasonable cause” to believe a violation occurred before foreclosing
an individual’s ability to sue in court....
...than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the
commission. The commencement of such action shall divest the
commission of jurisdiction of the complaint, except that the
commission may intervene in the civil action as a matter of right.
§ 760.11(5) (emphasis added)....
...prematurely filed FCRA lawsuit to restart the administrative process by filing a
new charge with the Commission and then waiting for a cause determination or the
expiration of 180 days before initiating a subsequent civil action. We disagree with
the Department’s interpretation of section
760.11(5).
As Judge Joel F. Dubina wrote for a unanimous panel in Webb v.
Worldwide Flight Service, Inc.:
The term, “commencement of such action,” in section
760.11(5), refers
to a civil action that is timely filed “after the date of determination of
reasonable cause by the commission.” Section
760.11(5) does not
provide that a civil action that is filed prior to a reasonable cause
determination, or the equivalent 180 day filing period set forth in
section
760.11(8), divests the commission of jurisdiction.
13
407 F.3d at 1194....
...Consistent with the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit, we
conclude that the Commission is not divested of jurisdiction of a timely filed
discrimination charge when the claimant prematurely files a civil action based on
that charge. In the context of section 760.11(5), only a properly filed civil action
divests the Commission of jurisdiction....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 35 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1530, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16842, 1995 WL 669402
...uries. K-Mart contends that this instruction impermissibly deviates from the wording of the FRCA which states that compensatory damages are to be awarded for "mental anguish, loss of dignity, and other tangible or intangible injuries." Fla.Stat.Ann. § 760.11(5)....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10467, 1996 WL 413595
...A.) In the absence of specific arguments by the parties, and drawing all inferences in favor of the non-movant, the Court will deem that Mr. Caraballo's claim arose in the waning days of May 1995, when Plaintiff submitted the opinions of his doctors that his failing health required some sort of workplace accommodation. Section 760.11 requires that a putative plaintiff file a charge of discrimination with the FCHR within 365 days of the alleged discrimination....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 17 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1402, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9761, 86 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 513, 2001 WL 804065
...In due course the EEOC issued a notice of Hill's right to sue within 90 days. She did so, seeking the panoply of civil relief available to individual plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. *831 § 2000e, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1999)....
...In this case, Hill contended that the arbitration agreement must fail because it required her to bear half the costs and fees associated with the arbitration, whereas both Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act permit the prevailing party to seek recovery of all her fees and costs. § 760.11(5), Fla....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14223, 70 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44, 654, 76 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 355, 1996 WL 550129
...§
509.092 (prohibiting discrimination in public lodging and public food service establishments by their "operators"). The Legislature's intent to make special provision for individual liability in these two specific situations is underscored by Fla.Stat. §
760.11: "Any person aggrieved by a violation of ss....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2013 WL 6085137, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164730
...DISCUSSION As a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing an FCRA action, a plaintiff must *1325 exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a timely charge with the appropriate agency. Bridges v. Standard Pacific of Tampa GP, Inc., No. 8:06-cv-1937-T-23TGW,
2007 WL 177688 , at *1 (M.D.Fla. Jan. 19, 2007); Fla. Stat. §
760.11 . To exhaust administrative remedies under the FCRA, a plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Fla. Stat. §
760.11 ....
...of Labor & Employment Sec.,
899 So.2d 1074, 1079 (Fla.2005); Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.,
829 So.2d 891, 894 (2002). First, the aggrieved person must file a complaint with the FCHR or the EEOC within 365 days of the alleged violation. Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (1); Woodham,
829 So.2d at 894 . The complaint must set forth “a short and plain statement of the facts describing the violation and the relief sought.” Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (1). Within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the FCHR shall determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory conduct has occurred. Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (3). If the FCHR determines that no reasonable cause exists, the complaint will be dismissed and the aggrieved person may request an administrative hearing within 35 days of the date of the determination. Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (7). If the aggrieved party does not request an administrative hearing within 35 days, the claim will be barred. Id.; Woodham,
829 So.2d at 894-95 . However, the Supreme Court of Florida has stated “because section
760.11(7) purports to abridge an individual’s right of access to the courts, that section must be narrowly construed in a manner that favors access.” Woodham,
829 So.2d at 897 (citing Weinstock v. Groth,
629 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla.1993)). “In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under [Section
760.11] within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed ... as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.” Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (8)....
...In that event, administrative remedies will be deemed exhausted and the aggrieved person may either bring a civil action against the person or entity named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction, or may request an administrative hearing. Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (4)....
...Second, Defendant asserts that Plaintiffs disability discrimination claim must be dismissed because it was outside the scope of her initial charge. Plaintiff responds that 180 days ran from the filing of her Intake Questionnaire and no determination was made by the FCHR, and therefore, she could file suit. Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (8). The FCRA has 180 days from the filing of a complaint to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory conduct has occurred. Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (3). If the FCHR determines that no reasonable cause exists, Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (7) governs and the aggrieved person may request an administrative hearing within 35 days of the date of the determination of no cause. Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (7)....
...Prod., Inc.,
797 So.2d 11, 12 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2001). However, if the FCHR does not make a determination within 180 days, subsection (8) will control and the complainant may proceed as though a reasonable cause determination was issued. Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (8)....
...before filing the Complaint that initiated this action. Plaintiffs Charge of Discrimination was received by the EEOC on December 7, 2009. {Id.). Therefore, the FCHR had 180 days from December 7, 2009, in which to issue its determination. Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (3)....
...Because the FCHR’s “no cause” determination was issued within 180 days of the date of filing of the charge, the determination was timely issued. 5 Therefore, Plaintiff had 35 days from June 3, 2010, the date of determina *1330 tion of “no cause,” in which to request an administrative hearing. Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (7). Plaintiff never made such a request. As such, her claims are barred pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (7), and Counts I and III of Plaintiffs Complaint are due to be dismissed for failure to exhaust the administrative prerequisites to filing....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7533, 86 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41, 923, 95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1148, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 479
...approximately two years, Ambruster referred to him, on a daily basis, as a
“nigger,” a “monkey,” and being “from the tribe.” The district court initially
dismissed Webb’s claim because he failed to comply with the FCRA’s procedural
requirements under Fla. Stat. § 760.11....
...iction.3 The court reviews
subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc.,
381
F.3d 1285, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004); Univ. of South Alabama v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 405, 408 (11th Cir. 1999).
Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
760.11, an aggrieved person may commence a civil
action in a court of competent jurisdiction only: “In the event that the commission
determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice
has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992,” Fla. Stat. §
760.11(4)(a), or “[i]n the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine
whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180
days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under
subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.”
Fla. Stat. §
760.11(8). Section
760.11(5) further provides that: “The
commencement of such action shall divest the commission of jurisdiction of the
complaint.” (emphasis added)....
...Because we conclude from the record that there is no merit to any of these issues, we affirm the
district court’s judgment relative to these issues without further discussion. See 11th Cir. R. 36-1.
4
760.11(5), once Webb filed his civil action, the commission was divested of
jurisdiction and, therefore, Webb needed to file a new complaint with the
commission and wait for a determination of cause or the expiration of 180 days
before he could file this action....
...The district court addressed this argument on at least four occasions and
correctly concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction because the commission
is only divested of its jurisdiction when a proper civil action is filed. The term,
“commencement of such action,” in section 760.11(5), refers to a civil action that
is timely filed “after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the
commission.” Section 760.11(5) does not provide that a civil action that is filed
prior to a reasonable cause determination, or the equivalent 180 day filing period
set forth in section 760.11(8), divests the commission of jurisdiction....
...to sue letter based on the expiration of the 180 day period from the time of Webb’s
initial–and only–complaint. Worldwide does not cite a single case that required
the district court to ignore the commission’s right to sue letter, and the plain
language of section 760.11 reveals that the district court did not err in determining
that it had subject matter jurisdiction....
...See Jackson,
2005 WL 713784 at *2 (stating that “[i]n Sweeney,
this Court did not hold that a plaintiff like Jackson could not cure the defect of a prematurely filed
complaint”). In Dixon v. Sprint-Florida, Inc.,
787 So. 2d 968, 969 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), the court
held that the plaintiff did not circumvent Fla. Stat. §
760.11 when she voluntarily dismissed her
6
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.
prematurely filed complaint, filed a subsequent complaint with the commission, and waited the
required 180 days before filing her action....
...In this
case, Webb never received such a notice from the commission; instead, the commission provided
him with a right to sue letter after his civil action was dismissed. Dixon does not stand for the
proposition that a plaintiff is required under Fla. Stat. § 760.11 to file a subsequent complaint with
the commission after the court dismisses his or her civil action.
7
8
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 78796
...McElrath, in his capacity as Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, appeals an order of the circuit court holding unconstitutional a portion of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The trial court ruled that [t]he sequence of procedures in which an aggrieved person must prevail under § 760.11(7), Florida Statutes, before being allowed to sue for damages in Circuit Court is so unduly burdensome as to violate the right of access to courts and due process under the constitutions of Florida and the United States.... The differential impact of the requirements of § 760.11(7) on charging parties based on factors other than merit of their claims violates the right of equal protection of the law under the constitutions of Florida and the United States....
...Her claim was rejected within 180 days, and a determination was issued by FCHR that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred ("no-cause finding"). Ms. Burley did not follow the procedure set forth in section 760.11(7) and file an administrative complaint to challenge that ruling. Instead she filed a declaratory judgment action against appellant McElrath in his official capacity only, seeking, inter alia, to have section 760.11(7) declared unconstitutional as a denial of access to courts and violative of due process and equal protection....
...and capricious because it permitted some to complete mediation within the jurisdictional time limits while others could not do so. Those who were innocent victims of delays caused by congested court dockets completely lost their right to mediation. Section 760.11 permits those subjected to unlawful workplace discrimination to seek redress, imposes a preliminary screening procedure to weed out unmeritorious claims, and avoids having that screening process arbitrarily eliminate the right to revie...
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 656346
...The commission then sent appellant a notice of dismissal advising her that the commission's jurisdiction was divested by appellant filing the civil action. The trial court dismissed the action based on its interpretation that the statute of limitations had run. Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, 1995, provides in part: Within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the commission shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992....
...ieved person may either: (a) Bring a civil action against the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) Request an administrative hearing under s.
120.57. Subsection (5) requires that any civil action brought under section
760.11 must be commenced no later than 1 year after the determination of reasonable cause by the commission....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 13461, 78 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 610, 1998 WL 764690
...Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and GODERICH and FLETCHER, JJ. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge. A former employee of Florida Power & Light Company appeals from a summary judgment for his employer in an age discrimination action under the Florida Civil Rights Act, sections
760.01-
760.11, Florida Statutes (1995). The trial court based its ruling on the conclusion that the action could not be maintained because it had been prematurely filed before the expiration of the 180 day period provided by section
760.11(3), (8), Florida Statutes (1995) [1] for the determination of the merits of the complaint by the Florida Commission on Human Relations....
...commenced state proceedings"); see Griffin v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc.,
883 F.2d 940 (11th Cir.1989). The present action was filed on September 16, 1996, twenty days less than 180 days thereafter. We are compelled to agree this prematurity was fatal. Under section
760.11(4)(a), an aggrieved person may not bring a civil action unless (a) the commission has made an affirmative determination of "reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice ha[s] occurred," or (b) under section
760.11(8), the commission has failed to act on the complaint for 180 days. The former did not occur and the plaintiff made it impossible for the latter to take place because the very act of filing the complaint served to "divest the commission of jurisdiction" to proceed. §
760.11(5)....
...Motion for rehearing denied. The determination to affirm is supported by the later-decided case of Brewer v. Clerk of the Circuit Court,
720 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), citing Ayers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
941 F.Supp. 1163 (M.D. Fla. 1996). NOTES [1]
760.11 Administrative and civil remedies; construction. (3) Except as provided in subsection (2), the commission shall investigate the allegations in the complaint....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 710317
...also School Board of Nassau County v. Arline,
480 U.S. 273,
107 S.Ct. 1123,
94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987). *648 We must agree with the trial court that the statute of limitations bars any claim for damages arising out of acts occurring before 16 June 1993. Section
760.11(1), which is a statute of limitations, see St....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1057655
...plies to claims under Florida Civil Rights Act when Commission on Human Relations fails to make reasonable cause determination within 180 days). Although Mr. Ross was required to file an administrative complaint as a prerequisite to this action, see § 760.11, Fla....
...Ross considered himself terminated at that time. Ultimately, several years later, Mr. Ross returned to work at another dealership as a service manager. In February 1996, Mr. Ross filed an administrative complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations pursuant to section 760.11, claiming that Jim Adams Ford had discriminated against him as a result of a handicap when it terminated him in March 1995....
...fore did not expire until August 2000. We reject Mr. Ross's position. We conclude that this cause of *315 action accrued on the date Mr. Ross was terminated, and that the administrative process did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. Section 760.11 establishes administrative and civil remedies for violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act....
...or an administrative proceeding under this act. See, e.g., Sweeney,
725 So.2d 380. The Commission does not enter a final resolution of the complaint but merely determines whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the complaint has merit. See §
760.11(3). Section
760.11(1) requires a party to file a complaint with the Commission within 365 days of the alleged violation. Section
760.11(3) contemplates that the Commission will investigate the complaint and submit a decision within 180 days, determining whether there is reasonable cause to support the claim. If the Commission issues a determination supporting the aggrieved person, that person has one year in which to file a lawsuit. See §
760.11(5)....
..."A cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs." §
95.031(1). Here, Mr. Ross's cause of action accrued when he was allegedly terminated based upon a real or perceived disability in March 1995. The administrative process required by section
760.11 is a presuit procedure, not an element of the cause of action....
...Given that the 180-day time period within which the Commission must act upon a civil rights complaint leaves sufficient time for a claimant to file suit before the four-year statute of limitations expires, there is also no basis for an equitable tolling of the limitations period. In some respects, section
760.11 is similar to the waiver of sovereign immunity in section
768.28, Florida Statutes (2003)....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 2053298, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9183
...s (1999).
829 So.2d at 893 . • The Florida Civil Rights Act is similar to the Whistle-blower’s Act in that it requires the filing of a complaint with FCHR as a prerequisite to the filing of a civil suit asserting a statutory cause of action. See §
760.11(1), Fla....
...(2009). Unless the complaint is properly referred to another agency, FCHR must determine within 180 days whether “there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.” § 760.11(2). If FCHR determines there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of that act has occurred, the aggrieved person may either file a civil suit or request an administrative hearing. § 760.11(4). If FCHR determines there is no reasonable cause to believe a violation of the act has occurred, it is required to dismiss the complaint. § 760.11(7). The Florida Civil Rights Act provides a remedy for a failure on FCHR’s part “to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint.” § 760.11(8)....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10997, 1998 WL 128431
...native for New Trial, document 142, at page 24). Thus, having intentionally discriminated against Mr. Hill based on his age, Xerox now says, in effect, "Let him eat cake." The law of Florida, however, provides for compensatory damages. See Fla.Stat. 760.11(5)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 9 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 161, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3425, 1999 WL 157251
...the security violation as a pretext. Shortly thereafter, the FCHR referred the complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). [1] Green's complaint, however, was only signed by her attorney and was unverified in contravention of section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...int. When Green filed this second complaint, nearly thirteen months had passed since her termination by Burger King. The EEOC ultimately dismissed Green's second complaint because it was not filed within one year of the alleged violation pursuant to section 760.11(1)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10625, 2001 WL 844675
...The trial court granted a final summary judgment dismissing Cisko's complaint with prejudice. We conclude that was error. As a prerequisite for bringing a civil action based upon an alleged violation of the Act, a claimant must follow the specific administrative procedures of section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1997). That statute requires the claimant to first file a complaint with the FCHR within 365 days of the alleged violation. § 760.11(1), Fla....
...Stat. (1997). Thereafter, if the FCHR determines that there is a "reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred," the claimant may either bring a civil action or request an administrative hearing. § 760.11(4), Fla....
...However, in the situation where the FCHR determines that there is not "reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred," the claimant must request an administrative hearing within thirty-five days or the claim will be barred. § 760.11(7), Fla....
...(1997). If the FCHR does not decide whether there is reasonable cause on a complaint within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the claimant may file a civil *13 action at any point thereafter before the applicable statute of limitations expires. § 760.11(8), Fla....
...Cisko argues that the EEOC's Dismissal and Notice of Rights did not amount to a determination under the Act which would require her to seek review of the EEOC's findings by the FCHR. Cisko asserts that she was therefore authorized to file a civil action under section 760.11(8) because the FCHR did not decide whether there was reasonable cause to support her complaint and she filed the civil action after the FCHR's 180 day determination period....
...[2] The issue in this case is whether the EEOC's finding that "the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes" is a finding that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred which would trigger the thirtyfive-day restriction in section 760.11(7)....
...state against domestic strife and unrest, to preserve the public safety, health, and general welfare, and to promote the interests, rights, and privileges of individuals within the state. §
760.01(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). A "liberal construction" of section
760.11(7) requires a specific finding of lack of reasonable cause before an individual is stripped of her right of access to the courts for redress against discrimination....
...ion obtained establishes violations of the statutes" does not amount to a finding that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred. Without such a finding, Cisko is not bound by the thirtyfive-day restriction in section 760.11(7)....
...Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting final summary judgment, and Cisko should be allowed to proceed with her civil action. Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] The FCHR delegates its power to make a determination which disposes of rights under the Act pursuant to section 760.11(2), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Y-5.002. We find Cisko's challenge to the FCHR's authority to delegate without merit. [2] Cisko also argues that, even if the EEOC's Dismissal and Notice of Rights constituted a finding of no reasonable cause, she was authorized under section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1997), to file a civil action because the finding was not issued within 180 days....
...Because our determination that the Dismissal and Notice of Rights did not amount to a reasonable cause determination renders this issue moot, we decline to address whether a determination made after the FCHR's 180-day determination period is sufficient to trigger the thirty-five-day restriction for claimants in section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (1997)....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 485, 114 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 354, 2012 WL 126784
...The company argued first, following Sunbeam’s purported “reduced use” discrimination relating to its refusal to use Mitzel as a back-up anchor, that Mitzel had failed to file a Charge of Discrimination with the FCHR within 365 days of the alleged discrimination as required by section 760.11(1) of the Florida Statutes; and second, that Mitzel could not satisfy the burdens imposed by McDonnell Douglas Corp....
...Under its provisions, an individual claiming discrimination in the workplace must first file an administrative complaint with the FCHR within 365 days of an alleged viola *874 tion and exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the Act before a civil action asserting discrimination may be brought. See § 760.11, Fla....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17858, 2002 WL 31104011
...To bring a claim under the FCRA, an aggrieved party must first file a complaint with the Florida Commission, which then has the responsibility of issuing a reasonable cause determination. See Williams v. Eckerd Family Youth Alternative,
908 F.Supp. 908, 910 (M.D.Fla.1995); Section
760.11(a) of the FCRA requires that a plaintiff file a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission within 365 days of the alleged discrimination....
