Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 760.10 (2025)

Unlawful employment practices.

✓ 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

760.10 Unlawful employment practices.—

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

(b) To limit, segregate, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely affect any individual’s status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

(2) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employment agency to fail or refuse to refer for employment, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status or to classify or refer for employment any individual on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

(3) It is an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization:

(a) To exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

(b) To limit, segregate, or classify its membership or applicants for membership, or to classify or fail or refuse to refer for employment any individual, in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or adversely affect any individual’s status as an employee or as an applicant for employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

(4) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on-the-job training programs, to discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training.

(5) Whenever, in order to engage in a profession, occupation, or trade, it is required that a person receive a license, certification, or other credential, become a member or an associate of any club, association, or other organization, or pass any examination, it is an unlawful employment practice for any person to discriminate against any other person seeking such license, certification, or other credential, seeking to become a member or associate of such club, association, or other organization, or seeking to take or pass such examination, because of such other person’s race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

(6) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or joint labor-management committee to print, or cause to be printed or published, any notice or advertisement relating to employment, membership, classification, referral for employment, or apprenticeship or other training, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, absence of handicap, or marital status.

(7) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an employment agency, a joint labor-management committee, or a labor organization to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section.

(8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:

1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.

3. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.

4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.

5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.

6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.

7. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.

8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

(b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of training or instruction, provided such training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts.

(9) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, it is not an unlawful employment practice under ss. 760.01-760.10 for an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee to:

(a) Take or fail to take any action on the basis of religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status in those certain instances in which religion, sex, condition of pregnancy, national origin, age, absence of a particular handicap, or marital status is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the performance of the particular employment to which such action or inaction is related.

(b) Observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system, a bona fide employee benefit plan such as a retirement, pension, or insurance plan, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, which is not designed, intended, or used to evade the purposes of ss. 760.01-760.10. However, no such employee benefit plan or system which measures earnings shall excuse the failure to hire, and no such seniority system, employee benefit plan, or system which measures earnings shall excuse the involuntary retirement of, any individual on the basis of any factor not related to the ability of such individual to perform the particular employment for which such individual has applied or in which such individual is engaged. This subsection shall not be construed to make unlawful the rejection or termination of employment when the individual applicant or employee has failed to meet bona fide requirements for the job or position sought or held or to require any changes in any bona fide retirement or pension programs or existing collective bargaining agreements during the life of the contract, or for 2 years after October 1, 1981, whichever occurs first, nor shall this act preclude such physical and medical examinations of applicants and employees as an employer may require of applicants and employees to determine fitness for the job or position sought or held.

(c) Take or fail to take any action on the basis of age, pursuant to law or regulation governing any employment or training program designed to benefit persons of a particular age group.

(d) Take or fail to take any action on the basis of marital status if that status is prohibited under its antinepotism policy.

(10) This section shall not apply to any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which conditions opportunities in the area of employment or public accommodation to members of that religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society or to persons who subscribe to its tenets or beliefs. This section shall not prohibit a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society from giving preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies of its various activities.

(11) Each employer, employment agency, and labor organization shall post and keep posted in conspicuous places upon its premises a notice provided by the commission setting forth such information as the commission deems appropriate to effectuate the purposes of ss. 760.01-760.10.

History.—s. 6, ch. 77-341; s. 2, ch. 78-49; s. 5, ch. 79-400; s. 1, ch. 81-109; s. 7, ch. 92-177; ss. 2, 4, ch. 92-282; s. 6, ch. 2015-68; s. 1, ch. 2022-72.

Note.—Former ss. 13.261, 23.167.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 455 cases (131 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Peguy Delva v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc., 137 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peguy Delva v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc., 137 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 2014). · cites it 38× “-6- § 760.10, Fla. Stat. (2011). “When construing a statute, this Court attempts to give effect to the Legislature’s intent, looking first to the actual language used in the statute and its plain meaning.”

Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 17× “That provision is now codified at section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1997), and states in pertinent part: (1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: (a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual…”

Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Dupont, 933 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). · cites it 15× “[18] The two Florida cases which have addressed this issue in the context of section 760.10, Florida Statutes, have held prima facie cases were established on the basis of a similar record of harassment.”

Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010). · cites it 3× “§ 2000e-3(a); (3) discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.10 (l)(a); and (4) retaliation in violation of Fla.”

Vivian Burke-Fowler v. Orange Cnty. Florida, 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “§ 1981 , and on the basis of marital status in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.10 . The County filed a motion for summary judgment on April 1, 2005, and on June 30, 2005 the district court granted that motion as to all of Burke-Fowler’s claims.”

Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2000). · cites it 6× “After waiting three years from the date of filing, Hullinger initiated a suit against Ryder Truck Rental alleging wrongful discharge and requesting compensation for lost wages.”

Adem A. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Fla. Stat. § 760.10 (l)(a) (emphasis added).”

Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 887 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). · cites it 7× “10(7), Florida Statutes (2002), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person because that person has made a charge of conduct which is prohibited under Section 760.10. As discussed in Part I of this Opinion, the "charge" of prohibited…”

Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). · cites it 5× “11, Florida Statutes (2004) The FCRA provides that it is unlawful for an employer to "discharge or fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of…”

Jones v. Bank of Am., 985 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (M.D. Fla. 2013). · cites it 6× “Plaintiff brings Count I for age discrimination, alleging that Defendant violated Fla. Stat. § 760.10 (1). Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by Defendant as a Vice President/Sales Manager, a position for which she was qualified, and that she was terminated on August 11,…”

Blizzard v. Appliance Direct, Inc., 16 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). · cites it 7× “, for sexual harassment and retaliation in accordance with section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence requiring that the case be submitted to the jury, we reverse.”

Carter v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., 989 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). · cites it 6× “Carter's claim should be analyzed as an "opposition" claim or as a "participation" claim under this section. Because we conclude that Ms.”

Show all 455 citing cases →

— 760.10(1) — 8 cases

Peguy Delva v. The Cont'l Grp., Inc., 137 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 2014). “-6- § 760.10, Fla. Stat. (2011). “When construing a statute, this Court attempts to give effect to the Legislature’s intent, looking first to the actual language used in the statute and its plain meaning.”

Quick v. Tripp, Scott, Conklin & Smith, P.A., 43 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Fla. 1999).

Klonis v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 766 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).

Zamora v. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 969 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

Davidson v. Iona-McGregor Fire Prot. & Rescue Dist., 674 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

— 760.10(1)(a) — 49 cases

Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). “11, Florida Statutes (2004) The FCRA provides that it is unlawful for an employer to "discharge or fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of…”

Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 887 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). “10(7), Florida Statutes (2002), it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person because that person has made a charge of conduct which is prohibited under Section 760.10. As discussed in Part I of this Opinion, the "charge" of prohibited…”

Maggio v. Fla. Dept. of Labor & Emp. SEC., 899 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 2005).

Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 767 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 2000). “That provision is now codified at section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1997), and states in pertinent part: (1) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: (a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual…”

— 760.10(1)(b) — 1 case

Phelps v. Lee Cnty., Florida (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 760.10(10) — 10 cases

Davidson v. Iona-McGregor Fire Prot. & Rescue Dist., 674 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

St. Petersburg Motor Club v. Cook, 567 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Trumbull v. Health Care & Ret. Corp. of Am., 756 F. Supp. 532 (M.D. Fla. 1991).

Corkery v. SuperX Drugs Corp., 602 F. Supp. 42 (M.D. Fla. 1985).

Dep't of Corr. v. Ratliff, 552 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

— 760.10(12) — 8 cases

Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2000). “After waiting three years from the date of filing, Hullinger initiated a suit against Ryder Truck Rental alleging wrongful discharge and requesting compensation for lost wages.”

Dykes v. Quincy Tel. Co., 539 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

Davidson v. Iona-McGregor Fire Prot. & Rescue Dist., 674 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).

Hullinger v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 548 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1989).

Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 734 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

— 760.10(13) — 6 cases

Conklin Ctr. v. Williams, 519 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Sch. Bd. of Leon Cnty. v. Weaver, 556 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

Hullinger v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 516 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

Dep't of Educ. v. Rushton, 638 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Mautino v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 18 Fla. Supp. 2d 104 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 1986).

— 760.10(2) — 1 case

Honeyfund.com Inc v. Desantis (N.D. Fla. 2022).

— 760.10(5) — 1 case

Sanders v. Mayor's Jewelers, Inc., 942 F. Supp. 571 (S.D. Fla. 1996).

— 760.10(7) — 32 cases

Carter v. Health Mgmt. Assocs., 989 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). “Carter's claim should be analyzed as an "opposition" claim or as a "participation" claim under this section. Because we conclude that Ms.”

Hinton v. Supervision Intern., Inc., 942 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Blizzard v. Appliance Direct, Inc., 16 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). “, for sexual harassment and retaliation in accordance with section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Because we conclude that there was sufficient evidence requiring that the case be submitted to the jury, we reverse.”

Vill. of Tequesta v. Tara Luscavich, 240 So. 3d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).

— 760.10(8) — 1 case

Honeyfund.com Inc v. Desantis (N.D. Fla. 2022).

— 760.10(8)(a) — 8 cases

Nat'l Ind., Inc. v. Com'n on Human Relations, 527 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

Brand v. Florida Power Corp., 633 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).

Dayton Christian Schs., Inc. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n, 766 F.2d 932 (6th Cir. 1985).

Tourville v. Securex, Inc., 769 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

Kraft v. Bechtel Power Corp., 483 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

— 760.10(8)(a)(1) — 1 case

Honeyfund.com Inc v. Desantis (N.D. Fla. 2022).

— 760.10(8)(a)(3) — 1 case

Honeyfund.com Inc v. Desantis (N.D. Fla. 2022).

— 760.10(8)(a)(4) — 1 case

Honeyfund.com Inc v. Desantis (N.D. Fla. 2022).

— 760.10(8)(d) — 1 case

— 760.10(a)(1) — 1 case

Suarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (S.D. Fla. 2023).

— 760.10(a)(7) — 1 case

Servillo v. Sola Medi Spa, LLC (M.D. Fla. 2021).

— 760.10(l)(a) — 23 cases

Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Mitzel, 83 So. 3d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

Valenzuela v. Globeground North Am., LLC, 18 So. 3d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

St. Louis v. Florida Int'l Univ., 60 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).

Shuttleworth v. Broward Cnty., 639 F. Supp. 654 (S.D. Fla. 1986).

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.