Florida Considers Several Bills That Will Impact Florida Employers
Currently, the Florida legislature is brewing with bills that will have an impact on Florida's employers if they become law. These bills cover a wide variety of issues including parental leave, medical marijuana, gender identity, sexual orientation and race discrimination.
February 24, 2020 at 11:50 AM
6 minute read
Currently, the Florida legislature is brewing with bills that will have an impact on Florida's employers if they become law. These bills cover a wide variety of issues including parental leave, medical marijuana, gender identity, sexual orientation and race discrimination. If passed, new legislation will take effect on July 1, with the exception of medical marijuana bills, which would be effective immediately. Employers should take a closer look at policies to ensure they are compliant or risk potential litigation.
Florida Family Leave Act
The proposed Florida Family Leave Act (SB 1194 and HB 889) requires employers to permit employees who work an average of at least 20 hours per week, and who have been employed for at least 18 months with the company to take up to three months of paid leave after the birth, fostering or adoption of a child.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows 12 weeks of unpaid leave under the same circumstances. Stipulations include that leave under the Florida Family Leave Act must be taken concurrently with leave taken pursuant to the FMLA, so there is not any additional burden for lost productivity on employers.
According to a 2016 Fortune-Morning Consult poll, 74% of registered U.S. voters said they support requiring employers to offer paid parental leave for new parents. Separately, a 2017 Pew Research Center study showed 82% of Americans agreeing that mothers should have paid maternity leave.
While there is wide support among voters for paid family leave, there is no indication in the bill as to who pays for it. In an interview with WTSP-Channel 10 in Tampa, Sen. Janet Cruz, the sponsor of the Senate Bill 1194, suggested a payroll deduction allowing employees to put money aside to pay for their leave.
If Florida lawmakers determine that employers have to shoulder the burden, Florida businesses may face some financial hurdles. For example, the employer would have to pay the absent employee while she is on leave in addition to overtime, or temporary help to cover the work of the individual on leave. Businesses could also feel the impact from additional payroll taxes or other costs required to cover the leave.
Florida Medical Marijuana Employee Protection Act
Just as other states have expanded medical marijuana users' rights, the Florida legislature is also taking a look at further protections for this class of employees. House Bill 595 and Senate Bill 962, both titled the Medical Marijuana Employee Protection Act, will afford sweeping rights to Florida employees using medical marijuana in both the public and private sectors.
The proposed law would afford new employment rights for both applicants and employees, including the right to sue employers if an adverse personnel action is taken against an employee because of his status as a qualified medical marijuana patient. The only exception relates to jobs involving "safety-sensitive" duties including, but not limited to, teachers, school bus drivers, pharmacists, police and firefighters.
Both bills define safety-sensitive as tasks or duties of a job in which the employer reasonably believes could affect the safety and health of the employee performing the tasks or duties of other persons.
The new law will require employers to demonstrate, and rather extensively, that the employee's ability to perform his job duties is being impaired by the lawful use of medical marijuana. This will be a laborious undertaking. If the employer fails to prove impairment, the employee can obtain injunctive relief (such as job reinstatement), money damages and an award of costly attorney fees.
Key areas employers will need to consider are job descriptions and drug testing policies. Most employers do not have detailed job descriptions, which can be an issue when defending against these types of cases and drug testing is always a legal minefield. Proactive review and audit of policies and job descriptions will ensure the employer will be ready for this new law. This will also help comply with existing laws for drug testing.
The Florida Competitive Workforce Act
The Florida Competitive Workforce Act (SB 206 and HB 161) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees and applicants based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Currently, neither federal nor Florida law prohibit these types of discrimination.
Florida is not alone in looking at protecting this class of employees. According to the Movement Advancement Project, there are over 20 states and the District of Columbia that have passed laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Concurrently, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments in October 2019, involving whether or not Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The court has not yet rendered an opinion.
Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, if Florida passes the Competitive Workforce Act, employees will have a remedy to sue in state court. Additionally, if SCOTUS rules that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under Title VII, then employees will also have protections under federal law.
In anticipation of the SCOTUS decision and Florida's proposed legislation, employers can stay ahead of the curve by reviewing employee handbooks, training and orientation materials to be aware of any approaches that have the potential to be deemed discriminatory.
The Florida CROWN Act
The Florida CROWN Act (SB 566 and HB 761) protects workers and students from discrimination based on hair characteristics historically associated with race, such as hair texture and styles. The CROWN Act is intended to eliminate workplace and school dress code policies that prohibit natural hair, including afros and certain hairstyles, such as braids, twists and locks, which have traditionally had a disparate impact on African Americans. According to a study conducted by Dove, a staunch supporter of this act, "Black women are 50% more likely to be sent home or know of a black woman sent home from the workplace because of her hair." New York and California have passed similar legislation. Should Florida follow suit, employers will need to review their grooming policies to ensure they are in compliance.
Vaughn Glinton Jr. focuses his practice in the areas of employment and professional liability in the Orlando office of RumbergerKirk. Leonard Dietzen concentrates his practice on the representation of private and public sector employers in the firm's Tallahassee office.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Whistleblower Program: What to Expect Under the Trump Administration
6 minute readTurning the Shock of a January Marital Split Into Effective Strategies for Your Well-Being
5 minute readTrending Issues in Florida Construction Law That Attorneys Need to Be Aware Of
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
- 2Divided State Supreme Court Clears the Way for Child Sexual Abuse Cases Against Church, Schools
- 3From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
- 4‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
- 5LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250