HAROLD L. FARANCZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ST. MARY'S HOSPITAL, INC., 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.
Farancz sued his former employer, St. Mary's Hospital, for employment discrimination under Florida's Human Rights Act. The court affirmed dismissal of his claim, holding that the statute of limitations for filing a civil action was not tolled by the administrative complaint process, and Farancz filed suit too late.
The court held that section 760.10 contains no provision tolling the four-year statute of limitations during the 180-day administrative period, and therefore Farancz's civil action filed on January 19, 1989, was barred by the statute of limitations because it was filed more than four years after the alleged discriminatory act on October 19, 1984.
[1] A claim of employment discrimination under section 760.10, Florida Statutes, is barred by the statute of limitations if not filed within 180 days of the act of discrimina…
[2] The filing of a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations does not toll the statute of limitations for an employment discrimination claim.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Section 760.10(10) requires a person aggrieved by a violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977 to file a complaint with the commission within 180 days of the act of discrimination.”
Establishes the initial filing requirement with the administrative agency
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSt. Mary's withdrew its employment offer to Farancz on October 19, 1984. Farancz filed a discrimination charge with the Florida Commission on Human Re…
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 Human Rights Act Of 1977 cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We conclude that the statute of limitations bars appellant’s claim of employment discrimination under section 760.10, Florida Statutes. St. Mary’s withdrew its previous offer of employment on October 19, 1984. Farancz filed a charge with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on November 1, 1984.
On November 8, 1985, the commission issued an investigatory report recommending a no cause finding. Then on July 28, 1987, it issued a reasonable cause determination. On March 22, 1988, the commission began a two-day hearing on the charge, which resulted in a recommended order again finding no cause. Farancz did not file his complaint in the circuit court until January 19, 1989.
Section 760.10(10) requires a person aggrieved by a violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977 to file a complaint with the commission within 180 days of the act of discrimination. Subsection (12) then provides as follows:
In the event that the commission fails to conciliate or take final action on any complaint under this section within 180 days of filing, an aggrieved person may bring a civil action against the named employer * * * in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Appellant argues that the 180-day period after filing with the commission operates to toll the four year statute of limitations in section 95.11(3), so that he timely commenced this action.
The above statute has a logical counterpart in sections 766.104 and 766.106, Florida Statutes (1989). Section 766.104(2) expressly authorizes an extension of the statute of limitations to allow reasonable investigation of an incipient medical malpractice claim by a simple filing with the clerk. Section 766.106(4) expressly provides for a tolling of the statute for the 90-day period after a notice of intent to initiate medical malpractice litigation has been served.
In contrast, section 760.10 contains nothing remotely suggesting that the statute should be tolled during the 180 day period after filing with the commission. There is simply no mention one way or the other in section 760.10 about any tolling while the commission has the complaint during the initial 180 day period. The provisions in chapter 766 show that the legislature knows how to say that the statute is tolled when it wants to say so. That it did not so state here is a positive demonstration that it did not intend any such tolling.
The trial judge’s dismissal must be
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and STREITFELD, JEFFREY E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Paragon Health Servs., Inc. v. Cent. Palm Beach Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 859 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…itted it in another part, we must conclude that it knows how to say what it means, and its failure to do so is intention [*1236] al. See Kraft Gen. Foods, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 635 So. 2d 106, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Farancz v. St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc., 585 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); see also Rakusin, Florida Creditors Rights Manual, Vol. 2, at 259 (2001) (Florida Statutes section 726.110(3) does not provide a savings provision if the creditor fails to discover the preferential transfer, as does section 726.…
-
Ross v. JIM Adams Ford, Inc., 871 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…. (1993); Sweeney v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 725 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the four-year statute of limitations ran from the accrual of the cause of action and was not tolled by the administrative process. See Farancz v. St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc., 585 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Jim Adams Ford hired Mr. Ross as its service director in October 1994. On November 16, 1994, Mr. Ross broke his leg in a work-related accident. The fracture was quite serious and took a long time to heal. Mr. Ross attempted to…1 / 2
-
Caprio v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 1528 (M.D. Fla. 1994)…harge before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, the fact that a plaintiff filed a claim with the EEOC does not mean that Florida’s statute of limitations period should be tolled. Cf. Farancz v. St. Mary’s Hosp., Inc., 585 So.2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (filing of charge with the Florida Commission on Human Relations did not toll four-year statute of limitation under Florida Statute § 95.11(3)). In the present case, Plaintiffs tort claims must have occurred within the four year…