CopyCited 130 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 775, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14692, 2000 WL 825672
...t of summary
judgment to her employer. We affirm.
I. Removal Jurisdiction
On December 5, 1996, Sierminski filed a complaint in circuit court in Broward County, Florida
alleging that defendant violated Florida's Whistle Blower's Act, § 448.102, Florida Statutes, by terminating
her employment....
...material fact issue regarding the causal link between plaintiff's actions and her subsequent termination.
Sierminski alleged she was terminated in retaliation for objecting to her former supervisor's illegal notary
practices, in violation of Florida's Whistleblower's Act, section 448.102, Florida Statutes....
...The Act states: "An employer may not take retaliatory action against an employee because the
employee has ... (3) objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer
which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." § 448.102(3), Fla....
...ch led to her termination. All told,
the Court finds that this chain, linking Plaintiff's complaint of illegality with her termination, took
too long to develop and is too indirect to satisfy the causality requirement inherent in Ch. 448.102(3).
AFFIRMED.
8
9
CopyCited 105 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 38 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 411, 88 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 721, 2014 WL 1775875, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8477, 97 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 45, 068
...against employees who report allegations of specified corporate wrongdoing. See
18 U.S.C. § 1514A (preventing publicly traded companies from discharging
employees who report an employer’s alleged violation of federal securities law);
Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (prohibiting employers from taking retaliatory action against
employees who have disclosed, threatened to disclosed, or refused to participate in
an employer’s illegal conduct)....
...reasonable attorneys’ fees. Id. at § 1514A(c).
The FWA does not interfere with Sarbanes–Oxley’s regulatory scheme.
Like Sarbanes–Oxley, the FWA also protects employees who report their
employers’ illegal conduct. See Fla. Stat. 448.102 (prohibiting retaliatory-
personnel action against whistleblowing employees)....
CopyCited 100 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 40 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 14, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7436, 2015 WL 2058892
...Bank treated him adversely by terminating his employment
on May 31, 2013, in retaliation.
Wiersum filed a single-count complaint against U.S. Bank in the Southern
District of Florida on diversity jurisdiction and alleged a violation of the FWA, Fla.
Stat. § 448.102(3). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss Wiersum’s complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for federal preemption. It argued
1
Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3).
2
12 U.S.C....
...The effect of implementing the dissent’s statutory interpretation would be to have this
court rewrite 12 U.S.C. § 24 (Fifth), enacted in 1864 as part of the NBA, to permit terminated
Florida bank officers to bring whistleblower actions under the FWA, Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3),
enacted in 1991....
...of 29
retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has . . .
[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the
employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. §
448.102(3).
Concluding federal statutes regulating national banks preempted conflicting
state legislation preventing selling insurance in small towns, the Supreme Court
noted:
Congress would not want States to forbid, or to imp...
...prevents employers from taking “retaliatory personnel action against an employee
because the employee has . . . [o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any
activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.” Fla. Stat. § 448.102....
...
violations of the law, including “the discharge, suspension, or demotion by an
employer of an employee or any other adverse employment action taken by an
employer against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.” Fla.
Stat. §§
448.102,
448.101(5)....
CopyCited 81 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 454, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 17297, 2003 WL 21983019
...designation.
This case ultimately requires us to determine whether a claim brought by
appellant Michael Branche (“Branche”) against his former employer, Airtran
Airways, Inc. (“Airtran”), pursuant to Florida’s Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. §
448.102, is expressly pre-empted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act
(“ADA”), 49 U.S.C....
...5
Based on this pattern of dealing, on August 27, 2001 Branche filed this
action in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in Pinellas County,
Florida. He advanced a single claim under Florida’s Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat.
§ 448.102....
...2d
715 (1995) (citation and internal punctuation omitted). Accordingly, the key
question in this case is whether Branche’s claim for retaliatory discharge under
9
Florida’s Whistleblower Statute, Fla. Stat. § 448.102(1),3 is “related to” the
“service of an air carrier.” 4 To answer this basic question we must define the
terms “related to” and “service,” as used in § 41713.
In undertaking this inquiry, we are mindful that...
...any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has . . . [d]isclosed . .
. to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice
of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. § 448.102(1).
4
No party argues that appellant’s claim is “related to” the “price” or “route” of an air
carrier.
5
At the time of the Morales decision, this provision was codified at 49 U.S.C....
CopyCited 74 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 592, 10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 84, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1806, 1994 WL 643760
...[2] Section
448.101(5), Florida Statutes (1993), defines "retaliatory personnel action" as "the discharge, suspension, or demotion by an employer of an employee or any other adverse employment action taken by an employer against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment." [3] Section
448.102, Florida Statutes (1993), provides: Prohibitions....
...sides, or in which the employer has its principal place of business. (c) An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s. 448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act....
CopyCited 64 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1999 WL 166599
...Sullivan on his claim of unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. ("Title VII"), the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (a) and the Florida Whistleblower's Protection Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 448.102 (3) (West 1998)....
CopyCited 64 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...mmary
judgment to her employer. We affirm.
I. Removal Jurisdiction
On December 5, 1996, Sierminski filed a complaint in circuit court in Broward
County, Florida alleging that defendant violated Florida’s Whistle Blower’s Act, §
448.102, Florida Statutes, by terminating her employment....
...causal link between plaintiff’s
actions and her subsequent termination. Sierminski alleged she was terminated in
retaliation for objecting to her former supervisor’s illegal notary practices, in violation
of Florida’s Whistleblower’s Act, section 448.102, Florida Statutes....
...The Act states: “An employer may not take retaliatory action against an
employee because the employee has ... (3) objected to, or refused to participate in, any
activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.” §448.102(3), Fla....
...handle very well, which led to her termination. All told, the
Court finds that this chain, linking Plaintiff’s complaint of
illegality with her termination, took too long to develop and
is too indirect to satisfy the causality requirement inherent
in Ch. 448.102(3).
AFFIRMED.
14
CopyCited 43 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 53238
...lation of the injunction. On November 25, 1996, Tyson's employment with Blockbuster was terminated. On February 11, 1997, Tyson filed his first complaint alleging claims for *1208 breach of contract and violation of Florida's whistle blower statute, section 448.102(2), Fla....
...inion concluded it was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. To prove a whistle blower claim, Tyson would have had to show that he was terminated by Viacom in retaliation for his disclosure of Gilman's injunction violations. See § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 38 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1268, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4591, 111 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1185, 2011 WL 782023
...missal of her claims brought
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
(Title VII), the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. §
760.01, et seq.
(FCRA), and the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. §
448.102 (FWA), against
Energy Services Group International (ESGI), her former employer....
CopyCited 38 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 31, 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1574, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 9, 2000 WL 31834
...We have for review the opinion in Jenkins v. Golf Channel,
714 So.2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), which certified conflict with the opinion in Potomac Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Deering,
683 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), regarding the interpretation of the notice provisions found in sections
448.102 and
448.103, Florida Statutes (1995), part of the Whistle-Blower Act....
...violate laws enacted to protect the public." Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh,
645 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla.1994). The Act provides employees with a cause of action against private sector employers who take certain types of retaliatory personnel action. [1] See §
448.102-.103. Section
448.102 prohibits employers from taking three types of retaliatory personnel action: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appr...
...ation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)-(3) (emphasis supplied)....
...sides, or in which the employer has its principal place of business. (c) An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act. §
448.103(1) (emphasis supplied). The issue in this case is whether employees whose whistle-blower claims are based on retaliatory personnel action prohibited by subsections
448.102(2) and (3) are required by section
448.103 to give their employers written notice as a prerequisite to maintaining a cause of action for retaliatory personnel action. BACKGROUND Martin Jenkins brought a whistle-blower claim under section
448.103 against his employer, The Golf Channel, Inc. ("Golf Channel"). Jenkins alleged that he had been fired in violation of subsection
448.102(3), for objecting to other employees' unlawful acts and reporting them to his supervisors....
...tion
448.103(1)(c). The Fifth District reversed, holding that the written notice requirement of that subsection applies only to claims based on the employer's retaliation for the employee's public disclosure of the unlawful activity prohibited by subsection
448.102(1)....
...ng whether Florida's private sector Whistle-Blower Act requires plaintiffs to give their employers written notice of the unlawful activity and an opportunity to cure the unlawful activity prior to bringing a whistle-blower claim based on subsections
448.102(2) or (3). Both the Fifth and Third Districts agree that the written notice and opportunity to cure provisions of subsections
448.102(1) and
448.103(1)(c) apply only to claims that the employee suffered retaliatory personnel action for the disclosure of the employer's unlawful activities as prohibited by subsection
448.102(1)....
...See Jenkins,
714 So.2d at 563; Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). [2] In contrast, the Second District has concluded that the written notice requirement applies to all claims brought under the Whistle-Blower Act, whether based on subsection
448.102(1), (2), or (3)....
...occasion for judicial interpretation." Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion Control Dist.,
604 So.2d 452, 454 (Fla.1992). However, we agree with Jenkins that statutory construction is required because although the written notice requirement of subsection
448.102(1) is clear and unambiguous, subsection
448.103(1)(c) creates an ambiguity requiring statutory construction as to whether that written notice requirement extends to all whistle-blower claims....
...literal import of the terms employed to express it in a particular part of the law, that intent should prevail, for that, in fact is the will of the Legislature." Forsythe,
604 So.2d at 454 (quoting Van Pelt,
75 Fla. at 799,
78 So. at 695). Sections
448.102 and
448.103 are closely related. Section
448.102 sets forth the types of retaliatory personnel action that are prohibited by the Act, and section
448.103 provides the remedy to compensate employees if their employers take prohibited retaliatory personnel action. In fact, subsection
448.103(1)(c) specifically incorporates the written notice provision of subsection
448.102(1)....
...91-285, Laws of Fla.; see also §
1.04, Fla.Stat. (1995) ("Acts passed during the same legislative session and amending the same statutory provision are in pari materia, and full effect should be given to each, if that is possible."). Thus, sections
448.102 and
448.103 should be construed together "so that they illuminate each other and are harmonized." McGhee v. Volusia County,
679 So.2d 729, 730 n. 1 (Fla.1996). Section
448.102 provides that employers are prohibited from taking retaliatory personnel action against employees on the basis of three distinct types of activities. Subsection
448.102(1) protects employees from retaliatory personnel action on the basis of disclosure of an "activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation" (disclosure claims). Subsection
448.102(2) prohibits retaliation based on an employee's assistance with an on-going "investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer" (assistance claims). Finally, subsection
448.102(3) prohibits the employer from taking retaliatory action on the basis of an employee's objection to or refusal to participate in "any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation" (objection claims). The only written notice requirement in section
448.102 is found in the subsection protecting employees from retaliatory personnel action based on the disclosure of the employer's unlawful activity. See *565 §
448.102(1)....
...practice. Id. (emphasis supplied). By using the express language "this subsection," the plain language of this provision provides that the written notice and reasonable opportunity to correct requirements apply only to claims brought pursuant to subsection
448.102(1), based on retaliation for the employee's disclosure of unlawful activity. See Preface at vii, Fla.Stat. (1995) (explaining hierarchical numbering system found in the statutes); [3] Baiton,
661 So.2d at 317 n. 5. Thus, by its clear and unambiguous terms, the written notice requirement found in subsection
448.102(1) does not apply to those claims brought pursuant to subsections
448.102(2) or (3). While the language of section
448.102 plainly differentiates between three different types of prohibited employer conduct and requires written notice only with regard to disclosure claims, subsection
448.103(1)(c) creates an ambiguity as to whether the Legislature intended to extend that written notice requirement to assistance and objection claims. This subsection expressly incorporates the written notice requirement of subsection
448.102(1) by stating that "[a]n employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1). ..." (Emphasis supplied.) The interpretation given by the Second District in Potomac Systems is that subsection
448.103(1)(c) incorporates the written notice requirement of subsection
448.102(1) to apply to "any action" brought pursuant to subsection
448.103(1), regardless of whether the claim is based on a violation of subsection
448.102(1), (2), or (3). See Potomac Systems,
683 So.2d at 182. The problem with this interpretation is that it would make meaningless the explicit distinction in section
448.102, which requires written notice and an opportunity to cure only for disclosure claims....
..."It is a cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that courts should avoid readings that render part of a statute meaningless." Forsythe,
604 So.2d at 456. Further, if the Legislature had in fact intended a written notice provision as a prerequisite for all claims pursuant to section
448.102, it could have clearly and expressly stated that intention within subsection
448.103(1)(c), without referring back to the specifically tailored notice requirement of subsection
448.102(1)....
...On the other hand, the interpretation given by the Fifth District in Jenkins and the Third District in Baiton is consistent with the actual language employed in the Act, the remedial purpose of the act and the purpose of the written notice requirement. Subsection
448.102(1) unambiguously provides for the written notice requirement only as to claims based on "this subsection," and similar notice language is expressly excluded from subsections (2) and (3). By referring back to the limited written notice requirement in subsection
448.102(1), the phrase "any action" in subsection
448.103(1)(c) thus refers only to actions brought pursuant to subsection
448.102(1)....
...1962). Thus, under these established principles of statutory construction, any ambiguities in paragraph
448.103(1)(c) should be liberally construed in favor of granting access to the remedy provided by the Legislature. The notice requirement in subsection
448.102(1) is unique in that it requires both written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure the unlawful activity. Unlike other statutes providing for presuit notice that require the plaintiff give the defendant written notice prior to filing suit, [5] subsection
448.102(1) also mandates that the employee give the employer a reasonable opportunity to cure the unlawful activity. Thus, it is reasonable to construe the written notice requirement in subsection
448.102(1) as requiring the employee to provide the employer with written notice of the unlawful activity before the whistle is blown....
...called to testify before a "closed door" investigation. See Jenkins,
714 So.2d at 563. Under Golf Channel's interpretation, if the employer later retaliated because of the employee's testimony, the employee's whistle-blower *567 suit pursuant to subsection
448.102(2) would be barred because the employee had been unable to give the employer written notice prior to providing assistance with an ongoing investigation. As with assistance claims, when a whistle-blower claim is based on retaliation for the employee's objection or refusal to participate in unlawful activity pursuant to subsection
448.102(3), requiring the employee to give written notice prior to making the objection would be inconsistent with the remedial purpose of the Act....
...We thus conclude that in accordance with established canons of construction, the ambiguities in this statute must be liberally construed in favor of granting access to the remedy provided by the Legislature in those cases where the employer engaged in retaliatory personnel action prohibited by subsections 448.102(2) and (3). In addition to not furthering the remedial purpose of the act, the reasons supporting the written notice requirement in public disclosure claims are not present in objection and assistance claims. In the context of a subsection 448.102(1) public disclosure claim, a requirement that the employee, prior to disclosure, must first give the employer written notice and an opportunity to cure serves valid purposes consistent with the Act....
...written notice prior to assisting with an ongoing investigation or before objecting to an unlawful activity would not serve the purposes supporting the written notice requirement in the disclosure context. In assistance claims brought pursuant to subsection 448.102(2), an investigation is already ongoing through no action of the employee....
...Considering the language of the Act by reading the statute as a whole, the remedial purpose of the Act and the purpose of the written notice requirement, we construe the requirement that employees give *568 their employers written notice as applying only to disclosure claims brought pursuant to subsection
448.102(1), based on retaliation for the employee's disclosure of unlawful activity. Because subsection
448.103(1)(c) incorporates the limited notice provision of subsection
448.102(1), this requirement does not apply to assistance claims brought pursuant to subsection
448.102(2) based on retaliation for the employee's assistance in an ongoing investigation or to objection claims brought pursuant to subsection
448.102(3) based on the employee's objection to the unlawful activity of the employer. In this case, Jenkins' whistle-blower action consisted of objection claims based on retaliatory personnel action in violation of subsection
448.102(3). Jenkins did not bring a disclosure claim based on a violation of subsection
448.102(1)....
...that their interpretation of section
448.103(1)(c) has rendered meaningless the language "may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection." The majority opines that the "any action" language refers to any action brought pursuant to section
448.102(1). However, this interpretation ignores the "pursuant to this subsection" portion of the sentence. This subsection is section
448.103(1), and is applicable to all causes of action, whether the action is for retaliation based on
448.102(1), (2) or (3)....
...As the majority points out, therein lies the ambiguity. As the Second District pointed out in Potomac Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Deering,
683 So.2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), an interpretation of the statutes which requires notice to be given only when an action is brought pursuant to section
448.102(1) renders meaningless the language of section
448.103(1)(c)....
...ion, but only if proper notice is given. Section
448.103(1)(c) provides: An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act....
...not depend upon written notice when an employee, as in this case, objects to, or refuses to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation, and is claiming protection pursuant to section
448.102(3) and not pursuant to section
448.102(1). If we were to accept this position, because section
448.102(1) already requires written notice, we would be finding that portion of section
448.103(1)(c) which requires written notice has no meaning. We decline to do this and agree with PSE's contention. Potomac Systems,
683 So.2d at 181. The majority opines written notice would be impractical prior to engaging in *569 the activities described in subsections
448.102(2) and (3)....
...However, nothing would prevent the employee from giving notice after testifying, etc., or after refusing to participate in the activity. The employer would have a belated opportunity to cure. I believe that section
448.103(1)(c) makes the notice requirement applicable to all subsections of section
448.102....
...3d DCA 1995), before the split in the district courts arose). [3] The preface to the Florida Statutes explains that the subdivisions are chapter, section, subsection, paragraph, and subparagraph. Preface at vii, Fla.Stat. (1995). Thus, the relevant subdivisions here are chapter 448, section 448.102, and subsection 448.102(1)....
...e to assistance and objection claims, and not the opportunity to cure requirement, the employers could be given written notice after the retaliatory action was taken. At least two of the appellate courts addressing this issue have assumed that if subsection 448.102(1) were extended to assistance and objection claims, the written notice would still be required to be given prior to the whistle-blowing activity....
CopyCited 26 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 36 A.L.R. 6th 845, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 873, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 266, 2005 WL 280337
...THE WHISTLE-BLOWER CLAIMS The two counts of Ms. Snow's second amended complaint asserted an "objection" claim and a "providing information" claim under Florida's Private Sector Whistle-Blower Act. Specifically, she claimed that Ruden, McClosky terminated her for activity protected by section 448.102(2) and (3), [2] because she refused to join in Ruden, McClosky's after-the-fact cover-up of illegal and unethical conduct and provided information to the State Attorney about it....
...ss her suit. See J.R.D. Mgmt. Corp. v. Dulin,
883 So.2d 314 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (stating that a plaintiff may not sue for breach of at-will employment). Affirmed. STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. NOTES [1] §§
448.101-.105, Fla. Stat. (1999). [2] Section
448.102 provides: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, p...
CopyCited 22 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2013 WL 3924091, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 11992
...Here, since Aery properly listed his suit against Maroone in the Schedule “B” form of his bankruptcy plan, and since he is a Chapter 13 debtor, the trial court erred in finding that he lacked standing to individually pursue the circuit court action. Damages Under Florida’s Whistleblower Act As codified in section 448.102, Florida’s Whistleblower Act (“FWA”) is an exception to Florida’s at-will employment doctrine, Schultz v....
CopyCited 20 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 31 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 489, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 21067, 2010 WL 3983161
...the United States, alleging that the company had submitted false claims to the
Government for services rendered in violation of federal safety regulations. See
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a), 3730(b). Second, he sued Boeing in state court under the
Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.102, alleging that the company had
fired him for complaining about its safety violations.
2
Boeing removed the whistleblower suit to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction,1 and both actions proceeded—separately—before the same
district judge....
CopyCited 16 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 3 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1345, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15421, 1994 WL 594406
...-blower's Act §
448.101-105." Defendant argues that this portion of Plaintiff's Whistle-blower claim should be struck because Plaintiff fails to allege that she reported any misconduct on the part of her employer regarding her Baker Act proceeding. Section
448.102 of the Florida Whistle-blower's Act prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who "disclosed or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice...
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1496903
...The letter opined that a company officer had violated federal law, detailed tales of retaliation and cover-up, and described the company's potential liability. Alexander signed the letter in her capacity as general counsel. Arguably, the letter was an attempt to comply with the requirement of section 448.102(1), Florida Statutes (2003) that the employee, "in writing," bring an "activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer." Respondents argue that the circuit court properly disqualified Rosenfeldt because...
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 26 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 578, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 10979, 2007 WL 2043458
...1st DCA 2001). Moreover, the "reviewing court operates under the same constraints." Id. (quoting Andrews v. Fla. Parole Comm'n,
768 So.2d 1257, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (citations omitted)). Morin's amended complaint seeks damages for a violation of section
448.102(3), Florida Statutes, of the Whistleblower Act. Section
448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2005), provides: Prohibition....
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 11 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 57, 1996 A.M.C. 107, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8904, 1995 WL 497113
...The whistle-blower statute provides in part that "[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: ... (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." Id. § 448.102(3)....
...___,
113 S.Ct. 2987,
125 L.Ed.2d 682 (1993). [4] Carnival next argues that Baiton's allegations are insufficient to state a cause of *316 action under the Florida whistle-blower statute. We disagree. Baiton has sufficiently alleged a cause of action under subsection
448.102(3), namely, that he refused to give a false statement in connection with the Medina lawsuit. A claim has been stated under subsection
448.102(3), Florida Statutes (1993)....
...Carnival argues alternatively that Baiton has failed to satisfy a condition precedent to recovery under the whistle-blower statute. Carnival interprets the statute to require Baiton to have provided Carnival with a written pre-suit notice. We disagree. The whistle-blower statute provides, in part: 448.102 Prohibitions....
..., or regulation.
448.103 Employee's remedy; relief. (1) ... ... . (c) An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act. §§
448.102-.103(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (1993) (emphasis added; footnote omitted). Under subsection
448.102(1), Florida Statutes, an employer may not take a retaliatory personnel action against an employee who has disclosed or threatened to disclose "an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or re...
...he activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice." Id. (emphasis added). The reference to "this subsection" means subsection
448.102(1). [5] Consequently, where an employee asserts a violation of subsection
448.102(1), the employee is required to give written notice to the supervisor or employer and an opportunity for the employer to correct the activity, policy, or practice. Similarly, if the employee brings a lawsuit against the employer alleging a violation of subsection
448.102(1), the employee may not recover "if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1)." Id. §
448.103(1)(c) (emphasis added). This written notice requirement only applies to subsection
448.102(1). There is no comparable written notice requirement for a claim made by an employee under subsection
448.102(2), relating to governmental investigations, or subsection
448.102(3), relating to an employee objection to, or refusal to participate in, "any activity, policy, or practice of *317 the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." Id. §
448.102(3). In the present case Baiton is proceeding under subsection
448.102(3). As there is no written notice requirement for subsection
448.102(3), Carnival's objection on this point is not well taken....
...[5] The statutory numbering system is described in the preface to each volume of the 1993 Florida Statutes, page vii. The subdivisions of the Florida Statutes are chapter, section, subsection, paragraph, and subparagraph. Id. The subdivisions relevant here are: Chapter 448 Section 448.102 Subsection 448.102(1).
CopyCited 12 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21168, 1997 WL 811562
...mages and injunctive relief pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the Florida Civil Rights Act, F.S. §
760.01 et seq., and Florida's private sector "whistleblower" statute, F.S. §
448.102....
...and unwarranted under the circumstances. Count IX (Retaliatory Personnel Action) Upon consideration of Plaintiff's motion to "voluntarily dismiss" her claim of retaliatory personnel action under Florida's private sector "whistleblower" statute, F.S. § 448.102 (Plaintiff's Response, at 28), the Court will dismiss Count IX of the Complaint....
CopyCited 12 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6766, 2002 WL 553153
...tion, hearing, or inquiry into any alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(3), Fla. Stat. Further the Act provides that: An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he or she failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by § 448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14703, 2005 WL 2291229
...In 2002, the parties signed an agreement for binding arbitration of any claims related to Mora's employment by Autoway. When Autoway later terminated Mora, he filed a whistleblower suit, asserting that his discharge was a retaliatory personnel action in violation of section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2002)....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 3 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 861, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12996, 1996 WL 509224
...Collings amended her initial complaint on May 8, 1995, by specifically claiming the amount of damages sought. Collings amended her complaint again on November 3, 1995, by adding a claim for punitive damages. On March 26, 1996, Collings added the state claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of Section 448.102, Florida Statutes (1995), commonly known as the Florida Whistle Blower Act....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3208839
...Whistleblower's Act. The Whistleblower's Act prohibits an employer from taking any retaliatory action against an employee for providing information to a governmental agency investigating a violation by the employer of a law, rule, or regulation. See § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16563, 2002 WL 2002408
...gent misrepresentation (against UM); count II, retaliation in violation of First Amendment rights (by Allocco and Fernandez against the City); count III, conspiracy (against UM); [1] count VI (first), whistleblower claim in violation of Fla. Stat. §§ 448.102 et seq (by Allocco and Fernandez against UM).; count VI (second), violation of Florida's Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") act, Fla....
...t are asserted only by Allocco and Fernandez against the defendants. These claims are: count II, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment (against the City); count VI (first), violation of Florida's private whistleblower statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 448.102 et seq....
...[25] The only exception to this is Fernandez's statement that he "thinks" that the 97/98 Safety and Security Brochure was mailed to him, but Fernandez has not shown that this brochure contained fraudulent statements nor that it actually was mailed to him. [26] Section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, which is referred to in this order as the private sector whistleblower statute, prohibits retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has "[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose, to a...
...It should be noted, however, that it is highly unlikely that the plaintiffs can show that they have engaged in activities that are protected under either statute. This is particularly true as it relates to the plaintiffs' private sector whistleblower claims, for Fla. Stat. § 448.102 requires that the disclosure or threatened disclosure that is made by the plaintiff be "under oath, in writing"....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 563113
...WHATLEY, Judge. John Dausman appeals the final summary judgment that dismissed with prejudice his complaint against Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) on the ground that he failed to state a cause of action under the private sector whistle blower act, § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 726422
...tion, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. "(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102, Fla....
...Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
661 So.2d 313, 316-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Judd v. Englewood Community Hosp.,
739 So.2d 627, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (Blue, J., specially concurring). The complaint was not defective in failing to allege prior notice. The complaint failed to state a cause of action under section
448.102, however, because an injunction is not "a law, rule or regulation" and the federal district court is not an "agency" within the meaning of the Act....
CopyCited 9 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 39 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1384, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1782, 2015 WL 574007
...mitted to the
jury.
GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy,
136 So. 3d 647, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (quoting Sims v.
Cristinzio,
898 So. 2d 1004, 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)).
In making his claim under the FWA, Kearns proceeded under section
448.102(3), which provides that "[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has . . . [o]bjected to, or refused to
participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a
law, rule, or regulation." A claim under section
448.102(3) requires the plaintiff to prove
"(1) []he engaged in statutorily protected expression; (2) []he suffered an adverse
employment action; and (3) the adverse employment action was causally linked to the
statutorily protected activity." White v....
...resent evidence of prongs one and three.
We disagree.
Regarding the first prong, the FWA requires Kearns in the context of this
case to prove he objected to or refused to participate in a "violation of a law, rule, or
regulation." § 448.102(3) (emphasis added)....
...2000) (stating that the FWA is
"designed 'to protect private employees who report or refuse to assist employers who
violate laws enacted to protect the public' " (quoting Arrow Air,
645 So. 2d at 424)). The
White court also looked to Florida cases that addressed the definition of "law, rule or
regulation" in section
448.102(3), such as New World Communications of Tampa, Inc....
...But "[t]he first principle of statutory construction is that legislative intent must be
determined primarily from the language of the statute." Id. at 564. When a statute is
plain and unambiguous, there is no need for judicial interpretation. Id.
Section 448.102(3), which is the pertinent statutory section here, applies
when an employee "[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or
practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." In con...
...subsection (2) of the same statute specifically applies when an employee provides
information to "any appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an
investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by
the employer." § 448.102(2) (emphasis added)....
...Thus, in both the private and
public whistleblower's acts the Florida Legislature has indicated when an alleged or
suspected violation of law is sufficient as opposed to an actual violation of law.
And the White court explained that requiring a plaintiff to prove an actual
violation under section 448.102(3) of the FWA promoted its policies "while adequately
- 10 -
protecting the legitimate interests of private employers." 369 F....
...In apparent recognition of this dilemma the
legislature declined to include in the relevant section of the
Act this protection for employees.
Id. at 1338-39. Based on a plain reading of the FWA and the reasoning in White, we
agree with the Employer that under section 448.102(3) Kearns must prove that he
objected to an actual violation of law or that he refused to participate in activity that
would have been an actual violation of law....
...Centro Mater, Inc., 200 F. App'x 881 (11th Cir. 2006). There, the
Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order that set aside the jury's verdict and
entered judgment in favor of the employer. Id. at 883. The employee alleged a violation
of section 448.102 and claimed that she was terminated for refusing to commit perjury.
The employee's FWA "claim failed because she presented no evidence on the 'under
oath in an official proceeding' element of a perjury claim." Id.
Thu...
...ns, support
Kearns' position that the dealership was guilty of violating section
817.03. This violation
and Kearns' refusal to participate in it satisfy the first prong of Kearns' burden under the
FWA. See White,
369 F. Supp. 2d at 1336; see also §
448.102(3).
As to prong three of the test to establish a claim under section
448.102(3),
we do not agree with the trial court's conclusion that Kearns failed to establish a causal
link between his refusal to participate in power booking and his firing....
CopyCited 8 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 498, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2223, 2009 WL 690638
...-appeal, finding them to be meritless. The leased employee, Luis O. Diaz, filed a complaint for damages against both Impex of Doral, Inc. (Impex) and Impex of Doral Logistics, Inc. (Impex Logistics) for the violation of Florida's Whistle Blower Act, section 448.102, Florida Statutes, et seq....
...Under the Whistle Blower Act, the employer may not take retaliatory action against an employee because the employee, "[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." § 448.102(3)....
...NOTES [1] Impex further claims that Diaz has not complied with the statutory notice requirements of the Whistle Blower Act. The written notice requirements of this statute only apply to subsection 1, and Diaz's action was brought under subsection 3. Thus, the written notice requirements are inapplicable. See §
448.102; Golf Channel,
752 So.2d at 565.
CopyCited 7 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2547, 1998 WL 97291
...salaried employee, and she was eventually told to get out. Accepting these facts as true, a jury could find that Towers took retaliatory actions against Robinson. Defendant states that Robinson's complaint should be dismissed because Florida Statute § 448.102(1) requires written notice while Robinson orally instructed the investigator to review the Defendant's time cards....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 327505
...Order Granting Rehearing and Clarification and Denying Rehearing En Banc and Certification Denied February 25, 2004. KELLY, Judge. New World Communications of Tampa, Inc., d/b/a WTVT-TV, a subsidiary of Fox Television, challenges a judgment entered against it for violating Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (Supp.1998)....
