City of Miami Beach v. Florida Retail Federation
17-0705
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- In 2003, Florida enacted § 218.077, adopting the federal minimum wage as the state minimum and expressly preempting local governments from establishing higher minimum wages.
- In 2004, voters approved Article X, § 24 of the Florida Constitution, which established a higher statewide minimum wage and included § 24(f): the amendment “shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise limit the authority of the state legislature or any other public body” to adopt higher wages.
- In 2016, City of Miami Beach enacted a local "Minimum Living Wage" ordinance requiring covered employers to pay the City wage above the federal/state minimum.
- Florida Retail Federation and business groups sued, alleging the City ordinance is preempted by § 218.077(2); the trial court entered summary judgment for plaintiffs invalidating the ordinance.
- The City appealed, arguing the 2004 constitutional amendment nullified or limited the statute’s preemption clause; the appellate court reviewed de novo and focused on the plain text of the amendment and statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 218.077(2) preempts municipal minimum-wage ordinances | § 218.077(2) bars localities from imposing a minimum wage above state/federal levels | City contends statute cannot validly prohibit municipal wage laws here | Held: § 218.077(2) is a valid preemption statute and prohibits City’s ordinance |
| Whether Article X, § 24(f) of the Florida Constitution nullifies or limits § 218.077(2) | The amendment’s language does not override the Legislature’s authority to preempt municipal powers | City contends the 2004 amendment (Art. X, § 24(f)) restores or preserves municipal authority to set higher local wages | Held: The amendment does not nullify or limit § 218.077(2); both provisions can stand together |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Haridopolous, 108 So. 3d 597 (construing constitutional text like statutes)
- Benjamin v. Tandem Healthcare, 998 So. 2d 566 (initiative-elected amendment intent limited to text)
- Zingale v. Powell, 885 So. 2d 277 (same)
- Fla. Dep’t of Revenue v. Am. Bus. USA Corp., 191 So. 3d 906 (statutes enjoy presumption of correctness)
- Masone v. City of Aventura, 147 So. 3d 492 (municipal ordinances yield to state statutes)