DEFENDING FLORIDA EMPLOYERS: EMPLOYER PREVAILS ON DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

Disgruntled employees will sometimes sue their employer under various discrimination and retaliation claims. The recent case of Wilcox v. TMCFM, Inc., 2025 WL 2097299 (M.D. Fla., July 25, 2025) is a good example of a court adjudicating the claims in favor of the employer because the claims were unmeritorious. The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

The employee worked as a service advisor in 2018 for a motorcycle dealership. The employee’s job duties included communicating with customers and inputting work orders. The employee claimed she had a hearing impairment and requested an accommodation. The employee also alleged she was treated differently than her male coworkers because she received fewer work assignments. In 2020, the employee received several written reprimands for wearing inappropriate attire, asking a manager outside her department to help resolve an issue within her department, ordering the wrong part, several customer complaints. The employer’s final reprimand warned the employee that the failure to improve could result in termination. The employee received a low customer service rating a customer and was terminated shortly thereafter. The termination notice stated the reason for termination was leaving confidential customer information unattended low customer service ratings.

The employee sued for discrimination claiming disability discrimination for failure to accommodate her alleged hearing impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), retaliation in violation of the ADA, gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the FCRA, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the FCRA.

The employer moved for summary judgment on all claims and the trial court granted the motion. The court determined the ADA claims were unmeritorious because the employee failed to show she was subjected to an adverse employment action due to the employer’s failure to reasonably accommodate the employee’s disability. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Mo., 601 U.S. 346 (2024) (holding that the discrimination must have “brought some disadvantageous change in an employment term or condition” to qualify as an adverse employment action). The written reprimands proffered by the employee as evidence of discrimination was not sufficient to demonstrate an adverse employment action under the Muldrow standard.

The court also relied on the burden-shifting framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) to adjudicate the termination claims against the employee. This framework requires the employee to first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which then shifts the burden to the employer to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the employer proffers a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the employee to establish the proffered reason is pretext for discrimination. Although the court determined the employee established a prima facie case, it also held that the employee failed to rebut the employer’s proffered reasons for terminating her because the plaintiff admitted at deposition that the proffered reasons were true. The Miami business litigation lawyers of the Mavrick Law Firm also represent clients in Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. This article does not serve as a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation.