Cases from cite.case.law:

IN RE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO., 230 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 2017)

. . . recoverable in retaliatory discharge action pursuant to provision of workers’ compensation act, F.S. 440.205 . . .

BILLUPS, v. EMERALD COAST UTILITIES AUTHORITY,, 714 F. App'x 929 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 440.205. After careful review, we affirm. I. . . . Stat. § 440.205, by retaliating against him for seeking worker’s compensation benefits. . . . Stat. § 440.205, “[n]o employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee . . . Retaliation claims brought pursuant to § 440.205 require a plaintiff to show the following: (1) he engaged . . .

R. JUBACK, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., 696 F. App'x 959 (11th Cir. 2017)

. . . . § 440.205, and provides a statutory cause of action for employees who claim unlawful termination. . . . To establish a claim under § 440.205, the employee must prove that (1) he or she engaged in statutorily . . . We agree, nevertheless, that § 440.205 does not require a plaintiff to ultimately prove that his pursuit . . .

ATHA, v. ALLEN P. VAN OVERBEKE, D. M. D. P. A. a, 213 So. 3d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . The trial court determined that Atha failed to plead a facially sufficient violation of section 440.205 . . . We conclude that the complaint as a whole pleaded a legally sufficient violation of section 440.205 and . . . Section 440.205 provides, “No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce . . . To establish a prima facie case of workers’ compensation retaliation under section 440.205, the plaintiff . . . Atha thus pleaded a legally sufficient violation of section 440.205, and the trial court erred by dismissing . . .

REYES, v. AQUA LIFE CORP., 209 So. 3d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . causes of action: (1) a claim alleging worker’s compensation retaliation filed pursuant to section 440.205 . . .

ROBLES, v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., 197 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . did not make any argument with respect to Count III, a claim of wrongful termination under section 440.205 . . .

CATERPILLAR LOGISTICS SERVICES, INC. v. AMAYA,, 201 So. 3d 173 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . unlawfully retaliated against him for filing a workers’ compensation claim in violation of section 440.205 . . .

FRAZIER- WHITE, v. GEE,, 818 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 440.205, a Title VII race discrimination claim, and interference and retaliation claims under the . . .

R. JUBACK, v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., 143 F. Supp. 3d 1195 (M.D. Fla. 2015)

. . . . § 440.205 by coercing and intimidating him after his injuries in February and September 2013 and by . . . Stat. § 440.205 Juback contends Michaels violated Fla. . . . Based on this, Ju-back claims this constituted coercion and intimidation in violation of § 440.205. . . . February 2013 Incident Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes prohibits employers from “diseharg[ing . . . Smith, 427 So.2d at 184 (protected activity is required element of § 440.205 prima facie case). Cf. . . .

WOOD, v. CALHOUN COUNTY FLORIDA,, 626 F. App'x 954 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 440.205. . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . .

JACKSON, v. AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES FLORIDA,, 608 F. App'x 740 (11th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 440.205. . . . Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes provides that “[n]o employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . . The Florida Supreme Court has held that § 440.205 creates a cause of action for employees who are subject . . .

AMS STAFF LEASING, INC. v. F. TAYLOR K LLC, a, 158 So. 3d 682 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . workers’ compensation benefits is distinct from a cause of action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 . . . is the plaintiffs claim in the underlying lawsuit for retaliatory discharge in violation of section 440.205 . . . above, arbitration of a retaliatory discharge claim does not defeat the remedial purpose of section 440.205 . . .

LEON, v. TAPAS TINTOS, INC. D., 51 F. Supp. 3d 1290 (S.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 440.205 (Count III), misclassified Plaintiff in paying him as an independent contractor rather than . . . Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for retaliatory discharge under Section 440.205 . . . Stat. § 440.205. To state a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge under Fla. . . . . § 440.205, Plaintiff must show that he (1) engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) an adverse . . .

GILLMAN, v. OKALOOSA COUNTY FLORIDA,, 58 F. Supp. 3d 1305 (N.D. Fla. 2014)

. . . . § 440.205. Pending before the Court is the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 33). . . . Stat. § 440.205 (“No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee . . .

HORNFISCHER, v. MANATEE COUNTY SHERIFF S OFFICE,, 136 So. 3d 703 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . Horn-fischer’s claim for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2006). . . . Hornfischer filed an action against the MCSO for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205. . . . Hornfischer’s claim against the MCSO is based on an alleged violation of section 440.205. . . . In order to establish a claim under section 440.205, the employee’s pursuit of workers’ compensation . . . Section 440.205 creates a cause of action for intimidation or coercion even in the absence of a discharge . . .

HERNANDEZ, v. COLONIAL GROCERS, INC., 124 So. 3d 408 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . action against Colonial in which he alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and section 440.205 . . .

AUDIO VISUAL INNOVATIONS, INC. v. G. SPIESSBACH,, 119 So. 3d 522 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . Spiessbach’s claim for retaliatory discharge which was filed pursuant to section 440.205, Florida Statutes . . . the trial court erroneously determined that arbitration would defeat the remedial purposes of section 440.205 . . . alleging that AVI’s termination of his employment was a retaliatory discharge in violation of section 440.205 . . . We disagree that these provisions defeat Spiessbach’s remedies under section 440.205. . . . Section 440.205 is contained in chapter 440, which is entitled “Workers’ Compensation.” . . .

PERRY, v. ZINN PETROLEUM COMPANIES, LLC,, 495 F. App'x 981 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 440.205. . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . .

BURT, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., 92 So. 3d 302 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . against him in retaliation for his making a valid workers’ compensation claim, in violation of section 440.205 . . .

In STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CIVIL CASES- REPORT NO. UNLAWFUL RETALIATION, 95 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 2012)

. . . recoverable in retaliatory discharge action pursuant to provision of workers’ compensation act, F.S. 440.205 . . .

LLANES, v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC., 57 So. 3d 923 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . See § 440.205, Fla. Stat. (2008); Volusia County v. . . .

M. BIFULCO, v. PATIENT BUSINESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 39 So. 3d 1255 (Fla. 2010)

. . . The issue is whether workers’ compensation retaliation claims brought against the State under section 440.205 . . . The First District in Kelley held that “[a]n action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is . . . A claim for violation of section 440.205, although perhaps tort-like in nature, is not a claim sounding . . . ANALYSIS Section 440.205 of the Workers’ Compensation Law creates a cause of action for employees who . . . There have been no changes to section 440.205 or section 768.28(6) since the claims arose in the case . . .

ORTEGA, v. ENGINEERING SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., 30 So. 3d 525 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

. . . See § 440.205, Fla. Stat. (2007). . . . ANALYSIS In order to prevail on a retaliatory discharge claim under section 440.205 of the Florida Workers . . . that Ortega was released to work, provides a complete defense to a retaliation claim under section 440.205 . . .

EADS, v. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES, INC., 19 So. 3d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . entered for Traffic Control Devices, Inc. on his claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Section 440.205 . . .

ANDREWS, v. DIRECT MAIL EXPRESS, INC., 1 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes provides that no employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge . . . In order to establish a prima facie retaliation case under section 440.205, the plaintiff must demonstrate . . .

M. BIFULCO, v. PATIENT BUSINESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., 997 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . Section 440.205 prohibits an employer from discharging an employee “by reason of such employee’s valid . . . The First District stated that an “an action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is clearly . . . A claim for violation of section 440.205, although perhaps tort-like in nature, is not a claim sounding . . . There, the supreme court held that a violation of section 440.205 is governed by the four year statute . . . We do not interpret Scott to hold that a section 440.205 claim, a creature of statute, is tantamount . . .

BRULEY, v. VILLAGE GREEN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, a LBK LP, a d b a TR a d b a, 592 F. Supp. 2d 1381 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . . § 440.205 (2007) (for discharge in retaliation to filing a worker’s compensation claim); Fla. . . .

THIGPEN, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, INC., 990 So. 2d 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . allegedly retaliating against him for filing workers’ compensation claims, in violation of section 440.205 . . .

