Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 17, 2017 by admin

Employer-employee relations — Retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claim — Trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim against former employer alleging workers’ compensation retaliation on basis that plaintiff failed to plead a facially sufficient claim

42
Fla. L. Weekly D574a
Top of Form

Employer-employee
relations — Retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claim — Trial court
erred in dismissing plaintiff’s claim against former employer alleging workers’
compensation retaliation on basis that plaintiff failed to plead a facially
sufficient claim — Allegations of complaint were sufficient to establish that
a statutorily protected activity, plaintiff’s request for workers’ compensation
benefits, and the adverse employment action, the reduction in plaintiff’s hours
and subsequent termination of employment, were not completely unrelated

JULIE
ATHA, Appellant, v. ALLEN P. VAN OVERBEKE, D.M.D., P.A., a Florida Corporation,
Appellee. 2nd District. Case No. 2D16-131. Opinion filed March 10, 2017. Appeal
from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Robert A. Foster, Jr., Judge.
Counsel: Jeffrey E. Appel and Claude McEuen Harden, III, of Appel Harden Law
Group, Lakeland, for Appellant. S. Gordon Hill and Jeffrey J. Wilcox of Hill,
Ward & Henderson, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

(SILBERMAN,
Judge.) Julie Atha seeks review of the order dismissing her second amended
complaint against her former employer, Allen P. Van Overbeke, D.M.D., P.A.,
with prejudice. The trial court determined that Atha failed to plead a facially
sufficient violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2011), for workers’
compensation retaliation. We conclude that the complaint as a whole pleaded a
legally sufficient violation of section 440.205 and reverse.

Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b) provides that in order to be legally
sufficient, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the
ultimate facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” See also
Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. Astro Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc.,
137 So. 3d 613, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for
failure to plead a facially sufficient claim, the trial court is limited to a
consideration of the allegations within the four corners of the complaint and
is required to accept those allegations as true. Id. The court’s
dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a cause of action is reviewed de
novo. Id.

Section
440.205 provides, “No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge,
intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for
compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation
Law.” To establish a prima facie case of workers’ compensation retaliation
under section 440.205, the plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) a
statutorily protected activity, (2) an adverse employment action, and (3) a
causal connection between the statutorily protected activity and the adverse
employment action. Andrews v. Direct Mail Express, Inc., 1 So. 3d 1192,
1193 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 887 So. 2d 372,
379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

The
operative complaint in this case is Atha’s second amended complaint. Atha
alleged that she had worked full time for Van Overbeke as a dental assistant
since June 2009. On November 21, 2012, she suffered an injury to her right hand
and elbow at work. Atha requested medical treatment and payment for lost wages
under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Van Overbeke’s insurance carrier evaluated
Atha’s claim and authorized medical treatment for her work-related injuries on
November 27, 2012.

Atha
had surgery on February 18, 2013, and she received temporary disability
benefits under the Act from the time of surgery through her recovery. Atha’s
physician released her to return to full-time work as a dental assistant on
June 6, 2013. Van Overbeke refused to return Atha to full-time status and
offered her only one shift per week. Three weeks later, Van Overbeke terminated
Atha’s employment despite the fact that it still had a position available that
Atha could perform.

The
second amended complaint alleged that Atha’s request for workers’ compensation
benefits constituted statutorily protected activity, and there is no dispute
that Atha met the pleading requirement for the first element. As for the second
element, Van Overbeke concedes that the reduction in hours and subsequent
termination from employment constitute adverse employment actions.

It
is the third element, or the causal connection element, that is at issue here.
A plaintiff can establish the causal connection element “by showing the
protected activity and the adverse action are not completely unrelated.” Ortega
v. Eng’g Sys. Tech., Inc.
, 30 So. 3d 525, 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see
also
Russell, 887 So. 2d at 379. The temporal connection between the
protected activity and the adverse employment action in itself might be
sufficient to establish a causal connection, but the temporal proximity must be
“close.” Ortega, 30 So. 3d at 529 (quoting Higdon v. Jackson, 393
F.3d 1211, 1220 (11th Cir. 2004)); see also Edwards v. Niles Sales
& Serv., Inc.
, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1229 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (“The cases
that accept mere temporal proximity between an employer’s knowledge of
protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence of
causality to establish a prima facie case uniformly hold that the
temporal proximity must be ‘very close.’ ” (quoting Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v.
Breeden
, 532 U.S. 268, 273 (2001))).

In
her second amended complaint, Atha made the following additional allegations to
establish the causal connection element:

12. Immediately following her
injury, however, [Van Overbeke] began an unlawful course of intimidation and
coercion by intentionally refusing to allow [Atha] to continue to work despite
having work available that [Atha] was able to perform.

. . . .

18. [Van Overbeke’s] action
of discharging [Atha] was in retaliation for [Atha] engaging in her statutorily
protected right to workers’ compensation benefits and in violation of Section
440.205, Florida Statutes (2011).

Taken
in conjunction with the ultimate facts alleged in the remainder of the second
amended complaint, Atha’s allegations can be read to establish that Van
Overbeke was aware of her request for workers’ compensation benefits from the
time she stopped working to obtain treatment for her work-related injuries.
From that time until it terminated her employment, Van Overbeke engaged in
actions that demonstrated a negative attitude toward Atha’s workers’
compensation claim. When Atha was released to return to full-time work, Van
Overbeke reduced her hours and then terminated her employment in retaliation
for filing her workers’ compensation claim.

We
conclude that these allegations, which we are required to accept as true, are
sufficient to establish that the statutorily protected activity (Atha’s request
for workers’ compensation benefits) and the adverse employment action (the
reduction in hours and subsequent termination from employment) are not
completely unrelated.1 Cf. Hornfischer v. Manatee
Cty. Sheriff’s Office
, 136 So. 3d 703, 709-10 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (holding
that the plaintiff established the causal connection element due to “the
questionable nature of the reasons offered for [the plaintiff’s] discharge,
together with the e-mails reflecting a negative attitude by the [defendant’s]
agents toward [the plaintiff] and his claims”). Atha thus pleaded a legally
sufficient violation of section 440.205, and the trial court erred by
dismissing her second amended complaint with prejudice.

Reversed
and remanded. (CASANUEVA and SLEET, JJ., Concur.)

__________________

1In
light of our decision, we need not address Atha’s argument that the temporal
connection between Atha’s request for workers’ compensation benefits and the
reduction in hours and subsequent termination from employment in itself is
close enough to establish a causal connection.

* *
*Bottom of Form

 

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982