ROBERT J. CROUCH, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, 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 held that verbal complaints to supervisory officials do not satisfy the written complaint requirement of the Florida Whistle-blower's Act.
[1] The Florida Whistle-blower's Act requires that complaints to supervisory officials be in writing to be protected under the Act.
[2] A complaint made verbally to supervisory officials, who then independently report the matter to the agency inspector general, does not constitute a protected submission t…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Robert J. Crouch appealed a directed verdict against his claim under the Florida Whistle-blower's Act. Crouch made verbal complaints to his …
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 Florida Whistleblower Act cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
Appellant Robert J. Crouch appeals the trial court’s directed verdict in favor of appellee Public Service Commission on his claim under the Florida Whistle-blower’s Act. The trial court ruled that Crouch’s verbal complaints to his supervisory officials did not satisfy the requirements of the Whistle-blower’s Act. We agree and therefore affirm.
Section 112.3187(7), Florida Statutes (2001), protects, in relevant part, “employees who file any written complaint to their supervisory officials or employees who submit a complaint to the Chief Inspector General in the Executive Office of the Governor, to the employee designated as agency inspector general under s. 112.3189(1), or to the Florida Commission on Human Relations.” (Emphasis added). Crouch complained only to his supervisory officials. Therefore, under the plain language of the statute, the complaints had to be in writing. Because they were not, the Whistle-blower’s Act does not provide Crouch protection.
Crouch argues that he is protected under the Act because he complained to the employee designated as agency inspector general, which is not required to be in writing. We agree with Crouch that this section does not require a complaint submitted to the employee designated as agency inspector general to be in writing. But we do not agree with Crouch that his complaints to the supervisory officials, who then told the designated agency inspector general about the complaints on their own initiative,1 should be considered as a submission to the designated agency inspector general under the statute. Crouch did not ask his supervisors to submit the complaints on his behalf, and no promise was made by the supervisors that they would do so.
Therefore, we agree with the trial court’s directed verdict because Crouch did not disclose information as required by section 112.3187(7).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and ALLEN, JJ., concur. .
. Although the trial court ruled that there was no direct evidence that Crouch’s complaint ever actually made it to the PSC Inspector General, the PSC concedes on appeal that this ruling was in error.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crouch v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 993 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ng appellate attorney’s fees to the appellee based on an offer of judgment after establishing that the appellant was not entitled to relief under sections 112.3187-112.31895, Florida Statutes, the Whistle-blower’s Act. Crouch v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 913 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), rev. denied 933 So. 2d 520 (Fla.2006). The appellant argues that the offer of judgment statute does not apply in whistle-blower actions. However, as applicability has been determined through the law of the case doctrine, we affi…
-
Washington v. Fla. Dep't of Revenue (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…Id. at 1163. Here, as stated, the record contained no evidence of a written or signed disclosure made by Appellant that would have triggered the protections of the Whistle-blower’s Act. Appellant’s reliance upon Crouch v. Public Service Commission, 913 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), also fails given that the case supports the trial court’s ruling here. In Crouch, we concluded that because the appellant complained to his supervisory officials, the plain language of section 112.3187(7) required that the comp…
-
King v. State, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (N.D. Fla. 2009)…, to the employee designated as agency inspector general ... or to the Florida Commission on Human Relations.” Fla. Stat. § 112.3187(7). A complaint made to the agency inspector general need not be in writing. Crouch v. Public Service Commission, 913 So.2d 111, 111-12 (Fla. 1st Dist.Ct.App.2005) (“[Florida Statute § 112.3187(7) ] does not require a complaint submitted to the employee designated as agency inspector general to be in writing.”). Second, the information reported must constitute a “substan…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence