Delva v. Continental Group, Inc.
96 So. 3d 956
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- The sole issue is whether the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, despite a sufficient allegation of pregnancy-based discrimination.
- There is a split among district courts: Carsillo approved a pregnancy-protection right under the FCRA, while O’Loughlin rejected it.
- The Florida court adopts O’Loughlin’s reasoning, holding that the FCRA does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination because the PDA language was not incorporated into the FCRA.
- The court certifies a conflict with Carsillo and affirms the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCRA prohibits pregnancy discrimination | Delva contends pregnancy is protected under FCRA | O’Loughlin holds no pregnancy protection under FCRA | No; FCRA does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination; adopts O’Loughlin; conflict noted; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth, 995 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (pregnancy discrimination discussed in FCRA context)
- O’Loughlin v. Pinchback, 579 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (pregnancy discrimination not protected by FCRA; PDA context)
- DuChateau v. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., 822 F.Supp.2d 1325 (S.D.Fla.2011) (federal authority adopting O’Loughlin reasoning)
- Frazier v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 495 F.Supp.2d 1185 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (FCRA does not provide for pregnancy-based discrimination claims)