Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 448.03 (2025)

Threat of discharge to compel employee to trade with any particular firm or person; penalty.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

448.03 Threat of discharge to compel employee to trade with any particular firm or person; penalty.—Any person or persons, firm, joint stock company, association or corporation organized, chartered or incorporated by and under the laws of this state, either as owner or lessee, having persons in their service as employees, who shall discharge any employee or threaten to discharge any employee in their service for trading or dealing, or for not trading or dealing as a customer or patron with any particular merchant or other person or class of persons in any business calling, or shall notify any employee either by general or special notice, directly or indirectly, secretly or openly given, not to trade or deal as a customer or patron with any particular merchant or person or class of persons in any business or calling, under penalty of being discharged from the service of such person, firm, joint stock company, corporation or association shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

History.—ss. 1, 2, ch. 5015, 1901; GS 3233; RGS 5066; CGL 7168; s. 374, ch. 71-136.

Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 448.03

M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd

§448.03EXTORTTHREATEN TO DISCHARGE EMPLOYEEM · 1st

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1996–2004 · leading case: Smith v. 2001 South Dixie High., Inc., 872 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Smith v. 2001 South Dixie High., Inc., 872 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). · cites it 4× “Smith alleged that City Mazda violated FDUTPA by violating section 448.03, Florida Statutes, which prohibits an employer from discharging an employee for trading or dealing with any particular merchant, or for not trading or dealing with any particular merchant.”

Temple v. Aujla, 681 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). · cites it 8× “§ 448.03, Fla. Stat. (1995). [2] We note that, in enacting section 448.”

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.