RUMLER, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, FLORIDA,, 546 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (M.D. Fla. 2008)

. . . and its subdivisions from tort actions, including those filed pursuant to Florida Statutes section 440.205 . . . Count III as alleging a violation of the Florida Workers' Compensation Act, Florida Statutes section 440.205 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, v. GARRISON,, 954 So. 2d 84 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)

. . . Observing that section 440.205 is clearly distinguishable from the Florida Civil Rights Act in that section . . . 440.205 has no presuit notice requirements, no designated forum for adjudicating claims, no explication . . . entitled, and no reference to any portion of section 768.28, the supreme court concluded that section 440.205 . . . We likewise conclude that the Public Whistle-blower’s Act is distinguishable from section 440.205, and . . . therefore the decisions construing section 440.205 are not persuasive in resolution of the issue addressed . . .

MALICHI, v. ARCHDIOCESE OF MIAMI, 945 So. 2d 526 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . priest’s employment relationship and the church’s internal governance could arise pursuant to section 440.205 . . .

R. EDWARDS, v. NILES SALES SERVICE, INC. a, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

. . . fired him in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, in violation of Florida Statute § 440.205 . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . . Similar to a Title VII claim, Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of § 440.205 retaliation . . . he filed a workers’ compensation claim, that improper motive cannot form the basis of Plaintiffs § 440.205 . . . Although the question of whether Florida Statute § 440.205 provides a cause of action for retaliatory . . .

BORJA, v. HINES NURSERIES, INC., 172 F. App'x 927 (11th Cir. 2006)

. . . § 201 et seq., as well as his claim for workers’ compensation retaliation under Florida Statutes § 440.205 . . . in finding that Borja could not make out a prima facie case of retaliation under Florida Statutes § 440.205 . . .

T. McCOY, v. PINELLAS COUNTY,, 920 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . dismissed her action under chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2003), the Florida Civil Rights Act, and section 440.205 . . . alleging two counts: a claim for violation of chapter 760 and a separate claim for violation of section 440.205 . . . require that a notice under section 768.28 must be submitted in order to pursue a claim under section 440.205 . . .

BELL, v. GEORGIA- PACIFIC CORPORATION,, 153 F. App'x 701 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . Stat., and Workers’ Compensation Law, § 440.205, Fla. Stat. . . .

POSADA, v. JAMES CELLO, INC., 135 F. App'x 250 (11th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 201, et seq., and retaliatory discharge pursuant to Florida Statute (“FS”) § 440.205. . . . He argues that the district court improperly applied FS § 440.205, and that Tobchi’s and his testimony . . . Florida Statute § 440.205 provides that: “No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate . . .

BELL, v. GEORGIA- PACIFIC CORPORATION,, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1182 (M.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . Stat., and Workers’ Compensation Law, § 440.205, Fla. . . . Count,two alleges that Georgia-Pacific violated Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 440.205, Fla. . . . The Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Claim The Plaintiffs second claim is brought under § 440.205, Fla . . . The prima facie case of under § 440.205 is essentially the same as § 448.102(3). . . .

CINTAS CORPORATION NO. v. L. SCHWALIER,, 901 So. 2d 307 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . A retaliatory discharge, such as the one alleged here, is prohibited by section 440.205, Florida Statutes . . .

PIQUION v. WALGREEN, CO. d b a Co. v. Co. d b a Co., 369 F. Supp. 2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2005)

. . . . § 440.205. . . . charge and a claim for retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim pursuant to Fla Stat. § 440.205 . . .

MAGGIO, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY,, 899 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2005)

. . . Scott II involved a retaliatory discharge claim brought under an entirely different statute, section 440.205 . . . neither of these cases involved the issue of whether a retaliatory discharge claim brought under section 440.205 . . . See § 440.205, Fla. Stat. (2003). . . . the Second District erred in relying on the reasoning in Bearelly and cases that interpreted section 440.205 . . . Courts of Appeal have concluded that because a retaliatory discharge claim brought pursuant to section 440.205 . . .

BORQUE, v. TRUGREEN, INC. d. b. a., 389 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 2004)

. . . . §§ 440.205 and 440.15 alleging that Trugreen terminated his employment because he pursued a claim for . . . Section 440.205 provides that “[n]o employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . . general release signed by Borque was intended to encompass his retaliatory discharge claim under § 440.205 . . . In Smith the court held that a “Section 440.205 wrongful discharge claim is not a claim for compensation . . .

