Florida employers just got a big win from the Florida Supreme Court. On May 28, the Court decided 𝘎𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘳 𝘷. 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 and settled a question that had divided Florida's appellate courts. Decision ⬇️. When an employee sues for retaliation under the state private sector Whistleblower's Act, do they have to prove the conduct they complained about actually broke the law, or is it enough that they sincerely and reasonably believed it did? The Court's answer: belief is not enough. The employee has to prove that the employer’s activity, policy, or practice is in violation of law—that is, it constitutes a violation of the law—not that the employer has already in fact violated the law, nor that the employee reasonably believed the employer violated the law. Here is the background. Clint Gessner worked as a welder mechanic at a Gulf Power plant. After a series of reprimands and a stint on probation, the company fired him following a meeting where he used a racial slur. Gessner sued, arguing he was really let go for raising a string of safety concerns he believed were illegal. The statute he sued under protects employees who object to "any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation." For years, Florida courts split on what that phrase requires. One appellate district held that an employee only needed a good faith, reasonable belief that something was illegal. Others read the plain text to require an actual violation. The Supreme Court sided with the stricter reading. To win, an employee must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the activity they objected to was, by its nature, a violation of law. A sincere hunch, even a reasonable one, is not enough. One nuance matters a great deal, and it is easy to miss. The Court did not say the illegal act must already be finished or proven up by an agency first. An employee who refuses to carry out an instruction to do something illegal is still protected, even if the employer never follows through. The point is that the conduct has to genuinely break the law, not simply look unlawful to the employee. Gessner lost because he showed only that he raised safety complaints and thought they involved legal violations. He never connected those complaints to an actual breach of a specific law. Why this matters: → The standard is now uniform statewide. Before this decision, an employee's odds could turn on which part of Florida the lawsuit landed in. That forum lottery is over. → Weak claims are easier to defeat early. A plaintiff who cannot point to conduct that constitutes a violation of law should not survive summary judgment. → This is not a license to retaliate. If an employee objects to something that truly was illegal, they remain fully protected. This decision rewards employers who handle complaints and discipline the right way. It does nothing for those who cut corners. #EmploymentLaw #HR #HumanResources
