dueLingdeciSionSofduAL-fiLeddiScriMinAtionchArgeS labor & Employment law Section Chairs : AmandaBiondolino – SassLawFirm & LaKishaKinsey-Sallis – Fisher & PhillipsLLP
Conflicts among Florida courts are not uncommon , but when courts interpret the same statute and reach opposite conclusions , the inconsistency creates uncertainty among legal practitioners and aggrieved parties alike . A certified conflict recently emerged between the Second District Court of Appeal and the Fourth District Court of Appeal concerning the critical question of whether an aggrieved party must specifically allege that their claims arise under the Florida Civil Rights Act ( FCRA ) in a dually-filed discrimination charge in order to fully exhaust administrative remedies . Based on the workshare
agreement between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) and the Florida Commission on Human Relations ( FCHR ) as well as Florida Statute , a charge filed with the EEOC is automatically filed with the FCHR . This dual-filing process usually ensures that the charging party ’ s rights under both federal and state law are preserved . But , for the plaintiff in Belony v . N . Broward Hosp . Dist ., 1 that was not the case .
In Belony , the plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC against his former employer alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . 2 Notably , the plaintiff checked the appropriate box on the charge
whiletheramos court certifiedconflictwith
Belony , itremainsto beseenwherethe floridaSupreme courtwillland .
indicating that they wanted to file the charge with both the EEOC and the FCHR . 3 Despite this indication and the automatic nature of the dual-filing process , the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that dual filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC is insufficient to comply with Section 760.11 , Florida Statutes , when the charge exclusively alleges a violation of federal law . 4 Per Belony , a plaintiff is required to specifically allege in the charge that it is also brought pursuant to the FCRA .
Shortly thereafter , in Ramos v . Steak N Shake , Inc ., 5 the Second District Court of Appeal also addressed whether an aggrieved party must specifically invoke the
continuedonpage39
3 8 M A y - J u N 2 0 2 4 | H C B A L A W y E R