...mechanism); and 3.) whether Thompson has met all the requirements, if any, for dual-filing her charge with the EEOC. Orange Lake shall file a memorandum in opposition on or before August 12, 2002. C. Whether Thompson's FCRA Claims Are Untimely Filed Section 760.11 (a) of the FCRA requires that a plaintiff file a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission within 365 days of the alleged discrimination....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13457, 1999 WL 675434
...394-395), filed March 31, 1999; and Plaintiffs' response (Docket No. 407), filed May 4, 1999. 1. Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees (Docket No. 391) Plaintiffs move for an award of their costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 216(b) and 626(b) and, with respect to the Florida Plaintiffs, Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes....
...he award of backpay. B. Punitive Damages The jury awarded Plaintiff Hipp punitive damages in the amount of $5,000,000.00. Consistent with Florida's statutory cap on punitive damages awarded under the Florida Civil Rights Act [FCRA], Florida Statutes Section 760.11(5), this Court has already reduced the amount of this award of punitive damages to $100,000.00....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2013 WL 1748789, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57947
...tion.”). Similarly, in the section of the FCRA authorizing punitive damages awards, the Florida legislature provided, “Notwithstanding the above, the state and its agencies and subdivisions shall not be liable for punitive damages.” Fla. Stat. § 760.11 ; see Klonis v....
...To maintain a Title VII or FCRA action, a plaintiff must have filed a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the last discriminatory act (365 days in the case of the FCRA). See EEOC v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc.,
296 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir.2002); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (1)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22139, 1998 WL 953737
...operator, but such refusal may not be based upon race, creed, color, sex, physical disability or national origin. A person aggrieved by a violation of this section or a violation of a rule adopted under this section has a right of action pursuant to §
760.11. Fla.Stat. §
509.092 (emphasis supplied). The statute nowhere defines the term "such refusal may not be based upon race, creed, [or] color ..." Section
760.11 of the Florida Statutes merely provides the procedure for asserting a claim under §
509.092, but does not define the substantive right....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 575105
...Before LEVY, SHEVIN and RAMIREZ, JJ. SHEVIN, Judge. Cordette Woodham appeals a final summary judgment in favor of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc. ["BCBS"]. We affirm and hold that Woodham was required to pursue the administrative remedies outlined in section 760.11(7), Florida Statute (1999), before bringing this action in circuit court....
...616,
30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972); Wells Fargo Guard Serv., Inc. v. Lehman, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D2307 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept.27, 2000); Sweeney v. Florida Power & Light Co.,
725 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Woodham did not receive a determination within the 180 days contemplated in section
760.11(3)....
...In response to Woodham's action, BCBS filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted BCBS's motion finding that Woodham's claim was barred because Woodham failed to request an administrative hearing upon receipt of the "no cause" determination as required in section 760.11(7). We agree with the trial court's ruling. Discussion This case presents us with an issue of first impression: Whether an aggrieved person may disregard the administrative hearing requirement in section 760.11(7) if the person receives a "no cause" determination after lapse of the section 760.11(3), 180-day period for FCHR action, but before the filing of a lawsuit. We hold that the person may not. The receipt of a "no cause" determination terminates the person's option to proceed under section 760.11(8), and requires that the person follow subsection 7, and exhaust the administrative remedy provided therein, prior to filing a lawsuit in a Florida court. To reach this determination we begin with an analysis of the statutory provisions at issue. Statutory Analysis Section 760.11 of Florida's Civil Rights Act, contains three pertinent subsections regarding civil and administrative remedies: §§ 760.11(4), (7), and (8)....
...To begin with, the statute provides that after a person aggrieved by a violation of the Civil Rights Act files a complaint with the FCHR, [w]ithin 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the commission shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred.... § 760.11(3), Fla....
...criminatory practice has occurred ..., the aggrieved person may either: (a) Bring a civil action against the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction; or (b) Request an administrative hearing under ss.
120.569 and
120.57. §
760.11(4), Fla....
...However, the second applicable provision provides that [i]f the [FCHR] determines that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation ... has occurred, the commission shall dismiss the complaint. The aggrieved person may request an administrative hearing under ss.
120.569 and
120.57, ... within 35 days .... §
760.11(7), Fla....
...ermine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause[,] *44 § 760.11(8), Fla....
...Furthermore, where, as here, the effect or meaning of several subsections of a statute is being considered, the statute must be read as a whole to give effect to all of it provisions. State v. Gale Distrib., Inc.,
349 So.2d 150 (Fla.1977). The language of section
760.11 is unambiguous....
...n's remedies; when the FCHR issues a "no cause" determination, the aggrieved person must follow the administrative procedures in subsection 7; and when the FCHR does not act, the aggrieved person must follow subsection 8. Under the plain language of section 760.11(7), which contains no time frame for receipt of a determination, Woodham was required to request an administrative hearing upon receipt of the "no cause" determination. [2] Woodham's arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Woodham relies on language in section 760.11(8), allowing an aggrieved person to choose whether to file a civil action or pursue administrative relief if no determination is received within the 180-day period....
...Thereafter, Woodham was required to pursue administrative remedies as provided in subsection 7. Because she did not do so, the court properly granted summary judgment. *45 If this appears to be an injustice, it can only be remedied by legislative action not by judicial fiat. Section 760.11 contemplates that an aggrieved person will file a lawsuit only under two delineated scenarios: receipt of a determination of reasonable cause that a discriminatory practice has occurred, § 760.11(4); or failure to receive any FCHR determination. § 760.11(8), Fla....
...or to those who are brought into court on allegations of violating its terms." Our decision further complicates the process of filing a complaint by placing an additional obstacle for unsuspecting complainants to overcome. Everyone agrees that under section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1999), Woodham could have filed a complaint, before receiving her determination letter, because the commission failed to make a decision in her case within 180 days....
...the commission. By our decision, the very step that is a condition precedent to filing a federal action will act as a complete bar to Woodham's state suit. Florida statutes do not require such a situation; on the contrary, the language contained in section 760.11 envisions the aggrieved party having a choice of whether to file a civil action or pursue administrative relief if he or she does not receive a determination within the 180 day period. Nowhere in the plain language of section 760.11 is there a requirement that Woodham must request an administrative hearing pursuant to section 760.11(7) prior to the filing of a lawsuit when a no cause determination is received after the expiration of the 180-day period. The majority relies on the provisions contained in section 760.11(7) stating that, if there is a no cause determination, the aggrieved party " may request an administrative hearing." (emphasis added). It thus rewrites the statute to read "shall" or "must" instead of "may" to bar Woodham's action claiming that its hands were tied by the language of section 760.11(7). Woodham could be given an opportunity to reach the merits of her claim by relying on section 760.11(8) because there had been no determination in her case within the 180-day period....
...oke a knowing smile from Joseph Heller, but hardly one that promotes fairness. To prevent claimants from filing suit because the commission decides to send an untimely no cause determination subsequent to the expiration of the 180-day period renders section 760.11(8) null and void....
...1964 and is a remedial statute which requires a "liberal construction to preserve and promote access to the remedy intended by the Legislature." Joshua,
768 So.2d at 435. I would hold that a claimant who has the legislative right to sue pursuant to section
760.11(8) does not forfeit that right by receiving an untimely no cause determination. Once the 180-day period expires, I would apply section
760.11(8), whether or not any subsequent determination is made....
...We certify conflict with Cisko v. Phoenix Medical Prod., 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1851, ___ So.2d ___,
2001 WL 844675 (Fla. 2d DCA July 27, 2001) and certify the following question of great public importance: [1] WHETHER A CLAIMANT MUST PURSUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES PROVIDED IN SECTION
760.11(7), FLORIDA STATUTES, WHEN THE CLAIMANT HAS FILED A COMPLAINT UNDER THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WITH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS AND THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION JOINTLY, AND HAS RECEIVED AN EEOC "DISMISSA...
...99-1046-Civ-T-17F,
1999 WL 1053122 (M.D.Fla. Oct.4, 1999)(EEOC dismissal and "no cause" determination equivalent to FCHR "no cause" finding). [2] This conclusion does not require any rewriting of the statute. While the dissent correctly notes that section
760.11(7), states that "an aggrieved party may request an administrative hearing," (emphasis added), this does not create the nuance that the dissent would have us read into the statutory schemeallowing anyone to file after receipt of a "no cause" determination once the 180-day period expires. While "may" certainly denotes a permissive act, the dissent's interpretation would subvert section
760.11 as a whole....
...as "shall," or "may" will be mandatory or permissive. State v. Osborne,
781 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)(citing Belcher Oil Co. v. Dade County,
271 So.2d 118 (Fla.1972)); Comcoa, Inc. v. Coe,
587 So.2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The plain meaning of section
760.11, read in its entirety, demonstrates that the legislature gave aggrieved persons three options....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...2014), and Social Security benefits are not deducted from ADEA awards. See Dominguez v. Tom James Co.,
113 F.3d 1188 , 1191 (11th Cir. 1997). The FCRA also authorizes punitive damages up to $100,000 and permits the award of attorney’s fees. See Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (5)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11518, 1995 WL 465831
...Neither punitive damages nor compensatory damages for pain and suffering are recoverable under the ADEA. Goldstein v. Manhattan Indus., Inc.,
758 F.2d 1435, 1446 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,
474 U.S. 1005,
106 S.Ct. 525,
88 L.Ed.2d 457 (1985). As to the Florida Civil Rights Act, Section
760.11(5) provides for an award of "compensatory damages, including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries, and punitive damages." Under the statute, the total amount of punitive damages is capped at $100,000. §
760.11(5), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23163, 2016 WL 749007
...II, VIII, XIV) are time barred, premature, and/or fail to state a claim for which relief may be granted as to any of these claims. (Doc. # 51, pp. 5-9, 13-20.) While the time to exhaust administrative remedies is 365 days under the FCRA, Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (1), the analysis is otherwise the same as under Title VII....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 15796, 87 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 337, 2001 WL 1386595
...In this case, the trial court found that the dismissal and notice of rights issued by the EEOC was a "no cause" finding which would require Jones to seek review of the EEOC's findings with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) pursuant to the Act. See § 760.11(7), Fla....
...(1997) (stating that when a "no cause" finding is issued the claimant must request an administrative hearing within thirty-five days or the claim will be barred). The trial court granted Lakeland Regional's motion to dismiss on the basis that Jones failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under section 760.11(7)....
...The language is clear and is contrary to the trial court's finding that the EEOC's adverse determination had the same effect as an adverse determination by the FCHR. Thus, we reverse the trial court's order. Reversed. BLUE, C.J., and FULMER, J., Concur. NOTES [1] §§
760.01-
760.11, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 2534244
...The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment on Belletete's FHA claims in Counts I and II because the claims were barred by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Sections
760.34 and
760.35 contain much the same language and structure as their counterpart in the FCRA, section
760.11. In the case of section
760.11 the "may file a complaint" language has been interpreted as follows: Section
760.11 establishes administrative and civil remedies for violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2007 WL 5844121
...Instead, Garrett filed her charge with the EEOC and FCHR on November 29, 2006, approximately two weeks after the case was decertified and her claims were transferred to this Court, and well outside the 300 day time period of Title VII claims, and the 365 time period for FCRA claims. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; Fla. Stat. § 760.11....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16558, 1997 WL 404019
...Court finds that the complaint has sufficiently alleged a claim for punitive damages under Title VII. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion as to Counts I through IV. Counts V through VII arise under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Florida Statute § 760.11(5) specifically provides for punitive damages....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 183397
...We, therefore, reverse the order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a *462 cause of action and remand for further proceedings. STEVENSON, J. and TRAWICK, DARYL E., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Which can be found at http://www.eeoc.gov/ policy/docs/retal.html# Il part D. [2] See § 760.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4622, 1999 WL 71523
...ear statute of limitations in section
95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes. We affirm the dismissal order on the authority of Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc.,
703 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), and certify a question of great public importance. [2] Pursuant to section
760.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995), an aggrieved party "may file a complaint" with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("Commission") "within 365 days of the alleged violation" of the Act....
...Specifically, she alleged that she had received a written memorandum on May 10, 1995, from her supervisor outlining all the things she had done wrong since filing the discrimination charge and warning her that "further disruptive behavior on your part may be cause for disciplinary action." Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, provides that "[w]ithin 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the commission shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the ......
...or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause. § 760.11(8), Fla....
...an administrative hearing under s.
120.57. The election by the aggrieved person of filing a civil action or requesting an administrative hearing under this subsection is the exclusive procedure available to the aggrieved person pursuant to this act. §
760.11(4), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Section
760.11(5) states: "A civil action brought under this section shall be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission....
...The complaint alleged that Appellee had discriminated against her on the basis of race when, acting through its authorized agents or employees, Appellee denied her an upgrade in her employment position. On February 9, 1998, Appellee asked the trial court to enter an order dismissing the complaint as time-barred under section 760.11, Florida Statutes....
...n of the 180-day period in which the Commission was to make a "reasonable cause" determination. The court dismissed the action upon a finding that the statute of limitations had run.
703 So.2d at 1094. Construing together the pertinent provisions of section
760.11, *1071 the Fourth District Court affirmed the dismissal of Milano's action....
...The decision below was quashed and the case remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 232-33. Appellee correctly notes two reasons why Hullinger does not control the case at bar. First, Hullinger was decided before the specific time limitations now found in section 760.11 were enacted....
...the seemingly permissive language of the Act and delays filing a civil action until after the passing of the deadline while awaiting the Commission's belated determination, we certify the following as a question of great public importance: DOES THE SECTION
760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS "AFTER THE DATE OF DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE BY THE COMMISSION" APPLY ALSO UPON THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION AS TO "REASONABLE CAUSE" WITHIN 180 DAYS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION
760.11(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), SO THAT AN ACTION FILED BEYOND THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD IS TIME-BARRED? AFFIRMED. BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., CONCUR. NOTES [1] Sections
760.01-
760.11 and
509.092, Florida Statutes, are known as the "Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992" ("the Act")....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2661, 1998 WL 81884
...only if the State or local authority has the power to grant or seek relief from such [discriminatory] practice. Defendant argues that the State of Florida, pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("Florida Act"), [2] Fla. Stat. §§
760.01-
760.11,
509.092, has created such an authority, the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("Florida Commission"), which is empowered to "receive, initiate, seek to conciliate, hold hearings on, and act upon complaints alleging discriminatory practice." Fla. Stat. §§
760.06(5),
760.11....
...o Plaintiffs' Complaint a delay that could potentially prove harmful to the Plaintiffs because the Commission does not appear to have the power to take any action with respect to Plaintiffs' claim prior to the filing of the Answer. See Fla. Stat. § 760.11(1); see also Fla. Stat. § 760.11(3) (" Within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the commission shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.") (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 229044
...The Issue of the $100,000 Cap The trial court determined that Gallagher's attorneys' fees, his costs and expenses, the compensatory damages award, and the back pay award were collectively subject to the limitation on "[t]he total amount of recovery" provided for in section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (2002), which by reference adopts the $100,000 cap in section
768.28(5), Florida Statutes (2002). [1] Gallagher argues that the $100,000 cap applies only to compensatory damages and not to other monetary awards available under section
760.11(5)....
...us language of the statute is inconsistent with Gallagher's claim regarding the $100,000 cap. The County also contends that consideration of legislative history is inappropriate where the language of the statute is clear. II. The Statutory Framework Section 760.11 sets forth the scheme of remedies available to persons who are aggrieved by a violation of the Act. Section 760.11(5) contains the following pertinent provisions concerning civil actions brought pursuant to the Act: (5) In any civil action brought under this section, the court may issue an order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including back pay....
...The Meaning of "The Total Amount of Recovery" Nothing in the text of the pertinent statutory provisions or in their context provides any support for Gallagher's argument. There is no basis for concluding, as Gallagher urges, that when the legislature referred in section 760.11(5) to "[t]he total amount of recovery" the legislature meant "only the compensatory damages awarded." The plain meaning of "total amount of recovery" cannot be reconciled with Gallagher's argument....
..." (emphasis added)). The legislature's recurrent use of recover demonstrates that the meaning of that term and the cognate term recovery cannot be limited in the way suggested by Gallagher. Our understanding of the scope of the cap applicable under section
760.11(5) is consistent with the rule applied in interpreting the scope of the cap generally applicable to tort claims under section
768.28(5)....
...ability cap then applicable], whatever the components may be, is the most the Legislature will permit a court to award a claimant." (Footnote omitted.) (Emphasis supplied.) See also Pinellas County v. Bettis,
659 So.2d 1365, 1367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Section
760.11(5) specifically incorporates "the limitation" on liability "as set forth in s.
768.28(5)." There is no basis for concluding that the well-established scope of the limitation of liability under section
768.28(5)encompassing all components of a monetary judgmentshould not also obtain under section
760.11(5). The meaning of "[t]he total amount of recovery" in section
760.11(5) is plain....
...the statute can be discerned from the language in the statute." State v. Sousa,
903 So.2d 923, 928 (Fla.2005). "[T]he legislative history of a statute is irrelevant where the wording of a statute is clear." Id. Finally, we note that the direction in section
760.11(5) that the "provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action" has no application to the issue of whether attorney's fees are subject to the $100,000 cap on liability....
...Aside from a provision disallowing the award of punitive damages against the government, the federal law contains no specific limitation on recoveries against governmental entities. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (2002). The federal case law thus can be of no help in interpreting the specific provision of section 760.11(5) limiting recoveries against sovereignly immune entities....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98194, 2011 WL 3792412
...Further, when a "statutory cause of action entitles a party to recover reasonable attorney fees, the amount in controversy includes consideration of those fees." Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc.,
204 F.3d 1069, 1079 (11th Cir.2000). However, under the FCRA, attorney's fees are awarded as part of the costs. Fla. Stat. §
760.11(5)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114467, 2009 WL 2424653
...tandard. B. Defendant's Motion for Fees and Costs Against Plaintiff [DE 54] Defendant seeks to recover its fees and costs against Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, Local Rule 7.3, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), [11] Florida Statute section
760.11(5) and Florida Statute section
57.105. [12] 1. Florida Statute section
760.11(5) The Florida Civil Rights Act, the statute under which Plaintiff brought his claim, provides that "[i]n any action or proceeding under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorneys' fee as part of the costs." Fla. Stat. §
760.11(5)....
...ntent. [DE 40, p. 10]. Simply put, the fact that Plaintiff was promoted and demoted by the same actor did not render his claim per se frivolous. [13] Thus, Defendant has failed to meet the stringent standard for an award of fees to a defendant under section 760.11(5) and the Court recommends that the Motion for Fees pursuant to section 760.11(5) be denied....
...ery of fees here. [12] See, supra, n. 10. [13] Even if this Court were to find that, alter Plaintiff's deposition, it became clear that Plaintiff's claim was objectively groundless, this Court would recommend, in the exercise of its discretion under section 760.11(5), the denial of Defendant's request for fees....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 15 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1053, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6505, 2004 WL 825274
...Plaintiffs also seek injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages, based on alleged violations of the Florida Building Code and the Florida Americans with Disability Accessibility Implementation Act. See Complaint ¶¶ 19-31. Finally, pursuant to Florida Statute § 760.11(5), Plaintiffs "demand compensatory damages, damages for mental suffering, anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries, punitive damages ..." Id....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 17767, 101 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1860, 2007 WL 3274376
...eign immunity cap of $100,000 pursuant to section
768.28(5), Florida Statutes. In granting FAU's motion to limit recovery, the court found that all of Zamora's claims were subject to the $100,000 recovery limit set forth in section
768.28(5), citing section
760.11(5) and Gallagher v....
