19 January

Sticky

Employer cannot Retaliate against Employee for Workers’ Compensation Claim

In prior postings, I talked about Florida’s private Whistleblower Act and Florida’s Public Whistleblower Act dealing with retaliatory terminations. Besides these whistleblower protections, there is also protection in Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law that states: 440.205 Coercion of employees.—No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law. To support an employment retaliation claim: [A] plaintiff must prove the following three elements: 1) the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity; 2) the plaintiff was thereafter subjected by his employer to an adverse employment action; and...

12 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Enforcement of Non-Compete and Non-Solicitation Provision

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Non-compete provisions are not always fair. The same can probably be said about non-solicitation provisions. Typically, these provisions (referred to as restrictive covenants) are included in an employment agreement as a condition of employment. But, if there is a legitimate business interest for these provisions, and they are limited in scope, they are enforceable and relief, including injunctive relief, can be sought. Restrictive covenants in employment-related agreements, such as a non-compete and non-solicitation provision, are governed by Florida Statute s. 542.335. A party (e.g., employer) seeking a temporary injunction against another (e.g., employee) must demonstrate four elements: “(1) the likelihood...

05 January

0 Comments

Sticky

Absolute Immunity Protects Public Officials from Defamation

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Thinking about suing a public official for defamation? Think twice (or three or four times) before doing so. Public officials acting within the scope of their duties enjoy absolute immunity from statements they make. Stated differently, they are absolutely immune from a defamation lawsuit. In Quintero v. Diaz, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D51b (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a former Director of Parks and Recreation for a city sued the Mayor of that City for defamation per se based on public defamatory statements contained in a termination letter. The parties stipulated that the Mayor was acting within the scope of his...

01 January

0 Comments

Sticky

The Duty of Care Element in a Negligence Action is a Question of Law

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

There are four elements to proving a negligence (tort) claim: (1) a duty of care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) proximate causation; and (4) damages. Stated differently, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and the defendant's breach proximately caused damages to the plaintiff. Whether a duty of care exists is a question of law, meaning it is a question for the court. Cascante v. 50 State Security Service, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D8a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). If there is no duty, there is no...

22 December

0 Comments

Sticky

Giving Rise to the Exception to Sovereign Immunity Against a Public Officer, Employee, or Agent

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

In an important opinion stemming from the tragically horrific and deplorable mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in February 2018--an incident that eternally weighs heavily in hearts --the school resource officer assigned to the school was sued under negligence theories. Peterson v. Pollack, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2983b (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). The school resource officer moved to dismiss the lawsuit under sovereign immunity (i.e., that he was statutorily immune from such a lawsuit), and specifically, protection afforded to him under Florida Statute s. 768.28(9)(a). This subsection provides in pertinent part: No officer, employee, or agent of the state or of...

28 November

0 Comments

Sticky

Fiduciary Duty Owed by Escrow Agent

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

When it comes to buying property, there's quite a lot of documentation involved. The use of escrow agreements and escrow agents is common when purchasing property. They are used in relationship to purchase-sale of real estate contracts. They are also used in relationship to certain settlement agreements. The escrow agent may be a third-party, such as a title company or financial institution, or it may be a law firm representing a party in the transaction or case. An escrow agent owes a fiduciary duty to the parties to the escrow transaction or agreement. Carter Development of Massachusetts, LLC v. Howard,...

17 November

0 Comments

Sticky

How to Factor a Postoffer Settlement into a Proposal for Settlement Analysis

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A plaintiff may serve a proposal for settlement (a/k/a offer of judgment) to create a mechanism to recover attorney's fees as the prevailing party. When it comes to proposals for settlement served by the plaintiff on the defendant, Florida Statute s. 768.79 provides: (b) If a plaintiff serves an offer which is not accepted by the defendant, and if the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least 25 percent more than the amount of the offer, the plaintiff shall be awarded reasonable costs, including investigative expenses, and attorney's fees, calculated in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the Supreme Court, incurred...

30 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Must be a Meeting of the Minds for there to be a Settlement

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

A settlement agreement is governed under the tenets of contract law – there needs to be a meeting of the minds for there to be a settlement. Ideally, you want this meeting of the minds to be memorialized in writing in a settlement agreement. However, what if it is not memorialized in a written settlement agreement? As is true of contracts generally, a settlement agreement is formed “only when one party makes an offer and another party accepts it.” An acceptance sufficient to create an enforceable agreement “must be (1) absolute and unconditional; (2) identical with the terms of the offer;...

05 October

0 Comments

Sticky

Amended Complaints and the “Relation Back” Doctrine

Posted by David Adelstein

in Appeal, Trial Perspectives

There is a doctrine known as the “relation back” doctrine that refers to amended complaints and the statute of limitations. Assume an original complaint was filed within the applicable statute of limitations. Assume after the statute of limitations expired, an amended complaint is asserted with new claims. Do the new claims in the amended complaint RELATE BACK to the original complaint so that the new claims are deemed filed within the statute of limitations? The recent opinion in Mitchell v. Applebee’s Services, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2443a (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) explains Florida’s liberal policy in answering this question: Whether...

28 September

0 Comments

Sticky

Uneven Floor Level Does Not, in of Itself, Support Premise Liability Claim

Posted by David Adelstein

in Trial Perspectives

Does an uneven floor level, in of itself, support a premise liability claim? No! Uneven floor levels are not so uncommon. The case of Contardi v. Fun Town, LLC, dealt with this issue in the context of an uneven floor at a skating rink – the difference between the skating rink floor and building’s subfloor. A person was injured when exiting the skating rink to the building’s subfloor and, consequently, filed a premise liability lawsuit. The owner of the skating rink was granted summary judgment and the summary judgment was affirmed on appeal finding that a premise liability claim did not...