113 So. 3d 92
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Competelli, former Belleair Bluffs fire chief, sued the City under Florida's public employee whistleblower act, sections 112.3187-.31895, Florida Statutes (2009).
- Trial court entered final summary judgment for the City.
- This appeal challenges that summary judgment; the appellate court has jurisdiction to review de novo.
- The City urged a federal-style burden-shift framework for summary judgment, which the court declined to adopt, reaffirming Florida's standard.
- The undisputed chronology shows: May 2009, the Mayor directed review of fire-service options; Competelli prepared a merger report favoring consolidation with Largo Fire; by August 2009, he emailed concerns about a speedy merger.
- Following the August email, the Mayor suspended Competelli and a City Commission meeting led to his termination; the City claimed termination for not following directions, while Competelli alleged retaliation for protected disclosures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation between protected disclosure and termination | Competelli asserts retaliation for protected disclosures. | City fired him for not following directions, independent of disclosures. | Genuine issues of material fact remain; not precluded. |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment under Florida standard | Evidence supports retaliation; not crystallized facts. | No genuine issues if discharge was for non-protected grounds. | Summary judgment improper; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Morris, 475 So.2d 666 (Fla. 1985) (Florida summary-judgment standard; resolve factual disputes in favor of non-movant)
- Bruno v. Destiny Transp., Inc., 921 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (cites Moore on when to submit to jury)
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2000) (de novo review standard for appellate summary judgments)
- Makryllos v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 103 So.3d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (reaffirming Florida summary-judgment burden on movant)
- Snyder v. Cheezem Dev. Corp., 373 So.2d 719 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (summary-judgment standards and need for crystallized facts)
- Irven v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 790 So.2d 403 (Fla. 2001) (remedial construction of public-whistleblower statutes)
- Dahl v. Eckerd Family Youth Alts., Inc., 843 So.2d 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (broad construction of public-employee whistleblower protections)
- Martin Cnty. v. Edenfield, 609 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1992) (public-interest considerations in statutory interpretation)
- Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., Inc., 645 So.2d 1047 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (contextual support for broad interpretation of whistleblower protections)