RICHARD BURT, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2012-07-18
No. 4D10-518
May, C.J., Taylor, J., Ciklin, J.
92 So. 3d 302 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2012)

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court reversed summary judgment for UPS in a retaliation claim under section 440.205, finding genuine issues of material fact precluded summary disposition.


Holding

Summary judgment for an employer in a workers' compensation retaliation claim must be reversed when the employee presents counterevidence sufficient to create genuine issues of material fact.


Headnotes

[1] In a workers' compensation retaliation claim under section 440.205, Florida Statutes, summary judgment is improper when the non-moving party presents counterevidence suff…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Richard Burt, a former UPS employee, sued UPS alleging unlawful adverse employment action in retaliation for filing a valid workers' compensation clai…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Burt sued his former employer, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), alleging that UPS unlawfully took adverse employment action against him in retaliation for his making a valid workers’ compensation claim, in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of UPS. While UPS met its initial burden of coming forward with competent evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, Burt responded to UPS’s motion with opposing evidence sufficient to reveal genuine issues of material fact. See Gomez v. Fradin, 41 So.3d 1068, 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“A movant for summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating the nonexistence of any genuine issue of material fact. But once he tenders competent evidence to support his motion, the opposing party must come forward with counterevi-dence sufficient to reveal a genuine 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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw