Randall Love PA

Randall Love PA Contact information, map and directions, contact form, opening hours, services, ratings, photos, videos and announcements from Randall Love PA, Lawyer & Law Firm, 8520 Government Drive Suite 1, New Port Richey, FL.

I represent business owners, construction contractors, manufacturers and entrepreneurs in contract disputes, lien law and construction defect cases, employment law claims, commercial real estate disputes, shareholder, partnership disputes, comm litigation

A settlement agreement bars litigation of federal wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act only if the se...
02/24/2026

A settlement agreement bars litigation of federal wage and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act only if the settlement was approved by a court or the Department of Labor. But what if the agreement contains a full release and settles other claims in addition to the wage and hour claims? The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that aside from the wage and hour claims, the settlement agreement is governed by Florida contract law and thus precludes a lawsuit on the other, released claims.

Title VII protects employees who have complained about unlawful harassment and discrimination from retaliation. The pr...
07/17/2025

Title VII protects employees who have complained about unlawful harassment and discrimination from retaliation. The protection extends to employees who have both filed formal complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as those who have informally voiced complaints to their superiors or who use their employer’s internal grievance procedures. The protection is afforded when the employee has a good faith, reasonable belief that the challenged practices violate Title VII. The protections, however, do not provide an employee with an unbridled right to complain in a disruptive or disruptive manner.

The EEOC issued a message from Acting Chair Lucas yesterday. Of particular note, the EEOC has confirmed that the EEOC w...
05/21/2025

The EEOC issued a message from Acting Chair Lucas yesterday. Of particular note, the EEOC has confirmed that the EEOC will abide by President Trump’s recently issued executive order titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” which directed the EEOC to deprioritize “disparate impact” enforcement – that is, investigations and lawsuits that challenge neutral practices that have unequal outcomes based on race, s*x, or other protected characteristics – and also revoked prior Presidential approvals of certain disparate-impact regulations.

A disparate impact discrimination case involves a claim that a facially neutral employment or other policy disproportionately affects a protected group, even if there is no intent to discriminate. Unlike disparate treatment cases, which require proof of intentional discrimination, disparate impact cases focus on the effects of a policy or practice. In Florida, as in federal law, plaintiffs must demonstrate that a specific employment practice or policy has caused a significant adverse impact on a protected group. This requires statistical evidence showing a disparity between the affected group and others, as well as proof of causation linking the policy to the disparity. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the practice is justified by business necessity or job-relatedness.

The Equal Pay Act prohibits wage discrimination on the basis of s*x. It requires that men and women be paid equal wages ...
05/20/2025

The Equal Pay Act prohibits wage discrimination on the basis of s*x. It requires that men and women be paid equal wages for equal work performed under similar working conditions, requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility. The EPA applies to employers engaged in interstate commerce and covers both men and women equally, despite its original intent to address wage disparities faced by women. The EPA imposes strict liability on employers for wage discrimination, meaning that a plaintiff does not need to prove discriminatory intent. To establish a prima facie case under the EPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that employees of opposite s*xes are paid differently for equal work. Once this is established, the burden shifts to the employer to justify the pay disparity as being based on other than gender.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a summary judgment in favor of International Paper Company on an Equal Pay Act claim brought by a female water quality engineer who alleged she was paid less than a male air quality engineer. The Court affirmed because the employer demonstrated that although the male air quality engineer was paid more than the female water quality engineer, the duties and responsibilities of the air quality engineer were significantly greater than those of a water quality engineer. Thus, the plaintiff could not demonstrate that she was paid less for performing the same job as a male coworker.

07/17/2024

Altman Specialty Plants, LLC, the largest horticultural grower in the United States, has agreed to pay $172,000 to resolve an EEOC discrimination claim after the EEOC found that a supervisor subjected female employees to s*xual harassment and a s*xually hostile work environment for an extensive period at its Austin, Texas location. Although the employer disputed the allegations, it agreed to settle the claim as opposed to engaging in long and costly litigation.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Pro Pallet, LLC, a Pennsylvania-based construction company, will p...
07/17/2024

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced Pro Pallet, LLC, a Pennsylvania-based construction company, will pay $50,000 to settle a lawsuit brought on behalf of a former human resources manager who it is alleged was forced to resign after investigating a claim of s*xual harassment against the company’s general manager. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleged the employer retaliated against the human resources manager for opposing unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The settlement also requires the employer to revise its policies on discrimination and retaliation, mandates Title VII training, and requires the employer to report information to the EEOC for three years.

