Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 448.24 (2025)

Duties and rights.

✓ 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

448.24 Duties and rights.—

(1) No labor pool shall charge a day laborer:

(a) For safety equipment, clothing, accessories, or any other items required by the nature of the work either by law, custom, or as a requirement of the third-party user:

1. This subsection shall not preclude the labor pool from charging the day laborer the market value of items temporarily provided to the worker by the labor pool, in the event that the worker willfully fails to return such items to the labor pool.

2. For items other than those referenced in this paragraph, which the labor pool makes available for purchase, the day laborer shall be charged no more than the actual cost of the item to the labor pool, or market value, whichever is less.

(b) More than a reasonable amount to transport a worker to or from the designated worksite, but in no event shall the amount exceed $1.50 each way; or

(2) A labor pool shall:

(a) Select one of the following methods of payment to compensate a day laborer for work performed:

1. Cash.

2. Commonly accepted negotiable instruments that are payable in cash, on demand at a financial institution, and without discount.

3. Payroll debit card.

4. Electronic fund transfer, which must be made to a financial institution designated by the day laborer.

(b) Before a day laborer’s first pay period, provide notice to the day laborer of the method of payment that the labor pool intends to use for payroll and the day laborer’s options to elect a different method of payment, and authorize the day laborer to elect not to be paid by payroll debit card or electronic fund transfer.

1. Offer the day laborer the option to elect payment by electronic fund transfer; and

2. Before selecting payroll debit card, provide the day laborer with a list, including the address, of a business that is in close proximity to the labor pool and that does not charge a fee to withdraw the contents of the payroll debit card.

(d) Compensate day laborers at or above the minimum wage, in conformance with s. 448.01. Deductions, other than those authorized by federal or state law, may not bring the worker’s pay below minimum wage for the hours worked.

(e) Comply with all requirements of chapter 440.

(f) Insure any motor vehicle owned or operated by the labor hall and used for the transportation of workers pursuant to Florida Statutes.

(g) At the time of each payment of wages, furnish each worker a written itemized statement showing in detail each deduction made from such wages. A labor pool may deliver this statement electronically upon written request of the day laborer.

(h) Provide each worker with an annual earnings summary within a reasonable period of time after the end of the preceding calendar year, but no later than February 1.

(3) No labor pool shall request or require that any day laborer sign any document waiving the protections of this part.

(4) No labor pool shall charge more than the actual cost of providing lunch, if lunch is provided at the worksite by the labor pool. In no case shall the purchase of lunch be a condition of employment.

(5) A labor pool that operates a labor hall must provide facilities for a worker waiting at the labor hall for a job assignment that include restroom facilities, drinking water, and sufficient seating. A labor pool satisfies requirements for providing restroom facilities and drinking water if its labor hall facilities comply with all minimum requirements for public restrooms and drinking fountains in the Florida Building Code and any local amendments thereto. A labor pool may also provide drinking water through a water cooler dispenser, by offering bottled water, or by any other similar means.

(6) No labor pool shall restrict the right of a day laborer to accept a permanent position with a third-party user to whom the laborer is referred for temporary work, or to restrict the right of such a third-party user to offer such employment to an employee of the labor pool. However, nothing shall restrict the labor pool from receiving a reasonable placement fee from the third-party user.

(7) Nothing in this part precludes the labor pool from providing a day laborer with a method of obtaining cash from a cash-dispensing machine that is located on the premises of the labor pool and is operated by the labor pool, or by an affiliate, pursuant to chapter 560, if required, for a fee for each transaction which may not exceed $1.99, provided:

(a) The labor pool offers payment in compliance with the provisions of paragraph (2)(a).

(b) The day laborer voluntarily elects to accept payment in cash after disclosure of the fee.

(c) The cash-dispensing machine requires affirmative action by the day laborer with respect to imposition of the fee and allows the day laborer to negate the transaction in lieu of payment in compliance with paragraph (2)(a).

