BARBARA L. WILLIAMS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Florida Statute of Limitations for wage claims applies to actions for racially motivated wrongful discharge.
Plaintiff, an employee, sued her employer for racial discrimination after being discharged. The employer moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was barre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Employment Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, Barbara L. Williams, a black woman, had been an employee of the appellee, Western Electric Company, at its shop in Miami, Florida. She was discharged on May 31, 1974. On August 31, 1976, she brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Western Electric asserting that the discharge was racially motivated and wrongful. She sought reinstatement, back pay, damages and other relief. Western Electric moved to dismiss on the ground that the claim was barred by the Florida Statute of Limitations. The statute provided that “An action to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime” shall be brought within two years. Fla.Stat. § 95.11(4)(e).
The disposition of this appeal is controlled by the decision of this Court in Cutliff v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 5th Cir. 1977, 558 F. 2d 803.1 There it was held that the Florida Statute of Limitations relating to wages is applicable in actions such as this. That statute required actions to be brought within one year, the period of the statute then in force. See also Johnson v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 5th Cir. 1974, 491 F. 2d 1364. It follows therefore that the judgment of the district court should be and it is
AFFIRMED.
. We are aware of the prior decisions in Page v. U. S. Industries, Inc., 5th Cir. 1977, 556 F. 2d 346, and Ingram v. Steven Robert Corp., 5th cir. 1977, 547 F. 2d 1260. However we consider ourselves bound by the latest panel decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cleveland McWILLIAMS v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd., 658 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1981)
-
McGHEE v. Ogburn, 707 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir. 1983)
-
Arnold v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 549 F. Supp. 25 (M.D. Fla. 1981)…since an employment discrimination case filed in Florida is considered to be a suit for the recovery of wages, even though the plaintiff requests more than just back pay. Id. at 658 F.2d at 330; Cf. Williams v. Western Electric Company, 618 F.2d 1110, 1111 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding § 95.11(4)(c) generally applicable to employment discrimination cases); Cutliff v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 558 F.2d 803, 804-05 (5th Cir. 1977) (applying Fla.Stat. § 95.11(7)(b) (1973), the predecessor to *2…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 491 F.2d 1364 (5th Cir. 1974)
- Page v. U. S. Indus., Inc., 556 F.2d 346 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Ingram v. Steven Robert Corp., 547 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir. 1977)
- Ula Cutliff v. Greyhound Lines, 558 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1977)