NORMAN SEGAL, APPELLANT,
v.
ARROW INDUSTRIES CORPORATION, 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 there is no cause of action for retaliatory discharge of private employment in Florida under the circumstances presented.
Plaintiff sued his employer for wrongful discharge after being terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim. The employment was oral and termin…
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 Public Policy Exception To At-Will Employment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking damages from his employer claiming a right of action for being wrongfully discharged from his employment where his employment was terminated because he filed a claim for workman s compensation benefits. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and we affirm.
Plaintiff admits that no Florida case supports a cause of action for retaliatory discharge of private employment where, as here, the employment was oral and terminable by either the employer or the employee at any time. Nevertheless, plaintiff asserts that the cause of action should exist and relies upon the reasoning in Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company, 60 Ind. 249, 297 N.E. 2d 425 (1973);1 and Sventko v. Kroger Company, 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W. 2d 151 (1976).2 We decline to follow the reasoning of these cases and affirm upon authority of DeMarco v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 360 So. 2d 134, 136 (Fla.3d DCA 1978), and cases cited thereat.
Affirmed.
. “Retaliatory discharge for filing a workmen’s compensation claim is a wrongful, unconscionable act and should be actionable in a court of law. Although, we know of no other cases in this or in any other jurisdiction holding that such a discharge is actionable, there has been a parallel development in landlord and tenant law. Courts in several jurisdictions have held that ‘retaliatory evictions’ offend public policy.” 297 N.E. 2d 425 at 428.
. * * * * * *
“[W]hile it is generally true that either party may terminate an employment at will for any reason or for no reason, that rule is not absolute. It is too well-settled to require citation that an employer at will may not suddenly terminate the employment of persons because of their sex, race, or religion. Likewise, the better view is that an employer at will is not free to discharge an employee when the reason for the discharge is an intention on the part of the employer to contravene the public policy of this state.” 245 N.W. 2d 151 at 153.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)…nes, 284 Or. 597, 588 P. 2d 1087 (1978); Sventko v. Kroger Co., 69 Mich.App. 644, 245 N.W. 2d 151 (1976); Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Co., 260 Ind. 249, 297 N.E. 2d 425 (1973). Florida has not followed that path. Segal v. Arrow Industries Corp., 364 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Rather, our legislature has proscribed a wrongful discharge because of an employee’s pursuit of a workers’ compensation claim. It must be assumed that a provision enacted by the legislature is intended to have some useful purpose…
-
Hartley v. Ocean Reef Club, Inc., 476 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…or indefinite, either party may terminate the employment at any time for any reason or no reason without assuming any liability. See Smith v. Piezo Technology & Professional Administrators, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1983); Segal v. Arrow Industries Corp., 364 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); DeMarco v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 360 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 1123 (Fla.1979), aff'd, 384 So. 2d 1253 (Fla.1980). Nevertheless, the plaintiff would have this court create an exception to this…
-
Piezo Tech. & Prof'l Administrators, Inc. v. Smith, 413 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)….Ed.2d 146 (1979). . Chapter 79-40, Laws of Florida. . Cf., Sharer v. Hotel Corporation of America, 144 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1962); Girard Trust Company v. Tampashores Development Co., 95 Fla. 1010, 117 So. 786 (1928). . See Segal v. Arrow Industries, 364 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DeMARCO v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 360 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)