NAHOOM
v.
FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES INCORPORATED
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.
A plaintiff claiming private whistleblower protection under section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes, must allege an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation, not just a suspected violation, to survive summary judgment.
[1] To establish a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation under section 448.102, Florida Statutes, a plaintiff must demonstrate disclosure of an actual violation of la…
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“An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.”
Statutory language from section 448.102(1), Florida Statutes, cited to support the requirement of actual violation
Michael Nahoom appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Florida League of Cities. The case involved whether Nahoom had established a valid …
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 Personnel Action cases and more on FLexlaw
March 5, 2025 PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. Gessner v. Southern Co., 396 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (holding that a plaintiff claiming private whistleblower protection under section 448.102(3), Florida Statutes, must allege an actual violation of a law, rule, or regulation, not just a “suspected violation,” in order to survive summary judgment); see also § 448.102(1), Fla. Stat. (“An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has: (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” (emphasis supplied)); Washington v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 337 So. 3d 502, 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“To establish a prima facie case under the Whistle-blower’s Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) prior to his or her termination, he or she made a disclosure protected by the Act . . . .” (emphasis supplied)). ROWE, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nahoom v. Fla. League of Cities Inc., 396 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)…reatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.” (emphasis supplied)); Washington v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 337 So. 3d 502, 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“To establish a prima facie case under the Whistle-blower’s Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) prior to his or her termination, he or she made a disclosure protected by the Act . . . .” (emphasis supplied)). ROWE, WINOKUR,…1 / 2
-
Mathieu Francois v. JFK Med. Ctr. Ltd. P'ship, 370 So. 3d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…6 So. 2d at 645 (“[C]ourts ‘do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions.’” (quoting Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 939 F. 2d 1466, 1470 (11th Cir. 1991))); see also Washington v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 337 So. 3d 502, 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Mitzel, 83 So. 3d 865, 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). In Salus, we addressed a workers’ compensation retaliation claim, but did not mention the business judgment rule. 289 So. 3d at 928. There, the…
-
Fla. Dep't of Revenue v. Bank of Am., N.A. (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)…the moving party shows the absence of any genuine issues of material fact—where “facts are so crystallized that nothing remains but questions of law” and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Washington v. Fla. Dep’t of Rev., 337 So. 3d 502, 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022). However, “[o]nce a court determines the summary judgment record contains conflicting evidence on a material issue of fact from which a factfinder could reach different conclusions by crediting some evidence over other evid…
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
- Nahoom v. Fla. League of Cities Inc., 396 So. 3d 908 (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)