2024 Florida Labor & Employment Year End Review

Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (February 11, 2025) - 2024 was a modestly impactful year in Florida employment law. The Employment Regulations Bill continued a yearslong trend of preempting municipal ordinances and regulations that exceeded similar state laws, children were afforded greater opportunities to engage in the workplace and with new job responsibilities, and a decade-long conflict between District Courts of Appeal on whistleblower standards came one step closer to Florida Supreme Court clarification.

Statutory Changes

The Sweeping Changes of the Employment Regulations Bill (HB 433)

Prior to July 1, 2024, navigating the complex maze of employment laws could be daunting for Florida businesses operating in multiple cities, counties, or municipalities. House Bill 433 implements a sweeping set of uniform employment standards by prohibiting local governments from adopting local workplace laws and preempting variations from state and federal laws on the same issues. Indeed, HB 433 voids and makes any ordinance, order, rule, or policy that violates the section unenforceable. This is significant for businesses with multiple locations across the state, as it reduces confusion, complexity, and administrative burden. The most significant parts of HB 433 are summarized below:

Preemption of Heat Exposure Regulations - Motivated by a proposed rule in Miami-Dade, Florida followed Texas’ lead in adopting state preemption of heat protection. HB 433 prevents counties and municipalities from creating heat exposure regulations that conflict with or vary from federal or state law. Although Florida does not currently have any heat exposure standard, federal OSHA jurisdiction covers most private-sector workers within the state. Although OSHA formally published a proposed heat safety rule in the Federal Register on August 30, 2024, this rule is not yet final, will not be finalized any time soon, and may even be withdrawn by the current administration. Even if the OSHA rule is promulgated, it is likely to be challenged. Until the rule is adopted, OSHA does require employers to provide a workplace free of known safety hazards, including extreme heat. Therefore, Florida employers should take steps to protect workers from hazardous heat-related conditions.

Minimum Wage and Employment Benefits - HB 433 also limits the ability of local governments to wield their purchasing and contracting power to regulate wages and employment benefits. While all Florida employees are assured a minimum wage and other employment benefits, the Legislature has historically prohibited local governments from setting their own higher minimum wage or mandating benefits exceeding state or federal laws. Counties including Alachua, Broward, and Miami-Dade had previously enacted ordinances to dictate wages and benefits for employers contracting with them. HB 433 nullifies these “living wage” ordinances, preventing local governments from regulating wages or employment benefits for private employers they contract with, and from granting preferential treatment based on voluntarily provided wages or benefits. As a reminder, Florida’s minimum wage is set to rise twice in the next two years, and it will be $15.00/hr. as of September 30, 2026, more than double the federal minimum wage.

Predictive Scheduling - Finally, HB 433 prohibits local governments from adopting or enforcing any regulations concerning private-employer scheduling, including predictive scheduling. Predictive scheduling laws require employers to provide work schedules to employees in advance. These laws are intended to promote fair scheduling practices, guarantee employees sufficient notice of their work schedules, and impose penalties for last-minute changes. They also aim to provide employees the right of first refusal for additional shifts and prevent certain shift patterns, such as back-to-back opening and closing shifts. HB 433 bars local governments from enacting predictive work schedule laws. In the future, any predictive scheduling laws will have to come from the Florida Legislature.

Moving forward, and generally speaking, Florida employers with compliance questions should first refer to state and federal law, rather than local law, which may be voided as a result of some direct conflict with the Employment Regulations Bill.

Relaxed Teen Labor Laws

In contrast with Wisconsin, Florida loosened regulations on the employment of minors to allow more young people to enter the workforce.

First, HB 49 allows minors ages 16 and 17 to work more than 30 hours a week with parent permission, and work over eight hours on Sundays and holidays, even if they have school the next day. If they do not have class in the morning, teens may work before 6:30 am and after 11:00 pm. Before HB 49, a minor had to be at least 17 to work more than six consecutive days, but now, children as young as 15 can do so. Finally, HB 49 provides that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) may waive work hour restrictions for youths that meet certain criteria, such as a hardship based on economic necessity, if they are home-schooled, or working “in domestic service in private homes.”

Another law expanding employment opportunities for teenagers is HB 917, which allows teens ages 16 and 17 working in the home construction industry to work in the field. Minors must first obtain OSHA-10 certification and work under the supervision of an adult 21 years or older that has at least 2 years’ experience and also maintains an OSHA-10 certification. Despite being allowed to work in the field, minors are still prohibited from working in “hazardous conditions,” such as on scaffolding, roofs, or on ladders six feet or taller.

Significant Cases

Although most of the major changes to Florida employment law occurred by statute, there were some notable developments to whistleblower laws.

