Case Name: Carl DeMARCO, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-05-01
Citations: 384 So. 2d 1253
Docket Number: No. 54653
Parties: Carl DeMARCO, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
Judges: BOYD, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 384
Pages: 1253–1255

Head Matter:
Carl DeMARCO, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.
No. 54653.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 1, 1980.
Rehearing Denied July 21, 1980.
Theodore L. Tripp, Jr., of the Law Offices of Tobias Simon, Miami, for appellant.
Frank B. Pridgen and R. Bruce Wallace, Jr. of Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, Miami, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, reported at 360 So.2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Appellant DeMarco alleged in his complaint that Publix wrongfully terminated his employment solely because he brought suit against Publix in his daughter's behalf for injuries occurring when she was shopping with her mother in a Publix market. DeMarco contends that the employment termination violated the access to the courts provision, article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution. The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the district court affirmed, holding: "[Wjhere the term of employment is discretionary with either party or indefinite, then either party for any reason may terminate it at any time and no action may be maintained for breach of the employment contract." 360 So.2d at 136. The district court concluded there is no civil cause of action for interference with the exercise of one's right under article I, section 21, of the Florida Constitution. Because of the constitutional construction, we have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution. We affirm the district court of appeal and adopt the reasoning expressed in its opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, SUNDBERG, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ADKINS, Acting C. J., concurs.
It should be noted, as appears from the district court opinion, that DeMarco's suit on behalf of the daughter was pending at the time of the district court opinion. Therefore, neither he in his representative capacity nor the daughter as beneficiary has been denied access to the courts to vindicate the claim for her injuries.