5D05-2522 Hinton v.Supervision

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Fifth District Court » 2006 » 5D05-2522 Hinton v.Supervision

State: Florida

Court: Florida Fifth District Court

Docket No: 5D05-2522

Case Date: 11/27/2006

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2006

MICHELLE LEE HINTON, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. SUPERVISION INTERNATIONAL, INC., Appellee/Cross-Appellant. _________________________________/ Opinion filed December 1, 2006 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Jay P. Cohen, Judge. N. James Turner, of N. James Turner, Esq., P.A., Orlando, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Marc P. Ossinsky of Ossinsky & Cathcart, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. PALMER, J. Michelle Lee Hinton appeals the final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Supervision International Inc., following the entry of the trial court's order granting Supervision's motion for entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Concluding that Supervision's post-trial motion was improperly granted, we reverse and remand for reinstatement of the jury's verdict. When reviewing an order granting a JNOV, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolves all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the non-moving party, and construes every reasonable conclusion Case No. 5D05-2522

which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the non-moving party. Russell v. KSL Hotel Corp., 887 So.2d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is appropriate only in situations where there is no evidence upon which a jury could rely in finding for the non-moving party. Id. Hinton initially filed a complaint against Supervision alleging claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of The Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760 of the Florida Statutes. Hinton later amended her complaint by dropping her claim for sexual harassment, thereby making her claim of retaliation, pursuant to section 760.10(7) of the F lorida Statutes, the sole basis of her lawsuit. A jury trial was held on Hinton's amended complaint. Prior to trial, both parties stipulated to the following facts: 1) Hinton started working for Supervision in approximately February of 1997. The last position that Hinton held with Supervision was that of production expediter. The Charge of Discrimination filed by Hinton with the Florida Commission on Human Relations claiming that she had been sexually harassed was faxed to Supervision on September 2, 2003, at approximately 3:00 p.m. Hinton was terminated from her employment with Supervision on September 2, 2003, at approximately 4:20 p.m.

2)

3)

4)

Reviewing the trial transcript in the light most favorable to Hinton reveals the following facts testified to at trial. In March of 2003, Hinton had a discussion with Timalin Hayes, the human resources director at Supervision, regarding Hinton's complaint of sexual harassment by Mike Vega, a coworker. Hinton told Hayes that Vega touched her inappropriately and that she asked him to stop but he refused. Hinton stated that Vega

2

was grabbing her knee, grabbing her, asking her in Spanish to kiss him, running his fingers up her side, running his fingers through her hair, hiding in the women's bathroom to scare her, and on one occasion picking her up over his shoulder. A meeting was held with Vega and Hayes to discuss Hinton's complaint. Vega was upset that Hinton reported him to human resources. Vega told Hinton that she was crazy and that he never did what she accused him of doing. However, at the conclusion of the meeting, Vega apologized for his conduct. Hinton told Hayes that she thought she could still continue to work in the same department with Vega. Hayes told Hinton that she was going to have Vega written up by their supervisor, Roy Archer. When Hinton discovered that Archer never wrote Vega up regarding Hinton's complaints of sexual harassment, she was upset and felt her complaints had been pushed under the rug. Brad Kingstone, the CEO of Supervision, had a meeting with Hinton and Hayes. During the meeting, Kingstone assured Hinton that everything would be taken care of and that if she had any other problems she should contact him. After later reviewing the minutes of the meeting, Hinton became upset because Kingstone wrote in the minutes that he thought she was exaggerating her complaints. Hinton told Kingstone that there were other female employees that had been sexually harassed by Vega. Hinton wanted to prove to Kingstone that Vega had engaged in a pattern of sexually harassing female employees and that she was not exaggerating her claims against him. Kingstone became very angry with Hinton and told her she was wasting his time and that she had no right to be talking to other employees about this issue. Kingstone told Hinton that if she came to him with anything else about sexual harassment, he would fire her. Later that day, Hinton was written up by Archer for investigating sexual harassment at Supervision.

3

During her meeting with Archer, Kingstone came in and started screaming at Hinton that she was immature, she was disrupting the company, she was wasting their time and she would be fired if she continued talking about sexual harassment. Archer told Hinton to sign the write -up. Hinton refused because she tho ught it was an act of retaliation against her for bringing new information to Supervision's attention regarding her sexual harassment claim and because the write-up was false. After Hinton received the writeup, she decided to consult legal counsel. On September 2nd, Hinton met with an attorney. She filed her charge of discrimination against Supervision during her consultation with her attorney at around 3:00 p.m. that same day. She returned to work at 4:10 p.m. that afternoon. When she came in the door, another co-worker told her that Kingstone was looking for her and that he was in a rage. Shortly thereafter, Kingstone found Hinton and screamed at her that they needed to talk in the conference room. Hinton did not want to discuss anything with Kingstone because she wanted her lawyer to be present. When she asked Kingstone why he wanted to talk to her for the second time, Kingstone told her to clear out her desk, that she was fired, and he told Hayes to get Hinton out of there. Hinton computed her lost wages to be approximately $35,000. The jury returned a verdict finding that Hinton was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination and awarding her $10,000 in damages for back pay. Thereafter, Supervision moved f or a JNOV. The trial court granted the motion and entered judgment against Hinton. On appeal, Hi nton claims that the trial court erred in granting Supervision's JNOV motion. We agree.

4

Section 760.10(7) of the Florida Statutes provides as follows: 760.10. Unlawful employment practices *** (7) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an employment agency, a joint labor-management committee, or a labor organization to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section.

Download 5D05-2522 Hinton v.Supervision.pdf