Tag: Florida

EEOC Sues Florida and Michigan Companies for Transgender Discrimination

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has just filed suit against two companies for alleged discrimination against transgendered employees. The suits were filed separately in Florida and Michigan, against Lakeland Eye Clinic and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc., respectively. In both cases, employees alleged that they were fired after they disclosed they were undergoing gender transitions.

Title VII does not specifically protect against transgendered persons. In 2012, however, in Macy v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination against employees because they are transgender, because of gender identity, and/or because they have transitioned (or intend to transition) is discrimination based on sex, and thus violates Title VII.

The EEOC identified “coverage of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals under Title VII’s sex discrimination provisions” as one of their top enforcement priorities in its 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan. Thus, these suits should not be surprising. Earlier this year, President Obama also issued an Executive Order prohibiting federal contractors from discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers.

In light of the recent emphasis on the protection of these individuals, employers should take extra precautions to ensure that no discriminatory practices are in force in the workplace. Further, all adverse employment decisions should be properly documented and managers and supervisors should be properly trained about what to do should a discrimination-related issue arises.

© 2014 by McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, PLLC. All rights reserved.
ARTICLE BY

Benjamin L. Riddle
OF
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Miami Building Permits: Use of Phased Permits on the Rise

Bilzin_logo300 dpi

As cranes tower over Miami in the post-recession development upswing, developers are once again using phased permits to expedite construction while awaiting approval for building permits. Section 105.13 of the Florida Building Code authorizes the issuance and use of phased permits throughout the state at the discretion of building officials. Developers in Miami and Miami Beach are actively using this option. In the cities of Miami and Miami Beach, approval from the Department of Environmental Resources Management as well as an agreement/verification from Water and Sewer is now needed to receive a phased permit. This is a new element that was not originally required. Applicants should be prepared to provide this documentation as part of their phased permit application.

cranes Given the fact that the phased permit is a permit that is issued pending (not in lieu of) an official building permit, the holder of the phased permit proceeds at his or her own risk when beginning construction upon receipt of the phased permit. Thus, applicants are required to execute a Hold Harmless letter/form reflecting that they understand the risk and relieve the municipality of all liability resulting from or in connection with the phased permit. Applications proceed with the understanding that it is possible that in order to receive the official building permit, portions or all of the construction that has been completed under the phased permit would need to be modified or removed. Applicants must cautiously weigh the risks when deciding to begin major construction using a phased permit.

As development rebounds in South Florida, the use of phased permitting is allowing projects to stay on course and meet proposed construction deadlines. By allowing construction to proceed via phased permits, developers do not have to be handicapped by the delays that may arise from complicated and bureaucratic permitting processes and can sooner capitalize on the market demand for their projects.

Read more about the procedures for phased permits in the City of Miami and the phased permits in the City of Miami Beach.

ARTICLE BY

Wendy Francois
Javier F. Avino
A. Vicky Garcia-Toledo
 
OF
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

Good News for Grove Isle Condo Owners – Miami

Bilzin_logo300 dpi

Grove Isle condo owners, who have been in the middle of a battle over a proposed 18-story condo tower which will replace the low-rise Grove Isle Hotel & Spa, received some good news when the Third DCA overturned the dismissal of Grove Isle Association’s 2009 lawsuit against the owners and former and present managers of Grove Isle’s Club.

condoIn that lawsuit, the Association brought claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, claiming, among other things, that the enjoyment of the Club’s amenities (a restaurant and lounge, private banquet room, health spa, swimming pool and tennis courts) was limited to private members of Fair Isle, and seeking an order prohibiting the defendants from allowing unauthorized members of the public to use the Club’s amenities.  The Association also maintained that it was unfair and unreasonable to require the condo owners to bear all the costs of maintenance, management and operation of Fair Isle’s facilities, amenities and common areas (including the bridge that spans Biscayne Bay and connects Miami with Grove Isle’s private island resort), even though these areas are also used by other Fair Isle guests.  Therefore, the Association sought to recover the value of its maintenance, management and operation payments over the years.

In overturning the trial court’s decision, the Third DCA held that the lawsuit was improperly dismissed based on a statute of limitations defense, where the trial court could not determine from the four-corners of the complaint the date in which the alleged causes of action accrued. Specifically, the Third DCA found that it could not affirmatively be determined from the face of the complaint when allegedly unauthorized members of the public began using the Club’s amenities or whether the payment of assessments dating back to 1979 related to the use of the Club’s amenities by certain unauthorized members of the public.  However, the Third DCA stated that the statute of limitations would bar plaintiff’s claims if the claims accrued before July 2004.

The Third DCA also emphasized the general policy of allowing a plaintiff leave to amend the complaint at least once, in an attempt to state a cause of action, unless it is clear that a plaintiff cannot in good faith allege a set of circumstances sufficient to state a cause of action, and found that the trial court’s dismissal of the Association’s first complaint with prejudice was an abuse of discretion.

Now that the Association may move forward with its lawsuit, it is unclear what the Association’s course of action will be.  What is clear, however, is the interesting situation that the Grove Isle owners are now facing.  This lawsuit deals with the private versus public use of the Club’s facilities and the Association’s responsibility for the payment of total costs and expenses for maintaining, managing and operating the facilities and common areas.  Now with the proposal of replacing the hotel with a private condo tower, many of the condo owner’s concern should be ameliorated, as this proposal means that the private island would only be open to owners, renters and visitors, rather than members of the public who currently have access to the private island due to the amenities offered by the hotel and spa.

Article By:

Enza G. Boderone
Michael N. Kreitzer
Of: 
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

Facebook Post Breaches Confidentiality Provision of Settlement Agreement

Jackson Lewis Logo

 

A Florida appellate court has ruled that a teenaged daughter’s post on Facebookmentioning her father’s confidential settlement of an age discrimination claim breached a confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement, barring the father from collecting an $80,000 settlement. Gulliver Schools, Inc. v. Snay, No. 3D13-1952 (Fla 3d DCA Feb. 26, 2014).

The plaintiff, Patrick Snay, was a headmaster of Gulliver, a private school in the Miami area. After his contract was not renewed, he sued for age discrimination. The parties reached a settlement pursuant to a written agreement, which included a detailed confidentiality provision. The provision stated in part:

13. Confidentiality . . . [T]he plaintiff shall not either directly or indirectly, disclose, discuss or communicate to any entity or person, except his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse any information whatsoever regarding the existence or terms of this Agreement. . . A breach . . . will result in disgorgement of the Plaintiff’s portion of the Settlement Payments.

A couple of days after the agreement was signed, Snay’s daughter, who had recently been a student at Gulliver, posted the following on her Facebook page:

Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.

Snay’s daughter had about 1,200 Facebook friends, many of whom were current or former Gulliver students. Gulliver notified Snay of the breach and refused to tender the $80,000 to Snay under the terms of the settlement. (Snay’s attorneys received their portion). Snay moved to enforce the agreement. Limited discovery revealed that Snay and his wife notified their daughter “that the case was settled and they were happy with the result.” Snay denied ever discussing a trip to Europe. The district court held that Snay’s actions did not violate the terms of the agreement, but the appellate court reversed, noting that Snay was prohibited from “directly or indirectly” disclosing even the “existence” of the settlement.

The decision offers lessons for counsel, litigants, and parents. Counsel and litigants need to remember that these types of confidentiality provisions with disgorgement penalties are taken seriously by the courts and can be enforced. Parents need to remind their children to be mindful of what they post on social media, because it might have adult consequences.

Article by:

V. John Ella

Of:

Jackson Lewis P.C.