Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 04-04-2018
Case Style:
Case Number: 4D17-928
Judge: Warner
Court: Florida Court of Appeal, Fourth District on appeal from the Circuit Court for Broward County
Plaintiff's Attorney: G. Ware Connell, Jr.
Defendant's Attorney: Carmen Rodriguez
Description: Appellant sued the Broward County Sheriff for disability and age discrimination after he was demoted from his position as a child protective investigator with the Sheriff’s office. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the sheriff on both claims. We affirm the judgment in its entirety.
As to the disability discrimination claim, the trial court correctly disposed of this based upon the contradiction in appellant’s deposition of the material allegations of his complaint. As to the claim of age discrimination, we affirm based on Hazen Paper Company v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 611 (1993), where the Supreme Court found that termination of an employee to prevent his pension benefits from vesting did not violate
2
the ADEA because it was not related to age, but to his pension status;
actions under the ADEA must be based on age discrimination, not solely
on a motivating factor that is only correlated with age). See Broaddus v.
Fla. Power Corp., 145 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998) (“The ADEA does
not prohibit an employer from making an employment decision on the
basis of higher salaries, increased benefits, pension status, or claims for
medical expenses even though these characteristics are often correlated
with an employee’s age.”). Here, based upon appellant’s own testimony, a
major in the department told him that he was being demoted to use his
higher salary to employ more investigators. Thus, while his higher salary
may be correlated to age, age was not the reason for his demotion.
Appellant made his claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act, but we apply
federal case law interpreting the ADEA to cases arising under the FCRA.
See City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So. 2d 634, 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Outcome: Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: