Bradshaw v. Bott, 205 So. 3d 815

Background

Bridgette Bott, a Palm Beach County deputy sheriff, sued Sheriff Ric Bradshaw under Florida’s Whistleblower’s Act alleging a 40‑hour unpaid suspension was retaliation for her testimony in a criminal proceeding.
The Sheriff moved for summary judgment arguing Bott failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by § 112.3187(8), so the trial court lacked jurisdiction; the trial court denied the motion without explanation.
The Sheriff petitioned for certiorari to quash the denial, arguing denial of pre‑trial relief causes irreparable harm because pre‑suit exhaustion is mandatory and cannot be meaningfully reviewed after final judgment.
The district court treated the petition as certiorari and considered whether certiorari was appropriate to review denial of summary judgment when a statutory pre‑suit administrative remedy may be exclusive.
The central statutory question was which § 112.3187(8) provision applies to a sheriff’s employee: (a) state agency employees, (b) local governmental employees where the local authority has an ordinance or contract with DOAH, or (c) ‘‘any other person’’ after exhausting contractual/administrative remedies.
Court held that sheriffs are part of a political subdivision and thus § 112.3187(8)(b) governs; because Palm Beach County had not contracted with DOAH nor established the required administrative procedure, no administrative remedy was available and Bott could sue within 180 days.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether certiorari review was available for denial of summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies	Denied review would allow mandatory pre‑suit requirements to be bypassed; certiorari appropriate where remedy is exclusive	Denial of summary judgment is not generally irreparable; certiorari improper	Certiorari is available when a statutory pre‑suit administrative remedy must be exhausted and denial causes irreparable harm to enforce that requirement
Which § 112.3187(8) provision applies to a sheriff’s employee	Bott: sheriff’s employee falls under (b) as local governmental employee	Sheriff: (argued) (c) or otherwise that administrative remedy requirement applied differently	(8)(b) governs sheriffs’ employees because sheriffs are part of a political subdivision and thus a “local governmental authority”
Whether an administrative remedy existed that Bott was required to exhaust under (8)(b)	Bott: county had not established ordinance or contracted with DOAH, so no administrative remedy existed	Sheriff: argued exhaustion required (and raised later argument about availability)	No administrative remedy existed because county/sheriff had not adopted an ordinance or contracted with DOAH, so Bott could file suit within 180 days
Whether the court should grant summary judgment on alternative grounds not raised below	N/A (Sheriff later asserted additional ground)	Sheriff sought summary judgment below only on exhaustion; alternative ground not raised at trial	Court declined to address alternative ground because it was not raised in trial court; denial of summary judgment on that unraised ground not reviewed by certiorari

Key Cases Cited

University of Central Florida Bd. of Trustees v. Turkiewicz, 21 So.3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (certiorari appropriate to review denial of pre‑trial motion where pre‑suit statutory requirements were not met)
Parkway Bank v. Fort Myers Armature Works, Inc., 658 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (pre‑suit screening statutes cannot be meaningfully enforced post‑judgment; supports certiorari review)
Beard v. Hambrick, 396 So.2d 708 (Fla. 1981) (sheriffs are officials of a political subdivision for statutory construction)
People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Pesta, 199 So.3d 970 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (certiorari available where an exclusive administrative remedy was not exhausted)
University of Miami v. Ruiz, 164 So.3d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (certiorari review of denial of summary judgment based on statutory immunity)