Janette Nazzal v. Florida Department of Corrections
267 So. 3d 1094
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant (re-hired as a correctional probation officer in Oct. 2013) alleged her supervisor, Pamela McCoy, created a hostile work environment and filed an Incident Report in Jan. 2014 describing three supervisory interactions in Nov.–Dec. 2013.
- The Incident Report described refusals to approve or asked-for changes to probation-violation recommendations, an alleged cancellation of vacation, and a conclusory statement alleging disparate treatment in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
- McCoy had also filed an earlier Incident Report criticizing Appellant’s work performance and professionalism.
- Appellant was terminated on March 6, 2014; the Department cites poor performance and lack of cooperation with supervisor as reasons.
- Appellant sued asserting national-origin discrimination and retaliation (federal claims) and a state Whistle-blower’s Act claim; federal court dismissed the federal claims and remanded the state claim.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Department, finding Appellant failed to show she made a disclosure protected by the Whistle-blower’s Act; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant made a statutorily protected disclosure under the Whistle-blower’s Act | Appellant argued the Incident Report disclosed violations, misfeasance/malfeasance, and disparate treatment (invoking the Civil Rights Act) | Department argued the Report described interpersonal/management disputes and performance matters, not violations, misfeasance, or protected disparate-treatment allegations | Held: No protected disclosure; Report did not allege violation of law, misfeasance/malfeasance, or sufficiently pleaded disparate treatment based on a protected class |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given undisputed evidence of legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for termination | Appellant implicitly argued termination was retaliatory for her report | Department argued legitimate, non-pretextual grounds (performance, lack of cooperation) justified termination | Court did not decide this alternative ground because it affirmed on lack of protected disclosure (trial court had also found Department’s reasons legitimate if reached) |
Key Cases Cited
- Futch v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 988 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Irvin v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 790 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 2001) (definitions of misfeasance/malfeasance and liberal construction of Whistle-blower’s Act)
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Fla. Comm’n on Human Relations, 842 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (elements of a prima facie Whistle-blower’s Act claim)
- Rosa v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 915 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (distinguishable: particularized negligence allegations may support misfeasance claim)
- Stanton v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 129 So. 3d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (conclusory allegations insufficient for protected disclosure)
- Caldwell v. Fla. Dep’t of Elder Affairs, 121 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (same: conclusory statements do not satisfy protected-disclosure requirement)