Private Sector Florida Whistleblower Act Opposition Claims: Is An Actual Violation Required To Be Engaged in Statutorily Protected Activity?

A TLDR is a summary of something complicated, like a long article or a legal document. It explains the main points in a short and simple way. It’s like a cheat sheet for understanding something without reading the whole thing. The relationship between employers and employees in Florida is usually “at-will,” which means either the employer or the employee can end the relationship at any time, for any reason. However, there are laws that protect employees from being fired for certain reasons, such as reporting their employer for breaking the law. Two courts in Florida have disagreed on whether an employee needs to prove that their employer actually broke the law to be protected by this law. One court says they do, and the other says they just need to have a reasonable belief that the employer broke the law. This disagreement affects how future cases will be decided. Title VII’s Burden-Shifting Framework and the FWA: The Cause of the Confusion

The Aery court relied on Luna when it held that an employee doesn’t need to prove a violation under the FWA’s opposition clause. In Luna, the plaintiff claimed her employer broke the law by not accommodating her disability and retaliating against her. The trial court said that an employee can prove a violation under the FWA’s opposition clause by showing they had a good faith, reasonable belief that their actions were protected by law.

The problem is, the trial court didn’t look at the FWA opposition claim separately from the other claims. It seems that Luna and Aery assumed the same standard applies to FWA cases as it does to ADA and Title VII cases. This has caused confusion because courts cite the Title VII burden-shifting framework when applying the reasonable belief standard to FWA retaliation claims. Luna and Aery didn’t consider the actual words of the FWA’s opposition clause when making their decisions. The Kearns court used the plain meaning approach to interpret the Florida Whistle-Blower’s Act (FWA). They looked at the specific words used in the law to understand what it meant. They found that the law requires an employee to prove that their employer actually violated a law, rule, or regulation in order to be protected from retaliation. This is different from having a reasonable belief that a violation occurred. This means that the employee needs to have evidence of a real violation, not just a suspicion. In Florida, there are laws that protect employees from being punished for reporting violations of the law or for filing workers’ compensation claims. These laws also protect employees who stand up for their rights to minimum wage. Similar federal laws also prevent employers from retaliating against employees who speak out against unlawful practices. These laws don’t require an actual violation, just a reasonable belief that one has occurred. This means that as long as an employee has a good reason to believe something is wrong, they are protected from retaliation. Federal laws protect employees from retaliation in the workplace. For example, the False Claims Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act make it illegal for employers to punish employees who try to stop violations of the law. The Dodd-Frank Reform Act also prohibits retaliation against employees who object to or refuse to participate in activities they believe are against the law. These laws all require that the employee had a reasonable belief that their employer was breaking the law. Other state laws also follow this standard. In New Jersey, Minnesota, New York, California, and Arizona, private sector employers can’t punish employees for speaking up or refusing to do something they think breaks the law. New Jersey and Minnesota only require employees to reasonably believe the law was broken, while New York and Arizona need actual proof of a violation. California also doesn’t need reasonable belief. Other places use the same plain meaning approach when interpreting their whistleblower laws. In Florida, the law about opposing unfair workplace practices is unclear. One court said that employees have to reasonably believe there was a violation, while another court said they only have to prove there was an actual violation. Until the Florida Supreme Court decides, employees and employers don’t know which standard to follow. It might be smart for employers to ask the court to dismiss a claim that doesn’t show an actual violation. Once the court decides, everyone will know which standard to use. This is a list of legal cases and statutes related to the Private Sector Florida Whistleblower Act (FWA). The FWA protects employees from retaliation for reporting illegal activity in the workplace. Several court cases have established how the FWA applies and what protections it offers. The FWA is similar to federal laws protecting whistleblowers, and the courts have used similar legal frameworks in FWA cases. The FWA also has specific provisions for government employees who report wrongdoing.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/private-sector-florida-whistleblower-act-opposition-claims-is-an-actual-violation-required-to-be-engaged-in-statutorily-protected-activity/