Kraft v. Bechtel Power Corporation
This text of 483 So. 2d 56 (Kraft v. Bechtel Power Corporation) 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.
Opinion
Richard KRAFT, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Butler & Pettit and Charles Pettit, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crosland & Bramnick and David Kornreich, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Assuming arguendo that the plaintiff's diabetes was a "handicap" under section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), which forbids an employer from discriminating on such a basis, see School Board of Pinellas County v. Rateau, 449 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); but cf. Jasany v. United States Postal Service, 755 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir.1985), it was conclusively demonstrated that his exclusion from sensitive and dangerous duties at the Turkey Point nuclear power plant was based upon the fact that his condition rendered him unable to meet a "bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the performance of the particular employment." § 760.10(8)(a), Fla. Stat. (1983); School Board of Pinellas County v. Rateau, supra. Accordingly, the summary judgment for the defendant employer is
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
483 So. 2d 56, 41 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 271, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 293, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraft-v-bechtel-power-corporation-fladistctapp-1986.