FRANCISCO RIVERA AND YOLANDA RIVERA, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM SAFFOLD AND HIRAM SAFFOLD, AS GENERAL PARTNERS OF SAFFOLD FARMS, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, APPELLEES
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 reversed summary judgment for the employer, finding a genuine factual dispute over whether the employee's termination was retaliatory under Florida's workers' compensation statute rather than based on inability to work.
Summary judgment for the employer was improper because a genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether the employee's termination was retaliatory under section 440.205, Florida Statutes, rather than justified by the employee's inability to perform available work.
[1] An employer's assertion that an employee was terminated due to physical incapacity does not warrant summary judgment when the record shows the employer previously accommo…
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 intelligenceFrancisco Rivera, a farm worker at Saffold Farms, was injured twice and collected workers' compensation benefits. After his first injury, the Saffolds…
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 Workers' Compensation Retaliation cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Judge.
Francisco and Yolanda Rivera, farm workers at Saffold Farms, were evicted after Francisco’s employment was terminated from the mobile home they were permitted to occupy on the premises. Francisco had been injured twice and had collected workers’ compensation benefits. After his first injury, the Saffolds found light duty for Francisco so that he was able to remain employed and to maintain his residence in the company-owned mobile home. Following the second accident, however, the Saffolds claimed they had no work for Francisco, and, upon terminating him, filed suit to evict the Rivera family from the mobile home. The Riveras left the property before the eviction suit was heard. Francisco nonetheless counterclaimed alleging retaliatory employment termination in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1991). After a hearing, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Saffolds.
We have reviewed the record and recognize that there is some evidence, if considered alone, supportive of the trial court’s disposition. We have, however, concluded that although William Saffold asserted in his affidavit and deposition that he discharged Francisco because he was no longer physically capable of performing his job, the record viewed in its entirety leads us to a question of fact — Saffold’s motivation for firing him. Furthermore, Francisco alleged that Saffold had available work that he was capable of performing. Thus, the reasons for Francisco’s termination were sufficiently disputed and should be determined by the trier of fact.
Reversed and remanded.
LEHAN, C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hornfischer v. Manatee Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 136 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…cher’s attorney] which I am forwarding to you and attorney Dan DeMay.” The Unisource adjuster responded: "I just reviewed the file, and you are right. This man has no intentions on ever[] actually returning to work.” . See, e.g., Rivera v. Saffold, 606 So. 2d 1249, 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Ortega, 30 So. 3d at 529; Eads v. Traffic Control Devices, Inc., 19 So. 3d 1142, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Hubbard v. City of Boca Raton, 839 So. 2d 747, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Posada v. James Cello, Inc., 135 Fed.Appx. 2…
-
Wavernita Hubbard v. City OF Boca Raton & Joseph Cogley, 839 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…entered summary judgment in favor of the employer. We reverse as the employer failed to conclusively demonstrate that Hubbard’s workers’ compensation claims were not a substantial factor in the employer’s termination decision. See Rivera v. Saffold, 606 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)(reversing summary judgment in favor of employer where the record raised a question as to the employer’s motivation for firing employee); see also Fine Arts Museums Found, v. First Nat'l in Palm Beach, 633 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 4…
-
Burt v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 92 So. 3d 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…issue.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). Because genuine issues of material fact remain in dispute, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Hubbard v. City of Boca Raton, 839 So. 2d 747, 748 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Rivera v. Saffold, 606 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.…