Opinion ID: 752932
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: count ii: the florida civil rights act sex discrimination claim

Text: 10 The plaintiffs also allege that Blockbuster's grooming policy discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. 11 The Florida courts have held that decisions construing Title VII are applicable when considering claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act, because the Florida act was patterned after Title VII. See Ranger Ins. Co. v. Bal Harbour Club, Inc., 549 So.2d 1005, 1009 (Fla.1989); Florida State Univ. v. Sondel, 685 So.2d 923, 925 n. 1 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996); Gray v. Russell Corp., 681 So.2d 310, 312 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996); see also Paris v. City of Coral Gables, 951 F.Supp. 1584, 1585 (S.D.Fla.1995); Kelly v. K.D. Construction of Fla., Inc., 866 F.Supp. 1406, 1411 (S.D.Fla.1994). No Florida court has interpreted the Florida statute to impose substantive liability where Title VII does not. 1 Therefore, for the same reasons the complaint fails to state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII, it fails to state a sex discrimination claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act. The district court correctly dismissed Count II. 12