WHISTLEBLOWER WARNING: FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SLAMS DOOR ON ‘GOOD FAITH’ CLAIMS UNDER STATE LAW

The Florida Supreme Court delivered a decisive blow to private-sector worker protections on Thursday, ruling that employees who blow the whistle on workplace safety concerns cannot rely on a “good faith” belief that their company is breaking the law. Instead, they must prove that the employer’s actions are a literal, definitional violation of a statute, rule, or regulation.

The decision centers on the case of Clint Shannon Gessner, a former welder mechanic at a Gulf Power Company plant in Pensacola. Gessner sued Gulf Power and its parent company, Southern Company, after being fired in 2018. He claimed his termination was a direct retaliation for raising a series of serious safety objections, including hydrogen line repairs while generator turbines were running, improper natural gas line purging, coal dust build-up, and stopping furnace fans with wooden blocks.

Gulf Power argued that Gessner was placed on probation after multiple formal reprimands and was terminated after using racially disparaging language during a meeting. The utility giant moved for summary judgment, arguing Gessner could not prove the company committed actual, legal violations.

The high court’s ruling puts an end to a long-standing division among Florida’s appellate courts regarding the state’s private-sector Whistle-Blower’s Act. Gessner pointed to earlier legal precedents from South Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, which applied federal Title VII standards to shield workers who hold an objectively reasonable, honest belief that they are reporting illegal behavior.

Writing for the majority, Justice John D. Couriel rejected that lenient standard completely, pointing out that the state legislature omitted words like “suspected” or “alleged” from the private whistleblower statute, though it deliberately used them in other laws.

“We decline to inject a requirement that an employee show an actual violation into section 448.102(3),” Couriel wrote, clarifying that an employee does not need to wait for a company to be officially prosecuted or finish an illegal act. However, the ruling places a heavy burden of proof on the worker to show the underlying policy or conduct strictly breaks a written law. “The statute requires more. It requires that he prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the activities to which he objected are, definitionally, in violation of law.”

Because Florida is an employment-at-will state, workers can be terminated at any time for any reason unless they fit perfectly into a narrow statutory exception.

The court ruled that Gessner failed to connect his general safety complaints to specific violations of law, relying instead on conclusory legal statements. The ruling explicitly disapproved of the looser “reasonable belief” standard previously used by some Florida courts.

Chief Justice Carlos G. Muñiz agreed with the final outcome but chose not to sign onto the majority opinion. He criticized the majority for basing its logic on hypothetical scenarios involving future corporate misconduct rather than sticking strictly to Gessner’s completed actions.

“To decide this case, it is enough to say that Gessner loses because he objected only to employer conduct that is not ‘in violation of a law, rule, or regulation,'” Muñiz wrote in his concurring opinion.

READ: Polite Offer At Florida Keys Bar Ends With Broken Ribs And Aggravated Battery Charge

Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.

Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox