Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...Kibbey did speak with Mr. Bilodeau, he would be protected by the legislative codification of the common law of qualified privilege in defamation cases as it relates to comments about job performance which are presumed to have been made in good faith. See § 768.095, Fla....

...To avoid the possibility of later prejudice, it may be necessary to permit Appellant to *406 replead the remaining incident as his single cause of action. Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. SALCINES, J., Concurs. PARKER, A.C.J., Concurs in result only. NOTES [1] This section provides: 768.095....

..., the allegations of the complaint sufficiently allege a cause of action for intentional interference with an advantageous business relationship. Beverly Enterprises contends that it was entitled to a qualified privilege for this communication under section 768.095, Florida Statutes (1993) and Nodar v....

...Florida courts recognize a qualified privilege in three types of defamation cases, namely those involving: (1) Mutuality of interest in the statement between the speaker and listener; (2) Statements made to an employer regarding the job performance of an employee, which are also statutorily protected under Fla. Stat. § 768.095; and (3) Expressions of fair comment and criticism on any public, governmental, political, social or cultural matter, which are protected under the First Amendment....

...For purposes of this section, the presumption of good faith is rebutted upon a showing that the information disclosed by the former employer was knowingly false or deliberately misleading, was rendered with malicious purpose, or violated any civil right of the former employee protected under chapter 760. Sec. 768.095, Fla....

...able inferences to support the opposing position." Stirling v. Sapp, 229 So.2d 850, 852 (Fla.1969). However, in this case, questions on both the statutory and common law privileges were incorrectly submitted to the jury, and the jury did not address § 768.095....

...tanding work history, and the unemployment compensation referee's finding that the inaccurate time sheet should have been excused, appellees continued to brand appellant in their harshest terms. Once again, we do not have a jury verdict that follows section 768.095, Florida Statutes....

...For purposes of this section, the presumption of good faith is rebutted upon a showing that the information disclosed by the former employer was knowingly false or deliberately misleading, was rendered with malicious purpose, or violated any civil right of the former employee protected under chapter 760. Fla. Stat. 768.095 (1997)....

...into evidence and denying Arce's motion for an order outlining the manner of certification required by the trial court. Wackenhut further argues that even if the FBI Report is not inadmissible hearsay, any statements made by Hill are protected under section 768.095, Florida Statutes, which provides: An employer who discloses information about a former or current employee to a prospective employer of the former or current employee upon request of the prospective employer or of the former or curre...

...is designed and approved by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. . . . . (5) An employer who discloses employment information under this section is immune from civil liability for such disclosure or its consequences as provided in s. 768.095. Section 768.095 clearly excepts information disclosed by the former employer that is knowingly false....

...Blaker of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow, & Schefer, P.A., West Palm Beach and Hinda Klein of Conroy, Simberg, Ganon, Krevans, Abel, Lurvey, Morrow, & Schefer, P.A., Hollywood, for appellees City of Port Saint Lucie and Tamara Williamson. GERBER, J. The issue in this appeal is whether section 768.095, Florida Statutes (2009), abrogates the absolute immunity which the common law provides to public officials who make statements within the scope of their duties....

...Sheriff's Office, 31 So.3d 210, 213 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("In Florida, [p]ublic officials who make statements within the scope of their duties are absolutely immune from suit for defamation.") (citations and internal quotations omitted). We hold that section 768.095 does not abrogate such absolute immunity. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court's order granting the public officials' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint for defamation and libel or slander per se with prejudice. Section 768.095 states: An employer who discloses information about a former or current employee to a prospective employer of the former or current employee upon request of the prospective employer or of the former or current employee is immune from...

...e or its consequences unless it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the information disclosed by the former or current employer was knowingly false or violated any civil right of the former or current employee protected under chapter 760. § 768.095, Fla....

...Nothing in the emphasized language suggests that the legislature intended to abrogate or limit the absolute immunity which the common law provides to public officials who make statements within the scope of their duties. See Bates, 31 So.3d at 213 ("[T]o abrogate or limit immunity, a statute must be clear."). Thus, section 768.095 applies to only employers which are not public officials....

...the absolute immunity otherwise afforded to a public official. Section 943.149(4) states: An administrator of an employing agency who discloses information pursuant to this section is immune from civil liability in accordance with the provisions of s. 768.095....

...es. We affirmed, reasoning that "[s]ection 943.139(4) fails to clearly abrogate, limit, or qualify the absolute *907 immunity provided the [official] under common law." Bates, 31 So.3d at 213. In this case, we hold that the same reasoning applies to section 768.095 standing alone. The plaintiff appropriately concedes Bates ' existence. The plaintiff, however, argues that Bates was unclear as to whether it applied only to section 943.139(4) or also to section 768.095, which is incorporated in section 943.139(4). As stated above, we make clear in this opinion that the same reasoning applies to section 768.095 standing alone....

...e immunity otherwise afforded him. Section 943.139(4), Florida Statutes (2008) states: (4) An administrator of an employing agency who discloses information pursuant to this section is immune from civil liability in accordance with the provisions of s. 768.095. Section 768.095, Florida Statutes (2008), provides: An employer who discloses information about a former or current employee to a prospective employer of the former or current employee upon request of the prospective employer or of the former or curr...

...'s Office. The real issue is whether the statute requiring the filing of the form somehow qualified the Sheriff's absolute immunity. We think not. Section 943.139(4) applies to an administrator of an employing agency who discloses information. Under section 768.095, if that administrator discloses knowingly false information, it loses its immunity from civil liability....

...Stat. (2024) (money services business immunity); § 631.918, Fla. Stat. (2024) (worker’s compensation immunity); § 684.0045, Fla. Stat. (2024) (arbitrator immunity); § 765.109(1), Fla. Stat. (2024) (health care facility or provider immunity); § 768.095, Fla....