Florida Employment Lawyer Blog

More proof that religious discrimination lawsuits are on the rise and that the EEOC is stepping up enforcement. Last week shipping giant UPS agreed to settle a claim brought by a Rastafarian who was terminated because he refused to cut off his religiously mandated dreadlocks and beard. UPS is paying the employee $46,000 and has agreed to enter into a two-year consent decree to prevent further discrimination and retaliation.

Successful lawsuits by Rastafarians are rare because frequently someone who wears dreads will falsly claim, in an effort to avoid complying with a corporate grooming standard, that he is a Rastafarian just to not be forced to cut his hair. Religious beliefs must be "genuine" in order to become protected under Title VII, and many employers are doubtful about a Rastafarian's genuine religious belief. (In fact, the blog is unaware of any other successful Rastafarian Title VII claim - so, way to go EEOC).

For years the EEOC race discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch was one of the most talked about matters among employment lawyers. It seems the on-again off-again love affair between the EEOC and Abercrombie is on-again, or at least the signs of an early courtship have appeared.

This week a Muslim-American woman, working with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, filed an EEOC charge of discriminination against Abercrombie when she refused to not wear her religiously mandated hijab and when she ultimately was terminated for violating Abercrombie's "look" policy. CAIR's press release is here.

This past September, the EEOC actually filed suit against Abercrombie in Oklohoma on behalf of another Muslim-American who was refused a retail position because of her hijab. Both the September lawsut and new EEOC charge allege that Abercrombie's "look" policy (which precludes head coverings) is facially discriminatory against observant Muslims, Jews and Sikhs.

Abercrombie's "look" policy is not the only grooming manual to come under fire recently. As the blog reported earlier, Orlando-based entertainment giant Disney has twice been sued alleging that its "Disney Look" policy was facially discriminatory against Muslims, Sikhs and Jews.

As a practical matter, it is extremely difficult for employers to argue that an employee's head covering violates a "business necessity" of the company or that it would frequire substantial resources to accommodate the head covering. In 2010, there is no morally or intellectually defensible arguement that someone who works at a Ft. Lauderdale cash register or greets new arrivals at an Orlando hotel must be denied the position due to a religiously mandated turbon or yarmulke.

Sarelson Law Firm has experience representing victims of religious discrimination by major publicly traded corporations. Are you afraid? Need to speak to someone confidentially?

In some ways the Obama administration has been a disappointment for not pushing for two major pieces of legislation -- a much needed proposed amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act that would ban pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, consumer and health care contracts and a long overdue amendment to Title VII that would include sexual orientation as a "protected class" for employment decisions. The fact is most companies do not actually prefer arbitration to court, they just use the mandatory arbitration provision as a weapon to prevent meritorious claims without substantial monetary value from beng brought and to prevent new legal theories from being tested, and few Americans (even among conservatives) still hold an anti-gay bias.

Despite solid Democratic control of the White House and both houses of Congress, and relatively mild Republican opposition, the blog is unaware of any significant push for either piece of legislation.

But one cannot dispute that the EEOC, the federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws, has been getting aggressive. After a de facto hiatus that lasted for several years, the Miami District Office of the EEOC filed several lawsuits in 2009 throughout Florida. And yesterday, the San Antonio District Office sought a federal subpoena to seek documents from a company hit with an EEOC charge of sexual harassment and retaliation. Although the EEOC has subpoena power (including the authority to seek a subpoena prior to filing a lawsuit), it is rarely used (the blog is unaware of it ever being used prelitigation, but it probably has been) and most significantly, the non-compliant business served with the subpoena is a prominent nine-lawyer personal injury law firm.

At least for now you can't accuse the EEOC of avoiding a big fight!

This blog's author is the plaintiff/appellant's attorney in Josephine Mora v. Jackson Memorial Foundation, Inc. The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment on the employer's "same decision" affirmative defense. But today, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and allowed the case to proceed to trial. Aside from being a great personal victory for the plaintiff, the case is important because it is the first appellate decision to analyze the Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Gross v. FBL Financial, 129 S.Ct. 2343 (2009). In Gross, the Supreme Court rejected an employer's mixed-motive/same decision affirmative defense in claims brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Eleventh CIrcuit today clarified Gross and held that ordinary summary judgment principles apply in age discrimination cases. Either the plaintiff was terminated because of her age, or she was not. What the employer hypothetically might have done is not relevant to the claim. The opinion is here:
Mora v. Jackson Memorial Foundation

Questions about age discrimination or retaliation? Contact an experienced age discrimination employment lawyer today.