RUSSELL v. KSL HOTEL CORP. a d b a, 887 So. 2d 372 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Second, according to Section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2002), an employer cannot discharge an employee . . .

W. BRUNER, v. GC- GW, INC. d b a, 880 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . Bruner, seeks review of the trial court’s Final Summary Judgment in which the court found that section 440.205 . . . Appellant first argues that the plain language of section 440.205 provides for such a cause of action . . . In his second argument, appellant argues that, if section 440.205 is ambiguous with respect to the issue . . . Concluding that section 440.205 provides for a civil cause of action when an employer discharges an employee . . . According to the court, appellant’s interpretation of section 440.205 belied the historical and primary . . . We have determined that a cause of action exists under section 440.205, Florida Statutes, when a subsequent . . . Given this admitted bit of confusion, I would read section 440.205 narrowly, as in derogation of the . . .

FLORES, v. ROOF TILE ADMINISTRATION, INC., 887 So. 2d 360 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . The applicable statute provides: 440.205. . . . . § 440.205, Fla. Stat. (1997). . . . compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law,” as required by section 440.205 . . .

ROSS, v. JIM ADAMS FORD, INC., 871 So. 2d 312 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . See § 440.205, Fla. Stat. (1993). . . . Elevator, 524 So.2d 642 (Fla.1988) (holding four-year period for statutory actions applies to section 440.205 . . .

F. BRANCHE, v. AIRTRAN AIRWAYS, INC., 314 F. Supp. 2d 1194 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

. . . punitive damages may be available in a retaliatory discharge action under Florida Statutes Section 440.205 . . . statutory construction issue than that in Section 448.103, because the legislature was silent in Section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205 creates a cause of action for retaliatory discharge if an employer fires or threatens . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . .

VILLAVICENCIO, v. SIEMENS POWER TRANSMISSION, AND DISTRIBUTION, INC., 867 So. 2d 628 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . In this action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2001), the trial court . . . compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law” so as to invoke the protection of the statute. § 440.205 . . .

J. HODGES, v. CITRUS WORLD, INC. d b a, 850 So. 2d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . Citrus World, Inc., d/b/a Florida Natural Growers, under the Florida Workers’ Compensation Law, section 440.205 . . . had retaliated against her for seeking workers’ compensation benefits, she filed suit under section 440.205 . . . Hodges had admitted that her discharge was not a result of Citrus World’s alleged violation of section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2000), provides the following: "No employer shall discharge, threaten . . .

HUBBARD, v. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 839 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

. . . had been terminated in retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims, in violation of section 440.205 . . .

M. HUMPHREY, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK, AND CO., 192 F. Supp. 2d 1371 (S.D. Fla. 2002)

. . . . § 440.205 in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Martin County Florida, and the action was removed . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . . Stat. § 440.205. . . .

SMALBEIN, v. VOLUSIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,, 801 So. 2d 169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . Smalbein contends that he has a “valid claim” under section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1995), and the . . . Smalbein argues that the term “valid claim” under section 440.205 should not be construed as a requirement . . . Neither section 440.205, nor Chapter 440, defines the term “valid.” . . . To give meaning and effect to the purpose of Chapter 440 and especially section 440.205, we construe . . . with no fear of liability when the four-year statute of limitations for filing a suit under section 440.205 . . .

OSTEN, v. CITY OF HOMESTEAD,, 757 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . the City as a retaliatory measure for filing the workers’ compensation claim in violation of section 440.205 . . . Ostens assertion that her statutory claim under section 440.205 for retaliatory discharge is not tortious . . . citing to Scott, the first district squarely held that an action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 . . .

N. SILVERS, v. TIMOTHY J. O DONNELL CORP. a k a O, 751 So. 2d 747 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

. . . Silvers brought suit against O’Donnell for violation of section 440.205, Fla. . . .

