Opinion ID: 77704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: FOAA Claim

Text: 27 Finally, Albra argues that the Abbotts are personally liable for discriminating against him in violation of the FOAA, Fla. Stat. § 760.50. In relevant part, the FOAA provides: 28 No person may fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, segregate or classify any individual of employment opportunities or adversely affect his status as an employee, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of knowledge or belief that the individual has taken a human immunodeficiency virus test or the results or perceived results of such test unless the absence of human immunodeficiency virus infection is a bona fide occupational qualification of the job in question. 29 Fla. Stat. § 760.50(3)(b). 30 Although this court has yet to address the issue of individual liability under the FOAA, in Huck v. Mega Nursing Services, Inc., the District Court for the Southern District of Florida found the spirit of the [FOAA] to be similar to that of Title VII and the ADA in the area of employer/employee liability. 989 F.Supp. 1462, 1464 (S.D.Fla.1997). The Huck court thus concluded that 31 In light of the language of the [FOAA] and upon reviewing the case law of similar statutes, this Court is convinced that the Florida Legislature did not intend to provide a cause of action against individual employees. Rather, the [FOAA] creates a cause of action for employees who have been discriminated against by their employing entity. 32 Id. at 1464-65. We agree. 33 Section 760.50(2) of the FOAA provides that [a]ny person with or perceived as having [AIDS, AIDS-related complex, or HIV] shall have every protection made available to handicapped persons.  Fla. Stat. § 760.50(2) (emphasis added). The Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), Fla. Stat. § 760.01-760.10, provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an individual on the basis of, inter alia, an individual's handicap. Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a) (emphasis added). The FCRA is modeled after Title VII, so that federal case law regarding Title VII is applicable to construe the Act. Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc., 948 So.2d 921, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). As applied to discrimination based on a handicap, the FCRA is construed in conformity with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 7 Id. (emphasis added); McCaw Cellular Commc'ns of Fla. v. Kwiatek, 763 So.2d 1063, 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 34 Because the FOAA provides that persons with HIV or AIDS shall have every protection made available to handicapped persons, Fla. Stat. § 760.50(2) (emphasis added), the FCRA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an individual's handicap, Fla. Stat. § 760.10(1)(a), and the FCRA is to be construed in conformity with the ADA, Byrd, 948 So.2d at 925, we conclude that the FOAA's employment discrimination provisions shall also be construed in conformity with the ADA. And because we have held that individual liability is precluded for violations of the ADA's anti-discrimination provision in the employment context, Mason, 82 F.3d at 1009, we thus conclude that an individual may not be sued privately in his or her personal capacity for violating the FOAA's employment discrimination provisions. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of Albra's FOAA claim against the Abbots was proper.