WILLIE EDENFIELD, SR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed summary judgment for the county in a whistleblower retaliation action, holding that the plaintiff's affidavit raised a material factual dispute about adverse personnel action and that the Whistleblower's Act protects even those who previously participated in wrongdoing.
The Whistleblower's Act protects employees who voluntarily disclose wrongdoing from adverse personnel action, regardless of whether they previously participated in the wrongdoing, and summary judgment was improper where the plaintiff's affidavit raised a material factual dispute.
[1] The Whistleblower's Act of 1986 protects employees from adverse personnel action for voluntarily disclosing wrongdoing without exception for those who previously particip…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we construe the statute to include even those who previously participated in the wrongdoing, so long as they are employees or persons who disclose information on their own initiative in a sworn complaint”
Court's interpretation of the scope of protection under the Whistleblower's Act
Willie Edenfield, Sr. was an employee of Martin County who voluntarily disclosed what he believed to be wrongdoing by his supervisor and allegedly suf…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Adverse Personnel Action cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, Judge.
We reverse the summary judgment in favor of the defendant County in this action for relief under section 112.3187, Florida Statutes (1989), the “Whistle-blower’s Act of 1986.” In particular, we conclude that the affidavit of the witness Holt, which everyone agrees was timely served, showed a material factual dispute as to whether plaintiff suffered “adverse personnel action” after he had voluntarily disclosed what he believed to be wrongdoing by his supervisor. We also do not believe that the Whistle-blowers Act, properly read, contains any exclusion for those “in pari delic-to” as argued by the County. Quite the contrary, we construe the statute to include even those who previously participated in the wrongdoing, so long as they are employees or persons
who disclose information on their own initiative in a sworn complaint; [or] who are requested to participate in an investigation, hearing, or other inquiry conducted by any agency or federal government entity; * * *.
§ 112.3187(7), Fla.Stat. (1989).
We certainly think that plaintiff’s affidavits also showed the existence of evidence that a jury might accept as establishing that plaintiff himself had done nothing wrong and that he had voluntarily disclosed conduct of the supervisor which constituted malfeasance by an official of the county. It was not for the trial judge considering a motion for summary judgment to sort out the factual contentions and apply the law to them. We remand so that a jury can do so.
REVERSED.
DOWNEY, J., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.