CHASE, v. WALGREEN COMPANY,, 750 So. 2d 93 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . The issue in this case is whether section 440.205, Florida Statutes, creates a statutory cause of action . . . The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant alleging a violation of § 440.205 Florida Statutes (1997 . . . We hold, therefore, that F.S. § 440.205 does create a statutory cause of action. Smith at 184. . . . The supreme court addressed section 440.205 again in the case of Scott v. . . . Plaintiff alleges that his claim under Section 440.205 falls within the scope of Smith v. . . . Diana Chase [“Chase”] appeals a final order of dismissal of her claim for damages pursuant to section 440.205 . . . The primary argument of the Defendant is that F.S. § 440.205 provides a cause of action for wrongful . . . I have noted the Supreme Court of Florida decisions which have referenced F.S. § 440.205 as providing . . . Section 440.205, entitled “Coercion of Employees,” provides as follows: No employer shall discharge, . . . Plaintiff then filed suit alleging, inter alia, violation of section 440.205. Id. at 259. . . .

F. KELLEY C. v. JACKSON COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR,, 745 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

. . . trial court’s order dismissing their complaint with prejudice for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 . . . the presuit notice under section 768.28, Florida Statutes (1997), was not required because section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205 contains no language which lends any significant support to appellants’ argument. . . . An action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is clearly a “tort” within the meaning of section . . .

HARRISON, v. DIGITAL HEALTH PLAN, 183 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 1999)

. . . . § 440.205). . . . .

ANDERSON, v. TBA PARTNERSHIP, LTD. f k a d b a, 733 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . He alleged that he was fired in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1995), because he had . . . judge of compensation claims had no jurisdiction to settle the wrongful termination claim under section 440.205 . . . At a minimum, I would hold that a release of a claim under section 440.205 must be supported by separate . . .

GIROUX, v. RONALD W. WILLIAMS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 705 So. 2d 663 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

. . . Troy Giroux appeals a final summary judgment in his action for unlawful discharge under section 440.205 . . .

OCA, v. ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, a a, 692 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . Plaintiff argues, however, that his claim falls within section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1993), which . . . Plaintiff alleges that his claim under section 440.205 falls within the scope of Smith v. . . . In Smith, the Florida Supreme Court held that “section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), creates a statutory . . . The Florida Supreme Court held that section 440.205 creates a cause of action for retaliatory discharge . . . that a dispute that falls within the scope of subsection 440.15(6) is outside the coverage of section 440.205 . . .

L. WILLIAMS, v. CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH,, 691 So. 2d 580 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)

. . . In deciding “that section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), creates a statutory cause of action for a . . .

DESAI, v. TIRE KINGDOM, INC. a, 944 F. Supp. 876 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . Ch. 440.205 (1995). . . . Human Rights Act, Fla.Stat. ch. 760.01-760.10; and Florida Workers’ Compensation Law, Fla.Stat. ch. 440.205 . . .

TEMPLE, v. S. AUJLA, M. D., 681 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

. . . discharged for pursuing a workers’ compensation claim had a cognizable cause of action under section 440.205 . . . present case because the legislature failed to create any remedy whatsoever for a violation of section 440.205 . . .

E. DAVIS, v. JIM QUINLAN FORD, LINCOLN- MERCURY, INC., 932 F. Supp. 1389 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . § 440.205 (1990) (Dkt. 1). . . . The Florida Workers’ Compensation Law, Fla.Stat. § 440.205 (1990), states that an employer cannot discharge . . .

T. A. MUSICK v. GOODYEAR TIRE RUBBER COMPANY, INC., 81 F.3d 136 (11th Cir. 1996)

. . . Based on that characterization, we reasoned that “Florida Statute § 440.205 is most closely analogous . . . A four-year statute of limitations governed claims under section 440.205. Id. at 160. . . .

J. MANGIN, v. WESTCO SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. a, 922 F. Supp. 563 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

. . . . § 440.205 (Count V), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count VI). . . .

E. BARNETT, v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,, 885 F. Supp. 581 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

. . . See Byrd, 961 F.2d at 159 (“Florida Statute § 440.205 is most closely analogous to § 510 of ERISA in . . .

SUPERIOR BRANDS, INC. a v. ROGERS, 646 So. 2d 257 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . that Bobby Carra-way, an employee of Superior Brands, could not be individually liable under section 440.205 . . . not recognize a common-law tort for retaliatory discharge; instead, the legislature created section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205 merely provides: No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce . . .

