This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: l court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding
the verdict for Doral, we also conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in
granting, in the alternative, Doral's motion for new trial. Evidently, the trial court
premised its analysis on Doral's motion for new trial on the same incorrect assumption as
it did in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict--that conduct which is purely
sexual is the only conduct which constitutes sexual harassment. Moreover, the trial court
failed to support its conclusion with any reasons which were premised outside of its
incorrect assumption that only sexual conduct constitutes sexual harassment.
Consequently, we conclude that a new trial on the sexual harassment claim is neither
warranted nor supported by the Record.
II. RETALIATORY DISCHARGE CLAIMS
 Like the sexual harassment claim, we conclude that the trial court erred in granting
judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Doral on Mrs. Russell's two retaliatory
discharge claims--for making a sexual harassment complaint to Doral, and for filing a
Workers' Compensation claim. First, according to Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes
(2002), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any
person because that person has made a charge of conduct which is prohibited under
Section 760.10. As discussed in Part I of this Opinion, the "charge" of prohibited conduct
was Mrs. Russell's charge of sexual harassment as delineated in Section 760.10(1)(a),
Florida Statutes (2002). Second, according to Section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2002),
an employer cannot discharge an employee in response to an employee's valid claim or
attempt to claim Workers' Compensation benefits.
 Although two different chapters of the Florida Statutes govern the retaliatory
discharge claims, the elements necessary to prove those claims are essentially the same.
In order to establish a prima facie retaliation case, the plaintiff must demonstrate the
following elements: (1) a statutorily protected expression; (2) an adverse employment 124 act...
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.
- Spring '08