VONCEIL BRADFORD
v.
FLORIDA A & M UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
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.
This case addresses whether a Florida A&M University (FAMU) student could invoke Florida's public employee whistleblower statute after reporting violations of law. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that the statute does not protect students because they are not employees and the alleged actions were not adverse personnel actions.
The court affirmed dismissal of the whistleblower complaint because Bradford failed to establish either an employment relationship with FAMU or alleged retaliatory personnel actions. Students do not qualify as employees under the whistleblower statute, which requires performance of services under control and direction of the agency in exchange for wages or remuneration. The alleged academic restrictions and different grading standards do not constitute adverse personnel actions covered by the statute.
[1] A person must have an employment relationship with a public agency, involving performance of services and receipt of wages or remuneration, to qualify as an employee prot…
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 intelligenceBradford, a FAMU student, reported violations of law to an appropriate agency. In response, her professors allegedly prohibited her from attending cla…
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 Retaliatory Action cases and more on FLexlaw
The purpose of Florida’s public employee whistleblower statute is to “prevent agencies or independent contractors from taking retaliatory action against an employee who reports to an appropriate agency violations of law on the part of a public employer or independent contractor that create a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare.” § 112.3187(2), Fla. Stat. (2018) (emphasis added); see also Kogan v. Israel, 211 So. 3d 101, 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Igwe v. City of Miami, 208 So. 3d 150, 153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Tillery v. Florida Dep’t of Juvenile Justice, 104 So. 3d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The statute defines an employee as a “person who performs services for, and under the control and direction of, or contracts with, an agency or independent contractor for wages or other remuneration.” § 112.3187(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2018). And it prohibits an agency from dismissing, disciplining, or taking any other adverse personnel action against an employee. § 112.3187(4), Fla. Stat. (2018). The Commission dismissed the complaint because Bradford failed to allege any retaliatory action taken against her. This dismissal was proper. Bradford alleged that her professors prohibited her from attending classes and subjected her to a different grading standard and a hostile classroom environment. But none of these actions were “adverse personnel actions” within the meaning of the whistleblower statute. § 112.3187(4), Fla. Stat. (2018). Further, although FAMU is a public employer, Bradford did not allege that she was an employee of FAMU. She never alleged that she performed any service for the university or that she received wages or other remuneration from the university. Because Bradford failed to allege any employment relationship with FAMU and failed to allege any retaliatory personnel action, the Commission properly dismissed the complaint. AFFIRMED. JAY and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Marie A. Mattox of Marie A. Mattox, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant. Shira Thomas, Interim General Counsel; Angelique D.K. Hutchins and Ana M. Gargollo-McDonald, Associate General Counsel, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ranell Tillery, Jr. v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just., 104 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Igwe v. City OF Miami, 208 So. 3d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Kogan v. Israel, 211 So. 3d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)