On June 4, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court will be hearing arguments on changes to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and these arguments will be presented live on Facebook and will be captioned.

Since 1986, the Florida Bar rules maintained two classes of membership for practicing attorneys, the first is a membership in good standing, and the other is a conditional membership for attorneys with a “prior history of drug, alcohol, or psychological problems” who are subject to “conditions of probation.”  The identities of those who are subject to this second class membership, and the contents of their conditions of probation are confidential, and not subject to disclosure to employers or the public; nonetheless, the fact that these lawyers have a past (or current) disability categorized as a quasi-criminal condition that subjects them to a probationary status is demeaning and entirely unnecessary. Second class membership unequivocally connotes inferiority and probation also carries of stigma of punishment for bad acts. Members of the Florida Bar submitted a petition to the Supreme Court of Florida to abolish this rule, and create a separate rule that allows the Supreme Court to regulate the admission of lawyers who have a current substance abuse disorder or mental illness that may put the public at risk. Matthew W. Dietz of Disability Independence Group, drafted the petitioner’s brief on behalf of the petitioners. Arguing with Matt Dietz will be two members of the Florida Bar’s Board of Governors, Wayne LaRue Smith, and Ron Ponzoli, with personal stories of the effects of these rules, as well as counsel from the Florida Bar.

Validity of local human rights ordinance to be argued at the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Orlando

On June 15, 2020, the Fifth District Court of Appeal will hear Yanes v. OC Food & Beverage LLC, a case which will decide whether local anti-discrimination ordinances are valid in light of the Florida Civil Rights Act. In Florida, there are state and federal protections against discrimination against persons because of their race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. However, over 25 counties and municipalities have expanded these protections to include protected statuses such as source of income, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran’s status, and victims of domestic violence. Additionally, these ordinances also provide additional remedies, such as expanding the type of facility that such protections would apply to and creating an immediate remedy for violations.

In this case, Ms. Yanes and Ms. Smith wanted to go to a gentlemen’s club in Orlando named Rachels, and were told that they could not enter into the facility because they were not accompanied by a gentleman. It was based upon conceptions that women who were not accompanied by men at these facilities are prostitutes. Ms. Yanes and Ms. Smith sued under the local, Orange County, anti-discrimination ordinance to immediately stop this practice. The circuit court found that the local ordinances enacted by the county commissioners of Orange County were preempted by the Florida Civil Rights Act.

Matthew Dietz will be arguing the case on behalf of Ms. Yanes and Ms. Smith. In addition to many municipalities that filed friend of the court (amicus curiae) briefs, Equality Florida, the Impact Fund, National Center for Lesbian Rights, the Anti-Defamation League, the ACLU of Florida, Freedom for All Americans, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, League of Women Voters of Florida, Legal Aid at Work, and the Zebra Coalition filed an amicus curiae brief because of the importance of these ordinances to all Floridians.