In a lengthy, 53 page opinion, the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, in large part, a jury verdict against the Alabama Department of Transportation. The plaintiff, a black employee, alleged that she was repeatedly denied various promotions on account of her race. The jury agreed and the court agreed with the jury on several, not not all of the claims. What makes the case so interesting is that the court went to great lengths to explain the history of racism in Alabama state agencies and that black state employees are still feeling the lingering effects of decades old bigotry.

The court also affirmed the trial court's granting of injunctive relief -- i.e., the plaintiff was reinstated to a sufficiently senior position that would compensate her for the years of lost promotions. Public employees, unlike private employees, are likely to be reinstated or promoted by court order.

The opinion is here:
Opinion

Do you work for Florida, Miami-Dade County, the City of West Palm Beach? Contact an employment lawyer experienced with suing state agencies.

Ordinarily one would not think that child labor is a significant problem in the United States. And generally speaking, you would be right. But it is not unheard of and a recent series of raids by the Department of Labor illustrates the problem. Over the past several months, several local malls -- including the Dolphin Mall, the Sawgrass Mills Mall and the Gardens Malls -- have been cited for violating child labor laws.

The United States has few laws prohibiting child labor (and Florida has even less), but one of the few laws routinely violated is the prohibition on children 17 years old and younger engaged in hazardous activities. Anything considered "hazardous" is off-limits, but the regulations do not specify what is and what is not deemed hazardous. Machine equipment, trash compactors and forklifts are generally hazardous, but what about an industrial kitchen or gym equipment?

Questions about federal and state child labor laws? Contacted an experienced employment attorney today.

Novartis A.G., a massive pharmaceutical conglomerate, agreed today to pay $3.5M to the government to settle a False Claims/Qui Tam action. South Florida is awash in medicare fraud, but what makes this case unique is that the drug-maker is not accused of encouraging unnecessary treatment or prescriptions. Instead, Novartis continued to market a drug - an extended release version of nitrogylcerin - even after the FDA concluded that the drug was ineffective. Essentially, Novartis was engaged in false advertising to doctors, which in turn led to millions of dollars in prescriptions for a useless drug.

Under the Medicare Act, once the FDA concludes that a drug is not useful, Medicare will no longer reimburse for the prescription. But Novartis intentionally deceived the government by submitting false reports that mistated the drug's regulatory status. (The blog is unclear about one aspect of this case -- if the FDA changed the drug's regulatory status, then how could the federal government simultanously claim that it was mislead by the drug-maker about the drug's regulatory status?).

The whistleblower in this False Claims Act case -- known as a relator --- will receive $525,000 as a reward for reporting the false claims. This case reiterates the federal government's aggressive anti-fraud efforts. (This settlement was also reached just days after the DOJ reached a similar settlement with a Boston hospital for nearly $3M)

Does your employer have a contract with the federal government or with Florida or another state or muncipality? Is it overbilling? Are the monthly invoices inflated? Contact an experienced Qui Tam lawyer as soon as possible.

A question that arises in almost every single employment lawsuit is whether a plaintiff/employee can or should bring suit while the plaintiff/employee is still employed with the employer/defendant. The answer is almost always yes you can and yes you should.

First, there is no restriction whatsoever about being employed when you file suit. In fact, many hiring decisions (a failure to get a promotion, a reassignment, a transfer) are "actionable" employment actions that are still subject to state and federal anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws. The law protects against more than just termination - much more.

Second, if you've hired the right attorney, there are several strategic reasons why you will want to start the lawsuit while you are still employed. To begin with, if the company fires or in any way retaliates against you for filing the lawsuit (or for even speaking to an attorney), then the company is engaged in what we employment lawyers call "an independant act of retaliation" that gives rise to yet another lawsuit.