...-blower's statute. The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have "[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose," employer conduct that "is in violation of" a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3)....
...." §
448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the newswhich the FCC has called its "news distortion policy"does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section
448.102....
...e scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida's Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute. Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute....
...ic importance. We grant Akre's requests for rehearing and clarification and deny her requests for rehearing en banc and certification. WTVT appealed a final judgment entered against it for violating Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (1997)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12100
...In 1991, the Whistle-blower protection was expanded to cover private-sector employees who disclose, or threaten to disclose, employer violations of law, rule or regulation, or who object to, or refuse to participate in any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule or regulation. §
448.102, Fla. Stat. (1991). [4] Without question sections
112.321 and
448.102 have *148 modified the common law in Florida which permited private employers to terminate an at-will employee at any time, for any cause, or for no cause at all. Arrow Air argues, however, that section
448.102 is not applicable to this case because it post-dates the operative facts....
...1972); In re Estate of McCracken, 9 Ohio Misc. 195, 224 N.E.2d 181, 182 (Ohio Prob. 1967)). An examination of a statute in historical context is essential to a determination that it is remedial. Several significant occurrences, mentioned earlier in this opinion, preceded passage of section 448.102....
...the statute should be construed liberally in favor of granting access to the remedy." [5] *149 For the same reasons relied upon by the supreme court in construing the Florida Public Records Act and section
112.3187 as remedial statutes, we hold that section
448.102 applies to this case which was pending on appeal when the law became effective....
...Florida law holds that when the term of employment is discretionary with either party, then either party for any reason may terminate it at any time, without incurring liability. DeMarco v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.,
384 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1980). The majority now erroneously concludes that section
448.102, Florida Statutes (1991), which was enacted after the original panel *150 decision in this case was released, should be applied retroactively....
...e, Inc. v. Halligan,
344 So.2d 239 (Fla. 1977); Keystone Water Company, Inc. v. Bevis,
278 So.2d 606 (Fla. 1973); Larson v. Independent Life and Accident Insurance Co.,
158 Fla. 623,
29 So.2d 448 (1947). There is no clear legislative expression that section
448.102, Florida Statutes (1991), was intended to apply retroactively....
...Most importantly, Martin County does not address the issue of retroactivity. Acts which create new obligations and impose new penalties, are rigidly construed and operate prospectively only. Larson v. Independent Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
29 So.2d 448. Section
448.102, Florida Statutes (1991), creates new obligations on the part of employers, and should be rigidly construed as applying prospectively. Moreover, the legislature expressed its intent to prospectively apply section
448.102, Florida Statutes: "This act shall take effect upon becoming law." Ch....
...Arrow Air's principal contention in the motion for rehearing is that application of the new statute to give the plaintiff a cause of action for wrongful termination violates the rule against the retroactive application of new statutes. Stated otherwise, it seems the employer's argument is that before the enactment of section 448.102, Arrow Air had a right to fire its employees for complying with the law against its wishes, without fear of civil liability, and in that sense the new statute impairs a substantive right while imposing a new duty on the employer....
...See original opinion, n. 4 (May 11, 1993). Second, the power of an employer to terminate an employee for doing that which the law requires, or for any reason clearly contrary to a strong public policy, which may have existed prior to the exactment of section 448.102, is not a substantive right based on any concept of justice, ethical correctness, or principles of morals....
...denied,
581 So.2d 1307 (Fla. 1991). [3] The material facts are taken from the complaint and must be accepted as true for the purpose of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. Singer v. Florida Paving Co.,
459 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). [4] Section
448.102 provides: Prohibitions....
...(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. In defining terms used in the chapter, section
448.101(4), provides that any law, rule, or regulation under section
448.102 "includes any statute or ordinance or any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business." Among other statutes or regulations, Arrow...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 13 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1439, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 12546, 1997 WL 817189
...§§
448.101-105, Fla.Stat. (1995). We affirm. The whistle blower act is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine that allows an employee to contest retaliatory action by an employer under specified circumstances. The heart of the whistle blower act is section
448.102, and it provides as follows: An employer may not take retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing,...
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 23 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1415, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 18803, 98 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 766, 2005 WL 3179984
...The relevant section in this case provides as follows: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: ... (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3736, 2007 WL 756106
...According to Miñagorri, when she complained to the Archdiocese about Father Saldaña's behavior, the Archdiocese retaliated by terminating her employment. In count II of her four count complaint, Miñagorri makes a Private Sector Whistleblower Act claim under section 448.102(3), which prohibits employers from taking retaliatory action against employees who object to or refuse to participate in activities, policies or practices of the employer which are "in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." § 448.102(3), Fla....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 335789
...ces Act), 15 U.S.C. 45 (the Federal Trade Commission Act). 11. The Plaintiff reported other violations of laws, rules and regulations of the Defendant committed by PAUL FARNSWORTH and MIKE WHELAN. The Whistle Blower's Act provides in pertinent part: 448.102....
...action was taken, whichever is earlier. * * * * * * *561 [1] (c) An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he or she failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s. 448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act. [Emphasis added]. TGC moved to dismiss on the grounds that Jenkins failed to allege that he complained about the incidents in writing as required by subsection 448.102(1). Jenkins responds by urging that written notice is required only when an action is brought pursuant to subsection 448.102(1), that his action was brought pursuant to subsection (3), and that no written notice is required under that subsection....
...In response, TGC argues that written notice, and a reasonable opportunity to cure the problem, applies to all whistle blower actions. TGC urges that because the required written notice was not given, the trial court correctly dismissed Jenkins' complaint. [1] The notice requirement of section 448.102, when read apart from section 408.103, appears to apply only to subsection (1)....
...Notice and opportunity to cure is not mentioned in the other subsections. However, subsection
448.103(1), setting forth an employee's remedy for being the victim of retaliatory conduct by an employer, creates an ambiguity or uncertainty as to whether the notice provision is limited to violations of subsection (1) of section
448.102, or whether it applies to all three types of whistle blower violations described in section
448.102. Paragraph (c) of subsection
448.103(1) provides that an employee may not recover in any action if he fails to notify his employer "as required by section
448.102(1)." One conclusion that could be drawn is that paragraph (c) of subsection
448.102(1) incorporates the notice requirement to all three types of actions....
...ower actions has been addressed in two Florida cases. Each reached opposite conclusions. In Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), the third district held that the notice requirement applied only to actions under subsection
448.102(1)....
...The trial court dismissed Baiton's complaint with prejudice. On appeal, Carnival argued that the dismissal was proper because Baiton had failed to give Carnival written pre-suit notice. The third district disagreed, explaining as follows: Under subsection 448.102(1), Florida Statutes, an employer may not take a retaliatory personnel action against an employee who has disclosed or threatened to disclose `an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or re...
...writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice.' Id. The reference to `this subsection' means subsection
448.102(1). Consequently, where an employee asserts a violation of subsection
448.102(1), the employee is required to give written notice to the supervisor or employer and an opportunity for the employer to correct the activity, policy, or practice. Similarly, if the employee brings a lawsuit against the employer alleging a violation of subsection
448.102(1), the employee may not recover `if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1).' Id. §
448.103(1)(c) [emphasis in original] [footnote omitted]. *562 This written notice requirement only applies to subsection
448.102(1). There is no comparable written notice requirement for a claim made by an employee under subsection
448.102(2), relating to governmental investigations, or subsection
448.102(3), relating to an employee objection to, or refusal to participate in, `any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.' Id. §
448.102(3). In the present case Baiton is proceeding under subsection
448.102(3). As there is no written notice requirement for subsection
448.102(3), Carnival's objection on this point is not well taken....
...On appeal, the employer argued that Deering did not have a cause of action under the Whistle Blower's Act because he did not provide written notice. Deering contended that an employee's cause of action does not depend on written notice unless the employee is acting pursuant to section
448.102(1). The second district rejected this argument: Section
448.103(1) affords a remedy to employees who have been retaliated against for actions they have taken pursuant to either section
448.102(1),
448.102(2) or
448.102(3)....
...This remedy is only available, however, if the employee has complied with section
448.103(1)(c). We read section
448.103(1)(c) to provide that an employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to section
448.103(1) if he fails to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by section
448.102(1), i.e, in writing, bringing the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and affording the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice....
...The Court finds that the plain language of the statute imposes a written notice and opportunity to cure requirement as an element of proof in every private sector whistleblower claim because
448.103(1)(c) incorporates the notice provision set forth in
448.102(2)....
...acted to protect the public. Arrow Air; Vanacore v. UNC Ardco, Inc.,
697 So.2d 892 (Fla.App.1997). Requiring written notice and an opportunity to cure would seem to frustrate the intent of the Legislature in many circumstances. For example, under subsection
448.102(2), the employee may not be allowed to give notice if called to testify before a "closed door" investigation. Under subsection
448.102(3), the employee has already objected or refused to participate in alleged illegal activities so written notice to the employer to cure would be superfluous....
...If the legislature, for some reason, meant to require the employee to protest the termination after the fact with a written notice addressed generally to the employer, it has missed the mark with the confusing language of this statute. The ambiguity in sections
448.102 and
448.103 can be resolved by recognizing that each section operates in its own sphere. Section
448.102 outlines three different "prohibitions." Under subsections
448.102(2) and (3), retaliatory action against an employee who provides information pursuant to a government investigation or objects to his / her employer about any illegal activity is prohibited unconditionally. Under subsection
448.102(1), retaliatory action against an employee who has disclosed or threatens to disclose, in writing and under oath, information to a government agency regarding an illegal activity is prohibited only if the required notice and opportunity to cure has been given. Section
448.103 provides for the remedies and relief available when the prohibited retaliatory acts set forth in section
448.102 occur. We conclude paragraph (c) of subsection
448.103(2), read in pari materia with section
448.102 and the other portions of section
448.103, and in light of the general intent behind the Whistle Blower's Act, can only reasonably be interpreted as meaning that written notice and opportunity to cure as a precondition to bringing suit only applies to alleged violations of subsection
448.102(1)....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 375020
...Weil of Aragon, Burlington, Weil & Crockett, P.A., Miami, for appellee. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied August 28, 1997. GUNTHER, Judge. Appellant, Mike Vanacore, sued UNC Ardco, an aircraft repair station and Appellant's former employer, under Florida's Whistleblower Act. § 448.102(3), Fla....
