Atha v. Allen P. Van Overbeke, D.M.D., P.A., 213 So. 3d 1073

Plaintiff Julie Atha was a full‑time dental assistant for Van Overbeke from June 2009 until termination in 2013.
On November 21, 2012 Atha suffered a work‑related injury to her right hand and elbow and requested workers’ compensation benefits and treatment.
The insurer authorized treatment on November 27, 2012; Atha had surgery February 18, 2013 and received temporary disability benefits.
Atha’s physician released her to full duty on June 6, 2013; employer reduced her to one shift per week and then terminated her three weeks later despite having suitable work available.
Atha sued under section 440.205 (workers’ compensation retaliation). The trial court dismissed her second amended complaint with prejudice for failure to plead a facially sufficient claim.
The Second DCA reviewed de novo whether the complaint’s allegations, accepted as true, sufficiently pled the required elements of a 440.205 retaliation claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether complaint sufficiently pleaded causation for retaliation under §440.205	Atha alleged protected activity (claim), adverse actions (reduced hours, termination), and facts showing employer’s negative attitude and actions after claim — thus a causal connection	Employer argued Atha failed to plead a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse employment actions	Reversed: taken as true, allegations show the protected activity and adverse actions were not completely unrelated and plead a legally sufficient §440.205 violation

Ferguson Enters., Inc. v. Astro Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 137 So. 3d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (standards for facial sufficiency and motion to dismiss review)
Andrews v. Direct Mail Express, Inc., 1 So. 3d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (elements of retaliation claim under §440.205)
Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 887 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (retaliation elements and causation analysis)
Ortega v. Eng’g Sys. Tech., Inc., 30 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (causal connection may be shown by protected activity and adverse action not being completely unrelated)
Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2004) (temporal proximity must be close to infer causation)
Edwards v. Niles Sales & Serv., Inc., 439 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (S.D. Fla. 2006) (discussing "very close" temporal proximity for causation)
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (temporal proximity standard for causation)
Hornfischer v. Manatee Cty. Sheriff's Office, 136 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (negative communications and questionable reasons support causal inference)