Florida Appeals Court Clarifies the State’s Whistleblower Act

In Gessner v. Southern Company and Gulf Power Company, the First District Court of Appeal in Florida affirmed a summary judgment for the employers, clarifying the evidentiary standard under Florida’s Whistleblower Act (FWA). According to an article by the Phelps firm, the court held that employees must demonstrate an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation by their employer to claim whistleblower protection.

This decision aligns with the Second District’s interpretation in Kearns v. Farmer Acquisition Co. and conflicts with the Fourth District’s ruling in Aery v. Wallace Lincoln-Mercury, LLC, which allowed claims based on an employee’s reasonable belief of a violation.

The case involved Clint Shannon Gessner, a former employee of Gulf Power Company, who alleged that his termination was retaliatory for objecting to practices he believed were unlawful.

The trial court granted summary judgment to the employers, interpreting section 448.102(3) of the FWA as requiring proof of an actual statutory violation rather than a subjective, reasonable belief. This ruling reflects a stricter evidentiary standard compared to the Fourth District’s interpretation, creating a judicial conflict over the FWA’s scope.

The First District supported its decision with extensive reference to the Second District’s reasoning in Kearns, emphasizing the plain statutory language requiring evidence of actual violations.

It criticized the Fourth District’s Aery decision for improperly extending statutory protections. By certifying a conflict, the First District highlighted the need for further judicial review to unify the standard for whistleblower claims under Florida law.

This decision signals a stricter standard for Florida’s Whistleblower Act claims. Employers should ensure compliance with statutes while documenting decisions. Employees must gather concrete evidence of violations to sustain whistleblower protections. The case illustrates the evolving judicial landscape and the importance of jurisdiction-specific legal strategies.