Worker Rights and Remedies

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a trial court’s judgment against a prospective employee who claimed he was not hired because he had previously filed for bankruptcy. Eric Myers v. Toojay’s Management Corporation (Case No. 10-10774, May 17, 2011).  The employee appealed from a decision of the  U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida which held that Toojay’s did not violate a section of the Bankruptcy Code which prohibits employers from taking certain actions against people who are or have been in bankruptcy. The first subsection of the provision, 11 U.S.C. §525(a) applies to government employers. It says that they may not “deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against” a person on that ground. The second subsection, which applies to private employers, says they may not “terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against” an individual on that ground, 11 U.S.C. § 5

Discrimination based on pregnancy constitutes prohibited sex discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA") just as it does under federal law. In Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth, 995 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA, 2008)a firefighter/paramedic sued her employer under FCRA claiming the City of Lake Worth would only accommodate her request for light duty assignments while pregnant by giving her light duty work outside the fire department. The City accommodated other employees with physical restrictions with light duty within the fire department. The trial court held that FCRA does not prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy. The Court of Appeal noted that the federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended in 1978 to define sex discrimination to include discrimination based on pregnancy. Although the Florida law was not so amended, the U.S. Congress had declared that its intent in enacting the original act in 1964 was to prohibit discrimination

The FMLA protects an eligible employee from employer "interference" with her rights and also prohibits any retaliation for exercising or attempting to exercise them.  The Eleventh Circuit re-emphasized the difference in proof in a case brought by an employee of the Broward Sheriff's Office who was fired for alleged "performance deficiencies" a few days after she requested FMLA leave: “To prove FMLA interference, an employee must demonstrate that he was denied a benefit to which he was entitled under the FMLA.” Martin v. Brevard Cnty. Pub. Sch., 543 F.3d 1261, 1266-67 (11th Cir. 2008). “[T]he employer’s motives are irrelevant.” Id. at 1267 (quoting Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199, 1208 (11th Cir. 2001)). In such a case, the employer is entitled to prove, as an affirmative defense, that the personnel action was based upon other reasons wholly unrelated to the FMLA. Here, the jury expressly rejected the employer's prof

With only a minor change to one footnote in its original opinion, the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its earlier decision that airport shuttle drivers were exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The so-called Motor Carrier Exemption applies when the employee's hours are subject to regulation by the Secretary of Transportation, whether or not they are actually regulated.  The Court held that airport shuttle drivers who transported passengers between the airport (or ship terminal) and their hotel as part of a pre-booked and pre-paid interstate trip fell within this exemption.  Even though they never actually travelled out-of-state the drivers were engaged in transporting passengers in interstate commerce; accordingly the Secretary of Transportation had the statutory power to regulate their work hours.  They were therefore within scope of the Motor Carrier Exemption and were not entitled to receive overtime compensation. Read the decision in Abel v. So