INDUSTRIAL AFFILIATES, LTD., PETITIONER,
v.
HILDA FISH, 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 court quashed the Equal Opportunity Board's discrimination award because Ms. Fish was terminated based on her spouse's identity as a company partner, not her marital status, which is not protected under the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Discrimination claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act cannot be based on the specific identity of an individual's spouse, only on marital status itself.
[1] Marital status discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act protects the state of being married or single but does not extend to claims based on the specific identit…
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“marital status for discrimination purposes means the state of being married, single, divorced, widowed, or separated, and does not include the specific identity or actions of an individual's spouse”
Donato v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., establishing the scope of marital status protection under Florida law
Ms. Fish was employed for years and terminated after marrying Mr. Fish, one of three hands-on partners operating her employer company.…
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 Marital Status Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
For reasons unknown, the circuit court, appellate division, per curiam denied review of a final order of the Miami-Dade County Equal Opportunity Board awarding damages to the employee, Ms. Fish, in an alleged employment discrimination case. The record conclusively demonstrates, however, that Ms. Fish was not discharged from her employment because she was in the class of married persons protected by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. See §§ 760.01-760.11, Fla. Stat. (2009).1 Rather, she was terminated after years of service because she married Mr. Fish, one of three hands-on partners who operated her employer. It is established that a valid discrimination claim cannot arise on the basis of “the specific identity ... of an individual’s spouse.” Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So.2d 1146, 1155 (Fla.2000) (holding that term “marital status” for discrimination purposes “means the state of being married, single, divorced, widowed, or separated, and does not include the specific identity or actions of an individual’s spouse”); see also Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, Fla., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir.2006).
The decision under review therefore represents a clear departure from the essential requirements of the law resulting in a miscarriage of justice and is consequently quashed.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973)
- Rosario Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2000)
- Vessels v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 408 F.3d 763 (11th Cir. 2005)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cnty., 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006)