Firing Injured Florida Worker Before He Could File Claim Did Not Preclude Retaliatory Discharge Action
A Florida trial court erroneously granted a former employer summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge action filed by a former employee where the trial court based its decision on the fact that the employee had not asserted a prima facie case of retaliation pursuant to § 440.205, Fla. Stat. — the anti-retaliation statute — since he had been fired before filing his claim for workers’ compensation benefits, held a state appellate court [Salus v. Island Hosp. Fla. Mgmt., 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 453 (4th DCA, Jan. 15, 2020). Stressing that an employee can recover for retaliation “for taking steps” to collect a workers’ compensation claim even when, as here, he had not yet filed an actual claim for compensation before he was fired, the appellate court added that in the instant case there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the employer’s motives in terminating the employee’s employment.
Background
In March 2017, the employee sustained an injury while performing workplace duties. He notified his employer the following day and later informed the employer he was having difficulty receiving follow-up treatment for his injuries. The employer fired the employee less than two weeks after the work-related injury.
Depositions submitted by the employer tended to show that the employee had been fired for making an angry threat to a coworker, stating: “I’ll take you outside and beat you with my bad arm.” Two managers called the employee the following day and told him he had been fired and that the termination had nothing to do with his injury.
During the employee’s own deposition, he denied threatening the coworker and further denied admitting on the phone to the managers that he had threatened the coworker. The employee claimed that the other employees were lying about the incident. He also testified that the managers did not give him a reason for terminating his employment.
Trial Court’s Decision
After a hearing, the trial court found that Florida law was clear that “solely suffering a workplace injury and informing the employer of the injury” was not alone an attempt to file a claim or seek benefits under the state’s Workers’ Compensation Act [appellate opinion, p. 4]. Since, as determined by the trial court, plaintiff had failed to assert a prima facie case of retaliation under the statute, the employer was entitled to summary judgment.
Appellate Court Disagrees
Citing a line of earlier decisions [e.g., Flores v. Roof Tile Admin., Inc., 887 So. 2d 360, (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (reversing summary judgment, even though no benefits claim was made before termination of employment, where material issues of fact existed as to the reason for the firing); Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1988) (remanding a district court case for further proceedings where the employee first filed a workers’ compensation claim one month after he was terminated, the court stressed that under the trial court’s interpretation of the statute, an employer could circumvent § 440.205, Fla. Stat., by terminating the employee immediately after a workplace injury, before he or she had even a chance to file an actual claim.
The court continued that where, as here, a plaintiff established a prima facie case by proving the protected activity and the negative employment action were not completely unrelated, the burden then shifted to the employer to proffer a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. The court acknowledged that in moving for summary judgment, the employer argued that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the employee: that the employee threatened a coworker. This was, however, disputed by the employee. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the reason for termination, precluding summary judgment.