119 So. 3d 522
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Spiessbach, a former AVI employee, alleged retaliatory discharge under Fla. Stat. § 440.205 after he injured his back, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and was later terminated.
- AVI moved to compel arbitration under an employment dispute resolution agreement Spiessbach signed at hiring; mediation had been attempted and failed.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding arbitration would defeat the remedial purposes of § 440.205.
- AVI appealed, arguing the agreement was enforceable and arbitration did not undermine statutory remedies.
- The appellate court reviewed (without a hearing transcript) as a question of law about the contract terms and statutory scope and found no contested factual issue preventing review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Spiessbach) | Defendant's Argument (AVI) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitration would defeat § 440.205’s remedial purposes | Arbitration provisions (fees, confidentiality, fee-shifting) would impair remedies | Agreement permits relief equivalent to court, fee provisions are permissive and not prohibitive | Reversed: arbitration does not defeat § 440.205 remedial purposes |
| Validity of arbitration agreement (unconscionability) | Agreement is substantively unconscionable due to confidentiality clause | No procedural unconscionability alleged; therefore contract valid | Reversed: agreement valid (procedural unconscionability not shown) |
| Whether retaliatory discharge claim is excluded as a "legal action for workers’ compensation benefits" | § 440.205 claim arises from chapter 440 and thus is a workers’ compensation benefit claim excluded from arbitration | § 440.205 wrongful discharge is a separate cause of action in circuit court and not a compensation/benefits claim | Reversed: § 440.205 claim is not a workers’ compensation benefits action and is arbitrable |
| Whether AVI waived the right to arbitration | AVI’s delays, mediation participation, and two extension motions amounted to waiver | Extension motions and mediation are not substantive acts inconsistent with arbitration; motion to compel filed before responsive pleading | Reversed: no waiver of arbitration right |
Key Cases Cited
- Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2011) (arbitration agreements that substantially diminish statutory remedies violate public policy)
- Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Saldukas, 896 So.2d 707 (Fla. 2005) (three-element test for arbitrability)
- Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla. 1999) (arbitration law principles cited for arbitrability analysis)
- Smith v. Piezo Tech. & Prof’l Adm’rs, 427 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1988) (§ 440.205 wrongful discharge is not a claim for workers’ compensation benefits)
- Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (questions of law about contract terms reviewable without transcript)