Garcia v. GCA Services Group, Inc.
2:18-cv-00012
M.D. Fla.Apr 23, 2018Background
- Deisy Garcia worked seven years as a custodian at Parkside Elementary and alleges she was constructively terminated after reporting threats against her and refusing her supervisor’s instruction not to call the police.
- On Sept. 14–16, 2015, Ymilsis Acosta (wife of supervisor Remberto Yero) allegedly confronted and threatened Garcia at home and at the school; Garcia called police and a report was prepared on Sept. 16.
- Yero allegedly told Garcia at work not to call police; after she did, Garcia was told she would be transferred over 18 miles away and would be terminated if she refused the transfer.
- Garcia later obtained a medical diagnosis (convulsive epilepsy), requested reassignment closer to home, and alleges Defendant refused and forced her constructive termination.
- Plaintiff proceeded on a one-count Amended Complaint under the Florida Whistleblower Act (Fla. Stat. § 448.102) alleging retaliatory discharge for reporting the threats.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the Court granted dismissal without prejudice and gave Garcia 14 days to file a second amended complaint naming the proper corporate defendant if necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garcia engaged in statutorily protected activity under the FWA | Garcia argues she reasonably and in good faith believed Acosta’s threats violated criminal law (threats/extortion) and thus she objected to unlawful activity by reporting to police | GCA contends the Amended Complaint fails to allege any illegal conduct by an employee acting within the scope of employment, so no protected activity is pled | Court held dismissal appropriate as pled facts did not sufficiently establish protected activity but assumed arguendo the conduct could violate law; granted leave to amend |
| Whether the alleged misconduct was within supervisor’s scope of employment (necessary for FWA protection) | Garcia points to the confrontation occurring at work and Yero’s instruction at work not to call police as showing employer-related conduct | GCA argues Acosta’s actions and Yero’s alleged request were outside the course and scope of employment and unrelated to employer interests | Court agreed plaintiff failed to allege Yero acted within the scope of his employment; dismissal without prejudice and leave to amend allowed |
| Pleading sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6) (Twombly/Iqbal standard) | Garcia maintains factual allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim | GCA argues allegations are conclusory and lack the factual nexus required to plead a FWA retaliation claim | Court applied Twombly/Iqbal, found allegations legally insufficient but granted one final chance to amend |
| Remedy/procedure following dismissal | Garcia seeks to proceed on FWA claim; requested relief not addressed at motion to dismiss stage | GCA sought dismissal with prejudice | Court dismissed without prejudice, gave 14 days to amend, warned no further amendments if insufficient, and noted correct employer name per removal notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not entitled to assumption of truth; two-step pleading analysis)
- Nadler v. Mann, 951 F.2d 301 (11th Cir. 1992) (scope-of-employment test under Florida law)
- Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) (FWA protection may rest on good-faith, objectively reasonable belief of illegality)
- Kearns v. Farmer Acquisition Co., 157 So. 3d 458 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015) (contrasting rule requiring objection to an actual violation of law)