...Recovery Includes Attorneys' Fees The Florida Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination, as well as retaliation, by an employer on the basis of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. §
760.10(1) & (7), Fla. Stat. Section
760.11(5) sets forth the following provisions concerning civil actions brought pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act: In any civil action brought under this section ....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16945, 2003 WL 22513826
...iling a petition for relief within 35 days of the date" of the determination letter. The determination letter further advised Ambroise that if he failed to file a timely request for an administrative hearing, his claim would be dismissed pursuant to section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992)....
...In dismissing Ambroise's request for an administrative hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), in a well reasoned order, concluded: 16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections
120.569,
120.57(1), and
760.11(7), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections and Chapters are to the Florida Statutes. All references to Rules are to the Florida Administrative Code.) 17. Section
760.11(7) provides: If the commission determines that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred, the commission shall dismiss the complaint....
...rsons seeking a hearing on an *1145 agency decision which does or may determine their substantial interests shall file a petition for hearing with the agency within 21 days of receipt of written notice of the decision. * * * (Emphasis supplied). 27. Section 760.11(7) provides a 35-day period within which to request a hearing, as compared to the 21-day period described in Rule 28-106.111(2)....
...The language of the statute and the language of the Commission's notice of determination in this case clearly suggest that the 35-day period runs from the date of the determination, not the date that the petitioner receives notice of the determination. See Section
760.11(7) (request for hearing must be made within 35 days of "the date of determination of reasonable cause"). But cf. Joshua v. City of Gainesville,
768 So.2d 432, 438 (Fla. 2000) ("[T]he Legislature chose to make the limitations period [in Section
760.11(8) ] contingent on the receipt of a reasonable cause determination.") (emphasis supplied); Henry v....
...453,
112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990) (period for filing a claim under federal law counterpart to Chapter 760 runs from receipt of the determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the petitioner or his or her attorney, but unlike Section
760.11(7) the federal statute specifically refers to "receipt" of the determination as the triggering event)....
...Although the Petition was mailed within 35 days after that date, it was not received by the Clerk of the Commission until July 9, 2002, which is 57 days after Petitioner received the notice of the Commission's determination. 31. Despite the language in Section 760.11(7) which states that an untimely claim "will be barred" if not timely filed, the 35 day filing period is not jurisdictional and is subject to equitable tolling....
...of Children & Families[Family Services],
813 So.2d 237, (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (excusable neglect no longer saves an untimely request for an administrative hearing). 35. If, however, the 35-day period is computed from the date of the determination (as Section
760.11(7), the commission's prior orders, and the Notice provide that it is), the Petition was already untimely when it was mailed because it was mailed on the thirty-sixth day after the date of the determination....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1839, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 16555, 2009 WL 3672073
...who is discharged, disciplined, or subjected to other adverse personnel action, or denied employment, because he or she engaged *146 in an activity protected by this section may file a complaint, which complaint must be made in accordance with section
112.31895.[ [4] ] (Emphasis added). The Maggio court described section
760.11(1) as containing a set of "pre-suit administrative procedures" with which the claimant must comply prior to filing a civil action. Similarly, in Ross v. Jim Adams Ford, Inc.,
871 So.2d 312, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the Second District noted: Section
760.11 establishes administrative and civil remedies for violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20432, 2010 WL 768947
...at 483-85,
102 S.Ct. 1883. Florida law requires that claims of employment discrimination be investigated by the FCHR to determine if there is "reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992." §
760.11(3), Fla. Stat. If the FCHR determines no reasonable cause exists and dismisses the complaint, the aggrieved person may request an administrative hearing to be heard by an administrative law judge. Id. §
760.11(7)....
...The parties are then afforded the opportunity to submit exceptions to the recommended order which the FCHR must rule upon in its final order adopting, rejecting, or modifying the recommended order. Id. All final orders issued by the FCHR are subject to judicial review. Id. § 760.11(13)....
...Polk Cmty. Coll.,
728 F.2d 1374, 1381 (11th Cir.1984). Moreover, Andela submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the administrative body. The FCHR, EEOC, and ALJ clearly had jurisdiction over Andela's discrimination and retaliation claims. See §§
760.06,
760.11, Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 429241
...George White timely appeals after the trial court entered summary judgment on his complaint in favor of the City of Pompano Beach ("City"). He argues the court erred in determining that his complaint was barred under the one-year statute of limitations in section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1999)....
...He voluntarily dismissed *1005 this claim on July 2, 1998. He then sued the City in state court on October 13, 1998. The City subsequently moved for summary judgment on the ground that suit was barred by the one-year statute of limitations pursuant to section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1997)....
...There are specific procedures which a claimant must follow before filing a civil action based upon an alleged violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The claimant first must file a complaint with the FCHR [3] within 365 days of the alleged violation. § 760.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). If the FCHR determines that there is a "reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred," the claimant may either bring a civil action or request an administrative hearing. § 760.11(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). A civil action brought under this section "shall be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission." § 760.11(5), Fla. Stat. (1997). If, however, the FCHR determines that there is not reasonable cause, it shall dismiss the complaint and the claimant may then request an administrative hearing within 35 days. § 760.11(7), Fla....
..."In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed ... as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause." §
760.11(8), Fla. Stat. (1997). A claimant would have four years to bring a civil action under this section. See §
95.11(3)(f), Fla. Stat. (1999); Joshua v. City of Gainesville,
768 So.2d 432 (Fla.2000)(holding section
760.11(5) does not apply to section
760.11(8)). In this case, White's suit was not authorized under section
760.11(4)....
...By its own language, the EEOC's finding that it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes" is not a determination that the commission had "reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 has occurred." Because section
760.11(4) does not apply, either section
760.11(7) or
760.11(8) must. Section
760.11(7) would apply if this court construes the EEOC's finding as a "no cause" determination, whereas section
760.11(8) would apply if the court holds that the EEOC never really made a determination as to whether such cause existed. Because the one-year limitations period in section
760.11(5) does not apply to section
760.11(8), and because section
760.11(7) contemplates administrative hearings and not state court action, there seems to be only two possible conclusions: either White was barred from filing his complaint in state court under section
760.11(7), or he timely filed under sections
760.11(8) and
95.11(3)(f). Under either scenario, the trial court's holding that section
760.11(5) (and, thus, section
760.11(4)) applied to bar White's complaint was incorrect....
...why the EEOC was closing its file. In December, 1999, she filed a civil action in circuit court against Phoenix. Phoenix subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the claimant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under section 760.11(7) and, therefore, was precluded from filing a civil action....
...all be construed according to the fair import of its terms and shall be liberally construed to further the general purposes stated in this section and the special purposes of the particular provision involved...." * * * * A "liberal construction" of section 760.11(7) requires a specific finding of lack of reasonable cause before an individual is stripped of her right of access to the courts for redress against discrimination....
...l.... Thus, we conclude that the EEOC's finding ... does not amount to a finding that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Act has occurred. Without such a finding, Cisko is not bound by the thirty-five-day restriction in section 760.11(7)....
...Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.,
793 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(on motion for rehearing and certification). Although faced with *1007 a different issue on appeal, [4] the court in that case deemed such a finding by the EEOC as a "no cause" determination which triggered application of section
760.11(7). In doing so, it certified conflict with Cisko. Id. at 47. Unlike Cisko, the court did not explain why it deemed the EEOC's finding a "no cause" determination. We hold the answer to this conflict lies in the plain language of section
760.11(3). If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, as here, it should be given its plain meaning. Holly v. Auld,
450 So.2d 217, 219 (Fla.1984) (citations omitted). As explained, supra, under section
760.11(3), the FCHR shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992....
...When the commission determines whether or not there is reasonable cause, the commission by registered mail shall promptly notify the aggrieved person and the respondent of the reasonable cause determination, the date of such determination, and the options available under this section. § 760.11(3), Fla....
...White's allegations established a violation of the 1992 Act. The form also did not specify the options White had available under the Act upon dismissal of his case by the commission. Accordingly, we hold the form did not satisfy the requirements of section 760.11(3) and, thus, that EEOC did not timely act under this section. As such, section 760.11(8) applies....
...As neither party disputes that White complied with this restriction, we hold reversal is required. To the extent our decision conflicts with Woodham, we certify conflict. REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to reinstate the claims alleged in White's complaint. HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §§
760.01-
760.11, Fla....
...[3] Florida is a "deferral state" insofar as filing with either the FCHR or EEOC constitutes dual filing. Mason v. Kmart Corp.,
1 F.Supp.2d 1333, 1336 (M.D.Fla.1998) (citations omitted); Woodham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.,
793 So.2d 41, 42 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); see also §
760.11(2), Fla....
...the commission and has legal authority to investigate the complaint, the commission may refer such complaint to such agency for an investigation....). [4] The precise issue was whether a claimant may avoid the administrative hearing requirements in section 760.11(7) when the EEOC issues a "no cause" determination after the 180-day period prescribed in section 760.11(3) for FCHR action but before the filing of a lawsuit....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 2734, 2006 WL 469907
...Nelson, P.A., St. Petersburg; and Craig L. Berman, St. Petersburg, for Appellant. Dawn Siler-Nixon of Ford & Harrison LLP, Tampa, for Appellee. ALTENBERND, Judge. Lillie T. McCoy appeals an order awarding attorneys' fees to Pinellas County pursuant to section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (2003)....
...Civil Rights Act, and section
440.205, Florida Statutes (2003), in order to comply with Pinellas County's demand that she abide by the notice provisions of section
768.28, Florida Statutes (2003). We reverse because the trial court did not interpret section
760.11(5) "in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action," as is required by that statute....
...While employed in April 2003, she filed an internal charge of discrimination claiming that the County discriminated by paying African-American employees less than other employees. In May 2003, she followed up with a formal complaint to the Florida Commission on Human Relations. See § 760.11, Fla. Stat. (2003). While her complaint was pending, the County fired Ms. McCoy on June 27, 2003. She amended her complaint to include a claim for retaliation. When the 180-day claims period under section 760.11(3) expired without action by the Commission, Ms....
...McCoy voluntarily dismissed her first lawsuit, the County filed a motion seeking costs and attorneys' fees. The County's right to receive costs is not contested in this appeal. In its motion, the County claimed it was entitled to prevailing party attorneys' fees under section 760.11(5) in the amount of $16,851.50....
...allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. It is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action. *1262 § 760.11(5), Fla....
...Likewise, it never attempted to prove as much, nor did it ask the trial court to determine whether the suit was frivolous or groundless. Thus, it was inappropriate for the trial court to award prevailing party attorneys' fees to Pinellas County under section 760.11(5)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 9 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 975, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10116, 1999 WL 454656
...Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin County,
922 F.2d 1536 (11th Cir. 1991). Discussion Dual Filing Defendant moves to have Count I of Plaintiff's amended complaint dismissed due to premature filing. Defendant bases this argument in part on the language of Fla.Code §
760.11(1), which provides that the date that the complaint is filed shall be time stamped on its face. In addition, the same provision defines filing as the time at which the clerk is in actual receipt of the document. Fla.Code §
760.11 (1997)....
...lerk of the FCRA was not in actual receipt of the complaint until July 13, 1998, the date of filing should represent the date the FCRA received and time stamped the complaint. Defendant moves for dismissal based on Plaintiff's violation of Fla.Stat. § 760.11(4) and (8), which require either a "reasonable cause" determination, or the passage of 180 days before a civil suit may be filed....
...HR on the portion of the filing form relating to other agencies the charge should be dually filed with. See Weaver,
1996 WL 479117, at *9,
1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13403 at 27. The court also placed weight on the language of Florida Statute §§
760.10-
760.11 and Chapter 60Y-4 or 60Y-5 of the Florida Administrative Code which contain no provision allowing a plaintiff to file a Section 760 charge with the EEOC or BCHRD instead of the FCHR....
...Therefore, since the EEOC issued a no-cause finding and the FCRA requires the aggrieved to file an administrative appeal upon such a finding and Plaintiff did not do so, this claim must be barred. In support of this proposition, Defendant cites Fla.Stat. § 760.11(7), which provides in part, "if the aggrieved person does not request an administrative hearing within 35 days [of the no-cause determination], the claim will be barred." Defendant further argues that if Plaintiff is not required to go thro...
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 321675
...In my view it is unfortunate that the petitioner here must be subjected to a hearing on damages before being afforded relief from the obstinate, not to say contemptuous, refusal of the Commission to recognize that discriminatory intent is a factual issue. National Industries, Inc., at 897. At least it should be noted that section 760.11(13), Florida Statutes (1993), which deals with judicial review of final orders of the Human Relations Commission, allows for the discretionary assessment of reasonable attorney's fees for the prevailing party against the administrative agency....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 785, 2008 WL 199897
...'s fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute, section
768.79, Florida Statutes (2004). We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that awarding attorney's fees pursuant to Yoder Brothers' proposal for settlement was inconsistent with section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (2004), and therefore affirm....
...[1] Yoder Brothers served an offer of judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.442 and section
768.79. After Yoder Brothers prevailed at trial, it moved for attorney's fees pursuant to its offer of judgment. The trial court denied the motion after concluding that the offer of judgment statute conflicted with section
760.11(5), which governs awards of attorney's fees in actions brought under the FCRA....
...n, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. It is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action. § 760.11(5), Thus, this statute creates discretionary authority permitting a court to award reasonable attorney's fees under the guidelines typically used for actions brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964....
...Christiansburg *627 Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n,
434 U.S. 412,
98 S.Ct. 694,
54 L.Ed.2d 648 (1978). Yoder Brothers has not argued that Weygant's claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless. Accordingly, Yoder Brothers cannot recover fees under section
760.11(5)....
...See §
768.71(3) (providing that "[i]f a provision of this part is in conflict with any other provision of the Florida Statutes, such other provision shall apply"). We agree with Weygant that by incorporating the federal case law governing awards of attorney's fees under Title VII into section
760.11(5), the legislature has limited when a prevailing defendant may obtain an award of fees. Thus, permitting a defendant to obtain an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the offer of judgment statute when it would be precluded from doing so under section
760.11(5) seems to us to be inconsistent with what the legislature intended when it expressly adopted federal case law governing awards of attorney's fees under Title VII....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21066, 84 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 399, 1996 WL 913071
...Similarly, the alleged violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act are also time-barred. To assert a claim under §
760.10, Plaintiff must first have filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Rights ("FCHR") within 365 days of the alleged violation. §
760.11(1) Fla.Stat....
...precedent under Bonner v. City of Prichard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981). [3] July 6, 1994 is approximately 300 days prior to the filing of Paldano's EEOC charge. [4] Discrimination claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Florida Statute §
760.11 are evaluated under the same framework as that of Title VII....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1996 WL 767540
...The Court ruled in favor of Defendant on Counts V and VI and in favor of Plaintiff on *997 Counts I through IV in its Order on Motions for Summary Judgment dated February 7, 1996. Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend based on the Court's failure to award Plaintiff intangible and/or emotional distress damages under F.S. § 760.11 and prejudgment interest on any back pay awarded to Plaintiff....
...otion to Alter or Amend. Damages under the FCRA Contrary to the forms of compensatory damages available to Plaintiff under the ADEA, the FCRA permits an award of damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity, and *1014 other intangible items [15] F.S. § 760.11(5)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12960
...ile work environment, disparate treatment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. Ann. §§
760.01-
760.11, as well as on her claim of retaliation under Florida's Workers' Compensation Law, Fla....
...t Opportunity Commission v. W & O, Inc.,
213 F.3d 600, 618-19 (11th Cir.2000), this Court reserved decision on these matters until after trial. Plaintiff has now moved for an award of front pay pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g) and Fla. Stat. Ann. §
760.11, and for an award of prejudgment interest....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4180337
...The charge of discrimination, the letter of determination, and the notice of right to sue, all of which were attached to the complaint, corroborate this allegation. Additionally, Ms. Carter could not have filed her previous lawsuit unless she had first filed a claim before the FCHR. See §
760.11; Haines City HMA, Inc.,
948 So.2d 904 (affirming the money judgment in favor of Ms....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...bases for all of his or her Title VII claims in the charge. See Houston v. Army
Fleet Servs., L.L.C.,
509 F. Supp. 2d 1033, 1043 (M.D. Ala. 2007). The Florida
Civil Rights Act (FCRA) contains this same exhaustion requirement regarding
retaliation claims. See §
760.11, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354, 89 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42, 839, 100 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1083, 2007 WL 1412570
...Normally that would be possible; the Florida CRA, unlike Title VII,
contains no general damages cap. However, it does limit the “total amount of
recovery against the state and its agencies and subdivisions,” which the parties
agree includes the School Board. Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 4354, 2011 WL 1135455
...or sexual harassment and discrimination; as such, plaintiff was required to comply with the pre-suit procedures set forth in Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-5(f)(l), and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), section 760.11, Florida Statutes (2009)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22135, 1997 WL 164032
...The Plaintiff argues that the Florida Commission on Human Relations (hereinafter "FCHR") never issued any dismissal of the Plaintiff's charge, nor did it withdraw its jurisdiction within the required 180 days prior to the filing of this action and thus, a suit brought after this time period was appropriate. Fla. Stat. § 760.11(8) (1995)....
...The allegations raised by the Plaintiff in the Amended Complaint regarding the Florida Civil Rights Act claim sufficiently state a cause of action, and raise a genuine issue of material fact to defeat the Defendant's Motion. II. A plaintiff can pursue a claim in court under the FCRA in one of two ways. First, § 760.11(4) provides that, if the FCHR determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that discrimination has occurred, the complainant may either "[b]ring a civil action ... in any court of competent jurisdiction; or request an administrative hearing...." Fla. Stat. § 760.11(4) 1995 (emphasis added). And second, § 760.11(8) states that, "......
...[if] the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint ... within 180 days of the filing of the complaint ...," the complainant may proceed as if the commission had determined there was reasonable cause. Fla. *585 Stat. § 760.11(8) (1995) (emphasis added)....
...he FCRA claim, which was granted on September 3, 1996. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of both Title VII and FCRA. The Defendant argues that the FCRA claim is barred because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements of Fla. Stat. § 760.11(8)....
...[4] It is apparent that before the Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on August 12, 1996, the FCHR had jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim for the required 180 days and made no determination. Under these circumstances, the state claim may be brought under Fla. Stat. § 760.11(8)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 8999, 2001 WL 725980
...On January 7, 1999, Dixon filed a second complaint with FCHR alleging the same facts and circumstances as were alleged in her first complaint. FCHR received Dixon's second complaint 314 days after Sprint terminated her employment, thus within the mandatory 365 day time period. § 760.11(1), Fla....
...Sprint answered, generally denying liability and asserting the affirmative defense of statute of limitations. Sprint later filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the instant lawsuit was barred by the Act's one year statute of limitations. § 760.11(5), Fla....
...Sprint maintained that Dixon's second administrative complaint constituted an amendment to her March 17, 1998 initial administrative complaint and thus the instant lawsuit, filed on December 22, 1999, was commenced *970 beyond the one year statute of limitations set forth in section 760.11(5) as recognized in Milano v....
