197 So. 3d 1206
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Robert DeSisto worked as a water-treatment-plant operator for the City of Delray Beach from 1981 until mid-2010; in 2010 the City required operators to obtain a Commercial Driver License (CDL) within six months.
- DeSisto, diagnosed with PTSD, informed supervisors he could not take the CDL driving exam due to his disability and requested an exemption; HR denied the exemption and the City denied his request to change shifts to avoid the requirement.
- DeSisto resigned, sued under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) alleging disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury found constructive discharge and awarded $262,250 (lost wages/benefits) and $500,000 (pain and suffering); the trial court denied the City’s motions for directed verdict, new trial, and remittitur but applied the statutory sovereign-immunity cap to limit recovery to $100,000.
- The City appealed various rulings (jury instructions, denial of new trial/remittitur, and damages), and DeSisto cross-appealed the sovereign-immunity ruling; the appellate court affirmed except it reversed the non-economic damages award and remanded for remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instructions — whether trial court erred in using DeSisto's ADA-based reasonable-accommodation instruction | Instruction correctly tracked ADA/FCRA law and fairly stated the pleaded claim | City's proposed instruction was preferable | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in giving the Eleventh Circuit ADA-pattern instruction adapted to FCRA claim |
| Sovereign immunity cap — whether City was protected and recovery capped | DeSisto argued recovery should not be reduced below jury award | City argued FCRA recovery against a municipality is subject to §768.28(5) cap | Affirmed: recovery limited by $100,000 sovereign-immunity waiver applicable to claims arising in 2010 |
| Excessiveness of non-economic damages — whether $500,000 for pain and suffering was excessive | DeSisto relied on testimony of stress and fear related to taking CDL | City argued award was grossly excessive, unsupported by medical/psych evidence | Reversed: $500,000 award excessive; remanded for remittitur consistent with precedent |
| Motion for new trial / directed verdict — whether trial court erred denying City's motions | DeSisto contended the evidence supported jury verdict | City contended evidence insufficient and instructions erroneous | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying directed verdict or new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Belle Glade Chevrolet-Cadillac-Buick-Pontiac-Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Figgie, 54 So.3d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (trial court given broad discretion on jury instructions)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Forbes, 783 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversal only where instructions cause miscarriage of justice)
- Barton Protective Servs., Inc. v. Faber, 745 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (instructions as a whole govern error analysis)
- McCaw Cellular Commc’ns of Fla., Inc. v. Kwiatek, 763 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (FCRA construed in conformity with the ADA)
- Zamora v. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 969 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (FCRA damages against state subdivisions subject to §768.28(5) cap)
- City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (non-economic damages in discrimination cases limited; garden-variety emotional distress awards typically much lower)
- Weinstein Design Group, Inc. v. Fielder, 884 So.2d 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (remittitur standard: award must shock judicial conscience to be reduced)