...Florida's Whistleblower Act provides employees a cause of action against employers who wrongfully discharge them for disclosing to a government agency that the employer has violated the law or for objecting to or refusing to participate in the employer's illegal practices. §§ 448.102-103....
CopyCited 6 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5548, 2001 WL 417277
...The jury subsequently found that the nursing home had wrongfully discharged Martinolich in retaliation for exercising his rights under Florida Worker's Compensation Law, section
440.25, Florida Statutes, (1995), and also in violation of Florida's Whistle Blower Act, section
448.102, Florida Statutes, (1995)....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 WL 661749
...to him by PSE. As mentioned above, the trial court entered a summary judgment against Mr. Deering on this portion of his action. The action proceeded on count II of the amended complaint which alleged that PSE terminated Mr. Deering in violation of section 448.102, Florida Statutes (1991)....
...he complaint went on to allege that when Mr. Deering refused to participate in such activities, policies, or practices of PSE and took affirmative steps to stop said practices, PSE retaliated against him by wrongfully terminating him in violation of section 448.102....
...The action proceeded to a jury trial which resulted in a verdict and a final judgment for Mr. Deering. PSE filed a timely notice of appeal. Mr. Deering brought this action pursuant to Florida's private sector whistle-blower's act. §§
448.101-.105, Fla.Stat. (1991). Section
448.102 of the act, entitled Prohibitions, provides: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, und...
...ion, but only if proper notice is given. Section
448.103(1)(c) provides: An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act....
...not depend upon written notice when an employee, as in this case, objects to, or refuses to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation, and is claiming protection pursuant to section
448.102(3) and not pursuant to section
448.102(1). If we were to accept this position, because section
448.102(1) already requires written notice, we would be finding that portion of section
448.103(1)(c) which requires written notice has no meaning....
...*182 We recognize that our decision in this case conflicts with our sister court's holding in Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In Baiton, the Third District held that where an employee asserts a violation of section
448.102(1), he must give proper written notice to the supervisor or employer, and that he may not recover unless he does. We agree with this holding. The court, however, also held that the written notice requirement only applies to section
448.102(1) and that there is no comparable written notice requirement for a claim made under section
448.102(2) or, as in this case, under section
448.102(3). We disagree with the court's conclusion. In Martin v. Honeywell, Inc., No. 95-234-CIV-T-24(A),
1995 WL 868604 (M.D. Fla. filed July 18, 1995), the court held that section
448.103(1)(c) and section
448.102 must be read together....
...The court found that the plain language of the act imposes a written notice and opportunity to cure requirement as an element of proof in every private sector whistle-blower claim because section
448.103(1)(c) incorporates the notice provision set forth in section
448.102(1). Since Mr. Martin had alleged a violation of section
448.102(3) but had not alleged written notice to the employer, the court dismissed his claim filed under the Florida whistle-blower's act for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted....
...We agree with the conclusion reached by the district court in the unreported decision in Martin and reach the same conclusion in this case. Section
448.103(1) affords a remedy to employees who have been retaliated against for actions they have taken pursuant to either section
448.102(1),
448.102(2), or
448.102(3)....
...This remedy is only available, however, if the employee has complied with section
448.103(1)(c). We read section
448.103(1)(c) to provide that an employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to section
448.103(1) if he fails to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by section
448.102(1), i.e....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2017 WL 362581, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 788
...an “employee” who has disclosed, objected to, refused to participate in or provided information in connection with an investigation about “an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 316, 1999 WL 18093
...Shortly thereafter, Sussan wrote a letter to the Acting Dean claiming his supervisor had begun harassing and discrediting him because he had exposed the supervisor's failure to investigate the alleged theft. Nova terminated Sussan three months later for insubordination, and Sussan sued the University seeking protection under section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (1997), of the Private Whistle Blower Act. Section 448.102, provides: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: ....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1876973
...The private-sector act, however, prevents employers from taking retaliatory action against an employee who threatens to disclose or who discloses to an appropriate governmental agency any practices of the employer that are in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. See § 448.102(1)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1994 WL 478690
...Rehearing Denied November 2, 1994. M. Stephen Turner, P.A. of Broad and Cassel, Tallahassee, for appellant. Michael P. Bist of Gardner, Shelfer, Duggar & Bist, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee. SMITH, Senior Judge. Appellant filed an amended complaint seeking damages under section 448.102(3), Florida Statues (1991)....
...law, rule or regulation as including matters of public policy, such as the public policy against signing or agreeing to false statements, and the public policy against slander. Appellee, taking a more narrow view of the statutory scheme, argues that section
448.102(3), when read in conjunction with the definition of "law, rule or regulation" found in section
448.101(4) [1] only precludes an employer from discharging an employee who refuses to participate in the violation of any law, rule or regu...
...We are not in total agreement with either party. There is a paucity of case law construing this statute since its amendment in 1991. In Walsh v. Arrow Air,
629 So.2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the court reversed an order which dismissed a complaint seeking damages under section
448.102....
...ted by Walsh but was not properly repaired. After Walsh reported the incident and grounded the flight, Arrow Air allegedly threatened him. Three weeks later, Walsh was terminated. At issue in Walsh was whether Florida law was controlling and whether section 448.102 could be applied retroactively....
...court to determine whether, under the facts alleged, a cause of action under the statute was stated. On motion for rehearing the appellee in Arrow Air, in advancing its argument against retroactive application, stated that prior to the enactment of section 448.102, Arrow Air had the right to fire its employees for complying with the law against its wishes, without fear of civil liability, and that, in a sense, the new statute impairs a substantive right while imposing a new duty on the employer....
...d criminal statute. The court noted further that "the power of an employer to terminate an employee for doing that which the law requires, or for any reason clearly contrary to a strong public policy, which may have existed prior to the enactment of section
448.102, is not a substantive right based upon any concept of justice, ethical correctness, or principles of morals."
629 So.2d at 150....
...We are not inclined to agree with the appellee that the statutory scheme in question precludes the discharge of employees who refuse to participate in the violation of a law, rule or regulation pertaining only to the business engaged in by the employer. [2] Had the legislature intended to narrow section 448.102 in such a manner, it obviously could have done so. However, section 448.102 speaks in broader terms: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing,...
...As noted above, appellant takes a more expansive view of this statutory scheme, and argues that because of the use of the term "includes" in section
448.101(4), [3] the legislature did not intend the definition stated to be exclusive. Therefore, according to appellant, section
448.102(3) should be interpreted to include matters of public policy, and should protect her against retaliation for publicly challenging her employer's veracity....
...229, text 252, 9 E.C.L. 557. Because we cannot agree that "public policy" issues such as those complained of by appellant fall within the ambit of section
448.101(4), and because appellant offers no other solid basis for establishing a cause of action under section
448.102, we affirm the dismissal of her complaint with prejudice....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13062, 1999 WL 613325
...of contract), as to Count IV (defamation), and as to Count V (age discrimination) of the Third Amended Complaint. INTRODUCTION This is an action for damages and equitable relief for alleged violations of the Florida Whistle-blower's Act ("the Act"), Section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (1997), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA"), 29 U.S.C....
...re must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-movant]." Id. at 251-52,
106 S.Ct. 2505. ANALYSIS A. The Florida Whistle-Blower's Act Claim. Plaintiff first asserts a claim under the Florida Whistle-blower's Act ("the Act"), Section
448.102(3), Florida Statutes, for retaliatory discharge....
...The Act provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: ... (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." Fla.Stat. § 448.102(3)....
...ct legal entities. Thus, Defendant argues, no "activity, policy, or practice of the employer" is at issue. The Act clearly provides that the allegedly illegal activity objected to by Plaintiff must have been undertaken by his employer. See Fla.Stat. § 448.102(3) (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22168, 1998 WL 1032572
...Plaintiff claims that his termination violates 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("§ 1983"); Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (West 1997) ("Title VII"); the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"); and Sections
112.3187 and
448.102, Florida *1324 Statutes....
...Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment In Counts I and II, the plaintiff alleges violation of his rights under the First Amendment as enforced by § 1983, and Title VII, respectively. Counts III, IV, V, and VI are state law claims for violation of the FCRA, Sections
112.3187 and
448.102 of the Florida Statutes, and for breach of contract....
...sent *1331 his statements in support of Benjamin. The defendant has proved the factual existence of the defense and its legal sufficiency. Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to Count IV. 5) Count V Florida Statute §
448.102 Plaintiff also claims that his termination violates Florida Statute §
448.102. This section is the private sector Whistle-blower's Act which became effective June 7, 1991. See Arrow Air, Inc. v. Walsh,
645 So.2d 422, 423 (Fla.1994) (stating that the purpose of §
448.102 is to "protect private employees who report or refuse to assist employers who violate laws enacted to protect the public."); Resley v....
...Under this section an employer is defined as "any private individual, firm, partnership, institution, corporation, or association that employs ten or more persons." Fla.Stat. §
448.101(3). The plaintiff does not dispute that the School Board is a governmental entity. Therefore, §
448.102 does not apply to the defendant and summary judgment is warranted....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2010 CCH OSHD 33, 093, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103134, 2010 WL 3835010
...hat she objected to or refused to participate in any illegal activity, policy or practice of Defendant; 2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and 3) the adverse employment action was causally linked to her objection or refusal. See Fla.Stat. § 448.102(3): Bell v....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2000 WL 569942
...McMillan, III of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee. COBB, J. The appellant, Mary Gillyard, appeals from an order dismissing her complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The two count complaint sought to allege retaliatory discharge pursuant to section 448.102, Florida Statutes (1997) and intentional infliction of emotional distress....
...Plaintiff reported to work on July 6th and after working her shift she was summarily discharged. In Count I Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated because of her refusal to report to work in Flagler County in violation of the mandatory orders of evacuation. Plaintiff argues that Section 448.102(3), F.S....
...on of a law, rule or regulation from retaliation. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss alleges that the Governor's executive order requiring evacuation of Flagler County is not a law, rule or regulation as is defined in Section
448.101, F.S. and as used in Section
448.102, F.S....
