JAMES EADS, APPELLANT,
v.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, 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.
James Eads appealed a summary judgment dismissing his wrongful discharge claim under Florida's workers' compensation statute. The court reversed, finding that the employer's internal communication reasonably suggested Eads was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim, creating a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Summary judgment was improperly granted because the employer's internal documentation creates a reasonable inference that Eads was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim, presenting a genuine issue of material fact that must be resolved at trial.
[1] Summary judgment is improper where different inferences can be drawn from uncontroverted facts.
[2] A trial court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.
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“There must be no issue of material fact for the trial court to grant summary judgment.”
Establishes the standard for summary judgment in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEads aggravated a preexisting workers' compensation back injury while working in Jacksonville. His supervisor Duncan instructed him to see a doctor an…
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 Inference Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
James Eads appeals the summary judgment entered for Traffic Control Devices, Inc. on his claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2005). The summary judgment also disposed of Eads’ claim for unpaid benefits which was not before the court in appellee’s motion for summary judgment. There must be no issue of material fact for the trial court to grant summary judgment. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(c). The trial court must draw every possible inference in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985). Where different inferences can be drawn from uncontroverted facts, summary judgment is not available. Pan Am. Distrib. Co. v. Sav-A-Stop, Inc., 124 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960).
According to the appellant, while on a job in Jacksonville he aggravated a preexisting workers’ compensation back injury, and was told by a supervisor, Duncan, to go to the doctor. In addition, Duncan informed the appellant that he would advise appellee’s human resources manager, Kemp, about this. On that same day Duncan called and told appellant to return to the Youngstown office. When the appellant arrived there the following day he was informed by Duncan that his employment was terminated.
A faxed document from Duncan to Kemp contained the following handwritten note:
Due To The unusuall (sic) circumstance RE: Mike Eads, I Am Having Difficulty Filling out His Termination Report! As you know, Mike was Told To Apply For workmans Comp. In Filling out THE Termination Report, There is no Category That Fits This Type of Criteria, Except The Remark Box. Is This what you want Me To write In THE Remarks Box? If So call me, If Not, you write what To Say In THE uncompleted Report Attached, And I will copy To oRiGinaL and siGn.
It is reasonable to draw from this note the inference that Eads was terminated for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Drawing this inference precludes granting summary judgment. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
REVERSED.
VAN NORTWICK, J., concurs; KAHN, J., concurs with result only.
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)…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. 250, 252-53 (11th Cir.2005); Davis v. Jim Quinlan Ford, Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., 932 F.Supp. 1389, 1392-93 (M…
Authorities Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 1985)
- PAN Am. Distrib. Co. v. Sav-A-Stop, 124 So. 2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)