In this era of international trade and differing markets, how is one to measure money damages when a buyer is unjustly e...
07/16/2024

In this era of international trade and differing markets, how is one to measure money damages when a buyer is unjustly enriched at the expense of a seller? A recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision recently tackled that issue, although the case was extremely fact dependent which means a different outcome might occur under differing circumstances. At issue, a Chinese exporter sold goods to an American importer; for which the American importer did not pay. There was no question that the importer did not pay, although a written contract was found not to exist. Thus, the sole issue for trial was how much had the importer been unjustly enriched?

Under Florida law, the measure of damages available under a theory of unjust enrichment is the value of the benefit conferred, not the amount the exporter hoped to receive or the cost to the exporter. In this case the goods were produced in China, where they had a value of about five million dollars. The goods were sold to an exporter in America, where the goods had a value of seventy-five million dollars. Thus, a seventy-million-dollar difference existed depending upon whether the valuation of the goods was determined in China or the U.S. The Court ruled that the benefit was conferred in the U.S., where the importer received the goods, invoices and customs documents listed the U.S. valuation, and the importer was unable to provide any substantial evidence that the value of the goods in the Chinese market was the more appropriate marketplace to conduct the valuation.

GardaWorld, a company that provides cash logistics services to banks and financial institutions, has agreed to pay $37,5...
07/09/2024

GardaWorld, a company that provides cash logistics services to banks and financial institutions, has agreed to pay $37,500 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit alleged the employer failed to provide an American Sign Language interpreter for a deaf employee. In addition to the monetary relief, the employer agreed to provide deaf applicants and employees who are deaf or hard of hearing, including orientations, trainings, meetings with supervisors, performance reviews, disciplinary meetings, annual meetings, and company meetings. The lawsuit alleged the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employer denied the material allegations of the lawsuit.

An Olive Garden restaurant has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed in federal cou...
07/02/2024

An Olive Garden restaurant has agreed to pay $30,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed in federal court. According to the lawsuit, Olive Garden’s general manager interviewed an applicant with a disability for a busser position. During the interview, the general manager asked the applicant various unpermitted questions related to the applicant’s disability, including questions about his use of a cane to walk and the extent of the disability. Olive Garden then declined to hire the applicant. The EEOC sued on behalf of the applicant, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The employer denied any wrongdoing, and no findings of fact were made by the trial court prior to settlement.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the entry of a summary judgment in favor of Walmart on an employ...
06/30/2024

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the entry of a summary judgment in favor of Walmart on an employee’s claim for alleged s*xual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and his claims for alleged failure to accommodate and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The employee, a maintenance associate alleged a female coworker would periodically approach him requesting to go for a ride in his vintage car, once asked if he was married, and once touched his arm to see if he was wearing a wedding ring. Although the coworker’s conduct could hardly be considered s*xual harassment, and the trial court found it was not, the employee never complained to any supervisor although he did once joke about the incident with a supervisor. The employee also requested a leave of absence so he could undergo cancer treatment for six weeks. His request was pending when he was fired.

As part of his normal work routine, the employee would place trash into a compactor in the back of the store. One day while compacting trash, some waste fell onto his body. He began cursing, and he was overhead by a supervisor. When the supervisor approached him and instructed him to calm down and refrain from using profanity, the employee began to verbally attack her using profanity. When the employee’s coworkers confirmed his use of profanity and verbal attack on the supervisor, Walmart fired him. Because his termination was based upon his use of profanity and verbal attack directed towards a supervisor, and he was unable to establish the stated reason for his termination was merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination, the appellate court affirmed judgment in favor of the employer.

06/28/2024

The EEOC announced that Savage River Lodge will pay $150,000 to settle a pregnancy discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The employer offers cabins for rent and operates a restaurant for lodge guests in Maryland. The lawsuit alleges a pregnant woman working as a guest services representative requested a reasonable accommodation needed due to her pregnancy and then fired her several days after she disclosed that she had suffered a miscarriage. The lawsuit alleged the employer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition to the money settlement, the employer agreed the employee was eligible for rehire and provide specialized training for its supervisors.

AMZ Manufacturing Company, an electroplating, painting and assembly business will pay $1120,000 and provide other relief...
06/28/2024

AMZ Manufacturing Company, an electroplating, painting and assembly business will pay $1120,000 and provide other relief to resolve a s*xual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. According to the lawsuit, multiple male employees and supervisors subjected two female employees to a hostile work environment through s*xually charged and demeaning s*x based comments, unwelcome s*xual advances, and inappropriate touching. The lawsuit alleges the employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. In addition to the settlement amount, the employer agreed to implement a revised s*xual harassment policy, appoint a third-party ombudsman to receive and review complaints of harassment, and provide periodic reports to the EEOC.

Address

8520 Government Drive Suite 1
New Port Richey, FL
34654

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 4pm

Telephone

+17278576030

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Randall Love PA posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Randall Love PA:

Shortcuts

Share

Category