Skip to main content

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 based on pregnancy as sex discrimination. As the Florida statute is patterned after, and interpreted the same as, the federal anti-discrimination law, it was not necessary for Florida to amend its law to expressly prohibit pregnancy discrimination to be given the same construction as the federal law.

For expert advice and representation in such cases go to mccoyesquire.com.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Federal Employee's Request for Reasonable Accommodation is a Protected Activity - Agency May Not Retaliate

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §701 et seq., protects a federal worker from discrimination because he or she has a disability.  The Act requires agencies to provide reasonable accommodation to an individual's physical or mental disabilities unless the agency can prove that the requested accommodation will create an undue hardship.  In this regard the Act incorporates the protections afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, which includes more recent and more detailed requirements.  Accommodation may involve the removal of physical barriers.  It may also include job restructuring and part-time or modified work schedules.  Thus, a flexible work schedule may qualify as a reasonable accommodation. Both laws expressly prohibit employers from taking retaliatory actions against employees who oppose acts or practices which are made unlawful, for making charges and/or for participating in related investigations or proceedings.  It is also unlawful to c
Post a Comment
Read more

Circumstantial Evidence of Age and Race Discrimination

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated a district court’s order granting summary judgment to the employer in a case alleging age and race discrimination, Kilgore v. Trussville Development, LLC dab Hilton Garden, Inc., 2016 U.S.app. LEXIS 5464; 646 Fed. Apps. 765 (11th Cir. 2016).  The text of the decision can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3188580/valarie-kay-kilgore-v-trussville-development-llc/ Ms. Kilgore presented circumstantial evidence which supported an inference that the employer’s claim that she was fired for being rude to guests was a pretext.  She presented evidence that she was replaced by two newly hired employees who were younger and African-American - Ms. Kilgore was a Caucasian woman in her sixties.  In addition, her superiors had made derogatory statements about her age (that she was “a stubborn old woman” and “too old”) and also about her race (that she was “the wrong color.”  Such comments are circumstantial evidence of d
Post a Comment
Read more

Indirect Proof of Discrimination

Title VII cases often are resolved without a trial.  Whether the District Court properly entered summary judgment for the employer is the subject of many Eleventh Circuit appeals.  A significant decision, Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2011) held that a triable issue of fact exists if the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, presents "a convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence that would allow a jury to infer intentional discrimination by the decision maker."  And it is well-settled that if a plaintiff presents a prima facie case together with evidence tending to discredit the employer's proffered reasons for the alleged discriminatory action the trier of fact may reasonably conclude that the employer intentionally discriminated.  See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) in which the U.S. Supreme Court so held, stating specifically that no additional evidence of discrimination is needed to create a
Post a Comment
Read more