...e's administrative complaint. The court explained that the premature filing "made it impossible" for the 180 day time period to run because "the very act of filing the lawsuit served to `divest [FCHR] of jurisdiction' to proceed." Id. at 381 (citing section 760.11(5) of the Florida Statutes (1997))....
...Sprint's second alternative argument is that the subsection of the Act which states that an aggrieved employee is entitled to file "a" complaint should be construed as meaning that an employee is limited to filing just one administrative complaint. See § 760.11(1), Fla....
...n, and an answer to it." If we were to adopt Sprint's argument, then the language of rule 1.100(a) would prevent a party from ever filing more than one complaint, more than one petition, or more than one answer. In addition, our ruling comports with section 760.11(3) of the Florida Statutes (1997), which requires that the Act be interpreted according to the fair import of its terms and liberally construed to further the general purposes of the Act....
...As the Joshua court stated: "We are guided by the Legislature's stated purpose for enacting this chapter and its directive that the Act be liberally construed in reaching our decision." Id. at 435. REVERSED and REMANDED. [8] SHARP, W., and PLEUS, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] § 760.11(1), Fla. Stat. (1997). [2] § 760.11(3), Fla. Stat. (1997). [3] § 760.11(7), Fla. Stat. (1997). [4] §§ 760.11(4), (8), Fla....
...her first lawsuit the complaint was deemed withdrawn. [7] The standard of review of a question of law is de novo. See Armstrong v. Harris,
773 So.2d 7 (Fla.2000). [8] Dixon has filed a motion seeking an award of appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section
760.11(5) of the Florida Statutes (1999)(authorizing the award of prevailing party attorney's fees in any civil action brought under the Act)....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142511, 2015 WL 5997069
...Corp.,
256 F.3d 1259 , 1262 (11th Cir.2001)). For claims under the FCRA, a plaintiff must file her administrative charge within 365 days of the alleged violation. City of W. Palm Beach v. McCray,
91 So.3d 165, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (quoting Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (1))....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 1153990
...Jones relies on section
760.02(6), Florida Statutes, which includes "the state; or any governmental entity or agency" within the definition of a "person" who may be an "employer" [2] subject to civil liability for unlawful employment practices under the Act. See §
760.10, Fla. Stat. (unlawful employment practices); §
760.11, Fla. Stat. (administrative and civil remedies). Jones also relies on section
760.11(15), Florida Statutes, which provides that "[i]n any civil action ......
...ies of a finding against it in a "civil action," the legislature intended that aggrieved persons would be allowed to proceed civilly against public officials under the Act without any sovereign immunity bar. We believe that an additional subsection, § 760.11(5), Fla....
...Stat., and its cross reference to section
768.28(5)(statutory cap on damages recoverable against the state and its subdivisions), further evidences the legislative intent that state public entities may be sued in state court for violations of the Act. Section
760.11(5) addresses the nature and extent of damages awardable in civil actions brought under the Act....
...standing the above, the state and its agencies and subdivisions shall not be liable for punitive damages. The total amount of recovery against the state and its agencies and subdivisions shall not exceed the limitation as set forth in s.
768.28(5)." §
760.11(5), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10353, 2000 WL 775305
...The filing period, therefore, began to run at least by March 13, 1997, and there exist no circumstances that would warrant its equitable tolling. Accordingly, Lowenstein is entitled to summary judgment on the ADEA claim arising out of Greene's position transfer. The FCRA, Fla. Stat. § 760.11(1), however, permits a plaintiff to file a discrimination charge up to 365 days after any alleged violation....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15790, 2000 WL 1763840
...EEOC constituted filing with the FCHR. Prior to filing suit for alleged violations of the FCRA, a plaintiff must first exhaust his administrative remedies under the FCRA by filing a timely charge of discrimination with the FCHR. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.11.(1997); Weaver v....
...Florida Power & Light, No. 95-8519-CIV-RYSKAMP,
1996 WL 479117, *8 (S.D.Fla. July 16, 1996). The FCRA provides that the FCHR shall investigate the allegations in a FCRA claim within 180 days to determine whether reasonable cause exists. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §
760.11(3)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 21295011
...Phillips asked for a hearing and the Administrative Law Judge found no merit to her claim. That decision was affirmed per curiam by this court. Her former employer, Orange Lake Country Club Realty, Inc., has moved for appellate attorney's fees pursuant to section 760.11(13), Florida Statutes....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 11109, 2016 WL 3911373
...Limited Waiver of Sovereign Immunity We also affirm the court’s determination that DeSisto’s recovery was limited by principles of sovereign immunity, FCRA expressly limits recovery against “the state 'arid its agencies and subdivisions” based on the limitations set forth iri section
768.28(5). §
760.11(5), Fla....
...he Legislature. §
768.28(5), Fla. Stat. (2010). “ ‘[S]tate agencies or subdivisions’ include ... counties and municipalities; and corporations primarily acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the state, counties, or municipalities ....” §
760.11(5), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1368
...charge of discrimination with the EEOC." Fry v. Muscogee County School Dist., 150 Fed.Appx. 980, 981-82 (11th Cir.2005) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117)). [12] The FCRA requires a charge to be filed within 365 days of the alleged unlawful act, Fla. Stat. 760.11(1)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 12 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1396, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1912, 2002 WL 185543
...advised of the premises, the Court finds the Motion to Dismiss should be denied. Plaintiff in this action brings claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 ("ADA"), the *1228 Florida Civil Rights Act, §§
760.06-
760.11....
...The record does not reflect that the FCHR made any determination regarding Plaintiff's Complaint. It is the decision of the EEOC under the joint filing arrangement on which the Defendant bases his Motion to Dismiss. To make a claim under the FCRA, a plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the FCHR. See § 760.11(1) Fla....
...Once a charge is filed, the Florida Legislature contemplated that the FCHR would, within 180 days, determine whether or not there was reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice had occurred. The relevant portion of the FCRA, found at § 760.11, Fla.Stat., provides: (3) Except as provided in subsection (2), the commission shall investigate the allegations in the complaint....
...quirements are invoked under the Florida statutory scheme? Much of the confusion on this issue stems from the wording of the EEOC form which was not designed to fit neatly within only one of the three categories of determinations under the FCRA: (1) § 760.11(4) reasonable cause (referred to by some as a "cause" finding), (2) § 760.11(7) not reasonable cause (referred to by some as a "no cause" finding), and (3) § 760.11(8) a failure to determine whether or not there is reasonable cause within 180 days of the filing of the complaint (which this Court will refer to as the "failed to determine" category)....
...It is undisputed that, in the instant case, Plaintiff did not request the administrative hearing. Instead, upon receipt of the EEOC's determination, the Plaintiff apparently [4] waited for the 180 days to expire *1231 and then filed the present action. Plaintiff contends that the "unable to conclude" reason fits within § 760.11(8) the "failed to determine" category, which allows suit to be filed after the expiration of 180 days without first requesting an administrative hearing....
...thin the body of state law. Id. Unfortunately, a conflict currently exists between the Second and Third District Courts of Appeal in Florida regarding whether the "unable to conclude" finding by the EEOC is a "no cause" finding within the wording of § 760.11(7), Fla.Stat....
...Therein lies the problem. The EEOC's statement that it is "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes" can reasonably be interpreted to be a failure to "determine whether there is reasonable cause on" the complaint under § 760.11(8). Accordingly, this Court concludes that the "unable to conclude" language used by the EEOC falls within both the "not reasonable cause" category (§ 760.11(7)) as well as the "failed to determine" category (§ 760.11(8)) of the FCRA....
...nst employers of fifteen (15) or more employees occurring within the State of Florida based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap or marital status pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended (Sections
760.01-
760.11, Florida Statutes)....
...st employers of Fifteen (15) or more employees occurring within the State of Florida based on age, race, sex, color, marital status, religion, national origin and handicap pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended (Sections
760.01-
760.11, Florida Statutes)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1445, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 18431, 2009 WL 4282945
...The Act contains a provision which states that "[t]he commission's determination of reasonable cause is not admissible into evidence in any civil proceeding, including any hearing or trial, except to establish for the court the right to maintain the private right of action." See § 760.11(5), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11128, 2001 WL 883652
...3d DCA 1998), Lehman's *254 complaint was premature and should be dismissed. In Sweeney, the plaintiff filed her complaint more than 180 days after filing a claim with the EEOC, but less than 180 days after receipt of the claim by the FCHR. This Court affirmed dismissal, holding that the 180 days required by section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1995), began to run when the FCHR received a copy of the claim, not when the claim was filed with the EEOC....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 2030310
...the damage award, see Brown v. A.J. Gerrard Mfg. Co.,
715 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir.1983)(en banc); and (b) whether a different, more expansive measure of damages applies merely because the case was pursued administratively, rather than in a civil action. §
760.11(5)(6), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 32 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 124, 2007 Fla. LEXIS 572, 2007 WL 1012884
...NNOUNCED IN MERCURY MOTORS EXPRESS, INC. v. SMITH,
393 So.2d 545 (Fla.1981), UNDER WHICH AN EMPLOYER CAN BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES BASED UPON THE WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT OF ITS EMPLOYEE, APPLY TO PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS UNDER SECTION
760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES? Id....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida
...ion precedent, of filing a claim and receiving a right to sue letter with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Florida Commission on Human Relations, as required by the Florida Civil Rights Act, had not been met. See Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (1)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16200, 1998 WL 730163
...ended Complaint, however, Count II is time-barred and will be dismissed on that basis, see below. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Defendant also alleges that Plaintiff is time-barred with respect to Count II of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. (Docket No. 24). Section
760.11(1) of the "FCRA" provides that "Any person aggrieved by a violation of §§
760.01-760.10 may file a complaint with the commission within 365 days of the alleged violation...." Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, FLA. STAT. §
760.11(1) (1997). Section
760.11(3) of the "FCRA" states that "within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the commission shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred...." Florida Civil Rights Act §
760.11(3). Section
760.11(8) of the FCRA states that "in the event the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause ... within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause." Florida Civil Rights Act §
760.11(8). Under section
760.11(4) of the "FCRA" an aggrieved person may file a civil action against the person named in the complaint, once the commission has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice in violation of the "FCRA", has occurred. Florida Civil Rights Act §
760.11(4). The statutory time limit within which an aggrieved person may file a civil action, under section
760.11(5) of the "FCRA", is "no later than 1 year after the determination of reasonable cause by the commission." Florida Civil Rights Act §
760.11(5)....
...In the present case, Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated by the Defendant on or about March 18, 1994. (Docket No. 21, Paragraph 10). Plaintiff was required to file a charge of discrimination, within 365 days of his termination, with "FCRA". See Florida Civil Rights Act § 760.11(1). In order to be timely, Plaintiff was required to file his charge of discrimination on or about March 18, 1995. The Florida commission was then given 180 days to determine whether reasonable cause existed. See Florida Civil Rights Act § 760.11(3)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 6675, 2003 WL 21012701
...orized by statute. The Clinic maintains that Dr. Santini, instead, only filed her charge with the local agency which was not authorized by statute to file the charge on her behalf at the state level. The statutory language instructs otherwise. Under section
760.11(1), Florida Statutes, “Amy person aggrieved by a violation of §
760.01-760.10 may file a complaint with the state commission within 365 days of the alleged violation, naming the employer ... responsible for the violation and describing the violation.... The commission, a commissioner, or the Attorney General may in like manner file such a complaint.” By its plain language, section
760.11(1) allows a filing with the state agency by the “person aggrieved.” The definition section of the statute, specifically section
760.02(6), Florida Statutes, provides “ ‘Person’ includes an individual, association, corporation ... any other legal or commercial entity; the state; or any governmental entity or agency.” 3 It is indisputable that the local Broward agency is a governmental entity or agency and, therefore, authorized under section
760.11(1), Florida Statutes, to file a complaint with the state agency....
...(1) The Florida Statute’s administrative process When the Florida Commission on Human Relations determines there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, the claimant may either (1) bring a civil action in Circuit Court, or (2) request an administrative hearing. § 760.11(4), Fla. Stat. If the Commission determines that there is no reasonable cause under the state statute, it will dismiss the complaint and the claimant may then request an administrative hearing review within 35 days of the Commission’s determination. § 760.11(7), Fla....
...Alternatively, if the Commission, within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, fails either to conclude or to determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause. § 760.11(8) Fla. Stat. 4 Significantly, section 760.11(3) requires that “when the commission determines whether or not there is reasonable cause, the commission by registered mail shall promptly notify the aggrieved person and the respondent of the reasonable cause determination, the dat...
...The claim made under the state statute is an entirely separate cause of action. The state’s notice of any determination, as to whether reasonable cause exists for finding a violation of a complainant’s civil rights under the Florida Civil Rights Act, must be provided within 180 days of the filing of the state complaint. § 760.11(3), Fla. Stat. If the state fails to provide timely notice within 180 days, the aggrieved person may proceed to Circuit Court. §§ 760.11(4),(8), Fla....
...City of Pompano Beach,
813 So.2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (federal Form 161 failed to satisfy the notice requirement of §
760.01(3) because the federal form did not determine if such reasonable cause existed.) Under this public policy purpose the Court stressed that “because §
760.11(7) purports to abridge an individual’s right to access to the courts, that section must be narrowly construed in a manner that favors access.” Woodham,
829 So.2d at 897. The Supreme Court concluded that “the language of §
760.11(7) requires a specific determination ‘that there is no reasonable cause’ to believe a violation occurred” Id....
...As the Florida Supreme Court required in Woodham : ... the Florida Commission on Human Rights [must] inform the claimant of the “possible next steps that can be taken.” Id. at 897. To hold to the contrary would be in direct conflict with and would ignore the statutory mandate of section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, which requires notice of both the decision, and the process....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida
...He also abandoned his harassment claim. The Court need not address'these issues. ' b. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Plaintiff must exhaust administra-? tive remedies before filing suit under Title VII or the FCRA. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000er-5(e); Fla. Stat. § 760.11 . He must file a charge, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (1), which must “be in writing under oath or affirmation,” 42 U.S.C....
...§ 2000e-5(b), nr the statutes bar the claim. Vas on v. City of Montgomery, Ala.,
240 F.3d 905 , 907 (11th Cir. 2001); Miller v. Florida Hosp. Waterman, 5:13-CV-249-OC-10PRL,
2013 WL 5566063 ; at *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2013) (citing Fla. Stat. §§
760.07 ,
760.11) (“Both Title VII and the FCRA require as a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit that the plaintiff timely file a charge of discrimination with the appropriate administrative agency — either the EEOC or-the Florida Commission on Human Rights (“FCHR”).”)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8266, 2012 WL 1859502
...As such, any error in the trial court’s limiting McCray’s damages claim via the motion in limine was harmless. Finally, the termination issue was properly excluded, pursuant to National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan,
536 U.S. 101, 113 ,
122 S.Ct. 2061 ,
153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (hereinafter “National R.R.”). Section
760.11 of the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) provides that: “[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation of [the FCRA] may file a complaint with the commission within 365 days of the alleged violation....” §
760.11(1), Fla....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 4353, 2005 WL 713784
...On December 3, 2001, Jackson filed with the Commission a Charge of Discrimination against Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. On May 22, 2002, 170 days later, he filed a civil action alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, §§
760.01-
760.11, Fla. Stat. (2000). In June 2003, the court dismissed Jackson's lawsuit because Jackson had filed suit before the expiration of the required 180-day investigative period set forth in section
760.11, Florida Statutes (2000)....
...In fact, the Commission has filed an Amicus Curiae Brief arguing that it validly issued its right-to-sue letter and that the trial court improperly dismissed this case. Jackson's first lawsuit against Worldwide was dismissed because Jackson filed the action ten days before the 180-day period required under section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (2000)....
...Accordingly, pursuant to Woodham, the Commission dismissed Jackson's claim, which then allowed Jackson to pursue his claim in civil court within one year of the date of the Commission's dismissal. The Commission's July 3, 2003 letter acknowledged Jackson's compliance with section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (2000), permitting him to proceed with his claim in civil court....
...on. We thus conclude that Jackson complied with the Act's requirements before filing his second lawsuit. We reject Worldwide's contention that the Commission was divested of jurisdiction to correct the originally premature filing of Jackson's claim. Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (2000), in pertinent part, states: A civil action brought under this section shall be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3144, 1999 WL 140759
...See Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc.,
703 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As in Joshua v. City of Gainesville, No. 98-893, ___ So.2d ___,
1999 WL 71523 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.17, 1999), we certify the following question as one of great public importance: DOES THE SECTION
760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS "AFTER THE DATE OF DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE BY THE COMMISSION" APPLY ALSO UPON THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION AS TO "REASONABLE CAUSE" WITHIN 180 DAYS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION
760.11(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), SO THAT AN ACTION FILED BEYOND THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD IS TIME-BARRED? AFFIRMED....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 106381
...410,
121 L.Ed.2d 335 (1992). [3] For example, the express intent of the Florida Legislature is that the attorney's fee provision of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 "be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action." §
760.11(5) Fla.Stat....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3678, 1999 WL 159999
...There is therefore no bar to his receiving punitive damages under his state law age discrimination claim. The issue is what amount of punitive damages Plaintiff Hipp should receive. Plaintiff Hipp argues that the jury's punitive damage award of $5 million should be awarded in full. Florida Statutes Section 760.11(5) caps punitive damages under the Florida Civil Rights Act at $100,000....
...Plaintiff Hipp's argument is unsupported and without merit. The statutory cause of action created by the Florida Civil Rights Act makes no allowance for judicial discretion, but states plainly that "the total amount of punitive damages under this section to an aggrieved person shall not exceed $100,000." § 760.11(5) (emphasis added)....
...No. 372) be DENIED; that Plaintiffs SHALL NOT receive front pay damages; and that the award of punitive damages to Plaintiff DAVID HIPP be REMITTED to $100,000 in accordance with the statutory limit on punitive damages contained in Florida Statutes Section 760.11(5)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2014 WL 3707658, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101754
...§ 2000e-5; E.E.O.C. v. Joe’s Stone Crabs, Inc.,
296 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir.2002). Alternatively, a plaintiff may file an administrative complaint with the Florida Civil Rights Commission within 365 days after the purported discriminatory act. See Fla. Stat. §
760.11 (1)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89473, 2009 WL 2948543
...The Court must "assume that plaintiff's counsel best knows the value of his client's case and that counsel is engaging in no deception." Id. "This strict standard is consistent with case law and congress' policy of limiting federal diversity jurisdiction." Id. at 1095-96. Section 760.11(5) of the Florida Statutes, concerning the damages available for violations of the FCRA, states as follows: [T]he court may issue an order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including back pay....
...2003) (rejecting "mere citation to what has happened in the past" to "overcome the indeterminate and speculative nature" of a defendant's assertion that a plaintiffs claim exceeds $75,000). In any event, the discretionary nature of the language of section 760.11(5) unambiguously indicates that an award of less than $75,000 would not be outside the range of permissible awards....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 428897
...g a discrimination complaint. Following a trial, the jury found in favor of Ms. Carter and assessed $79,652 in back pay but no compensatory damages. The trial court awarded her the back pay as well as prevailing party attorney's fees, as provided in section 760.11(5), which it enhanced by a multiplier of 1.5, based on Standard Guaranty Insurance Co....
