## Facts

- Carl DeMarco worked for Publix Super Markets, Inc. as a warehouse laborer.
- DeMarco’s minor daughter suffered a severe eye injury when a soda bottle exploded while she was shopping in a Publix store with her mother.
- Publix’s insurer paid the daughter’s medical expenses and later offered an additional $200 as a complete settlement, which DeMarco rejected.
- DeMarco filed a personal injury lawsuit on his daughter’s behalf against Publix and the bottle manufacturer.
- Publix told DeMarco he would be discharged if he did not withdraw the lawsuit; he refused and was terminated.
- DeMarco sued Publix seeking compensatory and punitive damages and reinstatement, alleging (1) interference with constitutional and statutory rights of access to courts and due process, (2) reputational injury from the termination implying incompetence or unreliability, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Issues

1. Whether an at-will employee has a damages claim against a private employer for discharge allegedly intended to interfere with access to courts and due process under the Florida Constitution and § 447.09, Florida Statutes.
2. Whether termination under these alleged circumstances states a claim for damage to reputation.
3. Whether the termination states a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action.
- The court applied Florida’s at-will employment rule: when employment is indefinite or terminable at the will of either party, either party may end it at any time, for any reason, without liability for breach of the employment contract.
- The court held there was no recognized civil damages action based solely on alleged interference with state constitutional access-to-courts and due process rights in the context of a private employer’s at-will discharge decision, and § 447.09 did not supply a damages remedy on these facts.
- The court held the allegations did not state a claim for reputational harm or intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Legal Principles

- Under Florida’s traditional at-will doctrine, an indefinite employment relationship may be terminated by either party at any time, and the employer’s motive generally does not create liability absent a contractual limitation or a statute providing a remedy.
- Florida constitutional provisions guaranteeing access to courts and due process do not, by themselves, create a private damages cause of action against a private employer for retaliatory discharge.
- A statutory reference to unfair labor practices does not create a civil wrongful-discharge damages remedy unless the statute provides such a cause of action for the alleged conduct.
- Termination alone, without actionable defamatory publication or other required elements of a recognized tort, does not state a claim for reputational damages.
- Discharging an at-will employee for refusing to withdraw a lawsuit, without more extreme conduct, does not meet the threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

## Conclusion

The court refused to recognize a wrongful-discharge tort based on an employee’s exercise of access-to-courts rights and held that, in an at-will employment relationship, the employee could not recover damages for termination on these allegations, nor state independent claims for reputational harm or intentional infliction of emotional distress.


DeMarco v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 360 So. 2d 134 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)