In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases—report No. 17-04, 230 So. 3d 815

The Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases proposed technical amendments to several civil jury instructions and a model verdict form (including instructions 403.17, 408.2, 409.10, 415.4, 415.5, 415.10, 415.12 and Model Verdict Form 4).
The proposed changes were published for comment in The Florida Bar News; no comments addressing the proposals were received.
The Court, exercising jurisdiction under article V, § 2(a) of the Florida Constitution, considered the Committee’s report and authorized the amended instructions and model verdict form for publication and use.
The opinion indicates new and deleted language in the appendix, gives notes on use for specific instructions, and supplies model verdict language (including a statute-of-limitations form for medical negligence cases).
The Court expressly declined to adopt any view on the legal correctness of the instructions, clarified that authorization does not foreclose requesting alternative instructions or contesting correctness, and cautioned that Committee comments reflect only the Committee’s views.
The amended instructions become effective when the opinion becomes final.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to authorize Committee's proposed amendments to standard civil jury instructions	Committee: amendments are technical, straightforward, noncontroversial and suitable for publication	No opposing submissions were filed	Court authorized the amended instructions and model verdict form for publication and use
Whether authorization constitutes Court endorsement of legal correctness	Committee: seeks publication and use only; not a request for legal endorsement	N/A	Court authorized adoption but expressly declined to opine on correctness and left open challenges/requests for alternative instructions
When the amended instructions become effective	Committee: effective upon issuance of Court order	N/A	The instructions become effective when the opinion becomes final
Use and content of retaliation and related instructions (definitions, burdens, damages, notes on front pay and emotional distress)	Committee: include statutoryly-derived definitions and notes citing case law to guide use (e.g., retaliation, adverse employment action, protected activity, damages)	N/A	Court approved the instructions and their notes, which reference case law and statutory sources; left questions of legal interpretation (e.g., whether plaintiff must prove actual violation vs. reasonable belief) to be litigated (notes summarize existing conflicting authority)

Donovan v. Broward Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 974 So.2d 458 (discusses adverse employment action standard)
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600 (front pay is an equitable remedy in Title VII context)
O’Neal v. Fla. A & M Univ., 989 So.2d 6 (front pay characterized as equitable relief under Florida whistle-blower law)
Padron v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 196 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (discusses sufficiency of reasonable belief vs. actual violation under whistle-blower provisions)
Scott v. Otis Elevator Co., 572 So.2d 902 (emotional distress damages recoverable in retaliatory discharge context)