Some employer's seem willing to rid themselves of current employees who sue even if it risks another lawyer. That seems to be the case for Walmart, which recently fired a female employee who was the plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit against the retail giant. The National Law Journal article is here. Nothing is more challenging to an employer's employment attorney than a lawsuit or charge of discrimination brought by a current employee!

Moreover, since the employer is very likely to terminate and is very eager to get rid of the employee who files suit, the plaintiff has an additional bargaining chip that can be used to negotiate a fair settlement. As a practical matter, any settlement of an employment lawsuit for an employee still employed is going to involve the plaintiff/employee resigning from the company.

If you wait until after you are terminated or after you resign to speak with an employment attorney, then you are doing yourself a disfavor that could result in a much weaker lawsuit. Once you believe something is wrong at work, you should immediately contact an employment attorney to learn your rights and to discuss an effective strategy.

For years many of my clients would tell me that their employers were defrauding the IRS or that they do not pay any taxes. Our options were limited - until now.

The IRS now has a dedicated whistleblower office in Washingon, D.C. that handles allegations of tax fraud. Any individual who reports a fraud that is worth at least $2,000,000 is entitled to a reward of up to 30% of the amount recovered by the government. For example, if you know your employer (or neighbor for that matter) has cheated the IRS out of $10,000,000, then you might be entitled to a reward of up to $3,000,000.

Contact an experienced whistleblower attorney today to learn your rights and to not lose out on your opportunity to recover a substantial reward just for doing the right thing. You should consult with a lawyer who will investigate the allegations and make the strongest argument that the employer is actually and intentionally cheating the IRS.

Earlier today the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an "everybody has something to complain about" opinion that affirmed dismissal of a False Claims (aka Qui Tam) lawsuit but reversed and reinstated a False Claims retaliation lawsuit. The opinion is here:

United States v. Lymphatx, Inc. -- Eleventh Circuit Opinion

The complaint, originally filed in West Palm Beach, Florida, alleged that Boca Raton, Florida based Lymphatx, Inc. illegal overbilled medicare -- i.e., this was a very common medicare fraud lawsuit. The district court dismissed the case because the plaintiff failed to state with sufficient particularity what "fraudulent" activity occurred. This decision was affirmed by the appellate court. Plaintiffs alleging fraud have to have more than just bare-bones allegations to support the claim.

But the plaintiff's seperate allegation that she was fired in retaliation for reporting and complaining about the illegal medicare billing was reinstated by the Eleventh Circuit. The appellate court made clear that a False Claims retaliation claim, also known as a section 3730(h) claim, is not itself a "fraud" claim and that the district court should not have dismissed the claim for failing to plead with particularity. The plaintiff's retaliation claim will be returned to the trial court in West Palm Beach and will be allowed to proceed.

Do you have knowledge about fraud on the government? Is your employer a government contractor? Is your doctor overbilling medicare? The False Claims Act incentivizes people to come forward and to report fraud, but it is important that you seek early and sophisticated representation by an experienced whistleblower and false claims employment lawyer.

Walmart doesn't have the best reputation as an employer and it has been defending a billion-dollar sex discrimination lawsuit for years in California. Now it is alleged that Walmart has a practice of systematically terminating older workers and replacing them with younger workers. A lawsuit filed on behalf of several New York based Walmart employees was recently filed in federal court in Manhattan. But with stores throughout the nation, including many here in Florida, you can bet current and former Walmart employees all over Florida and the country will be following this lawsuit very closely. The lawsuit is here:

Walmart Age Discrimination Class Action Complaint

Questions about age discrimination? It has become much more prevalent in recent years and companies are getting savvy about how to layoff older workers without getting caught. Don't hesitate to contact an experienced age discrimination employment attorney today.

Discount retail giant Big Lots agreed to pay $400,000 to five black employees as part of a settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Big Lots also agreed to new policies and procedures to insure that racial discrimination does not occur and that a racially hostile working environment can be reported and cured without fear of retaliation. In the Big Lots case, the hostile work environment came from the plaintiffs' co-workers at the same level of employment. But what got Big Lots in trouble was that the company failed to take corrective action once it was put on notice that the co-workers were making racist remarks on the job.

