In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—report No. 16-01
214 So. 3d 552
| Fla. | 2017Background
- The Florida Supreme Court considered proposed new standard civil jury instructions (Section 417) implementing the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Fla. Stat. §§ 760.01–760.11, and authorized them for publication and use.
- The Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases submitted twelve new instructions addressing unlawful employment discrimination (e.g., disparate treatment, causation, damages, mitigation, after-acquired evidence, present-value reduction).
- The Court received and considered public comments from management and plaintiff-side bar groups and others; the Committee responded to those comments and revised guidance/notes on use are included with the instructions.
- The Court expressly authorized publication and use of the instructions but declined to endorse their legal correctness; authorization does not preclude requesting alternative instructions or contesting legal correctness at trial.
- The Appendix includes both the model instructions and extensive “Notes on Use” discussing applicable legal standards, variations among statutes and federal analogues (Title VII, ADEA, ADA), and practical issues (jury presentation, front pay, punitive damages limits).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper causation standard under the FCRA (e.g., "because of": motivating-factor vs. but-for) | Favors use of motivating-factor standard (esp. where Title VII analogies apply, e.g., pregnancy) | Favors but-for or other stricter standards depending on statutory analogue (e.g., ADEA/age requires but-for) | Court authorized an instruction using statutory "because of" language and provided Notes addressing multiple causation approaches; it took no definitive position on which standard must apply in every context. |
| Jury instructions for disparate-treatment claims (definition, pretext, inferences) | Seek instructions that permit permissive inferences of pretext and other plaintiff-friendly inferences | Management groups sought clarity/limits; urged caution in requiring pretext or other permissive inferences | Court approved form disparate-treatment instruction and extensive Notes discussing optional pretext instruction, "same actor" inference, cat’s paw, and that additional instructions may be necessary depending on facts. |
| Damages and remedies (back pay, front pay, compensatory, punitive) | Plaintiffs seek full compensatory and punitive damages consistent with FCRA; may favor jury consideration of front pay | Defendants emphasize statutory caps (punitive damages), that front pay is equitable, and limits on punitive liability | Court authorized damage instructions (including back pay, compensatory, punitive up to statutory cap) and noted front pay is generally equitable and not a jury right; committee took no position on some unsettled standards (e.g., punitive standard to apply). |
| Affirmative defenses: failure to mitigate and after-acquired evidence | Plaintiffs stress limitations on reducing damages and protections for compensatory awards | Defendants assert mitigation and after-acquired evidence can reduce back pay and limit remedies | Court adopted instructions for both defenses: failure-to-mitigate can reduce lost-wage awards; after-acquired evidence limits back pay to discovery date but does not negate liability or compensatory damages; references McKennon principle. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Std. Jury Instr. in Civil Cases—Report No. 09-01, 35 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2010) (prior reorganization/approval of civil jury instructions referenced for format/style)
- Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1960) (circumstantial vs. direct evidence guidance)
- Gross v. FFL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009) (ADEA requires but-for causation)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) (after-acquired evidence limits back pay but not liability or compensatory damages)
- Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011) (cat’s-paw theory of causation)
- Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999) (standard for employer punitive damages vicarious liability)
- Delva v. Continental Group, Inc., 137 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 2014) (Florida recognition that "sex" discrimination includes pregnancy)
- Brown Distributing Co. of West Palm Beach v. Marcell, 890 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (after-acquired evidence instruction appropriate; "same actor" inference relevance)
- Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Ballard, 749 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1999) (purpose and theory of punitive damages under Florida law)