...We reverse the award of attorney's fees and remand for entry of a judgment for attorney's fees reflecting only the lodestar amount. The Florida Legislature has determined that an award of attorney's fees is appropriate in FCRA actions and has shifted the responsibility for those fees to the nonprevailing party. Section 760.11(5) provides, in relevant part: In any action or proceeding under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs....
...It is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action. See also McCoy v. Pinellas County,
920 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (reversing an award of fees because the trial court did not interpret section
760.11(5) consistently with federal case law involving a Title VII civil rights action)....
...Servs.,
944 So.2d 306, 312 (Fla.2006) (also stating that "such intent is derived primarily from the language of the statute"). In this instance, our legislature's language and intent could not be clearer. In interpreting the attorney's fees provision of section
760.11(5) consistent with federal case law, we note that since 1992, enhancement of an award of attorney's fees pursuant to federal fee-shifting statutes has been severely restricted....
...ng issue in the context of a common fund). Based on Dague and its progeny, federal case law precludes the use of a multiplier to enhance an attorney's fee award in a Title VII case. Applying this federal case law as the Florida Legislature requires, §
760.11(5), we hold that the trial court erred in finding that Quanstrom,
555 So.2d 828, permitted the upward adjustment of the lodestar fee to compensate for the contingent nature of this employment discrimination case....
...ional approaches. . . . These are simply different legislative solutions to an enduring problem; in a democracy, each of these options is open to the people's representatives. Johnson v. Daley,
339 F.3d 582, 591 (7th Cir.2003) (citation omitted). In section
760.11(5), the Florida legislature has mandated that the determinations of the federal judiciary shall govern Florida courts....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 95, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 331, 2001 WL 169598
...John Ellsworth (Ellsworth) filed charges of discrimination against the Polk County Board of County Commissioners (the Board) with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the Commission) on February 11, 1997. The Commission failed to make a reasonable cause determination within the 180 day period embodied in section 760.11(8)....
...se of his age. 2 Ellsworth later filed an amended complaint relating back to his original complaint on January 25,1999. The Board filed a motion to dismiss, alleging Ellsworth’s action was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...In Joshua, the First District Court of Appeal held the one-year statute of limitations applies when the Commission fails to make a reasonable cause determination within 180 days. See id. at 1071. However, the First District certified the following as a question of great public importance: DOES THE SECTION 760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS “AFTER THE DATE OF DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE BY THE COMMISSION” APPLY ALSO UPON THE COMMISSION’S FAILURE TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION AS TO “REASONABLE CAUSE” WITHIN 180 DAYS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 760.11(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), SO THAT AN ACTION FILED BEYOND THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD IS TIME BARRED? We recently answered this question in the negative and held that the general four-year statute of limitations for statutory causes of actio...
...Because the Second District’s decision in Ellsioorth relied upon the decision of the First District in Joshua, we quash the decision below and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. It is so ordered. WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ., concur. .Section
760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: "In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.” Section
760.11(4), Florida Statutes (1995), explains steps that claimants may take if the Commission has determined there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory action has occurred. . See §
760.10(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). . Section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: "A civil action brought under this section shall be commenced no later than 1-year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission.”
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 651112, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 2235
...This court has previously held that objections to a party's compliance with a
statutory verification requirement can be waived if not timely raised. See, e.g., Martinez
v. Abraham Chevrolet-Tampa, Inc.,
891 So. 2d 579, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding
that a challenge to the verification of a complaint under section
760.11(1), Florida
Statutes (2001), could be waived by failing to raise it at a time when the plaintiff "could
have timely submitted an amended claim").
-4-
In this case, the trial court should have allowed the bank an opportunity to
amend the complaint....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 17265, 1999 WL 1259002
...Oweis of DiCesare, Davidson & Barker, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant. Brendan M. Lee and Denise L. Wheeler of Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, Tampa, for Appellee. PATTERSON, Chief Judge. Affirmed. See Joshua v. City of Gainesville,
734 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA) (holding claim to be time barred under section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1995), and certifying question to Florida Supreme Court), review granted
735 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1999)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120246, 108 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 646, 2009 WL 5214969
...Saridakis brings six counts against South Broward: Count I, sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; Count II, retaliation in violation of Title VII; Count III, sex discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act (the "FCRA"), Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5); Count IV, retaliation in violation of the FCRA; Count V, violation of the Equal Pay Act ("EPA"), 29 U.S.C....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 18680
...t of Appeal in Belletete v. Halford,
886 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In that case, Wayne Belletete sued an apartment building owner for rental discrimination under the Florida Fair Housing Act, for violating his civil rights under sections
760.01-
760.11 of the Florida Civil Rights Act, and for discrimination on the basis of his HIV-positive condition under section
760.50 of the *423 Florida Statutes, 6 after he voluntarily vacated an apartment at the request of the apartment building owner wh...
...ct. The Florida Civil Rights Act contains much of the same language as the Florida Fair Housing Act.
886 So.2d at 310 (noting that sections
760.34 and
760.35 contain much the same language and structure as their Florida Civil Rights Act counterpart, section
760.11); see also Hankey v....
...2000) (noting that the legislative intent with respect to a given phrase can be determined by examining other uses of the phrase in a similar context). For example, the parallel section to the Florida Fair Housing Act’s “Enforcement” provision, section
760.34, is section
760.11 of the Florida Civil Rights Act, titled “Administrative and civil remedies.” Section
760.11 states in relevant part that “[a]ny person aggrieved by a violation ss.
760.01-760.10 may file a complaint with the commission.” §
760.11 (emphasis added)....
...ny person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice or believes that he or she will be injured by a discriminatory practice that is about to occur may file a complaint with the commission.” §
760.34(1) (emphasis added). Section
760.11 further provides that following the 180th day after filing a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, an aggrieved person may bring a civil action against the person named in the complaint or request an administrative hearing. §
760.11(4),(8). Section
760.34(4) provides that following the 180th day after filing a complaint with Florida Commission on Human Relations, an aggrieved person may commence a civil action or petition for an administrátive determination. Noting that under section
760.11(1) the “may file a complaint” language has been interpreted to mean that “such a complaint must be filed with the Commission or its federal counterpart by anyone who wishes t1o pursue either a lawsuit or administrative proceeding” under the Florida Civil Rights Act,
886 So.2d at 310 (quoting Ross v....
...the Florida Fair Housing Act. C£ Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Reddick,
954 So.2d 723, 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting it was appropriate to look to federal Title VII case law to analyze the Florida Civil Rights Act’s attorney fee provision because Section
760.11(5) explicitly states that “it is the intent to the Legislature that this provision.....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 984715
...Stacy Strolla of Law Offices of Strolla & Scott, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Michael F. McAuliffe and Edward Diaz of Holland & Knight LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellant filed a complaint for gender discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("Commission"). Pursuant to section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes (1999), the Commission has 180 days to "determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred...." If the Commission dismisses the complaint, the complainant is entitled only to an administrative remedy. See § 760.11(7), Fla. Stat. (1999). However, if the Commission finds reasonable cause, the complainant may pursue either a civil action in court or pursue an administrative hearing. See § 760.11(4), Fla. Stat. (1999). If the Commission does not act within 180 days, the complainant may pursue the remedies available as if the Commission had made a finding of reasonable cause. See § 760.11(8), Fla....
...This question has recently been answered by the third district in Woodham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.,
793 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). That court held that "[t]he receipt of a `no cause' determination terminates the person's option to proceed under section
760.11(8), and requires that the person follow subsection 7, and exhaust the administrative remedy provided therein, prior to filing a lawsuit in a Florida court." Id....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 3540213
...After a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Esposito, awarding him compensatory damages. The trial court determined that Esposito's attorney's fees, his costs and expenses, and the compensatory damages award were collectively subject to the limitation on the "total amount of recovery" in section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (2005), which by reference adopts the $100,000.00 cap in section
768.28(5), Florida Statutes (2005)....
...n attorney's fees in section
768.28(8), Florida Statutes (2005), to Esposito's compensatory damages award. On cross appeal, Esposito argues that the trial court erred in holding that the $100,000.00 cap on damages in section
768.28(5), referenced in section
760.11(5), encompasses attorney's fees and costs....
...Florida Statutes (2005). The FCRA is a remedial statute that the Legislature has expressly provided to be "liberally construed to further the general purposes" of the Act and the particular provisions involved. §
760.01(3), Florida Statutes (2005). Section
760.11(5), sets forth the following concerning civil actions brought pursuant to the FCRA: In any civil action brought under this section, the court may issue an order....
...he FCRA that were not included by the Legislature. See L.G. v. State,
939 So.2d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (quoting Seagrave v. State,
802 So.2d 281, 287 (Fla.2001)). Thus, we conclude that section
768.28(8) does not apply to the FCRA. Moreover, Section
760.11(5) specifically states that "[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action." Imposing a cap of twenty-five percent...
...ning an $8,654.16 judgment) [1] ; Rivera v. Riverside,
763 F.2d 1580, 1581-83 (9th Cir.1985) (affirming an award of $245,456.25 in fees for obtaining a $33,350.00 judgment). Therefore, the trial court did not err in adhering to the plain language of section
760.11(5) and awarding Esposito attorney's fees in excess of twenty-five percent of his awarded damages. Esposito argues on cross appeal that the $100,000.00 cap in section 768.68(5), referenced in section
760.11(5), applies only to compensatory damages and does not include attorney's fees and costs....
...2d DCA 2006), was wrongly reasoned and should not be followed. In support of his argument, Esposito asserts that limiting a public employee's recovery to $100,000.00, including attorney's fees and costs, leads to absurd results that conflict with legislative intent and legislative history. We disagree. Section 760.11(5) contains the following pertinent provision concerning civil actions brought pursuant to the FCRA: "The total amount of recovery against the state and its agencies ....
...t of the Legislature. . . . In Gallagher,
927 So.2d at 917, the Second District rejected the argument that the $100,000.00 cap in section
768.28(5) applies only to compensatory damages. The Gallagher court concluded that the meaning of "recovery" in section
760.11(5) is clear and unambiguous and encompasses all amounts of recovery, including attorney's fees....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21043, 2002 WL 2012043
...Defendant City of Clearwater's Motion to Dismiss Counts II & IV The City of Clearwater seeks dismissal of Counts II and IV (Plaintiff's claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA"), §
760.01 et seq, Fla. Stat.), arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
760.11, a condition precedent to bringing suit....
...Thereafter, without appealing this determination administratively, Plaintiff filed her initial Complaint alleging violations of FCRA in Counts II and IV. The City of Clearwater contends that Plaintiff's FCRA claims are barred because she failed to appeal the EEOC's determination pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 760.11....
...The Plaintiff argues that she was not required to request an administrative hearing because the EEOC's determination that it was "unable to conclude" whether a violation occurred does not equate to a finding that there was "no reasonable cause" that the violation occurred, as required by Fla. Stat. §
760.11. An action under the FCRA may be initiated only after plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies. §
760.07, Fla. Stat. (1999). Pursuant to §
760.11(7), if after filing a charge of discrimination, the agency investigating the charge determines that there is no reasonable cause to believe that a violation occurred, the plaintiff is limited to an administrative hearing....
...tion of reasonable cause and any such hearing shall be heard by an administrative law judge and not by the commission or a commissioner. If the aggrieved person does not request an administrative hearing within the 35 days, the claim will be barred. § 760.11(7), Fla....
...The issue presented is whether the "unable to conclude" determination by the EEOC was the equivalent of a "no cause" determination by the FCHR, which would require Plaintiff to request an administrative hearing within 35 days of the date of determination of reasonable cause, pursuant to § 760.11(7)....
...ermination and that plaintiffs who receive that determination are therefore required to pursue administrative relief as a condition precedent to bringing suit. On the other hand, Cisko holds to the contrary, reasoning that a "liberal construction of section
760.11(7) requires a specific finding of lack of reasonable cause before an individual is stripped of her right of access to the courts for redress against discrimination."
797 So.2d 11....
...from which to make a determination. It does not definitively state that the complaint is being dismissed because it does not have merit." Cisko,
797 So.2d at 13; see also, Thick v. Bray,
2002 WL 598532 (M.D.Fla.2002). Finally, the plain language of §
760.11(3) requires an express determination of whether or not there is "reasonable cause" to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred. Only an express determination that there is not reasonable cause eliminates the condition precedent to suit required by §
760.11(7)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29855, 2006 WL 1284662
...The plaintiff failed to address the defendant's argument in his memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. [3] Having *1252 reviewed the defendant's argument and the applicable law, the Court finds that summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count II. Section 760.11(7) of the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA") provides if the [FCHR] determines that there is not reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, the commission shall dismiss the complaint....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 388094
...She also appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. On August 14, 1995 and on October 13, 1995, appellant filed administrative complaints for discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) pursuant to section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes (1995)....
...rcuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County. On July 30, 1997, appellant filed an amended complaint in which she alleged claims for employment *990 discrimination because of handicap, in violation of sections
760.01 through
760.11 Florida Statutes (1995), the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Count I), and discrimination based on race, also in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (Count II)....
...The trial court granted summary judgment based on this court's decision in Milano. However, after Milano, the First District in Joshua v. City of Gainesville,
734 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted,
735 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1999), certified the following question: DOES THE SECTION
760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING CIVIL ACTIONS "AFTER THE DATE OF DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE BY THE COMMISSION" APPLY ALSO UPON THE COMMISSION'S FAILURE TO MAKE ANY DETERMINATION AS TO "REASONABLE CAUSE" WITHIN 180 DAYS AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION
760.11(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), SO THAT AN ACTION FILED BEYOND THE ONE YEAR PERIOD IS TIME BARRED?
734 So.2d at 1071....
...ion
95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1995), applies to actions filed pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, if the Commission on Human Relations does not make a reasonable cause determination *991 on a complaint within the 180 days contemplated by section
760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6016, 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1462, 1995 WL 262888
...Defendants further argue that the Florida Civil Rights Act's provisions for compensatory and punitive damages only apply prospectively to conduct that occurred on or after October 1, 1992. [3] Defendants thus contend that Plaintiff's claim for compensatory and punitive damages under Fla.Stat. §§
760.10 and
760.11 cannot be based on any allegedly discriminatory conduct that occurred prior to October 1, 1992....
...Plaintiff responds that discriminatory acts took place over a period of six years and that the discriminatory acts that form the basis of her §
760.10 claim occurred after the October 1, 1992 effective date of the amendment. [4] The Florida Legislature clearly indicated that the §
760.11 provisions for compensatory and punitive damages are applicable only prospectively: "This act applies only to conduct occurring on or after October 1, 1992." 1992 Fla.Laws ch. 92-177, § 13. The Court thus finds that as a matter of law, Plaintiff's claim for compensatory and punitive damages under Fla.Stat. §
760.10 and
760.11 can be based only upon conduct that occurred on or after October 1, 1992....
...It is FURTHER ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Fla.Stat. §
760.10 Claim for Compensatory and Punitive Damages be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff's claim for compensatory and punitive damages under Fla.Stat. §§
760.10 and
760.11 can be based only upon conduct that occurred on or after October 1, 1992....
...relating to discrimination based on sex in providing equal pay for equal services performed, is applicable to any employer, labor organization or member thereof, or employee whose employer is subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended." Fla.Stat.
448.07(4) (footnote omitted). [2] Fla.Stat. §
760.11((1) extends the time for filing to 365 days, but this provision applies only to conduct occurring on or after October 1, 1992....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...t proceeding under this Article.”
Read together, this expressly creates a guideline for private enforcement of
the employment discrimination chapter of the ordinance. 4
AutoZone compares section 11A-28(10) to the administrative scheme
of section 760.11(4), Florida Statutes, which provides that if the Commission
on Human Rights determines there is reasonable cause to believe that a
discriminatory practice has occurred “in violation of the Florida Civil Rights
Act of 1992, the agg...
...Caribbean Airmail, Inc.,
2002
WL 31465742, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 18, 2002) (“[T]he sections dealing with
housing, public accommodations, and contract procurement do expressly
provide for private relief.”)
8
Section
760.11(4), however, is not analogous because section 11A-
28(10)(a) provides enforcement by a private person may commence “[i]f ....
....
the Director has been unable to obtain voluntary compliance with the
provisions of this Article” and receipt of a right to sue, not after the
Commission on Human Rights “determines there is reasonable cause to
believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred.” § 760.11(4), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143271, 2016 WL 5868100
...The last position Avila applied for was filled on September 27, 2012. Thus, her claim for discrimination under Title VII is untimely. Discrimination claims under the FRCA must be filed within 365 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Fla. Stat. § 760.11 (2015); see also Ganpath v....
...The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, so the analysis below will presume she filed on January 24, 2014. . Childers also claims that Avila did not properly request an administrative hearing, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 760.11 ....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
and
768.73 do not apply to this section. §
760.11(5), Fla. Stat. (2024). Petitioner argued that
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 16406, 2006 WL 2785321
...Horvath,
893 So.2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (noting same under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e)). Finding no merit to either of Watson’s arguments, we affirm the dismissal of her complaint. AFFIRMED. PLEUS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . See section
760.11(7), Florida Statutes (2005)....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 689, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 1831, 2000 WL 1288895
determination within the 180-day period embodied in section
760.11(8).1 On March 13, 1998, Seale filed a single-count
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1999).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...120.65 (1), Fla. Stat. (Division of Administrative Hearings); s. 121. 1905(1), Fla. Stat. (Division of Retirement); and s.
110.123 (3)(a), Fla. Stat. (Division of State Group Insurance). 5 Section
20.055 (2)(d), Fla. Stat. 6 Section
20.055 (5), Fla. Stat. 7 Section
760.11 (12), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 14827
...But the statutes on which the plaintiff's claims
-5-
were based "permit[ted] the prevailing party to seek recovery of all her fees and costs."
Id. (citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), and the
Florida Civil Rights Act, § 760.11(5), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2012 WL 4748147, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 17010
...ges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this chapter, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, handicap, familial status, or religion. (Emphasis added.) Section
760.11(1), Florida Statutes (2010), authorizes any person who was aggrieved by a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, sections
760.01 through
760.11, to file a complaint with the Commission, which must then determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice occurred....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Jan 25, 2023
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5(e); Fla. Stat. §
760.11(1). In general, events that occur outside the
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 2008).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...ther federal legislative provisions or local codes or ordinances which may deal with these subjects. 1 The discussion of your questions is limited to a consideration of the provisions of Chapter 760 , Florida Statutes. Question One Sections
760.01 -
760.11 and
509.092 , Florida Statutes, constitute the "Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992." 2 The Legislature has provided a statement of intent for enactment of this legislation in section
760.01 (2): "The general purposes of the Florida Civil Rights...
...Violations of statutes that make it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status in the areas of education, employment, housing, or public accommodations will give rise to a cause of action for the remedies and damages described in section 760.11 (5), Florida Statutes, and may be filed by the person aggrieved, the Commission on Human Relations, or the Florida Attorney General....
...Sincerely, Bill McCollum Attorney General BM/tgh 1 See Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 11A "Discrimination," Article III, "Public Accommodation." 2 See s.
