205 created a statutory cause of action for wrongful

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: termination, but does not provide a cause of action for allegations of threats, intimidation, or coercion absent the termination, discharge, or constructive discharge of the Plaintiff. 4. The Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss is that the plain language of the statute authorizes a cause of action for threats to discharge, intimidation, or coercion in addition to actual termination or discharge itself. 5. I have fully considered the case law cited by the parties. I have noted the Supreme Court of Florida decisions which have referenced F.S. § 440.205 as providing a cause of action for wrongful discharge. [**19] Neither party has cited any case law specifically addressing the issue of a cause of action for coercion or intimidation [*100] where there was not a corresponding termination or discharge from employment. The recent case of de Oca v. Orkin Ext Co, 692 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), cited by the Defendant, supports the more limited scope of F.S. § 440.205 advocated by the Defendant. 6. I have considered the plain language of the statute and the case law argued by both parties. While the plain language of the statute may prohibit an employer from threatening to discharge, intimidating, or coercing an employee (in addition to actual termination), I am also constrained by the rule of law that statutory causes of action in derogation of the common law must be construed narrowly. Accordingly, I find that the case law cited by the Defendant supports its assertion that F.S. § 440.205 provides a cause of action only for retaliatory discharge or termination. While the language of the statute is not entirely clear in this limitation, I do not find that the case law supports the broader interpretation advocated by the Plaintiff [**20] in this case as it would allow for lawsuits against employers for allegations of intimidation or coercion even in cases where the Plaintiff continues to be employed with that employer. 7. As the complaint alleges that the Plaintiff continues to be employed with the Defendant, I find that the complaint does not state a cause of action under F.S. § 440.205. As pointed out by the trial court, the Florida Supreme Court has rendered two...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online