Judge tosses out lawsuit against the state, Deloitte over flawed unemployment website

A Leon circuit court judge has dismissed a potential class-action lawsuit against the state and Deloitte Consulting stemming from the meltdown of Florida’s online unemployment compensation system during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Judge John Cooper, for the second time in less than six months, said plaintiffs could not overcome legal hurdles to pursue the case against the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and Deloitte, a contractor that helped put in place the CONNECT online system in 2013.

After dismissing the case in September, Cooper allowed the plaintiffs to file a revised version. But he wrote Monday that the “nature of the plaintiffs’ claims in the (revised version) are unchanged from their previous complaint; the clear constitutional defects and other deficiencies in those claims have not been addressed.”

In part, Cooper wrote that the lawsuit is barred by the separation of powers between the judicial and executive branches of government.

Among other things, Cooper also cited sovereign immunity, which helps shield government agencies from lawsuits. He wrote that sovereign immunity also extended to Deloitte because it “acted at the state’s direction and control in assisting with the design and implementation of the CONNECT system.”

The lawsuit was filed last spring after the CONNECT system was overwhelmed by claims from people who lost jobs as the pandemic forced business closures. It sought damages and raised several arguments, including that the department and Deloitte were negligent and breached a fiduciary duty.

Cooper last month held a hearing on motions by the department and Deloitte to dismiss the case and issued his rulings Monday shortly before Deloitte officials went before a Senate committee to discuss the company’s role with the CONNECT system.

The ruling also came after Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office released a draft report Thursday by Chief Inspector General Melinda Miguel that pointed to longstanding problems with the system that had gone unaddressed, echoing an argument that the plaintiffs made in the lawsuit.