WILLIAM F. SCOTT, PETITIONER,
v.
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, 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.
The Florida Supreme Court held that wrongful discharge claims under section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes are not governed by the two-year statute of limitations for wage claims, but rather by the four-year statute of limitations for statutory causes of action. The court reversed the Fourth District Court of Appeal's reliance on Broward Builders Exchange v. Goehring to bar Scott's retaliatory discharge claim.
The court held that section 440.205 retaliatory discharge claims are not subject to the two-year wage statute of limitations in section 95.11(4)(c), but rather are governed by the four-year statute of limitations for statutory causes of action in section 95.11(3)(f). The court answered the certified question in the negative.
[1] Actions for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205, Florida Statutes, are not suits for wages for the purposes of section 95.11(4)(c), Florida Statutes.
[2] A claim for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205, Florida Statutes, is tortious in nature.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The instant action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is not a "suit for wages" for the purposes of section 95.11(4)(c).”
Establishes that retaliatory discharge claims are distinct from wage claims and not subject to the two-year wage statute of limitations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott obtained a jury verdict against Otis Elevator Company for wrongful employment termination in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes, whi…
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 Common Law Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We have for review Otis Elevator Co. v. Scott, 503 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), in which the court certified the following as a question of great public importance:
Are actions for wrongful discharge brought pursuant to section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), governed by Broward Builders Exchange, Inc. v. Goehring, 231 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1970).
503 So. 2d at 943. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and answer the question in the negative.
Scott obtained a verdict against Otis Elevator Company for wrongful employment termination in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides:
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.
The district court reversed, finding the action barred by section 95.11(4)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), which provides that an “[alction to recover wages or overtime or damages or penalties concerning payment of wages and overtime” must be brought within two years. The court relied on Goehring, in which we found section 95.-ll(7)(b), the predecessor to section 95.-ll(4)(c), applicable to “all suits for wages or overtime, however accruing, as well as to suits for damages and penalties accruing under the laws respecting the payment of wages and overtime.” Goehring, 231 So. 2d at 515.
The instant action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is not a “suit for wages” for the purposes of section 95.11(4)(c). We recognize that in the absence of a controlling federal statute of limitations, the Fifth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal, relying on Goehring, have applied the two-year wage statute of limitations set forth in section 95.11(4)(c) to federal statutory causes of actions for discriminatory employment termination. McGhee v. Ogburn, 707 F. 2d 1312 (11th Cir.1983); McWilliams v. Escambia County School Board, 658 F. 2d 326 (5th Cir.1981). See also Hullinger v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 516 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (relying on McGhee and McWil-liams). We did not intend this result. Indeed, we found it difficult in Goehring “to conceive of a claim for wages which does not in some manner arise from a contract expressed or implied.” 231 So. 2d at 514.
Retaliatory discharge is tortious in nature. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Prestress Engineering Corp., 115 Ill.2d 1, 104 Ill.Dec. 751, 503 N.E. 2d 308 (1986), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 3248, 97 L.Ed.2d 779 (1987); K Mart Corp. v. Ponsock, 732 P. 2d 1364 (Nev.1987); Krein v. Marian Manor Nursing Home, 415 N.W. 2d 793 (N.D.1987); Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 298 Or. 76, 689 P. 2d 1292 (1984); Cagle v. Burns and Roe, Inc., 106 Wash.2d 911, 726 P. 2d 434 (1986). States adopting this tort generally consider it grounded on intent rather than negligence, allowing recovery of emotional distress and punitive damages as well as lost wages in appropriate cases. Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 130, at 1029 (5th ed. 1984). Florida does not recognize a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge. See Smith v. Piezo Technology & Professional Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1983). The legislature, however, enacted section 440.205 subsequent to Goehring, creating distinct limited statutory cause of action a for retaliatory discharge in the area of workers compensation. Claims under section 440.205 must be brought within the four-year statute of limitations set forth in section 95.11(3)(f) for statutory causes of action.*
Accordingly, we quash the district court’s decision, and remand for consideration of the remaining issues not previously considered by the district court.
It is so ordered.
McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. *
Section 95.11, Florida Statutes (1987), provides:
95.11 Limitations other than for the recovery of real property. — Actions other than for recovery of real property shall be commenced as follows:
(3) WITHIN FOUR YEARS.—
(f) An action founded on a statutory liability-
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Maggio v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 899 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2005)…82429 at *1. Scott II involved a retaliatory discharge claim brought under an entirely different statute, section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), a provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. In our previous decision in Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla.1988) (Scott I), we stated that retaliatory discharge is a statutory cause of action that is “tortious in nature.” In Scott II, we then held that damages for emotional distress were available because the claim was tortious in nature. See 5…
-
Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 572 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990)…NALD, Justice, dissenting. Although I concede that the question as answered in the majority opinion is a permissible extension of Smith v. Piezo Technology & Professional Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1983), and Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1988), I would hold that the damages arising from a violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), do not include a claim for emotional distress. I would equate a section 440.205 discharge of an employee to a breach of a contract for em…1 / 3
-
McRAE v. Douglas, 644 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…the recovery of back-pay, it applies to § 1983 employment suits in which the plaintiff requests legal and equitable relief. The district court properly dismissed the action as time-barred. 707 F. 2d at 1315. However, in Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 524 So. 2d 642 (Fla.1988), our supreme court ruled that an action for wrongful discharge brought pursuant to section 440.205, Florida Statutes2 is not covered by section 95.11(4)(e), Florida Statutes. The court explained: The instant action for retaliatory discha…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)
- Cleveland McWILLIAMS v. Escambia Cnty. Sch. Bd., 658 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1981)
- Broward Builders Exch., Inc. v. Lily Goehring, 231 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1970)
- McGHEE v. Ogburn, 707 F.2d 1312 (11th Cir. 1983)
- Hullinger v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 516 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Otis Elevator Co. v. Scott, 503 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)