Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 448.07 (2025)

Wage rate discrimination based on sex prohibited.

✓ 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

448.07 Wage rate discrimination based on sex prohibited.—

(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the following terms shall have the meanings as defined in this section:

(a) “Employee” means any individual employed by an employer, including individuals employed by the state or any of its political subdivisions or instrumentalities of subdivisions.

(b) “Employer” means any person who employs two or more employees.

(c) “Wages” means and includes all compensation paid by an employer or his or her agent for the performance of service by an employee, including the cash value of all compensation paid in any medium other than cash.

(d) “Rate” with reference to wages means the basis of compensation for services by an employee for an employer and includes compensation based on time spent in the performance of such services, on the number of operations accomplished, or on the quality produced or handled.

(e) “Unpaid wages” means the difference between the wages actually paid to an employee and the wages required to be paid an employee pursuant to subsection (3).

(2) DISCRIMINATION ON BASIS OF SEX PROHIBITED.—

(a) No employer shall discriminate between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees at a rate less than the rate at which he or she pays wages to employees of the opposite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except when such payment is made pursuant to:

1. A seniority system;

2. A merit system;

3. A system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or

4. A differential based on any reasonable factor other than sex when exercised in good faith.

(b) No person shall cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against any employee in violation of the provisions of this section.

(3) CIVIL ACTION FOR UNPAID WAGES.—Any employer or person who violates the provisions of this section is liable to the employee for the amount of the difference between the amount the employee was paid and the amount he or she should have been paid under this section. Nothing in this section allows a claimant to recover more than an amount equal to his or her unpaid wages while so employed for 1 year prior to the filing of the claim. An action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by the aggrieved employee within 6 months after termination of employment. The court in such action may award to the prevailing party costs of the action and a reasonable attorney’s fee.

(4) APPLICABILITY.—Nothing in this section or in s. 725.07, relating to discrimination based on sex in providing equal pay for equal services performed, is applicable to any employer, labor organization or member thereof, or employee whose employer is subject to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.

History.—ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, ch. 69-5; s. 1, ch. 84-345; s. 167, ch. 97-103.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Ferry v. Xrg Intern., Inc., 492 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ferry v. Xrg Intern., Inc., 492 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). · cites it 5× “The definition in this statute is not absolutely controlling, as by its terms its application is limited to section 448.07, dealing with sex discrimination and not chapter 448 in general.”

Hartley v. Ocean Reef Club, Inc., 476 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). · cites it 2× “(1983) (action for discrimination based on membership in labor union); § 448.07, Fla. Stat. (1983) (action for wage discrimination on basis of sex).”

Henderson v. Hovnanian Enter., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. Fla. 1995). · cites it 5× “State Equal Pay Act Claim Defendants argue that they are entitled to partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s State Equal Pay Act claim in Count II because Plaintiffs job responsibilities included “interstate commerce” activities that trigger the federal Fair Labor Standards…”

Coleman v. City of Hialeah, 525 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). · cites it 2× “[5] § 448.07(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1983), followed in Ferry v.”

Piezo Tech. v. Smith, 413 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). “See Section 448.07. Moreover, as a practical matter, deputy commissioners have no doubt frequently been exposed to instances of retaliatory discharge (but with no power to prevent it) which surfaced in connection with compensation hearings.”

Saunders v. Hunter, 980 F. Supp. 1236 (M.D. Fla. 1997). “Section 448.07(4) Fla.Stat., states “[n]othing in this section or in § 725.”

Tuttle v. TriageLogic, LLC (S.D. Ga. 2024). “(“ADA”); (IV) sex and pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”); (V) disability discrimination in violation of the FCRA; (VI) marital status discrimination in violation of the FCRA; (VII) unequal pay in violation of the Fla. Stat. Ann. §…”

— 448.07(1)(c) — 2 cases

Ferry v. Xrg Intern., Inc., 492 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). “The definition in this statute is not absolutely controlling, as by its terms its application is limited to section 448.07, dealing with sex discrimination and not chapter 448 in general.”

Coleman v. City of Hialeah, 525 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). “[5] § 448.07(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1983), followed in Ferry v.”

— 448.07(4) — 2 cases

Saunders v. Hunter, 980 F. Supp. 1236 (M.D. Fla. 1997). “Section 448.07(4) Fla.Stat., states “[n]othing in this section or in § 725.”

Henderson v. Hovnanian Enter., Inc., 884 F. Supp. 499 (S.D. Fla. 1995). “State Equal Pay Act Claim Defendants argue that they are entitled to partial summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s State Equal Pay Act claim in Count II because Plaintiffs job responsibilities included “interstate commerce” activities that trigger the federal Fair Labor Standards…”

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.