46 Fla. L. Weekly D902a NATIONAL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Petitioners, v. INFINITY BISCAYNE MYRTLE MEMBERS, LLC, Respondent. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-0120. L.T. Case No. 20-20577. April 21, 2021. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Veronica Diaz, Judge. Counsel: Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Read More »
Articles
Winn-Dixie, website, customers, prescription, place of public accommodation, coupons, refills, privileges, disabled, advantages, accommodations, visually-impaired, auxiliary, public accommodation, inaccessible, barrier, offerings, sighted, majority opinion, intangible, enjoyment, locator, rewards, card, district court, facilities, shopping, software, communicate, in-store – The difficulties caused by the customer’s inability to access much of the store’s website constituted a concrete and particularized injury that was not conjectural or hypothetical, and would continue if the website remained inaccessible; [2]-The statutory language in Title III of the ADA defining “public accommodation” was unambiguous and clear, and public accommodations were limited to actual, physical places, and websites were not a place of public accommodation under the statute; [3]-The store’s website did not constitute an intangible barrier to the customer’s ability to access and enjoy fully the physical grocery store; [4]-Absent congressional action that broadened the definition of “places of public accommodation” to include websites, the appellate court could not extend ADA liability to the facts presented.
2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 10024 Judges: Before JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges, and REEVES,* District Judge. Opinion by:BRANCH Opinion BRANCH, Circuit Judge: Appellant Winn–Dixie Stores, Inc. (“Winn–Dixie“), a grocery store chain, operates a website for the convenience of its customers but does not offer any sales directly through the site. Appellee Juan Carlos Gil (“Gil”) is a long-time customer with a visual disability who Read More »
Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Pharmacist employed by Department of Veterans Affairs brought action against Secretary, alleging that her managers at VA medical center discriminated against her based on her gender and age, retaliated against her because she engaged in protected activity, and subjected her to hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act — Retaliation — Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires personnel actions to be made free from any discrimination — Supreme Court’s decision in pharmacist’s case, which held that federal-sector provision of ADEA did not require plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of a challenged personnel action, undermined to the point of abrogation Eleventh Circuit’s prior panel precedent holding that Title VII’s federal-sector retaliation provision requires but-for causation — Standard that Supreme Court articulated for claims under ADEA’s federal-sector provision controls cases arising under Title VII’s nearly identical federal-sector provision — Retaliatory hostile work environment — An actionable federal-sector Title VII retaliatory-hostile-work-environment claim must describe conduct that rises to the level of personnel actions and must be evaluated under “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” standard rather than the more stringent “severe or pervasive” standard
28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C2651a NORIS BABB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit. Case No. 16-16492. April 1, 2021. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 8:14-cv-01732-VMC-TBM).ON PETITION FOR REHEARING (Before NEWSOM, ED CARNES, and SILER,* Circuit Judges.) (NEWSOM, Circuit Judge.) We return, once Read More »
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Reasonable, related, and necessary medical treatment — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Opposing affidavit — Trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to strike affidavit of independent medical examiner based on plaintiff’s claim that affidavit “baldly repudiated” affiant’s deposition testimony regarding relationship between injuries and accident and medical necessity of chiropractic treatment — Because affiant’s testimony raised genuine issue of material fact, as it clearly conflicted with testimony of treating chiropractor, order granting summary judgment in favor of assignee/medical provider reversed
46 Fla. L. Weekly D835 UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Appellant, v. GABLES REHAB, INC., etc., Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-91. L.T. Case Nos. 19-243AP; 11-1525CC. April 14, 2021. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lawrence D. King, Judge. Counsel: Michael J. Neimand, for appellant. David B. Pakula, P.A., and David Read More »
Wrongful death — Automobile accident — Jurors — Peremptory challenge — Race neutral explanation — Genuineness — New trial — Evidence — Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial based on its improper denial of plaintiff’s peremptory challenge of juror — Trial court failed to apply proper legal standard in denying plaintiff’s peremptory strike of juror where it failed to recognize the presumption that plaintiff was exercising her peremptory challenge in a nondiscriminatory manner and hold defendants to their burden of proving purposeful discrimination — Fact that juror was sole African American juror left on the panel is, standing alone, insufficient to override a genuine race-neutral challenge — Trial court erred in granting a new trial based on its determination that verdict finding one of the defendants 100% liable for the fatal accident was against the manifest weight of the evidence — Order shows that trial court improperly re-weighed the evidence and acted as a seventh juror in doing so — Trial court erred in permitting jury to hear evidence related to defendant’s driving history where not only was the evidence unduly prejudicial, but the citations bore no similarity to the circumstances at issue and had no relevance to defendant’s alleged negligence at the time of the accident — Trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion notwithstanding verdict which asserted that defendant should not be liable for the total amount of damages to co-defendant’s tractor-trailer — A new-trial order and order for judgment notwithstanding verdict are mutually inconsistent and may not be granted simultaneously unless granted on the express condition that the order granting the judgment notwithstanding verdict only becomes effective if the order granting new trial is reversed on appeal, which did not happen in this case
46 Fla. L. Weekly D861a WILLIE LAFAYETTE, individually, and SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES, INC., Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. SAMUEL A. MOODY, individually, RITA GENOVESE, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of MICHAEL A. GENOVESE, Appellees/Cross Appellants. 4th District. Case No. 4D18-3687. April 14, 2021. Appeal and cross-appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Read More »