Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—Fla. Dist. App.: State appeals court clarifies accrual of limitations period in certain disability discrimination claims, (Aug 26, 2025)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The cause of action did not accrue because the Florida Commission on Human Relations did not notify the aggrieved person of its failure to determine whether there was reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice had occurred.

The Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the employer in this disability discrimination case. The trial court held that the employee was time-barred from adjudicating her claim because she filed her civil suit more than one year after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. But the trial court misinterpreted the relevant statute, which, when read as a whole, permits a complainant to file suit only after the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) complies with its ministerial duty to certify that it has served notice on the aggrieved person of, in this case, its failure to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.11(8). Because the FCHR had not served the requisite notice, the administrative process had not yet concluded (Davis v. Big Bend Hospice, Inc., No. 1D2023-2932 (Fla. Dist. App. Aug. 20, 2025)).

A former employee of a hospice care facility in Florida was terminated from her employment when she did not return to work one month after her medical leave for open heart surgery expired in early 2020. On December 9, 2020, she filed discrimination complaints with both the EEOC and the FCHR, alleging discrimination based on disability—i.e., her health condition following the surgery.

EEOC letter, but no FCHR notice. On August 12, 2021, the EEOC issued her a right-to-sue letter, which dismissed her charge as untimely. The FCHR did not provide her with any notice of its determination within 180 days. The employee commenced this civil action on December 8, 2022, alleging a single count of disability discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment in the employer’s favor, finding that the action was time-barred under § 760.11(8) of the Florida Statutes. This appeal ensued.

Applicable period of limitations. Under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), an aggrieved person may initiate a claim by first filing a discrimination charge with the FCHR. If the FCHR determines that there is reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practice has occurred, the aggrieved person may file either a civil or administrative action. Id. § 760.11(4). If the FCHR finds that no reasonable cause exists, the aggrieved person may seek an administrative review of the claim. Id. § 760.11(7). Finally, if the FCHR takes no action on a complaint within 180 days, the aggrieved person “may proceed under subsection (4) as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.” Id. § 760.11(8)(a).

The statute establishes clear directions and deadlines when the FCHR makes a timely determination, but is less clear when the FCHR takes no action on a complaint within 180 days. In such scenarios, the FCHR “shall promptly notify the aggrieved person of the failure to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause.” Id. § 760.11(8)(b). Such notice must “inform the aggrieved person that he or she must file a civil action within 1 year after the date the commission certifies that the notice was mailed.” Id. Subsection 8(c) reinforces this limitations period: “A civil action brought by an aggrieved person under this section must be commenced within 1 year after the date the commission certifies that the notice was mailed.” Id. § 760.11(8)(c).

Here, not only did the FCHR fail to make a determination within 180 days, it also did not provide the statutorily required notice indicating that it had failed to make a timely determination as to the disability discrimination charge. Thus, the former employee filed her civil action prematurely, since the administrative process had not first been exhausted. The appropriate remedy in this situation is for the complainant to seek a petition for writ of mandamus for the FCHR’s breach of its duty. Then, only after the FCHR provides certification of notice does the one-year limitations period begin.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order granting the former employer’s motion for summary judgment.

Trial court’s reasoning. The trial court improperly relied on a Fourth District holding that a right-to-sue letter issued by the EEOC can act as the FCHR’s statutory notice, despite the fact that the FCRA expressly defines “the commission” only as the FCHR. SeeAleu v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 357 So. 3d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023); see alsoRamos v. Steak N Shake, Inc., 376 So. 3d 100 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023), in which the Second District also held that the EEOC may act as “the commission” under § 760.11. In this case, the Court of Appeal disagreed that it was “free to substitute clear statutory terms in this manner,” and certified conflict with these Fourth and Second District decisions.

Employee’s argument. The employee argued before the trial court that her claim was subject to the four-year statute of limitations set forth in § 95.11(3)(e) for actions founded upon a statutory liability. However, she relied on a Florida Supreme Court case that was decided prior to the 2020 amendment of § 760.11(8), which now expressly provides for a one-year limitations period. See Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2000).

The case is No. 1D2023-2932.

Judge: Winokur, T.

Attorneys: Marie A. Mattox and Ashley N. Richardson (Marie A. Mattox) for Shazet Davis. Reynaldo Velazquez and Stepanka Rubio (Jackson Lewis) for Big Bend Hospice, Inc.

Companies: Big Bend Hospice, Inc.

Cases: Procedure DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination FloridaNews