In Florida, it is against the law to discriminate in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, disability, or marital status. A complaint may be filed by any person aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice.
Employment discrimination cases in Florida are designed to cover various issues, including race, gender, age, disability, and retaliation. Interestingly, several cases have been won based on these issues, and we will discuss some of them in this article.
Note that all the cases discussed in this article highlight the various forms of employment discrimination and the legal recourse available to victims in Florida.
The cases also demonstrate the importance of compliance with anti-discrimination laws and the potential consequences for employers who violate these regulations.
Examples of Employment Discrimination Cases Won in Florida
Jones v. School Board of Orange County:
In the case of Jones v. School Board of Orange County, a teacher named Jones filed a lawsuit against the School Board of Orange County, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation. Jones, an African American, claimed that she was subjected to discriminatory practices in her workplace.
She alleged that she faced disparate treatment compared to her non-African American colleagues and was retaliated against after she voiced complaints about the discrimination.
The court ruled in favor of Jones, concluding that the evidence supported her claims of racial discrimination and retaliation. The jury awarded Jones significant damages for emotional distress and lost wages.
This case underscored the importance of equal treatment in the workplace and highlighted the legal protections available to employees who experience discrimination and retaliation.
EEOC v. Beverage Distributors Company, LLC:
In EEOC v. Beverage Distributors Company, LLC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Beverage Distributors on behalf of Ronald Kratz, a qualified candidate with a visual impairment who was denied a position as a driver.
Despite passing the initial interview and background checks, Kratz was rejected based on his disability when the company’s physician concluded he couldn’t meet the visual requirements for the job, without considering reasonable accommodations.
The court found that Beverage Distributors had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations for Kratz.
The court emphasized that Kratz was capable of performing the essential functions of the job with reasonable accommodation.
The ruling ordered Beverage Distributors to pay Kratz back wages and compensatory damages. Additionally, the company was required to revise its policies and provide ADA compliance training to prevent future instances of discrimination.
This case highlighted the necessity for employers to make individualized assessments and reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, reaffirming the protections provided under the ADA and the EEOC’s role in enforcing these rights.
EEOC v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.:
In EEOC v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against the restaurant chain, which owns brands like Olive Garden and LongHorn Steakhouse, for subjecting a female employee to sexual harassment and retaliating against her for reporting the misconduct.
The harassment included unwelcome sexual advances, comments, and touching by a male supervisor. Despite the employee’s complaints, the company failed to take adequate steps to address the issue and protect her from further harassment.
The court ruled in favor of the employee, concluding that Darden Restaurants had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.
The company agreed to a settlement, which included compensatory damages for the victim and measures to prevent future harassment.
These measures involved implementing comprehensive training programs on sexual harassment prevention, revising anti-harassment policies, and establishing effective complaint procedures.
Villano v. City of Boynton Beach:
In Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, a police officer named Dawn Villano sued the city, alleging gender discrimination. Villano claimed that despite her qualifications, she was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified male colleagues.
She argued that the city’s promotion practices were discriminatory and that her complaints about these practices were ignored.
The jury ruled in favor of Villano, determining that the City of Boynton Beach had engaged in gender discrimination. As a result, Villano was awarded back pay for the salary she would have earned had she been promoted and damages for emotional distress.
This case highlighted the ongoing challenges women face in achieving equal treatment in the workplace, particularly in traditionally male-dominated fields like law enforcement.
It also underscored the importance of fair promotion practices and the need for employers to address discrimination complaints seriously to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws.
Griffin v. UPS:
In Griffin v. UPS, an African American driver named John Griffin sued United Parcel Service (UPS) for racial discrimination and a hostile work environment.
Griffin alleged that he was subjected to racial slurs, discriminatory treatment, and unfair disciplinary actions compared to his non-African American colleagues.
Despite reporting these incidents to management, UPS failed to take appropriate action to address the harassment and discrimination.
The jury ruled in favor of Griffin, concluding that UPS had indeed engaged in racial discrimination and had allowed a hostile work environment to persist.
The court awarded Griffin compensatory damages for emotional distress and lost wages, as well as punitive damages aimed at punishing UPS for its discriminatory practices and lack of adequate response to Griffin’s complaints.
One good thing about this case is that it threw more emphasis on the severe impact of racial discrimination in the workplace and the responsibility of employers to maintain a non-discriminatory environment.
EEOC v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc.:
In EEOC v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the security company on behalf of a Muslim employee who was denied religious accommodations and faced retaliation.
The employee had requested reasonable adjustments to his work schedule to observe religious practices, but the company refused to accommodate his requests.
Additionally, after he filed a complaint about the denial, he faced retaliation, including increased scrutiny and negative treatment.
The court found that U.S. Security Associates had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by not providing reasonable religious accommodations and retaliating against the employee for exercising his rights.
The company agreed to a settlement that included compensatory damages for the employee and mandated changes to company policies.
These changes included better training for management on religious accommodations and implementing procedures to handle such requests appropriately.
This case emphasized the importance of employers respecting employees’ religious practices and highlighted the EEOC’s role in enforcing protections against religious discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.
Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
In Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Wal-Mart employee named Michael Howard sued the company for failing to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability and wrongful termination.
Howard, who had a disability, requested modifications to his work duties to perform his job effectively. Wal-Mart denied these accommodations and subsequently terminated his employment.
The court ruled in favor of Howard, finding that Wal-Mart had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not accommodating his disability and by wrongfully terminating him. The jury awarded Howard significant damages for lost wages and emotional distress.
Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. shows the legal obligations of employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities and to avoid discriminatory practices.
Murphy v. City of Aventura:
In Murphy v. City of Aventura, John Murphy, a former city employee, sued the City of Aventura for age discrimination after being terminated and replaced by a significantly younger individual.
Murphy argued that his termination was based on his age rather than job performance or any legitimate business reason. The jury ruled in favor of Murphy, concluding that the City of Aventura had engaged in age discrimination.
The court awarded Murphy pay for lost wages, front pay for future lost earnings, and damages for pain and suffering. This decision highlighted the protections under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on age for individuals over 40.
The case Murphy v. City of Aventura underscored the necessity for employers to ensure that employment decisions, including terminations, are made based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. It also emphasized the legal repercussions for employers who engage in age-based discrimination.
Hicks v. Lockheed Martin Corporation:
In Hicks v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, African American engineer Robert Hicks sued Lockheed Martin for racial discrimination and retaliation.
Hicks alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, discriminatory practices, and unfair treatment compared to his non-African American colleagues. Despite his complaints, the company failed to take appropriate action.
The jury ruled in favor of Hicks, finding that Lockheed Martin had engaged in racial discrimination and retaliation. Lockheed Martin Corp. has agreed to a $1.25 million settlement to end a proposed Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action accusing the defense contractor of failing to give former employees proper notice about continuing their health care coverage.
EEOC v. Prestige Transportation Services, LLC:
Prestige Transportation Service, LLC. a Miami company that provides transportation services to airline personnel to and from Miami International Airport, will pay $200,000 to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced.
The EEOC charged in its suit that Prestige’s predecessor company, Airbus Alliance, Inc., which was under different ownership, repeatedly instructed its human resources manager not to hire African-American applicants because they were “trouble” and “would sue the company.” Airbus also stated that it would be a “waste of paper” to give applications to black employees, the EEOC said.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Airbus’s owners referred to one employee as “the monkey” and fired her after she filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC.
In addition, Airbus terminated its human resources manager and another employee once they opposed the company’s discriminatory practices.
Such alleged practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race. The EEOC filed suit (Case No. 1:13-cv-20684) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida after first attempting to settle its conciliation process.
According to the terms of the four-year consent decree approved late Friday, September 26, 2014, by U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrea Simonton, Prestige will pay $200,000 to settle the suit. Payments will be made to three named claimants, as well as a class of black applicants for employment.