Randall Love PA

Altman Specialty Plants, LLC, the largest horticultural grower in the United States, has agreed to pay $172,000 to resolve an EEOC discrimination claim after the EEOC found that a supervisor subjected female employees to s*xual harassment and a s*xually hostile work environment for an extensive period at its Austin, Texas location. Although the employer disputed the allegations, it agreed to settle the claim as opposed to engaging in long and costly litigation.

In this era of international trade and differing markets, how is one to measure money damages when a buyer is unjustly enriched at the expense of a seller? A recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision recently tackled that issue, although the case was extremely fact dependent which means a different outcome might occur under differing circumstances. At issue, a Chinese exporter sold goods to an American importer; for which the American importer did not pay. There was no question that the importer did not pay, although a written contract was found not to exist. Thus, the sole issue for trial was how much had the importer been unjustly enriched?

Under Florida law, the measure of damages available under a theory of unjust enrichment is the value of the benefit conferred, not the amount the exporter hoped to receive or the cost to the exporter. In this case the goods were produced in China, where they had a value of about five million dollars. The goods were sold to an exporter in America, where the goods had a value of seventy-five million dollars. Thus, a seventy-million-dollar difference existed depending upon whether the valuation of the goods was determined in China or the U.S. The Court ruled that the benefit was conferred in the U.S., where the importer received the goods, invoices and customs documents listed the U.S. valuation, and the importer was unable to provide any substantial evidence that the value of the goods in the Chinese market was the more appropriate marketplace to conduct the valuation.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the entry of a summary judgment in favor of Walmart on an employee’s claim for alleged s*xual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his claims for alleged failure to accommodate and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employee, a maintenance associate alleged a female coworker would periodically approach him requesting to go for a ride in his vintage car, once asked if he was married, and once touched his arm to see if he was wearing a wedding ring. Although the coworker’s conduct could hardly be considered s*xual harassment, and the trial court found it was not, the employee never complained to any supervisor although he did once joke about the incident with a supervisor. The employee also requested a leave of absence so he could undergo cancer treatment for six weeks. His request was pending when he was fired.

As part of his normal work routine, the employee would place trash into a compactor in the back of the store. One day while compacting trash, some waste fell onto his body. He began cursing, and he was overhead by a supervisor. When the supervisor approached him and instructed him to calm down and refrain from using profanity, the employee began to verbally attack her using profanity. When the employee’s coworkers confirmed his use of profanity and verbal attack on the supervisor, Walmart fired him. Because his termination was based upon his use of profanity and verbal attack directed towards a supervisor, and he was unable to establish the stated reason for his termination was merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination, the appellate court affirmed judgment in favor of the employer.