Florida’s Fourth District Issues First Appellate Decision Expressly Adopting Business Judgment Rule in Employment Discrimination Cases
Earlier today, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal released Francois v. JFK Medical Center Limited Partnership, which affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the hospital based on the application of the business judgment rule.
The hospital terminated the plaintiff as a result of his use of excessive force against a patient. The plaintiff disagreed, claiming that he was fired in retaliation for a workers’ compensation claim. The plaintiff, therefore, brought a workers’ compensation retaliation claim against the hospital pursuant to section 440.205, Florida Statutes.
The hospital successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing that the business judgment rule precluded the plaintiff’s claim. Using case law from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the hospital framed the issue as:
A plaintiff is not allowed to recast an employer’s proffered nondiscriminatory reasons or substitute his business judgment for that of the employer. Provided that the proffered reason is one that might motivate a reasonable employer, an employee must meet that reason head on and rebut it, and the employee cannot succeed by simply quarreling with the wisdom of that reason.
The Fourth District agreed with both the trial court and the hospital and expressly adopted the business judgment rule. The court noted that, although some decisions had implicitly accepted it, “[n]o case from this Court has explicitly applied the business judgment rule to an employee’s discrimination or retaliation claim.”
Not only is this decision significant for its holding that the “business judgment rule applies in workers’ compensation retaliation cases,” but it also paves the way for the application of the business judgment rule in other causes of action in Florida where a plaintiff argues that the employers’ actions are retaliatory and pretextual.
The authors represented the hospital in both the trial court and the appeal that resulted in the Francois decision.
©2023 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.