Case Name: Girardo Baca FLORES, Appellant, v. ROOF TILE ADMINISTRATION, INC., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-06-09
Citations: 887 So. 2d 360
Docket Number: No. 3D03-2345
Parties: Girardo Baca FLORES, Appellant, v. ROOF TILE ADMINISTRATION, INC., Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., COPE and SHEVIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 887
Pages: 360–361

Head Matter:
Girardo Baca FLORES, Appellant, v. ROOF TILE ADMINISTRATION, INC., Appellee.
No. 3D03-2345.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
June 9, 2004.
Opinion on Rehearing/Rehearing En Banc Denied Dec. 22, 2004.
J.H. Zidell, for appellant.
Fisher & Phillips and Jim C. Polking-horn and Kristen L. Sampo and David A. Buehsbaum, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., COPE and SHEVIN, JJ.

Opinion:
SHEVIN, Judge.
Girardo Baca Flores appeals a final summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge case. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We reverse the summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim because the record demonstrates that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the employer's Operations Manager, Frank Garces, knew that Flores had been injured on the job just days before and that Flores was fired as a result of that fact. The company policies permitted workers to communicate with upper management through the crew leader, Marco Duque, who was in daily radio contact with Garces. The record also demonstrates a dispute as to whether Duque was told of the injury, and his reaction to the news. Hence, defendant has not established the non-existence of genuine issues of material fact and summary judgment was improper. Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla.1985). Moreover, the final summary judgment demonstrates that in deciding the summary judgment motion, the trial court made impermissible witness credibility determinations. This is not permitted in deciding such a motion. Novoa v. Ameri-Source Corp., 860 So.2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Hernandez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 730 So.2d 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and cases cited therein.
Additionally, the claim for lost wages should not have been stricken. Disputed issues remain regarding the availability of a light duty position in which Flores could have been placed.
We reverse the order striking plaintiffs demand for jury trial. In an action for damages for retaliatory discharge under the worker's compensation statute, there is a right to jury trial. See Granfmanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 41-42, 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 (1989); see also Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 572 So.2d 902 (Fla.1990); Martinolich v. Golden Leaf Mgmt., Inc., 786 So.2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 814 So.2d 439 (Fla.2002); Silvers v. Timothy J. O'Donnell Corp., 751 So.2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
We affirm the order striking Flores' claim for attorney's fees. We agree with the Fourth District that chapter 440 does not provide for attorney's fees to be awarded against an employer in an action for retaliatory discharge. See Nicholson v. Ross Products, Inc., 506 So.2d 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); § 440.34, Fla. Stat. (1997).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
COPE, J., concurs.