Woodham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Fla. Stat. § 760.11(7) requires a “specific determination ‘that there is not reasonable cause’ to believe a violation occurred” (emphasis in original)
• holding that a prerequisite to bringing a civil action under the FCRA is that the complainant must file a complaint with the Commission within 365 days of the alleged violation
• holding that an \unable to conclude\ decision does not equate to a determination that \there is not reasonable cause\ and that therefore Woodham was permitted to proceed under section 760.11(4) and file a civil action
• finding that a court \must interpret and construe a statute according to the precise language adopted by the legislature\
• noting that “Title VII does not bar a federal lawsuit even if the EEOC issues a ‘no cause’ determination”
• finding that filing a charge with the United States Equal Employment Commission “operated as a dual filing with the Florida Commission on Human Relations [“FCHR”], pursuant to the EEOC/FCHR workshare agreement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).