Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 15, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D21-598 Lower Tribunal No. 20-19278 ________________ Andre White, Appellant, vs. AutoZone Investment Corporation, d/b/a AutoZone Auto Parts, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A., and Chad E. Levy (Sunrise); Diane Perez, P.A., and Diane P. Perez, for appellant. Jones Walker LLP, and Laurie M. Riley, for appellee. Before LOGUE, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J. Andre White appeals a trial court’s order granting AutoZone Investment Corporation d/b/a AutoZone Auto Parts’ motion to dismiss with prejudice. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Because we find that section 11A-28(10) of the Miami-Dade County Code establishes a private cause of action, we reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Andre White began working for AutoZone in 2015. While he was an employee, he alleges he was subjected to ongoing verbal abuse due to his sexual orientation. White made a complaint to the corporate office in May 2019 and was placed on leave pending an investigation. White was terminated on June 4, 2019. White subsequently filed a complaint of discrimination with the Miami- Dade Commission on Human Rights. In August 2020, White received a notice of right-to-sue from the Commission indicating the investigation was being terminated for his failure to cooperate with the agency and that he could pursue his charge further pursuant to Chapter 11A, section 11A-28(10) of the Miami-Dade County Code within ninety days of receipt of the notice. On September 9, 2020, White filed a complaint against AutoZone for sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation in violation of Chapter 11A of the Miami-Dade County Code. In January 2021, AutoZone filed a motion 2 to dismiss White’s complaint, arguing Chapter 11A does not provide a private cause of action for employment discrimination. White filed a response to the motion which asserted the plain language of section 11A-28(10) established a private cause of action. AutoZone filed a reply asserting section 11A- 28(10) does not create a private cause of action. The trial court heard argument on the motion and, on January 28, 2021, granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice finding section 11A-28(10) does not establish a private cause of action. This appeal followed. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews a trial court’s determination on a motion to dismiss de novo. Grove Isle Ass’n, Inc. v. Grove Isle Assocs., LLLP, 137 So. 3d 1081, 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “The construction of a statute is an issue of law subject to de novo review.” Aramark Unif. & Career Apparel, Inc. v. Easton, 894 So. 2d 20, 23 (Fla. 2005). LEGAL ANALYSIS White contends the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the plain and unambiguous language of section 11A-28(10)(b) establishes a private cause of action for employment discrimination. We agree. 3 In 1997, the Miami-Dade County Commission enacted Chapter 11A to prevent discrimination …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals