JESSON, INC., CAMIAMI, INC. AND LAKES FOOD, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
THE HONORABLE GEORGE W. TEDDER, JR., RESPONDENT
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.
Florida state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear Title VII sexual discrimination claims absent clear congressional intent to the contrary.
State courts may enforce rights granted under federal legislation, including Title VII claims, unless Congress explicitly provides otherwise.
[1] State courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts to enforce rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 absent clear congressional intent to exclu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We conclude that the majority and better view is that state courts have jurisdiction concurrent with federal courts to enforce federal cases arising under federal law unless Congress has specifically provided to the contrary.”
The court cited Lloyd v. Page, 474 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), which held Florida had concurrent jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute similar to Title VII.
Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent Florida state courts from hearing sexual discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Fede…
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 State Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny the petition for writ of prohibition which contends that Florida state courts have no jurisdiction to try claims for sexual discrimination brought under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. We believe that state courts may be utilized to enforce rights granted citizens under federal legislation absent clear evidence of a contrary intent contained in such legislation. We find no such clear expression in Title VII despite the procedural references contained therein to the federal courts. See Greene v. County School Board of Henrico County, Va., 524 F.Supp. 43 (E.D.Va.1981).
We also acknowledge that our holding is in conflict with the decision in Long v. Dept. of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 428 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, we would point out that Long simply stated that state courts do not have jurisdiction over Title VII claims, citing Dickinson v. Chrysler Corp., 456 F.Supp. 43 (E.D.Mich.1978), and Fox v. Eaton Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 236, 358 N.E. 2d 536 (Ohio 1976). Subsequently, the same court, in a well-reasoned opinion in Lloyd v. Page, 474 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), without even mentioning Long, held that Florida had concurrent jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (a statute similar in most respects to the Title VII Civil Rights Act). The court further stated:
We conclude that the majority and better view is that state courts have jurisdiction concurrent with federal courts to enforce federal cases arising under federal law unless Congress has specifically provided to the contrary.
474 So. 2d at 867-68.
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. WALDEN, J., dissents with opinion.
WALDEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I would grant the petition and prohibit the respondent from exercising jurisdiction over claims for sexual discrimination brought under Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, under Long v. Dept. of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 428 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). See also Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc., 739 F. 2d 434 (9th Cir.1984); Dickinson v. Chrysler Corp., 456 F.Supp. 43 (E.D.Mich.1978); Fox v. Eaton Corp., 48 Ohio St.2d 236, 358 N.E. 2d 536 (Ohio 1976); and Bowers v. Woodward & Lothrop, 280 A. 2d 772 (D.C.1971).
In my opinion the respondent was obliged to follow Long v. Dept. of Admin., Div. of Retirement, supra, under the principles announced in State v. Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Thus, I respectfully dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Primus Hayes, 333 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Valenzuela v. Kraft, Inc., 739 F.2d 434 (9th Cir. 1984)
- Hughlan Long v. Dep't of Admin., 428 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Lloyd v. Page, 474 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)