Title: Geraldine Seale v. Emsa Correctional Care, Inc.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96-908
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: September 14, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC96908
____________
GERALDINE SEALE,
Petitioner,
vs.
EMSA CORRECTIONAL CARE, INC.,
Respondent.
[September 14, 2000]
QUINCE, J.
We have for review a decision of the Second District Court of Appeal that
cited as controlling authority Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 734 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.
1st DCA), review granted, 735 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1999), which was then pending on
review in this Court.  See Seale v. EMSA Correctional Care, Inc., 744 So. 2d 1002
(Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (table report of unpublished order).  We have jurisdiction.  See
art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981).  Based on
our recent decision in Joshua v. City of Gainesville, No. SC94935 (Fla. Aug. 31,
1  Section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: “In the event that the
commission fails to conciliate or determine whether there is reasonable cause on any complaint under this
section within 180 days of the filing of the complaint, an aggrieved person may proceed under subsection
(4), as if the commission determined that there was reasonable cause.”  Section 760.11(4), Florida Statutes
(1995), explains steps that claimants may take if the Commission has determined there is reasonable cause
to believe that discriminatory action has occurred.  
2  See § 760.10(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995).
3  Section 760.11(5), Florida Statutes (1995), provides in pertinent part: “A civil action brought
under this section shall be commenced no later than 1 year after the date of determination of reasonable
cause by the commission.”
-2-
2000), we quash the decision of the district court. 
Geraldine Seale (Seale) filed charges of discrimination against EMSA
Correctional Care, Inc., (EMSA) with the Florida Commission on Human Relations
(the Commission) on February 28, 1996.  The Commission did not make a
reasonable cause determination within the 180-day period embodied in section
760.11(8).1  On March 13, 1998, Seale filed a single-count complaint in the Circuit
Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit alleging EMSA violated the Florida Civil Rights
Act of 1992 by discharging Seale because of a handicap.2
EMSA filed a motion for summary judgment alleging Seale’s action was
barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth in section 760.11(5), Florida
Statutes (1995).3  EMSA claimed that the one-year statute of limitations began to
run at the end of the 180-day period when the Commission failed to make a
reasonable cause determination.  The trial court agreed and granted summary
-3-
judgment in favor of EMSA.  The Second District affirmed the trial court’s grant of
summary judgment, citing Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 734 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 1st
DCA), review granted, 735 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 1999), as controlling authority.  
In Joshua, the First District Court of Appeal held the one-year statute of
limitations applies when the Commission fails to make a reasonable cause
determination within 180 days.  See id. at 1071.  However, the First District
certified the following as a question of great public importance:
DOES THE SECTION 760.11(5), FLORIDA STATUTES
(1995), ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR
FILING CIVIL ACTIONS “AFTER THE DATE OF
DETERMINATION OF REASONABLE CAUSE BY THE
COMMISSION” 
APPLY 
ALSO 
UPON 
THE
COMMISSION’S 
FAILURE 
TO 
MAKE 
ANY
DETERMINATION AS TO “REASONABLE CAUSE”
WITHIN 180 DAYS AS CONTEMPLATED IN
SECTION 760.11(8), FLORIDA STATUTES (1995), SO
THAT AN ACTION FILED BEYOND THE ONE-YEAR
PERIOD IS TIME BARRED?
We recently answered this question in the negative and held that the general four-
year statute of limitations for statutory causes of action embodied in section
95.11(3)(f), Florida Statutes (1999), applies when the Commission fails to make a
reasonable cause determination within 180 days.  See Joshua v. City of Gainesville,
No. SC94935 (Fla. Aug. 31, 2000).  Because the Second District’s decision in
Seale relied upon the decision of the First District in Joshua, we quash the decision
-4-
below and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE and LEWIS, JJ.,
concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
Second District - Case No. 2D98-04187
(Polk County)
Richard J. Manno, Orlando, Florida; and Bill McCabe, Longwood, Florida,
for Petitioner
John M. Hament and Nikhil N. Joshi of Kunkel, Miller & Hament, Sarasota,
Florida, 
for Respondent