760.01 (1), Fla. Stat., providing the short title for the act. 3 Section
760.01 (3), Fla. Stat. 4 Section
760.02 (11)(c), Fla. Stat. 5 Sections
760.07 and
760.11 (1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 16047, 2003 WL 22414967
...L JUDGMENT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND FINAL JUDGMENTS FOR WITNESS FEES. PER CURIAM. Having considered the appellee’s motions to review final judgments and the appellant’s response thereto, we find the appellee’s motions to be meritorious. Under section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes, reasonable attorney’s fees may be allowed in the court’s discretion to the prevailing party....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Moore presented insufficient
evidence supporting the requested hourly rates of his attorneys.
Appellate courts review awards of attorneys’ fees for an abuse of
discretion. Shelly L. Hall, M.D., P.A. v. White,
97 So. 3d 907, 909
(Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes, allows
prevailing parties to recover attorneys’ fees consistent with federal
case law interpreting Title VII....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17989, 2000 WL 1796416
...DISCUSSION I. Motion For Summary Judgment Florida Human Rights Act Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Plaintiff's failure to file a pre-suit complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Rights ("FCHR")in accordance with Fla.Stat. § 760.11 is granted....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida
aggrieved person shall not exceed $100,000. §
760.11(5), Fla. Stat. (2019) (emphasis supplied).
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15230, 69 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 301, 1995 WL 608179
...In order for Plaintiffs to maintain a claim under Chapter 760, §
760.10 (Fla.Stat.1993), the Florida Civil Rights Act, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs must first file a charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and exhaust their administrative remedies. Section
760.11 (Fla.Stat.Supp.1994) addresses this issue. Upon a plain reading of §
760.11, this Court finds that prior to bringing a private civil action under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, it is necessary to file a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. This Court found no existing case law which interprets §
760.11 on this issue....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 6191, 2002 WL 893302
...hat the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by the charge. Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (1999), requires complainants who receive a “no cause” determination from the EEOC or the FCHR to seek an administrative appeal of the finding within 35 days, or face permanent bar of the claim....
...Instead, she filed a civil action *175 in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit charging employment discrimination alleging that her termination was due to her gender. In response, the Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Hagan had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under section 760.11(7)....
...4th DCA 2001), adopted the logic and holding in Woodham as it related to another issue. Thus, that case may be factually distinguished from the case at. bar. In Bach , the question before the court centered on failure by the FCHR to enter an order within the 180 days allowed under section 760.11....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...hearing and motion for rehearing en
banc, but grant the motion for certification. We certify the following question
as one of great public importance:
ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE PRECONDITIONS TO
FILING A LAWSUIT SET FORTH IN SECTION
760.11, FLORIDA STATUTES, APPLICABLE TO
ALL DISCRIMINATION CASES FILED IN THE
COURTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR ARE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS PERMITTED TO ENACT
ORDINANCES ON THE SAME S...
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida
...*1261 After a six-day jury trial, the jury quickly returned a verdict for the defendants on all of the plaintiff's claims. Thereafter, the defendants timely filed a motion for their attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(k), Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5), and 28 U.S.C.1927 (Doc....
...ere time-barred. Title VII and the FCRA require as a prerequisite to filing an employment discrimination lawsuit that the claimant timely file a charge of discrimination with the appropriate administrative agency. See 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(e); Fla. Stat. § 760.11(1)....
...In this circumstance, Title VII requires that a charge of discrimination be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(1). The FCRA mandates that discrimination charges be filed within one year of the alleged misconduct. Fla. Stat. § 760.11(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 2954, 23 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 823
...In a concurring opinion in the latter case, reference was made to the possibility of assessing reasonable attorney’s fees for the prevailing party against the Human Relations Commission. Unfortunately, the authority for that reference erroneously was cited as section 760.11(13), Florida Statutes (1993)....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8810, 1999 WL 159951
...e discrimination in violation of Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d and § 2000e (West 1997) ("Title VI" and "Title VII" respectively); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983; the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, §
760.11 Florida Statutes ("FCRA"); and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and violates the Florida's Veterans' Preference Act, §§
295.07,
295.085, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 724135
...Upon learning of the settlement, Manzini filed a motion to set aside the agreement and the release between Wimberly and BSO. Manzini sought leave of court to continue with the civil rights action in Wimberly's name in order to protect his fee claims against BSO under section 760.11, Florida Statutes....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...2d
891, 897 (Fla. 2002), we find that the dismissal and notice of rights letter by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was not the
equivalent of a reasonable cause finding by the Florida Commission on
Human Relations (FCHR). See § 760.11(3), Fla....
...unable to
conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes’
does not amount to a finding that there is not reasonable cause to believe
that a violation of the [FCRA] has occurred.”). As retroactive application of
section 760.11, Florida Statutes (2020), is not supported by the expressed
2
intent of the legislature or the chronology of this dispute, and the parties
stipulated below the tortious interference claims sho...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
...whether a private cause of action to enforce the Chapter exists because it
clearly states “[e]nforcement by private persons.” Other articles of Chapter
7
AutoZone compares section 11A-28(10) to the administrative scheme
of section
760.11(4), Florida Statutes, which provides that if the Commission
on Human Rights determines there is reasonable cause to believe that a
discriminatory practice has occurred “in violation of the Florida Civil Rights
Act of 1992, the aggrieved person may either: (a) Bring a civil action against
the person named in the complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction; or
(b) Request an administrative hearing under ss.
120.569 and
120.57.”
Section
760.11(4), however, is not analogous because section 11A-
28(10)(a) provides enforcement by a private person may commence “[i]f ....
....
the Director has been unable to obtain voluntary compliance with the
provisions of this Article” and receipt of a right to sue, not after the
Commission on Human Rights “determines there is reasonable cause to
believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred.” § 760.11(4), Fla....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Bush, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Case: 19-10663 Date Filed: 07/06/2020 Page: 2 of 44
This case concerns the obligations of an employer to accommodate a deaf
employee under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), §
760.01 - §
760.11.
The dispute arose after Costco Wholesale Corporation terminated the employment
of Christine D’Onofrio, who has been deaf since birth....
...on from Costco, D’Onofrio
filed a lawsuit against Costco in Florida state court. She advanced two causes of
actions, arguing she was discriminated and retaliated against, in violation of Florida
Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat §
760.01 – §
760.11.6 (Doc....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 9982, 2009 WL 2168722
...ntered in the University's favor on her claims of age and gender discrimination and from an order awarding attorneys' fees to the University as part of a cost award in that action. See §§
760.01-.10, Fla. Stat. (2008) (Florida's Civil Rights Act); §
760.11(5), Fla....
...ng summary judgment in the University's favor is affirmed as to Labati's claims of age and gender discrimination. We do, however, agree with Labati's position that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the University its attorneys' fees. Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (2008), provides: In any action or proceeding under this subsection, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1996 WL 434449
...Section 2000e-5(k) reads, in pertinent part: “In any action or proceeding under this subchapter the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party ... a reasonable attorney’s fee (including expert fees) as part of the costs.... ” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k). Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes, adopts a similar provision....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...dismissing the Club’s fines against her, allowing her access to the clubhouse with
Piper, and prohibiting the Club from discriminating against disabled people. She
also requested compensatory and punitive damages under the Florida Civil Rights
Act. See Fla. Stat. § 760.11(5).
After both parties moved for summary judgment, the district court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Club....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
-2-
discrimination by “informal methods of conference, conciliation,
and persuasion” and to investigate alleged discriminatory practices.
§ 760.11(3), (11), Fla....
...days of the alleged violation, naming the employer,
employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-
management committee, or, in the case of an alleged
violation of s.
760.10(5), the person responsible for the
violation and describing the violation.
§
760.11(1), Fla....
...with the commission, a complaint under this section may be filed
with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or
with any unit of government of the state which is a fair-
employment-practice agency under 29 C.F.R. ss. 1601.70-1601.80.”
§ 760.11(1), Fla....
...But this is
where our analysis departs from Steak N Shake’s because we
discern no statutory requirement that a party specifically identify
the FCRA, even if he only alleges a violation of federal law and dual
files that complaint with both the EEOC and the Commission.
Steak N Shake stakes its claim on section 760.11(1)’s
requirement that the complaint contain a “short and plain
statement of the facts describing the violation and the relief
sought.” § 760.11(1), Fla. Stat. Steak N Shake posits that “the
relief sought” means a complaint must specifically identify the
FCRA.
For several reasons, we cannot agree with Steak N Shake that
section 760.11(1)’s reference to the “relief sought” carries with it a
requirement that a plaintiff explicitly state the law violated....
...In this sense it is used as a
general designation of the assistance, redress, or benefit which a
complainant seeks at the hands of a court, particularly in equity.”).
Second, the ordinary meaning of relief, one that describes the
remedy sought for a violation of the FCRA, allows the rest of section
760.11 to logically flow. The word “relief” is used seven more times
in section 760.11, each time carrying with it the connotation of a
remedy rather than the specific law violated. See, e.g.,
§ 760.11(13), Fla. Stat. (“the court shall remand the matter to the
commission for appropriate relief”); § 760.11(7), Fla. Stat. (“accept
the affirmative relief offered by the commission”); § 760.11(6), Fla.
-9-
Stat. (“providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice,
including back pay”). So, this textual clue cuts against Steak N
Shake’s argument too.
Third, there is nothing about the structure or operation of
section 760.11 that suggests an alternative definition applies.
Steak N Shake argues that because section 760.11 also refers to a
complaint “under this section,” that language suggests a plaintiff
must specifically identify the FCRA. But the argument demands a
level of specificity that the statute does not. Section 760.11(1) lists
what must be in a complaint. The first requirement is “a short and
plain statement of the facts describing the violation and the relief
sought.” § 760.11(1), Fla....
...a complainant list the specific law violated.
We reject Steak N Shake’s arguments to the contrary. Steak N
Shake argues that applying the ordinary meaning of relief to the
statute here would render the term redundant with “violation,”
which precedes the term relief in section 760.11(1)....
...plain statement of the facts describing the violation,” in other words
the facts explaining the allegedly discriminatory practice, and the
claimed redress for that practice. Likewise, we reject Steak N
Shake’s argument that applying the ordinary meaning of relief to
section 760.11 eradicates the distinction between federal and state
employment discrimination claims....
...ces
federal law. We agree with the Second District that finding to the
contrary would be “add[ing] a requirement that is not found
anywhere within the statute.” Ramos,
376 So. 3d at 104. 3
III
Because section
760.11(1) does not contain the requirement
Steak N Shake advances, we approve the decision of the Second
District in Ramos to the extent it holds that the aggrieved party is
3....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 28, 2005 WL 17836
...Community Blood Centers then filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the letter sent to the Commission by Gore’s counsel after he had received the “unable to conclude” notice from the EEOC constituted a request for an administrative hearing and an exclusive election of remedies pursuant to Florida Statutes section 760.11(4)....
...At the time that Gore filed his purported request for an administrative proceeding within thirty-five days of receiving the EEOC “unable to conclude” notice, a conflict existed in the district courts regarding how the language in that federal notice fit within the framework of Florida Statutes section 760.11(7), which provided for specific procedures following a finding of “reasonable cause” or “no reasonable cause” by the Commission....
...Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.,
793 So.2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), quashed,
829 So.2d 891 (Fla.2002)(holding that an EEOC “unable to conclude” notice is like a finding of “no cause” and the claimant is required to file a request for administrative hearing within thirty-five days pursuant to section
760.11(7) or the claim will be forever barred); Cisko v. Phoenix Med. Prods., Inc.,
797 So.2d 11, 13-14 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), review denied,
839 So.2d 699 (Fla.2003)(holding that an EEOC “unable to conclude” notice does not act as a “no cause” determination and does not trigger section
760.11(7)’s requirement that the recipient of a “no cause” determination request an administrative hearing within thirty-five days); see also White v....
...Thus, a litigant receiving an “unable to conclude” notice is not limited to filing a request for administrative hearing within thirty-five days, but has the option of requesting an administrative hearing or filing an action in a court of law. See id.; see also §§ 760.11(4), (7), Fla. Stat. (2002). Once an election is made, however, it is the exclusive procedure available to the aggrieved person pursuant to the act. See § 760.11(4)....
...In view of the legal landscape which existed at the time Gore’s letter was sent to the Commission, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because Gore’s purported request for an administrative hearing was nothing more than a conditional attempt to comply with the thirty-five day requirement found in section 760.11(7) and was clearly not a willful election of administrative remedies under section 760.11(4)....
...REVERSED and REMANDED. FARMER, C.J., and KLEIN, J., concur. . Pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, a complainant may file the initial discrimination complaint with either the EEOC or the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the Commission). See § 760.11(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Davis
failed to exhaust administrative remedies related to three of the
denied employment positions. Specifically, JCSB asserted Mr.
Davis did not timely file charges with the Florida Commission on
Human Relations (FCHR) or the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) alleging unlawful retaliatory acts as required
per section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes. Section 760.11(1) requires
charges alleging retaliation be filed within 365 days from the date
of the violation, but Mr....
...iolation of the FCRA, codified
under chapter 760, Florida Statutes, a plaintiff must file an
administrative charge for the alleged violation with either the
FCHR or the EEOC, thereby fulfilling the requirement to exhaust
administrative remedies. See § 760.11(1), Fla....
...Davis argues that JCSB cannot
demonstrate irreparable harm would follow from the denial of
summary judgment as to those positions because his complaint
would proceed on the remaining claims of retaliatory refusal to
hire. We disagree for two reasons.
First, a base reading of section 760.11(1) supports JCSB’s
position. The subsection directs “any person aggrieved by a
violation” of the FCRA to file a complaint with the FCHR or EEOC
within the prescribed period. § 760.11(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 809, 2015 WL 276583
...plaint. We reject this argument because Williams’ claim was time barred, as a matter of law. Before seeking relief in the trial court, a state employee claiming discrimination in the workplace must first timely exhaust his administrative remedies. § 760.11, Fla....
...e of discrimination) with either the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 365 days of an alleged violation. See Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Mitzel,
83 So.3d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); §
760.11, Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 720, 2016 WL 231511
...pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.” §
760.01(2),
Fla. Stat. (2014). “Any person aggrieved by a violation of ss.
760.01–
760.10 may file a complaint with the commission within 365 days of the
alleged violation . . . .” §
760.11(1)....
...Fla.
Birth-Related Neurological,
40 So. 3d 18, 21 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)).
The pertinent statutory language clearly provides that any “person
aggrieved” may file a complaint and that a “person” includes an
“individual” as well as a “legal representative.” §§
760.11(1),
760.02(6),
(10), Fla....
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida
...led a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC asserting retaliation in violation of both the ADEA and the FCRA, fails to persuade. As Plaintiff notes, the FCRA specifically permits a person to file a claim under the FCRA with the EEOC. See Fla. Stat. §
760.11 ("[A] complaint under this section may be filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ...." (alterations added) ); see also Dube ,
2015 WL 3915658 , at *3 (holding the plaintiff's "choice to file [ ] her charge with the E...
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...general language implied the agency could provide broader relief).
B
By contrast, other employment laws show that when the
Legislature intends to include noneconomic damages as a form of
relief, it expressly says so. See, e.g., § 760.11(5), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal
commission determined that there was reasonable cause.” §
760.11(8)(a), Fla. Stat. 6 The complaint asserts “Acebo
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...n University (“the
employer”) on the employee’s statutory civil rights action against the
employer. The employee argues the circuit court erred in finding the
employee’s action was time-barred under the one-year limitation period
provided in section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (2015) (“A civil action
brought under this section shall be commenced no later than 1 year after
the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission.”).
According to the employee, under the circumst...
...he had complained of
the employer’s discrimination.
By filing her discrimination complaint with the EEOC, the employee
effectively had filed her discrimination complaint with the Florida
Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), pursuant to section 760.11(1),
Florida Statutes (2015):
Any person aggrieved by a violation of ss....
...may be filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission …. The date the complaint is filed with the
[FCHR] for purposes of this section is the earliest date of filing
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ….
§ 760.11(1), Fla....
...an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section.
3
§
760.10(1)(a)-(b), (7), Fla. Stat. (2015).
The employer filed a summary judgment motion arguing the employee’s
statutory civil rights action was time-barred under section
760.11(5),
Florida Statutes (2015), because the employee had failed to commence the
action no later than one year after the date when the EEOC issued the
right-to-sue notice. See §
760.11(5), Fla....
...Aberdeen at Ormond
Beach, L.P.,
760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (standard of review of a
summary judgment is de novo); Hardee County v. FINR II, Inc.,
221 So. 3d
1162, 1165 (Fla. 2017) (standard of review for statutory interpretation is
de novo).
Section
760.11, Florida Statutes (2015), provides various time limits by
which an employee may pursue their civil rights claim after having filed
the prerequisite administrative complaint. Which time limit applies
depends upon the type of response which the employee has received from
the administrative commission with whom the employee has filed their
administrative complaint. Section
760.11 describes those responses and
time limits as shown in bold here:
(3) … [T]he commission shall investigate the allegations in the
complaint....
...determine whether there is reasonable cause on any
complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of
the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under
subsection (4), as if the commission determined that
there was reasonable cause.
§ 760.11(3), (4)(a)-(b), (5), (7), (8), Fla....
...commission”—defined as the “Florida Commission on Human Relations”
in section
760.02(2), Florida Statutes (2015)—we understand “the
commission” in this context may include the EEOC for two reasons.
5
First, as we stated above, section
760.11(1) provides, in pertinent part:
“In lieu of filing the complaint with the commission, a complaint under
this section may be filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission.” Reading these statutes together, if the complaint may be
filed with the EEOC under section
760.11(1), then logically the
determination of that complaint may be made by the EEOC under sections
760.11(3), (4)(a)-(b), (5), (7), and (8)....
...e related
statutory provisions in harmony with one another.”).
Second, as we will describe in more detail below, in Woodham v. Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.,
829 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2002), the
Florida Supreme Court applied sections
760.11(3), (4)(a)-(b), (5), (7), and
(8) to the EEOC’s response to a discrimination complaint. At no point did
the supreme court hold that that the EEOC’s response could not be
applied to those statutes. Thus, as the supreme court did in Woodham,
we shall similarly apply sections
760.11(3), (4)(a)-(b), (5), (7), and (8) to the
EEOC’s response in this case....
...olations of the
statutes,” “does not certify that the [employer] is in compliance with the
statutes,” and made “[n]o finding … as to any other issues that might be
construed as having been raised by this charge,” the scenario provided in
section 760.11(8) applied. And proceeding under section 760.11(4) and,
in turn, section 760.11(5), the employee had to commence her civil action
no later than one year after the date when the EEOC had issued the right-
to-sue notice.
We agree with the employer’s argument....
...Id.
at 896. Thus, the employer argued, the employee’s receipt of the right-to-
sue notice foreclosed her ability to sue in court, and her only remedy was
to request an administrative hearing within 35 days after receipt of the
notice, as required under section 760.11(7), which she failed to do....
...Id.
The circuit court granted the employer’s motion. Id. at 893. The Third
District affirmed, but certified the following question of great public
importance:
Whether a claimant must pursue the administrative
remedies provided in section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes,
when the claimant has filed a complaint under the Florida
Civil Rights Act … and has received an EEOC “Dismissal and
Notice of Rights” stating: “Based upon its investigation, the
EE...
...at 892 (certified question converted to lower case).
7
The supreme court “answer[ed] the certified question in the negative.”