E. JOHNSTON, v. FOSTER- WHEELER CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 158 F.R.D. 496 (M.D. Ala. 1994)

. . . compensation medical benefits, in violation of Code of Alabama § 25-5-11.1 and Florida Statutes Section 440.205 . . .

REASE, v. ANHEUSER- BUSCH, INC. a, 644 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Her action was premised on section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1985). . . . collateral source and was irrelevant to the ultimate issue of whether Anheuser-Busch violated section 440.205 . . . compensation benefits was not probative of whether she had been terminated in violation of section 440.205 . . . A violation of section 440.205 is considered an intentional tort, and Anheuser-Busch’s state of mind . . . Section 440.205 provides that "[n]o employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce . . .

D. McRAE, v. DOUGLAS,, 644 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

. . . Fla.1988), our supreme court ruled that an action for wrongful discharge brought pursuant to section 440.205 . . . The court explained: The instant action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is not a “suit . . . The legislature, however, enacted section 440.205 subsequent to Goehring, creating distinct limited statutory . . . Claims under section 440.205 must be brought within the four-year statute of limitations set forth in . . .

J. STRAZISAR, v. STAFF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., 629 So. 2d 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Section 440.205, Fla.Stat. (1991). . . .

EDENFIELD, v. B I CONTRACTORS, INC., 624 So. 2d 389 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Edenfield filed a complaint alleging B & I terminated his employment in August 1991 in violation of section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205 provides that "[n]o employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce . . .

PLM FLORIDA HOTELS, INC. f k a v. DeMARSEUL,, 611 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)

. . . Claimant also sought in this action damages for retaliatory termination, in contravention of section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205, Florida Statutes, provides: COERCION OF EMPLOYEES. . . .

RIVERA v. SAFFOLD a, 606 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

. . . Francisco nonetheless counterclaimed alleging retaliatory employment termination in violation of section 440.205 . . .

BYRD, v. INC., 961 F.2d 157 (11th Cir. 1992)

. . . Florida Statute § 440.205 is most closely analogous to § 510 of ERISA in that it prohibits the discharge . . . question then is which Florida statute of limitations to apply to actions analogous to those under § 440.205 . . . applied Florida’s four year limitations period to wrongful discharge claims under Florida Statute § 440.205 . . . because Goehring was decided before § 440.205 was enacted. 524 So.2d at 642. . . . Instead it applied the four year statute for actions brought under § 440.205. . . .

F. SCOTT, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY,, 572 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1990)

. . . EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 440.205 . . . Otis on September 10, 1984, contending that he had been wrongfully discharged in violation of section 440.205 . . . , Florida Statutes (1979), which states: 440.205 Coercion of employees. — No employer shall discharge . . . This Court quashed that decision, holding that claims under section 440.205 are controlled by the four-year . . . In its opinion, the court held that a claim under section 440.205 by itself did not authorize the recovery . . . Elevator Co., 524 So.2d 642 (Fla.1988), I would hold that the damages arising from a violation of section 440.205 . . . I would equate a section 440.205 discharge of an employee to a breach of a contract for employment and . . . Section 440.205 came into being as part of chapter 79-40, Laws of Florida, a massive amendment to the . . . I therefore conclude that, when the provision leading to section 440.205 was included in chapter 79-40 . . . strongly suggest that the legislature review our interpretation of the damages available for a breach of § 440.205 . . .

NOTARIAN, v. PLANTATION AMC JEEP, INC., 567 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . Notarian’s complaint, composed of three counts, alleged the violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes . . . court granted the Kayes’ motion for partial summary judgment as to a wrongful discharge under section 440.205 . . . first to the cause of action grounded upon the conduct offending the proscription found in section 440.205 . . . to the workers’ compensation statute and to sanction a cause of action upon the violation of section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205, Coercion of employees. — No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate . . .

MITCHELL, v. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS CORPORATION OF DELAWARE, a, 747 F. Supp. 1446 (M.D. Fla. 1990)

. . . . § 440.205, and the Florida legislature has explicitly excluded the remedy in some statutes. . . . Stat. § 440.205 protects employees from discharge or other retaliation “by reason of such employee’s . . . Supreme Court in Scott intimated that punitive damages may be available for suits brought pursuant to § 440.205 . . . "The scope of damages permitted under ... section 440.205 ... remains an open question in Florida.” . . . It is noteworthy that the Florida Supreme Court described § 440.205 as a "distinct limited statutory . . .

