The third district distinguished the supreme courts

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: prings Partnership, Ltd., 731 F. Supp. 1054 (S.D. Fla. 1990), the district court found that the employer violated 28 U.S.C. § 1875 by intimidating and coercing an existing employee to work additional hours in retaliation for her federal jury service. In that case, the court found that the employer required [**12] the juror to work more nights to make up for missing days due to jury service, threatened her seniority for missing a management meeting, and declined to pay the difference between her jury pay and her regular salary. Id. At 1055-56. Finding that the employer's actions "smacked' of retaliation, the court ordered that Madonia's work schedule be reinstated, the employer pay the difference between jury pay and her salary, fined the employer $ 250.00, and enjoined any deprivation of seniority or managerial benefits. Id. at 1056-57. The public policy of Florida expressed by the legislature favors appellant's position. Section 440.015, Florida Statutes (1997), entitled "Legislative Intent," provides in pertinent part that: "The worker's compensation system in Florida is based on a mutual renunciation of common-law rights and defenses by employers and employees alike." Because of the renunciation of rights against the employer, "it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure the prompt delivery of benefits to the injured worker." § 440.015, Fla. Stat. (1997). Thus, it appears that the legislature intends [**13] to protect the employee's access to [*98] worker's compensation remedy and not allow an employer's intimidation or coercion to discourage filing valid claims. Walgreen argues that the third district has addressed the issue at bar in Montes de Oca v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 692 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 699 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1997). Specifically, Walgreen argues that the third district declined the opportunity to extend the application of section 440.205 beyond retaliatory discharge. We think Montes de Oca is distinguishable from this case and Walgreen's reliance on its holding is misplaced. In Montes de Oca, the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment as a crew chief for Orkin. Id. at 258. He then reached maximum medical improvement, w...
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