When you're working in a hostile working environment, the hostility alone is not what gets the employer in trouble and is not alone sufficient to bring a lawsuit. What get's the company in trouble, and what makes them liable, is the failure to correct a hostile working environment after the company knows about it. This is why it is imperative to speak with an experienced employment discrimination attorney before you are terminated or you voluntarily resign. Proactive representation is the key.

This just in to the blog. According to the Miami Herald, Boca Raton based office supply giant Office Depot has released a YouTube video to fight back against an employee who allegedly blew the whistle on mispricing of products sold pursuant to government contracts. The blog does not know what claims, if any, the employee has or is planning on bringing, but the blog is shocked at Office Depot's new viral marketing (smear) campaign. Whisteblowers and employees aware of misconduct should speak to an employment attorney as soon as possible, and preferably while still employed.

The Office Depot video is available here:

This is either an incredibly silly or incredibly bold move by Office Depot.

Casa Casuarina (Miami Beach's former Versace Mansion) was recently sued for sexual harassment. The facts are outright nasty -- according to the complaint in Hamon v. Casa Casuarina LLC (S.D. Fla. Case No. 10-20457), the owner of the mansion asked a female employee to bring him napkins and silverware, but when the employee showed up at his bedroom door, the owner was having sex with an unidentified woman. He then asked her to watch and to get another employee to watch. This sounds like it will turn into a nasty, juicy brawl of a lawsuit.

Sexual harassment law can be a dirty business because the facts are generally "adult-eyes only." Are you being sexually harassed at work? Are you being forced to perform or engage in an unwanted relationship to keep your job? Were you fired for not having sex with the boss? Contacted an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible.

The Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals tossed a $10M punitive damage award in a case that reminds us that race discrimination claims can be based on just about any business or contractual relationship. In Worldwide Network v. Dyncorp, a jury found that Dyncorp (one of the nation's largest military contractors) terminated a subcontract with Worldwide Network because Worldwide Network was owned by African-Americans.

Title 42, Section 1981 of the federal statutes prohibits the use of race as a determining factor in entering into a business or contractual relationship. The court affirmed the jury's liability finding, i.e., Dyncorp violated anti-discrimination laws by terminating a contract due to the subcontractor's owners' race. But the court was troubled by the evidence supporting Worldwide Network's argument that the actual decisionmakers at Dyncorp who made the termination decision were racially motived. Punitive damages can only be awarded when the actual decisionmaker knows he or she is violating federal law. (A visiting judge strongly dissented and believed that there was ample evidence that Dyncorp's decisionmakers were aware that they were violating federal law).

The case was not a complete victory for Dyncorp -- the appellate court vacated the punitive damage award and remanded for a new trial with better jury instructions on when punitive damages are available. The blog anticipates that the parties will settle the punitive damage claim without the need for a retrial -- which could easily be larger than the original award and which would merely increase the attorneys' fees and costs Dyncorp would have to pay to both its attorneys and Worldwide Network's.

Were you denied a franchise because of your race? Were you denied a loan or other financial product, including insurance, because of your race? Anti-discrimination laws do not just apply to employment relationships and you should contact an experienced discrimination attorney as soon as possible.

For those interested, a copy of the complaint filed in the nationwide class action against Toyota over the recall is here:
Toyota Complaint

It has been assigned to Judge Zloch but there are several other cases pending around the country and no doubt this will be consolidated into a single multi-district litigation.

According to the Palm Beach Post, Florida Power & Light has hired an outside law firm to conduct an internal investigation into allegations of corporate and securities fraud. The allegations were made anonymously by several FPL employees. The fraud allegations are unspecified (at least according to publicly available sources) but FPL is taking this very seriously.

Two good things have occured here -- (1) FPL employees have come forward to report what they believe to be fraudulent activity and (2) FPL is taking affirmative corrective action. Stay tuned to see how this plays out.

Concerned that your company is committing corporate, tax or securities fraud? Contact an experienced employment attorney as soon as possible, and preferably while you are still employed.

