On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of Florida held that a claimant need not specifically allege they are seeking relief under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) in a charge of discrimination dual filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) in order to exhaust administrative remedies as a condition precedent for later filing suit. The court found that because Florida law only requires “a short and plain statement of the facts describing the violation and the relief sought,” a charge of discrimination that merely references alleged violations of federal law, but not Florida law, can nonetheless satisfy the statutory prerequisite for invoking the FCRA in a subsequent civil action.

A Closer Look at the Case

In the case in question, Steak N Shake, Inc. v. Ramos, Mr. Ramos was hired as a grill operator by Steak N Shake. He later suffered an off-the-job back injury. His work schedule was then allegedly reduced, before his employment was terminated. Mr. Ramos believed these actions were in retaliation for his disability and requests for accommodation, so he filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. On the charge form, he marked the boxes for “Retaliation” and “Disability” in the “Discrimination Based On” section. In the narrative section, he wrote that he believed he had been discriminated against based on his disability and requests for accommodation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He requested the charge be dual filed with both the EEOC and FCHR. His charge did not reference the FCRA. The EEOC investigated Mr. Ramos’ charge, ultimately dismissed it, and Mr. Ramos later sued Steak N Shake.

Steak N Shake eventually moved for summary judgment, arguing that because Mr. Ramos failed to allege any FCRA claims in his charge, he had not exhausted his administrative remedies under the FCRA. The trial court agreed and granted Steak N Shake summary judgment, but the Second District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the statute had no such requirement. The Second District certified conflict with a decision from the Fourth District Court of Appeal which held the opposite: that is, the failure to reference the FCRA in a charge of discrimination was fatal for purposes of exhausting administrative remedies. The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction to resolve the conflict.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

On review, the Supreme Court of Florida approved the Second District’s decision, holding that the relevant section of the FCRA does not impose any requirement that someone bringing a charge of discrimination specifically reference a violation of the FCRA to satisfy presuit conditions precedent. The court looked at the plain text of the FCRA and found the statute’s use of the words “relief sought” carries no requirement that a plaintiff explicitly state the law that was purportedly violated. Nor was there any requirement in the Florida Administrative Code’s regulations concerning the FCRA. The court concluded that, when giving full effect to the FCRA’s text and provisions, “there is simply no requirement that a complaint specifically reference the FCRA when it is dual filed, even if it only references federal law.” Finding to the contrary would add in a requirement not found within the statute’s text.

How the Decision Affects Future Discrimination Claims

This means that the technical deficiency Steak N Shake identified in Mr. Ramos’ charge was not enough—on its own—to defeat his claim. Importantly, there was no discussion of the actual merits of Mr. Ramos’ claim and whether he will ultimately prevail.

Regardless, employers and their counsel need to recognize this clarification of the FCRA’s requirements when reviewing charges of discrimination and determining whether the claimant has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing suit. In so doing, they should keep in mind that this decision is limited to whether or not reference to the FCRA in a dual filed charge is required for purposes of exhausting administrative remedies. It should not be taken as a broad relaxing or loosening of other presuit requirements within the FCRA.