History.—s. 1, ch. 95-332; s. 10, ch. 2001-65; s. 1, ch. 2006-10; s. 1, ch. 2015-20; s. 1, ch. 2023-138.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc., 990 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc., 990 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008). · cites it 50× “We conclude that the Legislature similarly intended for the term "public transportation"as enacted within the context of section 448.24(1)to have a broad, general meaning to allow for flexible application under different, specific factual circumstances involving different,…”

Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc., 962 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). · cites it 8× “We affirm the circuit court's finding that section 448.24(1)(b) is unconstitutionally vague.”

KC Cromwell, Inc. v. Pollard, 974 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). · cites it 8× “("Workforce"), appeals the final judgment for 0,000 in damages awarded to Michael Pollard based on the circuit court's determination that it violated section 448.24(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003).”

Pollard v. K.C. Cromwell, Inc., 18 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 2009). · cites it 2× “2d DCA 2007), in which the Second District Court of Appeal declared that section 448.24(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003), was unconstitutionally vague.”

K.C. Cromwell, Inc. v. Pollard, 28 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). · cites it 11× “4th DCA 2007) (Liner I), and held that section 448.24(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003) was unconstitutionally vague.”

Duran v. Joekel (M.D. Fla. 2024). · cites it 3× “Fla. Stat. § 448.24 (1). “Any worker aggrieved by a violation of s.”

Tampa Serv. Co. v. Hartigan, 966 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff, Robert Hartigan, filed a complaint, alleging that appellant, a labor pool company, violated a provision of Florida’s Labor Pool Act, section 448.24(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), by charging its workers in Broward County more than the prevailing rate for public…”

Duran v. Joekel (M.D. Fla. 2023). · cites it 2× “50 each way for transportation to or from a designated worksite, in violation of Fla. Stat. § 448.24 (1)(b). The Complaint asserts the action is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Florida law and procedure.”

Shane Villarino v. Pacesetter Pers. Serv., Inc. (11th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “See Fla. Stat. § 448.24 (1)(b). In a series of orders, the district court granted in part and denied in part Villarino’s attempts to certify several classes of plaintiffs.”

Shane Villarino v. Kenneth Joekel (11th Cir. 2025). “USCA11 Case: 24-11124 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 08/13/2025 Page: 4 of 17 4 Opinion of the Court 24-11124 Fla. Stat. § 448.24 . We begin by reviewing the somewhat compli- cated procedural history of this case.”

— 448.24(1) — 2 cases

Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc., 990 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2008). “We conclude that the Legislature similarly intended for the term "public transportation"as enacted within the context of section 448.24(1)to have a broad, general meaning to allow for flexible application under different, specific factual circumstances involving different,…”

Duran v. Joekel (M.D. Fla. 2024). “Fla. Stat. § 448.24 (1). “Any worker aggrieved by a violation of s.”

— 448.24(1)(b) — 5 cases

Liner v. Workers Temp. Staffing, Inc., 962 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “We affirm the circuit court's finding that section 448.24(1)(b) is unconstitutionally vague.”

KC Cromwell, Inc. v. Pollard, 974 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). “("Workforce"), appeals the final judgment for 0,000 in damages awarded to Michael Pollard based on the circuit court's determination that it violated section 448.24(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003).”

Tampa Serv. Co. v. Hartigan, 966 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “The plaintiff, Robert Hartigan, filed a complaint, alleging that appellant, a labor pool company, violated a provision of Florida’s Labor Pool Act, section 448.24(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), by charging its workers in Broward County more than the prevailing rate for public…”

K.C. Cromwell, Inc. v. Pollard, 28 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). “4th DCA 2007) (Liner I), and held that section 448.24(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003) was unconstitutionally vague.”

— 448.24(b)(1) — 1 case

— 448.24(l)(b) — 2 cases

Pollard v. K.C. Cromwell, Inc., 18 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 2009). “2d DCA 2007), in which the Second District Court of Appeal declared that section 448.24(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003), was unconstitutionally vague.”

K.C. Cromwell, Inc. v. Pollard, 28 So. 3d 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). “4th DCA 2007) (Liner I), and held that section 448.24(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2000-2003) was unconstitutionally vague.”

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.