CASTLEBEERY v. Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc., No. 1D00-4633.

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 810 So.2d 1028
• Parties: Dorothy J. CASTLEBEERY, Appellant, v. EDWARD M. CHADBOURNE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.
• Decision Date: 12 March 2002
• Docket Number: No. 1D00-4633.

810 So.2d 1028

Dorothy J. CASTLEBEERY, Appellant,
v.
EDWARD M. CHADBOURNE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee

No. 1D00-4633.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 12, 2002.

810 So.2d 1029

Bradley S. Odom and Stephen G. West of Kievit, Kelly & Odom, Pensacola, for Appellant

Erick M. Drlicka of Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon, Pensacola, for Appellee.

ON MOTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION AND REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on Appellant's Motion for Rehearing/Clarification and Appellee's Motion for Clarification and Rehearing. We deny Appellant's motion. We deny Appellee's motion for rehearing, but grant the motion for clarification and, accordingly, withdraw our former opinion of January 23, 2002, and substitute in its place this corrected opinion.

This is an appeal of a summary judgment entered on Appellant's claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Florida's Civil Rights Act of 1992,¹ and negligent retention, negligent supervision, and negligent training. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.²

As a threshold matter, we note the trial court improperly applied Florida's common law doctrine of respondeat superior, which is different from the legal standard under Florida's Civil Rights Act of 1992. Degitz v. Southern Mgmt. Services., Inc., 996 F.Supp. 1451, 1462 (M.D.Fla.1998) (citing Sussman v. Florida East Coast Properties, Inc., 557 So.2d 74, 75-76 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 143 (Fla. 1990)). Appellee concedes the trial court applied the wrong legal standard, but argues it reached the correct result.

Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we review this case de novo. Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P. 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000). Thus, applying the correct law to the facts of this case, we find the trial court erred in entering summary judgment on Appellant's sexual harassment claim.

For an employer to be liable under the Florida Civil Rights Act for sexual harassment by a co-worker, the employee must show that the employer knew or

810 So.2d 1030

should have known of the harassment and failed to take remedial action. Breda v. Wolf Camera & Video, 222 F.3d 886 (11th Cir.2000).³ Appellee argues summary judgment was properly entered because Appellant did not properly avail herself of Appellee's policy against discrimination and Appellee took prompt remedial action on those incidents brought to the attention of...