CourtCases2010

Russell and the husbands loss of consortium 119 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: ression at the time the defendant took the adverse employment action. West's F.S.A. §§ 440.205, 760.10. Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation by proving only that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated, the burden then shifts to the defendant to proffer a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action; the burden then shifts back to the plaintiff to prove by a 118 preponderance of the evidence that the "legitimate reason" was merely a pretext for the prohibited, retaliatory conduct. Both sexual conduct and non-sexual conduct can be construed as conduct that constitutes sexual harassment. West's F.S.A. § 760.10. Sufficient evidence supported contention that reason given by former employer for former employee's discharge was a pretext for retaliation for making a sexual harassment complaint; reason given by employer for employee's discharge was that employee did not work her scheduled shift and left work without permission, and taking evidence in light most favorable to employee, it was reasonable for jury to conclude that employer's "legitimate reason" for discharge was merely pretext for prohibited, retaliatory conduct, since evidence showed that supervisor of employee's immediate supervisor gave employee permission to leave at end of her scheduled shift. West's F.S.A. § 760.10. Former employee waived any inconsistency in verdict on loss of consortium claim of former employee's husband, where no objection was made to defective verdict before jury was discharged. Trial court abused its discretion in granting remittitur to former employee, in action that former employee brought alleging hostile work environment sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge, where other than stating that "the damages awarded by the jury were clearly excessive," court provided no justification whatsoever for granting remittitur or for reducing award to $75,000. West's F.S.A. § 760...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online