Featured Publications

Labor, Employment and Benefits: Alert - February 6, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied an employer’s request for review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that tipped employees spending more than 20 percent of their time performing related but non-tipped duties must be paid the full minimum wage for that time, without the tip credit.

More

Financial Institutions: Alert - January 31, 2012

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act impacted many investment advisers who previously were not registered.

More

Search Our Library

Search

  • Print Article
  • Email this page to a friend
  • Print Newsletter / Alert
Labor, Employment and Benefits
Newsletter - October 2008
 
In this Issue...
Florida - Fourth District Court of Appeals Rules That the Florida Civil Rights Act Prohibits Discrimination Based on Pregnancy
 
October 22, 2008
 

In Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth, No. 4D07-4236, decided September 10, 2008, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals decided that the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) protects employees against pregnancy discrimination. The plaintiff, a firefighter/paramedic, sued her employer, the City of Lake Worth (City), alleging discrimination based on pregnancy and retaliation. According to the plaintiff, her request for a light duty assignment in the fire department as a result of her pregnancy was denied, and she was instead offered and ultimately accepted light duty work in other departments of the City. The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that other employees with physical restrictions had been accommodated with light duty assignments in the fire department. The trial court, while recognizing that the FCRA prohibits discrimination based on sex, granted summary judgment for the City, holding that the statute’s reach does not extend to discrimination based on pregnancy.

In the 1976 case of General Electric Company v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy was not sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Two years later, Gilbert was abrogated by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), which specified that discrimination because of pregnancy is sex discrimination and violates Title VII. In Carsillo, the Florida Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, reasoning that the FCRA was patterned after Title VII and should therefore be given the same meaning as its federal counterpart.

Because the FCRA has not been amended to specifically state that pregnancy discrimination is sex discrimination, Florida’s federal district courts have been in disagreement for some time as to whether the FCRA prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy. The Carsillo decision resolves this controversy and clarifies Florida law concerning pregnancy discrimination: “given the history of the federal law, and the fact that Congress made clear in 1978 that its intent in the original enactment of Title VII in 1964 was to prohibit discrimination based on pregnancy as sex discrimination, it was unnecessary to amend the Florida law to prohibit pregnancy discrimination.”

While most Florida employers have been required to comply with Title VII’s prohibition against pregnancy discrimination since the Pregnancy Discrimination Act took effect, Florida employers should be aware that employees may now seek redress for discriminatory treatment based on pregnancy under both Title VII and the FCRA.

For more information, contact:

Meghan Jacobson

305.789.7522
meghan.jacobson@hklaw.com
toll free: 1.888.688.8500

Related Practices