FLORIDA AUTOMOBILE DEALERS SELF- INSURERS FUND, v. PLANTATION AMC JEEP, INC., 566 So. 2d 558 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . them a defense in an action that alleged wrongful discharge of an employee in violation of section 440.205 . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, v. MARTIN,, 563 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

. . . pertinent to this case, held that a cause of action for wrongful discharge provided statutorily (in Section 440.205 . . .

HULLINGER, v. RYDER TRUCK RENTAL, INC., 548 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1989)

. . . Otis Elevator Co., 524 So.2d 642 (Fla.1988), the claim was predicated upon a violation of section 440.205 . . . two-year statute of limitations, we stated: The instant action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 . . .

HARVEY v. EVANS PROPERTIES, INC., 547 So. 2d 972 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . See § 440.205, Fla.Stat. (1987). ANSTEAD, LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur. . . .

OTS ELEVATOR COMPANY, v. F. SCOTT,, 551 So. 2d 489 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . The scope of damages permitted under the retaliatory discharge statute, section 440.205, Florida Statutes . . . Section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), provides: No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge . . . held that, although Florida does not recognize a common law tort for retaliatory discharge, section 440.205 . . . Elevator Company, 524 So.2d 642, 643 (Fla.1988) the supreme court held that the enactment of section 440.205 . . . recognize a common law cause of action for retaliatory discharge, the legislature had enacted section 440.205 . . . EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AVAILABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF IN AN ACTION FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE PURSUANT TO SECTION 440.205 . . . as being of great public importance: Are actions for wrongful discharge brought pursuant to section 440.205 . . .

KRESSE, v. CITY OF HIALEAH, a, 539 So. 2d 534 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989)

. . . The action, brought under section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1987), claimed that the City had wrongfully . . . Supreme Court squarely held that an action under an Illinois statute virtually identical to section 440.205 . . . This section provides: 440.205 Coercion of employees. — No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge . . .

C. RINTONE, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY,, 865 F.2d 1220 (11th Cir. 1989)

. . . . § 440.205 (West 1981). . . .

R. ALLAN, Jr. v. SWF GULF COAST, INC. d b a, 535 So. 2d 638 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . judgment entered in accordance with a jury verdict determining that appellee did not violate section 440.205 . . . punitive damages, claiming that appellee wrongfully terminated his employment in violation of section 440.205 . . . The appellate opinion suggests that section 440.205, Florida Statutes, operates independently of the . . . Section 440.205, Florida Statutes, provides that: No Employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, . . . And while section 440.205 has been characterized as a “retaliatory discharge” provision, see Smith v. . . .

F. SCOTT, v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY,, 524 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1988)

. . . question of great public importance: Are actions for wrongful discharge brought pursuant to section 440.205 . . . a verdict against Otis Elevator Company for wrongful employment termination in violation of section 440.205 . . . The instant action for retaliatory discharge under section 440.205 is not a “suit for wages” for the . . . The legislature, however, enacted section 440.205 subsequent to Goehring, creating distinct limited statutory . . . Claims under section 440.205 must be brought within the four-year statute of limitations set forth in . . .

PERICICH, v. CLIMATROL, INC., 523 So. 2d 684 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

. . . Instead, Pericich brought an action against Climatrol, claiming the company had violated section 440.205 . . . In its judgment the trial court correctly concluded that section 440.205 only prohibits the retaliatory . . . Section 440.205 states: "No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any . . . employee’s return to work after suffering a work-related injury, since such action would violate section 440.205 . . .

SOUTHWEST GULFCOAST, INC. d b a v. ALLAN, Jr., 513 So. 2d 219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . The question before us is whether Allan’s cause of action, based on section 440.205, Florida Statutes . . . appealed order upon the conclusion that section 301 has not preempted state enforcement of section 440.205 . . . alleged that he was. an employee and that Southwest Forest was an employer within the meaning of section 440.205 . . . Section 440.205, as do the other provisions in chapter 440, “confers non-negotiable state law rights . . . Section 440.205 provides: Coercion of employees. — No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge . . .

D. NICHOLSON, v. ROSS PRODUCTS, INC. a, 506 So. 2d 487 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . See § 440.205, Fla.Stat. (1985). . . .

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, v. F. SCOTT,, 503 So. 2d 941 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

. . . Both parties agree that this action was brought pursuant to Section 440.205 Florida Statutes (1979), . . . Goehring, 231 So.2d 513, (Fla.1970), decided prior to the enactment of Section 440.205, in which the . . . as being of great public importance: Are actions for wrongful discharge brought pursuant to section 440.205 . . .

B. CRAWFORD, v. DAVID SHAPIRO CO. P. A. a k a Co., 490 So. 2d 993 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986)

. . . Technology & Professional Admin., 427 So.2d 182 (Fla.1983) (recognizing statutory action under section 440.205 . . .

BRYANT, E. D. v. SHANDS TEACHING HOSPITAL AND CLINICS, INC., 479 So. 2d 165 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . Compared, for example, to the language found in Section 440.205 (see Smith, supra), Section 240.513(3 . . . Handshoe, 176 So.2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), cert. den., 188 So.2d 317 (Fla.1966). .Section 440.205. . . .

M. HARTLEY, v. OCEAN REEF CLUB, INC., 476 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

. . . We note that the legislature has already responded to Segal by enacting section 440.205, Florida Statutes . . .

SMITH, v. PIEZO TECHNOLOGY AND PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATORS,, 427 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1983)

. . . The issue in this proceeding is the scope of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979). . . . . § 440.205, Fla.Stat. (1979). . . . Subsequent to the first accident but prior to the second, section 440.205 took effect July 1, 1979. . . . We hold, therefore, that section 440.205 does create a statutory cause of action. . . . A section 440.205 action is likewise not a proper proceeding under Chapter 120. . . .

SEACOAST BUILDING SUPPLY CNA Co. v. JACKSON,, 419 So. 2d 379 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . terminated the claimant because of a valid claim he made for compensation benefits,” as proscribed by § 440.205 . . . That opinion concluded that the “Section 440.205 wrongful discharge finding in the case before us is . . .

SOUTHERN FREIGHTWAYS v. REED,, 416 So. 2d 26 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . predicated on the employer’s allegedly wrongful firing of Reed, an act that would be prohibited by Section 440.205 . . .

PIEZO TECHNOLOGY Co. Co. v. SMITH,, 414 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . WHETHER § 440.205, FLORIDA STATUTES (1979) CREATES A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A “WRONGFUL DISCHARGE” IN RETALIATION . . . IF § 440.205 DOES CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “WRONGFUL DISCHARGE,” WHETHER SUCH ACTION IS COGNIZABLE . . . IF § 440.205 DOES CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “WRONGFUL DISCHARGE,” BUT SUCH ACTION IS NOT COGNIZABLE . . .

GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL v. BISHOP,, 413 So. 2d 158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . The subject of this appeal is a deputy commissioner’s finding that the employer violated Section 440.205 . . . assert that the deputy commissioner lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a violation of Section 440.205 . . . determination in a proper case the question whether a cause of action may be implied, based on Section 440.205 . . .

PIEZO TECHNOLOGY Co. Co. v. SMITH,, 413 So. 2d 121 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)

. . . compensation order which found that claimant was wrongfully discharged contrary to the provisions of § 440.205 . . . The order determining that employer Piezo Technology violated § 440.205, Florida Statutes, is based on . . . the claim in question “does not preclude the undersigned from considering a violation of Fla.Stat. § 440.205 . . . Section 440.205, Florida Statutes, provides that: No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, . . . The legislative history of § 440.205 shows that the bill was at one time drafted with explicit provisions . . . By looking only to the words of Section 440.205, it is difficult for one to glean the extent of the legislative . . . same day a committee substitute was passed with minor amendments, none of which referred to Section 440.205 . . . One of those amendments introduced a provision which eventually became Section 440.205. . . . The claimant’s request for a finding under Section 440.205 is neither a “claim for compensation”, nor . . . Indeed, Section 440.205 does not provide for any compensation or benefits. . . .