Among the most common discriminatory employment practices that have spiked in recent years is discrimination against employees or prospective employees who wear a religious head covering (yarmulke, turban or hijab). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act require that employers make an effort to accommodate employees' and applicants' sincerely held religious beliefs. A "no head covering" policy, while seemingly innocous, will disproportionately hurt anyone whose religious mandates conflict with the policy, i.e., observant Jews, Muslims and Sikhs. Employers cannot and should not be able to dismiss an employee or prospective employee's request for a simple and reasonable accomodation.

The EEOC recently settled a $43,000 lawsuit against Ivy Hall Assisted Living in Atlanta when the company refused to permit a Muslim employee to wear a hijab.

Orlando based entertainment giant Disney has been sued twice for similar violations. Aicha Baha v. Disney World Co. (filed in 2004) concerned a Muslim woman who wears a hijab and Channa v. Disney World Co. (filed in 2008) concerned a Sikh musician who wears a turban.

The "best practices" for employers is to always allow religious employees to wear their normal religious articles of faith, unless it truly interferes with the workplace and is truly a financial burden on the company. It's illegal and morally wrong. Contact an experienced religious discrimination employment attorney as soon as possible to avoid or fix a problem.

In what the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") itself is calling its largest ADA settlement, retail giant Sears agreed to pay $6,200,000 to 235 former employees. According to the press release, Sears discriminated against disabled workers by having a burdensome and inflexible (and ultimately unlawful) workers' compensation policy.

In recent years the EEOC has become more aggressive in pursuing discrimination lawsuits against large companies. Although filed in 2004, the settlement was approved only days ago.

An Alabama woman with a perfectly valid and strong racial discrimination claim against Tyson Food's lost out on any chance to convince a jury that she was illegally discriminated against because she failed to inform the bankruptcy court of her lawsuit. Most people do not realize that a legal claim against a person or business is an "asset" of the person bringing the lawsuit. As an asset, albeit an unrealized one, it must be disclosed to the bankruptcy court and trustee if you file for bankruptcy protection. Failure to do so could prove fatal.

In Robinson v. Tyson's Foods, Inc, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of a perfectly valid employment discrimination lawsuit solely because Ms. Robinson failed to inform the bankruptcy court. She filed for bankruptcy years prior, but her debts had not been fully discharged by the bankruptcy court when she filed suit for race discrimination against Tyson's Foods. The trial court dismissed her claim on the grounds of 'judicial estoppel." Since Ms. Robinson did not declare the lawsuit as an "asset" to the bankruptcy court (and theoretically by denying her creditors the ability to seek a portion of the asset to pay off debts), Ms. Robinson could not then sue for discrimination.

The case essentially pitted the nation's bankruptcy laws up against the nation's anti-discrimination laws. The court ruled that the right of a creditor to seek a debtor's assets trumps the country's anti-discrimination laws. Both bankruptcy and anti-discrimination laws are firmly grounded in the Constitution (with anti-discrimination laws being enacted pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment).

Harsh result? Yes. The court did not distinguish between employees who intentionally fail to disclose information to the bankruptcy court (which can not and should not be tolerated) and those who act in good faith and merely did not know or think to know that they should inform the bankruptcy court (which is a fact issue that should not always, automatically kill an employee's discrimination lawsuit).

Room for reasonable disagreement over the issue? Absolutely. Judge Anderson, a very distinguished senior appellate judge, wrote a short concurring opinion inviting the Eleventh Circuit to revisit its prior opinions on the subject to create a more reasonable and equitable rule that would permit a victim of racial discrimination to avoid an automatic dismissal. The blog commends Judge Anderson for encouraging a reconsideration of this issue, but it remains unclear whether the losing plaintiff will seek rehearing en banc.

Have you been denied a job because of your genetic information? Did your employer terminate you because it learned that you have a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, Huntington's disease or bipoloar disorder? Probably not -- but it's only a matter of time before someone, somewhere, is subject to a pre-employment genetic screening.

Thankfully the federal government is ahead of the curve on this one. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA") took effect on November 21, 2009 and broadly prohibits three things -- (1) using genetic information to make employment decisions, (2) obtaining genetic information about employees and prospective employees, and (3) disclosing genetic information. GINA also prohibits retaliation, in addition to discrimination, as almost all anti-discrimination laws do.

