HUNTLEY WALKER, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS, A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, 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.
Huntley Walker appealed his dismissal from the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, claiming it violated the Whistle-blower's Act. The court affirmed summary judgment against him, holding that repair invoices he signed did not constitute the required protected disclosure under the statute because they did not document the nature of his complaint or identify the recipient of his disclosure.
The repair invoices do not qualify as a protected disclosure under the Whistle-blower's Act because they neither document the nature of Walker's protected disclosure nor indicate the person to whom any disclosure was made, and therefore Walker failed to establish the first element of a Whistle-blower's Act claim.
[1] To state a cause of action under the Whistle-blower's Act, an employee must establish that they made a disclosure protected by the statute prior to termination.
[2] A protected disclosure under the Whistle-blower's Act requires a written and signed complaint by the employee or a written complaint to the employee's supervisory officia…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“To state a cause of action under the Whistle-blower's Act, three elements must be established: "1) prior to termination the employee made a disclosure protected by the statute; 2) the employee was discharged; and 3) the disclosure was not made in bad faith or for a wrongful purpose, and did not occur after an agency's personnel action against the employee."”
Establishes the three-part test required to prove a Whistle-blower's Act violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker was employed by the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs and was dismissed. He claimed his termination violated the Whistle-blower's Act beca…
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 Protected Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
Huntley Walker appeals an adverse final summary judgment on his complaint that his dismissal by his employer, the Florida Department of Veterans Affairs, violated the Whistle-blower’s Act, sections 112.3187-112.31895, Florida Statutes (2004). Walker claimed that he was fired because he raised safety issues about the van he drove for the Department. We affirm because Walker failed to make a protected disclosure in the manner required by the statute.
To state a cause of action under the Whistle-blower’s Act, three elements must be established: “1) prior to termination the employee made a disclosure protected by the statute; 2) the employee was discharged; and 3) the disclosure was not made in bad faith or for a wrongful purpose, and did not occur after an agency’s personnel action against the employee.” Dep’t of Transp. v. Florida Comm’n on Human Relations, 842 So. 2d 253, 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
Under section 112.3187(7), as it applies to this case, a protected disclosure requires an employee’s “written and signed complaint,” or a “written complaint to [the employee’s] supervisory official ].” The purpose of the statutory requirement of a signed writing “is to document what the employee disclosed, and to whom the employee disclosed it, thus avoiding problems of proof for purposes of the Whistle-blower’s Act.” Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (holding that a “signed letter” authored by employee satisfies statutory requirement of a “written and signed complaint”).
To satisfy the “written and signed complaint” requirement, appellant points to two repair invoices for the van, prepared by the repair shop and signed by Walker as a customer. One invoice shows a zero balance for a $3,800 repair and the other shows a balance of $750 for different repairs. The invoices do not qualify as a “written and signed complaint” within the meaning of section 112.3187(7).
The invoices neither document the nature of Walker’s protected disclosure, nor indicate the person to whom any disclosure was made. The Department had authorized the repairs prior to Walker signing the invoices; one invoice reflects that the bill for services had already been paid by the department. Even the liberal construction of the statute that Walker urges cannot stretch the statutory requirement of a “written and signed complaint” to cover the invoices here at issue.
Affirmed.
WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rustowicz v. N. Broward Hosp. Dist., 174 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…sclose wrongdoing to investigators unprotected. We do not agree the legislature intended such a result, as it would create a chilling effect on investigations. The employer cites to our analysis in Walker v. Florida Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 925 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), as support for the argument that employees who are requested to participate in an investigation must make their protected disclosures in writing. In Walker, we wrote: Under section 112.3187(7), as it applies to this case, a pro…
-
Competelli v. City OF Belleair Bluffs, 113 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…n on Human Relations, 842 So. 2d 253, 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The prima facie elements cited in Department of Transportation do not apply in contexts other than employment reinstatement situations. But see Walker v. Fla. Dep't of Veterans' Affairs, 925 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); White v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty., 636 F. Supp. 2d 1272, 1282 (M.D.Fla.2007). . Mr. Competelli also argues that the trial court erred in granting the City’s motion for protective order that prevented him from taking the d…
-
Wheeler v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 367 So. 3d 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…f the statutory requirement of a signed writing ‘is to document what the employee disclosed, and to whom the employee disclosed it, thus avoiding problems of proof for purposes of the Whistle-blower’s Act.’” Walker v. Fla. Dep’t of Veterans’ Affs., 925 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., Inc., 645 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)). Accordingly, in order to qualify as a “written and signed complaint” under the Act, the document must identify alleged wrong…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am., Inc., 645 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- State v. Fla. Comm'n ON Human Relations & Mavis Georgalis, 842 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)