...Sokolay,
596 So.2d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Sections
448.101-448.105, F.S. is the Florida private sector Whistleblower's Act. The act limits the definition of private sector whistleblowing to three specific categories of action set forth in Sections
448.102(1), (2) and (3). The complaint attempts to allege a cause of action under Section
448.102(3)....
...Working at the nursing home in Flagler County, after the effective date of the order, would be a literal violation of the order. There was no allegation that Plaintiff would have been subject to any penalties for violation of the order. No reasonable interpretation of Section 448.102(3), F.S....
...would make the act of remaining in Flagler County to care for nursing home patients an activity, policy or practice of Defendant in violation of a law, rule or regulation. Abandoning nursing home patients would constitute violation of the criminal laws of this state. Any other construction of Section 448.102(3), F.S....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1196674
...[8] The trial court erroneously agreed and granted FEC's motion dismiss. Since FEC did not raise preemption in its pleadings, this argument was waived, and the motion to dismiss was improperly considered. Accordingly, I would reverse on this ground. NOTES [1] Section 448.102, Florida Statutes, provides: 448.102 Prohibitions.An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, poli...
...does not preempt this action or serve as a basis for subject matter dismissal. Id. As the plaintiff bypassed any reliance on the FEC's failure to plead the affirmative defense, that is not a proper basis for reversal here. [7] See §§
112.3187 and
448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13213, 2005 WL 1220663
...Specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendant terminated her employment as a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff's objection and/or refusal to participate in Defendant's illegal activity, policy or practice(s) in direct violation of Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3)....
...ion of a law, rule or regulation. In support, Plaintiff argues that the reasonable belief standard applied in the Title VII context is applicable to claims brought under the FWA. Defendant counters that, according to the plain language of Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3), Plaintiff must prove as part of her prima facie case that the activity, policy or practice that she objected to and/or refused to participate in was an actual violation of a law, rule or regulation....
...4th DCA 2003)(applying the Title VII burden shifting analysis to a claim brought under Florida's public Whistle-Blower Act); Taylor v. Memorial Health Systems, Inc.,
770 So.2d 752, 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(putting forth the elements required for a claim brought under Fla. Stat. §
448.102(1)); Golf Channel v. Jenkins,
752 So.2d 561, 568 (Fla.2000)(finding the written notice requirement inapplicable to claims brought pursuant to Fla. Stat. §
448.102(2) and (3))....
...Only upon such showing does the burden shift to the defendant to put forth *1337 a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. Sierminski,
216 F.3d at 950. With respect to the first prong, that Plaintiff was engaged in a statutorily protected activity, Fla. Stat. §
448.102(3) provides that an employer may not take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee has: Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. (emphasis added). Construing this provision, this Court looks first to the plain language of the statute to determine its scope. Sinclair v. De Jay Corp.,
170 F.3d 1045, 1046-47 (11th Cir.1999). Here, the plain language of Fla. Stat. §
448.102(3) states that a Plaintiff, in order to prevail under a Florida Whistle-Blower action for objecting or refusing to participate in an activity, policy or practice of the employer, must prove that the activity, policy or practice objected to is, in fact, in violation of a law, rule or regulation....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20676, 2017 WL 600094
...Analysis The FWA provides that “[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has ... [o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102(3), Fla....
...The most persuasive - justification for following Kearns’ interpretation of the FWA is its plain language. The FWA provides that an employee must show that she “[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102(3), Fla....
...*1228 choice was intentional. Another subsection of the same statute only provides relief where an employee passes information to a “governmental agency .,. conducting an investigation ... into an alleged violation of a law ... by the employer.” § 448.102(2), Fla....
...ensing medication pursuant to fraudulent prescriptions. .In doing so, Graddy misquotes the FWA, adding "reasonably believed” language even though none exists in the text of the statute: "Florida’s Whistleblower Statute ("FWA”), at subsections' 448.102 (3), specifically provides that it is illegal for Wal-Mart to ‘take any - retaliatory personnel action against’ Plaintiff because she [o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of [Wal-Mart] which she r...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 27 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 924, 44 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1816, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5871, 2008 WL 1807734
...According to Merriken, the McKays and others pleaded guilty to mail fraud and embezzling from a labor organization. Another officer pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting others to make federal election campaign contributions. With that factual background, Merriken alleged in count I retaliatory discharge based on section 448.102, Florida Statutes *547 (the Whistle-blower statute)....
...tion. " Id. (emphasis supplied). Because prohibition lies to prevent a court from proceeding in a suit in which it has no subject-matter jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction. See Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc.,
605 So.2d 850, 854 n. 5 (Fla.1992). Under section
448.102, Florida Statutes, An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an ac...
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1572, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94330, 2009 WL 3262778
...take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: ... (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3)....
...or Miami-Dade County, seeking damages and other relief against Bahamasair Holdings Limited, Inc. ("Bahamasair" or "defendant") arising out of her alleged unlawful and retaliatory termination in violation of the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla.Stat. §§ 448.102, et seq....
...senger manifests to the appropriate government agency prior to the aircraft being secured for departure from the United States. See 19 C.F.R. § 122.75a(b). ANALYSIS Plaintiff brings this action solely under the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. 448.102 which states: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, polic...
...ion of a law, rule, or regulation. The Act further provides that: An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he or she failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by § 448.102(1) or if the retaliatory personnel action was predicated upon a ground other than the employee's exercise of a right protected by this act....
...practice which she reasonably believed had occurred." Padron at 1255; citing Wu v. Thomas,
863 F.2d 1543, 1549 (11th Cir. 1989). In this case, the parties agree that plaintiff's April 16th letter does not qualify as protected under subsection (1) of §
448.102 for at least two reasons....
...Second, plaintiff did not afford Bahamasair a reasonable opportunity to correct any activity, policy or practice which plaintiff believed was in violation of a law, rule or regulation. The parties also agree that the April 16th letter does not qualify as protected under subsection (2) of § 448.102 because at the time plaintiff wrote and/or mailed the letter, the TSA was not conducting an investigation into Bahamasair. The record is simply devoid of evidence establishing that plaintiff's letter falls within to the scope of Fla.Stat. §§ 448.102(1) or 448.102(2). Thus, plaintiff alleges that she engaged in statutorily protected activity solely under subsection (3) of § 448.102....
...and urges that "the procedures and policies of this airline [be] applied uniformly." Id. In plaintiff's view, this letter constitutes an "objection" to Bahamasair's ongoing violations of aviation safety regulations which satisfies the first prong of § 448.102(3)....
...Having found that plaintiff's letter satisfies the second and third prongs of proof in establishing her FWA claim, the undersigned next addresses the central issue in this case; i.e., whether plaintiff's April 16th letter constitutes statutorily protected activity under § 448.102(3). As discussed above, plaintiff maintains that the letter constitutes an "objection" to Bahamasair's ongoing violations of aviation safety regulations which satisfies the first prong of § 448.102(3). In contrast, Bahamasair argues that the letter does qualify as an objection to any illegal activity, policy, or practice of Bahamasair. Specifically, Bahamasair argues *1359 that the letter does not qualify as an "objection" within the meaning of § 448.102(3) because the word "object" does not appear in the letter....
...tiff's employer, but rather those of a specific employee of Bahamasair. Reviewing these arguments, the evidence presented and applicable law, the undersigned first finds that plaintiff's April 16th letter constitutes an objection within the scope of § 448.102(3), despite the fact that the word "object" is not actually stated in the letter....
...o the day of the subject incident. See D.E. 42, Exh. N & O. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that plaintiff's letter constitutes an objection under the FWA and that plaintiff's deposition testimony alone does not invalidate plaintiff's claim under § 448.102(3)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1230251
...Hogan, Jr., of The Hogan Law Firm, Brooksville, Attorney for Appellee Dennis Wilfong. PER CURIAM. Appellant filed suit against Appellees, her employer and three individuals alleging false imprisonment (count 2), assault and battery (count 3), and violation of section 448.102, Florida Statutes (count 7) ("Whistleblower's Act")....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28420, 2005 WL 1163105
...Duffy, Michael O. Massey, Saju, Massey & Duffy, LLC, Ocala, FL, for Plaintiff. Amy Karch Traub, Patrick F. Clark, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Atlanta, GA, for Defendant. ORDER HODGES, District Judge. This is an action pursuant to Florida's Whistleblower's Act, § 448.102(3), Fla....
...[35] Later that day, Sparks sent a letter informing the Plaintiff that his employment had been terminated for refusing to attend the meeting. [36] The Plaintiff's amended complaint is framed in two counts. Count one alleges that Georgia-Pacific violated Florida's Whistle-blower's Act, § 448.102(3), Fla....
...aten to discharge, intimidate, or coerce any employee by reason of such employee's valid claim for compensation or attempt to claim compensation under the Workers' Compensation Law. The prima facie case of under §
440.205 is essentially the same as §
448.102(3)....
...38, Affidavit of Bell at ¶ 8; Bell Depo. 1 at p. 37-38, 141, 147. The complaints concerning poor lighting, boards falling on people, and holes in the floors were made to coworkers. [47] Florida's Whistleblowers' Act prohibits "retaliatory personnel action[s]." § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida
...nt with the National Labor Relations Board. (Id. ¶¶ 45-47.) G. Plaintiff Files Suit Plaintiff timely filed a three-count Amended Complaint against Defendant in this Court, asserting the following claims: violation of Florida’s Whistleblower Act, § 448.102, Fla....
...Therefore, the Court concludes that it must deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as to the Frank-Dodd claim. C. Florida’s Whistleblower Act Claim (Count I) In Count' I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim under Florida’s Whistleblower Act, § 448.102, Fla. Stat., against Defendant. Pursuant to section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, “[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee be-cáusé the employee has ... [ojbjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44536, 2012 WL 1071956
...Staples, Inc.,
555 F.3d 42, 54-55 (1st Cir.2009). The FWA, on the other hand, is not limited to publicly traded companies; additionally, the type of reporting it covers is less restrictive than the SOX, as it covers other types of conduct. See Fla. Stat. §
448.102 (2)....
.... In the appeal of the instant case, the Eleventh Circuit stated that the district court had "correctly applied the actual violation standard.” Smith, 358 Fed.Appx. at 78 . In Stein Mart, the court noted the parties’ disagreement "over whether § 448.102(3) of the FWA employs an actual violation standard or a reasonable belief of violation standard” and stated that "the Supreme Court of Florida has not yet decided this issue of state statutory interpretation.” Id....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 538120
...Johnson and David J. Rice of Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Linda Judd appeals the adverse summary judgment in her whistle blower claim against her former employers, which was based on section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes (1995). Judd admits she did not provide written notice to her employer regarding the activities to which she objected but contends that written notice is not required by section 448.102(3)....