Id. The supreme court later stated its reasoning:
We construe the language of section 760.11(7) to require a
specific determination “that there is not reasonable cause” to
believe a violation occurred. § 760.11(7)....
...conclude” with a determination that “there is not reasonable
cause.” …
….
[T]he EEOC dismissal and notice of rights form in this case
does not satisfy the requirements of a “no cause”
determination under section 760.11(3) and (7)....
...Rather, [the
employee] was permitted to proceed under subsection (4)
“as if the [commission] made a ‘reasonable cause’
determination,” because the [commission] failed to make
a determination either way regarding whether reasonable
cause existed. See § 760.11(8).
Id....
...unable to conclude that
the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes.” Pursuant
to Woodham, we cannot equate “unable to conclude” with a determination
that “there is not reasonable cause.” Thus, the scenario provided in
section 760.11(8) applies to this case. See § 760.11(8), Fla....
...whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section
within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may
proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that
there was reasonable cause.”) (emphasis added). And proceeding under
section 760.11(4) and, in turn, section 760.11(5), the employee had to
commence her civil action no later than one year after the date when the
EEOC had issued the right-to-sue notice.
8
2....
...at 434.
In January 1998, the employee filed a statutory civil rights action in
circuit court against the employer based on the allegations raised in the
administrative complaints. Id.
The employer filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the employee’s action
was time-barred under section 760.11(5). Id. The employer maintained
the employee should have filed her action by January 1997, which the
employer calculated by adding section 760.11(3)’s 180-day investigation
period to section 760.11(5)’s one-year limitation period. Id.
The employee responded that because the commission never responded
to her complaints, section 760.11(5)’s one-year limitation period never
commenced....
...Instead, the employee contended, section
95.11(3)(f)’s
four-year limitation period for statutory causes of action governed, and she
had filed her statutory civil rights action within that period. Id.
The circuit court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss, finding that
the last day of section
760.11(3)’s 180-day period also marked the
beginning of section
760.11(5)’s one-year limitation period, whether or not
the employee receives a reasonable cause determination. Id. The First
District affirmed the dismissal, but certified the following question of great
public importance:
Does the section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1995), one-
year statute of limitations for filing civil actions “after the date
of determination of reasonable cause by the commission”
apply also upon the commission’s failure to make any
determination as to “reasonable cause” within 180 days as
contemplated in section
760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995), so
that an action filed beyond the one-year period is time barred?
Id....
...utory
violations, section
95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1995), applies to actions
filed pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, if the [commission] does
not make a reasonable cause determination on a complaint within the 180
days contemplated by section
760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995).” Id. The
supreme court reasoned, in pertinent part:
[D]espite the language of section
760.11(8), which allows a
complainant to proceed to circuit court without a reasonable
cause determination, the entire statutory scheme seems to
favor exhaustion of administrative remedies prior to court
action....
...laiming a deprivation under its
terms would have the Commission make a preliminary
reasonable cause determination, notify the claimant of its
findings, and inform the claimant of the possible next steps
that can be taken. See § 760.11(3), (4)....
...ce with the statutes,” and made
“[n]o finding … as to any other issues that might be construed as having
been raised by this charge.”
As the supreme court held in Woodham, that plain language falls
squarely under the scenario provided in section 760.11(8). See §
760.11(8), Fla....
...an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the
commission determined that there was reasonable cause.”) (emphasis
added). Thus, as the employer argues:
[The employee] started her own clock to proceed under
[s]ection 760.11(4), as if the [EEOC] had determined that there
was reasonable cause....
...action] with prejudice.
Interestingly, the supreme court, in Woodham, noted its holding in
Joshua.
829 So. 2d at 898. And yet the supreme court still found on
Woodham’s facts that the EEOC’s right-to-sue notice permitted the
employee, pursuant to section
760.11(8), to proceed under section
760.11(4) “as if the [commission] made a ‘reasonable cause’
determination.” Id....
...ory civil rights action. We certify
conflict with Hines v. Whataburger Restaurants, LLC,
301 So. 3d 473 (Fla.
1st DCA 2020). In Hines, the First District held that, pursuant to Joshua,
section
95.11(3)(f)’s four-year limitation period, rather than section
760.11(5)’s one-year limitation period, applied to an employee’s statutory
11
civil rights action, even though the employee had received a notice of
dismissal stating that the employee was provided a right-to-sue notice....
....
Affirmed. 2
KLINGENSMITH, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.
* * *
2 In the instant case, the parties’ filings before the circuit court appeared to
suggest the Legislature’s 2020 amendment to section 760.11 applied to the
court’s review. Under the 2020 amendment, section 760.11(8) now provides:
If the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is
reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180
days after the filing of the complaint:
(a) An aggrieved...
...date the commission certifies that the notice was mailed.
(c) A civil action brought by an aggrieved person under this section
must be commenced within 1 year after the date the commission
certifies that the notice was mailed pursuant to paragraph (b).
§ 760.11(8), Fla....
...with the employee’s February 2016 administrative complaint, through and
including the EEOC’s June 2018 right-to-sue notice. Therefore, we have not
applied the 2020 amendment to our review in this case.
The employee’s initial brief nevertheless argues that section 760.11 and its
2020 amendment are remedial, and therefore should be applied retroactively.
However, the employee did not raise that argument to the circuit court....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121362, 2009 WL 5218014
...ional origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. § 760.11 ("FCRA")....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 19253, 2002 WL 31875025
...gment for the defendant, Sterling Casino Lines, L.P. (Sterling). Sterling's motion for summary judgment on McGhee's discrimination claim was based on the theory that McGhee's action had not been filed in accordance with the time periods contained in section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1999)....
...Sterling was notified and on January 21, 2000 filed a response to the EEOC's notice. On January 28, 2000 the EEOC issued a formal determination finding that "more than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge" and notified McGhee it was terminating the investigation. On April 6, 2000, pursuant to section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1999), the instant lawsuit was filed [1] . Sterling's motion for summary judgment was predicated on McGhee's failure to wait 180 days for the FCHR to make a determination under section 760.11 prior to filing her lawsuit....
...Florida Power and Light Co.,
725 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Sterling's position is that to permit a claimant to proceed without having waited the required 180 day period would allow her to circumvent the possibility of a dismissal leaving the sole remedy of an administrative hearing. §
760.11(7), Fla....
...The court distinguished its earlier decision in Sweeney where it had affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint which had been filed more than 180 days after filing with the EEOC but less than 180 days after receipt of the claim by the FCHR. The court had held that the 180 days required by section 760.11, Florida Statutes, began to run when the FCHR received a copy of the claim, not when the claim was filed with the EEOC....
...K., Associate Judge, concur. NOTES [1] Under the Florida law in effect at the time McGhee's claim arose, a person who claimed a violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act was required to file a complaint with the FCHR within 365 days of the alleged violation. § 760.11, Fla. Stat. (1999). The claimant then had to wait 180 days for the agency to investigate and determine whether there was reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice occurred. § 760.11(3), Fla. Stat. Only upon a finding of reasonable cause could a lawsuit be filed. [2] Section 760.11(1) Florida Statutes provided that a complaint alleging discrimination be verified, name the person responsible for the violation and describe the violation by way of a "short and plain statement of the facts describing the violation and the relief sought"....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
...judgment, arguing that the undisputed evidence showed that Ramos
failed to allege any FCRA claims in his charge and that he did not
exhaust his administrative remedies under the FCRA. Five days before
the motion hearing, Ramos filed his opposition, arguing that under
section 760.11(1), he could file a complaint with the EEOC in lieu of the
Commission....
...The FCRA "prohibits discrimination in the workplace because of an
individual's race, color, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital
status." Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Mitzel,
83 So. 3d 865, 873 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2012); see §
760.10. And "[s]ection
760.11 establishes
administrative and civil remedies for violations of the [FCRA]." Ross v.
Jim Adams Ford, Inc.,
871 So. 2d 312, 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Specifically, section
760.11(1) provides that "[a]ny person aggrieved by a
violation of ss....
...rights, the EEOC and the [Commission] each designate the other as its
agent for the purpose of receiving and drafting charges, including those
that are not jurisdictional with the agency that initially receives the
charges."). The statute confirms as much. See § 760.11(1) ("In lieu of
filing the complaint with the [C]ommission, a complaint under this
section may be filed with the federal [EEOC] . . . .").
The Commission is then responsible for investigating the charge
and determining within 180 days "if there is reasonable cause to believe
that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the [FCRA]."
§ 760.11(3)....
...Thereafter, a finding issued by the Commission takes one of
three forms. First, if the Commission determines that there is
"reasonable cause" to believe that a discriminatory practice occurred,
then the aggrieved person may bring a civil action in any court of
competent jurisdiction. § 760.11(4)(a)....
...Second, if the Commission fails
to determine whether there is "reasonable cause" within 180 days after
the filing of the complaint, then the aggrieved person may proceed to
5
court as if the Commission issued a cause determination. § 760.11(4)(a),
(8)....
...e FCRA occurred, then
the Commission must dismiss the complaint and the aggrieved party
must request an administrative hearing in front of an administrative law
judge within thirty-five days of the no cause determination or the claim
will be barred. §
760.11(7). In other words, a no cause determination
and the failure to timely request an administrative hearing precludes a
civil suit under the FCRA. Woodham,
829 So. 2d at 894-95.
The issue presented in this case is whether section
760.11 requires
that the aggrieved party specifically allege a violation of the FRCA in its
complaint with the Commission or EEOC....
...And "[w]e are guided by
the [l]egislature's stated purpose for enacting this chapter and its
directive that the [FCRA] be liberally construed in reaching our decision."
Joshua,
768 So. 2d at 435.
In explaining the requirements for the complaint, section
760.11(1)
states only that "[t]he complaint shall contain a short and plain
statement of the facts describing the violation and the relief sought."
And Ramos's charge of discrimination did just that....
...Ramos
appropriately filed a civil action. See Woodham,
829 So. 2d at 897
(holding that an "unable to conclude" decision does not equate to a
determination that "there is not reasonable cause" and that therefore
Woodham was permitted to proceed under section
760.11(4) and file a
civil action).
If the legislature intended for the statutory language in section
760.11 to require that the aggrieved party specifically allege in the
complaint that his or her claims were under the FCRA, it could have said
so, but it did not....
...4th DCA Nov. 1, 2023), to the extent that it holds
"when a discrimination charge only and specifically alleges a violation of
federal law, the act of dually filing the charge with the [Commission] is
insufficient to comply with the requirements of section 760.11, Florida
Statutes (2019)."1
Reversed; remanded; conflict certified.
LaROSE and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
1 Section 760.11 was amended in 2020, but the portions of the
statute relevant to this case were not changed.
8
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20188, 2014 WL 7009720
...amended since 2003.
-2-
FCRA is largely based on Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.,
829 So. 2d 891, 895 (Fla. 2002); cf.
§
760.11 ("It is the intent of the Legislature that this provision for attorney's fees be
interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action.").
We "recognize[] that if a state law is patterned after a federal la...
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38879, 2005 WL 3591986
...THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Walgreen, Co.'s Motion for Partial Dismissal [DE # 8] filed on October 4, 2005. The Plaintiff, Timothy Freeman, has filed this action claiming violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Fla. Stat.
760.01-
760.11 (FCRA), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.2000e (Title VII)....
...in Massachusetts that formed the basis of Freeman's second charge of discrimination. II. Analysis Under the Florida Civil Rights Act, an aggrieved person must file a complaint with the FCHR and/or the EEOC before he can sue in court. See Fla. Stat. 760.11(1). The FCHR must investigate and determine whether there is "reasonable cause" to believe that a violation has occurred within 180 days of filing the complaint. Fla. Stat. 760.11(3). If the Commission determines that reasonable cause exists, the complainant can either bring a civil action in court or request an administrative hearing. Fla. Stat. 760.11(4)....
...If the Commission fails to reach a conclusion on whether there is or is not reasonable cause within the mandated 180 day period, the complainant "may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause." Fla. Stat. 760.11(8). Section 760.11(5) establishes guidelines for civil actions brought under the FCRA....
...ble cause by the commission. The commencement of such action shall divest the commission of jurisdiction of the complaint, except that the commission may intervene in the civil action as a matter of right. (emphasis added). The Defendant argues that 760.11(5)'s "one year" limitation should bar Freeman's FCRA claims....
...Freeman filed his initial complaint, which forms the basis of counts I and II, in July 2001. By May 31, 2002, the FCHR's 180 days had long since passed without any determination for or against reasonable cause. Freeman thus filed a civil action on August 29, 2002, following section 760.11(8)'s option to "proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause." Since 760.11(5) requires civil actions to "be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of determination of probable cause by the commission," Walgreens argues that subsection 5's one-year clock began ticking when Freeman filed his action on August 29, 2002 as if the FCHR had found reasonable cause....
...He relies primarily on the Florida Supreme Court's holding in Joshua v. City of *1320 Gainesville,
768 So.2d 432 (Fla.2000). In Joshua, Florida's First District Court of Appeal certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: Does the section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1995), one-year statute of limitations for filing civil actions "after determination of reasonable cause by the commission" apply also upon the commission's failure to make any determination as to the "reasonable cause" within 180 days as contemplated in section
760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995), so that an action filed beyond the one-year period is time barred? Id....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...Dempsey, Judge.
December 11, 2024
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Joy Mooshie, challenges the trial court’s dismissal
of her complaint with prejudice based on her failure to comply with
the one-year statute of limitations contained in section 760.11,
Florida Statutes (2023)....
...Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on February 23, 2021. She
made no allegations concerning a response from the EEOC, and
she did not attach any documents to her complaint.
Appellee moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice,
asserting that Appellant’s claims were barred by section 760.11’s
one-year statute of limitations that began to run on August 25,
2021, the day the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue to Appellant.
Appellee attached to its motion as exhibits the Charge of
Discrimination Appellant dual filed with...
...discrimination charge and
the notice of right to sue were central to her claims. The trial court
then relied on the notice of right to sue to dismiss Appellant’s
complaint with prejudice upon determining that the one-year
statute of limitations of section 760.11 began to run when the
EEOC issued the notice on August 25, 2021, and barred
Appellant’s action filed on March 5, 2023....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 18813, 2004 WL 3025053
...constructively discharged because of her age. She decided to file a claim under the FCRA, Before a person may file a lawsuit or request an administrative hearing under the FCRA, the law requires that the person file an administrative complaint. See § 760.11, Fla....
...g agreement regarding the administration of such discrimination claims. See generally Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla.,
829 So.2d 891 (Fla.2002); Wells Fargo Guard Servs. Inc. of Fla. v. Lehman,
799 So.2d 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Thus, section
760.11(1) provides in part: “In lieu of filing the complaint with the commission, a complaint under this section may be filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or with any unit of government of the state which is a fair-employment-practice agency.” Section
760.11(1) further states: “Both the complaint and the answer shall be verified.” On April 6, 2001, Ms. Martinez filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging age discrimination pursuant to section
760.11(1)....
...necessary for State and Local Requirements.” After Ms. Martinez filed her administrative complaint, Abraham Chevrolet submitted its answer. A copy of the answer is not in our record, and we do not know whether it was properly verified pursuant to section 760.11(1)....
...form verification provided by the EEOC. Ultimately, the EEOC dismissed the administrative complaint without making a determination on the issue of reasonable cause. *581 Ms. Martinez filed her lawsuit within the time permitted under the statute. See § 760.11(5)....
...uit if the FCHR or EEOC acts upon the complaint without objection. See Green v. Burger King Corp.,
728 So.2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); see also Patry v. Capps,
633 So.2d 9 (Fla.1994). A person has 365 days in which to file a discrimination claim under section
760.11(1). Ms. Martinez filed her complaint with the EEOC within a month of her alleged constructive termination. Pursuant to section
760.11(1), Abraham Chevrolet was permitted to file its answer within twenty-five days of the day the complaint was filed with the EEOC....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 10182, 2000 WL 1088608
...VAN NORTWICK, J. Betty McDowell appeals an order of summary judgment by which the trial court ruled that her civil action alleging employment discrimination against appellee, the Leon County School Board, was barred as untimely under the limitations provisions of section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1993), as interpreted by Milano v....
...Moldmaster, Inc.,
703 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) and Joshua v. City of Gainesville,
734 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA), rev. granted,
735 So.2d 1285 (Fla.1999). Because McDowell's civil action was timely filed within the one-year statute of limitations provided by section
760.11(5), Florida Statutes, we distinguish the instant case from Milano and Joshua and reverse and remand for further proceedings. We also certify a question of great public importance. McDowell filed a complaint of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on May 9, 1994, pursuant to section
760.11, Florida Statutes (1993), alleging that her employer, the School Board, had engaged in a discriminatory and unlawful employment practice when the Board discharged her because of her obesity....
...Because McDowell did not seek an administrative hearing, the Commission dismissed her complaint on October 9, 1995, with the instruction that she had the right to file a civil action "no later than one year after the date of determination of reasonable cause." This direction was based upon *805 section 760.11(5), which requires a civil action to be filed within one year of a determination of reasonable cause....
...In the present case, on April 15, 1999, nearly three years after its original answer, the School Board filed a motion to amend its answer to assert a limitations defense, claiming that McDowell had failed to file suit within 180 days, plus one year, as required by section 760.11, and asserting that it was not apparent that this defense was applicable until this court had issued its decision in Joshua on February 17, 1999....
...The trial court granted the Board's motions, ruling that because McDowell had filed her civil action over two years after she filed her initial complaint of discrimination, her action was untimely, in that it was beyond the one and one-half year limitations period permitted for civil actions by sections 760.11(5) and (8)....
...ld not, in the court's opinion, be visited on the School Board, which had done nothing to interfere with McDowell's right to file a timely action. On appeal, among other things, McDowell argues that her lawsuit was timely under the plain language of section 760.11(5), which allows civil actions to be filed within a year of a determination of reasonable cause. We agree. Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes (1993), of the Florida Civil Rights Act authorizes an aggrieved person to file a complaint alleging discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations within 365 days of the alleged violation of the Act. Within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, the Commission shall determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred. See § 760.11(3), Fla. Stat. (1993). If reasonable cause is found, the aggrieved person may request an administrative hearing or file suit in circuit court. See § 760.11(4), Fla. Stat. (1993). Subsection (5) of section 760.11 provides, in pertinent part, that *806 A civil action brought under this section shall be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the commission....
...termination. The Florida Civil Rights Act, however, does not expressly address how an aggrieved party's rights under the Act are impacted when, as here, the Commission fails to make a reasonable cause determination within 180 days, as required by subsection 760.11(3)....
...Rather than applying the general four-year statute of limitations pertaining to "[a]n action founded on a statutory liability," section
95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1993), the Milano and Joshua panels created a new one and one-half year limitation period by reading subsections (5) and (8) of section
760.11 in pari materia....
...ion makes a reasonable cause determination within the one and one-half year limitations period established by Milano-Joshua. In summary, because a determination of reasonable cause was made here, we apply the clear one-year statute of limitations of section 760.11(5), provided by the legislature, rather than the judicially-crafted limitations period of Milano and Joshua....
...year and 180 days of the date of filing of a complaint with the Commission, if no determination of reasonable cause has been made by the Commission. If the Commission makes a determination within the Milano-Joshua limitations period, however, under section 760.11(5) the aggrieved party would have one year from the date of the determination within which to file a civil action....
