Williams v. Worldwide Flight Services, Inc.
Florida District Court of Appeal
877 So. 2d 869 (2004)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Larry Williams (plaintiff) was an African American former employee of Worldwide Flight Services, Inc. (Worldwide) (defendant). Williams claimed that his supervisor, Arthur Ambruster, discriminated against him because of his race. Ambruster referred to Williams using a particularly offensive racial epithet and called him a monkey to his face, in the presence of other employees, and over company radios and walkie-talkies. Ambruster often communicated to Williams that he wished his Black self was not there. Ambruster assigned Williams tasks, such as loading and unloading planes in dangerous weather, and assigned him additional tasks so that Williams would not have break times. Ambruster often accused Williams of theft and threatened to fire him. Ambruster even told another supervisor to falsify documentation, making it appear that Williams had a history of disciplinary problems to justify his termination. Williams sued Worldwide, bringing a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and for negligent retention of Ambruster. A trial court dismissed Williams’s complaint with prejudice because he did not state a cause of action. Williams appealed. Williams did not pursue other state remedies under Florida’s civil rights act or federal remedies for victims of racial discrimination, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.