CLAUDIA GRANERA, APPELLANT,
v.
SEDANO'S SUPERMARKET # 31, ETC., 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.
The court held that the trial court's stipulated dismissal order should be reversed and remanded because subsequent Florida Supreme Court precedent established that pregnancy discrimination is prohibited under the FCRA.
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging pregnancy discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The parties stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice…
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 Pregnancy Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
In December 2011, Appellant, Claudia Granera (Granera), filed a complaint against Appellee, Sedano’s Supermarket # 31, etc. (Sedano’s), alleging that Seda-no’s had discriminated and retaliated against Granera because of Granera’s pregnancy in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2011).
Sedano’s filed a motion to dismiss Gran-era’s complaint asserting that Granera was not a member of a class protected by FCRA.
Based on this Court’s then-recent decision in Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 96 So.3d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (Delva I), wherein this Court held that Florida law does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination in employment practices, the parties stipulated to the trial court’s entry of an order of dismissal with prejudice. The trial court’s November 2012 order of dismissal, however, expressly reserved Gran-era’s right to prosecute an appeal.
In December 2012, Granera brought the instant appeal, which we held in abeyance while the Florida Supreme Court reviewed this Court’s Delva I opinion.1
In April 2014, the Florida Supreme Court rendered a decision quashing our holding in Delva I. See Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 137 So.3d 371 (Fla.2014) {Delva II).
In light of Delva II, Sedano’s properly conceded that the trial court’s stipulated order of dismissal with prejudice should be reversed and remanded with directions that the trial court reinstate Granera’s complaint.
*961Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peguy Delva v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc., 137 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 2014)
- Peguy Delva v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc., 96 So. 3d 956 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)