Employers cannot acquire or use your or your family member's genetic information --- or the family history of a disease or disorder --- when making employment decisions. GINA compliments the Americans with Disabilities Act because it covers potential disabilities that have not yet manifested themselves but that the employer believes will and will interfere with your ability to work. This is truly groundbreaking and the blog commends Congress for activing preemptively -- all too often anti-discrimination laws are long over-due reactions to morally objectionable workplace conduct. Here, Congress has acted before it becomes a widespead problem.

Worried how GINA might effect you or your company? Contact an employment attorney on the cutting-edge of employment law.

Among the most intellectually challenging and unresolved issues facing employment attorneys is the very basic question of whether a partner in a business can also be an employee. Over the last several years many law firms have been sued by "partners" for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act -- even though the plaintiff was a partner in the firm, i.e., the plaintiff is, at least theoretically, one of the owners of the business. Generally speaking, the owner of a business is not also an employee and cannot sue for employment discrimination. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has alleged that major international law firms, including Sidley and Kelley Drye, have forced out older partners and that in doing so, they violated federal discrimination laws that protect older Americans.

Now one Florida appellate court has chimed in on the subject. Florida law provides that anyone who prevails against an employer in a lawsuit for unpaid wages is entitled to have the employer pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees. (This is important because when it comes to ensuring the employees are paid their proper wages, it is vital the employee be "made whole."). But does Florida law include claims brought by a partner against the partnership for unpaid wages pursuant to an employment agreement? We now know the answer is "yes." In what the blog considers to be a case of first impression, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal concluded that Florida's statute mandating attorneys' fees to prevailing employees applies to a partner's claim for unpaid wages against the partnership.

It is unclear whether the rule in BDO Seidman LLP v. Bee will be followed by other Florida courts or whether it is an outlier whose ruling is limited. Questions about your status as a "partner" in a law or accounting firm? Don't hesitate to contact an employment attorney before your question becomes a lawsuit.

When American Airlines began charging baggage handling fees, their Skycaps started losing substantial income from lost tips. Customers lowered their tips as a result of the new American Airlines' fees. A federal judge in Boston certified a class action lawsuit against the airline for recovery of those lost tips. Although the case is pending in Boston, American has major hubs at JFK, and right here at Miami International Airport.

American Airlines is not the only national air carrier facing extensive liability -- U.S. Airways and Jet Blue airways have all been hit with similar class action lawsuits. American Airlines has already appealed a large jury verdict resulting from similar allegations. Stay tuned -- these lawsuits could all be dismissed on legal grounds, or could end up costing the airlines millions of dollars each.

Federal and state law protect against discrimination in the workplace against members of the United States active armed forces, the reserves and the national guard. If you're contemplating joining the active military or the reserves, you need to know that in most cases your employer cannot discriminate or retaliate against you for your honorable decision. Employers cannot refuse to hire a reservist because reserve training would interfere with the workplace.

With hundreds of thousands of active, reserve and guard members called to active service to fight in Iraq and Afganistan (and to help in Haiti), it is no wonder why USERRA lawsuits are on the rise. This past week the U.S. Department of Justice settled a lawsuit with prestigious technology company MasTec. According to the press release, MasTec promoted another employee to a position held by an Army reservist while the Army reservist was in active military service. This is illegal -- a member of the military has a right to the same or equivalent position when he or she returns to work from active military duty.

Most USERRA claims go unresolved because many members of the armed forces are unaware of their USERRA rights, are too embarrased or stubborn to do anything about it, or the financial damages are too low for many lawyers to take on the case. The MasTec settlement, worth about $6,000, is a perfect example of a case where liability is clear, but the money is small. (And the Blog commends the DOJ for taking the case!) Contact an experienced USERRA lawyer before you leave for active duty and before your employer has an opportunity to terminate or threaten you. Prevention is the best medicine to avoiding a USERRA problem.

The blog just learned that Ryder Trucking, one of Florida's largest private employers, in laying off 67 workers by the end of March. These workers are mostly based in Jacksonville, Florida. Ryder, based in Miami, has had several rounds of layoffs in the past several years. We know this because Ryder filed a "WARN Act" notice with the state ahead of the layoffs. Afraid of your own layoff? Afraid the company will just close without any warning? It may be illegal and you should be prepared ahead of time.