Gessner v. S. Co., 396 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)

If a plaintiff brings a whistleblower claim under Florida’s Private Whistleblower Act, they are required to show they objected to or refused to participate in an illegal activity, policy, or practice. However, there has long been a split of authority on whether the plaintiff must object to an actual violation of law, or if the whistleblower must have a good faith, reasonable belief that a law has been violated. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that it is sufficient for a whistleblowing plaintiff simply to have a “good faith, objectively reasonable belief” that the employer's actions were illegal, Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, 118 So. 3d 904, 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), while the Second District Court of Appeal held that it is only sufficient when the whistleblower objects to or refuses to participate in an “actual violation of law,” Kearns v. Farmer Acquisition Co., 157 So. 3d 458, 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).

In Gessner, the First District Court of Appeal sided with the Second DCA and adopted the actual violation of law standard for whistleblowers. The First DCA held that the plain language of the private whistleblower statute, Section 448.102(3), makes it clear that an actual violation of law is necessary. The text of the statute says “any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation,” which meant an actual violation is necessary. The First DCA also contrasted the Private Whistleblower Act with the Public Whistleblower Act, Section 112.3187(5)(a), which expressly allows for disclosing “suspected violations of law.” No similar language exists with the Private Whistleblower Act.

In siding with the Second DCA, the First DCA certified a conflict for the Florida Supreme Court to resolve. Although the Florida Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will take the case, its hypothetical decision on which standard applies would be one of the most important developments of the last decade as it would resolve the prevailing confusion and uncertainty around an important question of law, particularly for those statewide employers who conduct business in one or more of these Districts’ territories.

City of Hallandale Beach v. Rosemond, 388 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), reh'g denied (July 29, 2024), review denied, No. SC2024-1265, 2024 WL 5181603 (Fla. Dec. 20, 2024)

Rosemond alleged that he was terminated because the Hallandale Vice Mayor, who was one of the five decision-makers on the City Commission, bore discriminatory animus against Rosemond because he had previously filed a complaint of racial discrimination against the Vice Mayor.

Whether under the Florida Private Whistleblower Act or under the [Public] Whistle-blower Act, the whistleblower must demonstrate a causal connection between the whistleblowing activity and the adverse action. But what if only one of the five decision-makers has any discriminatory animus towards the plaintiff? Was Rosemond required to show that a majority of the decision-makers had discriminatory animus towards him, or could he impute that the one decision-maker’s bias to every other decision maker, known as a “cat’s paw” theory of liability?

The Fourth DCA held that the cat’s paw theory of liability is not available in the whistleblower context for two reasons. First, the cat’s paw theory only applies in cases where a “biased subordinate, who lacks decision-making power, clearly causes the tangible employment action.” The Vice Mayor was not a subordinate; he was one of five decision-makers. Second, it held the plaintiff must show that the majority of the decision-makers have the discriminatory bias. It is not enough for one of five equally powerful decision-makers to be biased.

It is worth noting that Rosemond only analyzed the cat’s paw theory in the public employment context. Specifically, the City of Hallandale Beach had a procedural protection for the employee: A majority of the City Commission needed to vote in favor of termination. It isn’t clear whether the cat’s paw theory will be unavailable in private sector whistleblower actions. Certainly, though, Florida private and public sector employers have new avenues for contesting whistleblower actions.

Other Decisions of Note

Zequeira v. MMPB Group, LLC, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D1946 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 25, 2024)

Zequeira worked as a tipped employee for his former employer from September 2013 to February 2015. In March 2018, he opted into a collective action lawsuit alleging the employer improperly controlled the tips of its employees and failed to pay tipped employees the minimum required wage under Florida law. However, in October 2019, class certification was denied. Zequeira did not file the required pre-suit notice of unpaid wages until July 2021, after the five-year statute of limitations for Florida unpaid wage claims expired. The Third DCA held that the pendency of a class action proceeding did not apply to toll the statute of limitations for the requirement to provide pre-suit notice and, therefore, Zequeira’s claim was dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

Presidio, Inc. v. Feeny, 384 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)

Feeny signed the employer’s Performance Plan that detailed the methodology for calculating an annual bonus. The Plan specifically stated the bonuses were “discretionary and subject to change based on individual or corporate performance.” However, the Plan also contained a detailed methodology for determining the bonus and, indeed, a precise calculation of what the bonus would be. The employer paid Feeny some individual achievement bonus, but not the full calculated amount, citing poor company performance overall. The Fourth DCA held that, even though the bonus was not vague or incalculable, the Plan contained clear language conditioning the bonus on individual and company performance and, thus, the bonus was discretionary. Accordingly, it reversed summary judgment in Feeny’s favor and remanded for further proceedings.

For more information on these developments, contact the authors of this alert. Visit our Labor & Employment Practice page for additional alerts in this area.