VALENZUELA V. GLOBE GROUND

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2009 » VALENZUELA V. GLOBE GROUND

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 07-1742

Case Date: 08/19/2009

Preview:Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida, July Term, A.D., 2009
Opinion filed August 19, 2009. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D07-1742 Lower Tribunal No. 05-12397 ________________

Gelsa A. Valenzuela,
Appellant, vs.

GlobeGround North America, LLC,
Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mindy S. Glazer, Judge. Peter Marcellus Capua and Jorge A. Calil, for appellant. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker and Ricardo J. Cata and Brian M. McKell and Ronnie Guillen, for appellee. Before COPE, SHEPHERD, and LAGOA, JJ. LAGOA, J. Gelsa A. Valenzuela appeals the entry of final summary judgment in favor of GlobeGround North America, LLC ("GlobeGround"). Because we conclude that Valenzuela failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination and

further failed to present evidence that GlobeGround's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her employment were pretextual, we affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of GlobeGround. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND GlobeGround, a provider of aircraft refueling services at Miami International Airport, hired Valenzuela as a commercial aircraft fueler on September 8, 2004. Valenzuela's job as a fueler involved the fueling of aircraft, and the operation of aircraft refueling equipment such as tanker trucks and hydrant cars. Federal, State and local licensing requirements mandate that employees operating aircraft fueling equipment at an airport possess a commercial driver's license ("CDL"). Valenzuela did not possess the required CDL. On her

employment application, however, Valenzuela lied and stated that she held one. Valenzuela's employment was subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between GlobeGround and the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 500, AFL-CIO. Article VIII, section 6 of the CBA provides that a new employee is on probation during the first 120 days of employment, during which time the employee may be terminated for any reason. Termination within the probationary period is not subject to the grievance or arbitration provisions contained in the CBA. It is undisputed that Valenzuela was terminated within her probationary period.

2

Valenzuela testified that in her introductory training class she was informed that a CDL was required in order to work as a fueler. On December 18, 2004, GlobeGround advised Valenzuela that she needed to obtain a CDL permit by the close of business on Monday, December 20, 2004, or risk termination. Valenzuela went to the license office, but was unable to get an appointment until December 22, 2004. It is undisputed that at no time prior to this date did Valenzuela attempt to obtain a CDL permit during her probationary period. On December 21, 2004, GlobeGround terminated Valenzuela for failure to complete the probationary period. GlobeGround based its decision on the following: (1) Valenzuela's

inability to fuel the Boeing 737 and MD-80 series aircraft; and (2) Valenzuela's failure to obtain the required CDL. Valenzuela filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC found no probable cause, and dismissed the charges. Following the EEOC's dismissal, Valenzuela filed a lawsuit against GlobeGround pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, alleging that GlobeGround engaged in unlawful gender discrimination when it dismissed her for failure to comply with GlobeGround's requirement that she obtain a CDL. At the conclusion of discovery, GlobeGround moved for final summary judgment, arguing that Valenzuela failed to establish a prima facie case of gender

3

discrimination and that Valenzuela failed to show that GlobeGround's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for terminating her employment were pretextual. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of GlobeGround and this appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Haddad v. Hester, 964 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), review denied, 980 So. 2d 489 (Fla. 2008). We review the summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. Bryan v. Dethlefs, 959 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Am. Eng'g & Dev. Corp. v. Sanchez, 932 So. 2d 1241, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). III. ANALYSIS The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA") protects employees from gender discrimination in the workplace. See

Download VALENZUELA V. GLOBE GROUND.pdf