New Bill Amendments to Resolve Court Split on Statute of Limitations for Filing Employment Discrimination Complaints Under Florida Civil Rights Act

Changes to the Administrative Process for Complaints Filed Under the Florida Civil Rights Act

Legislators from both chambers of the Florida Legislature unanimously passed Florida House Bill 1407, which aims to clarify the administrative and civil remedies process for a person filing a discrimination complaint under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). The bill focuses on the time limit “in which a person aggrieved by an alleged violation of the FCRA has to file a civil action with respect to such violation in certain circumstances.” Specifically, the bill amends certain subsections of section 760.11 of the Florida Statutes, which includes, among other things, “requiring certain civil actions to be commenced within specified periods.”

Resolving Split Between District Courts of Appeal

The bill further aims to “resolve the ‘split’ between [Florida’s] Fourth and First District Courts of Appeal arising from recent litigation and ensure the more expedient resolution of FCRA violation claims to provide finality to all parties involved.” The recent litigation involves a statutory interpretation issue of section 760.11, Florida Statutes, as to the statute of limitations period for FCRA complaints and whether notification by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can trigger the statute of limitations.

As part of the analysis in support of the bill, Florida legislators analyzed the First District Court of Appeal’s opinion in Mooshie v. Florida State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, which considered a challenge to a trial court’s dismissal of a complaint dual-filed with the EEOC and the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) based on an alleged failure to comply with the one-year statute of limitations. The Mooshie court reversed the dismissal, finding that the case could proceed. According to the bill analysis, “though the EEOC had apparently issued a Notice of Right to Sue, nothing before the Court indicated that the [FCHR] had issued its own, independent reasonable cause determination from which the one-year statute of limitations begins to run under the FCRA, and, thus, nothing in the four corners of the Appellant’s complaint suggested that the statute of limitations had yet expired such that her civil action should be time-barred.” Under this literal reading of the statute, it would seem that unless and until the FCHR issues its reasonable cause determination, the statutory period for a complainant to file a complaint under the FCRA will not begin to run.

Florida legislators also analyzed the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s differing opinion in Aleu v. Nova Southeastern University Inc., which upheld dismissal of a similar dual-filed complaint as untimely. As described in the bill analysis, “though the FCRA refers only to the [FCHR’s] issuance of a reasonable cause determination in setting the ‘trigger’ for the running of the statute of limitations, the Court understood that ‘the Commission’ in this context may include the EEOC, such that the statute of limitations would begin to run upon the EEOC’s issuance of a Notice of Right to Sue.”

Bill Amendments

The bill amendments to section 760.11(5) seem to align with the reasoning in Aleu. The Aleu reasoning appears to follow a purposivism approach where the court’s interpretation of the statute focuses on legislative purpose. According to bill analysis, the Aleu court “understood” that the statute intended to include not only the FCHR but also the EEOC to issue its respective determination or notice to trigger the running of the statute of limitations. This purpose is supported by the arrangement between the two agencies, where the “EEOC works with the [FCHR] to facilitate a process in which an aggrieved person may file a single complaint with either the EEOC or the [FCHR] to raise and preserve claims under both state and federal anti-discrimination laws, which complaint the receiving agency then shares with the other agency.” “Further, pursuant to a work share agreement between the agencies, only one agency investigates the complaint’s allegations and share[s] its findings with the other agency; typically, the agency that received the complaint initially will conduct the investigat[ion].”

Section 760.11(5) currently provides that, “A civil action brought under this section shall be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable cause by the [FCHR].” The bill amends this section by adding “or the issuance of a Notice of Right to Sue by the [EEOC], whichever is earlier.”

The bill further amends section 760.11(5) by adding, “If a determination of reasonable cause is not made by the [FCHR] or a Notice of Right to Sue is not issued by the [EEOC] within 180 days after the filing of the complaint, a civil action brought under this section may be commenced no later than 18 months after the filing of the complaint.”

Takeaways for Florida Employers

If approved by the governor, or allowed to become law without the governor’s signature, HB 1407 will become effective July 1, 2026. The bill serves to resolve any confusion as to when the litigation clock officially starts for a complainant to commence a civil action under the FCRA after the complainant filed a complaint of discrimination with the FCHR and/or the EEOC.

After the issuance of either the FCHR’s determination of reasonable cause or the EEOC’s notice of right to sue, a complainant has only one year after the date of issuance, whichever is earlier, to commence an action under the FCRA. Even if either agency fails to issue its respective notice within 180 days after the discrimination complaint is filed, the complainant then has only 18 months to commence a civil action under the FCRA.

If a complainant fails to timely commence a civil action under the FCRA pursuant to the amendments, employers defending such an untimely action will have a strong statute of limitations defense to warrant the dismissal of the action as time-barred.