rEcEnt dEvElopMEnts in florida puBlic whistlEBlowEr law
labor & Employment law Section
Chairs:AmandaBiondolino-SassLawFirmandJasonPill-PhelpsDunbar,LLC
whistleblower law is a constantly
evolving area of law, and two
recent decisions demonstrate
the nuances of the public
T
whistleblower act in florida.
wo Florida statutes
protect persons who
“blow the whistle” on
an employer’s illegal
practices. One covers private sector
employees (Fla. Stat. § 448.102),
and another protects individuals
in the public sector (Fla. Stat.
§ 112.3187). The latter, known as
the Florida Public Whistleblower
Act (FPWA), protects employees
and independent contractors
who expose legal violations, fraud,
malfeasance, or gross mismanage -
ment by public employers or
independent government contractors.
Whistleblower law is a constantly
evolving area of law, and two
recent decisions demonstrate the
nuances of the FPWA.
The most striking recent FPWA
decision came on July 24, 2019, in
Iglesias v. City of Hialeah, 1 when
the Third District Court of Appeal
held compensatory damages were
recoverable under the FPWA.
Prior to Iglesias, no controlling
authority from the appellate courts
or the Florida Supreme Court
existed on the recovery of
emotional damages under the
FPWA, although a few lower
courts were split on the issue.
Under the FPWA, relief awarded
must include:
• Reinstatement to the same
or equivalent position, or
reasonable front pay;
• Full reinstatement of fringe
benefits and seniority rights,
as appropriate;
• Compensation for lost wages,
benefits or other lost
remuneration, as appropriate;
• Reasonable attorneys’ and
court fees;
• Issuance of an injunction,
if appropriate;
• Temporary reinstatement to the
former or equivalent position
in certain circumstances.
The Third District held the
statutory language was “a floor,
rather than a ceiling.” Since the
statute did not expressly prohibit
other recoverable damages, a
prevailing plaintiff could seek
non-economic damages in addition
to the relief specifically outlined
in the FPWA. Over a decade ago,
the First District Court of Appeal
applied similar reasoning in O’Neal
v. Fla. A&M Univ. ex rel. Bd. of
Trs. for Fla. A&M Univ. 2 when
upholding the right to a jury trial
under the FPWA, a decision relied
upon in the Iglesias decision.
The other recent decision
involved exhaustion and notice
requirements. On April 26, 2019,
in School Board of Hillsborough
County v. Woodford, 3 the Second
District Court of Appeal reversed
(in a split decision) a district court’s
denial of motion to dismiss a
FPWA claim for the failure to
exhaust administrative remedies,
holding that the district court
departed from the essential
requirements of law by improperly
inserting two requirements into
the statute not supported by its text
that: (1) the contract between the
School Board and the Division of
Administrative Hearings (DOAH)
explicitly reference the FPWA; and
(2) the local governmental authority
provide notice to a prospective
claimant. The Court held the law
required neither. Rather, the
plaintiff “had a legal obligation to
exhaust her administrative remedies
and failed to do so,” even without
having been given notice of those
requirements. The Court therefore
quashed the order denying the
Board’s motion to dismiss. n
No. 3D18-639, 2019 WL 3309040
(Fla. DCA July 24, 2019).
2 f989 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
3 270 So. 3d 481 (Fla. DCA 2019).
1
Author: Amanda L. Biondolino – Sass
Law Firm
Don’t Miss the HCBA Holiday Open House on December 5th!
40
NOV - DEC 2019
|
HCBA LAWYER