Martha flores worked in an assembly pack position at

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: urt of Appeal was faced with the issue of expanding the scope of section 440.205 in the case of de Oca v. Orkin Exterminating Company, 692 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). In de Oca, the plaintiff brought several claims against the employer, including a claim under section 440.205, Florida Statutes. The court stated that: [*101] Plaintiff asserts that Orkin is attempting to coerce him into settling his workers' compensation claim by not respecting his physical limitations and by claiming to have work which he can perform, when such work is not actually available. Plaintiff alleges that his claim under Section 440.205 falls within the scope of Smith v. Piezo Technology and Professional Administrators. de Oca at 259. The court in de Oca rejected the plaintiff's claim and held that the plaintiff's dispute with the employer was within the jurisdiction of the Judge of Compensation Claims pursuant to section 440.15(6), Florida Statutes. The court also [**23] stated that: 136 Plaintiff in essence asks us to expand the holding of Smith beyond retaliatory discharge so that in every case in which there is a dispute under Section 440.15(6), the employee would be allowed to file a companion civil action in Circuit Court alleging intimidation or coercion. Such an expansion of Smith is not warranted by the language of that decision, nor would it be consistent with the legislative intent, which contemplates that this type of dispute will be resolved by the Judge of Compensation Claims. de Oca v. Orkin Exterminating Company, 692 So. 2d at 259. Based on the case law and reasoning of the Florida Supreme Court and the Third District in Scott, Smith, and de Oca, I would affirm the trial court. Furthermore, there is no indication whatsoever in section 440.015 that the legislature intended for the circuit courts of this state to regulate the ongoing employment relationship between an employer and employee. 137 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - 138 Discrimination in Employment 139 140 Case # 17 FLORES v. PREFERRED TECHNICAL GROUP MARTHA...
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