Thought Leadership

The trial court granted an employer’s motion for summary judgment and ruled that, for an employee to recover for employment retaliation under Florida’s Whistleblower’s Act (section 448.102(3)) (FWA), they have to show they objected to, or refused to participate in, an actual violation of a law, rule or regulation by the employer, as opposed to showing only a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation occurred. 

This was affirmed by Florida’s First District Court of Appeals—in line with a prior decision made by the Second District Court of Appeals but in conflict with the Fourth District Court of Appeals. To make a case for retaliation under the FWA, an employee is required to establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that: (1) they engaged in a protected activity; (2) they suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal relation existed between the two events. 

Here, the court examined the plain language in FWA and held a plaintiff in a private sector FWA action brought pursuant to section 448.102(3) must establish that they 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. 

The concurrence emphasizes that the plain reading of the statute is sufficient for this conclusion to be drawn without a detailed analysis of other courts’ decisions. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}