Gallagher v. Manatee County: the sovereign immunity cap for FCRA claims includes attorneys' fees and costs.

• Author: Schwartz, Darren A.
• Position: Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992

The Second District Court of Appeal recently issued a decision which is likely to significantly impact practitioners in the area of employment law regarding the application of the $100,000 cap in F.S. [section] 768.28(5). In Gallagher v. Manatee County, 31 Fla. L. Weekly D339 (Fla. 2d DCA February 1, 2006), the court held that the plaintiff's attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, compensatory damages, and back pay award were collectively subject to the limitation on the "total amount of recovery" provided for in F.S. [section] 760.11(5), which adopts by reference the $100,000 cap in F.S. [section] 768.28(5). The holding represents a bright-line decision regarding the scope of the statutory cap applicable to claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA) (1) against governmental entities enjoying the benefits of sovereign immunity.

The case involved a claim by Gallagher against his employer, Manatee County, for gender discrimination and retaliation under the FCRA. Following a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of Gallagher, awarding him compensatory damages of $230,000 and back pay of $20,000. (2) As is typical in some employment discrimination cases, the total amount awarded for attorneys' fees ($291,743.75) and costs and expenses ($18,282.50) exceeded the recovery to Gallagher for compensatory damages and back pay. (3) The trial court, however, applied the statutory $100,000 cap on the county's liability. Thus, Gallagher was limited in the amount he could recover from the county in a judgment to $100,000.

On appeal, Gallagher argued that the trial court erred because the $100,000 cap applies only to compensatory damages and not to other monetary awards available under [section] 760.11(5). In support of these contentions, Gallagher asserted that 1) the statutory provisions regarding the cap are ambiguous; and 2) [section] 760.11(5) mandates a liberal construction as required by [section] 760.01(3). (4)

In rejecting these contentions, the court began its analysis by examining the appropriate statutory framework beginning with [section] 760.11(5), which sets forth in pertinent part the remedies available to persons aggrieved by a violation of the FCRA:

(5) In any civil action brought under this section, the court may issue an order prohibiting the discriminatory practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including back pay. The court may also award compensatory damages, including, but not...