Kintz v. Escambia County Utilities Authority

795 So. 2d 269, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13726, 2001 WL 1159584
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 2, 2001
DocketNo. 1D00-3562
StatusPublished

This text of 795 So. 2d 269 (Kintz v. Escambia County Utilities Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kintz v. Escambia County Utilities Authority, 795 So. 2d 269, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13726, 2001 WL 1159584 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

POLSTON, J.

The parties agree that, in view of the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Joshua v. City of Gainesville, 768 So.2d 432 (Fla. [270]*2702000), the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee should be reversed to permit appellant’s state law claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and federal law claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Accordingly, we reverse to permit these claims.

The remaining issue on appeal is whether appellant may amend his complaint to state an additional federal law claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Appellee argues that such a claim would be futile because appellant failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before attempting to amend his complaint to add the claim.

Contrary to appellee’s argument, we rule that appellant may amend his complaint to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 because there is not a requirement to exhaust administrative remedies for claims against a non-federal employer. See e.g., Ali v. City of Clearwater, 807 F.Supp. 701 (M.D.Fla.1992)(city employee not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to bringing suit under Rehabilitation Act of 1973; collecting cases); Freed v. Consolidated Rail Coloration, 201 F.3d 188 (3d Cir.2000)(employee not required to exhaust administrative remedies against a non-federal employer prior to bringing suit under Rehabilitation Act of 1973; collecting cases from the First, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits). Accordingly, we also reverse on this remaining issue.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WEBSTER and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Janice Freed v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
201 F.3d 188 (Third Circuit, 2000)
Joshua v. City of Gainesville
768 So. 2d 432 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Ali v. City of Clearwater
807 F. Supp. 701 (M.D. Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
795 So. 2d 269, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13726, 2001 WL 1159584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kintz-v-escambia-county-utilities-authority-fladistctapp-2001.