Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from February, 2011

Discrimination Because of Pregnancy Violates Florida Civil Rights Act

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

Eleventh Circuit Upholds Jury Verdict For Plaintiff Under Family and Medical Leave Act

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