JENNIFER BACH, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., A FOREIGN COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jennifer Bach appealed a dismissal of her gender discrimination complaint after the Florida Commission on Human Relations failed to act within the statutory 180-day deadline but eventually issued a "no cause" determination. The court held that receipt of a no-cause determination terminates the complainant's right to proceed directly to civil court based on the Commission's failure to timely act, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies instead.
Receipt of a "no cause" determination terminates the complainant's option to proceed under section 760.11(8) based on the Commission's failure to timely act, and the complainant must follow section 760.11(7) and exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in court.
[1] A complainant is entitled only to an administrative remedy if the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismisses a gender discrimination complaint.
[2] If the Florida Commission on Human Relations fails to act on a gender discrimination complaint within 180 days, the complainant may pursue remedies as if the Commission h…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If the Commission does not act within 180 days, the complainant may pursue the remedies available as if the Commission had made a finding of reasonable cause.”
Establishes the alternative remedy available when the Commission fails to timely act under section 760.11(8)
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBach filed a gender discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. The Commission did not issue its determination within the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a complaint for gender discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“Commission”).
Pursuant to section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes (1999), the Commission has 180 days to “determine if there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred.... ” If the Commission dismisses the complaint, the complainant is entitled only to an administrative remedy. See § 760.11(7), Fla. Stat. (1999).
However, if the Commission finds reasonable cause, the complainant may pursue either a civil action in court or pursue an administrative hearing. See § 760.11(4), Fla. Stat. (1999). If the Commission does not act within 180 days, the complainant may pursue the remedies available as if the Commission had made a finding of reasonable cause. See § 760,11(8), Fla. Stat. (1999). This latter scenario would permit the complainant to file a civil action.
In this case, the Commission found no reasonable cause and dismissed the complaint, but. it did not enter that order within the 180 days allowed. The question raised is whether the complainant may then avoid the requirement to pursue an administrative remedy after the Commission dismisses the complaint and proceed to file a civil action based on the Commission’s failure to act within 180 days of the filing of the complaint. This question has recently been answered by the third district in Woodham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 793 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
That court held that “[t]he receipt of a ‘no cause’ determination terminates the person’s option to proceed under section 760.11(8), and requires that the person follow subsection 7, and exhaust the administrative remedy provided therein, prior to filing a lawsuit in a Florida court.” Id. at 43. We agree with the analysis of the third district and adopt it as our own. We therefore affirm the final order of dismissal.
GUNTHER, WARNER, JJ„ and STREITFELD, JEFFREY E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cordette Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 829 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2002)…the 180-day period for FCHR action, but before the claimant files a lawsuit, requires the claimant to exhaust the administrative remedy provided in subsection (7). See Woodham, 793 So. 2d at 43. Subsequently, in Bach v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 808 So. 2d 230, 230-31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), review granted, 821 So. 2d 292 (Fla.2002), the Fourth District, upon being presented [*898] with precisely this same issue, adopted the holding and analysis of Woodham. In Joshua, this Court examined a similar issue reg…
-
Hagan v. Seacrest Servs., Inc., 819 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ss & Blue Shield of Florida, 793 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), and chose to adopt the logic and result of the second district’s decision in Cisko. See White, 813 So. 2d at 1006. Earlier, this court’s decision in Bach v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 808 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), adopted the logic and holding in Woodham as it related to another issue. Thus, that case may be factually distinguished from the case at. bar. In Bach, the question before the court centered on failure by the FCHR to enter an or…
-
Bach v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 837 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 2002)…PER CURIAM. We have for review the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Bach v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 808 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), which adopted the analysis of the Third District Court of Appeal’s decision in Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 793 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), quashed, 829 So. 2d 891 (Fla.2002). We have jurisdiction. See…
Authorities Cited
- Cordette Woodham v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield OF Fla., Inc., 793 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)