Hernandez v. Colonial Grocers, Inc.
124 So. 3d 408
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Hernandez challenged a trial court order granting Colonial’s motion to compel arbitration under the employee manual.
- The arbitration clause requires arbitration under AAA rules in Hillsborough County, with an agreed arbitrator or court appointment.
- Initial arbitration costs are borne by both parties, but the prevailing party is entitled to reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.
- The clause provides that the prevailing party may recover Colonial’s fees if Colonial prevails, potentially imposing fees on Hernandez.
- Hernandez argues the clause defeats remedial purposes of statutes under which he sued (FLSA and Florida Workers’ Compensation Act) by discouraging arbitration.
- The court reverses, citing Flyer Printing and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cost-shifting in arbitration violates statutes. | Hernandez argues the fee-splitting provision discourages claims. | Colonial argues no statutory prohibition on cost-shifting. | Unenforceable under Flyer Printing due to remedial-purposes defense. |
| Whether the prevailing-party fee provision conflicts with the statutes. | Hernandez contends it contradicts statutory fee rights. | Colonial contends it does not conflict with statute. | Unenforceable under Flyer Printing; defeats remedial purpose. |
| Whether Flyer Printing remains good law after subsequent rulings. | Hernandez relies on Flyer Printing to void cost-shifting. | Colonial defends Flyer Printing as still controlling. | Flyer Printing remains the controlling rule for this issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flyer Printing Co. v. Hill, 805 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (arbitration provisions defeating a statute’s remedial purpose not enforceable)
- Perez v. Globe Airport Sec. Servs., Inc., 253 F.3d 1280 (11th Cir. 2001) (proposition that arbitration provisions proscribing statutorily available remedies are illegal)
- Paladino v. Avnet Computer Technologies, Inc., 134 F.3d 1054 (11th Cir. 1998) (arbitration clauses defeating the remedial purpose of a statute are not enforceable)
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000) ( Supreme Court on remedial purposes of arbitration)
- Shotts v. OP Winter Haven, Inc., 86 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2011) (Florida Supreme Court on arbitration questions overlapping with trial court decisions)