...NO v. MOLDMASTER,
703 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), AND JOSHUA v. CITY OF GAINESVILLE,
734 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), APPLY WHEN THE COMMISSION ISSUES A DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE 180-DAY PERIOD PERMITTED IN SECTION
760.11(3), FLORIDA STATUTES (1993), AND THE PLAINTIFF THEREAFTER FILES SUIT WITHIN ONE YEAR THEREFROM, BUT OUTSIDE THE ONE AND ONE-HALF YEAR LIMITATIONS PERIOD? REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 21523, 78 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40, 164, 88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 628
...Damages for Emotional Distress and Dignitary Injury
Although damages for emotional distress and dignitary injury are unavailable under the ADEA, see
Goldstein v. Manhattan Indus., Inc.,
758 F.2d 1435, 1446 (11th Cir.1985), the FCRA authorizes such
recovery, see Fla. Stat. ch.
760.11(5) (1999) ("section
760.11(5)")....
...of
damages for emotional distress caused by negligence, the Burger court construed narrowly the scope of
recovery for such damages and thus formulated this heightened standard of proof. See id. at 393. We find
Burger inapposite, however, because section
760.11(5), unlike section
624.155(1)(b)(1), does not derogate
the impact rule....
...it
can cause are neither unforeseeable nor particularly enigmatic. See, e.g., Hill v. Xerox Corp.,
998 F.Supp.
1378, 1384 (N.D.Fla.1998) (recognizing the intangible injuries attending age discrimination). Seemingly
underscoring this observation, section
760.11(5) specifies that employees aggrieved by discrimination may
seek "damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity, and any other intangible injuries." Fla. Stat. ch.
760.11(5)
(1999)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Damages for Emotional Distress and Dignitary Injury
Although damages for emotional distress and dignitary injury are
unavailable under the ADEA, see Goldstein v. Manhattan Indus., Inc.,
758 F.2d
1435, 1446 (11th Cir. 1985), the FCRA authorizes such recovery, see Fla. Stat.
ch.
760.11(5) (1999) (“section
760.11(5)”)....
...egligence, the
Burger court construed narrowly the scope of recovery for such damages and thus
15
formulated this heightened standard of proof. See id. at 393. We find Burger
inapposite, however, because section
760.11(5), unlike section
624.155(1)(b)(1),
does not derogate the impact rule....
...dignitary harms it can cause are neither unforeseeable nor particularly enigmatic.
See, e.g., Hill v. Xerox Corp.,
998 F. Supp. 1378, 1384 (N.D. Fla. 1998)
(recognizing the intangible injuries attending age discrimination). Seemingly
underscoring this observation, section
760.11(5) specifies that employees
aggrieved by discrimination may seek “damages for mental anguish, loss of
dignity, and any other intangible injuries.” Fla. Stat. ch.
760.11(5) (1999)....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...ination suit against
her former employer, Big Bend Hospice, following her termination.
The trial court granted summary judgment in Big Bend Hospice’s
favor, finding that the action was time-barred. But because Davis’
cause may still accrue under section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes,
we reverse.
I
Davis was working for Big Bend Hospice when she underwent
open heart surgery in October 2019, and was on medical leave
afterward....
...ecember 8, 2022—
483 days after receiving the EEOC’s right-to-sue letter. Her civil
action alleged a single count of disability discrimination. Big Bend
Hospice moved to dismiss the action or in the alternative for
summary judgment, arguing that section
760.11(8) required Davis
to file her civil complaint within one year from the date of the
EEOC right-to-sue letter, which meant that the action was time-
barred. Davis argued that the right-to-sue letter could not serve as
notice under section
760.11(8) because the EEOC is not the FCHR
or acting on its behalf as “the commission,” as the term is defined
in section
760.02(2), Florida Statutes....
...Hence, she argued, the four-
year limitation period set out in section
95.11(3)(e), Florida
Statutes, applied, as held by Joshua v. City of Gainesville,
768 So.
2d 432 (Fla. 2000).
The trial court denied Big Bend Hospice’s motion to dismiss,
but it agreed that the action was time-barred under section
760.11(8) and granted summary judgment....
...State,
750
So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1999)).
2
III
Davis argues three reasons the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment.
(1) FCHR did not comply with the requirements of section
760.11(8);
(2) The trial court disregarded Joshua, which controls the
outcome; and
(3) The trial court incorrectly relied on Aleu v....
...Under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), a person
has several options available after the filing of a discrimination
charge with FCHR. First, if FCHR finds that reasonable cause
exists, the aggrieved person may file either a civil or
administrative action. See § 760.11(4), Fla. Stat. Second, if the
FCHR finds that no reasonable cause exists, the aggrieved person
may then seek an administrative review. See § 760.11(7), Fla. Stat.
And third, if the FCHR takes no action on a complaint within 180
days, the aggrieved person may operate as if the FCHR found
reasonable cause and proceed under section 760.11(4). See
§ 760.11(8)(a), Fla. Stat. Here, the FCHR took no action, so
subsection (8) applies. Section 760.11(8) reads as follows:
If the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether
there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this
section within 180 days after the filing of the complaint:
(a) An aggrieved per...
...date the commission certifies that the notice was mailed
pursuant to paragraph (b).
(emphasis supplied). Note that when FCHR fails to act on the
complaint, it must “promptly notify” the aggrieved person of the
right to proceed under subsection (4). See §
760.11(8)(b)–(c), Fla.
Stat.
The statute establishes clear directions and deadlines when
FCHR makes a timely determination. But how these subsections
establish a deadline for filing suit when FCHR does not determine
reasonable cause within 180 days is less clear. Indeed, the parties
advance differing analyses regarding the operation of section
760.11(8), which we address in turn.
Davis’ reading of section
760.11(8) incorporates Joshua.
Joshua held that “the statute of limitations for causes of action
based on statutory liability, section
95.11(3)(f), applies ....
...required 180 days, a complainant is subject to section
95.11(3)(e)’s
four-year limitation period, starting on the 181st day after the
filing of a discrimination complaint with the FCHR.
4
Conversely, Big Bend Hospice contends that section
760.11(8)
means that a complainant may pursue a civil action in circuit court
as soon as the 180-day deadline passes with no determination from
FCHR. At oral argument, Big Bend Hospice added that if we
agreed with Davis that the EEOC right-to-sue letter did not satisfy
section
760.11(8)(b)–(c), it would mean that a complainant has an
indefinite period of time to file suit. And only after notice is
provided by the Commission does the indefinite period revert to
the one-year period provided in section
760.11(8). See
§
760.11(8)(b)–(c), Fla....
...Again, the supreme court in Joshua held that the four-year
limitation period of section
95.11(3)(f) (now paragraph (3)(e))
applies where FCHR has not made a reasonable cause
determination within 180 days.
768 So. 2d at 439. However,
Joshua provides limited utility today because section
760.11(8)
was amended in 2020 to address the issue raised there.
When Joshua was decided, section
760.11(8) read as follows:
In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or
determine whether there is reasonable cause on any
complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing
of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under
subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there
was reasonable cause.
§
760.11(8), Fla. Stat. (1995). Nowhere in section
760.11(8) did the
Legislature provide a limitation for the filing of an action. Only
subsections (4) and (5) set forth a one-year limitation. See
§
760.11(5), Fla....
...Moreover, FCHR had no affirmative
duties if it did make a reasonable cause determination from which
a limitation period could begin. Thus, it is understandable why the
supreme court chose to apply the limitation period found in section
95.11(3)(f) to section
760.11(8).
In 2020, however, the Legislature amended section
760.11(8),
see ch....
...5
Section III A. The statute now requires the FCHR to notify
complainants of their options—that is, to proceed under subsection
(4) and file a civil or administrative complaint—after 180 days
have lapsed with no agency action. See § 760.11(8)(b), Fla. Stat.
(2020). It also provides a limitation when a complainant decides to
initiate a civil suit—one year from the date the notice is received.
See § 760.11(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (2020).
The specific inclusion of a limitation into section 760.11(8)
negates the need for Joshua because the concern the supreme
court had is no longer at issue....
...adminstrative or judicial remedies, in cases where the FCHR does
not make a reasonable cause determination: when they receive
notice from the FCHR. Thus, we disagree with Davis that Joshua
applies, and hold that the only limitation applicable to actions filed
after the effective date of section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (2020)
is the one-year limitation found in section 760.11(8)(c).
C
Our rejection of Davis’ argument does not, however, mean
that we accept Big Bend Hospice’s interpretation of section
760.11(8)....
...In this case, not only did FCHR fail to make a
determination within 180 days, it failed to even provide the
statutorily required notice indicating that it had failed to make a
determination within 180 days. This matter was not addressed in
Joshua.
When read in isolation, section 760.11(8)(a) appears to permit
a complainant to file suit on the 181st day after filing of the
complaint, if FCHR fails to act on the complaint in 180 days, and
gives the complainant one year from that date to file suit....
...reasonable cause,” meaning that the right to file suit becomes
effective on that date, and then paragraph (5) specifies that the
complainant has one year to file suit. In short, under this view, if
the FCHR does not reach a reasonable cause determination within
180 days, triggering section 760.11(8)(a), a complainant could file
suit and be subject to a one-year limitation period from the 181st
day. See § 760.11(8)(a), Fla....
...Paragraph (8)(b)
establishes a ministerial duty on the part of FCHR, and paragraph
(8)(c) creates a cause of action conditioned on FCHR’s completion
of that duty. 1 FCHR “must promptly notify the aggrieved person of
the failure to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable
cause.” § 760.11(8)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied). And a
complainant may bring a civil action “within 1 year after the date
[FCHR] certifies that the notice was mailed pursuant to paragraph
(b).” § 760.11(8)(c), Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied).
Reading section 760.11(8) as a whole, we conclude that a
complainant may proceed to file a civil suit after FCHR furnishes
that complainant with notice that satisfies the requirements of
section 760.11(8)(b)....
...3d 865, 873 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2012) (noting that an individual seeking redress for
discrimination in the workplace must “exhaust the administrative
remedies provided by the Act before a civil action asserting
discrimination may be brought.” (citing § 760.11, Fla....
...See
Polley v. Gardner,
98 So. 3d 648, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (setting
out standards for entitlement to mandamus).
7
Sheridan v. State, Dep’t of Health,
182 So. 3d 787, 793 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2016).
This reading of section
760.11(8) may seem at odds with
paragraph (8)(a). A complainant cannot be both subject to a one-
year limitation period from the 181st day, see §§
760.11(8)(a),
760.11(4),
760.11(5), Fla. Stat., and also a one-year limitation
period from the date of the FCHR’s notice. See §
760.11(8)(b)–(c).
But these provisions can be harmonized. We conclude that a
complainant may proceed as if reasonable cause has been
determined by the FCHR when the commission does not act within
180 days but only after the FCHR has served the aggrieved person
with the requisite notice under section
760.11(8)(b).
Thus, the trial court erred in granting Big Bend Hospice’s
motion for summary judgment because under section
760.11(8),
Davis’ claim was not time-barred....
...Fourth District’s decision in Aleu. We agree.
In Aleu, the complainant filed a discrimination complaint with
the EEOC, and eventually the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter.
357 So. 3d at 135. The Aleu court found that the right-to-sue letter
acted as the FCHR’s notice under section
760.11(8) and triggered
the one-year limitation period of that subsection....
...2001) (“[I]t is a basic
principle of statutory construction that courts ‘are not at liberty to
add words to statutes that were not placed there by the
Legislature.’” (citations omitted)).
The Aleu court justified its decision by reading a different part
of section 760.11, which permits an aggrieved person to file a
complaint with the EEOC “in lieu of” FCHR. See § 760.11(1), Fla.
Stat. It thus concluded that “logically the determination of that
complaint may be made by the EEOC under sections 760.11(3),
(4)(a)–(b), (5), (7), and (8).” Id....
...3
3 The Aleu court also held that Woodham supported its
conclusion that the EEOC right-to-sue letter was sufficient to
invoke the one-year limitation period. Id. at 138. We disagree for
two reasons. First, Woodham preceded the 2020 amendments that
explicitly require FCHR action when it makes no determination
under section 760.11(8)....
...on
9
The provision cited by the Aleu court simply provides an
alternate means to calculate the date of filing for the purpose of
determining whether an administrative discrimination complaint
is timely. See § 760.11(1), Fla....
...reasoning in Mitchell appears sound. There, the Fourth District
correctly concluded—based on the same statutory language—that
a determination by the EEOC is not a determination by the FCHR.
See Mitchell,
127 So. 3d at 708 n.1.
10
760.11(8)(b), we certify conflict with Aleu v....
...Steak N Shake, Inc.,
376 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023), the Second District also held
that the EEOC may act as “the commission” under section 760, in
that an EEOC determination on an EEOC complaint permits the
filing of a lawsuit under the FCRA under section
760.11(8). See id.
at 102–03. We certify conflict with Ramos as well.
6 This opinion does not conflict with Washington Cnty. Sch.
Bd. v. Davis,
401 So. 3d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025), where we
addressed the initiation of the administrative process under
section
760.11(1). We concluded that a filing with the FCHR, the
EEOC, or a fair-employment-practice agency was sufficient to
initiate the administrative procedure under section
760.11(1). See
id. That, however, is not the issue here. Section
760.11(1) governs
the initiation of the administrative process, whereas sections
760.11(3), (4), (7), and (8) deal with the exhaustion of the process
in order to file civil actions....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 8644, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44, 290, 1996 WL 464146
...of the determination, upon the complainant and the respondent. Parrish Management argued, and DOAH found, that an investigatory determination of no reasonable cause impacts a complainant’s substantive right to pursue a judicial remedy pursuant to section 760.11(4), Florida Statutes (1993)....
...ssioners could not delegate, there would be no need for a staff. By statute, “the commission shall determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.” § 760.11(3), Fla....
...iolation; shall investigate the allegations in the complaint; and shall promptly notify the aggrieved person and the respondent of the reasonable cause determination, the date of such determination, and the options available under this section. *161 § 760.11, Fla. Stat. The term “Commission” cannot be reasonably limited to signify only the panel of commissioners acting collegially. REVERSED. BARFIELD, C.J. and KAHN, J., concur; DAVIS, J., dissents w/ written opinion . Section 760.11(4) provides: In the event that the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, the aggrieved person may either: (a) B...
CopyPublished | Florida 6th District Court of Appeal
...complaint, thereby straying beyond its “four corners.” Second, Brugal argues her
“dual filed” charge with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”)
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) was sufficient
under section 760.11, Florida Statutes (2019), to alert the City of Naples of claims
under the FCRA, not merely federal law....
...6th DCA 2023).
A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of
5
action. Id. at 659. We begin with Brugal’s second contention on appeal, that her
dual filed charge of discrimination was sufficient under section 760.11, Florida
Statutes (2019) and thus, she had exhausted administrative remedies and met all
conditions precedent to filing suit....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
discriminatory practice, including back pay.” F.S.
760.11(5). Under Florida law, back pay is a legal
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7184, 2000 WL 554289
...Defendant cites Anderson v. Monaco Coach Corp., No. 99-375-Civ-J-20B,
1999 WL 513700 (M.D.Fla. June 15, 1999); Digiro v. Pall Aeropower Corp.,
19 F.Supp.2d 1304 (M.D.Fla.1998); Milano v. Moldmaster, Inc.,
703 So.2d 1093 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1997); and sections
760.11(4) and (8), Florida Statutes (1999), [2] as authority for its *1320 proposition....
...n unable to locate a case on point. [3] The Court is unaware of any recent amendments to the FCRA that change the time limits for filing charges with the FCHR or filing civil actions. [4] Notably, the interplay of the various time limitations within section 760.11 has not yet been interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court....
...a liberal reading of his complaint, calculated the maximum number of days for bringing an action under the FCRA. There, the court reasoned that a plaintiff is required to file a charge of discrimination within 365 days of the alleged violation. See § 760.11(1), Fla.Stat. (1999). [5] From the date of the filing, the FCHR has 180 days under section 760.11(3) to reach a reasonable cause determination. From that date, a plaintiff must file a civil action within one year. See § 760.11(5), (8), Fla.Stat....
...ll in "the FCHR" in the box denoting the state or local agency. See, e.g., Degitz v. Southern Management Servs., Inc.,
996 F.Supp. 1451, 1454-55 (M.D.Fla.1998); Armstrong v. Lockheed Martin Beryllium Corp.,
990 F.Supp. 1395, 1399 (M.D.Fla.1997). [2] Section
760.11(8) provides: In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection (4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause. Section
760.11(4) provides in pertinent part: In the event that the commission determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory practice has occurred in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, the aggrieved person...
...There, the EEOC's determination triggered the one-year court-filing deadline under the FCRA. [4] See 1999 Fla.Sess.Law Serv. 6 (West) (in chapter 99-333 § 26, legislature added to section
760.06 a subsection regarding the powers of the commission). [5] Section
760.11(1) provides in part that "Any person aggrieved by a violation of §§
760.01-760.10 may file a complaint with the commission within 365 days of the alleged violation, ..." [6] Section
760.11(5) provides in pertinent part: "A civil action brought under this section shall be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of the determination of reasonable cause by the commission." [7] "As suggested by a review of the case law...
..., through September 30, 1998." See Brice-Northard,
1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20408, at *7. Because the charges in Brice-Northard were filed before October 1, 1997, the court found the agreement inapplicable. [10] This Court will not attempt to interpret section
760.11 regarding whether under the confines of the FCRA, "may" means "shall," as written in section
760.11(8). Perhaps the resolution of the certified question posed in Joshua will provide guidance on the proper interpretation of the time limitations in section
760.11.
CopyPublished | District Court, N.D. Florida | 13 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 959, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9305, 2002 WL 1059551
...curred, the aggrieved person may bring, within 1 year of the date of the final order, a civil action under subsection (5) as if there has been a reasonable cause determination or accept the affirmative relief offered by the commission, but not both. § 760.11(7), Fla....
...Lee filed a charge and obtained an award against Compass, which he now seeks to enforce against Jones Lang, allegedly the successor in interest to Compass. Jones Lang has not yet answered, but it would not be surprising if Jones Lang challenged its responsibility for the award against Compass. Nothing in § 760.11(7) requires a plaintiff to forego any recovery at all; a plaintiff need only choose which of two alternatives to pursue....
...Lee should, however, be required to elect now whether, if recovery under the administrative award is available, he will stand on the award or begin anew. This will be accomplished by requiring Mr. Lee to file a more definite statement. This approach is fully consistent with the apparent purpose of § 760.11(7), Florida Statutes, with the general availability of alternative pleading under the common law of Florida (as well as under federal and Florida pleading rules), and with the accepted canon of construction in Florida that statutes in derog...
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 1687867, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 6463
...Jack Cataldo appeals an order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which dismissed his discrimination claims against Daytona State College. Cataldo filed his complaint on September 21, 2011, alleging violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections
760.01-
760.11 and
509.092, Florida Statutes (2011) (“the Act”)....
...complaint failed to state a claim under the Act. Under a unique provision of the Act, this ostensibly adverse determination is actually treated as a favorable determination because it was not made within 180 days after Cataldo filed his claims. See § 760.11(8), Fla....
