Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, 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 Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 17, 2017 by Tom

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

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
  • Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action alleging that vibration from defendant’s installation of sheet piles during construction on its parcel caused damage to plaintiff’s building — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages based on allegation of gross negligence where plaintiff did not make required evidentiary showing to support such a claim — Report produced by third-party contractor warning defendant against the use of large vibratory compaction equipment in construction project, when read together with contractor’s deposition testimony, offered no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim that contractor warned defendant against using vibratory equipment in installation of sheet piles — Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, which drew illogical conclusions from contractor’s report, offered no support for gross negligence claim
  • Torts — Premises liability — Malls — Dangerous condition — Landscaping features — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of mall arising from injuries plaintiff suffered after stepping into a hole or depression in a raised landscape area which separated mall’s parking lot from the sidewalk that led to mall’s entrance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant because, as a matter of law, the landscaped area was not a dangerous condition — Evidence that a few people had walked across the landscaped area to get to the sidewalk was not sufficient to create a duty where there was no evidence that the grass bed had become a well-trampled footpath or that the grass bed has been in continuous and obvious use as a pedestrian shortcut such that defendant was put on constructive notice of the condition — Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for condition created by landscapers where landscapers were not found liable
  • Torts — Automobile accident — Permanent injury — Causation — Trial court improperly directed verdict on causation given conflicting evidence which would have permitted reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury caused by weight training or prior participation in competitive crew rowing
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Vandalism — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where policy limited coverage to insured’s “residence premises,” and insured did not “reside” at the property at the time of loss — Fact that insured was no longer leasing the property and was intending to move back when property was vandalized does not alter analysis

Blog Archives

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 © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982