City of Miami v. Florida Retail Federation – Employment
Florida Supreme Court
NFIB Legal Center joined in an amicus brief challenging the City’s minimum wage hike. The brief argued that state law preempted local wage ordinances. The Court of Appeal struck down the wage ordinance in December 2017.
Sabal Trail v. 3.92 Acres – Property Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The NFIB Legal Center filed a brief on the issue of whether a utility company condemning private property pursuant to a federal enactment is obliged to pay full compensation that would be required by state law or whether the compensation award is limited to what would be authorized under the Fifth Amendment.
Pacetta v. Ponce Inlet – Property Rights U.S. Supreme court – Petition for Certiorari
The NFIB Legal Center filed in this case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to bring claritity and more workable rules to the regulatory takings doctrine. Specifically, the brief argued that the court should take this case to make clear that a landowner may be entitled to just compensation if they can demonstrate either serious economic loss, frustration of reasonable investment backed expectations, or bad faith conduct on the part of the government.
Haynes v. Outback Steakhouse – Legal Reform/Labor and Employment
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
The NFIB Legal Center joined a brief regarding an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit that claimed a violation of website accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The Legal Center argued that ordering website compliance under the ADA conflicts with the statute’s language, which does not describe a website as a public accommodation, and its implementing regulations, which limit the term “place of public accommodation” to physical establishments.
Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. – Legal Reform/Labor and Employment
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
NFIB joined a brief regarding an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit that claimed a violation of website accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The Winn-Dixie case was particularly significant, with the federal court ruling for the first time that a Florida business’ website violated ADA guidance standards. The Legal Center argued that ordering website compliance under the ADA conflicts with the statute’s language, which does not describe a website as a public accommodation, and its implementing regulations, which limit the term “place of public accommodation” to physical establishments.
Ganson v. City of Marathon, Florida – Property Rights
U.S. Supreme Court – cert petition
In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that government must pay compensation when regulatory restrictions deny an owner all economically beneficial uses of his or her land. Unfortunately, many courts have construed this opinion as allowing government to escape the duty to pay compensation where a property retains some nominal residuary value. The NFIB Legal Center joined in urging the Supreme Court to take this case to clarify that the government may not evade the duty to pay just compensation by awarding “transferable development rights” because those credits have no guaranteed economic value and because compensation should be paid—regardless of whether there is some residuary value—when the owner is completely denied all development opportunities.
City of Miami v. Florida Retail Federation – Employment
Florida Third District Court of Appeal
NFIB Legal Center joined in an amicus brief challenging the City’s minimum wage hike. The brief argued that state law preempted local wage ordinances. The Court of Appeal struck down the wage ordinance in December 23, 2017.
Dibbs v. Hillsborough County, Florida – Property Rights
U.S. Supreme Court
In this case a small business developer requested a variance to allow a contemplated development. The County refused to grant that request, though it had granted similar requests from landowners in other parts of the County. And this was just one of a series of events in which the developer believed that he had been treated differently than similarly situated landowners. But when he alleged a violation of the Equal Protection Clause the District Court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his class-of-one theory because the landowners whom he said were given more favorable treatment were in different districts. In so holding the Court ruled that a landowner must be in the very same zoning district as a comparator when alleging a class-of-one violation; however, this is an impossible standard in many cases. NFIB Small Business Legal Center filed in this case to urge the Court to grant certiorari in order to clarify the proper standard for determining when landowners are sufficiently similar to proceed with a class-of-one claim. The brief argued that landowners in different districts should nonetheless be viewed as similarly situated if in fact they are subject to similar restrictions.
Florida Bankers Association v. Dept. of Treasury – Regulatory Reform
U.S. Supreme Court
NFIB Small Business Legal Center is urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case because the D.C. Circuit ruled that businesses cannot seek pre-enforcement review of potentially illegally promulgated Department of Treasury regulations. The D.C. Circuit held that the Anti-Injunction Act blocks such lawsuits until the business has (1) violated the regulation in question, and (2) paid the fines. But, this interpretation of the AIA cannot be squared with a recent decision from the Supreme Court in Direct Marketing v. Brohl. More fundamentally, NFIB Legal Center maintains that it violates due process to require a business to violate the law and pay penalties in order to have an opportunity for judicial review.
Hillcrest Properties v. Pasco County – Property Rights
United States Supreme Court – Petition for certiorari (Case arises from Florida)
In this case a property owner advances a facial due process challenge to an ordinance that plainly violates the Takings Clause—in requiring landowners to dedicate land, in the footprint of a planned highway, as a condition of getting a permit approval. After prevailing in the district court, the 11th Circuit reversed, holding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it was brought a few years after the ordinance was enacted. Our amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to take the case in order to make clear that a facial challenge may be advanced at any point because the constitutional injury occurs not with enactment, but with enforcement of the ordinance.
Kentner v. City of Sanibel – Property Rights
U.S. Supreme Court – cert petition
In this case the City of Sanibel, Florida enacted an ordinance prohibiting new docks along the coast. The stated purpose was to protect sea grass, but there is no exception that might allow for the construction of docks on properties that do not contain sea grass, nor any allowance for designs that might avoid damage to sea grass. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any factual justification for the ban on new docks. Nonetheless, the Federal Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the City’s ordinance against a constitutional challenge, holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect property rights. Because this is a wild proposition—in conflict with a long-line of Supreme Court cases—NFIB Small Business Legal Center is asking the Supreme Court to take the case to reaffirm that property owners are protected from arbitrary and unreasonable confiscations or restrictions of property. As we argued in our brief, to withstand a constitutional challenge, there must be at least some factual justification for an abrogation of property rights.
Mobil Corporation v. Johnson – Legal Reform
Florida Court of Appeal
This appeal involves the intersection of science and law with respect to what is believed to be the first case to be tried of the thousands of asbestos cases that have been pending in the Florida courts for over a decade and that involve plaintiffs with little or no present physical impairment. If Florida courts permit liability to be imposed without requiring plaintiffs to show that they have received a sufficient dose of a defendant’s product to develop the condition alleged, then there is a substantial risk that defendants in the countless pending Florida asbestos cases – as well as defendants in other latent injury cases – could be held liable for harms that are the fault of others.
Pasco County v. Hillcrest Property, LLP
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
Hillcrest Property challenges a County ordinance requiring landowners to dedicate property to the public for planned future highways. The condition is imposed as a term of approval for any new development project when the owner holds land in the footprint of a planned future highway. NFIB Legal Center joined with Pacific Legal Foundation in arguing that this condition is unconstitutional.
Stahl v. Hialeah Hospital – Employment
Florida Supreme Court
The court here will decide whether to uphold reforms to Florida’s workers’ compensation system.
~
Thank You
