SHARE

April 27, 2022

Florida "Individual Freedom Act" Makes Certain Employee Trainings Discriminatory

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Subscribe now to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content. Your subscription is free.
Subscribe Now

Key Takeaways

  • Employers across the nation, with 15 or more employees based in Florida, will be impacted by Florida's “Individual Freedom Act.”

Employers across the country are taking note of Governor Ron DeSantis' latest piece of legislation which will have nationwide impacts. On April 22, 2022, Governor DeSantis signed into law the "Individual Freedom Act," which amends the Florida Civil Rights Act and is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2022. The Individual Freedom Act expands civil liability exposure faced by Florida employers for discriminatory employment practices, which now include mandatory trainings and instructions on certain topics relating to diversity and unconscious bias.

Prohibited Mandatory Employee Trainings

The Individual Freedom Act prohibits public employers and private employers with 15 or more employees from requiring any individual, as a condition of employment, to undergo training, instruction, or any other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels (i.e., encourages) that individual to believe any of the following eight concepts:

  1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another.
  2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
  3. An individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
  4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
  5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
  6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
  7. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
  8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

The phrase "any other required activity" is not defined in the Individual Freedom Act, but the language appears to contemplate all activities that employers require employees to participate in as a condition of employment. Under the Individual Freedom Act, any employer training, instruction, or other required activity that promotes any of the eight specified concepts has the potential to constitute discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin.

Permissible Mandatory Employee Trainings

The Individual Freedom Act includes a savings clause stating that employers are not prohibited from discussing any of the eight specified concepts as part of a mandatory employee training or instruction if the training or instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the concepts. In other words, the Individual Freedom Act does not impose a blanket ban on employer trainings relating to the eight specified concepts, but it does prohibit employers from endorsing any of the specified concepts or requiring employees to endorse any of the specified concepts as part of a mandatory training, instruction, or other required activity.

Enforcement Mechanisms

Under the purview of the Florida Civil Rights Act, employees who believe their rights under the Individual Freedom Act are violated will be able to file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations within 365 days of the alleged violation and then, in most cases, pursue administrative actions or civil lawsuits seeking injunctive relief, back pay, compensatory damages, and, in some cases, punitive damages (not to exceed $100,000).

Additionally, the Florida Attorney General is empowered to bring civil actions against employers for damages, injunctive relief, and civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation when the Attorney General has cause to believe an employer engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination or otherwise engaged in discrimination that violates the Individual Freedom Act and raises issues of great public interest.

Legal Challenge

Shortly after Governor DeSantis signed the Individual Freedom Act, a group of individuals filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the new law. The plaintiffs allege that the law imposes unconstitutional viewpoint-based restrictions on speech in violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Individual Freedom Act is unlawful, as well as an injunction prohibiting its enforcement. The case is pending in the Tallahassee Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

Impact on Florida Employers

Assuming the Individual Freedom Act survives any challenges to its constitutionality, the changes described above will take effect on July 1, 2022. This means employers should start reviewing their mandatory employee trainings, especially those focused on diversity and unconscious bias. If there is any question that a particular training could be perceived as espousing, promoting, advancing, inculcating, or compelling (i.e., encouraging) participants to believe any of the eight specified concepts, then the employer should consider whether it can make that training voluntary for all employees.

Florida employers should also consider including disclaimers in all mandatory employee trainings, instructions, or other required activities stating that the employer prohibits all forms of discrimination against employees, that the training or instruction is provided to educate employees about the contents of the employer's anti-discrimination policies, that the training or instruction does not endorse any concept listed in Section 760.10(8)(a) of the Florida Statutes, and that the training or instruction is not intended to compel any employee to believe or support any of the concepts discussed.

The Individual Freedom Act may tempt employers to stop conducting employee anti-discrimination trainings altogether, but the risk of doing so should be carefully weighed. Anti-discrimination trainings can offer employers facing hostile work environment allegations a layer of protection under the Faragher/Ellerth defense. This affirmative defense recognizes employer efforts to prevent wrongdoing in the workplace through employee training programs. Courts have consistently found that to satisfy this defense, employers must train employees about the contents of the employer's anti-discrimination policies. In other words, an employer who stops all anti-discrimination trainings may lose the potential benefit of the Faragher/Ellerth defense. This should be an important consideration for employers deciding whether to stop providing anti-discrimination training instead of modifying existing trainings and instructions to comply with the Individual Freedom Act.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney

Delaware to Mandate Paid Family Leave Starting in 2026: 5 Steps to Help Employers Prepare for the Transition

By Michael E. Truncellito Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney May 17 , 2022

Delaware has become the 11th state to guarantee paid parental, medical, and military leave for private-sector workers.

Are the Section 301 Duties on China Going Away? Recent Statements by the Biden Administration

By Daniel B. Pickard Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney May 03 , 2022

Recent statements by Biden administration officials have raised the question of whether the Trump-era tariffs imposed on goods imported from China will be terminated or allowed to expire.

Despite Trial Setbacks, DOJ Likely to Push Forward with Employment-Related Antitrust Prosecutions

By Carrie G. Amezcua Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney April 20 , 2022

Juries in Texas and Colorado dealt rare losses to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in its effort to ramp up antitrust enforcement in so-called “labor markets,” i.e., the competition for recruiting and retaining employees, specifically regarding purported agreements among companies to fix employee wages or not to solicit or hire certain employees (no-poach agreements).

More From Employment Law

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Prejudice Requirement for Waiver of Arbitration

By Mark J. Levin Ballard Spahr May 23 , 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court today held that waiver of the right to arbitrate does not require a showing that the other party was prejudiced. The unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan in Morgan v. Sundance reversed the Eighth Circuit, which had held that a party waives the right to arbitrate if it knew of the right, acted inconsistently with that right and prejudiced the other party by its inconsistent actions.

Delaware to Mandate Paid Family Leave Starting in 2026: 5 Steps to Help Employers Prepare for the Transition

By Michael E. Truncellito Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney May 17 , 2022

Delaware has become the 11th state to guarantee paid parental, medical, and military leave for private-sector workers.

Yes, CBD Registers On A Drug Screen As THC And, Yes, You Can Be Terminated For It

By Sara H. Jodka Dickinson Wright PLLC May 16 , 2022

There is a lot to unpack in the Lehenky v. Toshiba America Energy Systems Corporation, Case No. 20-4573 (E.D. PA, February 22, 2022) case as it answers two very interesting questions. First, does CBD register on a drug screen as THC, and can employees be terminated for using it? Second, is an employer test for prescription drugs an illegal medical inquiry in violation of disability laws?

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...