In Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 829 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2002), the Florida Supreme Court made two determinations which will have a significant impact upon suits brought under the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA"). First, the Florida Supreme Court held that the standard language in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") Dismissal and Notice of Rights form that the EEOC is "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes a violation of the statutes" is not the equivalent of a determination there is not reasonable cause to believe discrimination has occurred as required by the FCRA to trigger certain administrative prerequisites to filing suit. Second, the Florida Supreme Court held that if the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") fails within 180 days to make a determination either way regarding whether reasonable cause exists, the claimant may proceed to file suit regardless of whether a later no cause determination is made.
In order to evaluate the Woodham decision, this article will begin with a brief discussion of basic FCRA procedure. It will then discuss the facts of the case. The discussion will then shift to the Supreme Court's decision and conclude with a brief discussion of the likely impact of Woodham.
A. Basic FCRA procedure
As a prerequisite to bringing a civil action based upon an alleged violation of the FCRA, a potential plaintiff is required to file a complaint with the FCHR within 365 days of the alleged violation. The FCHR is then required to determine within 180 days whether or not reasonable cause exists to believe discrimination has occurred. If the FCHR makes a "reasonable cause" determination, the claimant has two options: he or she may (1) file suit in court or (2) request an administrative hearing. If the FCHR makes a determination that there is not reasonable cause ("no cause"), the claimant may request an administrative hearing, but must do so within 35 days of the date of the no cause determination. If the request is not made within 35 days, the claim is barred. If the FCHR fails within 180 days to make a determination either way regarding whether reasonable cause exists, the claimant may proceed as if the FCHR made a "reasonable cause" determination.
B. Facts Of The Case
Woodham filed a charge with EEOC, which, pursuant to the Worksharing Agreement between the FCHR and EEOC, acted as a dual filing with the FCHR. Woodham did not receive a determination letter from the FCHR within 180 days, as contemplated by the statute. Over 300 days after she filed her original complaint, she requested a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. The EEOC issued a standard Dismissal and Notice of Rights (EEOC Form 161) which contained the following language: "The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes a violation of the statutes. . . ."
Woodham then sued her former employer in state court. The trial judge dismissed the suit, holding that her claim was barred because she failed to follow agency procedure after receiving the Dismissal and Notice of Rights, which the trial court considered equivalent to a no cause determination, by requesting an administrative hearing within 35 days as required by the FCRA. Woodham appealed. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the trial judge. The Third District also certified that the decision was in conflict with a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal on the same issue.
C. The Decision
The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Third District and held that Woodham was not required to request an administrative hearing within 35 days of receiving the EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights.[1]
The Supreme Court construed the language of the FCRA to require a specific determination "that there is not reasonable cause" to believe a violation occurred. Consequently, the Court held that the EEOC's statement contained in the standard EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights that it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes," was not equal to a no cause determination.
The Court also noted that the EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights did not provide the notice required by the statute, that the FCHR was to "promptly notify the aggrieved person . . . of the options available under this section."
The Court also considered the impact of a no cause determination made after the 180 day period but before the claimant filed suit.[2] The Court held "that whenever the FCHR fails to make its determination within 180 days, even if the untimely determination is made before the filing of a lawsuit, the claimant may proceed to file a lawsuit."
D. Practical Impact Of Woodham
Previously, a number of courts had held that employees who received an EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights were required to pursue administrative remedies prior to filing suit under the FCRA. These same courts had ruled that failure to do so within 35 days of the date of the Dismissal and Notice of Rights barred employees from suing under the FCRA and had dismissed those claims. Dismissal of an FCRA claim, even when a claim under another statute prohibiting employment discrimination based on the same employment action remained viable, was advantageous to an employer. For example, a plaintiff who proves his/her claim under the FCRA may be awarded unlimited compensatory damages (such as emotional damages), while such damages are capped under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Moreover, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, compensatory damages are not available. In light of Woodham, this is no longer a viable argument. Employers now face the prospect of higher potential damages in lawsuits containing an FCRA claim and a claim based on a federal statute prohibiting employment discrimination.
In addition, unless the agency issues a no cause determination within 180 days of receipt of the charge, the claimant can now file suit without satisfying any additional procedural requirements. As a consequence, it is very likely that employers will be subjected to more litigation under the FCRA.
[1] Justice Pariente wrote the opinion and was joined by Chief Justice Anstead, Justices, Lewis and Quince, and Senior Justice Harding. Justice Wells concurred in part and dissented in part and Justice Shaw was recused.
[2] Justice Wells felt that it was not necessary to address this issue to resolve the dispute and dissented from addressing this issue.