440.205
Coercion of employees.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
440.205 Coercion of employees.—No employer shall discharge, threaten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee’s valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Law.
History.—s. 17, ch. 79-40; s. 43, ch. 89-289; s. 56, ch. 90-201; s. 52, ch. 91-1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 143
cases (36 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Smith v. Piezo Technology & Prof. Adm'rs
Smith v. Piezo Technology & Prof. Adm'rs (1983)
“The first accident occurred in May 1979; the second happened in November 1979.”
Juback v. Michaels Stores, Inc. (2015)
“Juback contends Michaels violated Fla. Stat. § 440.205 by coercing and intimidating him after his injuries in February and September 2013 and by terminating him in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim in September 2013 (Counts I, II).”
Chase v. Walgreen Co. (1999)
“Brenda Diana Chase ["Chase"] appeals a final order of dismissal of her claim for damages pursuant to section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1993).”
Piezo Technology v. Smith (1982)
“205, Florida Statutes, is based on findings (1) "that the employer improperly terminated Geraldine Smith as a result of her attempts to claim further workmen's compensation benefits" instead of the alleged reason of excessive absenteeism; (2) that the deputy had "jurisdiction to…”
Bifulco v. Patient Business & Financial Services, Inc. (2010)
“1 The issue is whether workers’ compensation retaliation claims brought against the State under section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2004), are subject to the presuit notice requirements of section 768.”
Maggio v. Fla. Dept. of Labor & Emp. SEC. (2005)
“See § 440.205, Fla. Stat. (2003). Therefore, we conclude that the Second District erred in relying on the reasoning in Bearelly and cases that interpreted section 440.”
Scott v. Otis Elevator Co. (1990)
“Scott brought suit against Otis on September 10, 1984, contending that he had been wrongfully discharged in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), which states: 440.”
Leon v. Tapas & Tintos, Inc. (2014)
“In his First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendants failed to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Counts I and II), improperly retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Fla. Stat. § 440.205 (Count III), misclassified Plaintiff in paying him as…”
Bruner v. GC-GW, INC. (2004)
“Bruner, seeks review of the trial court's Final Summary Judgment in which the court found that section 440.205, Florida Statutes, does not provide for a civil cause of action for an employee who is discharged by his or her employer for having filed a workers' compensation claim…”
Edwards v. Niles Sales & Service, Inc. (2006)
“” Fla. Stat. § 440.205 . That statute only prohibits the retaliatory discharge of an employee “by reason of’ the filing of a workers’ compensation claim.”
Audio Visual Innovations, Inc. v. Spiessbach (2013)
“Spiessbach’s claim for retaliatory discharge which was filed pursuant to section 440.205, Florida Statutes (2011).”
Scott v. Otis Elevator Company (1988)
“4th DCA 1987), in which the court certified the following as a question of great public importance: Are actions for wrongful discharge brought pursuant to section 440.205, Florida Statutes (1979), governed by Broward Builders Exchange, Inc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.