...ims brought under all three subsections of the act). We also recognize that our decision in Potomac conflicts with decisions from the Third and Fifth Districts, which have held that the written notice requirement applies only to claims brought under section 448.102(1)....
...PATTERSON, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur. BLUE, J., Concurs specially. BLUE, Judge, Specially Concurring. I concur because I am required to do so by the prior opinion of this court. There is no question that some ambiguity exists between sections
448.102 and
448.103 concerning the necessity of written notice for a whistle blower claim....
...The purpose of the Whistle Blower's Act is to protect private employees who report or refuse to assist employers who violate laws enacted to protect the public. Requiring written notice and an opportunity to cure would seem to frustrate the intent of the Legislature in many circumstances. For example, under subsection 448.102(2), the employee may not be allowed to give notice if called to testify before a "closed door" investigation. Under subsection 448.102(3), the employee has already objected or refused to participate in alleged illegal activities so written notice to the employer to cure would be superfluous....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15611, 2003 WL 21489889
...minated from UTC. UTC told Tucker that his termination was due to his workplace misconduct. On September 26, 2003, Tucker filed his initial complaint alleging that he was terminated, in violation of the Florida Whistleblowers Act ("FWA"), Fla. Stat. § 448.102(1), (2002), for complaining about his employer's violation of Federal Aviation Regulations....
...ngfully discharge them for "[d]isclos[ing], or threatening] to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." Fla. Stat. § 448.102(1), (2002)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 WL 1284201
...Gonzalez and Jennifer D. Zumarraga of Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee. SALCINES, Judge. Nicholas Pohl appeals a final order dismissing his amended complaint which alleged he was the target of a retaliatory personnel action prohibited by section 448.102(2), Florida Statutes (2001)....
...onducting an investigation of Southeast Airlines. Mr. Pohl also alleged that he advised Southeast Airlines of his disclosure to the FAA and that Southeast Airlines thereafter subjected him to harassment until it ultimately terminated his employment. Section 448.102(2) provides: An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: .... (2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. § 448.102(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). In his amended complaint, Mr. Pohl asserted that Southeast Airlines violated section 448.102(2) by taking retaliatory personnel action against him because he had provided information to the FAA in the course of its investigational inquiry into alleged violations of law by Southeast Airlines. Although we do not comment on the merits of Mr. Pohl's claim, the allegations contained in the amended complaint were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action under section 448.102(2)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19701, 2016 WL 659305
...¶¶ 125-30 . Additionally, in Counts VII and VIII, Plaintiffs Growling and Keating each allege that Defendants retaliated against him based on his involvement in this lawsuit, in violation of the Florida Private Whistleblower Protection Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (“FWA”), and the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision, 29 U.S.C....
...The FWA prohibits an employer from taking “any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has ... [ojbjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (3)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 12530, 2011 WL 3477034
...ENBERG, J. This is an appeal of a final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, New Branch Corp. (“New Branch”), a dry cleaning business. The plaintiff, Nidia Juarez (“Juarez”), sued under the Florida Whistle Blower’s Act (“FWBA”), Section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes, alleging she was terminated because of her opposition to violence in the workplace....
...ation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer. (3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102, Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2014 WL 1664554, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57849
...dbag. Plaintiff filed a one count Complaint in state court alleging a violation of the Florida Whistle-Blower Act. Plaintiff alleges that she was an employee of Chico’s; that she was acting within the scope of the protection provided by Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (3); that she had engaged in stat *1199 utorily protected activity; that Chico’s conduct in copying the handbag designs violated federal and state law; and that she suffered a negative employment action and damages as a result of her statutorily protected activity....
...of retaliatory personnel action. Id. As such, it “is an exception to Florida’s at-will employment doctrine.” Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC,
118 So.3d 904, 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). The Complaint alleges that defendant violated Fla. Stat. §
448.102 (3), which provides: “An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: ......
...Therefore, *1201 the Court finds an issue of federal law is “actually disputed”. (3) Substantial Federal Issue Defendant has not shown that the federal question in this case is substantial within the meaning of federal question jurisdiction. There appears to be a split of authority as to whether § 448.102(3) requires plaintiff to prove an actual violation of law, as opposed to a reasonable, good faith belief that a violation of law has occurred....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1533, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6877, 2004 WL 859319
...and Memorandum in Support (Dkt.# 45) and Defendant's response (Dkt.# 48) thereto. After close consideration, this Court concludes that the motion should be denied. BACKGROUND This is an action brought under the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.102, et seq....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 841680
...Tracey-Meddoff also alleged that the Hair & Beauty Centre employed ten or more persons. Taking these allegations as true, see Bell v. Indian River Memorial Hospital,
778 So.2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the Altmans from this action. Section
448.102 precludes an "employer" from taking "any retaliatory personnel action against an employee" who has engaged *1168 in specified conduct....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 15 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1213, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12065, 1999 WL 770725
...William McEowen challenges a summary judgment entered in favor of his former employer, Jones Chemical, Inc., on his counter-claim for wrongful termination under Florida's whistle-blower statute, sections
448.101-.105, Florida Statutes (1997). McEowen contends that the notice requirement of subsection
448.102(1) does not apply to actions brought pursuant to subsection
448.102(3), and thus, he was not required to provide written notice to his employer prior to filing suit....
...Alternatively, McEowen contends that the two memoranda that he sent to his supervisor, prior to his termination, satisfied the notice requirement of subsection
448.103(1)(c). We disagree on both points. The whistle-blower statute provides, in part:
448.102 Prohibitions.-An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, *992...
...gulation.
448.103 Employee's remedy; relief.- (1) ... . . . . (c) An employee may not recover in any action brought pursuant to this subsection if he or she failed to notify the employer about the illegal activity, policy, or practice as required by s.
448.102(1). ... §§
448.102-.103(1)(c). This court has interpreted subsection
448.103(1)(c) to mean that the notice requirement of subsection
448.102(1) applies to all three subsections of section
448.102....
...2d DCA 1996). Two of our sister courts have reached the opposite conclusion concerning this issue. [1] See Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.,
661 So.2d 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that there is no written notice requirement for claims under subsection
448.102(2) and
448.102(3)); Jenkins v. The Golf Channel,
714 So.2d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (holding that the written notice and opportunity to cure preconditions only apply to subsection
448.102(1)), review granted,
728 So.2d 202 (Fla.1998)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida
...by a jury. See Olivas v. A Little Havana Check Cash, Inc., 324 Fed.Appx. 839 , 845 (11th Cir. 2009). The protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida's Whistleblower Act apply only to "employees." See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 - 07 ; Fla. Stat. § 448.102 ....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39924, 2007 WL 1601749
...The Florida Whistleblower Act prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because she has "[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3)....
...Under the Title VII framework, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by proving that she engaged in a protected activity, she suffered an adverse employment action and some causal link exists between the protected activity and adverse employment action. Id. at 950. With respect to allegations of a violation of Section 448.102(3), the plaintiff must prove an actual "violation of a law, rule, or regulation" occurred in order to establish a prima facie case....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2013 WL 3716400, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98298
...# 15) filed on April 29, 2013. Defendant filed a Response (Doc. # 17) on May 13, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted. Plaintiff filed a one count Complaint in state court asserting a claim under the Florida Whistleblowers Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.102 ....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2016 WL 717917
under Florida’s Civil Rights Act of 1992. Section
448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2009) precludes an employer
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...at 787
(applying the “manager rule” to a retaliation claim under Title VII), with Littlejohn
v. City of New York,
795 F.3d 297, 317 n.16 (2d Cir. 2015) (“The manager rule’s
focus on an employee’s job duties, rather than the oppositional nature of the
whistleblower retaliation claims under section
448.102, we find that there
is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellant stepped outside
his role as manager and engaged in protected oppositional conduct.
Furthermore, we find that there are genuine issues of material fact...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69883, 2014 WL 2025166
...t an employee because the employee has “threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 448.102 ....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...the United States, alleging that the company had submitted false claims to the
Government for services rendered in violation of federal safety regulations. See
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729(a), 3730(b). Second, he sued Boeing in state court under the
Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.102, alleging that the company had
fired him for complaining about its safety violations.
2
Boeing removed the whistleblower suit to federal court on the basis of
diversity jurisdiction,1 and both actions proceeded—separately—before the same
district judge....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
is derived from F.S.
448.102(1), (2) and (3). 2. As to whether, under F.S.
448.102(3), a claimant
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...He contends that the trial
court erred in determining that he had to show under section
1 Judge Lewis was substituted for an original panel member
in this proceeding after oral argument. He has reviewed the
parties’ briefs, the record, and the recording of the oral argument.
448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2018), that he objected to, or refused
to participate in, an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation by
his employer in order to be protected under the FWA from
employment retaliation, as opposed to showing only a good faith,
reasonable belief that a violation occurred....
...his employer’s actions were illegal, not proof that an actual
violation occurred. The trial court found the appropriate standard
to be the one “established” by the Second District in Kearns – that
in order to be protected under the private sector FWA as set forth
in section 448.102(3), an employee must show that an employer
committed an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation....
...lief prohibits an
employer from taking any retaliatory personnel action against an
employee who “[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any
activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of
a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102(3), Fla....
...2008), in support of its determination that “all that is
required is that the ‘employee have a good faith, objectively
reasonable belief that h[is] activity is protected by the statute.’”
118 So. 3d at 915. In Kearns, on the other hand, the Second
3
District reasoned that section
448.102(3) is “plainly worded” as
requiring a plaintiff to prove conduct that is in violation of the law.
157 So....
...employers who violate laws enacted to protect the public’”
(quoting Arrow Air,
645 So.2d at 424)). The White court
4
also looked to Florida cases that addressed the definition
of “law, rule or regulation” in section
448.102(3), such as
New World Communications of Tampa, Inc....
...But “[t]he first
principle of statutory construction is that legislative
intent must be determined primarily from the language
of the statute.” Id. at 564. When a statute is plain and
unambiguous, there is no need for judicial interpretation.
Id.
Section 448.102(3), which is the pertinent statutory
section here, applies when an employee “[o]bjected to, or
5
refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice
of the employer which is in violation of a...
...statute specifically applies when an employee provides
information to “any appropriate governmental agency,
person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or
inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or
regulation by the employer.” § 448.102(2) (emphasis
added)....
...Thus, in both the private and public
whistleblower’s acts the Florida Legislature has
indicated when an alleged or suspected violation of law is
sufficient as opposed to an actual violation of law.
And the White court explained that requiring a
plaintiff to prove an actual violation under section
448.102(3) of the FWA promoted its policies “while
adequately protecting the legitimate interests of private
employers.” 369 F.Supp.2d at 1338....
...In apparent recognition of this
dilemma the legislature declined to include in
the relevant section of the Act this protection for
employees.
Id. at 1338–39. Based on a plain reading of the FWA and
the reasoning in White, we agree with the Employer that
under section 448.102(3) Kearns must prove that he
objected to an actual violation of law or that he refused to
participate in activity that would have been an actual
violation of law....
...may be open to reconsidering its holding in Aery were the issue
before it again.
7
We agree with the Second District’s reasoning in Kearns and
hold that a plaintiff in a private sector FWA action brought
pursuant to section 448.102(3) must establish that he or she
objected to, or refused to participate in, an activity, policy, or
practice of the employer that is an actual violation of a law, rule,
or regulation. In so holding, we are guided first and foremost by
the plain language of section 448.102(3)....
...principle, which provides that the words of a governing text are of
paramount concern and that what the words convey is what the
text means). Courts are not at liberty to extend, modify, or limit a
statute’s express terms. Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trs.,
387 So. 3d 376–
77. Interpreting section
448.102(3) to include a good-faith
standard, as Aery did and as Appellant asks us to do, would require
us to extend or add words to the statute that were not placed there
by the Legislature....
...disclose suspected violations of law as it did for public sector
employees under section
112.3187(5)(a), it certainly could have
done so. The fact that it spoke of an “activity, policy, or practice of
the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation” in
section
448.102(3) makes clear that it is an actual violation that is
necessary for a private sector employee to claim the protection of
the statute....
...3d 1224, 1226
(Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (observing that the wisdom of a statute is not
within the ambit of a court’s authority).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the summary final
judgment. Because our interpretation of section 448.102(3)
conflicts with the Fourth District’s decision in Aery, we certify
conflict with it.
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
M.K....
...an easy, commonsense assessment, no in-depth analysis borrowed
from other courts being necessary.
The protected activity relevant to this appeal must relate to
“any activity, policy, or practice of the employer” that “is in
violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102(1), (3), Fla....
...conduct to be unlawful was irrelevant to the assessment whether
he had taken actions protected under the statute.
The appellant having failed to come forward with evidence on
which a reasonable juror could find in his favor under this plain
reading of section 448.102, Florida Statutes, the trial court
correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees,
dismissing the appellant’s complaint....
CopyPublished | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162805, 2014 WL 6610069
...Odom has failed to make a prima facie case for- violation of the Act, because it offered a non-discriminatory reason for terminating him, and because its reasons were not pretextual. The Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA), codified as Florida Statutes § 448.102, prohibits retaliatory action against an employee who “[o]bjected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (3)....
...A The proper legal standard: “actual violation” v. “reasonable belief’ To establish protected expression under the FWA, a plaintiff must show that he objected to or refused to participate in an illegal activity, policy, or practice of an employer. Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (3); Aery v....
...tion that the Florida Supreme Court would change the rule, Aery states the rule on the matter, and I am bound to follow it. I therefore hold that,' under the new rule stated in Aery , in claims brought under the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (3), an employee need only demonstrate that he had a “good faith, objectively reasonable belief’ that the conduct that the employee objects to is illegal; the conduct does not need to actually violate the law....
...s was illegal. It is irrelevant whether marketing the checking accounts violated any FINRA rules regarding suitability. FINRA rules, which are privately enforced, do not appear to qualify as a “law, rule, or regulation” under the FWA. Fla. Stat. § 448.102 (3)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...On that issue, we affirm.
Finding no abuse of discretion as to the remaining points in both the
appeal and cross-appeal, we affirm them without further discussion.
Background
On July 3, 2007, the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants. His
amended complaint asserted a claim under section 448.102, Florida
Statutes (2005), also known as Florida’s Whistleblower Act (“FWA”)....
...4th DCA 2009).
The FWA prohibits an employer from taking retaliatory action against
an employee because the employee has “[o]bjected to, or refused to
participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in
3
violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” § 448.102(3), Fla....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal
alleging a count for retaliation in violation of section
448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2022), a count seeking
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...missal of her claims brought
pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
(Title VII), the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat. §
760.01, et seq.
(FCRA), and the Florida Whistleblower Act, Fla. Stat. §
448.102 (FWA), against
Energy Services Group International (ESGI), her former employer....
CopyPublished | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
J. Lee Marsh, Judge.
March 5, 2025
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. Gessner v. Southern Co.,
396 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2024) (holding that a plaintiff claiming private whistleblower
protection under section
448.102(3), Florida Statutes, must allege
an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation, not just a
“suspected violation,” in order to survive summary judgment); see
also §
448.102(1), Fla....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Sullivan on his claim of unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. ("Title VII"), the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) and
the Florida Whistleblower's Protection Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 448.102(3) (West 1998)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...Sullivan on his claim of unlawful retaliation under Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et. seq. (“Title VII”), the Civil Rights Act of
1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a) and the Florida Whistleblower’s Protection Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. §
448.102(3) (West 1998)....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
...STARR, Report of Independent Counsel Re:
Investigation of President William Jefferson Clinton, 1998,
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-
105hdoc310/pdf/CDOC-105hdoc310.pdf.
2
The applicable subsections of the FWA are 448.102(1) and (3),
Florida Statutes, 4 which refer only to an employee blowing the
whistle on or refusing to participate in “an activity, policy, or
practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or
regulation.” (emphasis added)....
...4th DCA 2013), which held that
proof of an employee’s good faith, objectively reasonable belief that
the employer has committed a violation of a law, rule, or regulation
would suffice.
AFFIRMED; CONFLICT CERTIFIED.
MACIVER, J., concurs.
Eisnaugle, J., concurs in result only with opinion.
4 Section 448.102 provides
An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel
action against an employee because the employee has:
(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any
appropriate governmental agency, under oath,...
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 25 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1735, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 4136, 2007 WL 837201
...El Toro Exterminator of Florida, Inc. ["El Toro"], the employer, appeals an adverse final judgment entered in favor of Marcos A. Cernada, its former employee, in an action for unpaid wages, negligent supervision and retaliation under the Florida Private Sector Whistleblower's Act, § 448.102(3), Fla....
...Cernada then turned in his uniform and truck and left the company. Cernada was not paid the wages or commissions owed to him through this time. Cernada sued El Toro unpaid wages, negligent supervision and retaliation under the Florida Private Sector Whistleblower's Act, § 448.102(3), Fla....
CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida | 2012 WL 2848897
...413.3 (Claim for Personal Injury Protection Insurance (PIP) Benefits (Medical Benefits Only)). Paragraph 2 of the Notes On Use For 415.5 for proposed instruction 415.5 is modified to reflect that in addressing the claimant’s burden of proof under section
448.102(3), Florida Statutes (2011), each of the federal district courts in Florida has held that Florida’s private-sector *108 whistle-blower provisions, sections
448.101-105, Florida Statutes, require proof of an actual violation of law, as opposed to a reasonable, good faith violation....
...ant’s) activity, policy or practice that violated (describe law, rule, or regulation) ] [or] [would have violated] (describe law, rule or regulation), had (plaintiff) participated. NOTES ON USE FOR 415.5 1. The bracketed language is derived from F.S. 448.102(1), (2) and (3). 2. As to whether, under F.S. 448.102(3), a claimant must prove an actual violation of law as opposed to a reasonable, good faith belief that a violation of law has occurred, all three federal district courts sitting in Florida have held that the plaintiff must prove an actual violation of law....
...You may find that protected activity was a motivating factor in (defendant’s) decision if you find (defendant’s) stated reason(s) for its decision(s) [was] [were] not the real reason(s), but [was] [were] given to hide the retaliation. NOTES ON USE FOR 415.6 1. This instruction is based on F.S.
448.102 and
448.103(c)....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal
...A proper application of the
relation back doctrine hones in on the conduct giving rise to the
termination, not the termination itself.
3
In the second amended complaint, Plaintiff added a claim for violation
of Florida’s private sector Whistleblower Act under section 448.102,
Florida Statutes (2013)....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Aug 10, 2022
...Lap-
ham alleges that Walgreens both interfered with her attempts to
obtain leave in violation of the FMLA and retaliated against her for
those attempts in violation of the FMLA and Florida’s Private Sec-
tor Whistleblower Act (“FWA”), Fla. Stat. § 448.102 et seq....
...Meanwhile, the retaliation provi-
sion of the FWA provides that “[a]n employer may not take any
retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the em-
ployee has” engaged in a specified protected activity. Fla. Stat.
§ 448.102 (emphasis added)....
...ciently similar to the retaliation provision of Title VII for Nassar to
be especially instructive. Critically, all three provisions use “be-
cause [of]” language or an equivalent. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a);
29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2); Fla. Stat. § 448.102; see also Burrage v....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Sep 20, 2023
law, rule, or regulation. Fla. Stat. §
448.102(3). Thus, the elements of an FPWA claim
CopyPublished | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129641, 2009 WL 6704559
...(Resp. [D.E. 5] p. 4). This interpretation of the FWA is incorrect. The FWA requires a plaintiff to establish retaliation because of disclosure of or objection to an employer action which was "in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." Fla. Stat. § 448.102....
CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 18 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 79, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93994, 2006 WL 1815141
...DSOF ¶ 15. Plaintiff is suing Defendant 1) for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation under the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), 2) for unlawful employment retaliation in violation of Florida Statute § 448.102(3), and 3) for negligent infliction of severe emotional distress....
...isciplinary proceedings and termination was not a violation of the ADA). Therefore, the Court grants Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to Count I. IV. Retaliation Plaintiff also makes a claim for unlawful retaliation, pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 448.102(3)....
...The statute states, in relevant part, "[a]n employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has . . . [o]bjected to or participated in, any activity, policy or practice of the employer which is in violation of the law, rule or regulation." Fla. Stat. § 448.102....
