SLF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ALERT May 2009

Cap on Workers’ Compensation Attorneys’ Fees in Florida

Relief may be in sight for business owners impacted by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Murray v. Mariner Health and ACE USA, 994 So. 2d 1051 (Fla. 2008). In Murray, the Florida Supreme Court held that attorneys should be paid “reasonably” for representing injured workers. Essentially, the Florida Supreme Court did not place a cap on the amount of attorneys’ fees that could be recovered in workers’ compensation cases.

However, the attorneys’ fees cap may be restored. In March, the Florida House passed HB 903 (“Attorney’s Fees in Workers’ Compensation Cases”). HB 903 was introduced by the Florida House to clarify the requirement for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs under retainer agreements and to specify the amount of attorneys’ fees that an injured worker can recover. The House passed HB 903 by a vote of 84-35.

Following the Florida House’s debate and passage of HB 903, the Florida Senate considered the bill. On May 1, 2009, by a vote of 22 to 16, the Florida Senate passed HB 903. Although both the Florida House and Florida Senate approved HB 903, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has yet to sign the bill into law.

To access the details of HB 903, including the full text of the bill, please visit the following link: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=41011

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor: Prior Employment Law Case

Sonia Sotomayor was recently nominated by President Barack Obama to the United States Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayor previously served as a judge in the United States District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. While serving as a judge in the Second Circuit, Justice Sotomayor presided over Ricci v. DeStefano, Docket No. 06-4996-cv (2d Cir. 2008).

In Ricci, the plaintiffs were seventeen white candidates and one Hispanic candidate who took firefighter promotional exams and, despite performing well, were not promoted. Ultimately, the candidates could not be promoted because the Civil Service Board voted against certification. The plaintiffs argued that the vote violated their rights under Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause, the First Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Other common law claims were also asserted.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants on all counts. The Second Circuit affirmed the decision and explained, “the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration…because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.”

The Second Circuit’s opinion is also available for free at the following link: http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8a812ae5-df58-4627-8406-8dd4da34f9ea/4/doc/06-4996-cv_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8a812ae5-df58-4627-8406-8dd4da34f9ea/4/hilite/

The case is presently before the United States Supreme Court. The status of United States Supreme Court’s Decision in Ricci can be tracked on-line at the following link: http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-328.htm

Past Issues of SLF Labor and Employment Alert Posted on Website

You may view past issues of the SLF Labor and Employment Alert on the “Publications” page.

211 East Call Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301
850.205.1996
850.205.3004 FAX