83 So. 3d 865
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wells, Chief Judge, reverses a verdict for Mitzel after determining Sunbeam improperly allowed a new theory (age plus sex discrimination) not pled or charged.
- Mitzel, hired in 1988 at Channel 7 as medical reporter, was terminated in December 2005 after Sunbeam moved away from medical reporting and eliminated the position.
- Jacobs, Sunbeam’s Vice President of News, controlled Channel 7’s news programming and decided to shift to breaking medical news; Leider and Ansin approved the decision.
- Mitzel filed a May 2006 FCHR/EEOC charge alleging only age discrimination; her later complaint alleged only age discrimination, not sex discrimination.
- The case proceeded for years on an age-discrimination theory; Sunbeam moved for summary judgment in 2009 under McDonnell Douglas and Gross, aiming to limit relief to age alone.
- The trial court later admitted expert testimony and evidence supporting an age-plus-sex theory, and a five-day trial yielded a verdict for Mitzel on age as a motivating factor; the appellate court reverses, remanding to consider age discrimination only.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing a new age-plus-sex theory was proper | Mitzel argues the theory amplified from the administrative charge | Sunbeam contends new theory was unpled and barred | Reversed; new theory improperly admitted |
| Whether Mitzel could pursue sex discrimination not pled | Mitzel asserts sex discrimination claims tied to age | Sunbeam contends not pled; barred | Reversed; sex claim improperly allowed |
| Whether expert testimony improperly generalized industry-wide discrimination | Mitzel relied on Howard-Byrd’s industry-wide claims | Sunbeam argues it is irrelevant to Channel 7 | Reversed; expert testimony prejudicial and improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Arky, Freed, Steams, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1988) (pleading scope and trial of unpled issues not allowed)
- Freshwater v. Vetter, 511 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (unpled issues cannot stand; claims must be pleaded)
- Brown Distrib. Co. of W. Palm Beach v. Hogan, 890 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (FCRA/ADEA principles; federal law applied to state claims)
- Hogan v. City of Hollywood, 986 So.2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (applies federal Title VII/ADEA standards to Florida FCRA cases)
- Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2009) (ADEA requires but-for causation for discrimination claims)