Florida Supreme Court Amends Summary Judgment Rule
The federal standard for summary judgment now governs in Florida state court. On Dec. 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c). It discarded Florida’s more burdensome summary judgment standard in favor of the federal standard. The amendment, which has significant implications for employment law, takes effect May 1.
On paper, Rule 1.510(c) and the rule governing summary judgment in federal court—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a)—are materially the same. Rule 1.510(c) requires summary judgment where the record shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Similarly, Rule 56(a) requires summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” And the rules are designed to advance the same overarching purpose: to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action.
How are the Florida and federal standards different?
Despite their similarities, the rules have historically been applied differently. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth the now-familiar standard for Rule 56 in a trilogy of cases: Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, and Matsushita Electric Industrial v. Zenith Radio. Three characteristics of the federal standard are relevant here. First, the cases held that the standard for granting a Rule 56 summary judgment mirrors the federal directed-verdict standard. Second, the cases roundly rejected the notion that a moving party must disprove the nonmovant’s theory of the case in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion. Third, the cases offered guidance on how the parties may demonstrate or rebut a genuine issue of material fact, providing that the nonmoving party must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Until the Florida Supreme Court’s amendment, Florida’s summary judgment standard lacked those three characteristics: “Florida courts [had] repeatedly declined to recognize the fundamental similarity between a motion for directed verdict and a motion for summary judgment”; a party moving for summary judgment under Rule 1.510 had to conclusively “prov[e] a negative, i.e., the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact”; and finally, “Florida courts ha[d] adopted an expansive understanding of what constitutes a genuine (i.e., triable) issue of material fact.”
In amending Rule 1.510(c), the Florida Supreme Court sought to eliminate these differences, flagging them as “particularly consequential.” It did so by adding one sentence to Rule 1.510(c): “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, and Matsushita Electric Industrial v. Zenith Radio. That sentence aligns Florida’s standard with the federal standard—which the Court described as “more rational, more fair, and more consistent with the structure and purpose of [Florida’s] rules of civil procedure.”
What does the change mean for those involved in lawsuits?
The consequences for Florida litigants—especially employer-defendants—could be significant. Under the old standard, the prevailing wisdom was that the burden to refute a plaintiff’s theory of liability, combined with courts’ generous definition of “material fact,” generally put summary judgment out of reach. Now, Florida defendants will no longer have to affirmatively refute a plaintiff’s theory of liability to obtain summary judgment. They can instead point out that the plaintiff has not identified sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could rule in her favor. That more-attainable summary judgment standard will impact settlement negotiations, forum considerations, and, of course, the decision whether to even seek summary judgment.
Please contact Julie Girard or any member of Phelps’ Labor and Employment team if you have questions or need compliance advice and guidance.
